We move now to group 5, which relates to Welsh and English languages. Amendment 34 is the lead amendment. I call on Gareth Bennett to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Gareth Bennett. 

Amendment 34 (Gareth Bennett, supported by Mark Reckless) moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I formally move the amendments tabled in my name and supported by Mark Reckless, which are moved with the support also of the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party. This group of amendments deals with the provision of Welsh teaching. The amendments I am moving today seek to reflect the fact that Wales has many different parts and they do not all have the same level of Welsh speaking. Rather than try to create one policy for the whole of Wales, which would be a waste of precious resources, we feel that Welsh language provision should be appropriate to the needs of the local population. We think, on the whole, that it would be better to focus resources on saving and keeping open rural schools in Welsh-speaking west Wales, rather than letting those schools close, which is what has been happening and what continues to happen. But we can't do anything to keep those schools open if we waste money on an all-Wales policy designed to hit some arbitrary target of 1 million Welsh speakers, because ultimately what does having 1 million Welsh speakers actually mean? What does it actually mean if you teach 1 million people to say 'bore da' and 'noswaith dda'? Is that actually a meaningful achievement and is it a useful employment of limited resources? Is it better to get all those people to be able to smile and say 'bore da' and not much else, or is it better to actually target local communities in Welsh-speaking Wales, keep schools open, keep community centres open and keep Welsh going as a living language, because that is what we're in danger of losing? 

Now, turning to our specific amendments today, the Welsh Government's amendments to their own Bill, laid at Stage 2, allow for some Welsh-medium schools to be allowed not to teach any English until age eight. So, the emphasis here is on schools being allowed to choose what is the best approach for their pupils. Our amendment 35 today allows a similar right for English-medium schools to be allowed not to teach any Welsh until age eight, which, again, will allow the schools to decide the best approach. To some extent, this may be regarded as a probing amendment. If the Welsh Government doesn't think, for whatever reason, that this is the right approach, then they may need to revisit their enthusiasm for their own amendments allowing Welsh-medium schools to opt out of teaching pupils English.

Our amendment 37 seeks to insert a new Schedule into the Bill that devolves to local authorities the power to decide if and to what degree Welsh should be compulsory in English-medium schools between years 4 and 11—in other words, between the ages of eight and 16. Local councils would be able to come to their own decisions on this matter after appropriate consultations with their own local people and with regard to the proportion of Welsh speakers in their own area. 

Amendments 38 and 39 are needed if amendments 35 to 37 are agreed. If amendments 35 and 37 are not agreed, then in that event I wouldn't push for a vote for the other two amendments. 

To sum up, what we do need is a localised approach, rather than a one-size-fits-all policy, and what we also need is an element of choice, rather than compulsion, over how we decide to teach the Welsh language in different parts of Wales. To that end, I commend to the Siambr today these amendments. Diolch yn fawr iawn. 

Our amendments in group 5 relate to the teaching of Welsh in our schools, and passing them would provide far more detail, and would provide consistency and an assurance that every child will have an equal opportunity to acquire our nation's language. The Welsh Government is committed to establishing a single continuum for the teaching of Welsh and to scrapping Welsh as a second language, and it has done so since 2015. The continuum would secure continuity in teaching and educating across the curriculum, and particularly in moving from the primary to the secondary sector. But, although they have committed to establishing a continuum, it hasn't happened, and the reality of the situation is that this Bill will not create a single continuum for teaching Welsh either. What this Bill will do is to recreate and entrench the current position, a position that is failing. We have two systems sitting alongside each other, and that's what we will have unless you accept the Plaid Cymru amendments in this group today. 

Aled Roberts, the Welsh Language Commissioner, agrees with that view, and states that the general framework for the curriculum—. Or rather, he argues that the general framework of the curriculum as it currently stands will not stimulate the changes that are necessary. If the curriculum places clear expectations, then the rest of the education system will follow and adapt to that. If the curriculum doesn't lead in this area, then the likelihood is that weaknesses in terms of teacher skills, school capacity, qualifications and resources will lead to a never-ending cycle that will continue to hinder improvements in pupils' Welsh-language skills in Wales.

Our amendments provide two possible ways forward. During Stage 2, the Minister rejected my amendment that would have established a code for teaching Welsh on a single continuum. I am still convinced that that is the best way forward, and that a code would be the best solution to the problem that we're seeking to resolve. That's the purpose of amendment 45.

Amendment 49 adds a new section, and you have a choice here—you could support this if you don't want to support the code, or you could support both, of course. But amendment 49 would add a new section that would establish a statutory Welsh language framework that would provide clear guidance on the implementation of the continuum. We desperately need to provide clear support for the English-medium sector as well as the local authorities, regional consortia and others within the education system on how to implement a single continuum that develops the Welsh-language skills of pupils, as happens in every other subject area. The Minister did refer to this in the Children, Young People and Education Committee on 29 January, and she did refer and suggest that there was a possibility that she may be in favour of a statutory framework. I look forward to seeing if she is still of the same view. Passing amendment 49 would secure that. The Welsh language education organisations all support the establishment of such a framework, and they argue that that's required on the face of the Bill in order to provide a statutory basis and a clear signal to the education sector on the Welsh Government's seriousness in implementing the continuum effectively.

There is an opportunity here to ensure that different aspects of the Welsh Government's strategy in relation to the education system in securing 1 million Welsh speakers are clearly interlinked, and that there is a way forward in ensuring that 55 per cent of pupils are able to speak Welsh at the end of their statutory education in 2027, and 70 per cent by 2050, which is the Government's own target, of course. A framework would enable us to move towards that, and would lead to fundamental changes in teaching practices, planning, continuity and significant development in terms of pedagogy and the linguistic skills of the education workforce. We need clear statutory guidance in terms of what's expected over the short, medium and longer term in terms of outcomes and action plans, and that is the purpose of our amendments to seek to secure that. Thank you.

The Minister to contribute, Kirsty Williams.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was very pleased to be able to respond positively to the CYPE committee's recommendation to make English compulsory from seven to 16, while Welsh remains compulsory from three to 16. In Stage 2, I laid Government amendments that will allow the practice of Welsh immersion education to continue without any disapplication process. I also laid an amendment that places a duty on Welsh Ministers to promote access to and the availability of courses of study available through the medium of Welsh that lead to a qualification or a set of qualifications under the Qualifications Wales Act 2015. This is to replace the current duty on local authorities that will cease to apply when the new curriculum framework replaces the local curricula for 14 to 16-year-olds.

The Stage 2 amendments that I laid and were accepted give a clear emphasis to Welsh language learning within the new curriculum. They also aim to protect, support and promote the Welsh language by removing any perceived barriers to the use of Welsh immersion in our schools—immersion that has given the gift of the language to my three children.

As a Government, we have to be absolutely clear, and we have been clear, that we want to increase the number of those who can speak Welsh, not decrease them. And make no mistake, colleagues, amendment 34 will decrease the number of Welsh speakers. It does so under a veneer of equality, but those of us that understand the language know that we aren't dealing with two languages that are spoken by equal numbers, and the amendment will entrench the already existing inequality between our two national languages and deprive our children—deprive our children—of their birthright, the ability to speak both.

Not only does this go against our policy as a Government and the consensus of support that I believe used to exist in this Senedd and, indeed, the country, it also goes against the evidence of experts in language acquisition. It is vitally important that learners, especially those in English medium, are given a secure foundation in Welsh, and that’s why we have made Welsh mandatory from age three. And I strongly urge Members to reject this damaging amendment.

In January this year, I published the curriculum implementation plan, which sets out our next steps to work with our key stakeholders to develop a Welsh language framework. This will provide particular support for those teaching Welsh language in English-medium schools, and will also progress all learners along a single language continuum. 

I cannot accept amendments 45 and 50 to introduce a teaching Welsh on a single continuum code. As I explained to the committee at Stage 2 proceedings, a code of this kind would apply to all practitioners, including Welsh teachers in Welsh-medium schools. I believe that this would limit their creativity and agency in a way that their English teaching colleagues are not subjected to, and I would not presume to tell Welsh-medium educators how to teach their learners in Welsh-medium schools and I really do not believe or consider it necessary.

Extra guidance for teaching Welsh already exists in the literacy framework, and this can be used by teachers in Welsh-medium schools to teach Welsh. It is clear to me, and this is where I agree with Siân Gwenllian, that the main issue here is not the teaching of Welsh, as such, but an improvement in the teaching of Welsh in some of our English-medium and bilingual schools, and I have committed to work with stakeholders to develop and implement a Welsh language framework that can support teachers in English-medium schools to help their learners progress along the language continuum quickly and successfully. I therefore urge Members to vote against amendments 45 and 50.

With regard to amendments 35, 36, 37 and 39, which seek to introduce a duty on local authorities to publish a Welsh language requirements plan, I do have to ask the question, Presiding Officer, 'Why?' We already have Welsh in education strategic plans, in which local authorities set out how they're going to increase the number of Welsh-medium provision places in an area, and we have a curriculum where Welsh is mandatory for three to 16 in all of our schools. So, why do we need this plan?

The reality is, of course, because the proposers want to reduce the amount of Welsh taught in our schools, and deny, as I said, the right of our young people to be taught both their national languages. I have a very different vision for Welsh to the backward-looking nature of these proposals. I want to see our young people being proud, confident speakers of both our languages, and indeed many more, and therefore I urge Members most strongly to reject these amendments that want to take us back to the past rather than forward to a brighter bilingual future.

I mentioned earlier a Welsh language framework to support practitioners in English-medium and bilingual schools when discussing the teaching Welsh on a single continuum code. I believe the best way to address the teaching of Welsh in some of our English-medium and bilingual schools is a framework for teaching Welsh that is flexible enough to be targeted at those schools that require this extra support, but does not constrain the agency and creativity of teachers who do not require it. I understand the intention behind amendment 49, to make it a duty for Welsh Ministers to issue such a framework, but at this stage I cannot support that amendment.

Firstly, it requires those persons listed to have regard to the framework in everything that they do in this Bill, and I believe that is an overly onerous requirement, as some of the decisions taken will have nothing to do with the teaching of Welsh. Secondly, it is a framework that would apply to all schools, so once again we would be saying to all practitioners, including Welsh teachers in Welsh-medium schools, that they need to be told how to teach Welsh, and I have already stated my position on that. Finally, I would direct Members' attentions to powers that Welsh Ministers have under section 69 to issue guidance—guidance to which the persons listed in the amendment must have regard. These powers can be used to issue guidance to support the teaching and learning of Welsh in the way that the Member envisages, and I want that guidance to be targeted at English-medium and bilingual schools, where I believe it is needed the most.

So, there are a number of reasons why I cannot support this amendment, but I do of course support the thinking behind it, and I am happy to state again today that we will be working with our partners to develop such a framework to support the improvement of teaching Welsh in English-medium schools. This will be done, as always with the curriculum, in the spirit of co-construction involving practitioners, stakeholders and experts, and I'm very pleased to have received a request from those that have expertise in this area, demonstrating their willingness and indeed their enthusiasm to participate in such work. And I do believe that Ministers should use their powers under section 69 to issue that on a statutory basis.

Finally, we come to amendment 38, which attempts to define what an English-medium school is. The amendment does not say how the amount of teaching in English is to be measured and in practice that will give rise to significant difficulties. We are, of course, as a Government, consulting separately on non-statutory language categories for all schools, not just English medium. If a future Senedd wants to make them statutory, the right approach would be to do that for all categories of all schools, so that it is done properly. I sincerely hope that the person that is fortunate enough to have this job after me will put those categories on a statutory footing. This amendment is only there for the purpose, once again, of decreasing the amount of Welsh in English-medium schools, alongside the other amendments that we've heard Gareth Bennett talk about today, and I would ask Members to reject them in the strongest possible terms. Thank you.

Gareth Bennett to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. Thanks to Siân and to Kirsty for their contributions to the debate.

Siân's comments were largely pertaining to the need to develop a single continuum for the teaching of Welsh, which, in itself, is an admirable concept, but of course it is aligned to the pursuit of the target of 1 million Welsh speakers, which, as a party—my own party, Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party—we are inherently sceptical about this target. We are worried that, effectively, it'll be little more than a tick-box exercise and there will be a lack of meaningfulness in the quality of the Welsh language that's provided to many of these 1 million people that are targeted, and that was what I sought to address in my contribution. Siân, of course, developed her points with her usual eloquence, so I can't detract from that, but nevertheless, of course, my party won't support those precise points. We are intending to abstain on her amendments.

Turning to the Minister's comments, she used a lot of emotional or emotive language about deprivation and denial of people's birthright. The real deprivation is the loss of a living language, and pushing something that is just a waste of resources and a tick-box exercise is not going to do anything to develop Welsh as a living language and to keep it going as a living language. What we need is to target those resources, which is what I was talking about in my contribution; not a load of emotive nonsense, which is what the Minister tends to specialise in on this subject. The real denial, despite her talk of a brighter future, is the loss of Welsh in the future as a living community language, unless scarce resources are targeted in the right way, which is what our amendments aim to address.

So, thank you very much for listening, everybody, and thank you for your contributions and hopefully, we will proceed to the vote. Diolch yn fawr.

The question is that amendment 34 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is an objection. Therefore, we will move to a vote on amendment 34 in the name of Gareth Bennett. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour five, two abstentions and 47 against. Therefore, amendment 34 is not agreed.

Amendment 34: For: 5, Against: 47, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 3, is it moved, Suzy Davies?

No, it's not moved.

So, there'll be no vote on amendment 3.

Amendment 3 (Suzy Davies) not moved.

Amendment 44, Siân Gwenllian, is it moved?

Amendment 44 (Siân Gwenllian) moved.

It is.

Amendment 44 has been moved. So, we'll move to a vote on amendment 44 in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 20, two abstentions, and 32 against. Therefore amendment 44 is not agreed.

Amendment 44: For: 20, Against: 32, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 52, Llyr Gruffydd. Is it moved?

Amendment 52 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

It is.

We move to a vote, therefore, on amendment 52 in the name of Llyr Gruffydd. Is there any objection to amendment 52? [Objection.] There is. Therefore, we'll move to a vote on amendment 52. Open the vote. In favour 20, two abstentions, and 32 against. Therefore amendment 52 is not agreed.

Amendment 52: For: 20, Against: 32, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been rejected

Suzy Davies, do you wish to move amendment 4?

Amendment 4 (Suzy Davies) moved.

Yes, formally.

The question is that amendment 4 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is an objection. We'll, therefore, move to a vote on amendment 4. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions, and 29 against. Therefore, amendment 4 is not agreed.

Amendment 4: For: 25, Against: 29, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 41, Darren Millar. Is it moved?

Amendment 41 (Darren Millar) moved.

Yes, I move.

The question is that amendment 41 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is an objection. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 41 in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, two abstentions, and 39 against. Therefore amendment 41 is not agreed.

Amendment 41: For: 13, Against: 39, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been rejected