The first group of amendments relates to advice and information. Amendment 1 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 1 (Darren Millar, supported by Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move amendment 1 and will seek to speak to that amendment, along with all of the other amendments in this group that have been tabled in my name. But before I do, I just want to put on record my thanks to both the Cabinet Secretary and the previous portfolio holder for the additional learning needs portfolio, for the very positive engagement that they have afforded to me and my office during the passage of this important legislation through the Assembly to date. It's been very refreshing, I have to say, to have been able to engage on a genuine and cross-party basis to shape, amend and improve this Bill, and I've greatly appreciated the discussions that I've had with both them individually and their offices and officials.

I also want to put on record, at the start of this debate, my thanks to the clerks, to the researchers and legal advisers of the Children, Young People and Education Committee for the support that they've also provided in drafting the amendments that I tabled for debate today. Their advice has also been invaluable.

The purpose of amendment 1 is to ensure that the additional learning needs code, which Welsh Ministers must prepare to ensure the delivery of the new additional learning needs system that this legislation will introduce, is accessible to children and young people. All too often in the past, Governments in all parts of the UK have been guilty of producing documents that are there to support the delivery of services to children, yet they are in formats that are impossible for children and young people themselves to understand and are often indigestible to everyone but a handful of experts.

As the National Deaf Children's Society have rightly pointed out, the current draft of the new code of practice is clearly written for professionals. It's important that families are also well informed of the individual development plan process, whether this be through an accessible code for both professionals and families, or through a separate family-friendly version of the code of practice.

If passed, my amendment 1 will ensure that the code will be available in a format that children and young people can understand. It will enable them to understand and appreciate their rights and to ensure that they are fulfilled by those with duties and responsibilities under this important piece of legislation.

My amendment 4 seeks to amend section 7 of the Bill, which relates to advice and information. Section 7 requires that local authorities must make arrangements to provide people with information and advice to people about additional learning needs, and the system that operates to cater for them.

At Stage 1, the Children, Young People and Education Committee heard a great deal of evidence that expressed concern that, unlike the requirements for disagreement resolution and advocacy services, there was no actual requirement for information and advice from local authorities to be independent. It was clear from the debate at Stage 2 in committee that the Welsh Government agrees with the view that this advice should be independent, because, of course, during that debate, the then Minister made it clear that there's an expectation that local authorities should provide, and I quote, 'objective and impartial' information and advice. 

So, my amendment 4 seeks to insert those very words, taken from the mouth of the then Minister, onto the face of the Bill to make it clear to local authorities that this is not just an expectation; it's also a duty. I do note that the Cabinet Secretary has tabled an alternative amendment, which, effectively, will have the same impact—amendment 28—and I look forward to hearing what she has to say about that.

Turning, then, to amendment 5, this amendment seeks to deliver on recommendations 29 and 30 from the Stage 1 committee report, which wanted information and advice about the availability of advocacy services to be made available to children and young people at all of the key stages of the additional learning needs process, and at key transitions in their education, such as moving schools. Given that amendment 5 fulfils these recommendations, which were supported by the committee on a cross-party basis, I very much hope that they'll also be supported today.

Finally, with regard to amendments 6, 7, 8, 9, 14 and 15, the Bill, as it currently is written, will require schools, further education institutions and local authorities to undertake an additional learning needs assessment when it appears that a young person has got additional learning needs, and if a need is identified, then they will also be required to prepare and maintain an individual development plan for that young person.

However, there are expectations from these requirements. One of them is that these duties should not apply—. There are exceptions, I should say, rather, from these requirements, one of which is that these duties do not apply if a young person does not consent to them being fulfilled. The problem with the Bill as drafted is that there's no requirement to actually inform a young person about the consequences of withholding consent. Whilst this issue was not discussed at any length during either Stages 1 or 2 of the legislation, I am concerned that, unless the Bill is amended, young people could withhold consent without fully realising the potential impact of such a decision on their learning opportunities and their prospects. This is particularly important, I think, given that many of these young people will be vulnerable learners, so those who turn down an IDP must do so on the basis of informed choice and not because they've been inappropriately persuaded to refuse consent, which is, I'm afraid, a possibility with the Bill as drafted.

So, that's why I've tabled those remaining amendments, which seek to protect vulnerable young people from the potential of abuse of these exceptions, by ensuring that they are informed of the significance and the implications of their decision prior to deciding whether to withhold consent. So, I very much hope that Members will support all of these amendments, and I look forward to hearing the debate.

May I also endorse the thanks expressed already to the Cabinet Secretary and certainly to the former Minister for the constructive way he and his officials have worked with many of us on this particular Bill? That was done, of course, with the support of committee officials and a broad range of stakeholders, who have certainly brought a great deal of support to us as Members and have enhanced the debate around this Bill as it makes its progress through this Assembly.

I am happy to support all the amendments in this group, and formally support amendments 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14 and 15 for the reasons already outlined. Ensuring that the code is accessible and that any advice is objective and impartial and is available throughout a young person’s educational career, particularly at key stages, is entirely central to the integrity of this Bill and to the success of the legislation and, indeed, the broader package of reforms. Therefore, I would encourage Members to support all amendments.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary to respond.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. May I start also, like Darren Millar, by taking a brief moment to thank all of those involved in getting the Bill to this point? In particular, I'd like to thank the previous Minister. I know delivery of the Bill and the transformation programme was a priority for him. I would also like to thank the Assembly committee involved in scrutinising the Bill, and all the partners and stakeholders engaged in the development of both the Bill and the wider transformation programme. We are, I believe, in a strong position and a strong place as a result of this partnership approach, and I look forward to continuing the work to deliver an improved system for our most vulnerable learners, so that they are supported to meet their full potential. And I believe that there is a consensus that will form in this area that is long overdue.

Turning back to the group of amendments, the Government does not support the majority of amendments in this group. That is either because they are inappropriate or unnecessary due to existing provisions within the Bill, or because the Government has tabled an alternative amendment dealing with the same issue.

The objective of Government amendment 28 is the same as Darren Millar's amendment 4 in its principle, but the approach that we have taken is different. The Government's amendment places a duty on local authorities when making arrangements for advice and information to have regard to the principle that it must be provided in an impartial manner. This means a local authority will have to consider not just what information and advice it is providing, but how it is providing that information and advice. Whilst the objective of Darren's amendment 4 is similar, it is my opinion that the wording doesn't work particularly well in a legislative context. Firstly, the terms 'impartial' and 'objective' mean much the same thing in this context, so there's nothing to be gained by using both words. Also, the application of either term in the context of information is inappropriate. Information should simply be an expression of fact, but what is crucially important is that information is selected and presented in an impartial way, and the Government amendment provides for this.

Turning to the advice element of the duty, the Bill is already clear that it must be impartial. Section 6, together with section 7, requires the local authority, in making arrangements to provide information and advice, to have regard to the importance of children, their parents, and young people being provided with the information and support necessary to enable them to have full participation in decisions. I'm satisfied that the approach the Government has taken in amendment 28 is more appropriate, and I would urge Members to support this amendment rather than amendment 4 in the name of Darren Millar.

Turning to Darren's other amendments, I cannot support amendment 1, which proposes that the code must be accessible to children. Let me be absolutely clear: the code is a legal document intended for practitioners. Its audience is not and should not be children and young people. The Bill is clear that the code will provide guidance to and impose requirements on persons exercising functions under the Bill. By its nature, it will be a technical document setting out much of the detail of the statutory ALN system. It will also be a form of subordinate legislation requiring approval by this Assembly. It's not appropriate, therefore, for it to be written in child-friendly language as the amendment seems to be suggesting.

However, nevertheless, local authorities, as part of their duty to make arrangements to provide information and advice about ALN, will ensure that children and young people are provided with information about the ALN system covered by the code. This information must be provided in ways that are appropriate to the age and the level of understanding of that audience. Furthermore, as part of the transformation programme, the Welsh Government will ensure that information to assist children to understand the system, as outlined by the code, will be reproduced in an accessible and child-friendly way.

I'm afraid I can also not support Darren's amendment 5. I agree that children and young people should be provided with information and advice about advocacy services on each occasion that they might need access to these services. Section 7 of the Bill already requires local authorities and governing bodies to make arrangements to provide information and advice about the ALN system. As part of this, a local authority must take reasonable steps to make known its arrangements about avoidance and resolution of disagreements and independent advocacy services.

Section 4(5) of the Bill allows the code to include mandatory requirements on these issues, and the code will be used to set out the various points at which information about advocacy services must—and I repeat, must—be provided to children and young people. This will apply especially when notifications of decisions are being made. The draft code already includes material on this, including template notification letters to be used following key decisions. This will be considered further as we continue to develop the code—a full consultation on which will happen in the new year. Therefore, the Bill and code already deal comprehensively with the point that is proposed in the amendment. So, amendment 5 is not required, and I would urge Members to reject it.

Finally, whilst I fully appreciate and agree that we need to make sure that young people are able to make informed decisions, I'm afraid I cannot support Darren's amendments 6, 7, 8, 9, 14 and 15. The Bill, together with the code provisions, already provides for this. Post-16 education is not compulsory. At the end of compulsory schooling, young people take decisions about their education: where they study, what they study, and how they study. That is why the Bill enables young people, where they have the capacity to do so, to decide whether they want decisions to be taken about whether or not they have ALN and whether or not they have an IDP.

I fully agree with Darren that young people who may be entitled to an IDP should be provided with all the appropriate information and support to enable them to fully comprehend the implications if they decide to withhold consent in this process. Section 6 of the Bill already covers the point. It requires those exercising functions under the Bill to have regard to the importance of the young person participating as fully as possible in decisions, and to the importance of young people being provided with the information and support necessary to enable participation in those decisions. The Bill also requires local authorities to make arrangements for providing information and advice about ALN, and it enables the code to impose requirements in respect of such arrangements and in relation to decisions about ALN and the preparation of IDPs. These existing provisions make Darren's amendments 6, 7, 8, 9, 14 and 15 unnecessary, and I would urge Members to oppose them on that basis. 

To respond to the debate, I call on Darren Millar.

Off to a blazing start, Llywydd—off to a blazing start. [Laughter.] Can I thank Llyr Huws Gruffydd for his support for all of the amendments that I've tabled in this group? And can I start on an area of agreement, Cabinet Secretary, if I can? And that is that, given that amendment 28 achieves precisely the policy aim of amendment 4, I'm more than happy not to move my amendment 4 and to support amendment 28 instead. Both you and I agree on one thing, and that is that we must make sure that there's independent advice and that that is not tainted in any way by local authorities in a way that does a disservice to the children and young people that we want this Bill to support and to help. In terms of an accessible version of the code, you set out very clearly that that code is there for professionals, not for children and young people; it's for the use of professionals. But the reality is that, if we want people to know what their rights are, if we want people to be able to access the support that they should be entitled to, then people have to be able to understand the whole of the system in its entirety, and sometimes that might mean that they want access to more of the detail, not just the information and advice leaflets, for example, that might be available from a local authority. So, I'm afraid I will still be wishing to move amendment 4 and to put that to the vote, because I think it is an important principle. I know that you agree that information should be available, but I do think that having an accessible version of the code is one way of making sure that that information is readily available to children and young people in a national format, available across the whole of the country. Because let's not forget: at the moment, as it stands, each individual local education authority will be able to produce different versions of the code—of the information and advice literature that they might want to distribute, rather—and that, I think, will take away, perhaps, some of the levelling that can by done by having a national, accessible version of the code for children and young people.

I'm also a little disappointed that you've rejected recommendation 5 on key transitions and making sure that people are prompted with the fact that there is an additional learning needs system at those key transitions, because, of course, as I said earlier, this was a recommendation of the Children, Young People and Education Committee. We studied the code in detail, we heard evidence from a range of stakeholders, and they were very clear that they felt that it was worth reminding people, at those key transitions—and not just at the point of key decisions, which is the phrase that you used—that there are support services available, particularly advocacy services, should they require them. Now, that could be someone moving from one area to another; it could mean someone moving up a school within an existing local authority area; it could mean people progressing from primary to secondary or secondary on to a further education institution. And I think it is important, actually, to make sure that people are reminded of the availability of information on the additional learning system that we will hopefully have as a result of this important legislation at those key points of transition.

I also note that you're going to encourage people to reject amendments 6, 7, 8, 9, 14 and 15. You've quite rightly agreed with my policy objective here, and that is that people are fully informed prior to making a choice to not give consent to have either an assessment or to receive any additional learning needs support. But I'm afraid my reading of sections 6 and 7 doesn't give me the same confident assurances that you have. It talks, yes, about giving people information, but doesn't necessarily say anything about specific information at the time that that young person is choosing not to consent. So, the Bill, as it's currently written, does potentially allow some abuse of those clauses, and that's why I've sought to improve them by inserting the words that that person must have

'been informed of the significance and implications of their decision' prior to that point of not giving their consent. So, I still want to move those as well, and I very much hope that Members will agree with the arguments I've put forward.

The question is that amendment 1 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, and 27 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 1: For: 23, Against: 27, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected