National Assembly for Wales

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this virtual meeting of the Children, Young People and Education Committee. In accordance with Standing Order 34.19, I've determined that the public are excluded from the committee's meeting in order to protect public health. In accordance with Standing Order 34.21, notice of this decision was included in the agenda for the meeting, published on Tuesday. This meeting is, however, being broadcast live on Senedd.tv, with all participants joining via video-conference. A Record of Proceedings will be published as usual. Aside from the procedural adaptation relating to conducting proceedings remotely, all other Standing Order requirements for committees remain in place. The meeting is bilingual, and simultaneous translation from Welsh to English is available. Can I remind everyone that the microphones will be controlled centrally? There's no need to turn them on or off individually. Please just accept the prompt of unmute from the sound engineer every time you're called to speak. We've received apologies for absence from Hefin David, and I'm very pleased to welcome Huw Irranca-Davies MS, who is substituting for Hefin today. Can I ask Members if there are any declarations of interest, please? No. Okay. Thank you. 

We'll go on now, then, to item 2, and our substantive item today, which is Stage 2 proceedings for the Curriculum and Assessment (Wales) Bill. I'd like to welcome Kirsty Williams MS, Minister for Education, and Georgina Haarhoff, deputy director, curriculum and assessment. Thank you, both, for joining us. I'm just going to run through how it's all going to work this morning and then we'll go on to the first group. 

The purpose of the meeting is to undertake Stage 2 proceedings on the Curriculum and Assessment (Wales) Bill. In relation to this item, Members should have before them the marshalled list of amendments and the grouping of the amendments for debate. The marshalled list of amendments is the list of all amendments tabled, marshalled into the order agreed by the committee. So, for this meeting, the order in which we will consider amendments is outlined on the agenda. You will see from the groupings list that amendments have been grouped to facilitate debate. However, the order in which amendments are called and moved for a decision is dictated by the marshalled list. I will advise Members when I call them whether they are being called to speak in the debate or to move their amendments for a decision. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. Members who wish to speak in a particular group should indicate this to me in the usual way by raising their hand at the appropriate point in proceedings, and I'll call the Minister to speak on each group. For the record, in accordance with the convention agreed by the Business Committee, as Chair, I will move amendments in the name of the Minister. For expediency, I will assume that the Minister wishes me to move all her amendments, and I will do so at the appropriate place in the marshalled list. Minister, if you don't want a particular amendment to be moved, please can you indicate this at the relevant point in proceedings?

In line with our usual practice, legal advisers to the committee and the Minister are not expected to provide advice on the record. If Members or the Minister wish to seek legal advice during proceedings, please let the clerks know via a message, and I will call an adjournment.

As this is a virtual meeting, all votes will be undertaken through roll-call, as agreed. I'll call each Member in alphabetical order and invite you to state whether you wish to vote in favour or against the amendment, or to abstain. I will state my own vote and declare the result. If there is a tie, I will exercise the Chair's casting vote in accordance with Standing Orders. My intention is to try to dispose of all amendments during today’s meeting. However, we have scheduled time to reconvene a week today on Friday 5 February, if necessary. I will call short breaks in proceedings at appropriate times throughout the meeting, including lunch.

So, we'll go on now then to group 1. Group 1 relates to the history of Wales in all of its diversity, including black and people of colour history. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 41, in the name of Siân Gwenllian. I call Siân Gwenllian to move amendment 41 and to speak to her amendments in this group.

Thank you, Siân. Are there any other Members who would like to speak? No. Can I call on the Minister, then, to speak?

Thank you very much. Bore da, Cadeirydd, bore da, pawb. I'm grateful for the attention on the Bill this morning. Can I just say that the issues that Siân Gwenllian just talked about are incredibly important? So important, of course, that we have appointed Professor Charlotte Williams to provide very specific advice to the Welsh Government about how issues of history, particularly black, Asian and minority ethnic history, can be successfully incorporated into our curriculum. I have to say, Professor Charlotte Williams was very clear—and I know that the Member herself has met with the professor—that simply listing mandatory content is not going to achieve the goals that I want or, indeed, Professor Williams wants.

Let me be absolutely clear what the legislation before us does with regard to the teaching of Welsh history and, indeed, the teaching of black, Asian and minority ethnic history. Through statutory guidance, these areas of the curriculum will indeed be mandatory. I want to make that absolutely clear, because that has not been acknowledged by the Member in the opening debate today. They will be mandatory. There is no getting away from it or escaping from it. There will be a legal duty on all schools across Wales to deliver this content. Through statutory guidance, diversity will also be embedded not within a single aspect of learning within history and the area of learning and experience of humanities, but diversity will be embedded throughout the curriculum in every area of learning and experience.

And can I say to the Member that the way in which she has described her concerns—that there should be a single body of historical knowledge that is common to everybody—that is simply not achieved by the Member's amendments here this morning by simply listing that topic on the face of the Bill? Actually, what the Member wants, and, indeed, I agree with, we are much more likely to be able to deliver through the 'what matters' approach that we have adopted, which gives us the opportunity to spell out in more detail the specific elements that the Member has just talked about.

Amendment 41 as it currently stands, the aim of which, as I said, is already covered as those subjects will be mandatory in the 'what matters' code. With regard to amendment 42, again, these issues will be covered in the statutory 'what matters' code. I think what's really important to recognise about that code is that that code has not been dreamt up by me; that code is the product of years—not days, not months, but years—of co-construction with those professionals who will be required to deliver it. And undermining that, I think, goes against what I know the Member believes in, which is a trust in our teaching profession. It is the teaching profession that has got us to this point and it is trust in the teaching profession to use the curriculum legislation that we have before us today and the 'what matters' code to deliver for children.

The actual consequence of the Member's amendment, as suggested, would actually limit, I believe, the study of these subjects to history within the humanities code. And, again, Professor Williams is absolutely clear that, for too long, the experience of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities in Wales has been limited to history—it has been limited to the subject of history and predominantly, actually, the topic of slavery. What Professor Williams is striving to achieve is that the contribution of those communities is recognised not just in humanities, but is recognised in literacy and communication. It's recognised in creativity and the creative arts. It's recognised in science and technology. It's recognised in maths and numeracy. So, actually—and it's unintended from the Member; I absolutely understand that—we are in danger of confining the contribution of Wales to a single subject. I want to ensure, and I have ensured via the 'what matters' code, that these areas will be covered right the way across our curriculum. Therefore, I ask Members to reject the amendments. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister. I call Siân to reply to the debate.

'I think that [making BAME history a statutory part of the curriculum] will go a long way to helping children, future generations, understand why there should be no discrimination. We have got people living here now who have contributed so much to the well-being of Wales...Those matters are not taught in schools and children don't know that. That will go a long way to help overcome racism.'

'I want the kids who live in the docks...to know about north Wales...as much as I want the people in Harlech...to know about the docks and about the coal industry...because it's about Wales. This is our country, and we need to know the total of how we got here, and, more importantly, how we're going to move forward. And we can only move forward together.'

'My understanding is that the schools curriculum allows teachers to teach Welsh history but, from our perspective in the Department, they do not seem to be doing so. It seems to us that children across Wales, in English- and Welsh-medium schools, are growing up without any real sense of the history of their own communities and are far more conversant with the history of other countries.'

Thank you, Siân. Do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 41? 

Yes, please. 

The question is that amendment 41 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you. There is an objection. So, I'll therefore take a vote by roll-call. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed. Dawn Bowden, please state your vote. 

Against. 

Suzy Davies, please state your vote. 

For. 

Siân Gwenllian, please state your vote.  

Huw Irranca-Davies, please state your vote. 

Against. 

Laura Jones, please state your vote.  

For. 

And I vote against. So, there voted three in favour, three against. As there's a tied vote, I use my casting vote in the negative, that is against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Order 6.20. Therefore, amendment 41 is not agreed. 

We'll go on now, then, to group 2, on the Welsh language. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 1 in the name of the Minister.  

I move amendment 1 in the Minister's name and call on the Minister to speak to her amendment and the other amendments in this group.

Thank you, Chair. As members of this committee will know, I absolutely recognise and understand the importance of the role of education in achieving the Welsh Government's target of 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050 and this Bill does a great deal to promote the Welsh language. And I'm delighted to be able to respond positively to recommendations that the committee made to make English compulsory from seven to 16, whilst Welsh will remain compulsory from three to 16.

Amendments 1 to 3 have been made following public engagement and recommendations by the committee in Stage 1, recognising in that Stage 1 scrutiny that if English was a mandatory element from three to 16, this potentially caused unintended consequences. The aim here today is to protect, support and promote the Welsh language by removing any perceived barriers to the use of Welsh immersion in schools. To be clear, this set of amendments will allow the practice of Welsh immersion education to continue without any disapplication process. We thus, and appropriately, are seeking to give clear emphasis to Welsh language learning within the new curriculum. I committed to engaging with the debate on the position of English in the Bill in the context of our ambitions for a truly bilingual system and I'm very pleased to lay these amendments. 

My next step now is to deliver this and, as set out in the curriculum implementation plan, to work with our key stakeholders now to develop a Welsh language framework. This will seek to provide particular support for those teaching Welsh language in English-medium schools, which, I acknowledge, is something that we need to do far better. 

I cannot, however, accept amendment 44, for a number of reasons. Primarily, I would not, for one moment, seek to presume to tell Welsh-medium educators how to teach their learners in Welsh-medium schools and I really do not consider it to be necessary. A code will put upon them additional statutory burdens that would not be the same for English-medium teachers teaching English in their schools. Indeed, having a compulsory code that those Welsh teachers in Welsh-medium schools would have to follow, and would be required to follow by law, I believe, would limit their creativity and their agency in a way that their English-teaching colleagues would not be subjected to. I simply do not want to see that happen. I would also add to this that the inclusion of an additional code, again, would begin to undermine the entire philosophy that lies behind our approach to the curriculum.

But, as I said, I do recognise that we need to provide more support and guidance to those teaching Welsh in English-medium schools. That's why we will be taking forward our work with stakeholders to develop a Welsh language framework to ensure that those issues that are of concern to me can be addressed. I believe that this would be within the spirit of the Bill, and would provide additional support that I know Members would be in favour of.

Amendments 4 and 5 remove the powers to disapply English before the age of 7 and those are linked to amendments 1 and 3, and I hope that the committee will also support these amendments, as they directly respond to the committee's recommendations.

Finally, I turn to amendment 8. This places a duty on Welsh Ministers to promote access to, and the availability of, courses of study available through the medium of Welsh. This is intended to replace the current duty on local authorities when devising local curricula for 14 to 16-year-old pupils to promote access to, and the availability of, courses of study through the medium of Welsh—a duty that would cease to apply when the new curriculum framework replaces the local curricula for 14 to 16-year-olds.

Responsibility for curriculum development will rest with schools, and local authorities do not have a role in the new set-up. This potentially creates uncertainty around ensuring Welsh-medium provision for these learners, as each school could decide to reduce their Welsh-medium provision. This amendment will place a new duty on Welsh Ministers to promote access to, and the availability of, courses of study taught through Welsh that lead to a qualification or a set of qualifications under the Qualifications Act 2015. I hope that Members will support that amendment. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Are there other Members who would like to speak? Siân Gwenllian.

Thank you, Siân. Suzy Davies.

Diolch, Chair. Minister, you've come good on your promises that you made to committee by introducing your amendments, and we're going to support those. But, as you've indicated that you won't be supporting amendment 44, I wonder if you'd be willing to think a little bit harder about this for Stage 3. If we're going to grow a truly bilingual nation, I think it's going to be a long haul, and the path is already littered, isn't it, with failed and pretty expensive policies. You know as well as all of us that trying to persuade English-medium schools to raise the authentic presence of Welsh in their schools has not—with honourable exceptions—been successful. And I think, in focusing on Welsh-medium schools in your contribution, you don't say what the code could offer English-medium schools, and I'm not as sure as you that guidance is enough.

As with RSE, I think you're going to have to mandate steps to make sure that the provisions of the curriculum do what's needed in making this ambition for Welsh clear, fair and real. You say you don't want to interfere with pedagogy for Welsh language, but you're happy enough to do it for RSE. So, my view is you need to equip the current workforce as well as the future one, through a period of massive professional learning. And it is a massive professional learning ask, with AoLEs having equal status. And I don't think you'll get enough to even kick-start a continuum, for the reasons Siân said, unless you are firm, but realistic, at the outset about what schools need to do. Thank you.

Thank you, Suzy. Are there any other Members who wish to speak? Okay. Can I call the Minister, then, to reply to the debate?

Thank you very much, Lynne. I'm sure it is unintentional, but Siân Gwenllian misinterprets the single continuum. The progression code is absolutely clear on where we expect children and how we expect children to progress in both English and in Welsh. So, the expectations, in terms of language acquisition, are absolutely clear. But Suzy Davies just used the word 'realistic'. Siân Gwenllian cannot, I am sure, believe that the ability to progress in the Welsh language for a child that is attending an English-medium school will be as quick and the expectations will be as high as for a child that is attending a Welsh-medium school. Now, that's not to say that that progression will not happen, but it will happen at a different pace, and it'll happen in a different way.

Now, Suzy Davies talks about interfering in pedagogy. The effect of Siân Gwenllian's amendment is to do just that. It is to tell teachers in our Welsh-medium sector how to teach the language. Now, I for one hold those teachers in the highest regard, and I certainly don't want to interfere in their pedagogy, and I don't want to put constraints on them that we are not putting on teachers in the English-medium sector on how they teach English. I am fully confident in the ability of those teachers to teach their students and their subject.

However, I am the first person to recognise that we need to set higher expectations and to provide more support for the acquisition of the Welsh language in English-medium settings, which is why, as I said in my opening statement, it is my intention to bring forward additional support via a Welsh-language framework for those schools. Now, Suzy Davies says that hoping for it to happen might not be enough, and I would say that section 66 powers exist within this Bill that we could make that framework a compulsory framework and a statutory framework, and I am very happy to consider that proposal and to consider using those powers in that particular way.

Can I turn to the issue of what Siân Gwenllian said about the Welsh Language Commissioner? I am very familiar with the asks of the Welsh Language Commissioner, but those asks go way beyond—way, way beyond—a curriculum Bill. In his most recent correspondence to me, he talks about the Welsh in education strategic plan process—we're already changing, and have changed, the WESP process. He talks about categorisation of schools, and we are changing that. We have heard this morning about staffing. I couldn't agree more, but changing the curriculum is not going to address the needs around staffing or, indeed, professional development.

If we're to achieve the goals of Cymraeg 2050, I agree we need to see a step change in the quality of teaching of Welsh in our English-medium schools. The progression code sets out a very clear pathway of our expectations in that regard, and I believe that our Welsh language framework will provide the scaffolding, support and expectation on how that progression can be achieved. I hope Members will support the Government amendments, as I said, that are in line with the committee's recommendations, and I would ask Members to reject amendment 44. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister. Do you wish to proceed to a vote, then, on amendment 1?

Yes, Chair, please.

Okay. Thank you. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed. Does any Member object? There's no objection, therefore amendment 1 is agreed.

That take us on to group 3, which relates to lifesaving skills and first aid. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 50, in the name of Suzy Davies. I call on Suzy Davies to move amendment 50 and to speak to her other amendment in this group.

Thank you, Chair. Yes, and I move the amendments in this group. Minister and Members, I'm sure you won't be surprised to see these amendments here. And, Minister, as someone who's supported the mandatory teaching of emergency lifesaving skills on the school curriculum when in opposition, this is your chance to ensure that it happens. In fact, as the education Minister, you're really the only supporter of the idea who can make it happen. I do understand your wish not to include too many mandatory elements into the curriculum, and, indeed, into the Bill, but I'm hoping that you understand my wish to stop people dying of cardiac arrest when they don't need to.

Now, in the interests of brevity at this stage, because we've got a long day ahead of us, I'm not going to rehearse all the difference that it makes to the survival rates of those suffering cardiac arrests in countries where young people have to learn cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillator skills. Everyone here will have heard me say it before, and will know the level of support, where there are some charities promoting it, from the health sector, from families and the general public.

I think what no-one is clear about is why, now that England and Scotland have accepted the arguments and are making these lessons mandatory—and we're only talking about two hours a year here—you, as a Minister, are so resistant. I mean, two hours a year does not clutter up the curriculum. And I appreciate that the skills have been highlighted in document support in the curriculum, and I appreciate that the Government has introduced its out-of-hospital cardiac arrest plan or the 'anything but make it mandatory' plan, as I call it, but these will not have the same impact as creating a generation of lifesavers for whom these skills are as second nature as reciting their 10 times table. If left as an option, if my experience speaking to schools is anything to go by, it's an option that doesn't get picked up, despite it taking so little time and organisation.

Now, you may wish to say that these skills aren't as important as, say, the ability for children and young people to better manage their own mental health, which you have addressed in later amendments. I'm saying it's not either/or, and, as a Parliament that observes article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, however, it is worth pointing out that our own Youth Parliament made lifesaving skills their priority, albeit marginally ahead of support for mental health.

As with the Welsh history amendments, I've offered Members different options with these two amendments. The first makes this a mandatory subject, the second makes it a mandatory requirement under the 'what matters' code. Amendment 77, which we'll discuss later, offers a third, much weaker option, but it does give you, Minister, the option to introduce statutory guidance on the teaching of lifesaving skills. But the amendments in this group are the ones that offer certainty and the opportunity of a quick, no-peril, popular win, which Wales will welcome, which is completely non-party political, and so I urge Members to support either of the two amendments in this group. Thank you.

Thank you, Suzy. Are there any other Members who wish to speak? No. Can I call on the Minister, then, to speak?

Thank you, Chair, and to match Suzy Davies's brevity in this regard, because we have had considerable, lengthy debates on this, I would draw the Member's attention to the Curriculum for Wales guidance, which will become statutory, which refers to both lifesaving skills and first aid. We would never, in this approach to the curriculum, identify an amount of time that any subject should be taught, and I have to say, I would hope that more than two hours could be spent, perhaps, on these issues, because they are important. It is because they are important that they are included, as I said, in the statutory guidance for the overall design of the curriculum. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister. Suzy Davies to reply.

Yes, Minister, obviously I realise that there is some work on this already evident in the documents that are supporting the curriculum. I'm pleased to hear that what you're talking about will become statutory, but what's not clear from this is what that statutory guidance will actually produce by way of implementation. One of the reasons I really wanted to get this on the face of the Bill, or at least within the 'what matters' code, is because it will be clear what schools will be expected to do. And guidance—statutory or otherwise—is not the same as compulsion. Because we're talking about something that they should do, rather than something that they must do. I appreciate you won't have the opportunity to come back in this debate to talk about that, but we'll be discussing a similar process in the next group of amendments, and perhaps you might be able to say what your understanding is of what would happen to schools if they didn't follow your statutory guidance. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Suzy. Do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 50?

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 50 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. I'll therefore take a vote by roll-call. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed. Dawn Bowden, please state your vote.

Against.

Suzy Davies, please state your vote.

For.

Siân Gwenllian, please state your vote.

Huw Irranca-Davies, please state your vote.

Against.

Laura Jones, please state your vote.

For.

And I vote against. As there is a tied vote, I use my casting vote in the negative, that is against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Orders. Therefore, amendment 50 is not agreed.

That takes us on group 4 on menstrual well-being education. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 51, in the name of Suzy Davies. I call Suzy Davies to move amendment 51, and to speak to her other amendment in this group.

Thank you, Chair. I move the amendments here. These amendments have been tabled in much the same way as those on lifesaving skills. There are two alternatives in this group, with a further option for guidance under amendment 75. Compared to group 3, though, these are a little bit more in the nature of probing amendments, and an invitation to you, Minister, to explain how you will secure the teaching of menstrual well-being, regardless of gender, within our schools. Members will recall the debate on endometriosis at the end of last term, which found approval for this being taught in schools as a compulsory element. There's nothing stopping it being taught under the new curriculum, but there's nothing obliging it either, as far as I can see.

The subject has found its way into public discourse more recently than lifesaving skills, so I would have been more disposed to let Government have a bit more time to think about this—about how to ensure that this important work is done. However, the health Minister's response to that debate was less than wholehearted, if you remember, so I am bringing this one aspect of that debate to you, Minister, because you can deliver on it. I think the easiest way to do that would be to choose one of the amendments, or at least make a commitment now in the spirit of amendment 75. But if you do have an alternative way of securing the purpose of this amendment, not just provide it at as option, then, of course, I'll be happy to listen. Thank you.

Thank you, Suzy. Are there any other Members who wish to speak? Can I call the Minister to speak, then?

Thank you very much, Suzy, for that. Can I say that I agree with the Member on the importance of these topics, especially when she talks about 'regardless of gender'? Every child in our system needs to understand about issues around menstrual health, so I think that is a very important principle. The 'developing physical health and well-being has lifelong benefits' statements of the 'what matters' code do recognise, and I quote,

'the connection between the physical and emotional changes that can occur in different contexts.'

And, indeed, published statutory guidance also talks about ensuring that learners are supported to understand and manage the developmental changes, as well as how those changes affect learners in a range of different ways. However, like she says, I am interested in exploring what other opportunities there are to get greater assurance that the topic of menstrual well-being will be covered. I think the best way to do that is to work with the group that is developing the RSE code, which, as you know, will be on the face of the Bill and will be subject to an affirmative vote, I hope, at the Senedd, to ensure that that is a specific topic that is covered in the RSE code. I think that's the best and most appropriate way that we can gain the certainty that that subject will be covered and will be taught. I hope that when the code is published for public consultation, which I am determined will happen in March [correction: soon after March] of this year, the Member will see that the important points that she raises are addressed at that time. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister. Suzy to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much for that, Minister. I'm going to proceed to a vote anyway, because I think it's important to put down a marker about the intentions that you've expressed today, as well as our own. I appreciate that this is going to go into the RSE code. I'm very pleased to hear you say that that's going to be ready by March, so I hope you'll be supporting some amendments of mine later on. But there is still quite a lot of hope rather than certainty involved in this, so while I really want to take you at your word here, and I do believe that you want to make sure that this is covered properly, I think I still need to go to that vote to make sure that when, at least, we reach Stage 3—because I think we need to bring this back at Stage 3 so that you could give us further information about what your plans are. Thank you for that.

Thank you, Suzy. The question is that amendment 51 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so I'll take a vote by roll-call. The question is that amendment 51 be agreed. Dawn Bowden, please state your vote.

Against.

Suzy Davies, please state your vote.

For.

Siân Gwenllian, please state your vote.

Huw Irranca-Davies, please state your vote.

Against.

Laura Jones, your vote.

For.

And I vote against. So, there voted three in favour, three against. As there's a tied vote, I use my casting vote in the negative, that is against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Orders. Therefore, amendment 51 is not agreed.

Siân, do you wish to move amendment 42?

The question is that amendment 42 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so I'll take a vote by roll-call. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed. Dawn Bowden, please state your vote.

Against.

Suzy Davies, your vote.

For.

Siân Gwenllian, your vote.

Huw Irranca-Davies, please state your vote.

Against.

Laura Jones, please state your vote.

For.

And I vote against. So, there voted three in favour, three against. As there is a tied vote, I use my casting vote in the negative, against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Orders. Therefore, amendment 42 is not agreed.

I move amendment 2 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 2 is therefore agreed.

I move amendment 3 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 3 is agreed.

Siân, do you wish to move amendment 43?

Yes, please. 

The question is that amendment 43 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, I'll take a vote. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed. Dawn Bowden, please state your vote. 

Against. 

Suzy Davies, please state your vote. 

For. 

Siân Gwenllian, please state your vote. 

Huw Irranca-Davies, please state your vote. 

Against. 

Laura Jones, please state your vote. 

For.

And I vote against. There voted three in favour, three against. As there's a tied vote, I use my casting vote in the negative, against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Orders. Therefore, amendment 43 is not agreed. 

Suzy, do you wish to move amendment 52?

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 52 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. The question is that amendment 52 be agreed. Dawn Bowden, please state your vote. 

Against.

Suzy Davies, please state your vote. 

For.

Siân Gwenllian.

Huw Irranca-Davies. 

Against. 

Laura Jones. 

For. 

And I vote against. So, there voted three in favour, three against. As there is a tied vote, I use my casting vote in the negative, that is against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Orders. Therefore, amendment 52 is not agreed. 

Suzy, do you wish to move amendment 53?

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 53 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] As we have an objection, I'll take a vote by roll-call. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed. Dawn Bowden, please state your vote. 

Against. 

Suzy Davies. 

For.

Siân Gwenllian. 

Huw Irranca-Davies. 

Against.

Laura Jones. 

For.

And I vote against. So, there voted three in favour, three against. As there's a tied vote, I use my casting vote in the negative, against the amendment, and amendment 53 is not agreed. 

That takes us on, then, to group 5, which relates to relationships and sexuality education. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 54 in the name of Suzy Davies. I call Suzy Davies to move amendment 54 and to speak to her other amendments in this group. 

Thank you, Chair. I move the lead amendment here. We know this has been one of the most controversial elements of curriculum change, and there'll be very few people who don't understand why parents are worried that decisions about sex education, always a sensitive subject, look like they're being taken out of their hands. But this part of the curriculum is not primarily about sex, nor does it interfere with a parent's right to share their own views and their own ethics about sex at home. In summary for me, this is about protecting all our children by arming them with knowledge—and not just about sex; it's about equipping them to exercise judgment about their own behaviour and that of others, it's about giving them courage to control what happens to them and to side with what’s right when they see wrong.

All my amendments are about three specific things. The first is to make sure that the second two do not dilute, undermine or compromise the purpose of this part of the Bill. The second is making it clear that, while a child's right to be safe and free of prejudice is paramount, the voice of the parent cannot be shut out, and this Bill does need to be fairer to a section of society that is actually losing a right as a result of this legislation. The third is the recognition that, without sight of a draft RSE code, it is very difficult to reassure families what 'developmentally appropriate' actually means and reassure teachers that they will have everything they need to deliver this positively and without getting it wrong. That’s what amendment 54 is about, Minister.

You know you're asking us to take the operation of RSE on trust as we haven’t seen a draft code. It's not a satisfactory way to make law, as we can’t scrutinise what doesn’t exist, even though I appreciate the reassurance you've given us in the previous debate. Your colleague Ken Skates was able to provide a raft of draft guidance for us when he brought forward the Historic Environment (Wales) Bill and he didn’t have four years to do it in. And I think the lack of an RSE code in draft can’t be blamed on COVID. I think it's such a potential minefield that teachers, let alone us, need to see this code before they go anywhere near the classroom. So, I very much appreciate your movement on the process for introducing the code so that this legislature can bring some scrutiny to it, but this amendment is here to make sure that it's not left until the last minute.

Amendments 56 and 58 say that a school cannot adopt or change the RSE provision in the curriculum unless parents, as defined elsewhere, are consulted, and amendments 56 and 60 make essentially the same provision for non-maintained nurseries. I just want to be clear on this: these amendments do not give parents the right to overturn, to veto or refuse the RSE offer, nor do they restore the right to withdraw their children from these lessons. Schools and nurseries have to follow the requirements of what constitutes a curriculum laid down in this Bill and these amendments do not interfere with that. Schools and teachers will have to follow the RSE code, which will have a very limited scope for being localised, and these amendments don't interfere with that, either. These amendments are here to help parents understand what is planned, to ask questions, and to help a school deliver what is planned in a way that works best for everyone. To be honest, these amendments aren't even about co-production, but they are about including parents, bringing them along with decisions, helping avoid the misunderstandings that have emerged in evidence, and amendment 76 a little later on would give guidance to governors on this and how to deal with that conversation with parents.

Amendment 70 gives voice to our committee view that sixth formers should receive RSE if they request it, which puts it in line with their rights with regard to religion, values and ethics. Amendments 61 and 66 and 70—subsection (3)—are effectively probing amendments. I think we've probably all received requests for amendments to this Bill to include references to family life and morality, retaining requirements in the existing England and Wales legislation. I'm not minded to support those requests, on the basis that morality will of necessity be a question raised time and time again in the RVE curriculum, but even though this isn't where the lobby requests were coming from, I do think the concept of family is worth raising here, because what does family mean these days? In this context particularly, what happens within families can be very difficult for a child to deal with, and I don't necessarily mean sinister behaviour. So, it needs a place, I think, in this curriculum that's clear and overt.

I'm curious to hear from you, Minister, about how this delicate subject will fit into the RSE code, because there is a very fine line to draw between education and safeguarding and stepping into people's homes. I'm tabling these amendments today to really draw your attention to that question, and see how you respond to it. Thank you.

Thank you, Suzy. Are there any other Members who wish to speak? Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you, Chair. I realise that I'm new to this committee, coming on this late, but I've been keeping a very close eye on this, and of course, all of us will have had representations as well from various organisations, both nationally and within their own constituency. I would simply ask, without abusing the privilege of coming onto this committee late in the day here, that the Minister does everything she possibly can to put on record assurances in response to some of the matters that Suzy has raised, not least in terms of the ability to scrutinise the code when it does come forward in a timely manner. But also, I've been told by organisations that there's been really good engagement with Welsh Government on this matter. I'd like to hear that and I'd like to hear that this will continue as well in that spirit of real constructive engagement and openness that I've been told has been going on throughout the period with Welsh Government. So, I'm looking for those reassurances to be put as clearly and as forcefully as possible on record today, Chair. Thanks very much.

Thank you, Huw. Can I call the Minister, then?

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you very much to Suzy and Huw for their comments. Can I say that I appreciate that everybody would have felt more comfortable if the draft code had been completed by this stage? There's no getting away from that; it would have made for more reassurance, which everybody is asking for. We are working incredibly carefully with communities, experts in the field, practitioners in this field to be able to develop a code that does indeed give that confidence and seeks to achieve what Suzy Davies outlined in her opening comments, that equips our children and young people with all the skills that they need to lead happy, healthy lives with healthy relationships into the future; that they can take steps to protect themselves, that they can take steps to ensure that their behaviour towards others is what we would want it to be, and to avoid some of the stigma and pain that children have felt in the past when these topics and these issues have not been adequately addressed in their own schooling. As we said in the debate at Stage 1, our children and young people are growing up in a world that is unrecognisable to the one that we grew up in, and ensuring that they have access to support and materials, a safe space to ask questions and debate issues, is really, really important. Because the alternative is much, much more scary, and much, much more dangerous to our children's well-being.

So, we're working at pace, Huw, as far as we can. Some of our deep community engagement has had to change as a result of COVID. We were out in communities, working with community groups in face-to-face discussions—that kind of activity, I'm afraid, has had to be stopped and changed as a result of where we are. But as I said in a previous debate, I am absolutely determined that the statutory guidance work will be completed before the end of March, and then we will go to a formal consultation, not just with Members of the Senedd, but a consultation with the people of Wales about the content of that code.

With regards to amendments 56, 58, 59 and 60, the RSE statutory guidance that we published, actually, in January of last year does already have the expectation that RSE will be co-produced, offering learners, parents and carers the opportunity to discuss and engage with decisions about the learning and teaching in RSE. Provision should also draw upon specialist services and expertise and engage with local communities. We've already set that expectation out there over a year ago, and we're very clear, also, that that should be mindful of different perspectives and the backgrounds within a local community. 

The Welsh Government does not consider, however, that schools and settings should be placed under a statutory obligation to consult specifically on this area of their curriculum. Indeed, the expectation is that the school will already be consulting parents about the curriculum as a whole, and therefore we do not feel that it is necessary to have a separate consultation on this particular aspect of their curriculum. 

I will also not be supporting amendments 61 and 66. Relationships and sexuality education will gradually enable children and young people to develop an understanding of the importance of all healthy relationships throughout their lives, such as those with friends and families, including what makes a happy, healthy and committed relationship. As it quite clearly says, in the statement of 'what matters', in the health and well-being area of learning and experience, all healthy relationships are fundamental to our well-being, and children begin to learn about relationships long before they start school, and at a very young age. So, we want learners to be focusing on developing positive relationships, initially with their friends and families.

I'm sure it's not the intention, and indeed I know it's not the intention of Suzy Davies, but I am concerned that this amendment is likely to act as a signal to schools and other settings that they should not give equal weight to all types of relationships and to diverse families, and we are far, far beyond that, I hope, in a modern Wales. We should be enabling and accepting the choices that our young people make, and this Bill is designed to support those young people in making those healthy, positive choices. 

I also urge Members not to support amendment 70, which seeks to require schools to provide RSE to post-16 learners. RSE is on the face of the Bill as a statutory element of the new curriculum for learners from 3 to 16. This is the priority age group, so by the time that learners reach what used to be called a sixth form, now years 12 and 13, they have received many years of education on this topic, and so will be as well equipped at this stage as they are able to be. All learners will have had access to the full curriculum and all pupils will have received this education. The intention is that post-16 providers will use the RSE guidance to support post-16 learners in RSE and other health and well-being matters as part of their wider duty of care and pastoral support. The draft RSE guidance is intended to support education settings to integrate RSE into a whole-school approach to building and maintaining good physical, mental and emotional health and well-being. Sixth forms and colleges will therefore be expected to consider this guidance as they shape provision that effectively supports their young people. And the position for RSE in sixth forms will be the same as for students in FE institutions. Can I thank the Member for her comments, and I urge Members to reject the amendments.

Thank you, Minister. Suzy to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much, and thank you for your considered response there, Minister. Once again, it's an opportunity to reinforce that promise you made earlier that we will get an RSE code by March, and in those circumstances I don't see that there's any peril for you in committing to an amendment that obliges you to do that. 

Regarding the consultation with parents, I appreciate what you were saying that there's an expectation on schools to consult, but it's that magic word 'expectation' again, isn't it? I'm looking for certainty here. I'm looking for the right for parents to be informed, because that's what we're talking about here—about any changes to RSE, in particular, because it is such a controversial area—so that they can be brought along as part of the process, and actually maybe reinforce what's being taught in their schools within the family home, rather than contradicting it. I suspect we all have worries about what some children are taught at home, and this is actually where you can perhaps ameliorate our concerns on that. I really want them to have this right, not just rely on the goodwill and expectations that appear in documents beneath this curriculum.  

Just on the point about RSE at 16, yes, we will hope, won't we, Minister, that years and years of good RSE will have equipped our 16-year-olds to be ready to face anything in the world. I really do hope that; I just don't think it's going to happen necessarily. Every individual is different, and there will be some young people who are coming across their first challenges to do with relationships, or encountering their first really bad experiences at that age of 16, and I don't see why they shouldn't have the option of doing as they do with RVE, and you haven't explained the distinction why there's a different approach. 

And so, I am urging Members to support that particular ask, if you like, if not in this particular amendment, because I realise it's a bit of a composite amendment, then I'm looking for support for it at Stage 3 when I'll actually narrow this down and make it about just one thing, which is allowing young people at the age of 16 to ask for something that really matters to them. I'm not just going to throw amendment 12 or the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child at it again, but if this matters to young people then we need to listen. Thank you. 

Thank you, Suzy. Do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 54?

Yes, please, because it secures the Minister.

The question is that amendment 54 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so I'll take a vote by roll-call. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed. Dawn Bowden, please state your vote. 

Against.

Suzy Davies.

For.

Siân Gwenllian.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against.

Laura Jones.

For.

I vote against. There voted three in favour, three against. As there's a tied vote, I use my casting vote in the negative, that is, against the amendment, and amendment 54 is not agreed. 

Siân, do you wish to move amendment 44? 

I move.

The question is that amendment 44 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you. There is an objection, so I will take a vote by roll-call. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed. Dawn Bowden, how do you vote?

Against.

Suzy Davies.

For.

Siân Gwenllian.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against.

Laura Jones.

For.

And I vote against. There voted three in favour, three against. As there's a tied vote, I use my casting vote in the negative—that is, against the amendment—in accordance with Standing Orders, and amendment 44 is not agreed.

We'll move on now, then, to group 6, which relates to the implementation time frame. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 55, in the name of Suzy Davies. I call on Suzy Davies to move amendment 55 and to speak to the other amendments in this group.

Thank you again, Chair. Since these amendments were tabled, of course, Minister, you've introduced your curriculum implementation plan. Like all plans, it will be leapt upon by the willing and able and dutifully worked through by others who are organised and resilient, and maybe cried over by others where there is weak leadership or engagement, a history of poor attainment and standards, or who are just overwhelmed by the events of this year. Now, we've seen the Estyn reports, Minister. Our secondary schools, in particular, are not all with the programme yet, and no wonder, then, that there is a surge in demand for training.

So, yes, there is, maybe as a result of COVID, a better understanding of the digital sphere and well-being. These may well be the silver linings of the crisis, but the grim reality is that heads have now to focus on catch-up if some of the worst affected children aren't permanently affected by their lost learning. So, amendment 57 doesn't seek to delay implementation of the curriculum per se—it really doesn't. Those schools who can crack on, let them crack on. This is an amendment for those schools who just won't be able to, and I'm suggesting that you allow them up to a year to get ready enough to get going. 

Now, obviously, I'm mindful of your concerns that maybe some school leaders will see this as a green light to slacken off the pace in terms of curriculum development, but to be honest, I think we need to consider how close to burning out some of our heads and teachers themselves might be as this pandemic persists, and so a slackening of the pace may actually be what they need to get this right eventually. But because there may be some who could take advantage for no good reason, the amendment contains the condition that no pupil must be disadvantaged as a result of any delay. So, basically, if the head delays implementation, they will have a new headache of having to catch up faster with the curriculum, thus avoiding any perverse incentive to delay. So, I'm tabling this amendment in response to the committee's recommendation 57, and amendment 55 is just consequential on amendment 57. Thank you.

Thank you, Suzy. Are there other Members who wish to speak? Can I call the Minister, then?

Thank you, Lynne. I think Suzy Davies quite rightly identifies a real issue. I just disagree with her solution. Rather than slackening the pace for those that face the greatest challenges, we need to up the support to get them in a position that allows them to move forward with those colleagues that are more resilient, as she just identified. There are undoubtedly those schools that will have challenges, and that's why Welsh Government, school improvement services, local education authorities, and our school inspectorate are there to provide that additional support that they will need to make a successful transition to the new curriculum. 

Of course, we have to take in the context which we find ourselves in, and that's why I don't believe we are in a situation where we can either do the curriculum or we can design a recovery plan from COVID-19 to address the interruption and disruption to children's learning. Indeed, in many ways, the application and the introduction of the new curriculum, which is focused on that teaching and learning and on that well-being, I would argue, is exactly the approach that we need as we address the impact of COVID-19. So, whilst I do not disagree with the Member that there will be schools that will need additional support, I just disagree with the answer to that. It's not to slow things down. It is incumbent upon us in the Government and our other education partners to address those concerns in those individual schools and to get them to be in a position where they are able to move forward at the same time. Otherwise, the Member just addressed those schools that perhaps are particularly challenged at the moment; we will just embed that inconsistency of provision across Wales, rather than addressing it. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister. Suzy to reply.

Yes, thank you, Minister. As I say, this is an attempt to respond to a recommendation from the committee, and I think I'd just want to point these out—. I think I do need to say this. Yes, Minister, you're absolutely right; these schools do need to have extra support—let's up the support—but there are only so many hours in a day and, at the moment, all our schools are struggling, and trying to find space for extra support itself would be quite a challenge. And, yes, you may well be right that the new curriculum, or the principles contained in it, is actually a tool for the catch-up that actually so many schools are going to need in this, but we don't know that. And we still as a committee have ongoing concerns about how the curriculum is going to be operationalised and whether it will have an effect on standards. Will it increase the attainment gap, for example? These are unanswered questions. And so, putting all your eggs in one basket on curriculum processes in order to enable schools at the moment with their catch-up programme is a risk in and of itself, I think. And that's why I'm not just inclined to accept your argument on this one either. I don't think it's an easy answer. And I'll just repeat that point that I think some schools are going to be plunged into having to implement the new curriculum and, because of COVID, they just won't be ready and I do wonder what the effect will be on year 7 in particular, if that does happen. Thank you.

Thank you, Suzy. Suzy, do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 55?

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 55 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so I'll take a vote by roll-call. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed. Dawn Bowden, please state your vote.

Against.

Suzy Davies, please state your vote.

For.

Siân Gwenllian.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against.

Laura Jones.

For.

And I vote against. So, there voted two in favour and four against. Therefore, amendment 55 is not agreed.

Suzy, do you wish to move amendment 56?

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 56 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so I will take a vote by roll-call. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed. Dawn Bowden, please state your vote.

Against.

Suzy Davies.

For.

Siân Gwenllian.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against.

Laura Jones.

For.

And I vote against. So, there voted two in favour and four against. Therefore, amendment 56 is not agreed.

Suzy, do you wish to move amendment 57?

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 57 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you, we have an objection, so we'll take a vote by roll-call. The question is that amendment 57 be agreed. Dawn Bowden, please state your vote.

Against.

Suzy Davies.

For.

Siân Gwenllian.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against.

Laura Jones.

For.

And I vote against. So, there voted two in favour and four against. Therefore, amendment 57 is not agreed.

Suzy, do you wish to move amendment 58?

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 58 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we'll take a vote by roll-call. The question is that amendment 58 be agreed. Dawn Bowden, please state your vote.

Against.

Suzy Davies.

For.

Siân Gwenllian.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

[Inaudible.]

Laura Jones.

For.

And I vote against. So, there voted—. Huw, can we go back to you, please?

Against.

Against. Okay. So, there voted two in favour and four against. Therefore, amendment 58 is not agreed.

Suzy, do you wish to move amendment 58?

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 58 be agreed, Does any Member object? [Objection.] Sorry, I've made—.

Fifty-nine.

Yes, sorry. Do you wish to move amendment 59?

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 59 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we'll take a vote by roll-call. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed. Dawn Bowden, please state your vote. 

Against.

Suzy Davies.

For.

Siân Gwenllian.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against.

Laura Jones.

For.

And I vote against. So, there voted two in favour, four against. Therefore, amendment 59 is not agreed. 

Suzy, do you wish to move amendment 60?

Yes. I don't think it's consequential. Yes, please. Yes.

The question is that amendment 60 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we'll take a vote by roll-call. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed. Dawn Bowden, please state your vote.

Against.

Suzy Davies.

For.

Siân Gwenllian.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against.

Laura Jones.

For.

And I vote against. There voted two in favour, four against. Therefore, amendment 60 is not agreed.

Siân, do you wish to move amendment 45?

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 45 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we'll take a vote by roll-call. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed. Dawn Bowden, please state your vote.

Against.

Suzy Davies.

For.

Siân Gwenllian.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against.

Laura Jones.

For.

And I vote against. There voted three in favour, three against. As there's a tied vote, I use my casting vote in the negative, that is against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Orders. Therefore, amendment 45 is not agreed.

Suzy, amendment 61. Do you wish to move it?

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 61 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we'll take a vote. The question is that amendment 61 be agreed. Dawn Bowden, please state your vote.

Against.

Suzy Davies.

For.

Siân Gwenllian.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against.

Laura Jones.

For.

And I vote against. There voted two in favour, four against. Therefore, amendment 61 is not agreed.

I move amendment 4 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Okay. Amendment 4 is therefore agreed.

I move amendment 5 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Okay, then amendment 5 is agreed.

The committee will now take a short break and reconvene in 15 minutes. Thank you.

Welcome back, everyone, to our Stage 2 proceedings. We are now moving on to group 7, which relates to religion, values and ethics. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 85, in the name of Suzy Davies, and I call on Suzy Davies to move amendment 85 and to speak to her other amendments in this group.

Thank you very much, Chair, and I move the lead amendment here. Before I move on, though, I've just got a quick question on the Government amendments that remove references to religious traditions in Great Britain and replace them with references to religious traditions in Wales. We're going to be supporting these, but it does suggest that there might be a slightly narrower offer in Wales as a result of that. If I can just give you an example of a possible unintended consequence, of which perhaps you can reassure me very quickly in your contribution, Minister: it occurs to me that we commemorated the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau just two days ago, yet we don't, for example, have a significant Jewish population in Swansea, in my region, any more, and I wouldn't like them to disappear from the local RVE offer just because they're not there in numbers now. So, perhaps you could just deal with that very swiftly in your contribution.

I've got two questions about Government amendments 31 and 34. In short, they say that the body tasked with devising the local RVE curriculum,

'shall, so far as consistent with the efficient discharge of the group's functions, reflect broadly the proportionate strength of the religion, denomination or non-religious philosophical conviction in the area.'

I can see why it's phrased in that way, and, as far as I can see, it's your way of giving a meaningful voice to those with a philosophical conviction that doesn't embrace the idea of a god or gods. The example we've been discussing is humanists, for example, who have a considered credo and principles by which they live under. If that's what you mean in those amendments, then we have no issue. But could you clarify what you mean by the word 'conviction' in your contribution, please, Minister? Because however culturally Christian Wales might be, and however many faithful observants of different religions we have here, Wales is now predominantly agnostic or even an atheist country in terms of where it stands with religion. Now, personally, I wouldn't call that a position of conviction, but it does reflect the majority population's relationship with religion. So, if you interpret conviction widely, then this body of curriculum designers will be dominated by people who believe in nothing, and I'm not sure that's what you intended, and I would say the confidence in such a body to design a local religion, values and ethics curriculum would be very much damaged. So, I wonder if you could just reassure me on that as well in your contribution.

Before turning to my amendments, though, can I just thank you, Minister, for listening to this committee, other Members and constituents, on tabling the amendments you have that equalise the position for all schools in that they have to have regard to the agreed RVE syllabus? I'm going to let you speak to those amendments, but I did want you to know that we are grateful to you and that we will be supporting your amendments to that effect.

My amendments, which I'll speak to altogether, if that's okay, don't undermine those changes. I just want to reinforce that point. These amendments acknowledge the fact that voluntary aided schools are also under obligations relating to their deeds or tenets. But, in accepting the Government amendments, we are moving away from the redundant language of accordance and to the principle of having regard—a sort of 'due regard', if you like. And with these amendments, voluntary aided schools have two statutory due regard duties—neither more important than the other. And so, yes, they can reflect and consider and balance the weighting of the curriculum they offer—we are talking about a denominational curriculum that observes deeds and tenets; they are schools of religious character after all—but they cannot hide behind those deeds or tenets to avoid entirely the requirements of the local RVE curriculum. And nor should they need to, because we've been told repeatedly, haven't we, that voluntary aided schools offer a broad and balanced curriculum, notwithstanding their deeds and tenets, and pupils of totally different religions and beliefs, as well as those with none, follow those curricula without any attempts by parents to withdraw.

So, what these amendments do, by putting into legislation both due regards, is three things. Firstly, it closes an escape route that voluntary aided schools might want to explore—for example, not teaching pupils about humanism or discussing it. They can't leave out huge chunks of the locally agreed RVE curriculum, as that wouldn't credibly satisfy their due regard duty, and, after all, their religious representatives have helped design that agreed curriculum. And the weighting—and all schools of any character will decide how they weight content—will, I expect, in these circumstances, reflect adherence to deeds and tenets. Secondly, it does away with a need for a right for a child in that school to demand a separate RVE curriculum. If those due regards are exercised appropriately—and we've discussed the evidence required to show that in another group of amendments—the school will be delivering a compliant curriculum. If it hasn't exercised those due regards properly, then it is not. And that allows a child—a child—or a parent to pursue the complaint and remedial processes set out elsewhere in the Bill, although I think there's some more work to be done on that, which I'll raise at Stage 3. And then, thirdly, it offers fairness to parents who are losing a right as a result of this legislation, and it gives them, as well as their children, an alternative remedy.

Chair, I won't be a calling for a vote on amendment 89, as I think that needs a bit of further consideration—this is to do with the complaints process—but I will come back at Stage 3 with something on that territory for Members' consideration. Thank you.

Thank you, Suzy. Are there any other Members who would like to speak? Can I call the Minister, then, please?

Thank you very much, Chair. I'm afraid I cannot support amendments 85 and 86. We have had detailed discussions with our delivery partners, and the Government amendments 15 to 17 have been drafted specifically around those discussions. So, therefore, in turning to amendment 15, paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Bill as introduced requires the RVE provision in the curriculum of voluntary aided schools with a religious character to have been designed in accordance with the trust deeds or tenets of the school’s religion or denomination. However, if that RVE provision does not accord with the agreed syllabus, voluntary aided schools must make additional provision in the curriculum for RVE that accords with the agreed syllabus.

However, in discussions with our delivery partners, they conveyed their view that this approach would place them under a more onerous obligation and, indeed, create practical issues for learners. They felt that these schools were not being treated equally with other maintained schools under the Bill, and they have strongly argued that, in order for the provisions to be fair, voluntary aided schools with a religious character should be required to 'have regard' to the agreed syllabus when designing their RVE provision. This change ensures that all schools are treated equally in that all schools in Wales now will have to 'have regard' to the agreed syllabus. This change will still mean that parents whose children are in a school of a religious character and who do not want their child to follow the denominational syllabus will still be able to request their child is able to follow a syllabus that has regard to the agreed syllabus.

This was also the view of the committee and therefore amendment 15 requires voluntary aided schools with a religious character to provide for the teaching and learning of non-denominational RVE that 'has regard to' the agreed syllabus rather than 'accords with' when designing their curriculum.

Again, in relation to amendments 87 and 88, I cannot support these because of our discussions with delivery partners and the tabling of our own amendments 15 to 17. That brings me to amendments 16 and 17. These amendments are also the result of discussions and engagement and are consequential on amendment 15 to change the requirement for voluntary aided schools with a religious character to provide for the teaching and learning of non-denominational RVE that 'has regard to' the agreed syllabus. Amendments 16 and 17 need to be accepted together with amendment 15.

I note that Suzy Davies is not intending, at this stage, to move amendment 89. I'm pleased that she has stated this. I do not believe that it is required, because a complaints process is already in place for all elements of school management, including the curriculum. Governing bodies of maintained schools must adopt a complaints policy under section 29 of the Education Act 2002 and there is also provision in section 409 of the Education Act 1996 that requires a local authority to establish a complaints process in respect of a complaint that a governing body of a maintained school has acted or is proposing to act unreasonably in relation to a power they have or the duties to which they are subject. Adding another complaints process would be unnecessary duplication and would simply be an additional burden for schools when the requirement for a complaints procedure is already set out in legislation.

Amendments 18 though 20, 26 through 28 and 35 through 40 will ensure that teaching and learning of RVE for post-16 pupils will reflect the religious and non-religious philosophical convictions represented and practised in Wales. The Bill, as currently drafted, makes reference to religions and beliefs represented and practiced in Great Britain, as opposed to Wales, and, having considered representations, I now feel it is more appropriate for the Bill to reflect the religions and non-religious philosophical convictions represented and practised in Wales rather than in Great Britain. This Bill is a Wales-only Bill and, therefore, it's only right that we replace 'Great Britain' with 'Wales'. But I take Suzy Davies's point, and I certainly would not want that to curtail—. You're quite right, Suzy—Swansea and, indeed, Cardiff, as well as other parts of Wales, do indeed have a Jewish tradition. Those communities are relatively small, but that's not to exclude their discussion, and, when we talk about religion and ethics, we want it to be expansive. The whole purpose of making this a compulsory element of the Bill is for pupils to have an awareness of a variety of belief systems that they will come across in their daily lives, that they will read about and hear about in the news, and therefore I certainly wouldn't want it to—and it's certainly not our intention that we would—exclude in any way.

Amendments 29 through 34 alter the composition of the standing advisory councils on religious education, the SACREs, and the agreed syllabus conferences, the ASCs. The Bill as introduced makes provision for a separate, new group within SACREs and ASCs to represent non-religious philosophical convictions. On that point, Suzy, that terminology is longstanding legislative terminology of this kind. It is found both in UK legislation and also European Convention on Human Rights advice. So, we're trying to make sure that there is consistency in drafting, and that is why that terminology is used. And this new group sits alongside, but is separate from, the groups that represent religious beliefs and denominations within SACREs and ASCs. 

It is important that religious and non-religious representation is included in the SACREs and the ASCs, but, having listened to representations, it was clear that there were considerable concerns from many stakeholders about having two separate committees, with one representing religious beliefs and another for those representing non-religious philosophical convictions. These amendments alter this position to require religious beliefs and non-religious philosophical convictions to be represented within the same group on both SACREs and ASCs. And this is in line with Welsh Government policy and current law. 

These amendments further require local authorities to take all reasonable steps to ensure, so far as is consistent with the efficient discharge of the group's functions, that the number of members appointed to the group broadly reflects the proportionate strengths, beliefs and convictions in local authority areas. The amendment also requires local authorities to have regard to any guidance given by Welsh Ministers when appointing members to this group on SACREs, but they do not make any corresponding provision in relation to ASCs, as the Bill already contains provision that will require local authorities to have regard to Welsh Ministers' guidance when appointing members of the group on ASCs.

To conclude, I would urge Members to vote in favour of Government amendments 15, 16 and 17, which have been developed in partnership with delivery groups, and reject non-Government amendments 85, 86, 87, 88, and I note the Member will not move 89. I also urge Members to vote in favour of our amendments as outlined in this discussion. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister. Suzy to reply to the debate.

Yes, thank you, and thank you for your response there, Minister. Just to go to amendment 89, I think it's because—this is entirely my fault—it refers to maintained schools, rather than voluntary aided schools, and that's the bit I need to reconsider in the context of a complaints process. It may not be so necessary now, as my main amendments, I guess, aren't going to be approved today. But I would be interested to hear, when you were speaking to your delivery partners about how to square this very difficult situation—the committee and constituents have talked to us about RVE quite a lot, as you know—whether the solution that I've offered, or an equivalent of it, obviously, as you hadn't seen my amendments before, was discussed as a way forward. And, again, you can't respond in this debate, but maybe out of committee—I'd be keen to know whether the solution I'm suggesting did come up. 

We’ll be supporting your amendments, as we say. Just on the point of 'conviction', I'm grateful to you for the confirmation that there’s already an existing understanding of what the word 'conviction' means in case law, and I'm happy to rely on that and needn't trouble you with the question again. Thank you.

Thank you, Suzy. Suzy, do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 85?

Yes, I do want to proceed on all these, apart from 89. Thank you, Chair. 

Okay. Thank you. The question, then, is that amendment 85 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you. We've got an objection, so we'll do a vote by roll-call. The question is that amendment 85 be agreed. Dawn Bowden, how do you vote?

Against. 

Suzy Davies. 

For. 

Siân Gwenllian. 

Huw Irranca-Davies. 

Against. 

Laura Jones. 

For. 

And I vote against. So, there voted two in favour, three against, one abstention, so amendment 85 is not agreed. 

Suzy, you've already said—do you wish to move amendment 86?

Eighty six, yes.

The question is that amendment 86 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we'll take a vote. The question is that amendment 86 be agreed. Dawn Bowden, please state your vote.

Against.

Suzy Davies.

For.

Siân Gwenllian.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Against.

Laura Jones.

For.

And I vote against. So, there voted two in favour, three against, one abstention, and amendment 86 is not agreed.

I move amendment 15 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we'll take a vote, then, on that. The question is that amendment 15 is agreed. Dawn Bowden, please state your vote.

For.

Suzy Davies.

For.

Siân Gwenllian.