The next group is group 13 and this group relates to Welsh language provision. Amendment 54 is the lead amendment in this group and I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 64 (Llyr Gruffydd, supported by Darren Millar) moved.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. Well, throughout this legislative process we have been consistently reminded of the deficiencies that exist in terms of the capacity of the workforce in this sector to adequately meet the needs in terms of Welsh-medium provision. Now, it’s an old complaint and many Members here will be familiar with regular casework in this area—a lack of Welsh language services, not getting a diagnosis for various conditions through the medium of Welsh, a shortage of specialists who can provide services in Welsh, and a shortage of providers in order to meet the needs that have been identified. They are the same complaints and the same weaknesses that were reported to many of us five or even 10 years ago, and that is not acceptable. My concern is that if we don’t take this opportunity to take action in this area in the context of additional learning needs, then we will still be discussing the same frustrations and the same problems five or 10 years hence. Put that together with the Government’s ambition of 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050 and there is an opportunity here to create a new momentum that will hopefully truly tackle this problem.

The Government has strengthened the Bill to this end—I recognise that. We’ve discussed some amendments earlier and we have come to an agreement on other amendments at Stage 2. Ministers need to review the adequacy of the additional learning needs provision available through the medium of Welsh every five years, and that is a very positive step, although the possibility of having to wait up to five years having passed this Bill for the first review is excessive delay in my view. The duty to keep additional learning need provision under review, including the Welsh language under section 59, is a duty for local authorities.

Much of what is at the heart of the success of this Bill—the reforms in ALN—is reliant, of course, on the role of health bodies. My amendment, amendment 64, therefore calls on local authorities and health boards, in accordance with regulations that the Government would make, to assess the level of likely demand for additional learning needs provision through the medium of Welsh in their areas, as a first step, and then to compare that with the capacity available to them to meet that demand, and then of course to outline the steps that they will take in order to provide what is required.

We must create a situation where the relevant bodies are more proactive in this area or, as I say, we will be back to the very same problems that we have faced over years, and still face far too often in terms of the availability of provision, rather than saying that the Government will assess the situation at some point during the next five years, with the risk of course that in the meantime another generation of children won’t actually get their rights to receive provision through the medium of Welsh. We need to create an impetus for action and be proactive; that is the aim in terms of that specific amendment.

Amendments 65 and 66 relate specifically to advocacy services and that services should usually be available in Welsh in all cases where an individual makes that request. This is a fundamental right and it’s not unreasonable to expect this to be delivered by collaboration and training, because if the will is there to ensure that that happens, then the time has come, in my view, for us to insist that, from here on in, that does happen. Assembly Members, I know, will have received correspondence from a range of bodies and I referred to them earlier, including UCAC, Mudiad Meithrin, RhAG, Cymdeithas yr Iaith, CyDAG and Mudiadau Dathlu’r Gymraeg, asking you to support these amendments, and I would certainly urge you to do that too this afternoon.

Can I also speak in support of the amendments that have been tabled by Llyr Gruffydd? We did have a Bill that was quite short, actually, in terms of the aspirations of everybody in terms of the Welsh language provisions in it at the outset, but through collaboration with the previous portfolio holder and the current Cabinet Secretary, I think there is a set of amendments here that will go significantly towards ensuring that we have a system that is robust and which has the capacity to meet the demands of learners.

Like Llyr, I've experienced déjà vu on many occasions in this Chamber when we've looked at the insufficiency of workforce planning, not just in education services, not just in health services, but in all sorts of other public service areas. We need to crack this nut once and for all, and I think that these amendments—certainly amendment 64—give us the opportunity to do that with this requirement to assess likely demand and then to ensure that the capacity is there to deliver services to meet that demand.

I think it's also obviously absolutely essential that people can access advocacy services in the language of their choice. Very often, when people are trying to articulate arguments, it's difficult to do so in a second language. I think it's absolutely right that, always, we should have the language choice of the learner and of the parents as paramount in these decisions, and amendments 65 and 66 seek to deliver on those principles. So, I urge all Members to support all three amendments in this group.

I call the Cabinet Secretary.

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.

I call on Llyr Gruffydd to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd. I hear what the Cabinet Secretary has to say and I do recognise that the Government has strengthened several aspects of this area. I would say, of course, that you referred to local authorities and the duties of local authorities and the emphasis on looking at the provision in relation to other providers—it's a valid point—but I would like to strengthen that and put a more specific emphasis on the health boards, because they are central to much of this, and health provisions, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, are at the core of many of these problems. You mention that five-year delay—that might be overstatement, but it has to happen within five years—and I do recognise that there are some disciplines where it would take a number of years to train the workforce, but in your own words, that is 'certain disciplines'. There are others where, if the will was there, we could turn things around far more quickly, and therefore I would hope that we would see this Bill in the same way as the Government's will to move towards 1 million Welsh speakers, we should see this as an opportunity to give drive to that effort. And in response to what you said, and what you said on amendment 66, if memory serves me correctly, on the fact that Welsh language standards include standards on advocacy services, that's a point that the former Minister made at Stage 2 of this Bill. The Welsh Language Commissioner has stated clearly that that is not the case. The provision of advocacy services is not covered under language standards, and therefore we need to strengthen this Bill to secure that right. Support the amendments.

The question is that amendment 64 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We will therefore proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 24, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 64 is not agreed.

Amendment 64: For: 24, Against: 27, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected