Cofnod y
Trafodion
The
Record of Proceedings
Y Pwyllgor Plant, Pobl Ifanc ac Addysg
The Children, Young People and Education Committee
Cynnwys
Contents
67 Papurau i’w Nodi
Papers to Note
Cofnodir y trafodion yn yr iaith y llefarwyd hwy
ynddi yn y pwyllgor. Yn ogystal, cynhwysir trawsgrifiad o’r
cyfieithu ar y pryd. Lle y mae cyfranwyr wedi darparu cywiriadau
i’w tystiolaeth, nodir y rheini yn y trawsgrifiad.
The proceedings are reported in the language in which they were spoken in the committee. In addition, a transcription of the simultaneous interpretation is included. Where contributors have supplied corrections to their evidence, these are noted in the transcript.
Aelodau’r pwyllgor yn
bresennol
|
|
Mohammad Asghar |
Ceidwadwyr Cymreig |
Michelle Brown |
UKIP Cymru |
Hefin David |
Llafur
|
John Griffiths |
Llafur
|
Llyr Gruffydd |
Plaid Cymru |
Darren Millar |
Ceidwadwyr Cymreig |
Julie Morgan |
Llafur
|
Lynne Neagle |
Llafur
(Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor)
|
Eraill yn bresennol
|
|
Karen Cornish |
Dirprwy Gyfarwyddwr,
Diwygio’r Cwricwlwm, Llywodraeth Cymru |
Alun Davies |
Aelod Cynulliad,
Llafur (Gweinidog y Gymraeg a Dysgu Gydol Oes) |
Steve Davies |
Cyfarwyddwr, yr Adran
Addysg, Llywodraeth Cymru |
Stephen Gear |
Pennaeth Cefnogi
Cyflawniad a Diogeli, Llywodraeth Cymru |
Catherine Lloyd |
Cyfreithiwr,
Llywodraeth Cymru |
Tania Nicholson |
Pennaeth Rhaglen
Ddeddfwriaethol Anghenion Dysgu Ychwanegol, Llywodraeth Cymru |
Mair Roberts |
Cyfreithiwr,
Llywodraeth Cymru |
Emma Williams |
Dirprwy Gyfarwyddwr,
Is-adran Cymorth i Ddysgwyr, Llywodraeth Cymru |
Kirsty Williams |
Aelod Cynulliad,
Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol Cymru (Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros
Addysg)
|
Swyddogion Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru yn
bresennol
|
|
Jon Antoniazzi |
Clerc |
Sarah Bartlett |
Dirprwy Glerc |
Michael Dauncey |
Y Gwasanaeth
Ymchwil |
Gareth Rogers |
Ail Glerc |
Lisa Salkeld |
Cynghorydd
Cyfreithiol
|
[141] Kirsty Williams: So, as you can imagine, now we’re working on the different areas of learning and experience, we need a variety of schools to test that content. So, we need Welsh-medium schools, we need smaller schools, we need church schools—we need a whole variety of schools involved in that process. There are some schools that have self-identified themselves as being particularly good and strong in those areas. There are schools that haven’t identified themselves, but we know are particularly good and strong and so we want to encourage them to come into the process. So, we need a wide range of schools, otherwise those particular areas will maybe have too narrow a focus. So, we need a broad range—church schools, non-church schools, Welsh medium, non-Welsh medium, rural, urban, small, large. We need a curriculum that reflects the needs of the whole education system.
|
[142] Darren Millar: Just a very brief question on the digital competency framework: that’s obviously been made available, but not all schools can take advantage of it because they don’t all have access to sufficient broadband capability, do they?
|
[143] Kirsty Williams: I saw your press release, Darren.
|
[144] Darren Millar: Yes, well, we’ve got at least a couple of dozen schools—over a couple of dozen schools—that don’t yet have access to that. What’s going to be done and what timescale are you working to to make sure that they’ve got access to these resources in the future, because they can’t access the Hwb resources or the digital competency framework at the moment?
|
[145] Kirsty Williams: There were 26 schools that were not able to be part of the first roll-out of the previous Government’s project. Those schools were identified as having cost solutions that were way, way beyond practical expenditure levels. All of those schools will be up to the necessary speeds by the end of March of this year. Thirteen of them have already been ordered and all of those schools will be adapted. I’ve also announced—so, you need to read my press releases as carefully as I read yours—
|
[146] Darren Millar: I read it before—
|
[147] Kirsty Williams: Well, if you read it before, you would know that we have also identified £5 million-worth of expenditure to increase speeds for a whole host of other schools. So, we’re not just resting on our laurels, we recognise the demands of the curriculum and the demands of schools are changing and therefore we are upping the basic speed limits that we would expect to be in a school, and we are putting resources to that.
|
[148] Lynne Neagle: Okay, thanks. John, then Oscar.
|
[149] John Griffiths: In terms of the new activity in the new pioneer schools, I’m particularly interested in one area of curriculum development, which is physical literacy, following Tanni Grey-Thompson’s report and the vital importance of instilling good, healthy and active life habits into our population as early as possible. Could you say a little bit about that area of work in terms of what’s happened up to now and what will happen with this new phase?
|
[150] Kirsty Williams: If we start from basic principles, John—if we start from the basic high-level principles, and that is the purpose—one of the purposes of the new curriculum is to ensure that our children are healthy, ethical, confident and informed. This very much, then, ties into our work in our health and well-being AoL. So, we take the high-level purpose principle and then we bring that down to one of the areas of learning and experience, which is health and well-being. We have a specific set of schools that will be working on that. We also engage closely with the strategic stakeholders group, of which Sport Wales is a participant. So, we are taking advice from Sport Wales in that stakeholder group to be able to assist us in the development of that particular area of learning and experience. I have met with Sport Wales and I have encouraged them to continue to provide advice and expertise. My expectation is that they will be meeting with that particular group of schools, the area of learning and experience group of schools, to be able to have input into that process. That will be a process that will be taken across all the areas of learning and experience. So, the schools will be working on that themselves in their groups but also looking to have external advice from people to be able to inform the kind of things that they will need to have in their particular spec of the curriculum.
|
[151] Mr Davies: One thing to add, very briefly, Chair, is that the last point you made was how we build on things that have gone before. The Government has invested a large amount of money previously in physical literacy—that will be part of the curriculum. The idea that it’s all new—. We have invested significantly in global learning and modern foreign languages—all of that learning will be part of the new curriculum. So, it is looking at using what has been created previously and what worked particularly recently to build into the new curriculum.
|
[152] Lynne Neagle: Many of the committee stakeholders are very keen on the issue of healthy relationships being key to—
|
[153] Kirsty Williams: They aren’t the only ones.
|
||
[154] Lynne Neagle: Yes, I know.
|
||
[155] Kirsty Williams: They aren’t the only ones. I have been inundated. I have had lots of meetings about healthy relationships and religion. That’s what people are very concerned about.
|
||
[156] Lynne Neagle: Is it on track?
|
||
[157] Kirsty Williams: Yes, it is. Obviously, healthy relationships and sex education forms a very important part of the current curriculum. I don’t think that we can meet our purpose of healthy, ethical, confident and informed citizens unless we address that in our new curriculum. Again, it will form part of the health and well-being area of learning and experience group, and, again, we will be taking external advice.
|
||
[158] Since taking up this post, I have set up a new external expert group to help ensure that we have the resources for this, because we do know that this is one area of education that teachers often feel a bit jumpy about. They don’t know whether they’ve got the right expertise. They don’t know whether they’re using the right language. There is still, unfortunately, some hangover from previous legislation a long time ago that prevented people even talking about some issues. And there are some people who are still in the profession who don’t know whether they are allowed to talk about gay relationships and whether they will get into trouble if they talk about gay relationships in school. So, we are moving things on, and we have an external group that I have set up to ensure that we get this part of the curriculum right.
|
||
[159] Lynne Neagle: Is it on this, Julie?
|
||
[160] Julie Morgan: Yes. A lot of people say to me: will sex and relationships be statutory, and will every child be required to have that input? Now, I know that isn’t the concept of Donaldson, so how do you answer those people? Also, bear in mind that, when we did pass the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015 here, there was a bit in that about sex and relationships education that wasn’t done at the time because it was waiting for this review. But the Bill was passed on the understanding that this would be at the forefront of any new curriculum. So, how do you answer those people? They want me to say, ‘Oh, yes, it will definitely be there and it will be statutory.’ But, obviously, we have a different concept. How do you deal with that?
|
||
[161] Kirsty Williams: Well, you are absolutely right when you tell them, Julie, that it will definitely be there. It will be there, and I want it to be as good as it can be. That’s why we are leaning heavily on outside organisations, and issues around domestic violence are part of that. So, it will definitely be there, but you are quite right—with the exception of Welsh language and religion—those will be the only things in legislation that will be written down. What we know from our previous experience is that if you keep adding statutory elements to the curriculum, you end up with what you’ve got now, which is this unwieldy thing that teachers are grappling with and have no time to explore and be expansive in what they teach children. But it will be there. Karen, can you explain what we will then do to ensure that?
|
||
[162] Ms Cornish: Yes, certainly. I think it’s really important to understand that, actually, healthy relationships within the context of a new area of learning and experience around health and well-being actually means that health and well-being could end up having a higher status across the curriculum than having something that, at the moment, in certain cases, as we know, feels more like a bolt-on, or is not delivered maybe as well as some of our young people would expect or need. So, I think that actually having a health and well-being area of learning and experience gives us a great opportunity to ensure that the critical elements around healthy relationships, around mental health, around physical health, around how children and young people look after themselves, are going to be much more at the forefront. So, I think it gives us a great opportunity, and we need to use that opportunity well.
|
||
[163] Lynne Neagle: Thank you. Oscar.
|
||
[164] Mohammad Asghar: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Kirsty, for mentioning Margaret Thatcher earlier.
|
||
[165] Kirsty Williams: Not in a good way, Oscar. [Laughter.]
|
||
[166] Mohammad Asghar: No, I know. I will just tell you that, for the record and for your information, she had a very good friend, Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was the only President in the history of America who won his presidential election through high-tech industry. He used computers for the first time ever, and he won the election. That had such a good impact on the great lady, she wanted to put things—. Twenty-first century, high-tech knowledge, learning from the past—. The best innovations in the world are British, including Welsh. So, basically, she was one of the visionaries—we should give her hats-off praise rather than saying anything else. And the question to you is: throughout the community we have heard contradictory evidence on the relationship between the design of the curriculum and the setting of the assessment framework with the teachers and headteachers largely in agreement that the assessment framework needs to be set first. Where does the Welsh Government sit with this issue, please?
|
||
10:45
|
||
[167] Kirsty Williams: Okay. I’m tempted, but I won’t go into a history lesson about the legacy of Mrs Thatcher in the education system. But, Oscar, you raise a very important point, and that work around assessment falls to the curriculum and assessment group. And we need to develop both the content of the curriculum and the assessment at the same time, which was one of the pitfalls that we spoke about earlier that Scotland fell into. So, that group is there to help steer and inform the design of the new curriculum and the assessment arrangements around it. The members of that group have national and international expertise in assessment, and they support the pioneer schools through their understanding of current evidence and best practice. It’s not a chicken and an egg, I’m afraid—it is chicken and egg at the same time because we have to develop both elements. We have to understand how assessment will look at the end of this process, and we can’t just bolt it on at the end, having thought about it; it has to be an integral part of the work of the content of the curriculum itself. So, it’s going on at the same time.
|
||
[168] Lynne Neagle: Michelle, on this?
|
||
[169] Michelle Brown: Thank you, Chair. There’s been some evidence before the committee that suggests that schools are primarily focused on the current assessment versus the accountability thing. What’s your view on that?
|
||
[170] Kirsty Williams: Well, I can understand why they do it—because they want to deal in the here and now. And, in a sense, that’s a function of how existing accountability measures can drive behaviours, and we talked about that in the previous session—you set up an accountability regime, and, naturally, people adapt behaviour or change their behaviour to meet that system. So, pioneer schools have been grappling with the issue, and the development of the new curriculum is actually an opportunity to change how we do accountability within our system. Hopefully, it’s smarter and a better way of doing it. So, that work is ongoing at the moment. We are also looking currently—we’re not waiting for the end of the curriculum to have this new regime. We’re currently working at the moment to see how we can change accountability measures that drive to minimise unintended consequences and that drive the right kind of behaviour. That work is ongoing now. So, we’re not just waiting till the end of the process; we’re currently looking to see what we can do within the current accountability measures that work towards where we’re going to be. We don’t want to change accountability measures now that are not going to fit with the end goal of where we want to be in 2021. That means I’ve made some different decisions from my predecessor, because it didn’t sit with where we wanted to go. We didn’t want to drive schools down this way when we know, in 2021, that we’re going to want them to do something completely different. So, we’re trying to work in conjunction with what we’ve got now also, but Steve could give a better explanation than I can.
|
||
[171] Mr Davies: I’m sure not so, but I can add briefly. The issue is that we have these areas for learning and experience, and we have to look at assessment at the same time as the curriculum because teachers, in the interests of our children progressing, need to believe in and contribute to, and then accept, a model that will be able to measure the progress, because measuring the progress in itself is not as important as planning from that information as to what the children do next. So, quite rightly, the profession is focused on that. What we need to do, through the transition, is to say, ‘What things are we going to remove from the current accountability structure as we move into the new curriculum?’ So, we are looking at teacher assessment, where teachers in many cases use it for, as before I described, planning, progress. There are some unintended outcomes when it’s used for national comparisons, and you can have distortions, particularly around teacher assessment, in what’s in the interests of the school’s performance and what’s in the interests of children’s progress. We are determined to get that right for the new curriculum, and we are looking at what steps we need to take in transition to remove some of the structures we already have in place, potentially, around publication of results for teacher assessment, for example.
|
||
[172] Lynne Neagle: Okay, thank you. Hefin.
|
||
[173] Hefin David: Professor John Furlong said, nearly two years ago, that initial teacher education falls well short of what will be required if the recommendations of the Donaldson review are accepted. Do they still fall short?
|
||
[174] Kirsty Williams: Okay. So, as you will be aware, we are in the process of reforming initial teacher education. The expressions of interest for our new programmes are in at the moment. I think I’m allowed to say that we’ve had 10 expressions of interest. We will be reviewing those in the way we look to go forward. But, again, we can’t sit back and just do nothing at the moment until these new programmes come on board. So, we are currently going around all the current providers to visit them, have in-depth discussions about what they can do now. So, for instance, the digital competence framework is already available. So, what are teacher training courses doing at the moment with the students they’ve already got to incorporate the digital competence framework in the provision now? So, again, there’s a twin-track process, where, as these new resources and the new approaches become available, we will be expecting the current providers to have them on board, incorporate them into their programmes of work, and use them with their students, because those students will be using them when they go out into their schools, but, at the same time, ensuring that the new programmes that we will be sanctioning or allocating are fit for purpose.
|
||
[175] Hefin David: That doesn’t sound like the fundamental reconceptualisation that Furlong called for, though.
|
||
[176] Kirsty Williams: Well, actually, the new programmes, which people have expressed an interest in developing, we will be testing them to be exactly that. One of the ways in which we will designate a course as being an appropriate course is whether they are, indeed, demonstrating that their new programme is transformational. What I’m trying to say is that we can’t sit back and wait for those new programmes of study to be verified by the relevant bodies and then accepted and delivered by those institutions. We have to work with the institutions that have got trainees in them now to be able to get them up to speed for what we anticipate the new curriculum will be like. I won’t sanction a programme unless it is transformational. If it’s more of the same, then that provider will not be providing initial teacher education.
|
||
[177] Hefin David: But the approach to the design of that sounded more pragmatic and incremental than transformational to me. The way you’ve described it: chicken and egg.
|
||
[178] Kirsty Williams: Sorry, I’m obviously not describing it very well. So, as you know, we have asked providers, or potential new providers who want to be in the business of training teachers for tomorrow, to give us expressions of interest. We will then be looking at what the nature of that programme is. If that programme is not transformational in the way that Furlong wants it to be, and will not be up to the task of training teachers to do that new curriculum and to be able to be a successful teacher in this new era, then that programme will not be successful in gaining accreditation and funding from us. But, at the same time—
|
||
[179] Hefin David: But what—
|
||
[180] Lynne Neagle: Hefin.
|
||
[181] Kirsty Williams: But at the same time, we have got trainee teachers in our institutions now. We can’t just say to them—and ignore their needs—. We have to be working with the universities now to ensure that what they’re doing now is fit for purpose and up to speed. So, there is a twin-track approach, but the new programmes will be the type of programme that John Furlong envisaged.
|
||
[182] Hefin David: Okay, and from the point of view—
|
||
[183] Kirsty Williams:—because he’ll be the person that is evaluating them.
|
||
[184] Hefin David: This will be the subject of a wider inquiry anyway, but you mentioned teachers who are already teaching. Professional development: one of the things that Donaldson said was that, with professional development, there is a lot of work to be done. We took evidence. I think it was Qualifications Wales that mentioned the professional development passport.
|
||
[185] Kirsty Williams: Yes.
|
||
[186] Hefin David: I’ve had a look at it. It doesn’t seem to cut the ice, really, when it comes to preparing for Donaldson.
|
||
[187] Kirsty Williams: Okay. You’re right. So, one of the challenges of a successful new curriculum will be the ability of teachers who are currently in the system to be able to deliver that. So, there is a group of schools—pioneer schools—that are specifically doing this piece of work to see what we need to do and what we need to provide for existing teachers to get them ready to do that. So, that stream of work is already ongoing, with the focus on professional learning. Alongside that, we are about to go out to consultation shortly, before the summer, on the new professional teaching standards that the Welsh Government is developing. So, there is a whole host of work again going alongside the curriculum work—again, one of the reasons why, in Scotland, it didn’t work out so well for them is because they ignored this part of it—and within the pioneer schools that are specifically looking at that. We’ve got professional teaching standards that are being worked on and in conjunction with the profession. So, this all builds part of the jigsaw.
|
||
[188] Mr Davies: With specific reference to the professional learning passport, we’ve looked at that and that does have the capacity to capture—
|
||
[189] Hefin David: It’s not mandatory though.
|
||
[190] Lynne Neagle: Hefin, stop interrupting, please.
|
||
[191] Mr Davies: It’s not mandatory, but it has the capacity. In terms of securing good practice and committing to professional development, we would expect—and Estyn will be inspecting against the quality of how this work is captured—and I believe, sensible, well-placed, well-judged schools will be using it as part of this process.
|
||
[192] Lynne Neagle: Okay, thank you. Llyr.
|
||
[193] Llyr Gruffydd: Yes. I was just wondering how the Government’s target of 1 million Welsh speakers is reflected in deliberations around the curriculum.
|
||
[194] Kirsty Williams: Just one point: the expectation of our new professional teaching standards is a commitment to lifelong learning for the professional. The biggest learner in that classroom should be the teacher at the front of that classroom, and you will not be able to meet your professional teaching standards unless you can demonstrate that you are constantly learning yourself. So, it’ll be a professional expectation for the profession as a whole.
|
||
[195] Sorry, 1 million Welsh speakers: one of the challenges, and one of the things that keeps me awake at night—and there are many things that keep me awake at night—and why I do welcome the committee’s look at the profession, and whether we’ve got the workforce to do this, is to ensure that we have teachers with the right skills to be able to offer good-quality Welsh opportunities in all of our schools. It cannot just be the preserve of Welsh-medium schools, but we need to make sure that children who are accessing English-medium schools have access to really, really good-quality Welsh education. So, that’s why, as you know, somewhat controversially, we’re changing our GCSEs and the robustness of those GCSEs, but we will continue to support and fund teachers’ professional learning and development opportunities to be able to upskill their Welsh. We know that there are many people who are in our schools who probably speak Welsh at home or speak Welsh in their community, but, for whatever reasons, don’t feel confident enough to do that in the classroom. So, we need to be able to give professional learning opportunities to those people to up their skills, and give them the confidence to be able to do some of that. So, there’s a big workforce issue around the ability to ensure that there is good-quality Welsh provision, especially outside the Welsh-medium sector. Because there’s a danger of thinking it’s just the job of the Welsh-medium schools, and we won’t meet the target if we’re going to do that.
|
||
[196] Llyr Gruffydd: And beyond Welsh as a subject as well, of course.
|
||
[197] Kirsty Williams: Yes. It’s every day. So, when you go into primary schools, it is part of the everyday life of the school. The morning exchange of ‘Bore da’. It is an integral part of the ethos of the school.
|
||
[198] Llyr Gruffydd: Can I ask as well—clearly, we’re developing a bespoke curriculum for Wales, and there has been lobbying around the need for history, for example, to reflect Welsh history et cetera—at what point do you think people who are concerned about these issues will actually see some tangible evidence that that is actually happening?
|
||
[199] Kirsty Williams: The sooner the better, from my perspective, because they will then not be on my Twitter feed all the time asking those questions. Obviously, the humanities area of learning and experience is being set up at the moment, which history will form a part of, and we need to let that group do its work. So, again, the whole principle around Donaldson is to give that freedom. It’s to not say, ‘You will just do this, this and this’, but actually to be expansive so that people can spend their time talking about their local history and the history of Wales. So, this is by no means exclusive.
|
||
[200] Mr Davies: Just very briefly, we’ve announced that June is the time that we wish to get some way down the line in terms of areas of learning and experience. The Minister’s quite right—what we don’t want is something that’s a mile wide and an inch thin by prescribing. Some of these groups will have the opportunities, when the AoLEs are finalised, for materials to be provided and developed, and to win the hearts and minds of teachers who want to engage and use these materials. But it will be that AoLE framework. It will not be a very detailed prescription of all that would need to be taught.
|
||
11:00
|
||
[201] Kirsty Williams: Some of the issues, as well, on this agenda, Llyr, are about what actually is examined. There’s nothing in the current curriculum that stops children learning about Welsh history—nothing at all. But, I think maybe what people are conflating is what can be done in the curriculum and what is examined at a GCSE history level. Of course, the content of GCSEs is not a matter—. Those qualifications are developed independently of me and I think that maybe where there is some—. There is no reason at all why schools cannot, at this present time, be teaching children about Welsh history, about local history.
|
||
[202] Mr Davies: I can reassure you that Qualifications Wales is totally integrated and working with us on the curriculum.
|
||
[203] Lynne Neagle: Just one final question, then: there’s a lot of change going on, how are we ensuring that young people who are currently in secondary school are not adversely affected by the transition to the new curriculum?
|
||
[204] Kirsty Williams: This is a source of great concern to parents, especially with new GCSEs coming on board. And, I declare an interest: like you, Lynne, our eldest children are some of the first people to go through these new GCSEs. Qualifications Wales and the WJEC are working very hard to make sure that, in terms of examinations at the end, no child will be adversely affected by being in the first cohorts. So, independent of me, because that’s an independent process, I know that they are working very hard to do that.
|
||
[205] The whole process is that we’re making resources available now for people, so that schools can pick those up and integrate them into their learning, now, so that it’s a developmental process. What we’re aiming for is a soft landing for the curriculum, rather than simply flicking a switch today and saying, ‘That’s it, you’ve swapped from that to that, now’, actually, this is an incremental process. So, this material will be available for 2018 for teaching, but obviously we don’t expect anybody to be examined for external examination purposes until 2023. So, there is an incremental soft-landing approach that is being taken that allows schools to build up their approach. In terms of the examinations—which I know is a cause of concern for parents, because it’s been expressed to me—I know that the bodies responsible for that are working very hard to make sure that nobody is disadvantaged.
|
||
[206] Lynne Neagle: Okay, thank you very much. Can I, on behalf of the committee, thank you for coming this morning and giving evidence in the two sessions? I also thank your officials for their contributions as well. You will receive a transcript to check for accuracy in due course, but thank you very much for your time.
|
||
[207] Kirsty Williams: Thank you.
|
||
[208] Lynne Neagle: The committee will now break until 11.15 a.m., if that’s okay.
|
||
Gohiriwyd y cyfarfod rhwng 11:02 ac 11:16.
|
||
Y Bil Anghenion Dysgu
Ychwanegol a’r Tribiwnlys Addysg (Cymru): Sesiwn Dystiolaeth
1
|
||
[209] Lynne Neagle: Can I welcome everyone back after the break? Item 4 is our first evidence session on the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Bill. I’m delighted to welcome Alun Davies AM, Minister for education and lifelong learning. Can I just ask you to introduce your officials for the record, please?
|
||
[210] The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Welsh Language (Alun Davies): If you don’t mind, Chair, I’ll ask my officials to introduce themselves so they get their job titles right. I always get these things wrong.
|
||
[211] Ms Williams: Emma Williams, head of support for learners division and senior responsible officer for this Bill.
|
||
[212] Ms Lloyd: Catherine Lloyd, from legal services.
|
||
[213] Ms Nicholson: Tania Nicholson, head of the Bill team.
|
||
[214] Ms Roberts: Mair Roberts, legal services.
|
||
[215] Lynne Neagle: Thank you very much, and thank you all for coming. If you’re happy, we’ll go straight into questions then, if I can just start by asking you what the main changes are that you’ve made to the draft Bill, which, obviously, our previous committee had the opportunity to scrutinise.
|
||
[216] Alun Davies: Thank you very much, and I’m grateful to the committee for the invitation this morning and also for the approach that committee is taking to the Stage 1 scrutiny of this legislation. I know there’s been great interest in the work that the committee is proposing to undertake over the next few months. I would say to the committee that, in introducing the Bill before Christmas, I want to reinforce the points I made in Plenary before Christmas: the Government is very anxious to listen to the debate that’s taking place; we’ll be following your Stage 1 scrutiny very closely; we’ll be listening to what people say to you; we’ll be listening to the views of the committee; and I hope that, when we do have a Stage 1 report in due course, we’ll be able to look then, collectively, to how we take the Bill forward.
|
||
[217] The vision that we have for the reforms is to ensure that all people, all learners in Wales, have an equal opportunity to achieve their potential and to secure successful futures for themselves. We want everybody to be able to access education that meets their needs and enables them to participate in, benefit from, and enjoy the learning experience.
|
||
[218] In terms of your direct question, Chair—you asked what changes we’ve made—we’ve looked at a number of particular areas. There’s been, as you indicated, a wide debate on this legislation over a number of years, and we’ve seen the legislation evolve and develop as a consequence of that debate. Perhaps some of the main changes we’ve seen in terms of the Bill that was published before Christmas are in terms of the relationship between agencies, between, possibly, the education system and health—section 18, for example, in the legislation. We’ve also addressed issues around the language and we’ve tried to ensure that specific issues, such as the cases of looked-after children, are addressed in a more profound way. So, I hope that we have participated in a process of scrutiny and responded to the issues that have been raised. That process of scrutiny, of course, continues, and we will continue to listen and we will continue to respond in a way that I hope will deliver a piece of legislation that will achieve all of our ambitions.
|
||
[219] Lynne Neagle: Thank you very much. Julie Morgan.
|
||
[220] Julie Morgan: Yes, thank you very much, Chair. You referred in your response to the importance of the agencies working together, and you specifically mentioned education and health. Do you think the proposals in the Bill in section 18 will ensure that health plays a full, open role in the process?
|
||
[221] Alun Davies: I hope we have got a strong enough—. It falls open at the page here because we have all been looking at section 18, on a number of occasions—perhaps more often than other elements. If you read through what we say in there, we are going much, much further than perhaps some people had anticipated, and the language we’re using here is language that I, as a committee member, have asked Ministers to use in the past. We’re using the word ‘must’, for example, not ‘may’; not ‘could’, but ‘must respond’. We are putting in place not just the duty that is clear there, but also a structure that will enforce and deliver on that duty. The role of the designated education clinical lead officers, or DELCOs, for example, is something that came out of the more recent consultation in the predecessor committee, so that each health board will have a structure within which they can operate to deliver on the duty to deliver the sort of treatment and support that a young person may require according to the clinical judgment of the specialist dealing with that individual.
|
||
[222] So, I hope that section 18(4) for example:
|
||
[223] ‘the NHS body must consider whether there is a relevant treatment or service that is likely to be of benefit…
|
||
[224] ‘(5) If the NHS body identifies such a treatment or service, it must—
|
||
[225] ‘(a) secure the treatment.’
|
||
[226] So, I hope by using that language we have done two things: first of all, we’ve delivered on the duty that was required, but secondly we have also created the confidence, if you like, within the system, within the community, that that will be delivered upon as well.
|
||
[227] Julie Morgan: There’s always been an issue about confidentiality, particularly with the health service. I wondered how you’d address that issue.
|
||
[228] Alun Davies: My anticipation is that the professionals dealing with people will always work according to those professional standards that we would expect, at all times, and issues of confidentiality will be a key part of that. I wouldn’t anticipate there being significant issues there. If we’re wrong and if we need to strengthen what our assumptions are, then I’m very prepared to look at that again. But I would expect and anticipate the professionals dealing with these matters to respect issues of confidentiality as they would all other matters relating to the care and treatment of any individual within our health service or within our education service.
|
||
[229] Julie Morgan: Do the health bodies—? Are they fully in support of these proposals?
|
||
[230] Alun Davies: I certainly hope so. Let me say this: there’s sometimes a debate and discussion that takes place that pitches education and health almost in different places. That has never been true. What we haven’t had before is a piece of legislation that unites the two, if you like. I hope that what we’re doing now is ensuring that we do meet those objectives and deliver the confidence in the delivery of services. We have an official from the health department as part of our Bill team. I’ve met Vaughan on a number of occasions to discuss these issues. There has never been an opportunity—I have never found any disagreement either amongst officials or amongst clinical leadership on any of these matters. It’s a matter of creating the words, if you like, that reflect our shared ambition. So, I hope we have got the words, on this occasion. We’ve never been short of the ambition or the vision, but sometimes we haven’t been able to explain that sufficiently well. I accept that. I hope now that we have.
|
||
[231] Also, I do keep coming back to the role of the DELCO, if you like, within health boards. We’re not simply imposing a duty here. We’re not simply seeking to legislate to say, ‘This shall happen.’ But what we’re also doing is creating a structure and a programme within that, to ensure that it happens on a day-to-day basis, so that the law is delivered in a way that is seamless and which delivers on the ambitions of all of us represented here.
|
||
[232] Julie Morgan: Would you agree that one of the main keys to the success of this legislation, as well as having the family and the child at the heart of all the decisions, is this effective multi-agency working?
|
||
[233] Alun Davies: Yes, I do. And do you know, we can pass—and I think sometimes legislators believe that we can change the world simply through passing a Bill or putting a piece of legislation on the statute book. What I would like to do, more than anything else, is to create a culture change within the way we work, because, at the end of the day, the success or not of this legislation will depend upon individuals working well together within the system that’s created. Now, I hope that we’ll create the legislative framework here that will enable that to happen, because we know sometimes we create a framework that creates impediments, that creates difficulties, but I hope here we’re creating a framework that will bring people together in a coherent way, and, by doing that, we will do something more profound, that we will create a culture change where, working together—and we had this debate, some of us, in terms of the Bill on future generations in the last Assembly—we create a change not simply in the structures of the way we work, but change in the culture of the way we work. If we can achieve that, then I think we’ll achieve something very, very special, and will go a long way to answering some of the concerns that you’re raising.
|
||
[234] Lynne Neagle: Okay, thank you. Darren, is this on the issue of collaboration?
|
||
[235] Darren Millar: It is, and it’s also a bit wider than that, if that’s okay, Chair. I appreciate section 18 and the aspirations that that is aiming for, but my broader concern, really, is that it doesn’t give parents the opportunity to access NHS professionals directly. It has to be a referral that is being made by a local authority or by someone else who maintains the IDP, the individual development plan, for those young people. Why isn’t it the case that a parent can refer directly and ask directly for the NHS to consider whether there is any treatment that the child or young person can have that will help them maintain a place in their school?
|
||
[236] Alun Davies: Well, people have always got the right to access the national health service. You can always access the national health service; there’s no restriction in this Bill on that.
|
||
[237] Darren Millar: But in this context I’m talking about.
|
||
[238] Alun Davies: Well, in any context you can access the national health service, Darren. But let me say this: section 18 isn’t about aspiration alone, it’s about making things happen, it’s about making things work. You and I have sat on committees before and have talked about different amendments, and certainly, when I was looking at this, some of our experiences on committees were in my mind. We use the word ‘must’. Now, all of us who have legislated have talked to Ministers about that sort of terminology: ‘could’, ‘may’, ‘wish to’, whatever. We’ve all seen it in legislation, and I spent five years on the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee. Putting the word ‘must’ in changes the tone. It changes completely the duty that is there. They must do this. And that’s a very, very clear strengthening, and a profound strengthening of this legislation, and it’s about, then, ensuring that we create the structures where we can work together. But do you know, Darren, the whole purpose of this legislation is about putting the person, the people, at the centre of it, and parents are a key part of that? This is about supporting people and their families, it’s about enabling people to have an environment where we can nurture people, where we can deliver for sometimes extraordinarily vulnerable people. And I trust the professionalism of the workforce involved; I trust that people will want to do that, and I hope that, by creating this framework, we will both enable that to happen but also ensure that people remain at the centre of what we’re seeking to do. So, I hope, and anticipate, that that is—
|
||
[239] Darren Millar: We’re both batting on the same side here.
|
||
[240] Alun Davies: Yes, I know we are.
|
||
[241] Darren Millar: I don’t doubt your commitment to want to deliver a real change for the children and young people that we’re talking about, but obviously it makes the point on the face of the Bill that the referrals must be from those bodies, and it doesn’t make any point about referrals can be made at all by parents. It brings me on to my wider concern, really, and that is that, very often, there will be individuals who have medical needs that may need and require some support while they are in a learning environment, and this Bill is all about learning needs and disabilities, and learning needs and disabilities alone. And that concerns me. I know we’ve discussed this across the Chamber and privately, and you seem to be open to looking at whether the scope of the Bill, the application of the Bill, can include those with specific medical needs that it may be necessary to meet during the course of the school or college day. Can you tell us specifically how you hope to be able to address those? I know that you’re in the process of developing or reissuing guidance—refreshing the guidance—on this, but obviously we haven’t seen that yet. So, how can we ensure that those children and young people aren’t missing out?
|
||
11:30
|
||
[242] Alun Davies: Can I just say that, if I don’t reassure today, let’s return to this tomorrow and continue the conversation about the referrals? If you’re in the process here and that remains an issue, then we can review it again. You’re right in your approach and your description of my view on the health issues. Guidance will be issued. My advice is that it’ll be issued shortly, and I can write to committee if committee wishes to know a more realistic timetable for that. I’m quite happy to write to committee on that. The guidance will cover those health issues that we’ve discussed and that you’ve raised on the floor of the Chamber. Let’s have that debate; let’s allow the debate to play out over the process of Stage 1. And if, having seen the guidance, people believe that there is still a requirement to strengthen the Bill, if people believe that this is the right vehicle to do that, and if people believe that we have a way in which we can do that, then let’s have that conversation as we go through Stage 1. You’re absolutely right; I’m not approaching this in any dogmatic way at all. I’m very, very happy to work with you to seek amendments on that.
|
||
[243] Lynne Neagle: Thank you. Llyr.
|
||
[244] Llyr Gruffydd: Thank you. Clearly, the detail in relation to health has been strengthened, and that has been widely welcomed, I know. But whilst there’s a duty on a health board to provide what’s in the IDP, my understanding is that the health board also needs to consent to what’s in the IDP. So, is there not a risk there that health boards, given, maybe, financial climates, would maybe resist in some way or other the inclusion of certain services that they would then subsequently be expected to provide within that process?
|
||
[245] Alun Davies: I hope not. I hope not. Let’s look at the process here. The relevant health professional will assess a child—a five-year-old for argument’s sake; well, let’s say a five-year-old—and say, ‘This child has particular needs and would benefit from a particular course of treatment’. The health board would then be mandated to provide that. Now, if for some reason a doctor or whatever specialist would say, ‘This child has particular needs, but, actually, we don’t want to meet those needs’, I think that would be a significant issue, not just for this Bill, actually, but in general. So, that’s not an issue that troubles me greatly. One of the founding principles of the national health service is that we deal with people’s needs according to the clinical judgment at the time. If you look at 18(5):
|
||
[246] ‘If the NHS body identifies such a treatment or service, it must’—
|
||
[247] must—
|
||
[248] ‘secure the treatment or service for the child or young person.’
|
||
[249] And it goes on then to describe delivery in the Welsh language. That, I think, is quite a profound duty. Now, if there is a belief that the NHS will in some way try to remove itself from delivering that duty, I think that’s about trust rather than reality, and I think there is in the wider community a sense of lack of trust sometimes. And I think that lack of trust is reflected then in those sorts of questions. I think it’s incumbent upon this Government and this Minister to win that trust, and to demonstrate that what we’re seeking to do is to put legislation on the statute book that will deliver for some of our most vulnerable people in society, and we have an absolute duty to do that. I hope—I expect—that the whole of public services will work together to do that.
|
||
[250] Llyr Gruffydd: Well, I hope and expect so as well, and clearly this is a risk and not something that any of us would wish to see happening. But we have seen, of course, the number of statements in England reduce over the years, and one reason for that maybe is because of the financial belt-tightening that’s happening. Clearly, there will be a resistance where possible from certain organisations or individuals to be liable for paying for that. So, how are we guarding against those kinds of pressures and making sure that the people who need the services that they need get them?
|
||
[251] Alun Davies: What we’re relying upon is a clinical judgment, and if the clinical judgment is such that a treatment or service is to be delivered for that child, or that child would benefit from that treatment or service, then there is duty in this legislation that that must be delivered. Let me say this: I thought Mark Isherwood actually made some very good points in the legislative statement that we had before Christmas. He was talking there about statements in his own personal experience. And I know that, when he was speaking, he was speaking for an awful lot of people. He was articulating the concerns of many people. And, on that, what I hope we will be able to do, again, through the process—and the stage 1 process, I think, it is absolutely essential, critical, to this—is, by speaking with people, we will be able to demonstrate that the process of having an IDP is moving forward. Because there’s always this fear that people fought—and hard, sometimes—for statements, and they’ve spent years trying to secure the services for their child, and getting the statement has been enormously difficult for the family, and they’ve been through a terrible, terrible, traumatic experience. We understand that that happens. And then, all of a sudden, the process and the system change, and there’s that terrible fear, then, isn’t there, that we’re going to lose what we’ve fought so hard for. And I think we need to demonstrate that what we’re seeking to do with this legislation is to deliver services for a broader, greater range of people, and not simply to take services away from those who are sometimes in greatest need. I think the fears that Mark articulated in the Chamber are real fears, and I think those are fears that we need to meet. And, you know, the experience in England reinforces some of that, I think.
|
||
[252] Lynne Neagle: Thank you. Michelle.
|
||
[253] Michelle Brown: Thank you, Chair. I’d like to stay on section 18, if we can. My concern here is that if you look at subsection (4), it actually says that the NHS ‘must’, as you said,
|
||
[254] ‘consider whether there is a relevant treatment or service that is likely to be of benefit’.
|
||
[255] Once the NHS body has considered whether that is the case, it’s only if there’s a positive outcome to that—the NHS body says, ‘Yes, we have a service or a treatment that’s likely to be of benefit’—that the actual obligation in subsection (5) actually kicks in. My concern here is that, because of the way subsection (4) is worded, that an NHS body must only ‘consider’ whether a treatment is available, that weakens the duty. What does the parent or the person with additional learning needs do if the NHS body considers whether a treatment is available, but says, ‘No, I’m sorry, there isn’t’?
|
||
[256] Alun Davies: That’s not what it says, with due respect. What subsection (4) says is that
|
||
[257] ‘the NHS body must consider whether there is a relevant treatment or service that is likely to be of benefit in addressing the child’s or young person’s additional needs.’
|
||
[258] It doesn’t say ‘if it’s available’; it says ‘if it’s likely to be of benefit’. I think we need to be aware of and cognisant of the requirement of the national health service to use its clinical judgment in terms of that. The alternative, for example, would be to insist that an NHS body delivers a treatment or service, whether it’s of benefit or not. And I don’t think I’d feel comfortable with that. I feel comfortable with creating a statute whereby that consideration must be given, and that consideration isn’t by a Minister or a politician or a manager, it’s by a clinical specialist, by a doctor, by somebody who’s medically qualified, to look at that child’s overall condition and then to consider the treatments or services that are likely to be of benefit. And ‘likely to be of benefit’ is a very widely drawn definition. ‘Is likely to be of benefit’—that doesn’t set the test very high. It means that if it is possible that a service will be of benefit—and it doesn’t define ‘benefit’ in any way at all, doesn’t qualify it; that it’s likely to be of benefit—then it must be delivered, and that is quite a profound change. And, of course, you do always have—and this refers back partly to Llyr and Darren’s earlier question—all the means and mechanisms of a complaints process within the national health service if we think that the national health service has failed. But I think this is quite a powerful statement.
|
||
[259] Michelle Brown: Right. With respect, I think you’re fogging the issue. The words that I’m concerned about are that the health body ‘must consider’. ‘Consider’ means ‘think about’. If the NHS body then turns around to the learner and says, ‘I’m sorry, no, we don’t have anything available’, what can that learner do, and what can the parents and carers of that learner do, to actually appeal against that?
|
||
[260] Alun Davies: Well, there’s a whole—
|
||
[261] Michelle Brown: What recourse do they have?
|
||
[262] Alun Davies: There’s a whole system of recourse in the national health service, which is well known. But, in terms of your fundamental point—‘must consider’—you know, I do not want to be in a situation whereby politicians are overriding the clinical judgment of clinicians within the national health service, and I don’t think anybody wants that. I think, at the end of the day, we have a national health service that is there to deliver according to clinical need, and clinicians have an absolute duty to deal with the individual presenting themselves, on the basis of the needs of that individual. If you have amendments you wish to make to this piece of legislation, then I would very much welcome considering them. But I have to say to you, Michelle, I think you’re going on very, very thin ice if you seek to impose duties on the national health services that override the clinical judgment of clinicians.
|
||
[263] Michelle Brown: I am not expecting politicians to be able to override the clinical judgment of clinicians. What I would like to see is more security for learners and parents and carers that the NHS body doesn’t just have to ‘consider’. It’s quite an easy thing to check off. And I’m not saying they’re going to do that, but they have the scope to do that. There’s a loophole in that subsection that I really do think you need to address. Because, you know, the committee was concerned in the past that it didn’t sufficiently bind the health sector. In my opinion, it still doesn’t sufficiently bind the health sector.
|
||
[264] Alun Davies: My purpose isn’t to bind the health sector—it’s to work with the national health service to deliver on the clinical judgment of clinicians, and to provide the service that individuals need. I don’t take your view of the national health service, I’m afraid, and I don’t take your view of public services in total. I believe that we have some fantastic, committed clinicians working within the health service, and I trust their judgment—you clearly don’t.
|
||
[265] But, let me say this: we do have a whole range of public law responsibilities and complaints procedures within the national health service for when things do go wrong. But my purpose here—and it refers back to the answer I gave to Julie, actually, in an earlier question, which is about changing the culture of the way we work together. And that means trusting people, trusting people’s judgment, trusting people’s professionalism, and then creating a structure within which we can deliver for individuals. And I think, if we approach this on the basis of trying to bind somebody because you don’t trust somebody, I don’t think you’d get very far at all. You certainly don’t achieve the culture change—
|
||
[266] Lynne Neagle: Michelle, this is the first evidence session, and we’re going to have plenty of opportunity to explore this, and we have got a lot of other areas to cover. You had some questions on the individual development plans as well.
|
||
[267] Michelle Brown: I did, yes. Again, it’s really a dispute resolution question.
|
||
[268] Lynne Neagle: Can we deal with the—?
|
||
[269] Michelle Brown: I’ll keep it short.
|
||
[270] Lynne Neagle: But we were coming on to dispute resolution a bit later on, if that’s okay. Oscar, you had a question on the IDPs.
|
||
[271] Mohammad Asghar: Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you, Minister. You agree with the clinicians, so that’s great to know. In this committee, we have heard—sorry, I beg your pardon. The ALN Bill proposes a single system for all people in education from the age of 0 to 25, and there appears to be a gap for those in work-based learning programmes, with the Bill’s focus confined to further education. What steps will the Welsh Government be taking to ensure that the Bill legislates for all students, including those pursuing more vocational education programmes with additional learning needs?
|
||
[272] Alun Davies: Yes, I think you’re right to identify that. I think there are two gaps, in fact. I think the gap is work-based learning and the university sector as well. And I think we need to look at that. The reason that it’s not included at the moment is because that would significantly increase the scope of the legislation into placing duties upon private business, and that’s not been the purpose of this legislation. The purpose of the legislation has been to change the formal system, if you like, about maintained settings and about how we deal with additional needs in those settings. It hasn’t been about the extension of that into private business. And that, I accept, is something that has been questioned, and it has been a significant part of the conversation. I would like to see us being able to move on a non-statutory basis into those sectors. I’d like us to have a relationship that will be based more on trust and looking towards how we develop our different, for example, apprenticeship models to enable those people with additional learning needs to have their needs met whilst working in a private business. I’d be very happy to explore how we do that. The IDP, of course, will provide support for them, and a transition into the world of work and the IDP can be shared with those employers and people if that is what is required to ensure that that sort of support is available on a non-statutory basis. And in terms of higher education, which I’ll accept you didn’t ask about, but I think it is there as an issue, there is a practical issue about cross-border flows. But again, it is an issue that I’m very happy to look at and to consider.
|
||
11:45
|
||
[273] Lynne Neagle: Thank you. Hefin on this issue of 0-25 and then we’ll go back to the IDPs then.
|
||
[274] Hefin David: Okay. I asked you a question on 6 July in the Chamber—
|
||
[275] Alun Davies: You did, I remember.
|
||
[276] Hefin David: The gist of the question was, ‘Can you let me know how the Welsh Government will use this Bill to provide the resources and services for pupils with complex additional learning needs from the age of 19 to 25?’, particularly with the concerns about the drop-off after 19. Your answer was:
|
||
[277] ‘We will ensure that the transition from education into adulthood is better planned and supported, and I would be more than happy to continue to have that conversation’
|
||
[278] and basically saying that it’s subject to the drafting of the legislation. So, can we continue with that conversation?
|
||
[279] Alun Davies: We certainly can. The IDP is very clear: it goes up to age 25, and it looks at the sort of support that a young person will need as they move from childhood into adulthood, if you like—as they move from being in education into the world of work and, sometimes, supported employment. Certainly, the IDP will identify the sort of support that that young person will need as they embark upon the next stage of their life. Now, I think it’s an interesting matter of debate—and this is something that I hope the code will cover when we publish the implementation code on this legislation—as to how detailed that IDP is, whether it is a mandated IDP template, or whether it’s a mandated skeleton that is then filled in by professionals, and to what extent, then, does that actually mandate support for that young person moving, for argument’s sake, from a further education college to a work-based apprenticeship, for argument’s sake. How is that support delivered? How is that support provided? Who’s responsible for doing that? What is the nature of that transition and the support through that transition? I think it’s absolutely critical that we get that right. At the moment, I think that is one of the real pinch points in the whole system.
|
||
[280] Hefin David: So, at the moment you’re working that through, then—that is the answer.
|
||
[281] Alun Davies: The sort of support delivered will depend on the individual. This comes back to the person and individual-centred development plan, which will be different for each individual. Now, what we need to do is to ensure that we have an IDP that is sufficiently—I’m trying to avoid using the word ‘detailed’—but sufficiently robust to ensure that that individual has access to the support needed and required to enable that transition to take place successfully. It will vary from person to person, it will vary according to individuals’ needs. But what must not vary, and what must be consistent, is the level of support delivered. And I recognise that that support may be delivered and will be delivered by different sources or different agencies, and the role of a local authority here is absolutely critical in ensuring that it’s able to co-ordinate the delivery of that support. So, I would look towards local authorities being able to take a lead in looking across the different services being delivered to enable a tailored support package to be put in place for that individual.
|
||
[282] Hefin David: And finally, then, would that then require additional funding, 19-25, in order to do that effectively?
|
||
[283] Alun Davies: I believe that it probably will involve additional funding, yes.
|
||
[284] Hefin David: Okay.
|
||
[285] Lynne Neagle: Okay, thank you. The Bill proposes moving from a system that we’ve got currently where there is a three-tier approach to one where all learners would have an IDP. Can you just tell us how you are planning to see that working, particularly to ensure that that is responsive enough to the needs of all learners and that learners with the most severe needs don’t lose out by the loss of the graduated system?
|
||
[286] Alun Davies: The IDP, I hope, will be sufficiently flexible to ensure that the level of detail does match individuals’ level of need. Let me say this, as I tried to say this in answer to an earlier question: the purpose of this legislation is to introduce a more robust and comprehensive system of support. I think it’s something like—and officials will correct me if I get this wrong—88 per cent of learners with additional learning needs that do not have a statement. So, the purpose is not to take away from the 12 per cent in order to give to the 88 per cent, but in order to provide the 100 per cent with the support that they require.
|
||
[287] So, this isn’t a matter of reducing and diminishing support to those who have the most profound needs. It’s a matter of how we seek to ensure that an individual who needs support has that support identified and the treatments or support that they require—the conversations that we’ve just had—and that is then delivered within the educational setting. The purpose of the IDP is to identify that. Clearly, some IDPs will be very short and others will be very long, depending on their needs. The IDP is, at the moment, being tested with an expert group and a strategic implementation group and all the rest of it. It’s being tested with practitioners on the ground. I’d be very happy to share our knowledge on that with the committee if that would be useful for the committee. We are always prepared to deliver the amendments required.
|
||
[288] Let me say this about the IDPs: I gave a commitment to the committee and to the National Assembly that we will publish the code to aid the scrutiny of the Bill. We will do that in the next month. The drawing, if you like—how individual development plans will be drawn up—will largely be defined by the code, and the code itself, of course, is being published in order to aid scrutiny of the Bill, not to be scrutinised itself. There will be an opportunity for the committee and for the Assembly to scrutinise the code itself as it goes through its own parliamentary process, consequent to this Bill becoming law. We will have an opportunity then to look at what these IDPs look like and how they’re going to be drawn up. We will then have a greater wealth of knowledge, I hope, from practitioners on the ground. I’d be more than happy, perhaps at that point, to have a wider, more detailed conversation about what these IDPs will look like and how we define them in different ways.
|
||
[289] Lynne Neagle: Okay, thank you. I hear what you’re saying on that, but there’s also the issue that some of the IDPs will be the responsibility of local authorities and some will be the responsibility of schools and colleges. Can you just give us some initial views for the committee about how you see that operating and what kind of IDPs you would see as being the responsibility of local authorities?
|
||
[290] Alun Davies: Sometimes, there will be provision required that will be beyond the capacity or capability of a school or college to determine when—. The most clear examples of that are when needs are particularly severe or are of a very low incidence, when the expertise may not be available. At the same time, of course, there are some requirements that will be beyond the capacity of a school or college to reasonably secure, and the code does contain examples of these different elements. The requirement then will be for the local authority to take decisions, and then to deliver on that.
|
||
[291] We’re trying to be flexible in terms of enabling these decisions to be taken. Under the current system, of course, governing bodies of maintained schools already have duties for making special educational provision and already do have some duties with that. What I hope we’re doing now is introducing flexibility into the system and ensuring that, where local authorities do have these duties for looked-after children—and dual registration cases is another example where a local authority will have responsibilities—it will have the capacity to deliver on those responsibilities. What I hope we’re doing is enabling governing bodies to do what most governing bodies are doing very well at the moment, which is to deliver the needs of the children or students or pupils within their school, within their setting, and then, at the same time, widening the system, if you like, to enable local authorities to deliver where it is determined that they would be best placed to do so.
|
||
[292] Lynne Neagle: On this, Llyr?
|
||
[293] Llyr Gruffydd: Yes, on this. Clearly, the understanding is that the high-instance low-complexity needs would be dealt with in the school by the governing body, but then the lower instance higher complexity areas or needs will be delivered through local authorities. But there is a risk of ambiguity around what complexity is and where the threshold lies. Do you intend to define that in some way, or do you intend to articulate where you think that sort of dividing line is?
|
||
[294] Alun Davies: Articulate rather than define I think is probably the best way of doing it. We have put examples in the code. Again, it comes back to the points I made in relation to some of Michelle’s questions. We do rely on the professionalism and the trust of individuals taking these decisions. I hope that we will articulate that these are the sorts of places where we expect decisions to be taken—these are the edges, if you like—and I would expect and anticipate that local authorities or schools would then go through an iterative process of determining what their decisions would be for that individual. Of course, you then have the right of appeal if you believe that your individual development plan doesn’t deliver on the needs. But I really hope that the appeal and tribunal system is very much a backstop. What I want to be able to do is lead a process of transformation—and it’s a wider process of transformation in terms of training and in terms of providing the funding to enable change to take place—and then the change of culture that we spoke about earlier, which will deliver on these needs. But, you know, there will always be those difficult areas at the edges where a finely balanced decision might be required.
|
||
[295] Llyr Gruffydd: But ultimately, if there is a stand-off, let’s say, between a governing body and the local authority, the local authority trumps the governing body.
|
||
[296] Alun Davies: I would anticipate that to be the case, but I would also be disappointed—
|
||
[297] Llyr Gruffydd: If it came to that, yes.
|
||
[298] Alun Davies: —were that stand-off to happen.
|
||
[299] Lynne Neagle: Thank you. Darren on this.
|
||
[300] Darren Millar: I just want to ask about the capacity of the governing bodies to take on these additional new duties, as it were, if that is okay. Obviously, at the moment, governing bodies have special needs co-ordinators, or SENCOs, but the Bill envisions an additional learning needs co-ordinator post being something that each governing body has to have, and that additional learning needs co-ordinator then holding the hand of the governing body in making sure that it’s meeting the requirements of this Bill and making sure that the governing body is meeting its duties. Clearly, because of this shift to governing bodies taking on responsibilities for meeting the additional learning needs, some governing bodies may feel ill-equipped to be able to determine what those needs might be and what support they might be able to put in place—particularly, for example, in small schools that may have very low incidence of additional needs, full stop, whether complex or not very complex. Can you tell us how you envisage those being met in a practical way?
|
||
[301] Alun Davies: There are already duties on governing bodies under the current system, of course, to provide for the special educational needs of pupils. That goes beyond the requirement to deliver for pupils with particular statements. So, that statutory duty already exists. But, you know, you are absolutely right: we are extending that to a much broader group of pupils, and some of those pupils are already in school, of course. They are already there in the system. So, I would hope and anticipate that governing bodies, particularly in smaller schools, of course—. One of the advantages, potentially, of a smaller school, of course, is that you know the individuals and that you are able to identify and work more closely with those individuals. But we also know, with smaller schools, that they do have a relationship with the local authority in general that would be perhaps closer in terms of support and providing support for the teaching and governing bodies that would be required.
|
||
[302] Again, this comes back to—and the tone of your question is absolutely right—that level of collaboration and the change of culture. I recognise that there may be, or there will be—and I think Hefin’s question indicated this earlier—a need to deliver additional support and training. We are already doing that, of course. We’ve already made announcements on some of these areas, where we’ve already spoken about the need for a transformational programme and to fund that transformational programme. You’re aware of the work that Kirsty’s been doing in terms of changing the way we structure schools to enable schools to work together and to facilitate, not just the co-ordination of work but schools themselves working together to deliver on certain issues. So, I hope that we’ll see that way of working, a collaborative approach, which will deliver for the people we are discussing.
|
||
12:00
|
||
[303] Darren Millar: And in terms of the capacity within that ALNCO team, Wales-wide, making sure that it’s sufficiently specialised to be able to offer advice to the governing body, I assume that you foresee schools collaborating to perhaps have one ALNCO between a number of schools.
|
||
[304] Alun Davies: Schools already collaborate on all sorts of different issues, of course. Clusters of schools will already work together on a number of different issues and I would expect, anticipate, that to continue. But let me say this: I think the wider point that you’re touching upon is important. We need to be proactive in ensuring that schools have the support they require, and that’s the responsibility of ourselves in Government. We have to deliver on that. We have to ensure that the capacity exists and we know that the capacity doesn’t exist in some cases at the moment. We know that the capacity doesn’t exist in the Welsh language in some cases and we need to be able to look at how we deliver on that, and we know that we need to ensure that we have more specialist support where that’s required. I accept that—I accept that completely. The question is creating the legislative framework and then how we move forward, using the legislative framework, to create that transformational programme of culture change that we actually want to create.
|
||
[305] Darren Millar: Just one final question on this and it’s around consistency of decisions: obviously, different educational settings and different learner environments will require different types of support potentially. But what action is the Welsh Government expected to take through the Bill, or what monitoring arrangements are going to be in place, to make sure there’s consistency in decision making around those individuals who can access support and the sort of support that they can access?
|
||
[306] Alun Davies: I think I said this in answer to a question yesterday in the Chamber. I always expect consistency but not uniformity. I think the great thing we’ve got to do is provide the platform for people to use their expertise, to use their knowledge, to use their skills and to use their experience to best deliver for the pupils, in their case. What I would hope that we can do is—. The code will include the technical aspects of what you’re describing, and it may be useful—. Perhaps the best way for me to answer this question would be to say, ‘Take a look at that, see what it says about monitoring and implementation, and if, at the end of that examination, you believe we need to do more, then that will be a process that we could include in the parliamentary process on the code, subsequent to the passing of this legislation.’ But I’m more than happy to continue a conversation about that. I think the monitoring issue is hugely important.
|
||
[307] Lynne Neagle: Thank you. John.
|
||
[308] John Griffiths: In terms of avoiding disputes and resolving them when they do occur and the local authorities making arrangements for the provision of information and advice, will that always be from an independent person?
|
||
[309] Alun Davies: Will it always be from an independent person?
|
||
[310] Ms Williams: No. Information and advice can be provided. As long as it is consistent and balanced advice, then that could be provided by the local authority; it doesn’t have to be an independent. When we get into a dispute situation, then there are aspects of the Bill that allow for independent advice or advocacy and so forth, depending on the escalation. But at the information point, it’s not necessarily independent.
|
||
[311] John Griffiths: I see. Okay. And you’re satisfied with that aspect of the Bill?
|
||
[312] Alun Davies: Yes.
|
||
[313] John Griffiths: Okay. In terms of the education tribunal for Wales title—it’s wider than the tribunal that it’s replacing. I know that it’s been said that in addition to dealing with additional learning needs issues, it might also deal with allegations of disability discrimination against schools, for example. Is it any wider than additional learning needs and those disability cases, or is that it?
|
||
[314] Alun Davies: The tribunal is primarily concerned with ALN cases and the example you give is the only other function. Do you know, it’s one of those things? I don’t know how to put this. I’m not wedded to a name on it. We scratched our heads thinking about what to call this body, and if the committee has any suggestions to make, then you have no idea how grateful I would be to receive them. [Laughter.]
|
||
[315] John Griffiths: Okay. One further question, if I may, Chair, and, really, it’s getting back to some of the health issues that were discussed earlier. It’s why the tribunal will not have any power of direction over health bodies, because, as I’m sure you’re aware, there have been concerns that that doesn’t give parity of esteem, really, between the decisions of health bodies compared to those of the local authorities.
|
||
[316] Alun Davies: They already do have existing arrangements for dealing with dissatisfaction or complaints with the decisions of the health service; the ‘Putting Things Right’ process exists. What we’re trying to do is to add to developing the system, not duplicate it, and I think there’s a very real issue if we extended the role of the educational tribunal to the national health service. Then you would have almost two systems of making complaints within the health service. I don’t really wish to do that, and I haven’t heard any arguments for doing that.
|
||
[317] We have processes for complaint, for redress within the national health service. The first piece of legislation I dealt with as a new Member—back in, I think, 2007—was dealing with that system, and it’s there. What we’re putting in place here is a system to deal with the educational needs of people, and the additional learning needs in terms of the IDP and the definition of delivery of those needs and of that support. So, I don’t wish to extend that into the health service because there’s no requirement to do so. But, clearly, you know, there is a relationship and that relationship will always be there.
|
||
[318] The key thing is to have the structures that are in the health service working with the structures in the education service in order to deliver for the individual. And where there is an appeal—there will be a role for a DELCO, of course, in these matters—but where there is a need for appeal to a tribunal, that would be on the basis of the delivery of the additional learning needs support, rather than an issue within the national health service, which will be dealt with by the existing processes within the national health service.
|
||
[319] Lynne Neagle: Okay, thank you. Michelle, you wanted to come in on dispute resolution.
|
||
[320] Michelle Brown: Yes. The Minister has actually answered one of my questions, but what I would like to ask is—you know, I appreciate there’s an appeal process and you’re setting up an appeal tribunal—how do learners and parents and carers actually access that tribunal? Because, as soon as you start talking about a formal tribunal system, you’re talking about processes that can be out of reach of some people. How are you going to inform people and give them support so that they can properly access the tribunal appeal system?
|
||
[321] Alun Davies: I hope it won’t be out of reach. Certainly, you know, to exercise the power you need to know that it exists. There will be duties on local authorities to provide information on these matters, and I would expect and anticipate schools and local authorities to ensure that people do know that they have the right to appeal and the right to go to a tribunal. Now, part of being person-centred is that conversation with the individual, with the family, with being able to support that individual to ensure that they have the support that they need, and part of that is ensuring that they know what their rights are. A local authority will have an absolute duty to ensure that people understand their rights under this legislation.
|
||
[322] Lynne Neagle: Thank you. Llyr.
|
||
[323] Llyr Gruffydd: Should not the role of the tribunal extend to cover health in this respect because I know it doesn’t at the moment—or the health boards?
|
||
[324] Alun Davies: But why should it? Because we already have those processes in the national health service, and, as a Member, you’re aware of that—I’m sure, in your casework, you deal with that, as I do. So, why would you introduce a duplicate system?
|
||
[325] Llyr Gruffydd: But, surely, you could see it from the other side, where you’d see it more coherent to consider those issues together in one tribunal.
|
||
[326] Alun Davies: You say ‘those issues’. What are those issues?
|
||
[327] Llyr Gruffydd: If there was an issue around the role of the health board in this context.
|
||
[328] Alun Davies: I accept where you’re coming from. If there’s an issue, for example, in terms of delivery of a treatment within the national health service, or a diagnosis process within the national health service, for example—I’ll just use those two examples—then that is a matter for the national health service. Both of those would be discrete services provided by the national health service, and we have the redress mechanisms within the national health service to deal with that. What this tribunal deals with is the delivery of educational learning support within whichever setting that happens to be. So, that’s not the national health service. So, I hope that they should dovetail rather than clash. My fear is that if you say, ‘And this educational tribunal then has the right to go into the national health service and do all these different things’, then what you’re doing is creating a confusion and not creating coherence. I hope that what we’re doing is trying to simplify the system and create a system that dovetails and doesn’t jar against each other. That is where I’m coming from at the moment.
|
||
[329] Lynne Neagle: Thank you. Llyr, on the financial implications.
|
||
[330] Llyr Gruffydd: Yes, we’re moving now from a system that gives 13,000 learners statutory plans to a system where 108,000 learners will have, essentially, statutory plans. Your regulatory impact analysis tells us that there’ll be an annual saving of around £3.5 million. Are you confident that the estimates are correct? Given that sort of level of scaling up of provision, potentially, it just seems a bit ambitious.
|
||
[331] Alun Davies: Nothing wrong with ambition, Llyr.
|
||
[332] Llyr Gruffydd: Well, reasonable ambition.
|
||
[333] Alun Davies: Let me say this: as I said in an earlier response to a question from Darren, those learners are already in the system. Those people already exist, and those needs are already there. What we’re seeking to do is to create a system that simplifies how we deliver for those needs and how we deliver for those people with those needs. So, if somebody has additional learning needs—. For example, assuming this becomes law in the next year or so, and this will be implemented then towards the end of this decade, then many of the people in the system are already in the system. They’re already there, and their needs are already either being met or not being met. So, what we’re seeking to do is to ensure that we provide for that much broader range.
|
||
[334] You’re absolutely right with the numbers; absolutely right. The purpose—what is driving me—isn’t a cost-saving exercise. The purpose of this legislation is not to reduce bills, is not to reduce budgets, but to deliver a more robust system of support for people who need it. We are funding the transition, if you like. We are funding the transformational programme at the moment—additional funds for that. A conversation we were having earlier this morning was about the capacity to provide additional support for people in specialist colleges, for example, and what our budgets are like for that. We’ve increased the budget for that in the last year, as you are aware. So, this system could well deliver—. We’re looking at delivering those savings, certainly, but what I don’t want to do is to come to this committee and say, ‘That is the reason why we’re doing it; that is the purpose; that is the objective’, because the objective is a better system, not a cheaper system.
|
||
[335] Llyr Gruffydd: I couldn’t agree more. The code, when it emerges, is clearly going to be a substantial, hefty document because I think every answer we’ve had has referred to the code, which is understandable. Let’s hope it’s user-friendly. Will you need to maybe revisit some of the costings in light of the code when it’s in a position to be costed correctly? Because clearly there’s a lot emerging from the code, isn’t there?
|
||
[336] Alun Davies: We haven’t published the code, but we know what’s in it.
|
||
[337] Llyr Gruffydd: Oh, right.
|
||
[338] Alun Davies: You haven’t seen it; I have. I don’t want to be too blunt about that. The code reflects the Bill, and so we’re not going to revisit the impact assessment on the basis of publication of the code. But let me say this: we have a transformational programme in place. You’re right to say that too many of my answers refer to the code, and it is important to publish that to enable people to have that much richer scrutiny of the legislation. We’ll do that as quickly as we can. I’ve got no issue with that at all. But can I say this? The code is about delivering the legislation, and the legislation itself seeks to improve the system. It is not, and should never be anticipated that this is about delivering a cheaper system—delivering cost savings. It’s about maximising our ability to deliver for some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
|
||
12:15
|
||
[339] That is the purpose; that is the objective of the Bill and of the transformational programme of which the Bill is a part. The estimates that we’ve made, I believe, are robust in what they are, but what I do not want any Member to do this morning is to leave this committee believing that we are doing this in order to extract these savings from the system. That’s not what we’re about.
|
||
[340] Llyr Gruffydd: That’s fair enough, and I’d agree with you in that respect, as I said earlier. The transitional period is going to be four years, at least financially. Are you confident that the transition will happen within that window, and that the transitional costs will be expended within that window as well, and thereafter, the savings—although you wouldn’t describe them as savings—or the different financial outcome is going to be there as articulated in the RIA?
|
||
[341] Alun Davies: We published an RIA for the period of this Assembly until 2021. We’re seeking to do two things, aren’t we? To create different structures and different processes, and to do that with the legislative changes that we’re debating and discussing this morning. We’re doing it through a transformation programme, which is about the culture change we spoke about earlier—it’s about the training, it’s about enabling people and creating capacity within the system—and then we’re seeking to deliver that consistently across the face of the country, and to do that bilingually. Now, will we achieve all of that within four years? I think that’s pretty unlikely, frankly. I think we will continue to need to pursue that transformational programme beyond the life of this National Assembly, and I think we will need to pursue cultural change for a longer period of time. But I hope that this will be embraced by practitioners, and the responses we’ve had indicate that most practitioners do support that. I think people within the wider community will support what we’re seeking to do as well, and I see great goodwill. So I hope that we will achieve the changes that we’re outlining more quickly than a longer term process. But, will there be a sharp cut-off in 2021? No, I don’t think there will be.
|
||
[342] Lynne Neagle: Thank you. Final brief question from Darren.
|
||
[343] Darren Millar: Very brief question. At the moment, one of the biggest complaints about the current system is the timescale by which decisions are made. Very often it can take a whole academic year before someone’s needs are assessed and support is but in place. There’s nothing on the face of the Bill that prescribes timetables around the duties to assess someone’s need, or to get a package of support in place. Are you going to deal with that in the code?
|
||
[344] Alun Davies: I hesitate to say right now, following the previous question. [Laughter.]
|
||
[345] Darren Millar: There’s no reference to prescribe—
|
||
[346] Alun Davies: There isn’t, and I don’t think you’d put that on the face of primary legislation either, quite honestly. But, the purpose is, and the purpose of bringing the health service together—. You’re absolutely right: I’ve dealt with—in my own casework in my constituency—areas where people have had to fight, campaign and work hard for far too long, first of all, to get a diagnosis of something, to get the treatment they need, and then to get the learning support they need. The purpose of this legislation is to bring those processes together, certainly to reduce the time—absolutely to reduce the time—but also to reduce the trauma, the distress, the upset that too many families feel, and to ensure that the individuals concerned have the support in place when they need it, and not when it’s convenient to Government to deliver it.
|
||
[347] Darren Millar: So, are there timetables in the code?
|
||
[348] Alun Davies: I hesitate to say that, but yes.
|
||
[349] Darren Millar: There are. Okay.
|
||
[350] Alun Davies: But clearly that is something that we can refer to because it’s something that is absolutely critical to the success that I’ve described.
|
||
[351] Darren Millar: Because you do prescribe the need to review plans within a 12-month period, so I wondered why you couldn’t put things on the face of the Bill if you prescribed other things on the face of the Bill.
|
||
[352] Alun Davies: We can have that conversation.
|
||
[353] Darren Millar: Okay.
|
||
[354] Lynne Neagle: Okay. We’ve come to the end of our time. Can I thank the Minister and his officials for attending this morning? We will be inviting you in later on in the process as we go through the Stage 1 process, and we will be writing to you regularly with any queries that emerge from our scrutiny of the Bill. But, thank you very much for coming. You will be sent a transcript for checking for accuracy in due course. Thank you very much.
|
||
[355] Alun Davies: Thank you.
|
||
12:19
|
||
Papurau
i’w Nodi
|
||
[356] Lynne Neagle: Okay. Item 5, then, is papers to note. Paper to note 3 is a letter from Carol Shillabeer responding to our queries on the CAMHS service. Paper to note 4 is a letter from Jonathan Brentnall with additional information on our EIG inquiry. Paper to note 5, additional information from Trudy Aspinwall, also on the EIG inquiry. Paper to note 6, letter from ProMo Cymru with some clarification on our advocacy inquiry, and paper to note 7 is the letter from the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Welsh Language on CWVYS—a response to our letter. We’ll have an opportunity to discuss that shortly. Are Members happy to note those papers? Thank you.
|
||
12:20
|
||
Cynnig o dan
Reol Sefydlog 17.42 i Benderfynu Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o Weddill y
Cyfarfod
|
|
|
Cynnig:
|
Motion:
|
|
bod y pwyllgor yn penderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o weddill y cyfarfod yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.42(ix).
|
that the committee resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(ix).
|
|
Cynigiwyd y cynnig.
|
|
|
[357] Lynne Neagle: Okay. Item 6, then, is the motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public for the remainder of the meeting. Are Members content? Thank you.
|
||
Derbyniwyd y cynnig.
|
||
Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am
12:20. |