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.
|
Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 09:30
The meeting began at 09:30
|
|
Cyflwyniad,
Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datganiadau o Fuddiant
Introduction, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of
Interest
|
|
[1]
David J. Rowlands:
Well, good morning.
Bore da. Welcome to the
Petitions Committee. If we move to item 1, there is just one
apology this morning. It’s from Janet Finch-Saunders, who
apologises for not being able to be in the first session, but
it’s hoped that she will be here for questions to the
Minister. So, before we commence with the formal proceedings, I
would first like to thank Mike Hedges for his sterling work with
this committee, and for bringing all the matters up to date in such
a short time. So, thank you very much for that, Mike. You’ve
handed over a very clean sheet for me to carry on with. I’d
also just make comment about Gareth Bennett and thank him for his
contribution to the committee. Gareth has now moved on to the
Business Committee. So, thank you.
|
|
[2]
Mike Hedges: Can I just
say thank you for those kind comments, and can I welcome you as the
new Chair?
|
|
[3]
Neil McEvoy: Yes.
|
|
[4]
David J. Rowlands:
Thank you very much, Mike. Thank you, Neil. Much obliged.
|
|
Deisebau Newydd
New Petitions
|
|
[5]
David J. Rowlands: If
we move on to the new petitions, there are two petitions in front
of us, which, with your agreement, we will deal with as one item,
given that they’re both about the same subject, although they
approach it from opposite ideas. That’s fine.
|
|
[6]
The first petition is P-05-757 to ‘Remove the Obligation on
Schools to Hold Acts of Religious Worship’, submitted by
Rhiannon Shipton and Lily McAllister-Sutton, with 1,300 signatures.
The first-consideration letter was sent to the Cabinet Secretary
for Education on 24 April, and a response was received on 2 May. A
research briefing on the petition and related issues have been
prepared for Members’ information. So, we invite the Members
to discuss what action they would like to take on this particular
issue. The response from the Cabinet Secretary outlines the current
legislative requirement on schools to hold acts of collective
worship. Would any of the Members like to make any comments on
that?
|
|
[7]
Neil McEvoy: I just
think it’s really great to see young people engaging in
politics and taking an interest today, in the public gallery. I
think it’s right to progress this petition.
|
|
[8]
David J. Rowlands:
Fine.
|
|
[9]
Mike Hedges: Yes. I
think Neil is absolutely right. We’ve had the response from
the Cabinet Secretary. I think we ought to send that to the two
sets of petitioners and see what their response is to that, and
then we will have the options of either engaging in an inquiry or
closing the petition at that stage.
|
|
[10]
David J. Rowlands: Yes.
I think that’s absolutely right. If we can deal with it, if
we can, with the recommendations for the second petition, and this
was submitted by Iraj Irfan and it collected 2,231 signatures.
This, in fact, P-05-765, asked for ‘Keeping Current
Guidelines for Religious Assemblies’. So, he’s in
favour of keeping the current guidelines, which have been outlined
by the Cabinet Secretary, and which, in fact, are actually laid
down, she says, in law—the current Act, I think, being 1996,
if I remember rightly. Now, the possible actions, again, if I can
draw the two possible actions for both of those together, is to
write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education to ask whether the
Welsh Government will consider reviewing the current law and
guidelines surrounding collective worship, and if any consideration
has been given to the compatibility of the current requirements
with human rights law. That’s the first question we could
ask.
|
|
[11]
The second one would be the committee could wait further views from
the petitioner, or any further response from the Cabinet Secretary
for Education to the petition before deciding whether to take any
further action. So, obviously, if we write the first letter on
behalf of the first petitioner, await a response, and then deal
with the second petition, would you agree with that?
|
|
[12]
Mike Hedges: Happy with
that. I think we ought to bring to the Cabinet Secretary’s
attention the second petition.
|
|
[13]
David J. Rowlands: Fine. Okay.
|
|
[14]
Mr Francis: We’ve had responses from the Cabinet
Secretary to both petitions. They’re broadly the same
response, as you’d expect, very much just setting out the
current position. So, the petitioners for the first petition have
raised questions about human rights compatibility, about whether
that protects right to a freedom of belief, and those issues
haven’t been addressed so far by the Welsh Government, so we
could ask for further—.
|
|
[15]
David J. Rowlands: So, we’re agreed that the action
we’ll take is to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education
to ask for further information on that, and, depending upon that,
we would then look at the second petition and take action on that.
Is that agreed? Fine, thank you.
|
|
[16]
Right. The second petition is ‘Demand Funding from the Welsh
Government to Support Autism Spectrum Connections Cymru’.
This was submitted by Aled Thomas, having collected 148 signatures.
The background to this is that the first-consideration letter was
sent to the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport on
26 April. A response was received from the Minister for Social
Services and Public Health on the 9th, and a response from the
petitioner has been received and is included in the papers for this
meeting. So, perhaps we’ll discuss the points for discussion,
which are that the Minister has outlined that integrated autism
services are currently being developed that are intended to enhance
existing voluntary sector provision such as that provided by Autism
Spectrum Connections Cymru, and the Welsh Government does not
provide permanent funding to any organisation. The
petitioner’s described the value of the services provided by
Autism Spectrum Connections Cymru and has separately asked the
Minister how the new integrated autism service will fulfil duties
to engage in the partnership and the volunteer
section—sector, I’m sorry. Do any Members have any
comments to make on that?
|
|
[17]
Neil McEvoy: I think I’d agree with the recommendation
to write to Autism Spectrum Connections Cymru.
|
|
[18]
David J. Rowlands: Right. Okay. And Mike.
|
|
[19]
Mike Hedges: Yes.
|
|
[20]
David J. Rowlands:
So, the action is to write to Autism
Spectrum Connections Cymru to seek their reflections on the
petition and the response from the Minister for Social Services and
Public Health. Okay. Fine, thank you.
|
|
[21]
The next petition was presented by
Royston Jones, having collected 53 signatures, and it is a
suggestion that we move the Welsh Assembly out of Cardiff. The
background to that is that the first-consideration letter was sent
to the First Minister and to the Llywydd on 15 May, on the basis
that the petition refers to
|
|
[22]
‘the Welsh Assembly and its
assorted departments and agencies’.
|
|
[23]
A response was received from the Assembly
Commission on 15 June. A response was received from the First
Minister on 22 June. A research briefing on the petition and
related issues has been prepared for Members’ information,
and I’m sure that we’ll have read through those. The
petitioner was informed that the petition should be considered by
the committee, but did not have sufficient time to respond before
papers were finalised—the First Minister’s letter was
received the same day as the papers were published. So, I
don’t know if you have any comments with regard to
that.
|
|
[24]
Mike Hedges: I’d give them time to respond.
|
|
[25]
David J. Rowlands:
Yes.
|
|
[26]
Mike Hedges: It’s the reasonable thing to do.
|
|
[27]
David J. Rowlands:
Yes. Fine. So, that’s the action
we’ll take: we will await the views of the petitioner before
deciding what further action will be taken on this petition. Thank
you.
|
|
[28]
Then we’ll move on to the next
petition, which was submitted by Megan Tudor, having collected 84
signatures, and it’s ‘Better Mental Health Services for
Adults’. The background on this is that the
first-consideration letter was sent to the Cabinet Secretary for
Health, Well-being and Sport on 22 May. A response was received on
14 June. A research briefing on the petition and related issues has
been prepared for the Members, of which, obviously, we’ve had
first notice on that. The petitioner was informed that the petition
would be considered by the committee, but had not responded when
papers were finalised. So, we would invite you to make any comments
you’d like with regard to that.
|
|
[29]
Mike Hedges: Give them further time to read and time to
reply.
|
|
[30]
David J. Rowlands: Fine, okay. And you’re in
agreement, Neil?
|
|
[31]
Neil McEvoy: Yes.
|
|
[32]
David J. Rowlands: I myself would be in agreement with that
as well. So, we’ll await the views of the petitioner on the
response from the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and
Sport before deciding further action to take on this petition.
It’s been suggested that because the next two items or
petitions share the same background we combine the following two
commissions—petitions, I’m sorry.
|
|
[33]
So, the first petition was submitted by Dr John Cox. I think we
ought to note that that was on 16 April 2013. It collected 680
signatures and an associated petition collected 330 signatures, and
it’s to ‘Make the MTAN law’. The second petition
was to ‘Call in All Opencast Mining Planning
Applications’. This petition was submitted by the United
Valleys Action Group. It collected 130 signatures, but there was an
associated petition that collected something like 6,500 signatures.
Obviously, we’ve had papers prepared on this for us by the
clerks and I’m sure we’ve given consideration to that.
So, are there any particular points for discussion or points
you’d like to make with regard to that?
|
|
[34]
Mike Hedges: We could invite both the petitioners and the
Minister to come in and answer questions on it. So, we could have a
short inquiry, perhaps one day, or one session, where we could have
both of them. It’s probably going to be pushed back after
September. But, as this thing has been hanging around for a very
long time, I don’t think that if we don’t deal with it
in the next three weeks it’s going to be a disaster. So, I
would suggest that we give serious consideration to having a short
inquiry.
|
|
[35]
David J. Rowlands: Yes. I think we discussed that. So,
Graeme, do you have any input into that with regard to the timing
on this? I think we discussed the fact that the delay may take it
over the time when there will be an inquiry, or the results of an
inquiry. Is that right?
|
|
[36]
Mr Francis: One thing to note about this would be, in the
last Assembly, the petitioners for the MTAN petition, P-04-472, Dr
John Cox, came in to give an evidence session, alongside Lynne
Neagle, to the Petitions Committee then. No particular action was
taken to follow that up afterwards, apart from correspondence with
the Government. So, an evidence session has been held on this,
though the outcome of that would be out of date now. What the
Government have recently told us, in terms of their position on
planning applications for coal, is that they’re reviewing the
whole spectrum in that area as part of reviewing ‘Planning
Policy Wales’, the overall guidance, and they plan to consult
on that early next year. So, I think Mike is right. There’s a
window, if we wanted to take more evidence as a committee, in the
autumn, to inform before the Government were going to consult on
it—though I think the indication in Lesley Griffiths’s
letters to the committee is that the Government don’t see a
great future for coal development in Wales, but that policy is
under review. So, I think that’s the situation we’re
in.
|
|
[37]
Given these petitions have been hanging around for a long time, we
face the situation where we would either need to continue them on
until the point of time where new proposals come up, or, if we
close them at the wrong time, petitioners who wanted to submit new
petitions would face the fact that there’s meant to be 12
months between a petition being closed and a similar petition
reopening. So, we’ve got to be mindful of the timing of that
as well.
|
|
[38]
Mike Hedges: I dare say it would do us no harm whatsoever
and possibly some good to have a very short opportunity for them,
the petitioners, and the Government to come in. From what
you’ve said, the Government didn’t respond to the
petitioners. The petitioners had their say and then walked away,
which I’m not sure is the best thing to do. I think the
petitioners should ask their questions and we should question the
Government on what the petitioners say. Then we will have to come
to a conclusion on whether we think that it is something worthy of
asking for a debate in Plenary, or whether we wish to make further
representation to the Government. Sorry, I sound like I ought to be
sitting where you are, David, but I really think we ought to do
something. Just having people come along and speak to us and then
go away again isn’t actually doing anything, is it?
|
|
09:45
|
|
[39]
David J. Rowlands: No. And when would this have taken place?
Probably 2013.
|
|
[40]
Mr Francis: I’d have to check on the exact date of the
evidence session, but it was 2014 or 2015.
|
|
[41]
David J. Rowlands: Okay, fine. Well, I must admit, I’m
in agreement with Mike’s suggestion on that. I think perhaps
that’s what we ought to do. So, we ought to see if we can
arrange for a question-and-answer session, is it, with both
petitioners and the Ministers. And if we could do that
ASAP—.
|
|
[42]
Mr Francis: Yes, we could look to schedule that for one of
the early meetings in the autumn.
|
|
[43]
David J. Rowlands: Fine, okay. So, we’re happy with
that? Yes, fine. Okay. The next petition is one submitted by David
Sedley. It was first considered on 7 March, it had 228 signatures,
and it’s ‘End the Exotic Pet Trade in Wales’. The
background is that the committee last considered the petition on 9
May and agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Environment
and Rural Affairs to answer specific questions proposed by the
petitioner. A response from the Cabinet Secretary was received on 6
June. The petitioner was informed that the petition would be
considered by the committee but had not responded when papers were
finalised. So, can I invite you to make any comments on that?
|
|
[44]
Mike Hedges: Wait for the response.
|
|
[45]
David J. Rowlands:
Fine.
|
|
[46]
Mike Hedges: I think one of things that we’ve always done is
to make sure we had all of the information before us before making
a decision.
|
|
[47]
David J. Rowlands:
Yes, absolutely. You’re in
acceptance of that, Neil?
|
|
[48]
Neil McEvoy: Yes.
|
|
[49]
David J. Rowlands:
Fine. That’s fine. And I do accept
that. So, we shall await the views of the petitioner on the
information provided by the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and
Rural Affairs before deciding what further action to take on this
petition.
|
|
[50]
The second petition is also linked to the
following petition, so, with the committee’s agreement, we
will link these two formally. Yes. Thank you. So, the first
petition was submitted by Bethany
Walpole-Wroe and collected 1,008 signatures, and it’s
‘Allow Children in Wales to Have a Family Holiday During Term
Time’. The background is that the committee last considered
the petition on 9 May and agreed to provide the further evidence
received to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and ask for further
details on the timescale of the planned review and independent
evaluation of fixed-penalty notices. A response from the Cabinet
Secretary was received on 5 June. The petitioner has also submitted
further comments, which are included in the papers for this
meeting, and I’m sure that we have read those papers. So, do
the committee have any comments that they’d like to make on
that?
|
|
[51]
Mike Hedges: I think that, having read what the petitioner said,
if the Minister is—or Cabinet Secretary is—looking to
do something in the autumn, we should await that outcome and send
in any information we get between now and then to the Cabinet
Secretary. We’ve taken it as far as we can. If the Cabinet
Secretary is now looking at it, that’s the best outcome we
can have.
|
|
[52]
David J. Rowlands:
I agree. Yes. That’s right.
Well—
|
|
[53]
Mr Francis: Chair, I think one of things the petitioner
particularly wanted us to note is that she’s not seeking a
change in the law, she’s seeking confirmation from the Welsh
Government that they will uphold the current position. I think the
petitioner is frustrated and has a sense that education
authorities, in some cases, are moving away from the
guidelines prepared by Welsh Government, and not allowing
headteachers the discretion to give family holidays in term time.
So, I think it’s worth noting that on the record. But, I
think, in terms of the review, then the Cabinet Secretary has told
us that’s under way.
|
|
[54]
David J. Rowlands: Can I first mention the second petition,
which we are also making a decision on today? The petition was by
Pembs Parents Want a Say and collected 812 signatures. It’s
‘Ensure schools exercise their statutory powers under
regulation 7 of the Education (Pupil Registration) (Wales)
Regulations 2010 without interference or bias’. I think
they’re making the same point, really, there, that, although
the Government has issued guidelines with regard to local
authorities and what they should do on this, it appears that the
local authority are not really exercising those powers.
|
|
[55]
Neil McEvoy: But I think there’s an issue with each
case, really. You know, if a child’s attendance is excellent,
there’s not so much of an issue, because, when you travel
abroad, have different experiences, listen to new languages, you
learn things. And I think there’s a wider learning process
than just the curriculum, which I don’t think we appreciate
enough, really.
|
|
[56]
David J. Rowlands: No. And perhaps, if a particular child
has many absences, then that’s a discretion that the council
can take into account. So, I think the agreed action is, as Mike
said, to await an update from the Cabinet Secretary for Education,
following the completion of the attendance review later this year,
before considering further action on the petition. Are we all
agreed with that? Yes. Fine. Thank you.
|
|
[57]
The next petition for review was submitted by Jago Lewis on 23
February. It collected 378 signatures. It is ‘Remove the
Welsh baccalaureate qualification’. I think the background is
that the committee last considered the petition on 15 November
2016, and agreed to give the petitioner a further opportunity to
comment on the initial correspondence received from the then
Minister for Education and Skills, dated 26 January 2016. The
petitioner has not responded to any requests for his views since he
submitted this petition. The clerking team contacted the petitioner
by telephone on 18 May, and the petitioner indicated that he would
like to submit further comments. However, none have been received.
Again, do you have any particular comments on that?
|
|
[58]
Mike Hedges: I think that enough opportunities have been provided
to make further representations. And I would move that we close the
petition.
|
|
[59]
David J. Rowlands:
Yes. I agree. Neil?
|
|
[60]
Neil McEvoy: Yes.
|
|
[61]
David J. Rowlands:
Okay. I think we’re all agreed on
that, that this petition will be closed, because it’s not
possible to identify how to take the petition forward in the
absence of contact with the petitioner, and taking into account the
categorical commitment to the Welsh baccalaureate previously
communicated by the Welsh Government.
|
|
[62]
Neil McEvoy: I agree with that, but I think it’s a shame,
because it seems to be a young person raising this, and the issue
really is that qualifications are taken—is it for an
educational value, or is it to tick a box, and to get funding for
colleges? And I think there’s an issue there—a wider
issue.
|
|
[63]
David J. Rowlands:
Okay, fine. But, as far as this
particular petition is concerned, because we have no correspondence
from the petitioner after that, I don’t think we have any
alternative but to close that particular petition. Thank
you.
|
|
[64]
The next petition was submitted by Tim
Thomas and it collected 316 signatures. It’s
‘Teachers’ Training Must Include Statutory Training in
Autism’. The background is: the committee last considered the
petition on 9 May, and agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for
Education, enclosing the comments received from the National
Autistic Society, and asked whether it is the Welsh
Government’s intention for autism to be included as a
requirement within the new programme of initial teacher education
for 2019. A response from the Cabinet Secretary was received
on 2 June. The petitioner was informed that the petition would be
considered by the committee, but had not responded when papers were
finalised. There are some points for discussion. The letter from
the Cabinet Secretary provides an overview of reforms currently
being made to initial teacher education. Courses will be accredited
from 2018 and will be expected to include additional learning needs
as an element of core study. The Government also outlines other
actions being taken through autism services, including awareness
raising for teachers.
|
|
[65]
Neil McEvoy: I think we probably should await the views of
the petitioner, but I think—. I don’t see how you can
really do teacher training properly without training on people on
the spectrum, really. But wait for the views of the petitioner.
|
|
[66]
Mike Hedges: Yes.
|
|
[67]
David J. Rowlands: Do we await the petitioner—? Yes,
okay. It’s agreed then, with the committee, that we’ll
await the views of the petitioner on the information provided by
the Cabinet Secretary for Education before deciding whether to take
further action on the petition.
|
|
[68]
The next petition I think we ought to deal with sensitively
because, obviously, there was a particular tragedy that invoked
this petition that is being outlined to us, with regard to the
petitioner, Lynne Chick. Lynne has collected 1,239 signatures. It
is on designated school buses, which she’s calling for for
all children. I think we’ve had background papers, which
intimate that buses are available for children in primary school
who live outside a two-mile radius, and for junior children who
live outside a three-mile radius of the school.
|
|
[69]
Mike Hedges: I think the petitioner’s concern is not
the provision of transport, but the two-mile or three-mile limit.
Quite often, local authorities are more generous on the three-mile
limit—sorry, on the two-mile limit—and bringing it in
for children up to the age of 11 rather than children up to the age
of eight. I think the petitioner’s point is about the
difference between dedicated transport and about catching service
buses. And I think that that is a matter on which perhaps we may
wish to go back to the Cabinet Secretary. There’s no argument
about the two or three-mile limit. It’s about should, if a
child lives outside those limits, they have a dedicated bus, as
opposed to catching a service bus.
|
|
[70]
David J. Rowlands: Yes, I think that’s right. I
will just mention, for the record, that the committee last
considered the petition on 9 May, and agreed to write to the
Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure to ask if he will
consider reviewing the distance criteria for dedicated
home-to-school transport, or alternative measures to improve pupil
safety when travelling to school. A response was received on 7
June. The petitioner has also submitted further comments. The
Cabinet Secretary stated that the provision of dedicated learner
transport over and above the current statutory distances is at the
discretion of individual local authorities. Local authorities are
already able to offer dedicated learner transport to all children,
although the Cabinet Secretary notes that the cost of doing so
would be substantial. The petitioner has expressed dissatisfaction
with the consideration of the petition to date, and points to a
perceived misunderstanding over the aim of the petition. However,
reviewing the current statutory distance criteria may be the only
way to achieve the aims of the petition on a national basis.
|
|
[71]
So, the possible actions are to write to the Welsh Local Government
Association to seek their views on the petition and the potential
for local authorities to provide access to dedicated learner travel
to all children over and above the current statutory requirements.
Or we could invite the petitioner in to discuss the petition at a
meeting in the autumn term, as requested by the petitioner.
|
|
10:00
|
|
[72]
Mike Hedges: Let’s see what the WLGA say first. If
they’re going to say, ‘Yes, we will move towards
everybody on a dedicated bus’—. So, let’s see
what they say.
|
|
[73]
David J. Rowlands:
Fine. Right. I think that what
we’ve agreed to do, and I’m in agreement with—are
you, Neil?
|
|
[74]
Neil McEvoy: Yes.
|
|
[75]
David J. Rowlands:
We will, in the first instance, write to
the Welsh Local Government Association to seek their views. And
once we have that, then we could reconsider the possibility of
inviting the petitioner in to discuss the petition.
|
|
[76]
The next petition under discussion is
Keira Marlow’s petition, which collected 526 signatures, and
it’s with regard to an eating disorder unit in Wales. The
background to this is that the committee last considered the
petition on 9 May and agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for
Health, Well-being and Sport to highlight the concerns raised by
the petitioner, request an update on the latest position in
relation to eating disorder units and ask him to inform the
committee when the results of the formal review of the eating
disorders framework for Wales are published. The Cabinet Secretary
responded on 11 June. The petitioner was informed that the petition
would be considered by the committee, but had not responded when
the papers were finalised.
|
|
[77]
Mike Hedges: Shall we give them time to respond?
|
|
[78]
David J. Rowlands:
I’m sorry?
|
|
[79]
Mike Hedges: Shall we give time for them to respond?
|
|
[80]
David J. Rowlands:
I think that that might be the
best—. As far as I could see, Mike, yes, I would agree with
that. And yourself, Neil?
|
|
[81]
Neil McEvoy: Yes.
|
|
[82]
David J. Rowlands:
Fine. So, we will postpone this and await
the views of the petitioner on the information provided by the
Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport before deciding
whether to take further action on the petition.
|
|
[83]
The next petition under review has been
submitted by the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, and was first considered
on 4 February 2014. It’s for improving specialised
neuromuscular services in Wales. The background is that the
committee last considered the petition on 25 May and agreed to
await the views of the petitioners on the information received from
the Welsh Government and health boards in Wales before deciding on
any appropriate further action. The petitioner has submitted
further comments, which are included in the papers for this
meeting, which I’m sure we’ve all read. The petitioners
welcome the content of the response received from the Cabinet
Secretary and health boards across Wales, and the petitioners have
also included several proposals for how increased co-ordination of
services could be achieved, and have offered to come in to provide
a verbal update to the committee. Do you have any comments on that,
Mike or Neil?
|
|
[84]
Mike Hedges: Do you want to go first, Neil?
|
|
[85]
Neil McEvoy: Just to agree with the possible actions, really, and
about the detail. It’s best taken forward at an operational
level, perhaps.
|
|
[86]
David J. Rowlands:
We have two alternatives here,
don’t we? The new proposals made by the petitioners relate to
detailed issues which may be best taken forward at an operational
level, but given the detailed consideration given to this petition
over a number of years and the comprehensive recent responses from
the health boards, there may be nothing of further value that the
committee can achieve. I think we have to really look at that
possibility. Mike, do you have any comments on that?
|
|
[87]
Mike Hedges: I think it’s one of these things where you have
a lot of support for the people who are putting the petition in,
but sometimes there’s no further that you can take it, and
we’ve reached that stage. If they came along and gave us an
oral update, what would happen next? What I would suggest is we
write to the Minister asking the Minister if he would be prepared
to meet with them.
|
|
[88]
Neil McEvoy: Yes.
That’s a good idea.
|
|
[89]
Mike Hedges: Because if they come and talk to us, there’s
nothing further we can do. So, we’ll ask the Minister if he
would be prepared to meet with them.
|
|
[90]
Mr Francis: And would the
committee want to close the petition at the same point as doing
that? And that’s the way we suggest they take it forward?
|
|
[91]
Mike Hedges: Yes.
|
|
[92]
David J. Rowlands:
Okay. So, the committee is of the opinion
that there is nothing further of value that the committee can
achieve, but we will recommend that we write to the Minister
responsible and ask if he is willing to meet up with the
petitioners himself. Is that fine?
|
|
[93]
Mike Hedges: Yes.
|
|
[94]
David J. Rowlands:
Okay, thank you. The next petition is
submitted by Councillor James Campbell with 166
signatures—‘Hirwaun and Penderyn Community Council
Petition for the Installation of Fibre Optic Broadband’. Can
I say that, if I may make an early intervention here, we all know
that fibre-optic broadband is being rolled out, and rolled out in a
very comprehensive manner, and therefore I’m not sure that
there is any need, now, to take this petition any
further?
|
|
[95]
Mike Hedges: I would agree
with you, and I think that we’ve had a comprehensive reply
from the Minister for Skills and Science. This is where we are. I
would suggest we send—they’ve had the Minister’s
reply, haven’t they? So, I think we should just close it.
|
|
[96]
David J. Rowlands:
Neil.
|
|
[97]
Neil McEvoy: Yes, I
agree.
|
|
[98]
David J. Rowlands: Okay.
So, we have the unanimous agreement of committee that we close the
petition on the basis that roll-out of fibre-optic broadband is
scheduled to be completed shortly and that specific issues can be
raised directly with the Welsh Government using the contact
information provided by the Minister for Skills and Science.
|
|
[99]
The next petition was submitted by
Geraint Williams with 133 signatures. It’s to ‘Widen
the A470 from Pontypridd to Coryton to 3 Lanes’. The
background is that the committee considered the petition for the
first time on 13 December and agreed to await the views of the
petitioner before deciding whether to take further action on the
issue. The clerking team contacted the petitioner by telephone on
18 May having received no response to earlier e-mails. The
petitioner indicated that he would like to submit further comments,
but none had been received when the papers were published. I think,
quite frankly, that this is one of those where we ought perhaps to
close the petition.
|
|
[100] Mike Hedges: Yes, I move that we close
it.
|
|
[101] David J. Rowlands: Are you agreed with
that Neil?
|
|
[102] Neil McEvoy: Yes.
|
|
[103] David J. Rowlands: Fine. So, the committee
has unanimously agreed that we will close the petition because it
is not possible to identify how to take the petition forward in the
absence of contact with the petitioner.
|
|
[104]
We then have a petition by Forsythia
youth centre, which collected 74 signatures and also collected on
an e-petition 533 signatures to ‘Stop Forsythia
Closing!’ Now, I think really that the background is that,
obviously, this comes in the light of the Government’s
decision to close the Communities First projects, and this would
have been impacted by that. But I think, if you’re in
agreement, we will write to the Cabinet Secretary for Communities
and Children to ask for an update. Does that sound the best
strategy?
|
|
[105] Neil
McEvoy: I’d like an update on the centre as well and what
cuts have gone through or have not gone through, and a comparison
of what it is or what it will be in July to what it was previously.
I remember a lot of the kids came down from Merthyr.
|
|
[106] David J.
Rowlands: Okay, thank you.
|
|
[107] Neil
McEvoy: Things like this should be funded, fundamentally.
|
|
[108] David J.
Rowlands: We’re going on both those actions, is that
right? That’s what you’d like to have there.
|
|
[109] Neil
McEvoy: Yes.
|
|
[110] David J.
Rowlands: Okay. So, we’re in agreement that we provide
the information received in relation to that petition to the
Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee to inform
their current inquiry into lessons learnt from Communities First,
and write to the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children to
ask for an update on the development of the Welsh
Government’s new approach to building resilient
communities.
|
|
[111] Mr
Francis:
Neil, did you want to get an update from the local authority or
from the third sector delivery body?
|
|
[112] Neil
McEvoy: Both, really. I think it’s worth getting in touch
with the centre, definitely, please.
|
|
[113] Mr
Francis: Okay.
|
|
[114]
Mike Hedges: I’m happy with that.
|
|
[115]
David J. Rowlands: That closes the petitions for this
particular session.
|
|
10:10
|
|
Papurau i’w
Nodi
Papers to Note
|
|
[116]
David J. Rowlands: There are, under section 4, papers to
note. There’s the correspondence from the Chair of the
Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee. This is in response
to a letter sent to other committees making them aware of petitions
currently under consideration in areas of their remit and there are
no actions required by this committee on that. And there’s
the correspondence from the Chair of the Finance Committee:
scrutiny of the draft budget. The Chair’s note is that this
is a letter sent to all committees advising on the new budget
scrutiny process. A further update will be provided at the
Chairs’ forum on 12 July.
|
|
[117]
I’m not sure that we have time to take a break at this moment
in time.
|
|
[118]
Mr Francis: I think the Minister has just arrived, so we can
break for two or three minutes if you’d like, just
to—
|
|
[119]
David J. Rowlands: Yes, okay. Fine.
|
|
Gohiriwyd y cyfarfod rhwng 10:11 a
10:16.
The meeting adjourned between 10:11 and
10:16.
|
|
Sesiwn Dystiolaeth: P-04-628 Mynediad at Iaith
Arwyddion Prydain i Bawb
Evidence Session: P-04-628 To
improve access to Education and services in British Sign
Language
|
|
[120] David J.
Rowlands: Good morning, and can I welcome the Minister for
Lifelong Learning and Welsh Language to this committee session? The
session is to allow the Welsh Government to respond to a petition
we received to improve access to education and services in British
Sign Language. I don’t know if the Minister would like to
introduce his two colleagues before we—.
|
|
[121] The Minister
for Lifelong Learning and Welsh Language (Alun Davies): Claire
and Ruth are supporting me today. Both are responsible for
different aspects of the BSL in education.
|
|
[122] David J.
Rowlands: Thank you very much. So, does the Minister have any
views on the importance of early acquisition of BSL for learners
and BSL learning for the wider family? And what are the
Minister’s views on the petitioners’ suggestion that
funding for BSL lessons should be hypothecated as it relates to
protected characteristics?
|
|
[123] Alun
Davies: I’m always very wary of going down the route of
hypothecation because the overall approach that we take to local
government funding is that we allow and we expect local government
to be government and not local administration of national
Government, and that means that we enable and provide the
opportunity for local authorities to take decisions that best
reflect their priorities and the areas within which they are
responsible. So, I would always tend to not take a principled
approach to hypothecation. But, clearly, that’s a matter for
further discussion.
|
|
[124] In terms of the
petition that is being discussed this morning, I understand that
this has been discussed by the Petitions Committee for some years
in terms of its approach, and I understand that I’m not the
first Minister to have responded to you on these matters. In fact,
I think a rather large selection of Ministers have, on previous
occasions, responded to the committee. I only hope that I can
provide you with a happier response than perhaps you feel that you
have received from others, I don’t know.
|
|
[125] But in terms of
the approach that I’m taking into the use of BSL, let me say
this: I met with Deffo! some time ago—I think it was in the
autumn of last year—and I had a good and long conversation
with them in Swansea, and I was very impressed with the work that
they did with people, and very impressed with the approach that
they were taking to including, particularly, young people in
different aspects of their work. I thought that was very, very
impressive, and I was very impressed with the case they made and
the points they had to make to me. It’s an experience and a
visit that stayed with me in terms of the approach I’m trying
to take now in terms of the Additional Learning Needs and Education
Tribunal (Wales) Bill that I’m currently taking through the
National Assembly.
|
|
[126] It’s
clearly important that we are able to communicate with each other.
People will communicate differently: I use the English and the
Welsh languages to communicate, others will use BSL. What is
important to me, and one of the points that they and others have
made, particularly other families of deaf children, is that the
family unit needs to be able to communicate with that individual
child, and the family unit needs to be treated as a unit, and not
as individuals. That would lead me to believe that we should look
to ensure that we can provide support for that unit as a unit, and
not as individuals within that family unit. That would lead me to
believe that we need, as a Government, to ensure that we do have
access to the whole family being able to communicate with—.
If, for example, there’s a single deaf child in the family,
then that deaf child has the right to communicate using BSL, if
that’s appropriate, with their siblings and with their
parents and with others. So, we would need, I think, to look at how
we develop those services to ensure that that child has the same
family upbringing that other children would have.
|
|
[127] David J.
Rowlands: Do you have any opinions as to whether the Welsh
Government should actually make BSL classes available? Has there
been any assessment as to a demand for those sorts of classes?
|
|
[128] Alun
Davies: I don’t know if any assessments have been made,
but in terms of classes being made available, clearly, we need to
find the balance between what is right and proper that national
Government delivers and what is done by local government. Most of
the services you are discussing will be delivered by local
government, rather than by the national Government. But, clearly, I
would expect and anticipate that where we’re looking at
delivering services to support individual families, that those
services are available.
|
|
[129] David J.
Rowlands: Fine. Thank you very much. Mike.
|
|
[130] Mike
Hedges: I wanted to cover two points: one is the curriculum for
people who are deaf. I’ve got nowhere via the First Minister
with Qualifications Wales on actually getting them to support a
GCSE in sign language, which I found highly disappointing. Would
you join me in supporting putting further pressure on
Qualifications Wales to support a GCSE in sign language?
|
|
[131] Alun
Davies: Mike, one of the consistencies in life is that you will
always tempt me into terrible trouble. Let me say this: I remember
the question that you asked; I think it was, actually, back in
January at FMQs, and I know that the First Minister did write to
Qualifications Wales on that, and I think they replied in early
April to the First Minister. I have no reason to believe that
Qualifications Wales didn’t do the work in making that
assessment and didn’t come back with a realistic appraisal of
the situation.
|
|
[132] Now, let me say
this, though, Mike, what’s important to me—.
We’ve had a lot of debate and discussion over the ALN Bill,
and one of the things that I’ve been trying to say to people
is that we have to ensure that learners, whether they are small
children in nursery or early years, or older children doing their
GCSEs or A-levels, or young people doing further education or
whatever—wherever they happen to be on that learning
journey—they have the right to a very rich educational
experience, and they have the right to be treated the same as
others. It is the responsibility of us as service delivers and
us—and I say ‘us’ in the widest possible sense,
to include educational institutions, schools, establishments, local
authorities as well as the Welsh Government—it is the
responsibility of the state, of public services, to deliver for
those young people. It is not their responsibility to fit into what
is easiest for us. Yes? So, it’s a person that is at the
centre of policy; not the policy deliverer. That means that we need
to look at how we deliver those services.
|
|
[133] You’ve
asked a single question and you’ve received the response. It
may well be that we need to look at different ways of delivering
the same outcome. So, you know, we’ve been through this
process that the First Minister established with his letter to
Qualifications Wales; that’s come back; we understand where
we are with that now. So, it may well be that we need to consider
that, consider where we are, consider the implications of that, and
then look for a different response. But at the same time, we are
looking through curriculum development, of course, to addressing
these issues. I think, Claire, you’ll be in a better place to
inform the committee of some of the work that we’re doing on
this.
|
|
[134] Ms
Rowlands: The curriculum development is in its second stage.
It’s still fairly high level. There are six areas of
learning, one of which is language, literacy and communication,
which is the relevant one. They’ve been considering, at this
point, what would come within the scope and boundaries—so,
what it would contain. They’ve already made the decision that
it would contain British Sign Language. So, the next phase of work
they will have is what detail goes into that area of learning
experience. They haven’t done a huge amount of engagement,
other than with generic experts, around questions of how you
construct curricula, but they will be doing that in the next phase,
so they will certainly be talking to the relevant stakeholders. I
think it’s important to note, already we’ve got a
strategic stakeholder group, and we’ve already got the
relevant stakeholders on that. The National Deaf Children’s
Society is represented on that. I think that was one of the issues
that people have had is that they’ve been struggling to get
engaged with us, but we’re in a place now where there’s
more detail coming, and so that engagement is starting to happen.
But, certainly, BSL is an active part of the considerations in that
area of learning experience right now.
|
|
[135]
Mike Hedges: Can I just move onto the next part, which is BSL for
children who haven’t got hearing difficulties? Because
it’s important for people with hearing difficulties to be
able to converse and talk to others. As you know, lots of schools
do a sort of dipping in, doing things like Japanese, Mandarin and
only half a dozen hours, maybe half an hour a week for a term, that
sort of amount in years 7, 8 and 9. I’ll use the modern
numbers. Years 7, 8 and 9 in schools, with—
|
|
[136]
Alun Davies: With modern numbers, Mike.
|
|
[137]
Mike Hedges: I know them as secondary school years 1, 2 and 3, but
I’m using modern numbers: 7, 8 and 9. This is where soft
Government action takes place, to promote the idea of children who
don’t have hearing difficulties being given that opportunity,
in the same way the Government has promoted Mandarin and Japanese
to schools as an opportunity to do a little bit on it, because you
can learn the alphabet and you can learn quite a few key items of
sign language relatively quickly.
|
|
[138]
Alun Davies: Can I say I agree with you, Mike? And I think one of
the things that you and I would always agree on is the need to
create and work towards a more inclusive society, and not one that
points fingers at people. I think the way in which we do that, and
language, is absolutely key to that—absolutely fundamental. I
would always encourage greater language learning in schools. I
would always encourage greater language learning in whatever
educational facilities we have, and BSL should be—and I hope
would be—a part of that, because I think you’re
absolutely right in terms of the softer elements of what
we’re seeking to do. I would always seek to ensure that young
people have an education in classic liberal style, if you
don’t mind me saying so, whereby we don’t just teach
for utilitarian purposes, but we teach people to be citizens in a
modern, inclusive society, and that’s a very different
ambition to just a utilitarian means of skills
acquisition.
|
|
[139]
Mike Hedges: Which is what the Welsh baccalaureate was intended to
do.
|
|
[140]
Alun Davies: It’s part of that, yes.
|
|
[141]
Mike Hedges: You could, for example, make five hours of sign
language part of the Welsh baccalaureate at year 11 level. Or the
introductory Welsh baccalaureate.
|
|
[142]
Alun Davies: And we could also support headteachers to take those
decisions in schools themselves, and I hope that—. Some of
the work that Kirsty is doing at the moment is absolutely fantastic
in terms of school leadership, academic leadership, education
leadership. And I think one of the great things, if we can achieve
it, is to provide support for teaching staff, at whatever schools
or educational facilities they happen to be teaching in, to have
the confidence and ability to be able to take these decisions that
best create that inclusive environment for people who are part of
that community. And certainly, the Welsh baccalaureate might well
be, or will be, a part of that, but I wouldn’t simply limit
it to that. And I wouldn’t simply limit it, either, Mike, to
formal teaching in the curriculum. I think a school is a community,
and we can look at how that community functions in a wider
sense.
|
|
[143]
Mike Hedges: Very happy with that. Okay.
|
|
[144] David J.
Rowlands: Thank you very much. Neil.
|
|
10:30
|
|
[145] Neil
McEvoy: Thanks. I just wondered what you thought about the
introduction of standards for BSL and for teachers of deaf
children.
|
|
[146] Alun
Davies: We have standards and expectations that we would have
of all teaching staff that they’re able to deliver the
curriculum and able to deliver the teaching that the students and
learners require. So, in terms of the approach that we are taking,
I would expect and anticipate—clearly, this is a matter
Kirsty’s leading on rather than myself—but, clearly I
would expect and anticipate that we would be able to deliver on
those expectations. I understand the point you’re making
about differential standards in different places, but my approach
would be that we will seek to deliver a more inclusive education
and that we need to ensure that teachers are empowered to be able
to do that.
|
|
[147] Neil
McEvoy: Is there any research on the number of unemployed BSL
teachers?
|
|
[148] Alun
Davies: Ruth, do you have that information?
|
|
[149] Ms
Conway: No, we haven’t got data on unemployed deaf
teachers. What we are doing at the moment, we’re working with
the Welsh Local Government Association to look at workforce
planning, so that might come through as part of the workforce
planning.
|
|
[150] Neil
McEvoy: Are there any figures on qualified BSL
teachers—how many we have in Wales?
|
|
[151] Ms
Conway: That’s what we’ll be collecting as part of
that.
|
|
[152] Alun
Davies: Can I say, one of the things that we’re looking
at—? You know, I’ve announced an additional £20
million to deliver the transformation programme, which underpins
the additional learning needs Bill. Now, one of the things that we
are majoring on in terms of that wide transformation
programme—. This is why I try to tell people to hold back
from simply analysing the Bill and seeing the Bill in isolation
from other interventions that we’re making into the
environment: the Bill is a part of, but not the totality of, the
transformation programme that we are going to be delivering over
subsequent years. The code is another part of that in terms of
implementation. But, the key part of this is neither one of these
things, as it happens, but the wider workforce development issues.
Of the £20 million that I’ve announced for a
transformation programme, we will be seeking to ensure that
workforce development is absolutely fundamental to that, because we
have to ensure that if our ambition is—as I’ve already
laid out to the committee this morning—that all young people,
all learners, have the right to a rich educational environment and
experience, then that has to be done without qualification. All
young people, all learners, no matter what their additional
learning need may be or whatever their need may be—it
doesn’t have to be additional, sometimes, of course. So, the
point I’m making is that we are investing in workforce
development and that is a key part of it. Those services, of
course, which we’re talking about delivering, need to be
available in BSL in some cases, where that’s appropriate, but
they also need to be available in Welsh, and they’re not
available in Welsh in many cases either—so, we’re aware
of how we deliver services and not just the service itself that we
need to deliver.
|
|
[153] Neil
McEvoy: What shocked me, meeting the deaf community, especially
as a former teacher, was that many profoundly deaf
children—it seems the vast majority—are taught and
helped by learning assistants with absolutely no knowledge of BSL.
When I was mentioning standards earlier on, that’s what I
mean.
|
|
[154] Alun
Davies: I understand.
|
|
[155] Neil
McEvoy: Should a minimum qualification be introduced for
teachers or learning assistants dealing with profoundly deaf
children?
|
|
[156] Ms
Rowlands: There are professional teaching standards that have
just been put in place. Currently now being worked on are the same
for teaching assistants. So, those will be looking at exactly that,
actually.
|
|
[157] Neil
McEvoy: Because there is an attainment gap for deaf children,
as opposed to people without that challenge. Having spoken to
parents, I really do empathise and sympathise with them that their
children are being taught by people who really are not qualified
enough. That’s the issue.
|
|
[158] Alun
Davies: I wouldn’t make those generalised sorts of
comments myself. But in terms of the experience of some people,
I’ve had very similar conversations. The purpose of what
we’re about is to improve standards and not just narrow the
attainment gap, or in fact remove any attainment gap, because there
is an attainment gap that exists in many different contexts. This
is certainly one and I don’t argue that at all. There are
other attainment gaps in other areas as well, and what we need to
be able to do is to invest in the people to enable those children
and young people to have the rich educational opportunities to
achieve their full potential. That is the right of everybody in the
educational system, and I say that without qualification and
without any wish to equivocate. So, we need to be able to do that.
The question isn’t what but how, and it’s a question
about how that is delivered. Now, I was very, very clear, in terms
of the announcements that I have made, that we will, through the
wider transformational programme on ALN, ensure that all children
have the same opportunity to learn in class, in school, or wherever
they happen to be. I do not differentiate deaf children from that
in any way at all.
|
|
[159] Neil
McEvoy: So, will there be a minimum qualification for tutors,
for assistants, who are dealing with profoundly deaf children,
which doesn’t exist at the minute?
|
|
[160] Alun
Davies: As Claire has indicated, we are looking at those
standards at the moment and I would expect and anticipate—.
We’re having a conversation about the whole issue of
qualifications at the moment within the ALN Bill, and I’m
considering some of the aspects of the report from the appropriate
committee as part of stage 1 scrutiny. I’ll respond more
fully to that before recess, but it is my anticipation and
expectation that we will be investing in the workforce development
in a way that has been explained, and also seeking to ensure that
that qualification or minimum standard is a dynamic and not a
static standard. We will be looking towards how we continue to
ensure that you have professional development within education and
for educators, not simply at the beginning of their career, but
throughout the whole of their career. It is all about a progressive
increase in quality and standards and leadership that we’re
looking towards achieving. So, the answer to your question is that
we need to go further than perhaps what you’re
suggesting.
|
|
[161] Neil
McEvoy: Great. That sounds good. We’ve had really good
feedback from Cardiff Deaf Creative Hands. They received a small
grant of £2,000 and they’ve managed to teach BSL to 22
families with that, which is a really good outcome. They wanted me
to invite you, actually, Minister to visit, in Newport Road.
I’d extend that invitation maybe at a later date, if you
could confirm if you could attend and just speak to the parents,
really. A separate question: do you think there’s value in
establishing a deaf school in Wales?
|
|
[162] Alun
Davies: I would take advice on the best way of delivering these
things. Local authorities at the moment have the responsibility to
determine what the additional learning needs are for people. In
terms of how we would deliver that, I would always look towards
creating an inclusive education system for all learners, regardless
of their needs and backgrounds, and I would ensure that all
children should be normally educated in mainstream schools, as long
as that’s compatible with the special education provision
that their learning needs call for.
|
|
[163] There is a small
proportion of learners for whom a specialist provision is required
and necessary. We need to ensure that they have access to that, and
I’ve taken steps in the last few months to ensure that we
improve the way we do that. So, my first priority is to ensure that
mainstream schooling is delivered in an inclusive way that ensures
that all learners, whatever their background, whatever their needs,
are educated in their local school, and their local school has the
skills and resources necessary to deliver the education that they
require. That is my point of departure, if you like. Whether we
then need to establish a specialist education unit or school or
college or whatever, which would ensure that we have that available
for deaf students and deaf children, is a matter I would take
advice on and I have an open mind on, but I do not have an open
mind on the need for mainstream education to cater for the needs of
everybody in the community.
|
|
[164] Neil
McEvoy: Has there been any consideration given to regional
provision for deaf children?
|
|
[165] Alun
Davies: Well, of course, because you’re always looking at
how you deliver education. You know, there is no point at which you
start or stop looking at these things. You’re touching on
many things that local authorities have primary responsibility for,
rather than Welsh Government. But in terms of my
expectations—local government will always be assessing and
looking at how they deliver education for people, within their
regions, or their areas. So, I would expect that consideration to
be an ongoing matter.
|
|
[166] Neil
McEvoy: Some of the feedback we’ve had from the deaf
community is that pupils get a far better deal in England. And I
wondered if you felt that there were any lessons to learn from our
neighbours on provision.
|
|
[167] Alun
Davies: Look, I would always learn lessons. I think one of the
more disappointing aspects, sometimes, of the debate on devolution
is that people look at England and stop looking at anywhere else in
the world. Frankly, I’m not one of these people who slavishly
look across Offa’s Dyke as some sort of land of milk and
honey, and then try to replicate all their mistakes here. My view
is that we should be far more open, far more willing, to take what
are good examples of best practice, from anywhere it happens to be
in the world, and to bring that to Wales. So, you know, my view
would always be, let’s look for best examples, or best
practice, wherever it happens to be—if it’s in England,
so much the better, but if it’s not, so much the
better—and to bring that best practice to Wales. So, I
don’t just look in one direction—I look around, 360
degrees, and I would want to take what is best from wherever
it’s delivered, in order to deliver the best for students in
Wales.
|
|
[168] Neil
McEvoy: I think my main point is that there was a young person
sat where you are now, a few weeks ago, saying how detrimental it
had been to move into Wales, in terms of his education, and the
people with him that day agreed as well. So, I think there are
challenges.
|
|
[169] Alun
Davies: Clearly, if there are individual issues, then the
committee would need to write to me on those individual issues.
But, you know, my ambition is always to produce a world-class
education system in Wales. We have world-class teachers, some
fantastic academic and school leadership. I’m very proud of
the work that’s done in schools, up and down Wales, at the
moment, day in, day out. And I think we’ve got some fantastic
people doing some fantastic things, and it is our responsibility in
Government to ensure that they have the resources and the support
to continue doing a fantastic job.
|
|
[170] David J.
Rowlands: Thank you. The committee understands that the
Assembly has no powers to legislate on any languages other than
Welsh, other than through, obviously, the curriculum. What are the
Minister’s views on that? Do you have any
particular—?
|
|
[171] Alun
Davies: I think the National Assembly for Wales should have all
the legislative competence it requires to do its job.
|
|
[172]
Mike Hedges: I was going to say, if you get in a lift in this
building, you’ve got, in Braille, on there, information,
haven’t you?
|
|
[173]
Alun Davies: Yes.
|
|
[174]
Mike Hedges: You get in a lift in this building—do you have
it in sign language? I know you’re going to say that’s
a question I should be asking to the Commission but I
think—
|
|
[175]
Alun Davies: I am going to say that, yes.
|
|
[176]
Mike Hedges: It’s a general question, though—if we can
provide, in Braille, why can’t we just provide the same sort
of information in sign language?
|
|
[177]
Alun Davies: Look, I think we should be taking a very proactive
and positive approach to all of these different things. But
you’re absolutely right in anticipating my answer, Mike. I
don’t think anybody, any Member in this place, would want any
Minister, or any part of the Government, to be telling the
Commission how the National Assembly should be run. So, I will be
responding in those terms.
|
|
[178]
But I think there’s a more positive
way to respond as well, and that is to say that I agree with you,
and that the Member for Blaenau Gwent takes the view that we should
be always taking a proactive and positive approach to seeking to be
an inclusive legislator that delivers for people in all parts of
the country, and all parts of the national community. And my view
has always been that, in creating a Parliament in Cardiff, that
Parliament has to represent people wherever they happen to be in
the country—whether it’s Swansea East or in Blaenau
Gwent.
|
|
[179]
Mike Hedges: Can I ask you the same question, then, perhaps within
the education area? I quite often, like you, visit schools, and
they have ‘welcome’, ‘welkom’ and
‘croeso’, in about 25 languages or so. But sign
language has never been one that I’ve seen there. And that
does come under education.
|
|
10:45
|
|
[180] Alun
Davies: It certainly does, and, you know, I think one of
the—. The Wales that I want my seven-year-old to grow up in
is a Wales that celebrates diversity, a Wales that welcomes
diversity, and a Wales that embraces equality, not just in theory
but in practice. And I want to see all our schools—and I
think they do, actually, on a day-to-day basis—deliver that
in practice, and I think that anything schools can do to continue
to improve and to do that, so much the better. But I think we
should be embracing, encouraging and supporting a very, very
different national community here in Wales to the one that we see
sometimes in the tabloids.
|
|
[181] David J.
Rowlands: Thank you. Finally, Minister, does the Minister have
any views on the potential for Wales to introduce a BSL Bill
similar to that in Scotland?
|
|
[182] Alun
Davies: The appropriate Minister no doubt has a number of
different views.
|
|
[183] David J.
Rowlands: Fine, thank you.
|
|
[184] Mike
Hedges: Who is the appropriate Minister?
|
|
[185] Alun
Davies: I assume Carl Sargeant for that.
|
|
[186] David J.
Rowlands: Thank you very much. Do my colleagues have any other
questions?
|
|
[187] Alun
Davies: I would say to the committee I know that that may not
be a very helpful answer, but Carl Sargeant did make a written
statement on these issues in the autumn. And, you know, the British
Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015, which I presume is where
you’re coming from on that, has had an impact in that
individual country, but it would be a matter for the appropriate
Minister to take a view on the legislative programme for the Welsh
Government, and that appropriate Minister isn’t me. So, my
reticence shouldn’t be read in any way—simply to say
that it would be unfair of me to commit a colleague in these
matters.
|
|
[188] David J.
Rowlands: Neil, did you want one other point?
|
|
[189] Neil
McEvoy: And is Carl Sargeant the same Minister for youth
work?
|
|
[190] Alun
Davies: No, I’m responsible for youth work.
|
|
[191] Neil
McEvoy: Okay. There’s only deaf youth worker in Wales,
and I wondered what you thought of that, really.
|
|
[192] Alun
Davies: Youth workers are employed by a number of different
organisations by local government. My view is that Welsh Government
doesn’t employ youth workers per se, and we are not a service
provider, of course. So, it is a matter for all of those different
service providers to ensure that they are able to deliver for the
whole community. When I’ve been speaking on youth work to the
Children, Young People and Education Committee here, I’ve
always made it very, very clear that I would expect open access
youth provision to be delivered for the whole community. And, you
know, most of the debate on that has been on the availability of
youth services through the medium of English and Welsh, but,
clearly, you could have a very similar parallel conversation about
BSL as well. But, certainly, I would expect and anticipate
organisations, be they in the third sector or in the statutory
sector, to be able to deliver for the whole community.
|
|
[193] David J.
Rowlands: Thank you. Can I thank the Cabinet Minister for your
very comprehensive answers to all our questions, and I’m sure
that will help us immensely as our deliberations are ongoing. Thank
you very much.
|
|
[194] Alun
Davies: Thank you. Diolch yn fawr.
|
|
[195] David J.
Rowlands: So, with that, obviously, it just remains to close
the meeting and note that the last meeting of the summer term will
be held on 11 July.
|
|
Daeth y cyfarfod i ben am 10:49.
The meeting ended at 10:49.
|
