Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I move the motion.

I tabled this motion today for two particular reasons. The first is that these are pretty important changes to the current system of assessing the performance of a school, and the second, which isn't a matter for this Minister in particular, but, I hope, for Government generally—I hope, Minister, that you will forgive me for using this particular example to make the point.

The Minister has previously explained to us that the current system of school performance assessment can lead to unintended consequences. Every year, school governors have to set targets for pupil performance in the second and third key stages in the core subjects of maths, English, Welsh and science and there is a similar process, I understand, for students reaching 16 and facing external exams. They also have to set performance targets in two or three other subjects, which are non-specified. The school can then be judged on the performance according to its success or otherwise in reaching those targets— something that becomes particularly visible at the end of year 11, where the comparison is not made between targets and teacher assessment, but between targets and exam results. And that, as we've heard, can lead to schools putting a disproportionate effort into timetabling for the core subjects and gaming the system by entering students for exams that can only ever produce a grade C GCSE equivalent.

As part of wider reforms, and to deter this behaviour, the Minister's moving towards new evaluation and improvement arrangements. We've already got some interim key stage 4 performance measures, I think, which we'll see worked through for this summer’s exams. And the current setting of targets process doesn’t align with this new-look performance measure and doesn’t bring anything to a school’s self-evaluation and improvement. Furthermore, governors are being asked to set targets on what will be an obsolete set of requirements. I think that’s core of the Minister’s argument, but, if I’ve got it wrong, I’m more than happy to be corrected.

Now, these regulations still require governors to set targets; it looks like it’s still six. But the requirement for any of those to be the core subjects of English, Welsh or maths will go, as will the need to report on the percentage of pupils who achieve those targets. Now, we may have an issue with the idea of a school being set targets by its own governors and not knowing how close or far away from those targets its pupil results were. But the first purpose of bringing this motion to the Chamber is not to challenge the Minister’s general direction of travel but to give you, Minister, an opportunity to explain to us directly why you're content for schools to be able to avoid setting targets in these three subjects in particular.

English and maths and, increasingly, good Welsh-language skills, are still considered essential requirements in any job application. And, even if the new performance framework is about self-evaluation and self-improvement, and even if pupils are doing well in these core subjects, isn't there an argument for keeping these three subjects as a point of focus in every school, bearing in mind their particular status for moving on to further education, training or work?

Now, I accept there's an argument that an individual school may decide that it is in six entirely different areas that it needs to improve. But I can see nothing in the existing or the new regulations preventing setting targets in more than six areas. Until we get into the new curriculum fully, and we can see how the maths and numeracy and languages, literacy and communication areas of learning and experience present, I'm asking Members just to consider that governors must keep these three subjects as annual target items until the new curriculum has worked its way through a little bit, and—unless the Minister can persuade us why not—to support the annulment of these particular regulations.

The second reason for tabling this motion is because it was the only way of getting this issue to the Chamber. This is not the fault of the Minister, but a perfect example of why we as a legislature should exercise caution about leaving too much to secondary legislation where the exercise of Welsh ministerial powers can go unnoticed. Now, these regulations arise from Westminster statutes, but the point applies to our primary legislation too. Here is an important change to the overview, and possibly the status, of English, Welsh and maths within our current education system, introduced via the negative procedure, which I wouldn't even have known about if I hadn't happened to be in a Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee on a given day.

And I'm asking: is it right that we as a legislature are asked to legislate, in the case of the negative procedure, by dint of deemed consent, if we don’t know that these regulations are coming through? And so I'm asking Welsh Government to consider a more proactive way of directly publishing its secondary legislation to spokespeople at the very, very least. The legislation Act is all about the accessibility of law and us as Members having to randomly trawl through the national archives on the off-chance that we might find something really doesn’t count as accessible. And while I repeat, Minister, this is not a matter for you uniquely, I think it is something that the Welsh Government should take account of because it's hindering us doing our work. Thank you.