Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee

Chair, thank you for the opportunity to give evidence today on the Bill. Yes, I am content that the Bill is within the competence of the Senedd.

Thank you very much for that. Let me turn to an interesting question here, which flows from evidence from the Counsel General previously. The Counsel General very clearly said to this committee previously that the Welsh Government does not have regard to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 in terms of Welsh legislation. We just want to test this to see whether this is a clear statement of legislation—legislative policy—or rhetorical. Could you confirm that, in line with what the Counsel General has told us, you have not given the non-discrimination and the mutual recognition principles in the UK internal market Act consideration when drafting this Bill?

Chair, I think the position is as the Counsel General set out, that we work on the basis that the devolved powers that we have, as determined by the various Government of Wales Acts, is the underpinning for our development of legislation. So, it is our view as a Government that the internal market Act cannot lawfully limit those devolved responsibilities, and so, in that sense, that is the basis on which we've constructed this legislation as well. But I can give the committee the assurance that I am content that nothing needs to be changed in this Bill as a result of the internal market Act.

Okay. Can I just clarify that? Have you disregarded the UK internal market Act in terms of the consideration of this Bill in front of us today?

I wouldn't say 'disregarded', Chair. We've had regard to the provisions of the Act in looking at whether any of the provisions of the Bill need to be changed, but the Government's position is that the devolution boundaries are set by the Government of Wales Acts, and so the internal market Act can't lawfully limit those. But I'm seeking to go further and tell you that we've looked at the Bill from the perspective of the Act as well, if you like, and there are no changes needed to it.

That's great. Do you anticipate that there may need to be changes if the current judicial review case regarding the UK internal market Act does not fall in favour of Welsh Government in January?

That is not my understanding, Chair. I don't think that changes would be needed.

Do we need any clarification on that from your officials, or is that a clear statement that there will not need to be changes if the decision goes against Welsh Government in January?

Well, since you put it like that, Chair, it would be probably prudent of me to ask Grace Martins to give her reflections as well.

Thank you. We have considered whether the internal market Act would cause any problems for our Bill, and we have come to the judgment that it doesn't. We do not believe—. Oh, I'm going to stray into legal advice, aren't I, so I will just stop here and say that we are content that we won't need to make any changes at the moment.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Grace. Minister, I didn't intend to bypass you then, but sometimes—I know as a former Minister myself—it's helpful to defer to an official to get some help as well. So, no disrespect meant with that.

No. As a former Counsel General, I certainly value the advice of lawyers, Chair. So, I share—. [Laugher.]

Okay, thank you. Let's continue, then. The Counsel General noted, when announcing the Welsh Government's legislative programme, that there is UK legislation, such as the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill, that clearly overlaps with Welsh Government's proposals. So, in respect of this Bill, or your regulation-making powers underneath it, do you intend to use—do you foresee using—this to address any future concerns that may arise in relation to UK Bills that overlap with Welsh Government plans in this area?

That is not the intention of the regulation-making powers, Chair. In relation to the UK legislation, the Bill, we've been in—I think it's probably fair to say—pretty constant dialogue with the UK Government in relation to that legislation for reasons that are obvious and that you refer to in your question, really. And there are some areas, including, I think, at an earlier stage, when we anticipated that there might be more progress in the UK legislation around modular funding, for example—. That would be an area where I personally and the Government would have an interest in understanding what was proposed and evaluating whether that was something we might want to be able to do in Wales as well. It's evident though—I think the UK Government has said themselves—that the legislation that is going through Parliament now will not be sufficient, if you like, to deal with that and there will need to be primary legislation in the future for that. In that particular policy area, I think it's probably fair to say that we in Wales are slightly further ahead on the journey anyway in terms of providing for credit-based funding and so on. But we don't anticipate that development having an impact on this Bill, and that was one of the areas I was most interested in myself.

Okay, thank you very much for that. Now then, there's another standard question that we normally ask when we're faced with Bills like this, and it's: Minister, have you achieved the right balance between detail on the face of the Bill versus giving regulation-making powers to Welsh Ministers? I'm guessing that your answer to that is going to be 'yes', you've achieved the right balance. So, let me just extend that a little bit: are there any areas you want to draw our attention to where there was a fine balance of judgment as to what should go on the face of the Bill or what you might actually bring forward with regulation-making powers for Ministers?

Well, in a sense, Chair, all of these are fine judgments on one level, aren't they, because you want to make sure that the balance is properly struck, really, and you will have seen from the evidence, perhaps, that I've given to other committees—. And in fact the way the question was put to me in other committees was that some stakeholders feel that the Bill is perhaps a little on the prescriptive side and others feel that it's perhaps a little on the other side of the ledger, if I can put it like that. And I suppose that's unsurprising, really. I think what we try and do is make sure that the Bill provides, where appropriate, a level of flexibility, but that that's tethered very clearly in the architecture of the Bill.

One of the fundamental rationales for the Bill was to support our post-16 sector to be futureproofed, if you like, and so that brings with it an element of allowing for flexible development into the future. So, I hope that the statement of policy intent gives a very clear picture of our direction of travel. And what I've been minded, very strongly throughout, if I can say it like this, is to make sure that where there are regulations—and there are obviously a number of areas where we have regulation-making powers—that the Senedd procedure is appropriate for those. So, some of those have been fine judgments. Some of them have retained more or less the current arrangements, if you like, where there are equivalents; some have, I think become more—if I can put it in these terms—protective, really. So, I think there is a mix throughout the Bill, really.

My final question related to that—. And you've held different positions within Welsh Government and within the Cabinet. This justification that runs through the statement of policy of, in quotes, ‘appropriate flexibility’—you’re comfortable with that as a sufficient justification for regulation-making powers?

It isn’t the universal justification—there is a range of justifications for the powers on their own terms, if you like. But I think since we are—. The very premise of the Bill involves the Government handing over considerable new powers to an arm’s-length body and, obviously, building on the existing—and evolving, if you like, the existing—statutory underpinning of it. And that creates a new dynamic over time, doesn’t it? We then have a commission that will take us forward into the future, and I think that requires an element of flexibility, not least because, in the many years ahead, we will be working on evolving this together with stakeholders, and so there needs to be an opportunity to do that without requiring primary legislation in order to facilitate that. So, that’s why I think the balance is appropriately struck.

But I understand, obviously, the committee’s constitutional interest in this area, obviously, and so, if you take a different view, I’d be very interested to hear that, and to listen to your reflections and recommendations, obviously.

That’s great. Thank you, Minister. And we’ll pass now on to Rhys.

Prynhawn da, Weinidog. Mae’r cwestiynau sydd gyda fi ar gyfer Rhan 1 o’r Bil. Mae'r Rhan gyntaf yma’n gosod dyletswyddau strategol eang iawn i’r comisiwn newydd yma. Efallai y byddai rhai yn dweud rhy eang neu rhy niwlog. Ydych chi’n fodlon bod y dyletswyddau yn cynnwys digon o fanylion i greu sicrwydd cyfreithiol i ddechrau ac, yn ail, i fod yn ymarferol i’r comisiwn?

Wel, y cyd-destun dros y penderfyniad hwn, os caf i jest ei ddodi fe, am eiliad, yn y cyd-destun ehangach—mae’n, gobeithio, ddefnyddiol. Pan ddes i’n Weinidog, roedd e’n gyfle i edrych eto ar y Bil ac roeddwn i’n teimlo ar y pryd, gan fod y cyd-destun efallai wedi newid hyd yn oed o’r cyfnod Hazelkorn—mae gyda ni nawr fwy efallai o heriau, os gallaf i ddodi fe yn y cyd-destun hwnnw, fel COVID, mae gyda ni Brexit, mae gyda ni hefyd sialensau newid hinsawdd a digidol efallai’n fwy ar flaen y llwyfan, os hoffwch chi, nag yng nghyfnod yr adolygiad gwreiddiol—roedd e’n taro fi bod angen gwreiddio gwaith y comisiwn ar wyneb y Ddeddf mewn gweledigaeth ar gyfer y sector yn gyffredinol—hynny yw, bod y weledigaeth honno ar wyneb y Bil. Felly, dyna oedd fy mwriad i. Dyna’r tro cyntaf i ni wneud hynny—y Llywodraeth yma yng Nghymru—ein bod ni’n dodi’r gwerthoedd hynny efallai ar wyneb y Bil.

Rŷch chi’n sôn am gyfrifoldebau a dyletswyddau eang a niwlog—dwi’n credu dyna ddywedoch chi. Dwi ddim yn credu eu bod nhw’n niwlog. Maen nhw’n ddyletswyddau hirdymor. Mae hynny’n bwysig, o ran y weledigaeth sydd gyda ni. Ond ynghlwm â hynny mae’r galw wedyn i sicrhau eu bod nhw’n cael eu diffinio mewn ffordd sydd yn caniatáu iddyn nhw ddod ar waith trwy law y comisiwn. Felly, rwy’n credu ei fod e’n taro’r cyd-destun iawn i gorff hyd braich allu cael yr hyblygrwydd i benderfynu sut i wireddu’r dyletswyddau hynny. Dyw e ddim, wrth gwrs, yn anghyffredin, pan fo’n dod i ddyletswyddau ar gyrff cyhoeddus, i’w creu nhw mewn cyd-destun ehangach, ac wedyn mae cyfle i’r corff hwnnw, sy’n hyd braich, allu diffinio’r rheini o fewn cwmpas eu cyfrifoldebau penodol nhw.

Felly, rŷch chi yn meddwl bod e'n ymarferol. Ydych chi'n meddwl, felly, ei fod e'n creu'r sicrwydd cyfreithiol wedyn? Ydy'r strategaeth yma yn creu'r sicrwydd cyfreithiol wedyn fel bod modd herio penderfyniadau?

Ydyn. Wel, dyna’r bwriad. Mae'r dyletswyddau yma'n cael eu diffinio, wrth gwrs, yn y Bil hefyd. Mater i'r llys fydd hwn, wrth gwrs, ond, yn y syniad oedd gyda fi, doeddwn i ddim yn gweld y byddai hyn yn creu hawliau unigol i unigolion, hynny yw, ond mae’n sicrhau dyletswyddau targed, os hoffwch chi—hynny yw, mae’n llywio gwaith y comisiwn drwyddi draw.

Diolch am hwnna. Rôn i eisiau sôn wedyn am weithdrefnau'r Senedd a'r ffaith bod adran 81 o'r hen ddeddf yn sicrhau bod unrhyw gyfarwyddiadau gan Weinidogion Cymru i HEFCW, a nawr i'r comisiwn newydd—. Roedd adran 81 yn dweud bod unrhyw gyfarwyddiadau i HEFCW yn ddarostyngedig i weithdrefn negyddol y Senedd, ond dyw hynny ddim yn wir am adran 19 o'r Bil yma ar gyfer y cyfarwyddiadau i'r comisiwn newydd. Pam hynny, ac oes unrhyw reswm penodol am yr enghraifft yma? Ac rŷn ni'n gweld hyn mewn ambell i le trwy'r Bil. Oes yna reswm, felly, eich bod chi ddim yn rhoi cyfle i'r Senedd graffu ar y cyfarwyddiadau yma?

Wel, byddwn i ddim yn ei ddodi fe cweit yn y ffordd hynny, os caf i ddweud. Yn yr enghraifft benodol hon, rŷch chi'n iawn i ddweud, wrth gwrs, ei fod e wedi newid o'r sefyllfa sydd yn Neddf 1992. Rwy'n credu efallai mai'r cyd-destun sydd yn bwysig eto i hyn. Os edrychwch chi ar beth sydd wedi digwydd yng nghyfnod COVID, er enghraifft, mae wedi bod angen i allu rhoi cyfarwyddiadau o dan ddeddfwriaeth eraill—er enghraifft, i Cymwysterau Cymru. Gwnaethom ni roi cyfarwyddiadau iddyn nhw ynglŷn ag arholiadau. Roedd rhaid gwneud hynny ar frys yng nghyd-destun COVID. Felly, dyna sydd ar waith fan hyn. Mae proses yn y Bil, wrth gwrs, er mwyn gwneud hynny, ond y gallu i sicrhau bod pethau'n digwydd yn gyflym pan fo angen hynny yw'r ysgogiad. Ond fel gwnes i ddweud wrth y Cadeirydd ar y cychwyn, os ŷch chi fel pwyllgor yn credu nad yw'r cydbwysedd hwnnw wedi'i daro yn y ffordd iawn, wrth gwrs byddwn i â diddordeb mawr yn clywed eich safbwynt chi ar hynny.

Mae'r weithdrefn negyddol yn broses gyflym beth bynnag, onid yw e? Pam symud, felly, o gyfarwyddiadau a oedd yn ddarostyngedig i weithdrefnau'r Senedd i system newydd sydd ddim yn ddarostyngedig i weithdrefnau'r Senedd o gwbl, a thrwy hynny, wrth gwrs, ein bod ni ddim yn cael y cyfle i graffu yr oedd yr hen system, yr hen gyfarwyddiadau, wedi'i alluogi?

Wel, os edrychwch chi ar draws y Bil i gyd, mae enghreifftiau i'r gwrthwyneb hefyd—hynny yw, lle mae'r broses bresennol yn defnyddio'r weithdrefn negyddol, mae'r Bil wedi adlewyrchu camau tebyg, pwerau tebyg, ond o fewn y weithdrefn bositif. Felly, mae enghreifftiau yn y Bil yn mynd i'r ddau gyfeiriad. Rŷn ni wedi edrych ar bob un ar ei liwt ei hun, os hoffwch chi, a chloriannu beth rŷn ni'n meddwl yw'r ffordd orau o ddelio gyda fe. Maen nhw wedi mynd y ddwy ffordd, os gallaf ddweud.

Ocê. Diolch yn fawr.

Can I just check with Gareth, our committee clerk—can you hear me?

Yes, I can, Chair.

Thanks, Gareth. I just wanted to check that. I'm having some technical issues. It's going okay for the moment, but if I do lose contact, then, Alun, if you're happy to take over temporarily while I try and reconnect there, will that be okay? Thanks, Alun. Okay, very good. If we could move on now to Peter Fox, please.

Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, Minister. I'm going to be focusing a little bit around Part 2 of the Bill, if I may, and I'll kick straight in to these few questions I've got. In Part 2 of the Bill, it contains a number of regulation-making powers for the Welsh Ministers in relation to the operation of the commission. To what extent is the power to make such extensive regulations consistent with the commission being an arm's-length body?

I'm just going to refer back to the point I touched on at the start, if I may. I mean, this is a process of striking the balance, isn't it, between prescription and permission, if I can put it like that, and from the point of view of the regulator, a regulator would want the Bill to be as permissive as possible, whereas the regulated would want it to be as restrictive as possible. So, that's the eternal challenge in these questions. I know that the committee has a particular interest, obviously. So, if you take the question of registration as the core mechanism, perhaps, in this part of the Bill, it's obviously important in that context for the regulator to be able to adapt to changes in the sector over time, whether that's around the nature of providers or the size of the sector or funding questions. And so, having everything on the face of the Bill, if I can put it like that, would probably require primary legislative change in the future to be able to respond to those developments. On the other side of the coin, taking all of the provisions off the Bill clearly isn't acceptable either. So, I hope we've struck the right balance in terms of making sure the commission has that level of independence that we want it to have, but also the kind of flexibility for legislation to best support it into the future.

Thanks, Minister. The statement of policy intent refers to the two categories of registration that are currently proposed to be used for the purpose of registering tertiary education providers. Why are these not set out on the face of the Bill—you may have answered this—given that extensive consultation on the Bill provisions has already taken place?

I think it is, in a sense, the same point as I just mentioned. Currently, the intention is for there to be two categories, but, obviously, the point of a reform is to enable the commission to lead on change into the future. So, it provides that mechanism for changing circumstances, really.

Okay. Thanks for that. The statement of policy intent states that

'It is not current government policy to create any categories for institutions which do not provide higher education. These providers will continue to be primarily regulated through the terms and conditions attached to grant funding received from the Commission.'

As such, then, is it necessary to have a law that provides for registration at all, if providers other than higher education providers can be effectively regulated via the terms and conditions of their funding?

Well, I suppose the point is inferred in your question, really, when you said 'other than higher education providers'. The Bill needs to provide the commission with the tools to regulate the entire sector. As we sit here today, the sector is funded through different mechanisms, and that's not likely to change very quickly, because we've got student support as one of the key elements of funding in higher education, but in further education, it's a grant-based model, and that provides its own mechanism, if you like, for conditions to be attached to the funding. So, as we sit here today, those mechanisms just are different, if you like, and therefore I think you do need the registration mechanism to provide the regulatory gateway, if you like, for higher education provision, but there's a different mechanism that enables FE to be regulated through a different mechanism. What I would say, though, as your question implies, is that the Bill does provide for that to change in future, so that secondary legislation could provide for a requirement for those eligible for further education funding to be registered as well. But that would reflect an evolution in the sector that isn't the case today.

Okay. Thanks. Moving on, regulations that may be made under sections 39 and 41 are not subject to any Senedd procedure. It is noted that they are only intended to be used in rare cases, but, as they are intended to protect public funds and student interests, they are clearly important. So, can you confirm why they are not subject to any Senedd procedure?

These are regulations that provide for saving provisions, basically—transition provisions—where the relationship between a provider and the register changes. So, moving between categories, for example. So, they will be very specific. They'll be very localised and specific to a provider, in all likelihood. There's no scope, really, for those regulations to contain substantive policy. They're technical, really, which is the rationale for them having the arrangements that they have.

Okay. Similar sort of points. The statement of policy intent states that there is no current intention to make regulations under section 55 and 59 of the Bill, and that such powers are there for futureproofing. Similarly, it states that there's no intention to make regulations under section 61—which is, by the way, incorrectly referred to as 69(9)(a) in the statement—and that this power is included to provide flexibility. Would it not be better to leave these powers out of the Bill and revisit these matters if and when required in the future? If not, why not, and who are you futureproofing the legislation for?

Just to be clear, when we talk about taking these out of the Bill, but accepting that they may be needed in future, what we're really saying is that it would be acceptable for us to require primary legislation to make these changes in future. That's the alternative, if you like, to having provisions in the Bill.

So, taking each of those in turn, if you look at section 55, the list of the different kinds of education and training that must be inspected by Estyn reflects the current position, if you like. As we sit here today, it is comprehensive, but there would need to be further primary legislation to amend that list into the future, just for the pretty simple purpose of specifying different kinds of education and training for Estyn to inspect. So, if we're to, say, include initial teacher education for post-16 in that mix, that would require a new Act of the Senedd if we didn't provide the mechanisms in this Bill, which I think is disproportionate, really.

The same rationale applies to section 59, which, essentially, is parasitic, if you like, on section 55. And on section 61, again, these are around provisions in relation to timescales and the provision of information, so it doesn't feel to me like it would be proportionate for that sort of technical, practical regulation to require primary legislation in the future. It probably simply wouldn't happen.

Thanks for that. The last point from me, Minister, is regarding section 78. It contains a broad regulation-making power that could affect many tertiary education providers in Wales, yet it's only subject to the negative procedure. Firstly, why is this, and would it not be better, given the potential impact that exercising this power could have, for specific provision to be made on the face of the Bill?

It provides Ministers with the opportunity of extending the monitoring duty to other kinds of tertiary education providers. I think this might, for example, be used for providers delivering apprenticeships who are not registered and who the commission might be funding under a different power—under section 101, for example. The purpose of the power then is to ensure there are no gaps in the monitoring and reporting duty. But, again, I'm happy to hear from the committee if you feel that that balance is not struck in the right place.

Okay. Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Peter. Minister, we're going to move on to Part 3 of the Bill now. We're not ignoring Alun, I promise you, but we're going to go to Rhys first of all.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Weinidog, rydych chi wedi ateb ambell i gwestiwn roeddwn i'n mynd i ofyn ynglŷn â pham fod pwerau yna a'ch bod chi ddim eisiau eu defnyddio ar hyn o bryd, pwerau wrth gefn. Felly gwnaf i ddim mynd dros ambell i un. Rwyf i'n siŵr mai'r un atebion y bydden nhw â beth roddoch chi i Peter Fox.

Roeddwn i jest yn moyn sôn yn sydyn am adran 105 o'r Bil. Mae hwn yn cynnwys y pŵer i wneud rheoliadau manwl ynglŷn â beth fydd rhaid i'r comisiwn newydd ei ystyried cyn iddyn nhw roi arian i gorff. Wrth ystyried y manylder a fydd yn y rheoliadau yna—mae'n rhaid bod yn fanwl am yr hyn mae'n rhaid i'r comisiwn ei ystyried—ac wrth hefyd ystyried ein bod ni yn, siŵr o fod, mynd i siarad am symiau mawr o arian, pam fod y rheoliadau yna, felly, yn ddarostyngedig i'r weithdrefn negyddol yn hytrach na'r weithred bositif—y weithdrefn gadarnhaol o fewn y Senedd? Wrth gwrs, byddai'r weithdrefn gadarnhaol yn golygu y byddai yna graffu gwell na'r weithdrefn negyddol. Oes yna ryw reswm penodol? Ac ydych chi'n cytuno â fi, os ydym ni'n siarad am rywbeth sydd mor bwysig, fod angen tryloywder cryf pan ŷch chi'n trosglwyddo symiau fel yna o arian? Oes yna reswm pam nad ydych chi wedi defnyddio'r weithdrefn gadarnhaol?

Mae'r cyrff yma sydd yn cydweithio yn cydweithio gyda chyrff sydd yn ddarostyngedig i reolaeth gan y comisiwn eisoes, felly dyna'r senario ŷn ni'n ei ddisgrifio. Beth mae'r comisiwn yn ei wneud yw sicrhau bod hawl pasio'r arian yna ymlaen. Ond rŷch chi, wrth gwrs, yn llygad eich lle i ddweud ei bod hi'n bwysig iawn bod hynny'n digwydd mewn ffordd sydd yn diogelu arian cyhoeddus a'r egwyddorion pwysig eraill hynny.

Yr ateb penodol i'ch cwestiwn chi yw, eto, fod y pethau yma'n bethau'n dechnegol ar y cyfan. Hynny yw, ydy'r corff fydd yn derbyn yr arian yn adlewyrchu egwyddorion cynllun strategol y comisiwn, dyweder, neu a oes ganddyn nhw drefniadau rheoleiddio ariannol sydd yn addas? Felly, pethau technegol ond, efallai, ar ddiwedd y dydd, manwl. Dyna sut fyddwn i'n disgrifio'r pethau hynny.

Ocê. Diolch yn fawr. Does dim rhagor o gwestiynau gen i, Gadeirydd.

Thank you, Rhys. And with that, we'll move on to Part 4, and Alun.

Diolch yn fawr, a diolch i chi, Gweinidog, am eich amser y prynhawn yma. Rydych chi'n gwybod fy mod i'n bryderus iawn amboutu'r sefyllfa sy'n wynebu prentisiaethau yng Nghymru ar hyn o bryd. Dwi'n nodi bod adran 111 o'r Bil yn caniatáu i chi fel Gweinidogion nodi gofynion newydd mewn perthynas â phrentisiaethau Cymraeg. Ond, dydy'r Bil ddim yn nodi ar ba ffurf y dylai'r gofynion yma fod a pha statws sydd ganddyn nhw, a sut buasem ni fel Aelodau'r Senedd yn gwneud y gwaith craffu ar ofynion o'r fath. Sut wyt ti'n gweld y grym yma, y pwerau newydd yma yn eich helpu chi i osod pa fath o ofynion fydd eu hangen o ran darparwyr? A sut buaswn i'n craffu ar y gwaith yma ar ran etholwyr Blaenau Gwent?

Wel, fel rydyn ni wedi trafod mewn cyd-destunau eraill, rŷch chi'n gwbl iawn i ddweud bod angen sicrhau bod y broses sydd gennym ni o ddylunio a darparu prentisiaethau yn gymwys. Mae'r pwerau yn y Bil, wrth gwrs, yn cymryd lle y rheini sydd yn Neddf 2009 ar hyn o bryd, ac mae'r trefniadau ar hyn o bryd yn—dwi ddim yn gwybod beth yw'r gair Cymraeg am 'clunky'—eithaf clunky. Felly, mae'r rhain lawer yn fwy hyblyg, ac mae hynny'n bwysig yn y cyd-destun penodol hwn, oherwydd mai ymateb i newidiadau economaidd rydych chi'n ceisio ei wneud fel bod y ddarpariaeth yn gymwys ac yn darparu'r sgiliau sydd eu hangen. Felly, dyna'r egwyddor, wrth gwrs. Rôl Gweinidogion Llywodraeth Cymru yn hyn yw sicrhau, ar ddiwedd y dydd, ein bod ni'n gallu ymateb i, er enghraifft, newidiadau o ran buddsoddiad i mewn i Gymru, dywedwch, neu bolisïau sydd yn torri ar draws neu'n gyffredin i amryw elfennau o'r Llywodraeth. Felly, dyna'r bwriad.

O ran sut mae hynny'n trosglwyddo i mewn i weithredu, bydd angen, wrth gwrs, i'r gofynion gael eu cyhoeddi. Bydd angen inni gyhoeddi'r dyddiad y byddan nhw'n dod i rym. Bydd angen hefyd ymgynghori â'r comisiwn ei hunan ac unrhyw gyrff eraill sy'n cael eu heffeithio cyn bod hynny'n gallu digwydd. Ac mae'r specification, neu'r gofynion, yn creu cyfrifoldeb, felly, ar y comisiwn i ymateb i hynny. Felly, er mwyn bod yn brentisiaeth sy'n cael ei hyrwyddo, sy'n cael ei awdurdodi gan y Bil, mae'n rhaid iddo fe ymateb i'r gofynion hynny. Ac os nad yw e, does gan y comisiwn ddim pŵer i allu ei ariannu fe. Felly, dyna'r mecanwaith.

Ie, dwi'n deall hynny. Dwi'n sylwi dy fod di'n defnyddio'r gair 'hyblyg'. Nawr, dwi'n credu bod yn rhaid ichi gael y lle, gofod, os ydych chi'n licio, i fod yn hyblyg. Ond, mae'n fy mecso i ambell waith pan fydd Gweinidogion yn defnyddio'r gair hwnnw, achos mae'n rhoi'r grym ichi benderfynu pryd mae angen bod yn hyblyg. Ble mae'r atebolrwydd o ran y grym yma, ac os ydy'r Senedd yn anghytuno â chi a'r gofynion rydych chi wedi eu gosod mas, sut ydyn ni wedyn yn dy stopio di rhag ei wneud e?

Wel, mae holl egwyddor y Bil—. Petasen ni, fel Llywodraeth, eisiau cadw gafael ar yr holl bŵer yma, fydden ni ddim yn creu comisiwn a throsglwyddo'r pwerau bron i gyd yng nghyd-destun addysg bellach i'r comisiwn. Felly, dyna'r egwyddor sylfaenol. Mae gyda ni lot o hyblygrwydd o fewn y system sydd gyda ni nawr, yn y maes yna yn gyffredinol. Un o'r enghreifftiau lle nad oes digon o hyblygrwydd yw'r maes hwn.

Ie, dwi'n cytuno gyda hynny. Dwi'n cytuno gyda hynny, fel dŷch chi'n gwybod. Ond jest oherwydd bod yna wendidau yn y system bresennol, dwi ddim yn meddwl bod rhaid i ni drosglwyddo'r un gwendidau i'r system newydd. A dwi ddim yn meindio'r Llywodraeth, mewn egwyddor, yn cael y pwerau yma i fod yn hyblyg, ond ble mae'r atebolrwydd yw fy nghwestiwn i. Sut ydyn ni yn eich rhwystro chi fel Gweinidog rhag gwneud rhywbeth os yw'r Senedd yn anghytuno?

Wel, mae cwestiwn athronyddol wrth wraidd hynny, onid oes e, oherwydd rydw i fel Gweinidog yn rhoi i fyny bwerau hefyd i'r comisiwn er mwyn i'r comisiwn allu delio mewn ffordd wahanol ac amgen i'r hyn y mae'r Llywodraeth yn gallu gwneud. Ond, ar y llaw arall, mae gyda ni broses o fewn y ddeddfwriaeth. Mae line of sight, onid oes e, rhwng y penderfyniadau rŷn ni'n eu gwneud yn strategol fel Llywodraeth—datganiad o flaenoriaethau strategol ac ati—ac mae hynny'n troi mewn i gynllun strategol gan y comisiwn ac wedyn gweithredu trwy'r system reoleiddio. Mae rhai wedi dweud, mewn cyd-destunau eraill, fod hynny'n rhoi gormod o bwerau yn nwylo Llywodraeth Cymru i allu mynnu beth mae'r comisiwn yn ei wneud. Roedd cwestiynau ar gychwyn y drafodaeth hon yn y cyd-destun hwnnw, ond mae’r cwestiwn rŷch chi'n ei ofyn nawr yn enghraifft o pam mae angen y line of sight hwnnw, fel eich bod chi'n gallu dwyn fi fel Gweinidog o flaen y pwyllgor a gofyn y cwestiynau anodd hynny i fi. Dwi'n credu bod y Bil yn caniatáu i hynny ddigwydd a'n bod ni fel Gweinidogion yn parhau i fod yn atebol. Ond mae hynny yn golygu, ar faterion gweithredol, fod yna enghreifftiau lle mae'r pwer yn nwylo rhywun arall, sef y comisiwn.

Dwi'n sylwi bod fy ngwyneb wedi rhewi ar y sgrin—dwi'n dal i fod yma, gyda llaw. So, os dŷch chi ddim yn meindio, Cadeirydd, mi wnaf i jest barhau gyda'r cwestiynau, er eich bod chi'n ffaelu gweld fy ngwyneb—efallai'n beth da.

You carry on, Alun.

Diolch. Mae adran 124 yn gosod darpariaethau newydd yn y Ddeddf addysg uwch, wrth gwrs, ac yn estyn cylch gwaith swyddfa'r dyfarnwr annibynnol. Ac eto, wrth ymestyn cylch gwaith y swyddfa honno, dŷch chi'n gwneud hynny gan ddefnyddio'r weithdrefn negyddol eto. Mae lot fawr o gwestiynau dŷn ni wedi'u trafod y prynhawn yma yn trafod y cydbwysedd yma, a dŷch chi wedi bod yn agored iawn wrth ateb hynny, ac rŷn ni'n ddiolchgar i chi am hynny. Ydy'r math o rym eang iawn yma yn mynnu gweithdrefn wahanol?

Mae'r Bil yn datgan rhestr o gyrff y gellid eu darostwng i waith y swyddfa hon. Felly, gan fod hynny ar wyneb y Bil, mae'n fy nharo i ei bod yn addas, felly, mai'r broses negyddol o ran gweithdrefn sydd yn addas. Mae'r mathau o gyrff sydd yn gallu bod yn y rheoliadau hynny eisoes wedi'u rhestru yn y Bil, felly rwy'n credu, yn y cyd-destun hwnnw, ei bod hi'n addas fan hyn.

Ocê. Ac yn symud ymlaen, eto, i adran 128, dŷch chi'n cynnig grym gwahanol fan hyn i chi fel Gweinidog osod cyfrifoldebau newydd ar yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol a'r Swyddfa Myfyrwyr. O beth dwi'n ei ddeall, mae angen cael caniatâd Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig i wneud hynny. Ydych chi wedi bod yn trafod hyn? Dwi'n cymryd eich bod chi wedi, a bod eich swyddogion wedi bod yn trafod hyn gyda Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig. Ydyn nhw wedi bod yn agored i'r cyfrifoldebau newydd hyn?

Ydyn. Mae'r trafodaethau wedi bod yn adeiladol a dŷn ni'n disgwyl cael cydsyniad cyn bo hir.

Ocê. Ac yn olaf i fi, mae adran 141 yn cynnwys pwerau Harri VIII eang iawn. Dwi'n anghyfforddus gyda hyn, mae'n rhaid i mi ddweud. Ydych chi'n gyfforddus nad ydych chi'n gosod pwerau newydd yn rhy eang, fel bod yna ormod o bwerau Harri VIII. Rydyn ni'n gweld Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig yn camddefnyddio, yn fy marn i, y pwerau yma ar hyn o bryd. Ydych chi'n symud, efallai, gormod yn yr un cyfeiriad?

Dwi ddim yn credu ein bod ni. Mae dwy elfen yn fan hyn: hynny yw, beth yw'r ystod o bethau y gellir eu gwneud yw un cwestiwn; a'r ail gwestiwn yw i ba bwrpas gellir gwneud y pethau hynny. Ac mae'r cwestiwn cyntaf yn delio ag amryw o ffurfiau ar ddeddfwriaeth eraill, fel rŷch chi'n awgrymu yn eich cwestiwn. Felly, ar un lefel, mae hwnna'n eithaf eang, ond mae'r pwrpas o ran gwneud hynny'n eithaf cyfyng, buaswn i'n dweud—hynny yw, er mwyn sicrhau defnydd llawn o'r Bil neu bethau sydd yn dilyn yn anorfod o'r Bil. Felly, mae'r cyfiawnhad ar gyfer defnyddio'r pwerau yn un y byddwn i'n ei ddisgrifio fel un cymharol gul. Mae'r math yma o bŵer yn eithaf cyffredin yn y math yma o Fil, ac efallai mai'r peth pwysicaf yng nghyd-destun y drafodaeth rŷn ni wedi'i chael yn ystod y cyfarfod mor belled yw petasai'r pwerau hynny yn cael eu defnyddio yng nghyd-destun deddfwriaeth gynradd sydd ar y llyfr statud yn barod, byddai hynny'n gorfod mynd drwy broses gadarnhaol yn y Senedd. Felly, byddai gan y Senedd yr hawl i benderfynu a fyddai hynny'n addas ai beidio.

Cadeirydd, dwi'n fodlon iawn gyda'r atebion i gyd, so dwi'n mynd i ddiflannu a dod nôl. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Alun. Thank you very much indeed, and to you, Minister, as well. Now, Minister, interestingly we have blasted through a range of questions there, and many of them have been focused on the issue of scrutiny. We touched on the Henry VIII powers there, what's on the face of the Bill and what's left out, and the use of the negative or affirmative powers. During the course of that, you touched on a couple of areas where you'd welcome our thoughts after we've considered your evidence, and we will supply those. I just wonder, as we draw to a close quite early, are there any other areas that you want to touch on with this that might be of interest to us? Are there any other areas that you might want to direct us to, where you would appreciate our help in fashioning this Bill?

Chair, I think it's very much along the theme of what we've been discussing today. So, I obviously understand very well the committee's interest in the balance, and it's one that I share, and so I think anything where you feel perhaps the balance is in the wrong place, either because it should be the affirmative or negative procedure, for example, then obviously I'd be very keen to hear from you about that. So, I've sought—and I hope most stakeholders would reflect this—. I regard this Bill as, in many ways, a collaborative endeavour, really, because what we are trying to do is provide a platform for the next many decades. So, I'm very open to hearing from any stakeholders or committees about how we can refine the Bill to make it the best possible version of itself. So, I'd be very content to hear from the committee on any of those issues, obviously.

Thank you for that. We will write to you with some further very detailed questions as well—some very detailed and technical questions—which we would appreciate an answer to. And we'll obviously send the transcript for you to check for accuracy as well. Before we let you go from this virtual room, can I just check with colleagues that they don't have any further questions? I can't see anybody indicating. I'm worried that my screen has frozen, but I think we are clear. I can see shaking heads now. Lovely. Okay.

Minister, I thank you and your officials very much indeed. Lots of work to get on with. Can I just say, from the committee's point of view, we welcome the fact that we have a Welsh piece of legislation here in front of us to consider? We really do. Diolch yn fawr iawn, and have a good afternoon—lots of work to do. Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr.

I'll give you a couple of minutes now to leave the virtual room before we continue with our business in public this afternoon. I think they've all left.