The next item on the agenda is the motion to agree the financial resolution in respect of the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Bill, and I call on the Minister to move the motion—Alun Davies.

Motion NDM6517 Jane Hutt

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales, for the purposes of any provisions resulting from the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Bill, agrees to any increase in expenditure of a kind referred to in Standing Order 26.69, arising in consequence of the Bill.

Motion moved.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I move the motion on this financial resolution. In doing so, I want to first of all thank all of those Members who’ve taken part in the scrutiny process of this Bill. We will, if Members agree the financial resolution this afternoon, be beginning Stage 2 scrutiny tomorrow morning. For those Members on the committee, they will see that many of the amendments we’ll be discussing tomorrow derive from the scrutiny of this Bill in Stage 1 by both the Children, Young People and Education Committee and the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, as well as the Finance Committee. And I’m grateful for the comprehensive scrutiny of the policy and the legal and financial implications of the Bill. I’m firmly of the view that both the Bill and the system are better as a consequence of this scrutiny.

The Deputy Presiding Officer took the Chair.

Before turning to the regulatory impact assessment and the financial implications, I want to reflect very briefly on why we’re doing this and why we’re taking this legislation forward. The Bill is a cornerstone of our additional learning needs transformation programme. It is a vital and long-overdue piece of reform with the potential to support tens of thousands of children and young people with additional learning needs to fully realise their potential.

Last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Education launched ‘Education in Wales: Our national mission’, the Government’s plans for continuing to raise standards, reducing the attainment gap and delivering an education system that is a source of national pride and public confidence. Our additional learning needs transformation programme is a key aspect of this mission, and I believe that there is broad support for the transformation programme, both within this place and outside amongst practitioners and amongst children and young people themselves.

The general principles of the Bill were agreed on 6 June. I decided not to move the financial resolution at that time to ensure that we were able to undertake a process to revise and review the RIA, and I wanted Members to have the opportunity to see and to question and scrutinise that revised version before being asked to vote on the motion.

Deputy Presiding Officer, since June, we’ve undertaken further thorough quality assurance processes and I’m confident that the RIA is accurate and sound. I said this when I attended the Finance Committee on 21 September and I repeat that assurance today. Allow me to outline the three parts of the process that we’ve undertaken since that time. We’ve undertaken extensive engagement with SNAP Cymru to fully understand the nature of their concerns with the original financial information and to ensure that they are comfortable with the revised RIA. We have received assurances that they’re now content with both the figures and the text. Representatives from SNAP Cymru have confirmed this to the Finance Committee. I’m grateful to them for the work they’ve undertaken with my officials to reach this point.

Secondly, a comprehensive internal review of the figures and calculations has been carried out, resulting in a clean bill of health. No inaccuracies in the calculations were found. A £20 discrepancy was identified and some changes have been made to the text to improve clarity and accessibility. These two elements by themselves are reassuring. But, Deputy Presiding Officer, I wanted to have the fullest confidence around the accuracy and robustness of the RIA, and, before bringing the motion to the Chamber, I wanted to ensure that we could, and I could, provide Members with the fullest assurance of accuracy, and therefore I commissioned an external review. This external review found the RIA to be comprehensive and detailed with reliable and cautious estimates that are based on the evidence available. We have taken on board all of the recommendations that are specific to this Bill’s RIA.

The review also looked more broadly at the way we produce RIAs, comparing this against another way and other ways of preparing a regulatory impact assessment. Deputy Presiding Officer, the way we prepare RIAs complies with the National Assembly’s Standing Orders and the guidance set out by Her Majesty’s Treasury. The external review has provided a set of wider recommendations for the National Assembly and Welsh Government to consider for the future. These have been shared with the Finance Committee and within Welsh Government for further consideration. Taken together, the three elements of the review process point towards a document that is accurate and robust, and a fair basis upon which to make decisions.

Turning to the financial implications outlined in this document, I want to say, upfront and in an entirely forthright way, the transformation programme is not and never has been about saving money. It is about shifting resource from the back office to the front line, ensuring children and young people with additional learning needs are supported to meet their potential and to enjoy their educational journey. We are operating in an extremely challenging economic climate as a consequence of the UK Government’s austerity agenda. We’ve already discussed the impact on services of this earlier this afternoon. I am acutely aware that public services are now having to make difficult financial decisions more and more frequently, but that should not prevent us from doing what is right and what this sector is waiting for.

The fact remains that the RIA is still projecting an overall saving once the new system is up and running. This is reassuring, and it is what we are experiencing on the ground. We want to see the money already in the system used more effectively, with less directed towards bureaucracy and more on front-line support for learners. We know there are gains to be made through efficiencies. Gwynedd, Ynys Môn, Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire and Gwent are all operating aspects of the new system, and we’re all seeing the person-centred practice, individual development plans and dispute avoidance and earlier resolution realising back-office efficiencies, which are then reinvested in front-line services. And this is a key thing for me and for, I think, all of us together on all sides of the Chamber. The new system will ensure resources are used where they can have greatest impact.

There will, of course, be an upfront cost in terms of transition from the current to the new systems. We have been clear all along that an investment in this transition will be required. The £20 million funding package I’ve already announced will cover this in its entirety. We will not be asking delivery partners to fund implementation; the Government will cover all these costs. Our £20 million transformation funding package will go beyond the cost of moving from one statutory system to another. It will invest in cultural and practice changes, and upskilling the workforce. To deliver true reform, we must improve the expertise and confidence of our professionals. This is a priority for all of us. We will need to continue to work closely with delivery partners on the operation of the reforms, but also on the financial implications. I am fully committed to doing this and to putting in place the appropriate structures to facilitate it. I am confident that we are in a good place on all of this. I hope that I have been able to provide the necessary assurance to members of the Finance Committee already, and I’m grateful to the committee for its report. I hope that all Members will have confidence in the process and the current position, following this debate.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I’m keen now that we’re able to move forward with the debate. As I said earlier, subject to Members approving the financial resolution today, we move straight into Stage 2 proceedings tomorrow. I am looking forward to continuing the debate on this Bill and to develop the Bill to ensure that our parliamentary processes here produce the best possible Bill, the best possible legislation that will underpin the best possible transformation programme for our young people. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I now call on the Chair of the Finance Committee, Simon Thomas.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I’m very much aware that Members will want to vote on the financial resolution and also vote on the Bill on the basis of policy and the widespread support there is for the aims of the Bill, but I think it is appropriate that I talk to the report that the Finance Committee’s produced on the Bill, and for some Members who are not involved in this process to understand how we came by a situation where a Bill that could and should have been introduced before the summer recess is now being discussed at this stage, and we have a curious situation in that if the financial resolution was not to be approved tonight, then we couldn’t be discussing it in committee tomorrow. I suspect that won’t happen, but that’s the sort of philosophical position that we are in.

When the Bill was first introduced, and the Finance Committee, back on 7 February, I think it was, first looked at the RIA with the Bill, it was predicted to make savings of some £4.8 million, and in the context of the announcement of the Minister at that stage of a £20 million fund to fund the Bill and the implementation and programme coming out of that Bill, then that certainly looked like a very attractive financial situation. However, several amendments to the RIA, some of which have been referred to by the Minister in his opening remarks, have resulted in the current RIA before this Assembly talking not of savings of £4.8 million, but of costs of £7.9 million. That means that we have before us an RIA that has ongoing savings of some £3.7 million, but transition costs of £11.5 million. Now, clearly, these costs are still covered by the £20 million announcement that the Minister made, though I think it needs putting on the record that that £20 million, from the Finance Committee’s point of view, is actually £10 million commitment and £10 million indication of ongoing commitment in further financial and budget decisions.

Now, you would usually think that a situation where a Minister has introduced a Bill that initially had savings and then turned out to have significant costs is because the Minister didn’t take into account the actual costs of the Bill. In fact, something much more curious happened in this instance. The real issue here was that the initial savings envisaged in the RIA did not take into account that the savings could not, in fact, be cost allocated. They were arising from the savings that an organisation would make by not engaging its volunteers in working with families who were facing additional learning needs tribunals and disputes. In effect, the Welsh Government couldn’t allocate those savings as actual financial savings. This arose, as I think it was told to the Finance Committee last week, from a misunderstanding or a lack of understanding between the organisation concerned and the Welsh Government—SNAP Cymru, which the Minister has already mentioned. I can confirm that SNAP Cymru did confirm to the Finance Committee in our public session, where we also had the Minister in, that they now have that understanding and joint sharing of information with the Welsh Government. So, they are both talking about the same figures; that’s the important thing to say here. So, what you see in the RIA before you today are certainly figures that have been agreed between the Government and the main organisation that undertakes this work with families.

It’s very much for the Assembly and for the policy side now to understand whether this is a Bill that, on the basis of the announcement of the £20 million implementation fund and on the costs that are now set out in the Bill, is one that the Assembly wishes to go forward. There are, however, as the Minister also indicated, wider lessons for how we prepare RIAs. The Finance Committee is concluding its report on such RIAs, which I hope we’ll have an opportunity at a future date to debate. When we do that, we might want to reflect on the lessons learned from this process as well.

The final thing to say is that there was a reference, and there is a reference in our report, to the external evaluation commissioned by the Minister. I welcome the fact that he did commission an external evaluation of his RIA. At that stage, that evaluation, conducted by Aldaba Limited, said that the version of the RIA was not reliable for the purpose of making decisions on the Bill. That’s quite a damning conclusion for an external evaluator to come to. However, I want to assure the Plenary that that is not the version of the RIA that you are discussing here tonight. The Finance Committee’s report sets out, in a factual way, how we have arrived at this situation, and, of course, I’m sure Members will want to reflect on that when they weigh and judge the policy implementations of this Bill against the allocation of resources towards it.

I have to say that, after the first dog’s breakfast of an RIA, where we saw figures that were wholly inaccurate in parts of that paper, I am surprised that the Welsh Government has been able to get this thing into such decent shape. It does appear that there has been better discussion, shall we say, with stakeholders, and that we now have a set of accurate figures that are very robust and, certainly, those little 20 quid here and there have now been ironed out.

I do think it’s worth saying, however, that there are still some concerns that have been raised by some stakeholders about the potential costs of dispute resolution, notwithstanding the fact that we have a new RIA. But, of course, they base their concerns on the evidence that they’ve had made available to them by SNAP Cymru. I think it’s worth all of us reflecting on the fact that it doesn’t necessarily have to be SNAP Cymru providing dispute resolution services in the future. There may be new and innovative ways of doing that that actually cost less for the taxpayer in the future. So, we have to be aware of that—that there are other potential dispute resolution services that could be engaged and commissioned by local authorities and others. For example, there’s a fantastic organisation in my own constituency, called Createasmile, that provides advocacy services completely free of charge to people where they’re contesting issues related to autism with local authorities, and there’s no charge whatsoever to the public purse for that. So, it’s really important that we get this right. I think we now have a financial resolution that we can support on the basis that we’ve got some more robust figures, but it is disappointing it’s taken such a long time to get to this stage.

I also want to endorse the comments that have already been made, if truth be told, and to put on record my dissatisfaction with the way in which this regulatory impact assessment came into being. We accept now that it’s reached a point where we can support it, but these changes and the fact that we needed to go back to the figures and work on them again has had an impact on the scrutiny process of the committee in not being able to scrutinise the final RIA side by side with the Bill.

It’s also undermined the confidence of many people in the sector, and perhaps more broadly, in the ability of this place to develop the relevant documentation around legislation, as is necessary, and to do so in a robust manner and in an appropriate manner, and that is regrettable too. The significant differences in the original costs and the final costs do highlight, I think, the problems that have taken place.

Just to say, in conclusion, the fact that we are here just hours before we discuss amendments at Stage 2, at the very last moment, to all purposes, doesn’t reflect well on the Welsh Government or on this place. As the Chair of the Finance Committee said, I think there are lessons to be learnt and I very much hope that the Government will learn those lessons.

Four very quick points. First thing: this has proven the benefits of the Finance Committee reviewing the cost of legislation.

Second: cost is important, and the real key is distinguishing between cashable costs and nominal costs. I think that’s where the Bill went wrong. It didn’t have the wrong numbers, but you couldn’t actually make some of the savings within the Bill that were being shown because they weren’t cashable costs. Cost is incredibly important. Is this Bill worth £20 million? I think it definitely is. Is it worth £200 million? I think we’d have to start getting into a big debate. If it gets up to £2 billion, it’s neither worthwhile nor affordable. So, I think we’ve really got to make sure we get the costs right, because at some stage there’s a crossover with costs when the Bill becomes less worthwhile than the costs it’s bringing in.

Third: it would really help if Standing Orders allowed the Government to produce a range of possible costs and savings and the assumptions behind them, rather than having to try and find some midpoint amongst their calculations. It would actually give better understanding to the Finance Committee, looking at it, and it would actually understand that this is not an exact science. These numbers are not exact and I’m fairly certain that the result will not be, to the penny, what the Minister has brought forward. I’m sure the Minister doesn’t expect it to be, to the penny, what he brings forward. It will be around about that number. I think it’s important that we have some understanding of that.

The fourth point—and it’s always something we need to think about with legislation—is hidden demand. You bring in legislation, you shine a light on a topic—does that bring out any hidden demand in the system of people who didn’t know about it or weren’t involved, who now see it and then want to take up what becomes available?

Thank you very much, and the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Welsh Language to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank Members for their generally constructive comments and generous words during this debate. Can I say this? I sometimes worry when Mike gets to his feet on a debate that I’m answering, because I’m never quite sure how I’m going to answer some of his points, but he makes some very fair and very judicious remarks about cost. And the cost, of course, of failure will be borne not by Members here but by the people we fail out there, and the children and young people who fail to fulfil their educational potential because we, here, don’t deliver the system that will enable them to succeed. I accept the points that have been made by Llyr, but I would say to Llyr that the strength of parliamentary scrutiny is such as to shine a light into these things and to compel Ministers to come to this place and to make the case for their legislation, and to make the case for what they’re seeking to do, rather than to set the bar a lot lower. So, I think a higher bar is a better way of measuring these matters. I think what this has demonstrated over the last few months has been the strength of the parliamentary process in this place, and I’m sure that Members will recognise that I would always defer to the processes and to the committees we have here, and to the recommendations that the committees make in ensuring that we have not just a Bill but the best possible Bill that will deliver for the people we all seek to represent.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. Therefore the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.