Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. I’m pleased to contribute to this Stage 1 debate in relation to the financial implications of the Autism (Wales) Bill.

Now, on this occasion, the Finance Committee was unable to reach a conclusion on the validity of the regulatory impact assessment. This is not a position that the committee wants to take, as it does not help Assembly Members to scrutinise the legislation before us.

Throughout our evidence sessions, it became apparent that the Welsh Government had not provided any costings for delivering current services to the Member in charge of the Bill. As a result, the committee was unable to fully consider the value for money of options 1 and 2, as there was little information available about the current Welsh Government costs to inform such considerations. It's incumbent on the Government, as the main source of financial information, to engage in the process, and we have significant concerns about the lack of engagement from the Welsh Government in this particular instance. Now, much was made of the assertion that it was the Member in charge's responsibility for producing and costing the RIA, however the Government also has a responsibility to engage and to co-operate fully in this process. Now, our experience on this occasion suggests that this hasn’t happened. The Cabinet Secretary, as was at that time, attended the evidence session and questioned a number of the figures in the RIA. However, we weren't given sight of his concerns until that meeting, and the Cabinet Secretary was reluctant to provide written evidence detailing his concerns about the costings in the RIA. So, this approach limited the committee’s ability to scrutinise and to question the assumptions in the RIA.

During our evidence sessions, it was apparent that there was no clear picture of the Government's autism spectrum disorder specific spend within the wider spending on neurodevelopmental conditions. This lack of information is a concern to the committee. How can consideration be given to the effectiveness of Government policy without knowing how much has been spent on it? The Welsh Government has suggested it’s revised autism spectrum disorder strategic plan covers all of the key parts of this Bill, and yet they have no financial information on what is spent in this area. This lack of information and lack of engagement meant that it was difficult for the committee to reach any conclusions. For example, we were uncertain whether the potential additional call on resources that a diagnosis approach may result in has been fully accounted for in the RIA. However, we were unable to test this uncertainty due to the lack of clear information about the money spent on ASD services.

So, on this occasion, the committee is unable to make a decision on the validity of this regulatory impact assessment. Members have not received any substantial financial reason for the legislation not to go forward, but we have been unable to ascertain whether there is any value for money in this legislation due to the lack of financial information. Now, the success of legislation relies on accurate information, and the failure to provide information on this occasion has hindered the scrutiny process.

We believe that this is a worrying precedent that should not be repeated. We would urge the Government, if it sees fit to vote a Member's Bill to proceed to the 'leave to proceed' stage—it must then be prepared to fully engage with the Member in charge. Not doing so can result in poor scrutiny, it can be a poor use of Assembly time and, indeed, Assembly resources, and, most importantly, it's unfair to stakeholders who have a legitimate and genuine interest in the subject matter.