I think you'll also find that the children's commissioner also referred to the risk that having a diagnosis-led approach would be seen as a golden ticket to services. The six royal colleges were clear that services should be provided on the basis of need, not diagnosis. They also said that specialist practitioners needed to deliver the Bill's scheme would be difficult to recruit, irrespective of whether additional funds are made available. And the evidence to the health committee suggested that the Bill would result in funding and staff resources being diverted to address waiting-list initiatives and away from providing much-needed post-diagnostic care for children, adults, parents and carers, and, of course, the same staff are typically engaged in providing care that meets the needs of people who are not diagnosed with the condition or who do have a diagnosis for a different neurodevelopmental condition. Representatives of other neurodevelopmental conditions are worried about the adverse impacts on services if autism-only legislation is introduced at the expense of wider service provision. That point was made clear both by clinicians and ADHD representatives who gave evidence to the health committee.

The Finance Committee were unable to reach a view on whether the Bill delivers value for money and they laid the blame largely at our door, and we dispute that in the strongest possible terms. We cannot provide information that we do not hold, and it is not the Government's job to do the work of the Member in charge in seeking to prove the merits of his proposal. As a backbencher, I've co-operated myself in actually working on a new piece of work to understand the financial impact of that Bill.

I have met people with autism and their families and carers who support the approach that we're taking as a Government. It is not the case that all autistic people and their families support this Bill, and my own in-tray bears that point out. But the Welsh Government will continue to listen and act on the feedback and the evaluation of the measures that we are taking. We're committed to delivering the improvements that we need by strengthening existing needs-based legislation.

I want to close by again saying there is agreement in this Chamber with the Member in charge and across parties about the need to improve services for autistic people, and this Government is investing in long-term improvement, but there is still disagreement about the means. It is the view of health and care professionals working with and for autistic people that the Bill would have unwelcome and unintended consequences. That does include the likely redirection of resources that would reduce, not improve, care and support for autistic people and other people with neurodevelopmental conditions, and we share that assessment. We do not believe that this Bill would bring about the long-term improvement in services and outcomes that we all want to see. So, I ask Members to support our drive for service improvement in the next phase of reform, which includes a statutory code. This is a difficult choice for Members to make, but I genuinely believe that the Bill will not deliver against the hopes and aspirations that so many have for it. I accept that other Members will not share my view. Whatever the outcome of today's vote, I give my commitment, once again, to work with people across the Chamber and outside it to make a real and positive difference with and for autistic people right across the country.