The next group is group 5, and this group relates to entitlement to individual development plans. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 29, 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 29 (Kirsty Williams) moved.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Government amendments 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35 and 47 all relate to local authority decision on whether it is necessary to prepare or maintain an IDP. These are the decisions in section 12 on whether it is necessary to prepare and maintain a plan for a young person who is not in a school or further education institution in Wales; section 29 on whether it is no longer necessary to maintain a plan for a young person; and section 38 on whether it will be necessary for a plan to be maintained for a detained person, including a detained child, when the person is released.

The Bill currently provides for all these decisions to be taken in accordance with regulations. Amendments 29, 31, 33 and 35 bring those regulation powers together into one new section, which sets out the various matters that may be provided for in regulations. Amendment 47 makes a consequential adjustment to section 91, retaining the affirmative procedure for such regulations.

Decisions on whether a plan is necessary will, in many cases, relate to young people whose needs are such that they require specialist, often residential, post-16 placements. But they will also relate to young people and detained children whose circumstances are quite different and varied. It is important that the power is appropriate to deal fairly with the wide range of likely situations in which decisions must be taken about whether a plan is necessary, and the amendments ensure that that is the case.

If I could turn to other amendments in the group that have been tabled by opposition Members. I'm afraid to say that I do not support Darren Millar's amendment 13. The ALN system is intended to apply to children and young people, with young people defined as a person over compulsory school age but under 25. The Bill already provides for a significantly extended age range compared to those with statutory rights and protections under the current system. The Bill takes a reasonable and clear approach for the circumstances in which a learner with an IDP becomes 25. It requires local authorities and FEI governing bodies to continue to maintain the IDP until the end of the academic year during which the person reaches the age of 25. Amendment 13 seems, in effect, to provide for an indefinite extension in this regard, though only for learners in FEIs in Wales. It provides no upper age limit as to when a person might have an IDP, as it would seem to hinge on the length of the course the young person commences when under the age of 25 and when the person finishes it. This would extend the duties placed on FEIs and local authorities in a way that has not been discussed with these organisations nor costed.

The support for these learners could potentially be very expensive. Its inclusion in the Bill in this way at this late stage is not something that I could support. The new system is zero to 25, and the arrangements provided in the Bill are appropriate and reasonable in this context. To conclude, therefore, Presiding Officer, I urge Members to support the amendments tabled in my name, and to oppose amendment 13.

I want to put on record, first of all, my support for the Government amendments. They are sensible amendments, and I intend to support them and I hope that other people will too, but I'm a little bit disappointed by the response that the Minister has given to my amendment 13.

As the Minister has quite rightly said, at the moment, the Bill as it stands will allow for the continuation of support to someone beyond their twenty-fifth birthday, but not beyond the academic year in which the young person turns 25. The problem with this is that many college courses, particularly in our FE institutions, are college courses that go beyond a single academic year. So, you could have an individual who starts a college course aged 24, and it could be a two-year course. They would receive support in the first academic year, but not the second, and I think that that is not what the Government would intend, and it's certainly not a situation that I want to see, that you would have individuals having that support withdrawn halfway through their course. And of course, some courses can take even longer, particularly if they're studied on a part-time basis. So, I do think it's very important that if someone starts a course with support that that support continues throughout the duration of their course. So, we're not talking about an indefinite period, as suggested by the Cabinet Secretary here. We're talking about a period that ends when their course ends. So, I can't see why there is significant opposition here from the Welsh Government to this particular amendment. Nobody would want to see that support withdrawn. Indeed, the very reason that this provision was put in there to allow for the extension beyond the twenty-fifth birthday to the end of the academic year was entirely to try and ensure that no support was withdrawn during the duration of an academic course. The difficulty is that we failed to think about academic courses that go beyond a single academic year. So, I do hope, Cabinet Secretary, that you'll reflect on those facts, and the significant challenge that that would present to children and young people with additional learning needs who might be delighted to get into college on their twenty-third birthday to start a two-year course with the support that they might need, suddenly to find it all come crashing down afterwards and them not being able to sustain their place in that college and to complete their course of education. So, I would appreciate if you could reflect on that, and not simply dismiss this well-meaning, well-intended amendment, which is non partisan. It's simply responding to some of the concerns that a number of stakeholders have raised with me between Stage 2 and Stage 3.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary to reply to the debate.

Could I assure Darren that, in approaching the legislation before me, I have certainly not taken the attitude of simply dismissing things out of hand because they've been tabled by opposition Members? I'm very grateful for the engagement by opposition Members throughout the course of this process, and, as we've seen by many of the votes here this afternoon, we've been able to arrive at a consensus on how to improve this legislation. However, in relation to Darren's amendment 13, we've made it very clear that we would not want to see support suddenly cease on somebody's twenty-first birthday. That's why section 32 is included within the legislation: to allow that person to continue their course to the academic year. I believe that the provisions within the legislation, as drafted, are fair to the learner concerned and other learners, both those not in an FEI in Wales and older learners who may have an ALN but would not get an IDP. I would urge Members to support amendments 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35 and 47, which have been tabled in my name, and reject amendment 13.

The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Therefore, amendment 29 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Darren Millar, amendment 9.

Amendment 9 (Darren Millar, supported by Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed, therefore, to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 24, no abstentions, and 27 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 9: For: 24, Against: 27, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Llyr Gruffydd, amendment 57.

Amendment 57 (Llyr Gruffydd, supported by Darren Millar) moved.

I move.

The question is that amendment 57 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 57 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.