Presiding Officer, I fully support the intention of improving Welsh language provision on the ground and ensuring that the Bill does all possible to drive progress in this respect, and I hope that the steps the Government have taken to strengthen the Welsh language aspects of this Bill demonstrate the importance I and the Government place on the language in the new system.

However, these amendments, I believe, will not improve the Bill any further. Amendments made to the Bill at Stage 2 have already covered many of the issues that Llyr Gruffydd's amendments attempt to address. In the case of amendment 66, I also think it risks weakening existing duties on local authorities.

Amendment 64 seeks to, via regulations, do something that a combination of existing sections on the face of the Bill already provide for. Section 59, as we have just discussed in the previous group, places duties on local authorities to keep additional learning provision under review, and it makes specific reference to the need to consider the sufficiency of additional learning provision in Welsh. It further requires local authorities to take all reasonable steps to remedy the matter if they consider that the availability of additional learning provision in Welsh is not sufficient.

In reviewing the arrangements in its area, the local authority will have regard to the additional learning provision that may reasonably be arranged by others, including health boards.

Section 83, which was inserted at Stage 2, imposes a further duty on Welsh Ministers to review the sufficiency of Welsh language additional learning provision every five years. If amendment 64 was passed, the legal position in relation to these matters would be unclear and the existing provision in the Bill would be undermined.

I take the point, Llyr, that five years seems like a long time away, but some of the professionals that we know there is a shortage of to deliver a service in Welsh, actually, if we started training them today, it would take at least three years, if not longer, to secure that professional expertise. So, it's not a question of it being kicked into the long grass. The reality is that, for some of the professionals we're talking about, the professional training required of them, actually, if we started today, it would be three, four or five years down the line before that person would find themselves in this system.

Llyr Gruffydd's amendments 65 and 66 seek to ensure advocacy services are normally provided in Welsh when this is requested, and I agree wholeheartedly with this principle. However, I do not believe the amendments are necessary to achieve the aim and they may result in unintended consequences. Local authorities are already under obligations as a result of Welsh language standards. Section 84, also inserted as a result of the Stage 2 amendment, gives the Welsh Minister the power through regulations to make absolute the existing qualified requirements on bodies in the Bill to make additional learning provision in Welsh. If the Government is not content with the availability of Welsh language additional learning provision, it will be able to make regulations requiring particular provision to be made available in Welsh, and this is a strong power, which already exists within the Bill. These sections, working in conjunction with one another, cover the same ground as amendment 64 seems to be seeking to cover, so I would argue that amendment 64 is not needed.

What's also important to remember is that we will also use the code to provide guidance and ensure clarity of responsibility. Doing anything additional in the Bill would result in the law in this area becoming unclear and potentially contradictory. Indeed, the use of the word 'normally' may actually weaken the duty on certain local authorities that are already required to deliver a fully bilingual advocacy service under the standards regime. And for those reasons, whilst I understand the intention behind the Member bringing them forward, and his sincerity and indeed the need to improve performance in this area on the ground for young people and children, I would urge Members to oppose amendments 64, 65 and 66, as they are unnecessary and could potentially make matters worse.