Can I start by saying that the Cabinet Secretary and I want to see improvements in services, and we both want to see better outcomes being delivered throughout Wales? In the meetings that we've had together I believe that we both made that absolutely clear. We're on the same page when it comes to wanting to improve services for people with autism, but I believe, by introducing primary legislation, this is the only way to make sure that we actually put services on a statutory footing, and that we see consistency of services across Wales. I accept that measures have been introduced by the Welsh Government. However, what is clear is that the issues that were identified in the first strategy in 2008 are the same issues that remain now in 2018: diagnosis, data, support services, training, employment, housing, mental health—just to name but a few. That is what people are telling me about this issue—that those are the same issues that were actually being debated then, 10 years ago, and that is why we need primary legislation. 

Now, the Cabinet Secretary, of course, mentioned his code of practice. The problem with introducing a code is that it can be revoked. It does not ensure a continued focus on driving and improving services, and this Bill will of course provide certainty going forward, because once a code is introduced, it can't be scrutinised, amended or improved, unlike a piece of legislation. My piece of legislation will go through the Assembly's scrutiny process, and the autism community, in the consultations that I've held, have expressed a clear preference for primary legislation. Successive consultations have shown that we need a Bill, not a code. I also have some concern as to the extent that a code would obligate local authorities and local health boards to follow its requirements, as opposed to having regard to its requirements. My Bill is absolutely clear: it will make sure that local authorities and local health boards are actually obliged to offer services in their local areas. That is the difference between this piece of legislation and your code.

Now, the Cabinet Secretary also mentioned costs. Yes, there's no getting away from the fact that legislation that improves services for people with autism spectrum disorder will cost money. However, I believe those costs are worth while, both for the individuals affected and that they will ultimately lead to long-term economic savings. For example, the Bill sets out that the autism strategy must require that a first diagnostic meeting takes place within the time frame set out by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Currently, NICE's time frame for a first diagnostic meeting is that it takes place within three months of referral. The Welsh Government's target is that people wait half a year for a first diagnostic meeting. Reducing this waiting target of half a year will have costs, as set out in the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Having said that, it's a false economy to think that there won't be costs associated with a person who has yet to receive a diagnosis. Without an accurate diagnosis, services are less likely to be as well tailored and effective as they could be, and many reactive costs will be incurred.

So, I would urge him to reconsider his position. I believe this is the best way in making sure that we have a consistent approach across Wales, by introducing a piece of legislation, because by doing so we will ensure that services are put on a statutory footing for the future.