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 Our argument would be that if an Act of the Assembly becomes out of date quickly or for whatever reason, including unexpected circumstances, and it requires significant change as a result, it should be achieved using primary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.