i was thinking, as you do,, 
POLICY MAKING INTO LAW(act of parliament)~ Interest rings via canvas.... individual/public/special/inner/letters of interest/government equals policy and act of parliament,, and here is the interesting bit... this creates at the end of the day A DEMAND OF SOCIAL DEBT to be paid by society via government promise to pay the demand of the bearer, in this case the Autism Act.
I am the bearer(off autism) and I demand via the Autism Bill. Society pay my debt as promised by the society policy via an act of parliament to be enforced by government or by challenge in court for damages of debt not getting paid.
Demand is automatic debt(like tax currency generation),, when an act of parliament bill is policy it demands a debt of the government by promise of debt to pay,, hence in the Autism Act, there is a debt demand or a cost to society which is promised to be paid or the government is open to risk of legal challenge at the courts for compensation.
I keep saying this,, WILL THE NAS TAKE AUTISM ACT FAILURE TEST CASES TO COURT, although the organisation is in the ring system and with the main ring of governement, for the good of government it should be challenging the government under the demand of debt via the Autism Act. Why have the act in the first place if the debt of the demand(autism service and protection) is not made policy on the ground ?
I feel that I am speaking double dutch ? Does this make sense ?
You would think that the interest groups which canvassed for the bill would challenge the enforcement of the debt i.e law ? So who raised the autism bill in the first place and who then is defaulting on not re-challenging its non-enforcement as policy, aka lip-service autism act ? They call them partners, but that is illegal to group public interest into cartel organisations ie lobbists etc. http://www.autism.org.uk/Working-with/Autism-strategy/The-autism-strategy-an-overview/Autism-Act-2009/Autism-bill-partnership-organisations.aspx ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_Act_2009
*** ! IT IS THE NAS own bill for business and friends funding party ! Talk about self-interest or business social debt demand.
I think there is a major conflict off interest here between the ACT, GOVERNMENT AND THE NAS, how can you campaign for an Autism Act but be government funded IN principle sum. .. This is like the government writing its own laws to suit without real test cases and witness, impartial.