The next item on our agenda, therefore, is the debate on the general principles of the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Bill, and I call the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Welsh Language to move the motion. Alun Davies.

Motion NDM6323 Alun Davies

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales in accordance with Standing Order 26.11:

Agrees to the general principles of the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Bill.

Motion moved.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I’m very pleased to be able to open this debate on the general principles of the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Bill. I’d like to focus my opening remarks on some of the themes and the purpose of the legislation, and then use the balance of my time to respond to Members, and points Members wish to raise, in my closing remarks.

Suzy Davies took the Chair.

I think I want to start my contribution this afternoon with a very clear focus on the point and the purpose of this legislation. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that all learners in Wales have access to the richest possible learning experience. It is not right, and it is not acceptable, that people who have additional learning needs are not provided with the help and support and the structures and the environment and the ability to progress their learning, and to reach and fulfil the whole of their potential. This legislation is designed and is developed in order to do that.

It has been developed over a number of years, and I’m grateful to both my predecessor in this role and to others, in committees and elsewhere, for the work that they have done in producing the Bill that we have in front of us today. I am also very grateful for the contributions from opposition parties. I’ve said in previous remarks on this legislation that I hope to create and to enable a consensus to develop around and throughout this legislation, and I’m grateful to Members from all sides of the Chamber for the way in which they’ve conducted the debate, and the scrutiny of the legislation to date. I’m also very grateful to Members for the very broad welcome that the Bill, and the legislation, has received across the political spectrum.

I’d like to start my contribution, though, by thanking the Chairs and members of the three committees that have been involved in the scrutiny of this Bill, for their work over the last six months. I would in particular like to thank the Children, Young People and Education Committee for the comprehensive and inclusive approach that it’s taken towards this Bill. And I would also like to place on record my thanks to the many stakeholders and partners who have been involved in this work, and who are continuing to work with us to transform the education for children and young people with additional learning needs.

And in order to emphasise—and I would like to emphasise again in this debate—that what is important about this process is the transformational programme that this Bill is a part of. Quite often, when we bring legislation to this place, it is a discrete piece of legislation that deals with a particular issue. But, this Bill is a part of a wider transformational programme, and I think throughout our conversations, throughout our debates, and throughout our discussions, I’d like to emphasise it is a wider transformational programme: the investment in the system, the investment in people, the investment in what we’re seeking to achieve will create the means by which the Bill, the legislation and the structures that it will create will be able to succeed.

I hope that Members will agree that this is a vital piece of reform, and has the potential to support tens of thousands of children and young people when it is in place. The Bill will replace the current special educational needs system, putting in place a completely new system of support for children and young people with additional learning needs, up to the age of 25. Children and young people will have the right to an individual development plan that identifies the support they will need to help them to learn. The new additional learning needs system will be based around person-centred practice and early dispute resolution. Children, their parents and young people will all have a right to appeal to the education tribunal.

The Bill creates the new role of additional learning needs co-ordinators in schools, and the new post of designated lead officer in health boards, to improve the provision of support and co-ordination between health, education and local authorities. I hope that we will be able to look towards some of the issues that have arisen during Stage 1 scrutiny. A number of themes have emerged. I will make a few comments on each one of those, but I will also say at the outset of this debate that it is my intention to seek to accept the vast majority of recommendations from all three committees that have reported on this Bill.

An area of considerable focus has been healthcare needs. Children and young people who have a medical condition that contributes to an additional learning need are entitled to additional learner provision under the new system. There has been some debate about extending the definition of additional learning needs to include all medical conditions, including, for example, asthma or a peanut allergy, or whether or not they affect a child’s ability to learn. We have already issued statutory guidance to schools for children with long-term and short-term healthcare needs. This has been welcomed by many stakeholders, and I look forward to seeing responses from that statutory guidance as it beds in, and as it is being delivered by practitioners. I’m content, in principle, to consider the merits of an amendment to the definition of additional learning needs, to demonstrate its scope in relation to medical conditions. This is something that has been a matter of some discussion and I’ve said in private conversations that I’m happy to consider the merits of an amendment. I’d like to put that on the record as well and I would like to invite Members on all sides of the Chamber to contribute to a conversation whereby I hope we will be able to reach agreement on the wording of such an amendment.

There has also been some conversation on the role and potential provision of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I have to say to Members that I am not convinced by the arguments put forward during Stage 1 scrutiny on this matter. The Bill is based upon children’s rights. It’s based upon a child’s right to education, ensuring those with different needs have access to education and that children and young people not only have a voice, but are at the very centre of the process to assess and meet their needs. Members will be aware that all UN conventions are written to apply to states and not to individuals or practitioners. It is not the purpose of any UN convention to be applied in the way that is being suggested and it is not the intention of this Government to do so. However it is, and has been for some time, the intention of this Government to ensure that UN conventions do inform the way that the Government operates, and I hope that Members on all sides of the Chamber will agree that the principles of the convention are well delivered through the statutory duties contained in this Bill.

I welcome the recognition by the Children, Young People and Education Committee and by stakeholders about the strengthened role for the national health service in this Bill. Stage 1 scrutiny has highlighted two areas of debate: first of all, the tribunal’s role in relation to health issues. In Wales, we have an existing NHS complaints and redress process. We must also respect the fundamental principle of clinical judgement, which underpins all NHS decisions. I will say to Members: I and the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport have had a number of very fruitful and positive conversations on this matter. It is a matter on which we will continue to work together to seek a resolution. I’ve had conversations with the president of the tribunal as well, and I am content to continue to have conversations to seek an agreed way forward on this matter. I will say at this point as well that the president of the tribunal has written to me and the committee, suggesting a number of different amendments to the role of the tribunal. Although the committee has not reported on all of those, I will say that I am content to seek amendments to fulfil the majority of the president’s wishes on these matters because I think it is important that we are able to move forward, strengthening the tribunal as well as strengthening the system it underpins.

Secondly, significant progress has been made to develop a designated education clinical lead officer model. I will be writing to the Children, Young People and Education Committee to outline the latest developments in relation to a role in the pilots across Wales, following concerns that have been highlighted during scrutiny. In response to calls for the early years elements of the system to be strengthened, I will be bringing forward an amendment at Stage 2 to require local authorities to designate an early years lead officer. I want a greater focus on prevention and early intervention with good practice maintained across Wales. On the other end of the age range, I’m not yet persuaded about the need to extend the Bill to include all workplace learning, but I recognise that there is a strong argument being made there, and it is a matter that I will continue to consider.

Members will also be aware that I have made available a draft of the additional learning needs code in February to aid scrutiny of the Bill. I’m grateful for the committee’s views on how it can be developed further and I’m grateful to Members across the whole Chamber for the welcome they’ve given to the publication of this code. I have been clear that the code will be subject to the fullest possible consultation scrutiny. I will therefore bring forward a Government amendment at Stage 2 to make the code subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. This was a matter that the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee reported upon and I’ve given assurances to both the Children, Young People and Education Committee and the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee on this matter, and I will bring forward amendments to deliver on those assurances.

Acting—. Deputy Presiding Officer—

Chair.

Chair. I was getting there. [Laughter.] I will close my opening contribution by confirming that I will not be moving a financial resolution today. I’ve written to all Assembly Members this morning outlining the revisions that are being made to the regulatory impact assessment. I expect to have the revised version available by the end of the summer recess and will re-table a financial resolution in the autumn. I look forward to continuing to debate and develop the Bill and hope this Assembly will support its general principles, but I do believe it is right and proper that scrutiny is informed scrutiny. I recognise the points that have been made by the Chair of the Finance Committee and I accept the points that have been made by the Chair of the Finance Committee in relation to this matter, and I believe that the Government has a responsibility to ensure the accuracy of information provided to all committees and to Members, and also that the scrutiny that takes place in committee is fully informed scrutiny, and the Government does its best to ensure that it provides all the information in a timely way to committees. So, I will hope to continue to work with Members on all sides of the Chamber to ensure that we have a piece of legislation that will not only change the lives of young people and children today, but for the future as well.

Thank you. I call on the Chair of the Children, Young People and Education Committee, Lynne Neagle.

Thank you, Chair. I’m pleased to contribute to this Stage 1 debate today to outline the main conclusions of the Children, Young People and Education Committee. The committee was unanimous in its agreement of the general principles of the Bill. We believe the Bill will provide a platform for reform of the current SEN system, which is long overdue, a view that was clearly shared by the majority of those who gave us evidence. The evidence received also highlighted that many challenges lie ahead as the Bill is implemented. Simply passing the legislation will not address the deeper underlying problems within the current system.

We therefore recognise the importance of the Welsh Government’s wider ALN transformation programme in meeting those challenges and delivering a system that is robust and which provides the best opportunities for learners with ALN. We look forward to working with the Minister as the transformation programme is taken forward. This has been a lengthy and complex Stage 1 process, but it is vital that we get this Bill right.

We’ve met with and heard from many stakeholders, including children and young people with ALN, and parents and carers of those with ALN. The contribution of all those who have been involved has been invaluable, and I would like to thank everyone who contributed. I would also like to thank the Clerk and research team for their assiduous work on this Bill.

The Bill will be underpinned by a statutory ALN code, and it would not have been possible to effectively scrutinise the Bill without sight of the code. While we thank the Minister for making the draft code available, we do believe it should have been made available at the time the Bill was introduced.

The committee very much supports the general principles of the Bill, although the evidence we received highlighted many concerns about implementation. Nobody should underestimate the scale of this agenda. Over 100,000 pupils in schools have SEN or ALN, which is over one in five of all children. We have therefore made 48 recommendations aimed at strengthening not just the Bill itself, but also the wider proposals for reform of the system. In the time available, I can’t go through each one today, but will concentrate on some of the key issues that emerged.

The definition of ALN is the basis on which the Bill is built. It is vital that the definition is clear on the face of the Bill and that it is clearly understood. In relation to early years, while the definition on the face of the Bill may be appropriate, we believe the code should clarify that learning includes areas such as learning though play and social interaction, which are not explicitly reflected in the Bill at present. We believe the code could also clarify that learning does not refer just to a person’s learning as a whole and includes reference to specific aspects or elements of their learning.

A third concern we had related to how learners’ medical conditions would relate to the definition. The Minister provided assurance that where a medical condition led to ALN it would fall under the definition. However, we believe this must be made clear on the face of the Bill and within the code.

The committee very much welcomes the emphasis in the Bill on placing the interests of the child or young person centre stage and believes that using a model of person-centred planning is the right approach. However, we believe it would be a missed opportunity not to embed Wales’s overarching commitment to children’s rights on the face of the Bill, and we recommend the inclusion of an overarching duty of due regard to the UNCRC.

The role of the ALNCO within each setting will be crucial to ensuring consistency and high standards. We welcome the aspiration that ALNCOs should have a Master’s level qualification, but we are concerned that this could result in the loss of highly skilled and experienced people currently working as SENCOs. We recommend the Minister reconsider his approach and make it clear that, going forward, a Master’s should be desirable not required. The committee is also concerned at the resource implications of the ALNCO role and believes the Minister should review the impact of the new role on resources and capacity within 12 months.

We welcome the Bill’s intention to establish a single age, 0-25 system that identifies and provides for a child’s ALN from birth, but we have a number of concerns about how the needs of those outside statutory school age will be met. I’ve already highlighted our concerns about the definition of ALN in relation to early years, but we also believe that section 57 of the Bill should be amended to require health bodies to raise concerns that a child under compulsory school age has ALN, rather than the discretionary power that exists as drafted. Health bodies have a duty to inform local authorities under the present system, and we see no reason to weaken this provision. Similarly, the Bill provides no clear route for child minders and those working in childcare settings to raise concerns that a child may have ALN, and we believe that the Bill or code should provide a clear mechanism for this.

In terms of post 16, the committee has serious concerns about the adequacy of the existing relationships between local authorities and the FE sector to make the provisions of the Bill work effectively, especially in the challenging transition to further education. The committee also very much agrees with stakeholders that the ALN framework should be extended to include work-based learning. It is often the learners who face the most complex barriers who choose the work-based learning route, and the proposed new system should include such learners.

As the Minister said, the need for more effective multi-agency collaboration, particularly with the NHS, was consistently highlighted by stakeholders as fundamental to the success of these reforms. It is vital that the weaknesses in collaboration within the current system are not imported into the new one. The committee broadly welcomes the intention to establish the strategic designated education clinical lead officer role. There is, however, a lack of detail about the role, especially how they will work with other health professionals, including the new health co-ordinator role. We also find it difficult to understand why the pilots for the DECLOs, begun very recently, were not undertaken at a much earlier stage, as this would have provided an important insight into the nature and operation of the role. We heard widespread concern that the Bill does not provide the tribunal with a remit over the decisions and actions of health bodies or any powers to direct those bodies. The committee believes the tribunal’s remit should be extended to health bodies, but also that its membership must be sufficient so that health professionals’ clinical judgment is factored into the decision it takes.

In terms of the Welsh language, we do believe that specific elements of the Bill do not reflect the ambition and challenge for the Welsh language, and agree with the Welsh Language Commissioner’s call for an eleventh core aim, for the Bill to ensure the delivery of bilingual ALN services.

It is, of course, essential that adequate resources, workforce planning and training arrangements are in place to support implementation of the Bill and the wider transformation programme, and we have made specific recommendations in this regard. Of most concern to the committee is the fact that the costs and savings for the Bill, as set out in the explanatory memorandum, have been so inaccurate. Members will have received an explanation of the revised costs and savings from the Minister. Unfortunately, these revised figures were not provided to the committee until the day after we had reported. It is disappointing that this information was not provided sooner so that it could have been considered by the committee and included within our report. It has, therefore, been impossible for the committee to properly scrutinise the costs and savings for the Bill, and I welcome the decision to postpone the financial resolution until the revised regulatory impact assessment is available for scrutiny.

Finally, Chair, I’d like to thank again those who gave evidence to the committee and who helped with our work. I would also like to thank members of the committee for the productive way we have worked together on this. This Bill has the potential to make a huge difference to the lives of children and families in Wales. It is absolutely crucial that we get it right. Thank you.

I call on the Chair of the Finance Committee, Simon Thomas.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I am pleased to speak as the Chair of the Finance Committee to this Bill, but also, as a previous member of the Children, Young People and Education Committee, I’m pleased to see the Bill make some progress. Before I talk about our committee’s consideration of the financial implications of the Bill, I must firstly address the Minister’s letter of 25 May, which Lynne Neagle has just also alluded to, which provided an update on the anticipated changes to the Bill’s regulatory impact assessment. I am also extremely disappointed that these changes were not shared with us until the day after the Stage 1 reporting deadline, preventing this information forming part of our committee’s consideration prior to today’s debate.

These changes are significant, have a substantial impact on the costs of the Bill, and, due to the timing of the publication, have not been addressed either in our report. The scale of the revisions at this stage in a Bill’s progress is alarming, with the Minister now estimating that the Bill will cost £8.3 million over the implementation period, which is four years, rather than delivering a saving of £4.8 million. This represents an overall change in costs of £13.1 million. Furthermore, the Minister has indicated that these figures are still subject to change and finalised figures will not be available until a revised regulatory impact assessment is published ahead of Stage 3 proceedings, currently scheduled to take place in September. In the light of this information, I wrote to the Minister requesting that he delay moving a financial resolution in respect of the Bill until an updated summary of costs is provided and scrutinised. The Minister wrote to Members this morning and has confirmed to Plenary today that he will delay the moving of the financial resolution and that a revised regulatory impact assessment will be published by the end of the summer recess. As a previously very active member of the Finance Committee, as I recall, in his first term in the Assembly, I’m sure he understands the Finance Committee’s concerns in this area and appreciates that we will now get a chance to look at that revised impact assessment before a financial resolution is moved.

This, however, is where things get a little complicated, if I may say so, Chair, because, at the time of the introduction of the Bill, the current published regulatory impact assessment identified estimated savings of over £14.2 million over a four-year period. However, we were advised by the Minister the day before our evidence session that errors had been identified in the regulatory impact assessment, which resulted in the anticipated savings being reduced to £12.8 million over the four-year period. Our report acknowledges the Minister’s assurances that these revised figures were robust. Nevertheless, we were disappointed that these errors were not identified prior to the Bill’s introduction and recommended that the regulatory impact assessment be updated to take account of the revised financial information. Clearly, however, the revised figures were not robust, as the Minister’s latest letter indicates estimated savings of only £3.7 million over the four-year period. So, in summary, we’ve gone from anticipated savings over four years of £14.2 million to today’s figure of £3.7 million. But these figures have not been interrogated by the Finance Committee and do not form part of our report today. This significant change is largely attributed to concerns raised by SNAP Cymru in relation to disagreements and appeals. The Minister’s letter states that his officials met with SNAP Cymru in March, so the committee is keen to understand why the outcome of these discussions has not been shared with the committee prior to the Stage 1 deadline.

Another key development during the course of our scrutiny was the Minister’s announcement of an additional £20 million investment to support ALN learners. The Minister explained that this investment relates not only to delivering the Bill, but also to a wider transformational activity, and provided further detail on the anticipated allocation of funding to support the ALN system overhaul. In our report, we recognise the Welsh Government’s ambitions to overhaul the system, but believe also that the costs of implementing the Bill had been underestimated. We therefore welcome the extra £20 million investment. Whilst we recognise that the context of transformational change makes it more challenging to categorise costs, it is important for us to understand how this money will be allocated to directly facilitate and support the implementation of the Bill in order to undertake robust financial scrutiny. Consequently, we recommended that any revised regulatory impact assessment makes clear whether the additional £20 million investment is being made available for the purposes of the Bill. The Minister’s recent letter indicates that the revised £8.3 million cost associated with the Bill will be incurred by the Welsh Government and covered by the £20 million implementation funding package. This raises further questions, however, as to the purpose of the funding package and the impact of the increased implementation costs on the previously advised allocation of that funding.

The other main area of concern highlighted in our report relates to the Welsh Government’s transition funding, which will be provided to other bodies in order to deliver the Bill’s provisions. This includes around £7 million in transition grants available to local authorities and other organisations to support the implementation of the Bill. We welcome the Minister’s intention to develop a formula-based allocation and his commitment to minimising bureaucracy and the burden of an application process. However, we believe that a clear financial steer is needed, and we have therefore recommended that the grant funding should be ring-fenced.

The Bill also proposes transferring responsibility for planning and securing post-16 specialist further education provision from the Welsh Government to local authorities. This includes transferring the Welsh Government’s existing annual budget of £12.4 million to the revenue support grant. The Minister was concerned that ring-fencing this funding would lead to capped budgets, rather than supporting a needs-based system of funding. However, the committee remains concerned that local authorities may not allocate the transferred funding as intended and has recommended that the funding must be dedicated to delivering the transferred responsibilities.

Our report deals with several other recommendations, but I don’t have time, I’m afraid, Chair, to go into some detail. But one I would like the attention of the Assembly to is our recommendation regarding the statutory designated educational clinical lead officer role, and the effect, therefore, on health board ALN provision, which reflects some of the deliberations of the other committee.

In conclusion, if I may, Chair, the levels of revision have raised serious concerns as to the validity of the Government’s costings and its ability to successfully fund and implement the Bill. The Government must ensure that the revised regulatory impact assessment, promised by the end of the summer recess, is published in good time, is accurate and robust, and allows us all in Plenary and in committee to allow for proper scrutiny before a financial resolution is moved in Plenary. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch, and I hope Members understand that it was important that the Chair of the Finance Committee had the opportunity to comment on figures that were published after the publication of the committee’s report.

Galwaf ar Gadeirydd y Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol a Deddfwriaethol, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you, Chair, and could I at the outset thank our clerk and our research and legislative support team, and also our assiduous committee members for the scrutiny of this Bill, which we reported on on 24 May, and we made 12 recommendations?

I know the Minister will understand that we are duty-bound to be sticklers for legislative transparency and clarity and rigour of scrutiny, so I know he’ll not be surprised by our robust analysis. As part of our usual consideration, we looked at the balance between what is on the face of the Bill and what is left to be dealt with by the Welsh Government through subordinate legislation. The Bill contains a number of regulation-making powers that the Minister indicated he did not intend to use in the near or foreseeable future. Now, we expressed concern at this approach, because we’re not convinced by the argument that says that, as there will be no further Bill on this area in the foreseeable future, as a result, regulation-making powers should be added to provide the Welsh Government with flexibility. Our argument would be that if an Act of the Assembly becomes out of date quickly or for whatever reason, including unexpected circumstances, and it requires significant change as a result, it should be achieved using primary legislation.

So, our first recommendation calls upon the Minister to justify why the regulation-making powers under sections 12(7)(c), 50(3), 60(1) and 68(4) are needed within the Bill. We were particularly concerned with the adopted approach in relation to regulation-making powers under sections 45(2)(d), 82(c) and 86(8). We were surprised at the Minister’s rationale for including regulation-making powers in section 45 to allow Welsh Ministers to set out further circumstances in which local authorities would not be under a duty to favour mainstream maintained education for a child with additional learning needs. And, as regards the regulation-making power in section 86 to amend the definition of ‘NHS body’, it is our longstanding belief that regulations that amend primary legislation must be subject to approval by the Assembly. Coupled with the potential to effect a significant policy change, we recommended the use of the affirmative procedure for these regulations. Now, the European Court of Human Rights—it’s been mentioned in earlier contributions—has made it clear that the integration of children into mainstream schools should be the norm rather than the exception. So, we were therefore concerned at how this power could be used in the future, and believe that, should a new category of school be introduced in Wales, as was the justification given by the Minister, then the Minister should assess the powers needed at that time. So, we therefore recommended that this provision should be removed from the Bill, or, at the very least, it should be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Section 82 of the Bill would allow the Minister to change by regulations the definition of who is ‘in the area’ of a local authority in Wales in education legislation that is not necessarily concerned with additional needs. Now, we see no reason why this broad power should be included in the Bill, and recommended that the Minister removes this provision from the Bill. Again, at the very least, this should be subject to the affirmative procedure to allow for full and robust scrutiny by the whole Assembly.

Now, turning to other matters within the Bill, we welcome the Minister’s approach to developing the additional learning needs code, and his engagement with Members in its development. In order to help create accessible law for all citizens with an interest in additional learning needs, we hope he continues to engage on this, and we’re sure that he will. We consider the status of the code, however, to be unclear, as it mixes requirements and statutory guidance, which we believe could be confusing. In order to make good functioning law, it should be clear to both professionals and members of the public the provisions that have legislative effect. We cannot see any reason why, therefore, the requirements set out in the code could not instead be contained in the Bill in the form of regulations. This would make it clearer to all concerned.

We also note that the suggested procedure for section 5 of the Bill does not follow the same procedure as the existing special educational needs code that it replaces. It is our view that the negative procedure does not provide sufficient scrutiny to such a pivotal document, and we recommend that the Minister considers instead the superaffirmative procedure. This would allow for detailed consideration by stakeholders and Members, with the final decision resting with this body, with the National Assembly.

Finally, I wish to draw attention to our recommendations in relation to sections 13(2) and 14(2) of the Bill, which contain regulation-making powers to prescribe exemptions in relation to looked-after children. We are not convinced that, in each case, the regulations deal with solely technical administrative matters. In the absence of information being on the face of the Bill, we recommended the application of the affirmative procedure to regulations being made in the first instance, followed by the negative procedure thereafter.

So, in closing, I welcome the Minister’s openness in his opening remarks today where he said he’s minded to accept the majority of recommendations from all three committees, and as the Bill progresses with this constructive engagement we are hopeful and confident that the Bill can and will be further improved and the outstanding issues resolved by further positive engagement.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in favour of the general principles of the Welsh Government’s Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Bill. It’s good that the Welsh Government is seizing this chance to make sure the legislative framework within which we approach this issue is fit for purpose. As was noted in the Bill’s explanatory memorandum, the current framework we operate in, and under which I taught, poses so many challenges to my constituents and others across Wales and has largely been unchanged over the last 30 years. It needs the refreshing that this Bill aims to deliver to ensure that this is the case.

For my contribution today, I want to draw on my experience as a secondary school teacher, which gives me familiarity with many of the challenges facing pupils with additional learning needs in school environments across Wales. This is both in mainstream settings and within more specialist, discrete groups. This experience also reinforces my sense of urgency about making sure that we get this right. To do this, we must provide an educational offer that allows every young person to thrive and achieve, and I am glad that this is at the heart of the Bill. Young people must feel supported, but so must their parents, guardians, family and friends.

Unfortunately, I know all too well from my constituents who I meet in my office and surgeries that this is often a challenge. Indeed, I think it is safe to say that support for children and young people with additional learning needs is one of the issues that has arisen most frequently in my casework since I became an AM just over a year ago. Many of these cases can leave parents of young children with quite complex needs feeling that they are battling against a system that is not fully on their side. Therefore, I welcome the principle contained in this Bill to put the needs of the learner at the heart of the decision-making process. It is vital that learners are able to access support through a setting that meets their own individual needs, and that systems are put in place to ensure that they are always able to fully access the level of provision that they have been statemented for.

I know, from the comprehensive data contained in the Children, Young People and Education Committee’s report on the Bill, that the experiences that have been brought to me through my casework are not isolated. I know that the Bill’s focus on developing unified plans, bringing together stakeholders, could help reduce the adversarial experiences my constituents have all too often encountered of them versus the system. Other issues I have dealt with relate to the comparative lack of opportunities for young people with additional learning needs when they finish compulsory schooling. During this time, I’ve met some truly exceptional parents who’ve fought doggedly to get their children the very best opportunities. But this is precisely the point; they should not have to struggle and battle. I therefore welcome the focus in the Bill on creating a single legislative system encompassing individuals from birth to the age of 25.

A few months ago I met with Sense Cymru to discuss their supported pathway into adulthood project, which the Minister may be familiar with. This aims to reduce many of the barriers around transition, and the shift young people meet when they reach adulthood. There is a lot of excellent practice we could take from this. There is a challenge to ensure the principles in the Bill can become reality, so I know the Welsh Government will ensure its working is properly financed. One of the most damaging aspects in provision is where promises are not met due to restricted funding, or the best option is superseded by the cheapest. I look forward to the Minister’s reassurances that this will not occur here.

To close, this Bill offers us the chance to ensure the framework for ALN provision in Wales is learner focused and fit for purpose. I’m happy to support it, as the parents and young people I see in my office and surgery should be able to expect no less.

Can I declare an interest at the start of this debate as a school governor at St Brigid’s School in Denbighshire? I want to thank the Minister for his opening speech. I think it is reassuring to know that he is listening to the concerns not just of the committees, but to the many other stakeholders who have been in touch with him in recent months. And I want to extend my thanks to him for the engagement that he’s had with me as an opposition spokesperson also.

This has been a very difficult job for the children and young people’s committee in terms of looking at all of the evidence. We’ve received, obviously, a very large volume of evidence, but we were hindered, in part as a result of a lack of timely information from the Welsh Government on a number of fronts—first of all, the late publication of the draft code and that not being available at the very start of the scrutiny process. Some of the poor quality of some of the financial information, which has already been referred to by the chair of the Finance Committee—it was corrected once during the process. We’ve since had further representations from SNAP Cymru about the cost of dispute resolution. We had information, as well, late in the day, about the role of the designated educational clinical leads and how many other people might need to support them in their role, particularly in very large health boards. And I think that that did make our job more difficult in terms of trying to understand where the Welsh Government was coming from in many respects.

There was also, of course, this lack of information on the pilots. We heard some good evidence from Carmarthenshire that things had improved there under the new arrangements that were being trialled, but we didn’t see any independent evaluations of that at all. We know that there have been other pilots that still are yet to take place, and I think the lack of information on that was a concern. So, I hope very much that you’ll be accepting recommendation 25, and that we’ll be getting more information on those in the future.

But I just wanted to touch on some of the things that I want to see improved upon in the Bill going forward, and I know, as I said earlier on, that the Minister is hoping to move forward with these. First of all, on medical needs, I think an amendment to the definition in the Bill could and should be made, and I’m pleased that the Minister has open ears to being able to do that, because we do know that, even though the Minister’s issued some draft statutory guidance for medical needs and meeting those in schools, that guidance doesn’t extend to the early years, and it doesn’t extend from beyond compulsory school age right up to 25, which, of course, the ALN Bill quite rightly does. So, I am concerned about that. I’m also concerned, as well, that home to school transport arrangements haven’t fully featured enough in either the draft code—and they certainly don’t feature on the Bill, and perhaps the Minister can tell us how he expects those to be considered in the future. But we did hear lots of evidence on those medical needs, particularly from Diabetes UK, from epilepsy organisations, and others, about the particular needs of people in the classroom—learners who may need support.

The second thing that clearly needs to be addressed is redress. The redress system needs to be extended to cover NHS provision that might need to be in place. I was pleased to hear about the conversations that have been going on within Government about how that can best be achieved. I think the committee was clearly persuaded that the tribunal ought to have powers to direct NHS bodies in the future in order to make sure that adequate support was put in place for learners who needed support from the NHS—again, to have this single system of redress, rather than having to go through the ‘Putting Things Right’ process, which can be very long and protracted as far as patients are concerned, and then a separate system in terms of the educational tribunal for other disputes.

In respect of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, it’s very clear that a precedent has been set in the National Assembly in the past, and by the Welsh Government, in accepting amendments to legislation, including the social services and well-being Act, that have put on the face of that Act references to UN conventions, including the convention on the rights of the child and, indeed, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. So, I cannot accept, Minister, your rejection of our suggestion that they ought to be on the face of the Bill and that there ought to be due regard from all of those organisations that will have duties in the future under this new additional learning needs legislation. I very much hope that we will be able to persuade you, either at Stage 2 or at Stage 3, to shift your position in order to move on that, because this business of having a rights-based approach to legislation must run through all of our legislation, and, I think, why not repeat these things now and again on important pieces of legislation, particularly those that pertain directly to children and young people?

Just finally, if I may, on the Welsh language, we’ve made some key recommendations on the Welsh language, and I know that you want to improve the provisions for the Welsh language. We’ve got to emphasise the choice of learners and the choice of parents more in the legislation. That balance isn’t there at the moment. It simply means that decisions will be made, at the moment, by NHS bodies, schools and FEIs, and I don’t think that’s good enough. So, I look forward hearing the contribution at the end of the debate.

May I also declare an interest as a school governor at the outset? Now, clearly, Plaid Cymru has supported the demand for legislation for a number of years, and therefore we will support the general principles of the Bill this afternoon. That’s not to say, of course, that there isn’t a need to improve and strengthen the Bill in parts, as is reflected in the committee’s report, where there are 48 recommendations. Clearly, there is some work still to be done to get the Bill to where we would want to see it. May I also endorse the thanks expressed to my fellow committee members, the committee officials, and the hundreds of stakeholders who contributed to the scrutiny process to date?

I want to share some of the frustration, while acknowledging that the Minister has been happy to sit down and to discuss these issues, and to share various supplementary documents with us. It has been frustrating in terms of the patchy way in which these have appeared—the Bill itself, and then we received the code, then the guidance on the healthcare needs, and then we received various details on the financial requirements. I don’t think this is the ideal scrutiny process for a Bill, if truth be told.

Within a few minutes, I can’t address all of the 48 recommendations in the report, but I would endorse the comments already made on enhancing the definition of additional learning need to include medical needs. It’s extremely important that medical needs of pupils in schools are effectively managed and that details and robust guidance are available to ensure that that happens. I do acknowledge, and I’m pleased, that the Minister has published a statutory guidance for schools and local authorities during this process, but there are questions remaining, as we’ve heard, in terms of capturing the full age range in the ALN Bill. And I do welcome the fact, of course, that the Minister has committed to look again at amending the definition in section 2 of the Bill to make it clear on the face of the Bill that someone would have an additional learning need if they have a medical condition that would mean that they have significant learning difficulties more than most other pupils of the same age.

I believe it’s a mistake not to include those who undertake work-based learning, such as apprenticeships, within the scope of this Bill. Young people with additional learning needs are more likely to take this learning pathway, rather than continue with more academic courses. I hear the Minister’s point, or he’s made the point in the past, that he doesn’t necessarily want to draw the private sector into the Bill. Well, the truth is that they do receive public funds from Government to provide these services. At the other end of the spectrum, private sector nurseries that receive public funding from the Welsh Government are included within the remit of the Bill. So, I would be eager to see greater consistency in that regard.

I have to agree with the aim at the heart of this Bill in creating a regime that is person centred and a more transparent system that is more accessible. But again, the Government is seeking to keep two separate appeals systems, which are completely separate, for education and health. I heard the Minister’s comments on continuing the debate around that issue, but I do think that even the evidence of the health board seems to accept that there is scope for one tribunal and one appeals system, as long as the relevant expertise is part of that process in ensuring that decisions are taken on the correct clinical basis.

There are a number of references to be welcomed in terms of advocacy in the Bill, and I would be eager to go further. There is mention in the report of looking at those key transitional periods when it comes to ensuring that people are aware of the advocacy services available, and not just at times when there is a breakdown in the process, or where there’s some dispute.

In terms of the Welsh language, I do feel that the Bill has been strengthened. I think there is scope to go further. There is talk that it would be desirable to provide services through the medium of Welsh in some parts of the Bill. Well, we should at least say that it would be expected to be provided where it is available. But on the broader point, for decades now, we’ve regretted the fact that there isn’t the capacity within the service to provide what we would want to see provided through the medium of Welsh across the spectrum of services. One suggestion that I’ve made is that we do need some sort of sunrise clause in the Bill. Yes, we need to be pragmatic and say, ‘Where possible, the service should be provided’, but to say that, by some particular point in the future, let’s say in 10 years’ time, then there will be an expectation that those services should be available. I think that would create an impetus to take decisive action on this agenda once and for all and to ensure that workforce planning and the necessary training is in place, rather than us coming back to this issue again in 10 or 20 years with the same complaint and facing the same problems.

Finally, I don’t agree with the Minister on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I am of the same view as the rest of the committee members and the children’s commissioner that the duties to give due regard to the convention should be on the face of the Bill. The social services and well-being Act does that, and not doing so here would be inconsistent and would send the wrong message on the Welsh Government’s commitment to the rights of the child.

Thanks to the Minister for bringing the debate today. I’m not on any of the committees that scrutinised this Bill, and the issues that are being raised have been raised by my colleague Michelle Brown, who’s on the education committee and who can’t be here today.

In principle, we do support the Bill. Introducing IDPs, providing it’s done properly, is a good idea. However, to ensure consistency across local authorities, will the Minister agree to the request from many stakeholders to use a standard template IDP that applies across the local authorities and is therefore portable? I would hope the Minister will take steps to ensure the person writing the IDP has the expertise required to do so, and the knowledge to bring the different service providers together to co-ordinate them.

Both local authorities and schools have a duty to prepare and maintain an IDP where they consider a child or young person has additional learning needs, but there is no default position, so local authorities and schools could end up playing ping pong with the IDP. Would the minister consider making either the local authority or the school ultimately responsible for the preparation of the IDP, to prevent any buck-passing of the kind that frustrates the public so often when it comes to dealing with council departments?

Unless the person has a disability as defined under the Equality Act 2010, or has a significantly greater difficulty in learning, they won’t be considered to have ALNs. This means that children and young people who have medical conditions that take them out of the classroom, or otherwise impact on their education, aren’t covered, and this has been a major concern voiced by constituents. So, please could the Minister clarify what provision will be made for those who have medical conditions that fall short of a disability and who don’t have a significantly greater difficulty in learning but whose medical conditions affect their learning in some other way?

I do understand that there has to be a threshold, and the definition of ‘additional learning needs’ provides that. However, what support are children and young people going to receive if they’re just beneath that threshold? What support is there going to be for children and young people who have greater difficulty in learning than the average child or young person but don’t have a significantly greater one—in other words, to those in the middle?

Llyr mentioned the apprenticeships issue. The Government says that it is as committed to vocational training as it is to academia, but it therefore seems odd that apprenticeships are not covered by the Bill, which potentially leaves out a big chunk of people with ALNs. Surely the Bill should be extended to cover these, although responsibility for the IDP should be with the local authority rather than the employer, because that would deter the creation of apprenticeships.

I am very pleased that there is a presumption in favour of children and young people with ALNs being educated in a mainstream school. This is an excellent move. Special schools should be reserved for children and young persons who can’t be educated in a mainstream school for their own interests, not used in part as a dumping ground for children or young persons whose education is thought to be a drain on resources by the mainstream schools. Stipulating that a local authority may arrange for additional learning provision to be given outside a school may be a step forward, but given the fact that exercise of this does not have to be based on whether it’s in the best interests of the child—the local authority has complete discretion—the local authority could therefore, arguably, farm out provision on the basis of cost to the detriment of the child or young person. So, how will the Minister address this potential problem?

I also welcome the duty on NHS bodies to provide medical treatment. I can understand why a fixed time frame hasn’t been stated, but ideally the Bill should state that this and other duties must be complied with and decisions made within a reasonable time to address the excessive waiting times reported by some parents of children and young people with ALNs.

Finally, onto the dispute procedures. Although the intention is that the Bill will help to avoid disputes—and clearly, avoidance is better than having disputes in the first place—disputes will nevertheless occur, yet the avenues for resolution remain cumbersome.

Now, a couple of people have mentioned the relationship of the Bill to the NHS. The education tribunal has no jurisdiction over NHS bodies—the tribunal has no power to order an NHS body to provide treatment or to consider elements of an appeal relating to the NHS—so, parents and others will have to use the separate NHS process, meaning they have to negotiate two appeal systems instead of one. How is the Minister going to ensure that the people appealing to the tribunal receive the support and advice they need so that they can ensure the tribunal hears all the relevant information? How will the Minister ensure that no element of these appeals can slip into the ether between the education and NHS appeal processes?

In summary, we do support this Bill, but we are also concerned that insufficient staff levels and funding may scupper some very good objectives contained within this Bill.

I wish to very much welcome this debate and the innovative and groundbreaking principles within this Bill for the young people that we all represent. I wish to thank the Minister for the strong, robust and resilient work in this regard, and also the ongoing work of the Children, Young People and Education Committee and its Chair, Lynne Neagle. This innovative Bill, I believe, has potential to be on a par with other firsts for Wales, such as the organ transplantation Act, the violence against women and domestic abuse Act and groundbreaking environmental legislation. This Bill will add to a portfolio of innovation in Wales and is needed with regard to some of our most vulnerable young people. It is absolutely right, however, that we get it right.

This Bill will have an impact for over 100,000 pupils with ALN and SEN—one in five pupils across Wales—and centres rightly on person-centred planning. It is right that this Bill focuses on the needs of the learner, strengthening pathways and frameworks, increasing ALN awareness and planning, and improving provision and delivery as part of the wider additional learning needs transformational programme in Wales. Parents, carers and our young people of Wales deserve no less, and the anticipated and desired impacts of this Bill are profound and positive. Whilst I recognise this, we must also recognise the desire to increase expertise and knowledge across the sector. So, would the Minister consider the necessity of increasing to a Master’s qualification for ALN co-ordinators as an essential requirement when ‘desirable’ will also maintain both consistency and capacity within the sector? So, to conclude, I very much welcome this innovative Bill. Thank you.

I call on the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Welsh Language to reply to the debate.

I’m very grateful to the committee Chairs and Members who have spoken this afternoon. I think Lynne Neagle, in her opening remarks, captured the essence of what we’re seeking to achieve—a transformational programme that transforms the lives of individuals, both their experience of education, but also the rest of their lives as well, and the concluding remark we’ve just heard from Rhianon Passmore I think, again, re-emphasises the importance of this legislation in human terms, in what we’re seeking to achieve for people whom we represent. And I was very taken by remarks that were made by the Member for the Cynon Valley as well, who I think expresses the experience of many of us who also deal with these issues as constituency Members on a regular weekly basis. And it’s to address those issues, the struggles of families all too often to receive a statement, and to receive the services they require. The struggles and the fights and the campaigns that families have to go through all too often have to be addressed by this legislation. And that means getting it right—not simply getting it right for our own benefit here this afternoon, but to get it right for generations to come as well. And I absolutely echo the commitments that have been made by Members on all sides of the Chamber this afternoon that we have to work hard together, collectively, on all sides of the Chamber, to ensure that we have legislation that is fit for purpose, not simply legislation where we’re able to win a vote here and there, but legislation that will work and will transform the lives of people in the future.

Let me us just say a few words about some of the remarks that were made and the contributions made in the debate. I will say, very gently—and I feel quite churlish in doing so—Darren Millar, the Conservative spokesperson, was very generous in some of his remarks about the approach that we have taken, but I will say to him that the code was not late. The code doesn’t form a part of the scrutiny of this legislation, of course. [Interruption.] I will give way to you in a moment. But the code is there as an aid to scrutiny of the Bill, and it is the Bill that we are focusing on at the moment and not the code, and I do have concerns sometimes that when you publish additional information, which is aimed to be an aid to scrutiny, that people scrutinise that additional information rather than the Bill itself. I will give way.

I fully appreciate and understand that, Minister, and I’m very grateful to you for giving way, but the reality is that when we are confronted with answers to our questions, such as ‘What about this issue? What about that issues?’, the stock response that you gave to committee was ‘Well, we’ll address this issue in the code.’ Well, unless you’ve got sight of the code, you can have no reassurances that that will actually be done, and that’s what stakeholders were calling for. So, the late introduction of that code—. Essentially, what I’m saying is: it should have been published alongside the Bill, in order to give some confidence to us that these issues haven’t been lost.

That’s not the way that we legislate, of course, but I disagree with you about the stock answer. There are no stock answers in this Government, Darren, as the answers to questions that are raised, and I think it’s important that we recognise that. But let’s move on.

The process is what is important. The transformational programme, of which this Bill is a part, is the absolute key element of what we’re seeking to achieve today. And I think yourself in your remarks, and I think Llyr and others also, ensured that we did have a focus on that transformational programme. We will ensure that there is funding available—and I accept the points that have been made by Simon Thomas in his contribution—to cover the costs of implementation, but also—and this is the key point, I think—not simply to cover the base costs of implementing the legislation, but also to deliver the funding and the resources to deliver the wider transformational programme as well. And that’s investing in people, investing in the workforce, investing in workforce development—exactly the points that Llyr was making about the Welsh language, and I accept the points that you made on the language. I recognise, as you do, that significant amendment has been made to ensure that Welsh language services are delivered in a more profound way and a more comprehensive way than has been previously suggested. I’m taken by your idea of a sunset clause. I prefer sunrise, but it might well be that although we can’t agree on the time of day, we will be able to agree on the principle of ensuring that we do deliver those services through the medium of Welsh.

But let me say this. I can see that time is moving on. I’ve already confirmed I will not move a financial resolution today, but will re-table it after the summer recess, following publication of the revised regulatory impact assessment. I will also give the undertaking to Members that I will continue the conversations that we’ve had. A number of Members have raised particular issues. I will speak to party spokespeople, and to the committees, before we lay Government amendments to this Bill. And I will, wherever possible, seek to ensure that there is a conversation that takes place to ensure that amendments that we lay are amendments that reflect the debate that we’ve had this afternoon, and the scrutiny process that all three committees have undertaken.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

I will also say, in closing, to Huw Irranca-Davies, and the report of the CLA committee, I spent many years on CLAC, as the Member will be aware, and that experience has left me almost unable to refuse to accept the recommendations. But I will seek to ensure that we do move to a more affirmative approach, where that is at all possible. And certainly, when it comes to the code—and reflecting on the remarks made by Darren Millar in both his intervention and his earlier remarks—we will ensure that when we have the legislation itself, we will then undertake a process of scrutiny on the code as well.

And that will ensure that we do not only have the debate and the discussion on the legislation—on the primary legislation—itself, but then when it comes to implementation—. I recognise the points that have been made on all sides of the Chamber about implementation, and we will have, taking Gareth Bennett’s point about an IDP template—we will take forward those sorts of issues, and we will ensure there is time available, with the information that Simon Thomas has asked for and expects, and has a right to expect, and that there then will be the opportunity for further scrutiny of the code. That needs to be timely—timely from the committees’ point of view as well; I’ll say that very, very clearly—but it will also be ensured that this Government delivers a piece of legislation, and that this Assembly then enacts a piece of legislation that will achieve all of our ambitions that have been described in different ways, on all sides of the Chamber this afternoon. Thank you very much.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.