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.

Good afternoon, Minister. I have questions with regard to Part 1 of the Bill. This first Part sets out strategic duties that are very wide-ranging for this new commission. Perhaps some would say that they're too wide-ranging or too nebulous. Are you satisfied that these duties include sufficient detail to provide certainty in law in the first instance and, secondly, to be workable for the commission?

Well, the context for that decision, if I can place it in its wider context for a moment—it's, hopefully, useful. When I became a Minister, it was an opportunity to look again at the Bill and I felt at the time, because the context had changed even from the Hazelkorn period—we have more now perhaps challenges, if I can put it like that, in terms of COVID, Brexit, and we've got climate change challenges and digital challenges that have come to the fore during this current period—it struck me that we needed to root the commission's work on the face of the Bill in a vision for the sector in general, so that that vision was there on the face of the Bill. So, that was my intention. That was the first time for us to do that—for this Government in Wales—that we set out those values on the face of the Bill.

You talk about responsibilities and duties that are nebulous—I think that's what you said. I don't think that they are nebulous. They are long-term duties. And that's important, in terms of the vision that we have. But tied to that is the need for them to be defined in a way that allows them to be implemented by the commission. So, I think it strikes the right balance for an arm's-length body to be able to have the flexibility to decide how to achieve those duties. It isn't unusual, of course, when it comes to placing duties on public bodies, to create them in a wider context, and then there's an opportunity for that body, which is an arm's-length body, to be able to define those within its own remit and within its own duties.

So you do think that it's workable and practical. But do you think that it provides that legal certainty? Does this strategy provide that certainty in law so that decisions can be challenged?

Well, yes, that's the intention. The duties are defined, of course, in the Bill as well. It will be a matter for the courts, of course, but, from my point of view, I don't see that this would create individual rights for individuals, but it does ensure target responsibilities and duties, if you like, so it drives the work of the commission.

Thank you for that. I wanted to talk then about the Senedd procedures and the fact that section 81 of the previous legislation ensured that any directions by Welsh Ministers to HEFCW, and now for this new commission—. Section 81 stated that any directions to HEFCW had to be made according to the negative procedure in the Senedd, but the same isn't true for section 19 of this Bill in terms of directions to the new commission. Why is that, and is there any specific reason in this example? And we see this, of course, in other parts of the Bill. Is there a reason why you don't provide an opportunity for the Senedd to scrutinise these directions?

Well, I wouldn't put it in quite that same way, if I may say so. In this specific example, you're right, of course, to say that it has changed from the situation that was seen in the 1992 Act. It's the context that's important in this regard. If you look at what's happened during COVID, of course, there's been a need to be able to provide direction under other legislation—for example, for Qualifications Wales. We made directions for them with regard to examinations. That had to be done as a matter of urgency as a result of COVID. So, that is what is happening here. There is a process in the Bill, of course, to do that, and it's about that ability to ensure that things happen swiftly when that is required. That's the reasoning behind this. But, as I said to the Chair at the beginning, if you as a committee don't feel that that balance has been struck in the right way, of course I would be very interested in hearing your stance on that.

The negative procedure is a swift procedure anyway, isn't it? So, why move from directions that were subject to Senedd procedures to a new system that isn't subject to Senedd procedures at all? And then, of course, there isn't that opportunity to scrutinise. The old directions were able to be scrutinised in that way.

Well, if you look across the whole Bill, there are other examples to the contrary as well—where the current process uses the negative procedure, and the Bill now has reflected exactly those similar steps with similar powers but within the affirmative procedure. So, there are examples in the Bill that go in both directions. We've looked at every section on its own merits, and we've decided on the best way of dealing with each section and each aspect.

Okay. Thank you very much.

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.

Thank you, Chair. Minister, you've answered a few of the questions that I was going to ask with regard to why powers are there and you don't want to use them at the moment—reserve powers. So, I won't rehearse old ground. I'm sure the answers would be the same as those you gave to Peter Fox.

But I did just want to mention section 105 of the Bill, which includes a power to make detailed regulations regarding the matters that the commission will have to take into account before deciding whether funding can be passed to a body. So, considering the detail that will be in these regulations—they have to be detailed because of what the commission will have to consider—and considering that we are talking about large sums of money here, why are those regulations only subject to the negative procedure rather than the affirmative procedure within the Senedd? Of course, the affirmative procedure means that there would be better scrutiny than in the case of the negative procedure. Is there a specific reason for that? Do you agree with me that, if we're talking about something that is so important, there is a need for robust transparency when you're transferring large sums of money? Is there a reason why you haven't used the affirmative procedure in that instance?

These bodies that do collaborate collaborate with bodies that are subject to the control of the commission already, so that is the scenario we describe here. What the commission does is ensure that there is a right to transfer those funds on. But you're entirely right that it's very important that that happens in a way that safeguards public funds and those important principles associated with that process.

The specific answer to your question is, again, that these are technical issues on the whole. Does the body that will receive the funding reflect the principles of the strategic plan of the commission, or do they have appropriate regulatory arrangements in place? So, these are technical issues but, perhaps, ultimately they're very detailed. That's how I would describe those things.

Okay. Thank you very much. No further questions from me, Chair.

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

Thank you very much and thank you to you, Minister, for your time this afternoon. You know that I'm very concerned about the situation facing apprenticeships in Wales at the moment. I note that section 111 of the Bill allows you as Ministers to specify new requirements in relation to Welsh apprenticeships. However, the Bill does not set out what form these requirements should take and what status they have, and how we, as Members of the Senedd, could scrutinise such requirements. So, how do you perceive these powers, these new powers, helping you to set out what kind of requirements providers will need to adhere to? And how would I scrutinise this work on behalf of my constituents in Blaenau Gwent?

Well, we've discussed this in other contexts. You're entirely right to say that we need to ensure that the process that we have of designing and providing apprenticeships is appropriate. And the powers in the Bill replace those in the 2009 Act. And the arrangements at the moment are—I don't know what the Welsh word is for 'clunky'—quite clunky. So, these are far more flexible, and that's very important in this specific context, because it's responding to economic changes that we're trying to do so that the provision is appropriate and provides the skills that we need. So, that's the principle, of course. And the role of Welsh Government Ministers in this is to ensure, at the end of the day, that we can respond to, for example, changes in terms of investment into Wales or common policies across several aspects of Government. So, that is the intention here.

In terms of how that transfers into action, the requirements will need to be published. We'll need to publish the date that they come into force. There'll have to be consultation as well with the commission themselves and any other body affected before that coming into force can happen. And the specification or the requirements create a responsibility on the commission to respond to that. So, in order for them to be apprenticeships that are authorised by the Bill, it has to respond to those requirements, and if there isn't that response, then the commission doesn't have the power to be able to fund that provision. So, that's the mechanism.

Yes, I understand that. I note that you used the word 'flexible'. Now, I believe that you do have to have that space, if you will, to be flexible, but it concerns me sometimes when Ministers use that word, because it gives you the power to decide when there is a need to be flexible. Where is the accountability for this power? And if the Senedd disagrees with you, and with the requirements that you've set out, how then can we stop you from doing it?

Well, the whole principle of the Bill—. If we, as a Government, wanted to keep hold of all these powers, we wouldn't create a commission and transfer almost all of the powers with regard to further education to the commission. So, that's the fundamental principle here. We have a great deal of flexibility within the current system that we have in this area in general. One example where there is insufficient flexibility is this area.

Yes, I agree with that, as you know. But just because there are weaknesses in the current system, it doesn't mean that we have to transfer the same weaknesses into the new system. I don't mind the Government in principle having these powers to be flexible, but where is the accountability? That's my question. How do we prevent you as a Minister from doing something if the Senedd disagrees with it?

Well, that's a philosophical question, isn't it, because I as a Minister am yielding powers to the commission so that the commission can deal in a different way, an alternative way, with these issues. But on the other hand, we have a process within the legislation. The line of sight is there between the decisions that we make strategically as a Government—the declaration of strategic priorities, and so on—and that turns into a strategic plan for the commission and then there is action through the regulatory system. Some have said, in other contexts, that that gives too many powers to the Welsh Government to decide what the commission can do. There were questions at the beginning of this discussion today on that point, but the question that you ask now is an example of why we need that line of sight, which is so that you can hold me as Minister to account in committee and ask me those difficult questions. I think that the Bill enables that to happen and ensures that we as Ministers continue to be accountable. But that does mean, on operational matters, that there are examples where the power is in somebody else's hands, namely the commission.

I note that my face has frozen on the screen, even though I am still here, by the way. So, if you don't mind, Chair, I'll just continue with the questions, even though you can't see my face. Perhaps that's a good thing.

You carry on, Alun.

Thank you. Section 124 sets out new provisions in the higher education Act, of course, and extends the remit of the office of the independent adjudicator. And again, in extending the remit of that office, you do so using the negative procedure again. There are many questions that we've discussed this afternoon that relate to this balance being struck, and you've been very open in responding to those questions and we're very grateful to you for that. Does this kind of wide-ranging power demand the use of a different procedure?

The Bill sets out a list of bodies that could be subject to the work of this office. So, as that is on the face of the Bill, it strikes me as being appropriate that it is the negative procedure that is used. The kinds of bodies that could be in those regulations are already listed in the Bill, so I think, in that context, it is appropriate.

Okay. Moving on, again, to section 128 of the Bill, you propose a different power here for you as a Minister to then confer new responsibilities on the Secretary of State and the Office for Students. From what I understand, the consent of the UK Government is needed in order to do that. Have you been discussing that? I take it that you have, and that your officials have been discussing that with the UK Government too. Have they been open to these new responsibilities?

Yes. Those discussions have been very constructive and we expect to receive consent soon.

Okay. And finally from me, section 141 contains very wide Henry VIII powers. I'm uncomfortable with this, I have to say. Are you comfortable and content that you aren't setting too wide-ranging a power, so that there are too many Henry VIII powers here? We see the UK Government misusing, in my view, those powers at the moment. Are you moving, perhaps, too much in that direction?

I don't think that we are. There are two elements here, namely what is the range of things that could be done being one question; and then the second question is for what purpose should those things be done. The first question deals with a range of other legislation, as you suggest in your question. So, on one level, that is wide-ranging. But the purpose for which that could be done is quite limited, I would say—namely, to ensure full use of the Bill or of things that follow on inevitably from the Bill. So, the justification for using those powers is relatively narrow, I would say. This kind of power is quite common in this kind of Bill, and perhaps the most important thing in the context of the discussion that we have had during this meeting so far is that if those powers were to be used in the context of primary legislation already on the statute book, that would have to go through the affirmative process in the Senedd. So, the Senedd would have the right to decide whether that's appropriate or not.

Chair, I'm very content with those answers, so I'm going to disappear and come back. Thank you.

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.