Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. You’re quite right that class size is a relevant factor for the educational attainment of children, and the Cabinet Secretary is also correct when she admits that class size isn’t the only factor that needs dealing with. What I wonder is why this initiative only attempts to deal with the issue of class sizes to improve education for infants. What will the Cabinet Secretary do to reduce class sizes at primary school level?

You’ve told us that other steps will be taken, but there are no details of any, and as yet no funding proposed for them. Can you also give us some more details on what exactly is meant by high levels of additional learning needs, and specifically what you mean by ‘high levels’? At what point will the Cabinet Secretary consider a school to have high levels of additional learning needs, or free school meals, et cetera?

Finally, you talk about local authorities having to bid for the money and make a business case. I think the parent of any child at a failing school that doesn’t get any of the new funds won’t be satisfied with the explanations that their child’s school, and therefore their needs by inference, failed to reach the Cabinet member’s business case threshold. These are children, not business assets or liabilities, and I’m sure you’ll agree with me that all children have the right to a decent education, whichever school they’re in and regardless of the school’s circumstances or status. How are you going to improve performance at a failing school that doesn’t present a sufficiently good business case to reduce class sizes? With those concerns in mind, will you bring any proposals as to how funding will be awarded back to this Chamber for endorsement by the Assembly Members before the criteria are implemented? Thank you.