The assessment of pupil performance in years 4 to 9 may well be about identifying how to help each pupil improve, and I do understand that, but those scores also act as a warning. Today's year 9 pupils are not in as strong a position as this year's year 11 pupils were in two years ago—not in English, not in Welsh, not in maths, and not even in science. And let's remember that this year's year 11 results in those key skill areas, those key qualifications, are down again on last year's already grim results, the worst in 13 years. And now, as governors are able to avoid setting targets even for these key skills earlier in the pupil's journey, that link between standards and the journey towards exam results is becoming less visible, less transparent and very useful for Governments to hide bad news.

Now, Members might be wondering about point 2 of our motion and the reference to 2007. It's not just random, I promise you. I've just brought your attention to the drop in attainment in the most important GCSEs again this year. But Welsh Government has countered, in its amendment, with the claim that, overall, results have improved this year, which, actually, they have by about 1 per cent, but, as there was a fall last year of about the same amount, I guess that they're only the second worst in 13 years. 2007 was the last year when the percentage of young people attaining A* to C grades was the same, pretty much, in Wales and England. And, as we can see from the Government's amendment, they love a comparison with England. Now then, since then, pupils in England, since 2007, outperformed those in Wales every single year on A* to C grades at GCSE, although both nations did see improvements.

In 2015, a drop in the English results meant that both nations were pretty much in the same place, and, since then, both nations have reformed their GCSEs. Both felt the disruption, but guess what? England's performance is stable—actually, rising modestly. In Wales, we have dropped all the way back to our 2007 levels. You cannot get away with saying that these are different exams when England has clearly managed its changes without the damage to attainment. And incidentally, Minister, you're very brave to mention Northern Ireland in your amendment. You know as well as I do that pupils in Northern Ireland put in yet another phenomenal performance in this year at GCSE, with around 80 per cent achieving A* to C, and they've been doing it for years. Why aren't we looking more closely at their system rather than Scotland, where state schools are now offering fewer subjects and where results for Highers have fallen for the fourth year running?

Now, comparing results leads me to the point raised in Plaid's second amendment, and Qualifications Wales has urged the same caution about comparison. Can I invite Members to consider this? All exam boards, regardless of which nation they're teaching to, work hard to ensure that the standards of challenge in their exams, as evidenced by grades, are broadly in line. So, in short, a C in a WJEC exam should be as good as a C from an AQA exam. The difference in content of those exams for quality assurance purposes does not matter as between boards, as long as there is consistency in the level of challenge. And surely that has not changed. The content of our new GCSEs may be very different—they may test different knowledge, they may test different skills—but the standard of challenge should still compare, within margins of error, not just with the standards of other nations, but with the standards of our previous GCSEs. Our poorer GCSE results compared to England and Northern Ireland don't arise from our exams being harder than theirs. So, you cannot hide your failure, Minister, by claiming that you cannot compare what we have today with what has gone before. We should always be able to compare standards year on year, and attainment data is part of that process.

Just briefly, to deal with the other amendments—we will support amendment 3, if we get the chance. Just one caveat on the third point of that Plaid amendment: Welsh Conservatives have always said that we want teachers to be free to teach, and it's why we're not laying into the curriculum at this point, but school leaders will need to know that we will insist on very robust, high-level accountability structures in exchange for trusting them. That is miles away from the current invasive management, but we cannot be completely hands-off. We have a Government to hold to account on its performance, let alone the interests of learners and, indeed, staff to represent.

We also support the Brexit Party amendment, not because we believe that specific accountability measures should be readopted, but because it talks of a trend. I hope my earlier remarks make clear our concerns about upholding and improving standards in English, Welsh and maths, and, indeed, achievement as between a general and vocational qualification.

Finally, amendment 4. This deletes part of our motion, so I'm afraid we can't support it, but it does come from the same place. Half our pupils are not achieving their potential, be that at A-levels, GCSEs or other qualifications, but they're also not achieving their potential for self-fulfillment, for economic advancement, for contributing to the prosperous, confident and strong, active society on which our nation should be built.

Ultimately, it is Welsh Government that must accept responsibility for all that. After 20 years of Labour in Government and all those years of underfunding compared to England, everyone who has been through your education system can look at your amendment. They can see what you think they should be grateful for and what you urge them to call success, and I think that is a pitiful deception, I really do. They deserve an apology, as Plaid Cymru, as the Welsh Conservatives, are asking. They and their children deserve better Government.