Now, we've had years of inappropriate early entries and we should have stopped this long ago. But now that they have been stopped—they were down by 77 per cent this year—the attainment of good GCSE grades is lower still: A* to C in maths, English language and literature, Welsh language, biology, chemistry and physics—the biggies—all down according to Qualifications Wales. You cannot disguise this, Cabinet Secretary, as you've attempted to do in your amendment, by combining these unfortunate figures with others. We've accepted a modest improvement in the percentage of A and A* grades at GCSE, but you're hoping to suggest an overall better picture by adding in growth in those particular grades and A* to C grades at A-level.

What you don't say is that the number of learners taking A-levels fell by 10 per cent—10 per cent. Qualifications Wales said that 'fewer weaker candidates'—their words, not mine—took A-levels this year, so of course the proportion of top grades rose. A 50 per cent increase in the numbers taking GCSE science, the new version—that is great news. But is that because a chunk of them didn't take the exam in year 10, as happened in previous cohorts? The small improvements in maths and maths numeracy at 16 don't disguise the overall drop for all-age entries either, but certainly confirm the good sense in getting rid of early entry. I'm glad to see, however, that both of us take Qualifications Wales at their word when they say that, despite all the changes, standards are stable. It is, therefore, I say, perfectly fair to compare this year with last year and those years before. 

Before returning to the motion again, can I just commend you on your bravery in referring to the IFS figures in point c of your first amendment, Cabinet Secretary? It's hardly a victory to claim that the spending per pupil here is now much nearer that of a different Government purely on the grounds that that other Government is now less generous than it was previously. Yes indeed, the UK Government is spending less per head than it was in 2008, but so are you, and, from the point where the data between England and Wales is fully consistent, which is 2013-14, roughly, Welsh spending per head has declined year on year, whereas the decline in England only started two years ago. And why has there been a decrease in per head spend in England? Because there's been a 10 per cent rise in pupil population, with which resources have not yet caught up. Why has there been a decrease in spend per head in Wales—and it is still about 2 per cent lower? Static pupil numbers and a deliberate cut in total spending—a very different story and one wholly at odds with the pledge to invest an extra £100 million on driving up school standards made in your programme for government. Point 3 of our motion and both the Plaid amendments, which we support, speak to that very different story. So, let's see how you spend that £23.5 million Barnett consequential that you'll be getting from the UK Government. Perhaps you can tell us as well whether you plan to use the opportunity of local government reform as an opportunity for education funding reform as well.

To finish, Dirprwy Lywydd, on point 2 of our motion and our worry over the number of Welsh schools of concern to Estyn and in receipt of local authority warning notices, regardless of the Government's amendment's reference to the OECD, there are 45 education institutions across half of Wales's local authorities that are in special measures or in need of significant improvement. One of them's been in that state for four years. I think the number of red category secondary schools has risen, and, as you know, we've argued in the past that the yellow and green category schools—the increase there is just as much a product of changing the categories as it is genuine improvement. Only a third of those statutory warning notices to schools has been complied with. I think this is pretty grim and I don't imagine for one second that you're any happier with this situation than we are. But I did hope that, because of your commitment to education, you would take a step that your Cabinet colleagues seem determined to avoid.

I've spent years listening to the Cabinet Secretary for health, in particular, telling us of his expectations of health boards when it comes to scrutiny of performance. And, when those expectations have gone unmet, he just repeats his expectations. His powers of intervention go unused and LHB management remains unsupported as a result, and, in some cases, unpunished. You have powers under the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013 to intervene in underperforming schools when it becomes clear that they cannot sort themselves out despite all the school challenge and consortium support that they have. As of January this year, those powers have not been exercised in the five years of the Act's existence. Now, I believe that every school should have the chance to be the architect of its own recovery, but there comes a time when a Cabinet Secretary has to consider the tools he or she has to shape people's futures and treat those powers to intervene as duties to intervene. And I'd like to know if you think that time has now come. Thank you.