The changes proposed in this motion are reflected in the budget changes to be proposed under the next item. However, as these changes affect the Presiding Office budget, it is necessary for me to propose them on behalf of the House Committee. They affect only the purchase of the Pierhead building, which was agreed between the Executive and the House Committee some months ago. The building was purchased on 29 July 2002 for £1,520,450, including value-added tax. This sum is transferred to the Presiding Office budget to take account of the purchase of the building. An additional £75,000 towards capital charges is also being transferred. The capital charges for next year are already included in the Presiding Office budget, and some capital charges have also been included for the current year. Therefore, the £75,000 is a topping-up sum. Those are the only changes proposed.

When I taught accountancy, I used to have difficulty getting students to understand the difference between accounts that are drawn-up on a cash basis, and accounts that are drawn-up on an accrual basis. If the report is drawn-up on a cash basis, why does it include a depreciation charge? If it is drawn-up on an accrual basis, why is a capital cost included? I do not want the answer now, but will you write to me on this?

Does the Deputy Presiding Officer agree that, in purchasing the Pierhead building, which is a superb piece of architecture—and I was delighted that I was a member of the House Committee when it decided to purchase it—the Assembly now has an example of real architecture, as opposed to what many regard as the conservatory attached to a petrol filling station that will be built here in future?

I wish to raise a matter that I have raised previously, namely the continued depletion of reserves. There has been a transfer of £20 million from the Assembly’s reserves to the student hardship fund main expenditure group. The continued depletion of reserves is of concern to several Members, and that concern has been expressed in the Assembly on previous occasions. The Finance Minister assures us that the reserves are in rude good health. However, how much longer can these depletions continue without causing significant damage to the Assembly’s ability to deal with any contingencies that may arise?

I welcome that transfer of £20 million. The transfer of money from the reserves into the student hardship fund to help pay for Assembly learning grants is significant and should not pass without comment. The matter has been commented upon previously. The transfer shows the National Assembly for Wales’s commitment to supporting students in further education and higher education across Wales. That money is being significantly increased in next year’s budget, which we have discussed. David Ian Jones is new to this Chamber and he clearly has not yet learned how to listen to debates and to the answers that are given to him. The transfer of this money from the reserves for this purpose was planned previously, and the reserves are being increased next year, not being depleted as he suggests.

I will begin by echoing what Dafydd Wigley said last year: perhaps if we had a finance committee in the National Assembly, we could scrutinise the budget properly. I am concerned that money is being cut from the housing budget. Only recently, the Finance Minister gave a press statement that she is making more money available for housing. She announced £51 million for renewal areas. However, that was a cut because, before that announcement, the money promised to local government was £53 million. Councils have also faced cuts in their basic credit allowances. The Minister agreed with me in Committee last week that money is being cut. However, it appears from press reports that more money is being made available for housing. The cuts to the basic credit allowances have severely affected councils in that they have already based their plans on promises that were made in relation to three-year budgets. Councils must now readjust those plans. It seems that the Government’s rhetoric is not matched by its actions. Although money is being moved around and more money is being made available for some sections of the budget, the overall housing budget does not seem to be rising. It is disappointing that a Liberal/Labour Government is not prioritising housing in the budget.

Will the Minister clarify a few items contained in the notes? The first relates to a carry-forward of £1.100 million for information technology facilities for the Supporting People scheme. That seems to be a great deal of money and I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify that point. Will the Minister also clarify the carry-forward of £1.520 million on the purchase of the Pierhead building? I am sure that there is a reason for that, but I would appreciate clarification.

In response to Nick Bourne, I will write to you in detail about the two issues that you have raised to give you the necessary clarification.

In respect of the reserves, I have answered ad nauseam on this issue. I am content with the reserves position in the Assembly’s budget. The £20 million transfer into the student hardship fund was anticipated, as Assembly Members know.

On Janet Ryder’s point, if we had a finance committee, I would hope that she would not be a member of it because I have had to explain the housing issue to her so many times. The reduction of £8.7 million of the annually managed expenditure relates to housing revenue accounts subsidy. That is a technical adjustment to revise Treasury economic assumptions. I have explained that in Committee, in the Chamber and now I have to explain it one final time—

No, I have finished.

I propose that

The Inspection of Boarding Schools and Colleges (Powers and Fees) (Wales) Regulations 2002 will allow the Care Standards Inspectorate for Wales to inspect welfare arrangements for schools and colleges that accommodate young people under 18. The regulations will also allow the inspectorate to set annual fees for doing this. The content of these regulations and confirmation of level of fees to be charged were set out in a consultation paper to stakeholders from August until October of this year. Responses were broadly supportive of the proposed regulations.

Welfare provision in boarding and residential special schools is currently inspected by local authorities against local welfare standards. Welfare provision in further education colleges with residential provision is not currently subject to any inspection. These regulations fulfil a commitment, made in response to recommendation 47 of the Waterhouse report, to set up independent arrangements for inspections of residential schools. They will set the level of annual fees for different boarding establishments. Fee levels for the coming financial year have been set in conjunction with the inspectorate and are in line with fees being charged in England. On commencement of section 108 of the Care Standards Act 2000, these regulations will also enable the Care Standards Inspectorate for Wales to undertake welfare inspections of schools and colleges against national minimum standards. If approved, these regulations will come into force on 1 February 2003.

We support these regulations. We feel that strengthening the inspection system in this way is sensible and the right way forward, particularly in terms of how the regulations will incorporate the use of an observer from the institution that is being inspected under the new arrangements. However, how will the system in Wales differ from that in England? Within the independent school sector, there are some differences as to how schools are inspected in England in comparison with how they are inspected in Wales. Will that be the case in terms of these regulations? Will you refer to these matters when you reply?

These regulations are welcome and show the Assembly’s ongoing commitment to turning the recommendations of the north Wales child abuse inquiry into reality. I am particularly glad to see that further education is included in these regulations, as it has long been overlooked. Many of my constituents who study, for example, within the setting of Coleg Powys, are required to study at campuses that are located a great distance from their homes and they must stay there overnight for a few nights a week so that they can complete their courses. Until now those young people have not been protected in their accommodation. These regulations will go a long way to protecting those people, as well as other children who are educated away from home.

Thank you for your supportive comments, particularly in relation to the Waterhouse report and its recommendations. I do not detect any substantive differences from the arrangements in England, Jonathan.

I propose that

These regulations are of a technical nature and will enable the Assembly to modify, for a transitional period only, a small number of provisions in the Education Act 2002, so that they can be brought into force on a date earlier or later, as the case may be, than other provisions. They also correct two minor inaccuracies in the legislation. In essence, they will provide the Assembly with the lawful requisite flexibility to ensure that the provisions in the proposed Education Act 2002 (Commencement No. 1) (Wales) Order 2002, which we will debate later, fit what is intended.

The effect of the regulations will be to amend a few provisions in the Education Act 2002, as represented in the proposed commencement Order, with consequential amendments to other legislation so that powers of intervention in schools causing concern under part 4 of the Act can be applied in relation to inspectors’ reports made before 19 December, when part 4 of the Act will be brought into force under the proposed commencement Order. Provisions in the Act relating to the national curriculum in Wales would not apply to the foundation stage, maintained nursery schools and nursery education, pending a separate commencement Order or Orders at a later date. The definitions of a school teacher, in section 122, and qualified teacher, in section 132, would be modified until such time as regulations were brought into force under sections 132 and 133, and the reference to provisional registration in section 134—the requirement to be registered with the General Teaching Council—would not apply, pending the bringing into force of the new provisions relating to provisional registration.

The regulations also correct the two inaccuracies in the legislation relating to the financing of schools—section 41—and childcare. As I have said, these regulations are technical in nature and they will ensure that full effect is given to what is proposed in the commencement Order.

Plaid Cymru—The Party of Wales will support these regulations, which are largely of a technical nature. We should perhaps have considered including the phrase ‘an overworked, frustrated and undervalued person looking for a way into a different profession’ under the definition of a school teacher. Presumeably, technical regulations are not the place to do that, and we will therefore support these regulations in the hope that our teachers will not continue to feel so undervalued in the longer term.

We will support these regulations. We look forward to the day when we have primary legislative powers, and will not need to consider Orders from Westminster. I would like clarification on registration with the General Teaching Council for Wales. I have previously raised the issue of teachers who qualified in the former technical colleges registering with the council, as the Minister knows. Can the Minister assure me that their position is now clear, and that they can receive their threshold payments, for example, as a result of becoming fully qualified teachers?

We will not support these regulations. We will not support the Minister on this as she has not supported Members’ right to debate the provisions and the details of the Education Bill in the Chamber or in further detail in Committee. The Government of Wales cannot expect devolution to work if it carries on in this fashion.

I am grateful for the support of the majority of Members; that support has existed throughout the discussions on the Education Act 2002, which has been debated in full in the Chamber and in Committee. In the later debate on the Education Act, I will demonstrate that the Conservatives are out of tune with the education agenda in Wales and the aspirations of the people of Wales.

The regulations do not cover the issue raised by Mick; they contain technical amendments to allow us to have proper consultation on regulations before they are delivered. We have always consulted on regulations and provided opportunities for Assembly Members to determine the level of consultation required on regulations prior to their delivery.

I propose that

I welcome this debate on the commencement Order because our ambition is for Wales to be seen as an excellent place in which to teach and learn. We described that ambition in detail just over a year ago in ‘The Learning Country’. The Assembly Government has taken full responsibility for ensuring that we realise that ambition, working in partnership with people throughout Wales. While we drive our innovative, made-in-Wales policy forward and put in place distinctive, Welsh policies that are right for Wales and which were consulted upon in ‘The Learning Country’, the Conservatives merely focus on blocking the whole process. I deplore their efforts to deny the people of Wales this exciting opportunity and can only determine that their actions demonstrate an anti-Welsh view.

I draw Members’ attention to the repeal of section 91. No schools in Wales use the special arrangements that allow them to keep places empty in their schools. The Catholic Church, the Church in Wales and the Church of England were fully consulted on the repeal and determined that it should go ahead. There were arrangements in place with the 11 Catholic schools in the Cardiff area and they have not been used.

Will you confirm that section 91 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 refers generally to provisions and admissions arrangements that are agreed between local authorities and church schools to allow those schools to preserve their religious character? There is no reference to Catholic schools, or to several places being kept open for pupils from that faith community. Can you confirm that this is a general provision allowing faith schools to preserve the religious nature of their schools through their admissions arrangements?

I will confirm, as I have done in answer to your written questions and in response to your requests to my officials, that church authorities were consulted before section 91 was repealed and are fully content with the change.

I wish to focus on the purpose of this commencement Order. Most Members would agree that the provision in the Act for a separate national curriculum, which will be wholly distinct from the national curriculum in England, is a significant and exciting step forward. It is a notable first, which we should celebrate. It is significant that we are moving forward with our plans for a foundation curriculum for three to seven-year-olds. That is only happening in Wales and it has aroused a great deal of public support. It is significant that we are developing quality special educational needs provision, and the new opportunities that the Act gives us are important. We will have regional centres funded by the Assembly and our own SEN tribunal for Wales.

Also included are powers to require governing bodies of secondary schools and their feeder primary schools to plan together for the transition from key stage 2 to key stage 3—a Wales-only provision in the Act. That will directly benefit school children across Wales. The Assembly Government strongly believes that schools are integral to community capacity building. From September 2003, governing bodies can, if they wish, get involved in the provision of community facilities. We shall, in due course, establish budget fora, school councils and partnership agreements, and there will be new scope for adjusting provision for 14 to 19-year-olds as we consult and drive forward our innovative agenda for 14 to 19-year-olds.

The key feature of this legislation is that it will serve us. It is our education and lifelong learning agenda and I am confident that it will make a real difference. That we are delivering on this agenda for the people of Wales is a significant step forward today. I find it difficult to accept the Conservatives’ concerns about a lack of consultation. When ‘The Learning Country’, our comprehensive education and lifelong learning programme to 2010 in Wales, was published, it was sent out to some 12,000 people. Countries across the world still ask for copies of it now. A copy of ‘The Learning Country’ was sent to each Assembly Member and to MPs, Peers and others with an interest, both in Wales and beyond. Responses to the consultation were overwhelmingly in favour of the agenda. We then drafted the provisions of the Welsh clauses in the Education Bill to reflect the outcome of the consultation.

We deliberately gave the Education and Lifelong Learning Committee an early opportunity to consider the Bill, before the parliamentary committee, so that it could influence the Bill’s development. Regular progress reports were given to the Committee during the Bill’s progress, as well as a meeting with the Wales Office Minister taking the Bill through Parliament on Wales’s behalf. The Committee had a full opportunity to comment on the programme of intended secondary legislation emanating from the Act on 24 October. All AMs had the opportunity to comment on ‘The Learning Country’ and, in a full debate on 16 October, we agreed that the Government should begin the introduction of the secondary legislation required to implement the Act from December 2002. That does not and cannot amount to a lack of consultation. On several occasions, Jonathan has tried to use the Business Committee, this Plenary and Committee meetings to ask other members of the Committee to accept amendments to defer proposals. In each case, he has not been supported. The Chair of the Committee has said that he has not been under pressure for changes to this legislation; that is because we have actively engaged as widely as possible.

If the 116 Conservative amendments were carried, they would delay the introduction of the legislation for three years. They are just another attempt to block genuine opportunity, higher standards of learning and radical new thinking. All they seek to do is to change the commencement times and they therefore damage the agenda. The Conservatives do not want to see in Wales an education agenda that has been made in Wales and contributed to by people in Wales. In my written statement of 27 November 2001, following consultation on ‘The Learning Country’, I made it clear—as I did in ‘The Learning Country’—that the primary legislation would be shaped to enable the Assembly to take its own path towards realising our education agenda in Wales.

The Order brings into force on 19 December 2002 in Wales those provisions of the Education Act 2002 specified in part I of the schedule to the Order. It brings part II of the schedule into force on 31 March 2003, and part III on 1 September 2003. The Order also makes transitional provisions in relation to admission arrangements. Several of the items are of a technical nature, amending earlier legislation, and the explanatory notes succinctly set out a lay description of the provisions. Most of those will have immediate effect once the Order comes into force.

Regional provision for special educational needs is just one key issue that the Assembly has strongly supported. Section 191 enables the Assembly to direct local education authorities to consider whether they could provide for special educational needs more effectively by region. Section 192 enables the Assembly to direct an LEA or governing body to make proposals in connection with the establishment of a regional school providing for children with special educational needs, or arrangements for providing education or goods and services on a regional basis. Section 193 enables the Assembly to make proposals to secure regional provision, and section 194 makes consequential amendments to the Education Act 1996.

The commencement of these Wales-only provisions in the Act, together with the bringing into force of measures to establish a special educational needs tribunal for Wales, fulfil our commitment to enhance and improve our special educational needs arrangements. It demonstrates the seriousness of my commitment in addressing what has been left unattended for far too long.

The sections on the General Teaching Council for Wales provide several additional functions, such as important powers to allow the council to undertake activities to promote the teaching profession for the first time. The teaching profession will be able to promote itself. We are determined to attract and retain high-quality entrants to teaching and increase the independence of the council and that move will help us in that.

The Order also brings into force provisions to extend the powers of the Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales, in terms of the curriculum for children below compulsory school age. That allows ACCAC to lend its full support as we introduce our new foundation phase, and it will gain powers to strengthen its hand in rationalising qualifications and regulating awarding bodies.

Estyn has a key role in our drive to raise standards and quality of learning. The provisions of the Act will enable it to make a full and effective contribution to the evidence base, which is important to underpin the agenda set for action. Section 179 recognises that learning embraces a range of activities beyond the school gate, and extends Estyn’s powers to examine such provisions for 14 to 16-year-olds, which is a key development that fits in with our review of educational provision for 14 to 19-year-olds. Section 180 importantly extends Estyn’s powers to ensure that learning arranged by the local authority for young people in hospital or specialist provision will be subject to inspection and the same rigorous standards. Therefore, we can ensure that we deliver the right kind of quality education to young people whatever their educational environment.

Let us consider the regulations in terms of school lunches. We can use this new power to ensure that children required to attend school over the lunch period are entitled to free school lunches. The Act allows the Assembly to prescribe additional benefits or tax credits, the receipt of which will entitle the parent to request a free school lunch for a child and, where the provision is made, free milk. That flexibility is essential if we are to keep pace with changes to the tax credit system contained in the Tax Credits Act 2002. That provision will commence on 31 March 2003, and the regulations will come into effect at the same time.

Of the 116 Conservative amendments, 90 are deficient. They do not work; they specify dates for commencement that differ from the dates for the coming into force of the provisions to which they relate. Somewhat bizarrely, given the issues that Jonathan is determined to try to make capital out of, churches have supported the repeal of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, in terms of ensuring that school places are fully occupied by pupils. Such schools will retain their religious character. You have proposed repealing this—

Will you give way on that point?

No. You have proposed repealing this legislation twice, in amendments 1 and 116, without any other transitional Order. Therefore, not only are the amendments deficient, but it is sad that I cannot find one that proposes anything constructive that we can debate today. The Conservatives know full well that the Assembly consults fully on every set of regulations and, once again, they are rejecting the chance to make a genuine contribution to a debate. We have no choice other than to reject all the amendments. I am determined that such blocking, delaying and backward-looking tactics will not hold back our exciting learning agenda in Wales.

This debate is about empowering the Assembly to legislate and take action. It is about empowering the Assembly to drive forward its education agenda for the people of Wales, and about firmly establishing Wales, the learning country, as an excellent place in which to teach and learn.

I propose amendment 2. Omit the reference to sections 54, 55, 56 in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 3. Omit the reference to section 75 in so far as it relates to provisions of schedule 10 below in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 4. Omit the reference to sections 97, 98, 99(1), 100 except sub-paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (5), 101 except sub-paragraph (3)(b), 103, 105 to 107, 108 except sub-paragraphs (1)(a), (2) and (6), 109, 111 to 118 in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 5. Omit the reference to section 131 in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 6. Omit the reference to sections 132, 133, 134(1), (4) and (5), 135 in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 7. Omit the reference to section 141 in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 8. Omit the reference to section 145 in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 9. Omit the reference to section 148 in so far as it relates to provisions of schedule 12 below in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 10. Omit the reference to section 151(2) in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 11. Omit the reference to section 152 in so far as it relates to provisions of schedule 13 below in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 12. Omit the reference to section 179(1), (4), (5) and (6) in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 13. Omit the reference to section 180 in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 14. Omit the reference to section 188 in so far as it relates to provisions of schedule 16 below in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 15. Omit the reference to section 189 in so far as it relates to provisions of schedule 17 below in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 16. Omit the reference to sections 191 to 194 in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 17. Omit the reference to section 196 in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 18. Omit the reference to section 215(1) in so far as it relates to provisions of schedule 21 below in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 19. Omit the reference to section 215(2) in so far as it relates to provisions of schedule 22 below in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 20. Omit the reference to schedule 5 in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 21. Omit the reference to schedule 10, paragraphs 1, 6, 11 and 15 in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 22. Omit the reference to schedule 12, paragraphs 1, 2, 4(1) and (3), 6 and 7 in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 23. Omit the reference to schedule 13, paragraphs 1 to 3, 5, 6, 7(1), (3), 8 in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 24. Omit the reference to schedule 16, paragraphs 4 to 9 in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 25. Omit the reference to schedule 17, paragraphs 5 (1)-(4), (6), 6 to 8 in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 26. Omit the reference to schedule 21, in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 27. Omit the reference to paragraph 8, in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 28. Omit the reference to paragraph 11, in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 29. Omit the reference to paragraph 13, in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 30. Omit the reference to paragraph 16, in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 31. Omit the reference to paragraph 19, in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 32. Omit the reference to paragraphs 20 and 21, in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 33. Omit the reference to paragraphs 31, 32 and 33, in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 34. Omit the reference to paragraph 45, in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 35. Omit the reference to paragraph 46 (except sub-paragraph (6)), in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 36. Omit the reference to paragraph 47 (except sub-paragraph (3)), in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 37. Omit the reference to paragraph 48, in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 38. Omit the reference to paragraph 51, in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 39. Omit the reference to paragraph 53, in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 40. Omit the reference to paragraph 57 (except sub-paragraph (a)), in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 41. Omit the reference to paragraph 59 (except sub-paragraph (a)) , in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 42. Omit the reference to paragraph 66, in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 43. Omit the reference to paragraph 70, in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 44. Omit the reference to paragraph 74, in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 45. Omit the reference to paragraph 76 (except sub-paragraph (b)), in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 46. Omit the reference to paragraph 78, in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 47. Omit the reference to paragraph 81, in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 48. Omit the reference to paragraph 85 (except sub-paragraph (b)), in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 49. Omit the reference to paragraphs 87 and 88, in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 50. Omit the reference to paragraphs 95 and 96, in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 51. Omit the reference to paragraph 98(1) and (2) (except sub-paragraphs (b) and (c)), in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 52. Omit the reference to paragraph 99(1) and (3) (except sub-paragraph (a)), in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 53. Omit the reference to paragraphs 104 and 105, in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 54. Omit the reference to paragraphs 108 and 109, in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 55. Omit the reference to paragraph 113 (except sub-paragraphs (a) to (d), (f) and (g)), in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 56. Omit the reference to paragraph 114 in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 57. Omit the reference to paragraph 117, in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 58. Omit the reference to paragraph 118(1), (2), (3) (except sub-paragraph (b)), (4) (except sub-paragraph (a)(ii)) and (5), in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 59. Omit the reference to paragraph 126(1), (2) in so far as it relates to the amendments of paragraphs 21 and 29 of schedule 7 to the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (a) and (3) in so far as it relates to the amendment of paragraph 39 of schedule 7 to the Learning and Skills Act 2000 in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 60. Omit the reference to In Schedule 22, Part 2, the repeal of - Education Act 1997(a), in section 29, in subsection (2), paragraph (f) and the word ‘and’ immediately preceding it, in section 32(3), the words ‘or approved’ and the words ‘and subject to such conditions’; in Part I of the Schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 61. Omit the reference to In Schedule 22, Part 3, the repeal of - Education (No. 2) Act 1986(b), section 49; in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 62. Omit the reference to In Schedule 22, Part 3, the repeal of - Children Act 1989(c), in section 79M(1), the word ‘or’ at the end of paragraph (a), in section 79U, subsection (5) and in subsection (9), the definition of ‘authorised inspector’; in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 63. Omit the reference to In Schedule 22, Part 3, the repeal of - Further and Higher Education Act 1992(d), in section 23(4), paragraph (b) and the word ‘and’ immediately preceding it, sections 39 to 42, section 60; in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 64. Omit the reference to In Schedule 22, Part 3, the repeal of - Education Act 1996(e), sections 350 to 369, section 408(4)(a), in section 409(1), the words ‘with the approval of the Secretary of State and’; in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 65. Omit the reference to In Schedule 22, Part 3, the repeal of - School Inspections Act 1996(a), in section 6(3) the word ‘and’ at the end of paragraph (a), in section 16(3) the word ‘and’ preceding paragraph (d); in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 66. Omit the reference to In Schedule 22, Part 3, the repeal of - Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998(b), section 1(8), in section 3 the words ‘within the meaning of section 218(2) of the Education Reform Act 1988’; in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 67. Omit the reference to In Schedule 22, Part 3, the repeal of - School Standards and Framework Act 1998(c), section 16(4) and (13), in section 22(1), in paragraph (b) the words ‘under section 28 or 31’ and in paragraph (c) the words ‘under section 28’, sections 86(3)(b) and 91, in schedule 6, in paragraph 10(6), the words ‘or (5)’, in schedule 28, paragraph 4(1); in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 68. Omit the reference to In Schedule 22, Part 3, the repeal of - Learning and Skills Act 2000(d), sections 130 to 132 and 148(2), in schedule 9, paragraphs 26, 30, 35, 59(6)(b), in part I of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 4:

I propose amendment 69. Omit the reference to sections 14 to 17 and 18(2) in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 70. Omit the reference to sections 142 to 144 in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 71. Omit the reference to section 146 in so far as it relates to the repeal of sections 218(2B), (6), (6ZA), (6A), (6B), (7) and 218A of the Education Reform Act 1988(a) in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 72. Omit the reference to section 148 in so far as it relates to provisions of schedule 12 below in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 73. Omit the reference to section 149 in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 74. Omit the reference to section 150 in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 75. Omit the reference to section 195 in so far as it relates to provisions of schedule 18 below in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 76. Omit the reference to section 200 in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 77. Omit the reference to section 201(1) except in so far as it relates to sub-section (1)(c) of the new section 512 of the Education Act 1996, (2) and (3) in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 78. Omit the reference to section 215(1) in so far as it relates to provisions of schedule 21 below in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 79. Omit the reference to section 215(2) in so far as it relates to provisions of schedule 22 below in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 80. Omit the reference to schedule 22 below in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 81. Omit the reference to schedule 12, paragraph 12(1) and (2) in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 82. Omit the reference to schedule 18, paragraphs 1, 4, 5 and 7, in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 83. Omit the reference to paragraph 8 in so far as it inserts a new sub-section (2) of section 28H of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 84. Omit the reference to paragraphs 13 to 15 in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 85. Omit the reference to schedule 21, in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 86. Omit the reference to paragraph 9, in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 87. Omit the reference to paragraph 49, in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 88. Omit the reference to paragraph 54, in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 89. Omit the reference to paragraph 71 in so far as it relates to section 49(2) and (3) of the Education Act 1997, in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 90. Omit the reference to paragraph 72, in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 91. Omit the reference to paragraph 73, in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 92. Omit the reference to paragraph 75, in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 93. Omit the reference to paragraph 76 in so far as not already in force, in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 94. Omit the reference to paragraph 77, in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 95. Omit the reference to paragraph 83, in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 96. Omit the reference to paragraph 85 in so far as not already in force, in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 97. Omit the reference to paragraph 86, in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 98. Omit the reference to paragraph 120, in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 99. Omit the reference to paragraph 121, in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 100. Omit the reference to paragraph 122 except sub-paragraph (b), in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 101. Omit the reference to paragraph 123, in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 102. Omit the reference to paragraph 128, in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 103. Omit the reference to In Schedule 22, Part 3, the repeal of - Education Reform Act 1988(a), sections 218 (2B), (6), (6ZA), (6A), (6B), (7) and 218A; in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 104. Omit the reference to In Schedule 22, Part 3, the repeal of - Children Act 1989(b), in section 19, subsections (1) and (2) and in subsection (4) the words ‘the two authorities, or in Scotland;’ in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 105. Omit the reference to In Schedule 22, Part 3, the repeal of - Education Act 1997(c), section 49(2) and (3); in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 106. Omit the reference to In Schedule 22, Part 3, the repeal of - Police Act 1997(d), in section 113, in subsection (3A), paragraph (a)(ii) and (iii) and in subsection (3B), paragraph (c) and the words from ‘and the reference’ to the end, section 115 (6A)(a)(ii) and (iii); in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 107. Omit the reference to In Schedule 22, Part 3, the repeal of - Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, in schedule 2, paragraph 1(5); in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 108. Omit the reference to In Schedule 22, Part 3, the repeal of - Protection of Children Act 1999(a), section 5, in section 7, subsection (1)(a)(ii) and (iii), the word ‘and’ immediately preceding subsection (2)(c) and subsection (4), in section 9(2), the word ‘or’ at the end of paragraph (d), in section 12(2) the definition of ‘the 1988 Act’; in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 109. Omit the reference to In Schedule 22, Part 3, the repeal of - Immigration and Asylum Act 1999(b), in schedule 14, paragraph 117; in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 110. Omit the reference to In Schedule 22, Part 3, the repeal of - Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000(c), section 35(5), in schedule 7, paragraph 83, in part II of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 5:

I propose amendment 111. Omit the reference to section 195 in so far as it relates to provisions of schedule 18 below in part III of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 6:

I propose amendment 112. Omit the reference to section 215(2) in so far as it relates to provisions of schedule 22 below in part III of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 6:

I propose amendment 113. Omit the reference to schedule 18, paragraphs 2, 3, 6, 8 (in so far as not already in force), 9 to 12 and 16 to 18 in part III of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 6:

I propose amendment 114. Omit the reference to In Schedule 22, Part 2, the repeal of - Disability Discrimination Act 1995(a), section 28J(4); in part III of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 6:

I propose amendment 115. Omit the reference to In Schedule 22, Part 2, the repeal of - Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001(b), section 42(2), in schedule 8, paragraph 2, in part III of the schedule to this Order and add at the end of article 6:

I propose amendment 116. In article 7 of the Order delete ‘2004 to 2005’ and replace with ‘2007 to 2008’.

I will focus briefly on certain aspects of the Bill—the Act, I mean. I am sorry, I thought that we were debating the Bill, but we were not allowed to do that, were we?

You wish.

Yes indeed.

First, I will focus on section 49 of the Education Act 2002, which repeals section 91 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. I point out to the Minister—I was not able to do so earlier given that she was not keen to take an intervention on the matter—that section 91 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 is a general provision allowing voluntary-aided schools that have a religious character to preserve that religious character by admitting pupils from the relevant faith community. It makes perfect sense to most of us that a prerequisite of attending a church school is that you attend a similar church to which that school is affiliated. That is a general provision enshrined in statute for those schools to rely upon when they wish to use their admissions policies to preserve their religious character. That provision, for some reason, which the Minister was not able to outline in her speech, has been scrapped. It was not referred to in the original Bill—which contained merely tweaking amendments—but the Act completely repeals that provision. The Minister has not explained to the Assembly why the repeal of that provision was included in the final Act. Why did the Westminster Parliament see fit to repeal section 91 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998?

When you consider section 91 of that Act, it is different from how the Minister explains it. She thinks that it somehow refers primarily to Catholic schools and allows those schools, by means of this repeal, to open up surplus places to pupils from a non-Catholic community. That is not contained in section 91 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The Minister is wrong and is, probably unwittingly, misleading the Assembly. The Minister has not explained correctly the provisions of section 91 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which are quite different. It is a general provision supporting and underpinning the work of church schools that want to recruit pupils to that school from their faith community. In the absence of this statute, what provision can church schools rely on to underpin their admissions policies? What is the difference between the admissions policy of a voluntary-aided school that is religious in character, and that of a maintained school within the usual local education authority remit of maintained schools, now that there is this repeal? I hope that the Minister can outline what will now happen to those church schools.

Can the Minister also confirm that she did not tell the Education and Lifelong Learning Committee of this change when it occurred at Westminster? Can she also confirm that she did not tell the Assembly when that change occurred at Westminster? We were not informed, even though the Minister had given an undertaking that she would inform the Assembly of changes. The Minister has said this afternoon that Church schools will still be able to preserve their religious character. However, where in law and in statute is the provision that will allow Church schools to preserve their character? Your Government has just repealed it. If you think that that is provided in law, perhaps you could tell us, Minister, which statute Church schools can now rely upon to preserve their religious character.

On the rest of the Education Act 2002, there are good points included in it and I have supported those throughout the process. However, there are some points about which I have grave concerns. I am concerned about the nature of the partnership agreements and the budget fora that the Government wishes to introduce. Once again, that will tie up headteachers in more meetings, with more paperwork and more bureaucracy. We want to free schools, not tie them in to cosy, local arrangements. We want to allow schools to develop and deliver an agenda according to local needs. The lack of consultation over the Bill—let us forget about ‘The Learning Country’; that is a Government document—with Assembly Members and members of the Education and Lifelong Learning Committee has been a disgrace. It is a disgraceful way for this Government to deal with important legislation.

Finally, I will propose a procedural motion under Standing Order No. 6.16 to ask that this matter be referred back to the Subject Committee so that the Minister can explain her actions to the Committee, and explain more fully the implications of the provisions of this Act for the education sector in Wales, particularly those provisions relating to section 49 of the Act. I propose that

I will speak briefly in favour of the procedural motion. I have always believed that Subject Committees should develop their role of examining legislation and its implications for public services in Wales. We have an ideal opportunity to examine how the Education Act 2002, and the provisions set out in this commencement Order, will affect the education system in Wales. The Education and Lifelong Learning Committee has only spent roughly one-and-a-half hours examining the provisions of the Education Bill. We did that after the second reading of the Bill in the House of Commons. We did not, as a Committee, even have a chance to examine the changes introduced at Westminster during the committee stages of the Bill.

I am happy to give way.

Gŵyr Jonathan fy mod yn fwy na pharod i feirniadu’r Gweinidog am nifer o resymau. Fodd bynnag, nid oes modd beirniadu’r Gweinidog am y ffaith na roddodd y Pwyllgor amser i’r mater hwn. Mater i’r Pwyllgor fel corff fyddai hynny, nid i’r Gweinidog.

We spent one-and-a-half hours after the second reading of the Bill in the House of Commons considering its provisions. We were not afforded any other opportunity to debate these matters in Committee or in Plenary. Only when that Bill had become an Act of Parliament were we able to do that. The right and proper action for us to take as the National Assembly for Wales would be to send this matter back to the Subject Committee so that Committee members can give it the detailed consideration that it rightly deserves.

I request that the division bell be rung.

Trafodaf yn gyntaf welliannau Jonathan Morgan. Esboniodd Jocelyn Davies yn y ddadl ddiwethaf pam ein bod yn gwrthwynebu’r gwelliannau. Mae’r rhan fwyaf ohonynt yn ddisylwedd ac nid ydynt yn rhoi mwy o amser ar gyfer craffu, a fyddai’n ddilys efallai. Maent yn chwarae o gwmpas gyda materion pwysig, positif fel sefydlu tribiwnlys Cymreig ar gyfer addysg arbennig, ac felly fe’u gwrthwynebwn.

Fodd bynnag, rhaid i’r Llywodraeth a’r Gweinidog gymryd y cyfrifoldeb am rai o’r tactegau blocio ac oedi y mae’r Gweinidog ei hun eisoes wedi’u condemnio, ac am y ffars sydd o’n blaen y prynhawn yma. Mae’r Gweinidog yn trin y Cynulliad a democratiaeth Cymru yn ddiystyriol. Mae’n ein trin fel rhai yr ymgynhorir â hwy yn ychwanegol, fel y dywedodd David Melding. Dywedodd y prynhawn yma fod yr agenda wedi cael ei hanfon allan i’r byd a’r betws. Nid y byd a’r betws yw’r Cynulliad hwn. Democratiaeth Cymru ydyw, ac mae’n hen bryd i’r Gweinidog dros Addysg a Dysgu Gydol Oes sylweddoli hynny.

Rhannwn rai o’r pryderon a fynegodd Jonathan Morgan y prynhawn yma ynglŷn â diffyg cyfraniad digonol y Cynulliad cyfan i’r Mesur pwysig hwn. Dylem fod wedi cael cyfle—ac mae hyn yn fater i’r Llywodraeth ac nid i’r Pwyllgor, fel y clywsom—i drafod hyn. Fodd bynnag, nid y Cynulliad sydd yn penderfynu busnes y Cynulliad; y Llywodraeth sy’n rhoi Mesurau ger ein bron—

Will the Member give way?

In a moment, Lorraine.

Dylem fod wedi cael cyfle i drafod yn fanylach ac i wneud cyfraniad manylach cyn i’r Gweinidog fynd â’r cais i San Steffan. Efallai y byddai hynny wedi rhoi mwy o gyfle i ni i geisio llenwi rhai o’r bylchau amlwg sy’n dal i’n pryderu—er enghraifft, y diffyg rheolaeth dros gyflog a thelerau gwaith athrawon. Nid wyf yn deall sut mae’r Gweinidog yn meddwl ei bod yn gallu rheoli a datblygu system addysg heb yr hawl i wobrwyo’r sawl sy’n darparu addysg i blant a phobl ifanc.

Ni wrthwynebwn y rheoliadau sydd o’n blaen heddiw—dim ond rheoliadau gweithdrefnol ydynt, a chroesawn lawer ohonynt. Fodd bynnag, y broblem wirioneddol yw diffyg pwerau’r Cynulliad i greu’i ddeddfau addysg ei hun, i’w trafod yn fanwl yma er mwyn gweld pa fath o system addysg mae cynrychiolwyr pobl Cymru am eu creu ar gyfer ein gwlad—

Os nad oes modd craffu ar hyn o bryd, pam y byddai pethau’n well pe bai gennym bwerau deddfu sylfaenol?

Byddai llawer mwy o gyfle gennym, a byddai rhaid inni ailystyried sut yr ydym yn gweithredu yn y Cynulliad. Mae rhai o’ch Aelodau wedi dweud yn barod y byddai angen mwy o weision sifil a mwy o arbenigedd, ond nid yw’r ffaith nad yw’r arbenigedd gennym ar hyn o bryd yn rheswm inni beidio â chael yr hawl i reoli’n gwlad.

Tra bod gofyn i Weinidogion Addysg Cymru fynd ar eu gliniau i San Steffan i ofyn am amser ac i drafod cynnwys Deddf Addysg i Gymru, yr ydym yn sicr o weld yr un math o gawlach ag a welsom y prynhawn yma. Anaml y cytunaf yn gyhoeddus gyda Kirsty Williams, ond gwnaf yn yr achos hwn. Gobeithiaf y bydd Jonathan Morgan, gan ei fod mor awyddus i gyflwyno gwelliannau, yn ymuno â mi i alw am senedd wirioneddol i Gymru, fel ein bod yn gallu trafod a gwella Mesurau o sylwedd ym maes addysg, yn ogystal â meysydd eraill. Hyd nes bod gennym senedd felly, bydd llywodraethu’n gwlad mewn perygl beunyddiol o fod yn llanast cymhleth, aneffeithiol. Mae Cymru’n haeddu gwell.

There have been moments when I have found the current debate, and the previous discussion, quite enjoyable. Many would benefit from attending the lunchtime seminar on primary legislative powers, which is being held on 22 January. I will make two points about secondary legislation. First, while people are currently clamouring for greater scrutiny of secondary legislation, in Westminster, for example, only one signature is normally needed to sign off such legislation. While I am also impatient for us to have full scrutiny powers in terms of primary legislation, there is a great deal of unnecessary heat generated about scrutinising secondary legislation. Secondly, there are small legislatures around the world. In the Tasmanian parliament, for example, there are 22 members who have full primary legislative powers. We must examine some of the rationale behind the arguments that we need to expand numbers and to scrutinise secondary legislation more widely. It is worth pointing out—although Jonathan is not here—that in this particular case, there was no pressure from him as his party’s spokesman to consider this issue in greater detail in Committee.

The publication of ‘The Learning Country’ by the partnership Government was a landmark for education in Wales. Within our limited powers, there have been steps to ensure that there is a distinctly Welsh angle to the Education Act 2002. We have achieved much already. I remind some Members, who seem to be presenting the case that Wales has no power, that we have achieved a great deal. We have already abolished tests for 7-year-olds; we have reintroduced free school milk; we are piloting a Welsh baccalaureate, and we have introduced a rural schools policy. We have also introduced grants for further and higher education. Those are tremendous achievements. However, I accept that there are challenges that we must face to improve all those areas. Legislation is about improving the situation.

I am pleased to hear Helen welcome the new special educational needs tribunals. We have greater transitional arrangements between each key stage in education. The Minister also mentioned our ability to provide free school lunches. I am disappointed that we do not take on more powers so that we can say that food for school lunches must be provided locally; that procurement would benefit children, because of the quality of the food, and its effect on the local economy. We have a long way to go in that respect before I am truly satisfied that the action we are taking benefits the people of Wales.

As I have said already, we have been able to influence the Education Act 2002. I wish to concentrate on two points in particular. The comprehensive system of education will be maintained in Wales, whereas in England there will be more specialism, more division in society and less cohesion. The same principle applies to the fact that we will not accept more faith schools being established in Wales. Unlike the situation in England, we stand together in Wales and are inclusive. Above all, we must accept that the process is evolving. We will learn about better ways in which to use our legislative powers. One day, an education Bill and an education Act will be debated in the Assembly and will truly be part of Welsh democracy.

One basic principle of democracy is that the minority will accept governance by the majority. However, it is a two-way agreement. In return for accepting that governance, the minority must be accorded certain rights, in particular, being able to scrutinise decisions. Today, we have seen a Government turning its back on its responsibilities and refusing to allow debate on a policy area, namely education, which it claims is of fundamental importance. We tabled amendments to the motion because we wanted to discuss the future of voluntary-aided faith schools because we support such schools and feel that these measures may threaten their existence.

To answer an earlier point, my colleague Jonathan Morgan has not made the case for the Assembly having full legislative powers; he has made a coherent case for the Assembly scrutinising legislation that affects Wales—that was what the National Assembly was set up to do. Jonathan Morgan has asked for the Assembly to be allowed to do that job. Those who have tried to prevent the discussion today are making a strong case against the National Assembly gaining further and primary legislative powers. At present, primary legislation is passed in Parliament, which has a second chamber for legislation scrutiny. Opposition parties are usually accorded the right to scrutinise; we are not. The only protection against totalitarianism in the Assembly is to allow opposition parties to scrutinise; that right is being threatened.

Scrutiny of legislation is not a favour to be bestowed by the Government and removed at a whim—it is a fundamental right. Rhodri Morgan exercised that right on numerous occasions during the passage of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Act 1993, and it is shameful that the Government that he now leads has denied us the same right of scrutiny today.

Mae’r cynnig hwn yn cymeradwyo’r hyn sydd yn angenrheidiol, sef, dwyn y darpariaethau o dan Reoliadau Deddf Addysg 2002 (Dapariaethau Trosiannol) (Cymru) 2002 i rym. Mae natur galluogol y darpariaethau’n cynnig cyfleoedd newydd ac adeiladol i’r Cynulliad, ond mae hefyd yn gosod dyletswydd a chyfrifoldeb ar Lywodraeth y Cynulliad i fynd i’r afael â’r gwendidau sydd yn bodoli yn y gyfundrefn addysg ar hyn o bryd.

Gwyddoch, Weinidog, i Estyn gyhoeddi ‘Ysgolion Ardderchog: gweledigaeth i ysgolion yng Nghymru yn ystod yr 21ain ganrif’ yr wythnos hon. Trafodir yr adroddiad hwn gan y Pwyllgor Addysg a Dysgu Gydol Oes ddydd Iau. Wrth edrych ymlaen, mae’r adroddiad yn ein hatgoffa o’r materion sydd angen sylw os ydym o ddifrif am foderneiddio ein hysgolion a’n gwasanaeth addysg. Dyma’r tro cyntaf, ond nid y tro olaf, inni ddarllen y geiriau ‘agenda foderneiddio’ yng nghyd-destun addysg, ac mae goblygiadau sylweddol trefnyddol a chenedlaethol ynghlwm wrth agweddau ar weledigaeth Estyn, ac yr ydych chi, Weinidog, wedi cyfeirio atynt yn ddiweddar.

Un o brif rinweddau’r adroddiad yw ei fod yn egluro pa welliannau sydd eu hangen yn sgîl rheoliadau’r offerynnau statudol a ddaw gyda Rheoliadau Deddf Addysg 2002 (Dapariaethau Trosiannol) (Cymru) 2002. Mae hyn yn her i’r Llywodraeth bresennol a’r Llywodraeth Blaid Cymru sydd yn debygol o fod mewn grym yn y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol ym Mai 2003. Bydd angen rhoi sylw brys i nifer o faterion. Er enghraifft, mae’r adroddiad yn nodi bod y bwlch rhwng perfformiad gwahanol ysgolion yn parhau i fod mor fawr ag erioed, sydd yn drist. Mae Estyn hefyd yn argymell y dylai ysgolion gael mwy o reolaeth dros eu sefyllfaoedd ariannol ynghyd â’r hawl i gynllunio eu cyllidebau dros gyfnodau hwy. Gobeithiaf y bydd Llywodraeth y Cynulliad yn cyflwyno is-ddeddfwriaeth neu ganllawiau i ymateb i’r gofynion hyn.

Dadlennol a diddorol hefyd yw gweld bod Estyn am i ysgolion roi mwy o ystyriaeth i anghenion ac amgylchiadau lleol wrth ddatblygu eu cwricwla, ac mae’r adroddiad yn frith o’r mathau hyn o ofynion ac anghenion, a’r hyn y mae’n ei ystyried yn wendidau ar hyn o bryd. Gobeithiaf y bydd ysgolion Cymru yn mabwysiadu cwricwlwm gwirioneddol Gymreig ac y bydd y Gweinidog a Llywodraeth Cymru yn sicrhau canllawiau ac is-ddeddfwriaeth ar gyfer hyn.

Gobeithiaf hefyd y bydd yr is-ddeddfwriaeth a fydd yn dilyn yn llwyddo i wireddu’r materion eraill yr ydym eisoes wedi clywed digon amdanynt, sef, sicrhau statws cyfartal i lwybrau academaidd a galwedigaethol, a chau’r bwlch cyrhaeddiad rhwng bechgyn a merched. Mae’r adroddiad yn gofyn am ganllawiau a deddfwriaeth newydd i sicrhau dilyniant effeithiol rhwng ysgolion cynradd ac uwchradd. Mae nifer o faterion felly y mae rhaid inni ddechrau ymwneud â nhw, a chreu deddfwriaeth i wella’r system addysg yng Nghymru. Bydd yr is-ddeddfwriaeth a fydd yn deillio o’r Rheoliadau Deddf Addysg 2002 (Dapariaethau Trosiannol) (Cymru) 2002 yn rhoi’r cyfle i’r Cynulliad lunio polisïau i ddarparu gwasanaeth addysg Cymreig ac ymateb i anghenion Cymreig. Dyna’r her i Lywodraeth Cymru, a bydd Plaid Cymru—The Party of Wales yn craffu ar bob canllaw a deddfwriaeth addysg newydd i sicrhau na chollir unrhyw gyfle i hyrwyddo’r dimensiwn Cymreig yn gymunedol nac yn genedlaethol.

Thank you for allowing me to contribute to this important debate. It is unfortunate that the substance of the debate was curtailed by a procedural motion. The Assembly was established to bring Government closer to the people, to enable legislation to be better framed, and to allow several Ministers to specialise in a range of subjects. The counterbalance is that the opposition parties should be allowed to scrutinise and propose policy. It is some time since we heard the consensus politics statement from the then Secretary of State for Wales; now the goalposts are literally being moved to prevent appropriate scrutiny of tabled amendments.

I emphasise the principle that Jonathan Morgan highlighted relating to church schools. I had the opportunity on Friday to visit one church school in South Wales West. The standards at that school, which are recognised in Estyn reports, are second to none. Parents choose to send their children to church schools. Having visited several schools over the last month or so it has become evident to me that there is a distinctively different ethos and culture in church schools. In school halls, it was clear that the religious meaning of Christmas was central to the schools’ approach with the drawings and posters on the walls, which had all been developed by the children, relating to that. On the other hand, in the non-church schools—and I am not detracting from them, but merely contrasting the style and approaches of the different schools—material related to Santa Claus and the more commercial aspects of Christmas are displayed. There is a place for both in a diverse education system. However, parents make that choice and decide to which school to send their children.

A allwch enwi unrhyw ysgol yng Nghymru sydd yn rhoi mwy o bwyslais ar Siôn Corn nag ar Iesu Grist adeg y Nadolig?

Yr wyf wedi codi’r pwynt gyda’r prifathro, ac nid wyf am achosi embaras i’r ysgol. Dyna pam nad wyf wedi enwi yr un ysgol yr ymwelais â hi. Fodd bynnag, mae’n amlwg o’r ysgol eglwysig yr ymwelais â hi ddydd Gwener y rhoddir lle mwy canolog i’r ethos a’r diwylliant Cristnogol yr oedd yn ceisio addysgu ynddi.

It was obvious that the culture of the school was different in the church school than in local education authority primary schools. I am not detracting from either side; I am highlighting the opportunity of choice for parents to send their children to those schools that can offer the best education to suit their unique circumstances.

Can you assure me that you are in no way criticising schools that are not faith-based nor those parents, of whom I am one, who have taught their children about social justice, and not about Christianity? That goes against all my beliefs.

I am grateful to Lorraine Barrett for allowing me to underline that point. I am not judging, I am merely highlighting the diverse nature and the different styles and approaches in different schools in Wales, and the opportunity for parents to decide which school best suits those needs. I am glad to underline what Lorraine Barrett said. I am not criticising the approach of some of the other schools that I visited when compared to church schools, but merely focusing on the choice that we should be offering parents.

Pwysleisiwch ddewis y rhieni. A ydych yn cydnabod ac yn sylweddoli nad oes gan y mwyafrif o rieni yng Nghymru heddiw ddewis o gwbl? Mae gan yr ysgolion efallai ddewis, a hwy sy’n dewis y disgyblion ac, felly, eu rhieni. Mae hyn yn deillio o system addysg a gyflwynwyd gennych chi flynyddoedd yn ôl, ac yr ydym yn dal i ddioddef oherwydd y polisïau hynny.

Yr wyf yn falch bod Gareth Jones wedi sôn am hyn oherwydd mae’n tanlinellu’r gwirionedd ynglŷn â’r ddeddfwriaeth hon—bydd llawer llai o ddewis ar ôl ei phasio. Yn yr etholaeth y soniais amdani mae dewis go iawn gan rieni—dewis i anfon eu plant i’r ysgol a welais ddydd Gwener, neu i unrhyw ysgol arall o fewn yr ardal leol. Dyna’r dewis sydd ganddynt yn awr, ond mae’r Gweinidog yn ceisio tanseilio’r egwyddor sydd y tu ôl i ysgolion sydd â ffocws eglwysig.

The Minister is undermining the purpose of church schools. If we compared the results, culture and output of schools, I am sure that church schools would be higher on the table than local education authority schools.

It would have been too much to expect that the Conservatives—having tabled a set of wrecking amendments—would not continue being peripheral. Jonathan, I will give you a detailed reply to your question. Sections 20 and 21 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 designate the categories of schools, including voluntary-aided and foundation schools, which may have a religious character. Section 88 of the Act provides for the governing body being the admission authority for foundation and voluntary-aided schools, and this legislation does not change those admission arrangements. The repeal of section 91, which relates purely to special arrangements for admissions, does not affect the above in any way—that is why the Church authority supported it. You are doing Wales a disservice by inaccurately reflecting the consequences of today’s legislation. It was more telling that, when you finished with that agenda, you said in passing that you are against partnership arrangements and budget fora. These are two of the specific provisions that we wanted in the legislation because they will benefit Wales. They concern partnerships with local authorities, which have a statutory responsibility to educate the children of Wales. Contrary to your view that they would mean increased bureaucracy for the headteacher, the Secondary Headteachers Association actively welcomed the budget fora when I met with it last week.

On your point, Helen Mary Jones, I realise that you were not a Committee member when it was debated. Your view surprised me because I provided many opportunities in Committee, as both previous Chairs, I hope, will confirm.

I saw that you were having some difficulty on that point. My point was not about scrutiny in the Committee, which has been addressed by Gareth Jones and Cynog Dafis; it concerns scrutiny in the Chamber and your reference in your previous speech to consulting Members in the same way as you consulted anybody else. That is unacceptable.

I pointed out that I consulted all Assembly Members by sending everyone a copy of ‘The Learning Country’.

Thank you for allowing my intervention, Minister, as Helen Mary did not. Did you take it as a compliment that educationalists from all corners of the world were interested in receiving copies of the ‘The Learning Country’? It is a compliment to the Assembly, and to you as Minister that they may learn something from that document.

Thank you, Lorraine. If we are to be a learning country, it is not just about people learning from us; we have much to learn from others. This is about that important engagement. However, the only support that Helen Mary Jones has secured for her proposal to transfer responsibility for teachers’ pay and conditions to the National Assembly has come from Undeb Cenedlaethol Athrawon Cymru, subject to the Assembly gaining tax-raising powers. I have worked closely with the unions on this matter to ensure that teachers’ pay and conditions remain on an England and Wales basis in the interests of teachers in Wales.

Finally, Alun Cairns said that legislation should be better framed in the Assembly: it is; that is what we are delivering, and that is what I propose today.

I request that the division bell be rung.