The next group is group 2. This group relates to due regard to United Nations conventions. Amendment 26 is the lead amendment in this group, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group—Kirsty Williams.

Amendment 26 (Kirsty Williams) moved.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. There has never been any dispute about our collective support for the principles of both conventions. The commitment to advancing the rights of children, young people and those with a disability is a priority I know that we all share. The Bill is drafted with children’s rights at its very core. The legal duties it contains already safeguard and promote the rights of disabled children and young people, and do so in a significant and comprehensive way.

The Government position was, and remains, that the Bill embodies the principles of the conventions and delivers a new legal framework that is truly rights-based. What has been in question during scrutiny of this Bill is whether general due-regard duties are necessary, appropriate or add value. I have given considerable thought to this issue, as has the previous Minister, during the passage of the Bill. I have reflected heavily on the strength of feeling from all sides of the Chamber, and we have responded to the views of the Children, Young People and Education Committee in particular.

In line with the former Minister’s commitment during Stage 2 scrutiny, the Government has tabled amendments to bring legislative life to the principles of the conventions. I consider that these amendments will allow us to strike a better balance and, hopefully, avoid the unintended consequences that we have been concerned about, and that, primarily, is swamping teachers in red tape.

The Government will be supporting Darren Millar’s amendments 2 and 3, but on the basis that the Government’s amendments to these amendments are also passed. We have thought carefully about the amendments tabled by Darren Millar, and I welcome the steps the Member has taken to seek to develop the amendments since Stage 2, with the duties now applying to relevant bodies rather than at an individual level. This is important, but doesn’t go far enough to mitigate the risk of unintended consequences. I have, therefore, tabled amendments to Darren’s amendments.

There are eight substantive amendments and seven additional drafting amendments, which apply only to the Welsh text. In particular, amendments 2E, 2F, 3D and 3E are all concerned with what the duties mean. Amendments 2E and 3D are to make clear that specific consideration of the conventions is not required on each occasion that a function is exercised. So, the duties would not apply directly to individual decisions regarding individual learners, minimising the bureaucracy risks that I have been concerned about. Amendments 2F and 3E enable the code to make provision about what is required by relevant bodies to discharge the duties, and that those due-regard duties, including the exception for specific consideration, are to be interpreted in accordance with the code. The intention is to make sure that the duties to have regard to the conventions will be something that is weaved into the fabric of strategic decision making by local authorities and health boards, rather than a task to be completed each time a decision is made by schools, further education institutions and individual teachers and support staff.

Amendment 26 will allow the code to make different provisions for different purposes. Amendments 2G and 3F remove school and FEI governing bodies from the list of bodies required to have due regard to the conventions. The view of the Government is that the duty should only apply to those organisations with a more strategic role in ensuring that the arrangements for children and young people with ALN are sufficient and this should happen at a strategic level. Local authorities and health boards operate on this scale and have the structure in place to more effectively carry out these duties, and the impact on front-line staff supporting children and young people in terms of increased bureaucracy is likely to be minimised.

Finally, amendment 25 amends the Bill's overview, giving prominent reference to the important new duties to have regard to the conventions introduced by Darren's amendments. It means that the Bill is clear, up front, about the importance of both conventions in the operation of the new ALN system.

As I've already said, amendments 2A to 2D and 3A to 3C are changes to the Welsh language version of Darren's amendments. All in all, I trust that Members will see that Darren's amendments 2 and 3, as amended by the amendments tabled in my name, strike an appropriate balance between the obvious desire to see prominent and explicit reference to the UN conventions made on the face of the Bill and have them considered whilst not unduly overburdening front-line practitioners, and I would urge Members in the Chamber today to support the Government's amendments within this group.

I rise to speak to amendments 2 and 3, which have been tabled in my name, and all of the other amendments in this group. As the Minister has said, my amendments 2 and 3 are a direct response to calls by the Children, Young People and Education Committee for a due-regard duty in relation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to be on the face of the Bill and seek to give effect to recommendations 31 and 32 in the Stage 1 committee report.

That recommendation was very clear: it recommended that all relevant bodies exercising functions under the new additional learning needs system must have due regard to both of those UN conventions. Now, both the Cabinet Secretary and I were members of the National Assembly when it considered the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure back in 2011, which placed a clear duty on Welsh Ministers, and Welsh Ministers alone at that time, to have due regard to the UNCRC. It was a groundbreaking piece of legislation; it's one that all political parties in this National Assembly supported, but that Measure, and the due-regard principle that it established, did not extend to any other body or any individuals until it was extended by the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, which, again, the Cabinet Secretary and I spent some time considering. And, of course, at that time, that Act was amended to require anyone, including individuals on the front line, exercising functions under that Act—from Ministers right through to those front-line individuals—to have due regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and many other UN conventions and declarations as well, when undertaking their practice.

Now, the Cabinet Secretary says there's never been any dispute about having these UN principles at the heart of this legislation, but, of course, there was significant opposition and resistance initially from the previous portfolio holder to suggestions that—

No, there wasn't.

There was, to suggestions that—[Interruption.] If you'll allow me to finish, and then I'll be happy to take an intervention. There was significant opposition to having these amendments go forward during Stage 1. These amendments were proposed by the children's commissioner and a range of other stakeholders, and there was resistance at that point to allowing any amendments on this to go forward. And the Minister contended, in the same way that the Cabinet Secretary has today, that there was no need to slavishly repeat these duties on the face of the Bill, that, in doing so, it would create these problems to front-line staff and put institutions at risk of litigation. But, of course, those fears are completely unfounded. There has not been a single legal problem as a result of the duties to have due regard to UN conventions being included on the face of the social services and well-being Act, for example—not a single legal case has been brought. Now, while these amendments that I've tabled today fall short of the provisions of those in that Act, I am confident that, if they're allowed to proceed, they will ensure that the rights-based approach that we have rightly adopted here in Wales will be reinforced, and they will also result in changes to practice on the ground, which is why I'm very grateful to the Welsh Government for its belated conversion, if you like, towards the cause of needing to see this legislation amended to embed references to the UN conventions onto the face of the Bill.

That said, I'm concerned, and I'm concerned about two of the Welsh Government's amendments in particular. While most of them seek to make minor drafting amendments to the drafting of amendments 2 and 3, I'm afraid that some of the others are troubling. Amendments 2G and 3F in particular I'm afraid I cannot recommend to this Assembly to support, because they seek to remove the duty to have due regard to the UN conventions from the governing bodies of maintained schools and the governing bodies of further education institutions—two bodies with massively significant roles to play in the delivery of the new additional learning needs system that this Bill seeks to implement. To remove due-regard duties from schools and colleges in this way I think is rather extraordinary. 

Now, the Cabinet Secretary has argued that schools and colleges are not of a sufficient scale and size to ensure that those organisations can be familiar with the UN conventions and have the resources to be able to ensure that they have a due regard to them in the same way that larger organisations like a local education authority or the NHS is able to. But the reality is that schools are already familiar with the rights-based agenda. They're already charged with promoting awareness of children's rights, in particular amongst children and young people in our schools across the country. And in addition to that, our further education colleges are very large, multi-million-pound organisations that are already required to comply with and implement very complex pieces of legislation, and they do so successfully on a daily basis. They've got more than sufficient capacity to ensure that their duties to have due regard to UN conventions are fulfilled.

As I said earlier, the social services and well-being Act already expects and has an expectation that front-line social workers and other individuals who are delivering services on a day-to-day basis have due regard to the UN conventions and principles, so why shouldn't we expect teachers and anybody else delivering some sort of function under this Act, and especially governing bodies of schools and further education colleges, to do likewise?

So, I will be supporting the other amendments that have been tabled in this group by the Minister, including amendments 2E and 3D, which give an opportunity for a proportionate approach to having a due regard for the purposes of this Act. I think that they are sensible, but I am afraid I cannot support the other amendments that have been tabled, amendments 2G and 3F, and I would encourage all Assembly Members to reject them.

I’m formally supporting a number of amendments in this group. The most crucial of those, as we have already gathered now, are amendments 2 and 3, which place a duty on relative bodies to have due regard to the UN conventions on the rights of children and people with disabilities.

Now, as we have already heard, this is a debate that’s been very lively as this Bill has proceeded through the Assembly, but the committee has been clear in its report at the end of Stage 1 on the need to ensure a due regard on public bodies and for that to be placed on the face of the Bill. The children’s commissioner has been very consistent and strong in her evidence on that, and most of the stakeholders who have given us evidence as this Bill has developed have been of a like mind.

We have heard of the precedent set in the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 and there’s no doubting that, of course. But, the Government has previously expressed concerns about the risk of litigation against relative bodies on the basis of institutional arrangements to demonstrate how they give regard to these conventions. But, as we’ve heard, there have been no similar challenges in the context of the social services and well-being Act. The Cabinet Secretary referred to the risk that teachers would be swamped in bureaucracy. I don’t think people have been swamped in bureaucracy in the context of the social services and well-being Act. So, why should that be the case in this context? As Barnardo’s Cymru reminds us, the Government can’t just select which rights to defend and promote and when they choose to do that. They must consistently be included, and that should be done with equality.

The only question for me here—the broader question—is why we should include these duties in all individual Bills. The previous Minister’s comments referred to why this has to be done slavishly at every turn, and it does identify a weakness in the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011. Although that Measure was an important milestone in implementing the UNCRC, the duty to have due regard to the convention refers directly to Welsh Ministers alone.

It would be timely, in my view—and, indeed, it is about time—for us to have a post-legislative scrutiny process on that Measure, and then, if required through legislation, to put that situation right, so that we don’t have to rehearse these kinds of amendments every time a relevant Bill is brought forward. That’s a debate for another day, perhaps, but I do think it’s important that the point is made.

I won’t be supporting amendments 2G and 3F in the name of the Government because that would exempt governing bodies and FE institutions from giving due regard to the conventions, undermining the intentions of much of the amendments in this group.

I just wanted to make a brief contribution in this group of amendments, but before I do that I would like to take this opportunity just to place on record my heartfelt thanks to the clerking team and the research team for the Children, Young People and Education Committee, who have done an absolutely fantastic job of work on what has been a complex and long-awaited piece of legislation.

As the Cabinet Secretary has said, placing the due-regard duty to the UNCRC has been an issue that the committee has felt very strongly about throughout this process. For me, that was about sending a very clear and unequivocal message to those implementing this legislation that children's rights are at the heart of this new law.

That said, I am really pleased that there has been some movement. I welcome the concession that was made by your predecessor in Stage 2 of this legislation and the fact that Government amendments have been brought forward today, which obviously I will be supporting. I would have preferred that the amendments had gone further, I'll be absolutely frank about that, but I think it is progress that we've made.

The Welsh Government and this Assembly have been lauded throughout the world for their approach to children's rights, but I think we have to be absolutely clear that we cannot rest on our laurels on this issue and that we have to be pushing forward on an ongoing basis to make sure that children's rights are mainstreamed. And as Darren Millar has said, there's a great deal of excellent work going on in schools and colleges on this even as we speak. 

But I hope that if we take forward this legislation today in the way that has been suggested, there will be the opportunity for us to do further work on this in the committee and, when we come to scrutinise the code, that we can look again at how we can see that implementation actually delivered at the coalface.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary to reply to the debate—Kirsty Williams.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I assure Members that I've listened very carefully to what has been said in previous committee discussions on this subject, and indeed comments here today? There is no doubt that we all agree that the rights of children and disabled persons, as set out in the UN conventions, are fundamentally important. I would remind Members that the rights of children and young people, including those of disabled children and young people, are already incorporated into the legal duties in the Bill. Indeed, I would argue they are at the very core of this piece of legislation. Let me be also absolutely clear: nobody has suggested that any aspect of this Bill is incompatible with those conventions. If professionals and practitioners are complying with their duties under this Bill, then they will be complying with the principles and the intentions of the conventions. Now, I appreciate that there is a wish to ensure that the rights set out in the conventions are given specific prominence, and that's why the Government has tabled its amendments today. Amendment 25 in particular includes direct reference to this in the overview of the legislation—as I said, placing it front and centre at the beginning of the legislation.

However, I would, once again, say that I do not want to see teachers, support staff and others having to deal with more red tape—red tape that potentially takes them away from the crucial task they have of teaching and learning. We must avoid teachers, schools—[Interruption.] If you could bear with me. We must avoid teachers, schools and governing bodies having to evidence that they have taken the conventions into account in their individual interactions with all children and young people with additional learning needs. And, Darren, quite rightly, you and Llyr, you hold my feet to the fire continually on the issue of teacher workload and bureaucracy. You constantly challenge me in this Chamber, quite rightly, about what this Government is doing and what I am doing to reduce teacher workload and bureaucracy that takes away from teaching and learning. And whilst I absolutely understand that your intentions are honourable ones, I am truly fearful that the unintended consequences of what has been proposed here today will mean that individual practitioners on a daily basis will have to record somehow, and to demonstrate, should there be a legal challenge, that they have taken the UN convention into account while carrying out these duties. If they do that properly, that will be a bureaucratic burden. If they don't, we reduce the conventions to a simple tick-box exercise. Sorry, Darren. 

I just wanted to ask why you feel—if that is the argument you're presenting—why you feel it's appropriate that people in local education authorities should have that burden, as you describe it, and people in the NHS should have that burden to demonstrate compliance with the UN conventions, but you don't feel that it's appropriate for those people who are working directly at the front line with those children—people who are already teaching and educating those children about their rights.

Well, of course they are, and I understand that. And if they're carrying out their duties under the terms of this, then they will have those rights front and centre. I am prepared, in listening to the concerns that were expressed during the debate and in the committee, to look at those organisations that have that strategic overview of services that are being developed. Therefore, I do feel it is appropriate that both local authorities and health authorities that have strategic oversight for these provisions, and are of a sufficient size and scale, can and should have due regard. 

Because let me say, Darren, whilst I do accept the point that you've made that some schools and some FEIs are large organisations, the point is they're not all large organisations. You and I both have a passion for small and rural schools. Let's be clear: some of those small and rural schools have two or three teachers within them. We know that they are already concerned about how they will cope with implementing this legislation, and we will have to support them heavily in doing so. I don't want to make it harder for those small and rural schools to survive and not be taken away from teaching and learning. 

This Bill proposes to cut red tape and create this smoother, less adversarial system than we have at the moment. Excluding governing bodies from the due-regard duties will maintain the streamlining approach that this Bill seeks to underpin. Children will still be treated in a convention-compliant way because the Bill incorporates the principles of the convention into its duties.

Now, Lynne Neagle is absolutely right, Presiding Officer; there is still more work to do in this area, and I will be doing that as we work on the code, for example, and through the IDP process. My officials will work with the children's commissioner's office, as well as opposition Members and the committee, so that we can get this right. Presiding Officer, with that, I would urge Members to support the Government amendments and oppose those already outlined. Thank you.

The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. So, amendment 26 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.