The next group of amendments is group 4, and this group relates to preparing and maintaining individual development plans. Amendment 54 is the lead amendment in this group and I call on Darren Millar to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Darren Millar.

Amendment 54 (Darren Millar, supported by Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Diolch Llywydd. I move amendment 54 and I wish to speak to it along with amendment 61, which is also tabled in my name, and also make some references to amendments 56, 57 and 58, all of which I support, in the name of Llyr Gruffydd.

Amendment 54 seeks to amend the Bill so that it will require the individual development plans for each learner with additional learning needs to contain information about transport arrangements that may be required as a result of those needs. During Stage 1, the Children, Young People and Education Committee heard evidence that the current support system often overlooks the transport needs of learners requiring support. Stakeholders told the committee that they believe that the transport requirements of learners should be considered as part of individual development plans.

The National Union of Teachers gave an example of a student with autism who might have difficulties with bus timetables and handling money. This may mean that alternative transport needs have to be arranged for pupils in those sorts of situations. Diabetes UK raised similar concerns, as did the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. They believe that the risk of acute complications from some conditions mean that standard school transport may not be appropriate for all individuals, particularly for longer home-to-school journeys.

The Anaphylaxis Campaign confirmed that similar travel issues could be faced by young people suffering from anaphylaxis. They said that they'd been in contact with parents who'd had to take their children out of school because of inadequate home-to-school transport provision. Epilepsy charities also expressed similar concerns.

So, amendment 54 seeks to address those concerns by ensuring that the school transport arrangements required as a result of individual learning needs are actually included within individual development plans. This will ensure that they're not an afterthought by decision makers in schools and local authorities but that they're properly considered as part of the plan.

In addition, including transport arrangements in individual development plans will allow them to become the subject of tribunal rulings when disagreements arise. This will further focus the minds of decision makers in local authorities, schools and further education institutions to ensure that transport arrangements are not overlooked. There's nothing like a potential tribunal ruling to ensure that transport arrangements receive the proper focus from decision makers.

Now, I understand that a review of the Welsh Government's guidance on home-to-school transport is currently under way. This is a very welcome review because we all know that our constituency postbags have, from time to time, been filled with concerns about the way that that guidance is sometimes interpreted by local authorities. But I'm afraid that, even with that guidance being under review, it does not address the fundamental concerns of stakeholders in the same way that my amendment will. 

It's only by requiring individual development plans to contain information on transport, including to further education institutions, and by making them subject to tribunal rulings that there will be any hope, I believe, of dealing with this issue once and for all.

Moving on then to amendment 61, this is an amendment that seeks to ensure that guidance is issued to schools and colleges regarding the provision of additional learning needs support prior to the preparation of individual development plans. Now, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that needs are met while people are waiting for, perhaps, formal assessments for an individual development plan. Now, we know that one of the problems with the current system is that, very often, it takes a long time for people to get a package of support that is appropriate to meet their needs. And that could still be the case, on occasions, in terms of trying to get formal arrangements in place when negotiating with the national health service, local education authorities and others to arrange for a package of support for individuals, even under the new system.

So, amendment 61 is designed to address the potential hole that people can fall through while those arrangements are being made, so that interim provision, effectively, can be put in place. So, I do hope that Members will feel that they're able to support both amendments 54 and 61.

I said earlier that I want to put on record my support for the amendments that have been tabled by Llyr Gruffydd. These, of course, are amendments that seek to ensure that schools, colleges and local authorities consider rather than simply decide whether to provide additional learning provision through the medium of Welsh. There are other amendments that have been tabled further on that we'll be debating, which also complement these three amendments. But, as part of that broader package, I think it's absolutely essential that we strengthen the Welsh-language provisions in this piece of legislation to ensure that people realise the opportunities that they ought to have to receive services from public service providers through the medium of Welsh. I look forward to listening to the rest of the debate.

I have three amendments in this group—amendments 56, 57 and 58. I’m grateful to Darren Millar for his formal support to those amendments.

As the Bill stands, of course, the governing body or local authority decides whether additional learning provision should be made to a child or young person through the medium of Welsh or not, and then notes that in the IDP. Now, it’s not a matter for authorities to decide upon, in my view. This should be a matter of the language of choice for the individual. Therefore, the process should start with the child or young person deciding whether provision should be offered to them through the medium of Welsh.

Many Members, I’m sure, will have received correspondence supporting these amendments from a number of organisations, including UCAC, RhAG, Mudiad  Meithrin, Cymdeithas yr Iaith, CYDAG and Mudiadau Dathlu’r Gymraeg. Now, the former Minister, at Stage 2, accepted that this needed to be reviewed, and I’m pleased that we had an opportunity to do that, and I would encourage Members to support these amendments.

To come to the issue of transport, I formally support amendment 54. The Stage 1 committee report on this Bill called on the Government to consider how transport arrangements could be taken into account for those with additional learning needs, and how that could be included in the IDP. An amendment similar to this fell at Stage 2, but although the Cabinet Secretary has explained her rationale and her intention in her recent letter to the committee last week, I believe that this needs to be on the face of the Bill in order to ensure action in this area and, as we heard earlier, that it shouldn’t be some sort of afterthought, but that it is given attention and consideration, which this important issue, which has such an impact on the access of children with additional learning needs to education, deserves. 

I call on the Cabinet Secretary, Kirsty Williams.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Perhaps I could begin with Darren's amendment 54, which attempts, as we've heard, to make information about transport arrangements a required element of all IDPs. The amendment represents a disproportionate approach, giving transport prominence in IDPs over other types of support that children and young people with ALN might need.  

The aim of the amendment is inappropriate, because transport is not an additional learning provision. Many learners with ALN have no specific transport requirements, and the inclusion of transport needs in the IDP would not give rise to a duty to secure that provision. 

Depending on the circumstances of the child or young person, the IDP may need to include a wide variety of other information besides additional learning provision, including information about transport arrangements. But it is not appropriate to list all, or just some of this on the face of the Bill. Listing just information about transport would be disproportionate. Indeed, I'm sure Members would agree, the vast majority of children and young people with ALN will have no specific transport needs, so making transport arrangements a required element of the plan is disproportionate. There would simply be, in the vast majority of cases, nothing to say, and this would just be another tick-box exercise created in the education system.

During Stage 2 proceedings, the then Minister committed to consider further the position of transport as regards the new ALN system, indicating he'd bring forward an amendment if existing powers were insufficient to give appropriate guidance under the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008 and in the ALN code. I wrote, as we have heard, to the Children, Young People and Education Committee last week to outline our conclusions following these considerations. And in that letter, I committed the Government to two specific actions. Firstly, to make the necessary revisions to the learner travel guidance and to include, within the ALN code, an appropriate degree of guidance on the place of transport considerations within IDPs, including the process of producing them. Specific guidance on these issues will help ensure their proper consideration by delivery partners in a way that is part of, and not separate to, the wider considerations and processes of the new ALN system. Under the Bill's provisions, Members will have an opportunity to influence the content of the code. A public consultation and Assembly scrutiny in relation to the code will be undertaken during the course of next year. Revisions made to the learner travel guidance in relation to ALN will also be subject prior to consultation, because I recognise some of the case issues that have been highlighted by Darren and by Llyr.

The second commitment I made was in relation to post-implementation review of the Act. I want to include within this specific consideration of transport issues. This will enable us to check the operation of the transport elements of the new system, and consider any issues in the round and decide on any appropriate further action at that time. As I said, I fully recognise the importance of transport issues within the current SEN system and the future ALN system, but putting this requirement on the face of the Bill is not appropriate, and therefore I would urge Members to reject amendment 54.

Moving on, Presiding Officer, I'm very happy to support Llyr Gruffydd's amendments 56, 57 and 58, and I'm very grateful to Llyr for tabling those today. I consider they represent a strengthening of the way in which the Bill addresses the position of Welsh language provision. The amendments would ensure the duty to consider whether provision should be in Welsh is continuous, and not confined to the stage when the body is preparing the IDP. Specifically, the duty to consider provision in Welsh would continue to apply whilst the body is maintaining an IDP and when the local authority is reconsidering a school IDP. We have reflected at length on the operation of the Welsh language provisions in the Bill, and I think these amendments represent a useful improvement, and I would urge Members to support amendments 56, 57 and 58.

I'm also very happy to support Darren Millar's amendment 61. Subsection 2 of section 43 is already drafted with a view to ensuring children and young people at schools and FEIs have their additional learning needs met, so far as reasonable, whilst an IDP is being prepared. A fundamental element of the policy behind the Bill is that interventions happen at the earliest point possible. We want to move away from what sometimes occurs in the current system, with children and young people having to wait for statutory assessments or diagnosis before support is put in place. Section 43 is designed to address this and it was, and remains, our intention to supplement it with guidance in the code in any event. So, as amendment 61 will require that guidance on this matter is included in the code, I'm very happy to support it, and I would urge other Members to do so likewise.

I call on Darren Millar to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd. Can I thank the Minister for her very reasonable response to the amendments that have been tabled? And on the basis of the assurances that she's provided about the transport provision, and knowing how passionately she feels that we must make sure that we sort out some of the issues that we've had in the past in relation to home-to-school transport for children and young people with additional learning needs, I am hoping to be able to withdraw amendment 54, on the basis of the assurance that this will be a issue that is addressed in the code and that it will be featured in the post-implementation review of the Act.

Llyr Gruffydd is absolutely right in terms of the Welsh language amendments. Learner choice should be at the heart of the decision-making process around whether to provide services through the medium of Welsh, and these amendments will require greater consideration of learner choice by providers when looking at packages of support. So, I'm very pleased to hear that the Government is also accepting his amendments.

I also welcome, Cabinet Secretary, your response to my amendment 61 in relation to that interim period, if you like, prior to individual development plans being completed, because it is a problem that we've got with the current SEN system that many a young person and many a pupil have fallen through and, hopefully, it will seek to address that. So, I welcome your support and I trust that Members will support the amendments. 

Amendment 54 is withdrawn. It has actually been moved, and, therefore, are there any Members who wish for it to be voted upon? That not being the case, it is not voted upon.

Amendment 54 withdrawn in accordance with Standing Order 12.27.

Darren Millar, amendment 6.

Amendment 6 (Darren Millar, supported by Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 23, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 6: For: 23, Against: 27, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Darren Millar, amendment 7.

Amendment 7 (Darren Millar, supported by Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed to another electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 23, no abstentions, and 27 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 7: For: 23, Against: 27, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Llyr Gruffydd, amendment 56.

Amendment 56 (Llyr Gruffydd, supported by Darren Millar) moved.

I move.

The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 56 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Darren Millar, amendment 8.

Amendment 8 (Darren Millar, supported by Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Yes.

The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 23, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 8: For: 23, Against: 27, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected