Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I thank the Conservatives for tabling the debate and can I thank Members for speaking in the debate? Whilst I would not necessarily agree with what Members on the Conservative benches or the Plaid Cymru benches have said, can I just say how grateful I am that they are interested enough in Welsh education to participate? Deputy Presiding Officer, it hasn't passed my attention that this is the second day running where we've had important education debates and the UKIP Members have not contributed once.

Llywydd, I would argue that there are two issues being debated here this afternoon. The first, based on the Conservative motion, is a discussion on the method through which we in Wales fund schools, and the second, more generally, is about the squeeze on public service funding and school budgets, and I will take these two points in turn.

To address the point that Suzy Davies raised about auditing, I have to say that every single Welsh Government initiative, such as the PDG or the foundation phase, is subject to independent academic review. With regard to the financial resources associated with those grants, those are audited on a yearly basis, whether those are grants given to local authorities or whether they're grants given to the regional consortia, and we are consistently looking to improve that. So, this year, for instance, we had a new outcomes focus for all that grant money.

If I could move on, the Conservative motion mostly focuses on the IBA formula and school funding mechanisms. They talk about a lack of transparency, yet I note that the motion fails to put forward any solutions or what they would do differently. And, in fact, from the contributions from some of the Conservative Members here today, there seems to be a disagreement on how they approach this subject. Suzy Davies doesn't want me to spend money on professional learning for teachers, but Andrew R.T. Davies recognises that that's really valuable spending. Oscar—Mohammad Asghar says that all money should be given to schools, but Andrew R.T. Davies, again, recognises that, in some cases, such as transport or specialist SEN services, some services are better delivered on a regional or local authority basis.

Let's be absolutely clear: the IBA is agreed by the distribution sub-group, and before anybody says that this is a stitch-up against rural local authorities, that sub-group contains representatives from Gwynedd, Powys, Monmouthshire and the Vale of Glamorgan. The data used to calculate the IBA is updated every single year, and the data sets included in the IBA are pupil numbers, free-school-meal eligibility and sparsity, and if the Tories don't agree with any of those data sets, they should say which ones they don't agree with. Nonetheless, Deputy Presiding Officer, I will be honest, I accept and agree that how schools are funded can be confusing. Funding formulas are, by their very nature, generally complex beasts. That's exactly why I asked my officials to make further efforts in publishing details explaining how schools are funded. And as Suzy Davies referenced, a new page was published in September on the Welsh Government website, which sets out exactly how schools are funded. However, I recognise that there is a need to keep matters under review and to explore whether current systems are working optimally. And I and the local government Minister have made it very clear that we have no objections to changes to the formula. The local government distribution sub-group have identified education as a work stream to explore alternative methods of establishing the IBA, and the Welsh Government officials are supporting this work.

But, Deputy Presiding Officer, Members also need to be cautious in what they are calling for. People have talked today about a new school funding formula, a national one. I understand these calls, but we have to face the reality: a new funding formula runs the risk of significant instability in school funding. Across the border, the Conservatives have themselves decided to introduce a new national funding formula, and Members in this Chamber will remember the chaos that it caused, including a large number of Conservative Members of Parliament rebelling against the plans. Now, I will admit that, in this day and age, Conservative MPs voting against their own Government isn't that extraordinary, but it is worth noting, nonetheless.

So, let's be clear here: yes, a new funding formula would mean that there would be some winners, but there would also be losers, and I don't see anybody in this Chamber standing up to offer up any of their schools as losers. Also, as Andrew R.T. Davies rightly identified, would a single national funding formula truly adequately reflect the diversity of the Welsh education provision—small, rural schools; large, urban schools with a highly diverse population; schools that specialise in special educational needs? These are complex issues that I think would be very, very, very difficult to encapsulate in a single national funding formula, and it would also radically change the role of local education authorities and directly elected councillors in their role in education. And I can tell you that direct funding of schools is not supported by the Conservative leader of Monmouthshire council and it's certainly not supported by leaders such as Ellen ap Gwynn in Ceredigion. So, let's be clear what a national funding formula actually means for local education authorities and the role of locally elected councillors. Maybe that's what the Tories want, but they should say that out loud.

Deputy Presiding Officer, on the whole, it's not formulas, it's not the RSG or, indeed, hypothecated grants that parents and teachers spend their time talking about to me. They talk to me about their dismay due to the cuts inflicted over a sustained period of austerity, and those cuts, let's be clear, have seen nearly £1 billion taken out of Wales's budget overall. 

Now, with regard to ASCL, and the letter from ASCL, which has been mentioned several times in the Chamber this afternoon, I take very seriously what ASCL have to say. I don't recognise the figure of £450 million. Indeed, they have acknowledged to me and my officials that that figure includes LEA SEN services and it does include school transport, and I'm sure that none of us would agree that that is money that does not need to be spent. But my officials will sit down with ASCL and talk further, because it would be curious, would it not, if those local authorities and individual schools are under such pressure—and I don't say that they're not—it would be a curious decision indeed to duplicate services? Because after all, let's remember, it is the LEAs that are the main stakeholders in the regional consortia, so why would an LEA, which wants to prioritise funding for its schools, decide to spend money duplicating a service that the regional consortia could deliver and they're stakeholders of that regional consortia? It would be a very curious situation indeed, wouldn't it? It would be rather perverse. And that's why my officials will be sitting down with ASCL this week to understand where those concerns are coming from.