Welcome to the meeting of the Children, Young People and Education Committee. The meeting is bilingual and simultaneous translation from Welsh to English is available. It's on channel 1 on the headsets. Sound amplification is on channel 2. A Record of Proceedings will be published as usual. In the event of an emergency, an alarm will sound and ushers will direct everyone to the nearest safe exit and assembly point. Apologies today have been received from Ken Skates MS, and Jack Sargeant MS is substituting. So, welcome, Jack. Are there any declarations of interest from Members? Sioned.
I'd like to declare that my husband, Daniel Williams, as is in my record of interests, is employed by Swansea University and is a member of the University and College Union.
We'll move on to item 2, which is the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Bill, Stage 2, and the consideration of amendments. The purpose of the meeting is to undertake Stage 2 proceedings on the Bill. In relation to this item, Members should have before them the marshalled list of amendments and the groupings of amendments for debate. The marshalled list of amendments is the list of all amendments tabled marshalled into the order agreed by the committee at its meeting on 31 March. For this meeting, the order in which we will consider amendments is outlined in the agenda.
You'll see from the groupings list that the amendments have been grouped to facilitate the debate. The order in which amendments are called and moved for a decision is dictated by that marshalled list. I'll advise Members when I call them whether they are being called to speak in the debate or to move their amendments for a decision. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. Members who wish to speak in a particular group should indicate this in the usual way, by raising their hand, and I will call the Minister to speak on each group.
For the record, in accordance with the convention agreed by the Business Committee, as Chair, I will move amendments in the name of the Minister. For expediency, I will assume that the Minister wishes me to move all of his amendments, and I will do so at the appropriate place in the marshalled list. Minister, if you do not want a particular amendment to be moved, please indicate this at a relevant point in the proceedings. In line with our usual practice, legal advisers to the committee, the Member in charge and the Minister are not expected to provide advice on the record. If Members wish to seek legal advice during proceedings, please do so by passing a note to the legal adviser or clerk.
We will make a start. Group 1 relates to the Welsh Government's relationship with the commission. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 151, in the name of Laura Jones. I call on Laura to move amendment 151 and speak to this amendment and other amendments in this group.
Thank you, Chair, for this important opportunity to contribute to the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Bill. I wish to first of all speak to my own amendments, 151 and 60. Amendment 151 provides that the Welsh Ministers must write to the commission on an annual basis, setting out the terms of its own remit. I do think that, because the commission will be in charge of a budget of at least £800 million a year, second only to the NHS in terms of funding, the Government must set out its priorities and fiscal arrangements on an annual basis. As the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales noted in evidence to the committee:
'There is a clear risk that this single body will not be able to achieve the strategic outcomes for which it is being created, if its arms-length function is compromised.'
Sadly, we're seeing this throughout this Bill, especially in terms of powers of intervention by Welsh Ministers, and HEFCW further stated that with expertise for regulation, funding and oversight of the tertiary education providers available to Ministers, there should not be the need for them to have the powers to fund or determine the exact nature of how the commission delivers its duties.
As a result, amendment 151 provides for a letter of remit, which will give the commission a broad steer annually. This will prevent the danger outlined by HEFCW, which noted that
'the introduction of provisions which allow the government to take action at an operational level would create unclear governance arrangements, cause confusion and delay, and undermine the ability of the Commission to deliver properly for the benefit of Wales. This could significantly hamper the Commission from fulfilling its strategic leadership role...It could also undermine institutional autonomy'.
This, obviously, is extremely concerning.
Amendment 60 obviously removes sections 19(4) and (5) on Ministers directing the commission to exercise its function in relation to particular courses or areas of research. As HEFCW noted in its evidence to the committee:
'There is a significant risk that a Minister exercising such power could narrow the focus of course provision and research activity in Wales onto short term Ministerial priorities which would destabilise the long-term position of the sector...Funding focused on specific areas...will inevitably be selective and cannot cover everything that is important.'
Turning to the Minister's amendments, I don't think they entirely address HEFCW's concerns about the modification of the strategic plans, as they're still allowed that power. Yes, it's diluted a little, but only a little, so I'd like to hear what the Minister says about his plans to ensure that the commission will be truly an arm's-length body through the amendments tabled today. Thank you, Chair.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. I welcome the opportunity to consider amendments to the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Bill today, and I'd like to place on the record my thanks to all members of the committee for their scrutiny of the Bill, and particularly to those members who've tabled amendments to the Bill as well. May I place on record my assurance to Members that I have considered carefully each and every amendment that has been tabled, and whilst it has not been possible to agree all amendments, I believe there are a number of opportunities, Chair, where the intention behind the amendments can be reflected within the Bill going forward?
In relation to amendment 151, I do not agree with this amendment. To my mind, the amendment does not, in fact, support the principle of the commission being an arm's-length body, and offers what I think is a bureaucratic and onerous process that risks significantly affecting the commission and the Government's ability to take a long-term strategic view. I'm confident that our new approach, as set out in the Bill, of a commission operating at arm's-length from the Government, but within a strategic planning and funding framework, clearly set out on the face of the Bill, is the correct way forward to meet our ambitions. Setting out a ministerial statement of priorities, in line with the strategic duties and the Government's programme, leading to an approved commission strategic plan, is both an improvement on current practice but also a better strategic way of operating than that suggested by this amendment.
In addition, Chair, section 18 of the Bill requires the commission to have regard to any guidance that the Welsh Ministers may issue in respect of the commission's function under the Bill, the difference here being that guidance under section 18 can be issued if needed, as opposed to a duty to issue guidance on all of the commission's functions immediately, regardless of whether a need for guidance on any particular aspect has arisen.
In relation to amendment 60, I also can't support that amendment, which would limit the Welsh Ministers' general power of direction under section 19. It's not envisaged that these powers would be used frequently; they are very much intended to be backstop powers. The pandemic has, I think, highlighted the need to look at circumstances under which Ministers may require the commission to take timely and specific action to deal with events that have significant implications for tertiary education and research in Wales. The Bill makes provision for Welsh Ministers to issue directions to the commission about the performance of any of its functions, subject to certain limitations, which, importantly, are set out on the face of the Bill already.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Minister. I'm not surprised that the Minister is not accepting our amendments, but I would outline that a letter of remit is not new. For example, the Welsh Revenue Authority has a letter of remit. So, I think that a commission that is meant to be at arm's length should demonstrate its independence from the Welsh Government. Thank you, Chair.
You do. So, the question is that amendment 151 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I hear an objection. So, the question is that amendment 151 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands—two. Those against, please raise your hands. Those abstaining, please raise your hands. Okay, in relation to amendment 151, there were two in favour, four against and no abstentions. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.
We now move on to group 2, which relates to the establishment of the commission and appointment and terms of its members. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 152 in the name of Laura Anne Jones. I call on Laura to move amendment 152 and to speak to the amendment and other amendments in this group.
Thank you, Chair. I wish to speak to this group of amendments regarding the establishment of the commission and the appointment and terms of its members. Turning to my own amendments first, amendments 152 to 190 are pretty straightforward, I assure you. They make the appointment of the members of the commission, as well as the research and innovation committee, subject to the Senedd's appointment process. This is absolutely in line with recommendations 6 and 9 of the committee's report on this very Bill.
Now, I know what the Minister will say about the public appointments process, but we will have heard it before, most recently in the previous health Minister's arguments on the citizen voice body during the passage of the Health and Social Care (Quality and Engagement) (Wales) Act 2020. While, of course, we don't want to be overly prescriptive about the commission's structure, I and my group are becoming increasingly concerned that certain appointments are closer to the Welsh Government than being truly independent.
Granted, we have a smaller pool to work with from Wales, but I think that there is a case to be made that certainly there is a case that members of the commission should be questioned and evaluated by a committee such as ours. I'm not sure if the Minister's response to the committee has allayed my own concerns about the separation of the Welsh Government and the commission, especially as he didn't consider any revision needed to be placed on the face of the Bill.
On amendment 150, I'm proposing to extend the time of the application of the Bill. This amendment delays the date upon which the Bill will come into force, to allow further consideration of the UK Internal Market Act 2020. The Minister's response to the committee's concerns I didn't feel was enough, and he needs to be able to assure the committee and stakeholders that the ongoing court case between Welsh Government and the UK Government will not affect the Bill's application. Instead, the Minister's response to the committee was not satisfying, just stating:
'I have considered the provisions of the Bill in light of the Internal Market Act and do not consider there to be any implications for this Bill.'
The Minister needs to clarify his remarks, please, and detail why he does not confider the UK IMA will not have an impact.
Furthermore, Universities Wales noted in its evidence that it would be useful to have further information on how the Welsh Government have prepared for possible UK developments, which would impact the provisions of the Bill. Timescales for the implementation of the commission appear to be particularly challenging. The Welsh Government is still working towards launching the new commission in 2023. We need a better understanding of how the Welsh Government intends to phase in these arrangements, under transitional powers, before they can be confident they are workable, and that the commission and Welsh Ministers will have adequate opportunity to develop arrangements with the sector before implementation.
Turning to the Minister's amendment 43, I note that its effect will be that Ministers must have regard to the chair and ordinary members' experience and capability in the provision or promotion of educational training through the medium of Welsh. While supportive of the aim here, I'm assuming that that's to support increasing participation in Welsh-medium education. I would like the Minister to provide us with some reassurance that this will not become an overriding principle of the appointments process. As a result, I will be abstaining from this amendment.
Last, and by no means least, turning to my colleague Sioned Williams's amendments 199 and 200, I'd be more than happy to support them, as I believe they will help to increase the importance and participation of associate members. Thank you, Chair.
The purpose of the amendment is that we feel, as written, the Bill does not give voting rights to the associate members of the commission, and associate members will include learner representatives and workforce representatives. We feel this means the commission would be behind the institutions. It will regulate on learner voice, as every university and college in Wales has at least two voting student governors on their board. Neither does the Bill give the representatives of the providers in the sector it regulates a sufficient voice, which is, according to the sector trade unions we took evidence from as a committee, more crucial than ever for workers at the heart of this sector, and is in line with the Government's view on the merits of collaborative working with trade unions, and aligns with the amendment, which Plaid Cymru fully supports, on the promotion by the commission of collaboration between providers of tertiary education and trade unions.
This amendment brings the Bill in line with best practice in the governance of other public bodies, such as health boards and the ambulance trust, and would, as the University and College Union pointed out to us in committee, help, perhaps, the commission to foresee, and by their votes prevent some of the concerns and failures in university governance that we have seen in Wales over the last years, which in the UCU's words, have only come to light after it is too late. It is the workforce that carries the can, UCU told us, in terms of redundancies and detriments, and it is the learners that suffer the consequences of this.
Turning to my amendment 200, to support, really, the previous amendment. Although the Welsh Government's own stated vision for the commission is one that will have the interests of learners at its heart, the National Union of Students believes this Bill is a key opportunity, therefore, to embed learner voice in all levels of tertiary education, and ensure Wales leads the way on student representation. Without learners having a real voice on the commission, in the form of voting rights, the Bill will fall short of what provision already exists. As the NPTC group of colleges said, in their evidence to our committee, real
'learner voice has improved strategic decision making.'
Sixteen and 17-year-olds just voted for the second time in Welsh elections. Our elections now embed the idea of working with young people and giving them a say, giving them a vote. So, it seems perverse that a commission that will have the responsibility of planning the delivery of all sectors in which learners are situated will not abide by this principle. The Minister rejected this committee's recommendation to give the associate members of the commission full voting rights on the grounds that there could be a conflict of interest between their role on the commission and the wider activity of, for example, the National Union of Students, but we think that amendment 199 would put in place a mechanism whereby conflicts of interest can be identified and managed.
I would also like to mention quickly amendment 43, the Minister's amendment. Here, we fully support this amendment and we welcome it, and feel that this will ensure that the membership of the commission will include somebody with the expertise in relation to Welsh-medium education or training. And we agree that this will be essential to ensure that there is the appropriate range of expertise on the commission and will be a basis for its strategic planning work for the sector for the future. Thank you.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. In relation to amendment 150, I'm afraid that I can't support that amendment. Its intention is to delay the stated provisions of the Bill being brought into force until 1 January 2024. This will prevent the making of any commencement orders, including in respect of any powers necessary to make preparatory arrangements to support the implementation of the commission, ensure continuity of provision and support a smooth transition to the commission. In establishing the commission, the Bill brings together, for the first time, funding, oversight and regulation of tertiary education and research in Wales, putting learners at its heart. This change, Chair, is overdue, and it's essential that it can happen as soon as is practicable, whilst of course ensuring that the implementation is robust and that provision is continuous and the transition smooth.
In relation to the point that the Member made on the internal market Act, she's of course entitled to make the case for her view as to whether the Act applies or not. The committee has the benefit of my view on that matter in the letter, which I wrote to the committee.
The implementation question is crucial, and I think it seems an odd approach, having acknowledged the challenging timescales, to defer the point at which they can start to be addressed. The refinement of the implementation plan, Chair, and the work that goes with that, is now progressing at some pace. Over the coming months, I anticipate establishing a number of work streams, focusing on different aspects of the Bill and ensuring that our stakeholders are able to contribute to the development of the necessary subordinate legislation and the statutory guidance, and I intend the strategy and implementation board, which I've established, to continue to have a key role in that respect.
I also call on Members to reject the remaining amendments, tabled in the name of Laura Anne Jones, which effectively undermine the long-standing practice of ministerial appointments to public bodies. I've confirmed already, Chair, that, in relation to regular scrutiny, the chair and deputy chair, who will also serve as the chair of the research and innovation committee, as well as the chief executive, will appear in front of the relevant Senedd committee for introductory hearings.
On amendment 43, tabled in my name, the membership of the board is intended to reflect the breadth of the tertiary education sector, and I welcome Sioned Williams's comments in relation to that. In addition, members will be appointed, of course, through the public appointment arrangements, and I don't recognise the point that Laura Anne Jones made about the broad picture there. It will be subject to the principles of public appointment, and those include, crucially, the principle of diversity: that public appointments should reflect the diversity of the society in which we live, and appointments should take account of the need to appoint boards that include a balance of skills and backgrounds.
Thank you, Chair. Obviously, I'm not surprised by the Minister's response, but I'd like to push my amendments to the vote given the importance of the independence of both the commission and its members as an arm's-length body. Thank you.
Thank you, Laura. So, you've indicated that you'd like to go to the vote. So, the question is that amendment 152 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. So, the question is that amendment 152 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And those abstaining. Okay. So, in relation to amendment 152, those in favour were two and those against, four, and no abstentions. So, amendment 152 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 153 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I hear an objection. So, the question is that amendment 153 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. Any abstentions? No. So, that is amendment 153. So, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and amendment 153 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 154 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay. So, the question is that amendment 154 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. Any abstentions? No. So, that is amendment 154. In favour, two, against, four, no abstentions, and that means that amendment 154 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 155 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, the question is that amendment 155 be agreed. Those in favour please raise your hands. Those against. And no abstentions. So, that is in relation to amendment 155. That is two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means 155 is not agreed.
I move now amendment 43 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, so we now—. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against, please raise your hands. Those abstaining, raise your hands. Okay, so in relation to amendment 43, that is four in favour, no votes against, and two abstentions, so that means that amendment 43 is agreed.
Thank you. The question is that amendment 156 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, the question is that amendment 156 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against, please raise your hands. And any abstentions? No. So, in relation to amendment 156, that's two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means that amendment 156 is not agreed.
You do. The question is that amendment 157 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, the question is that amendment 157 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And no abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 157, that was two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and therefore amendment 157 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 158 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, the question is that amendment 158 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against, please raise your hands. And any abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 158, there were two in favour, four against, no abstentions, which means that 158 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 159 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] The question is that amendment 159 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And any abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 159, that is two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means that amendment 159 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 160 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] The question is that amendment 160 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And any abstentions. That means, in relation to amendment 160, there are two in favour, four against, and no abstentions, which means that amendment 160 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 161 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] The question is that amendment 161 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And any abstentions. That means, in relation to amendment 161, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 161 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 162 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] The question is that amendment 162 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And any abstentions. No abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 162, those in favour two, those against four, and no abstentions, which means amendment 162 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 163 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, the question is that amendment 163 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And those abstaining. So, that means that, in relation to amendment 163, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, which means that amendment 163 is not agreed.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. I'll start if I may with amendment 14, which responds to a recommendation of this committee and inserts a new strategic duty, requiring the commission to promote collaboration between tertiary education providers and relevant trade unions in order to discharge the commission's other strategic duties. The trade unions must either be represented by Wales TUC Cymru or, if not, considered by the commission to represent members of the tertiary education workforce.
I actually believe, Chair, if I may, that this amendment goes further than the statement of intent that the committee recommended. In creating a duty that promotes collaboration with trade unions in its widest sense, the commission will be able to promote collaboration at institutional and strategic level across matters such as lifelong learning, widening access, quality and so on.
Amendments 44 and 42 are consequential on amendment 14 and simply provide for a definition of 'trade union' in the general interpretation section of the Bill, whilst removing an existing definition from Schedule 1, and I ask Members to support all of the amendments in this group.
I just wanted to say that we're very pleased to support this amendment. We believed, as a result of the evidence that we received in the committee, where the unions spoke with one voice that we need to strengthen the Bill in this area, that this amendment then does just that. We're very pleased to see it, and we're pleased to support it too. Thank you.
Diolch, Sioned. Minister, would you like to reply? The Minister does not want to reply. Do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 44? You do.
So, the question is that amendment 44 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, I can see that the question is that amendment 44 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And any abstentions. That means that, in relation to amendment 44, there are four in favour, two against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 44 has been agreed.
You do. The question is that amendment 164 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay. The question is that amendment 164 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And any abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 164, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 164 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 165 is agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay. The question is that amendment 165 is agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And no abstentions. So, that means, in relation to amendment 165, two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means that amendment 165 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 166 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] The question is that amendment 166 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. Any abstentions? No. So, the question is that—. In relation to amendment 166, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means that amendment 166 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 167 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] The question is that amendment 167 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And no abstentions. So, that means, in relation to amendment 167, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means that amendment 167 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 168 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, that means that—. The question is that amendment 168 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means, in relation to amendment 168, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 168 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 169 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, that means the question is that amendment 169 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And no abstentions. That means, in relation to amendment 169, two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 169 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 170 is agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we'll move to a vote. The question is that amendment 170 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And no abstentions. So, that means, in relation to amendment 170, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 170 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 171 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we'll move to a vote. The question is that amendment 171 is agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means that, in relation to amendment 171, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 171 is not agreed.
So, the question is that amendment 172 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll move to a vote. The question is that amendment 172 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And no abstentions, then. So, that means that, in relation to amendment 172, those in favour are two, those against four, and that means amendment 172 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 173 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we move to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 173 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And I see there are no abstentions. So, that is, in relation to amendment 173, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 173 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 174 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, I'll move to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 174 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. In favour, please. Just the two. Those against. And any abstentions. So, that means in relation to amendment 174, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means that amendment 174 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 175 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, so we'll now move to a vote. The question is that amendment 175 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. Any abstentions. That means, in relation to amendment 175, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, which means that amendment 175 is not agreed.
You do. The question is that amendment 199 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we move to a vote on amendment 199. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. Any abstentions. No abstentions. So, that means that there are three in favour, three against, no abstentions. And as there is a tied vote, I use my casting vote in the negative, that is, against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Order 6.20. Therefore, amendment 199 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 176 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I hear an objection, so that means we move to a vote. The question is that amendment 176 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. There are no abstentions. So, that means that, in relation to amendment 176, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 176 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 177 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we now move to a vote. And the question is that amendment 177 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. That means, in relation to amendment 177, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 177 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 178 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we move to a vote, and the question is that amendment 178 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means, in relation to amendment 178, two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 178 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 200 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we move to a vote. The question is that amendment 200 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And those abstaining. No abstentions. That means that in relation to amendment 200 there are three in favour and three against. As Chair, as there is a tied vote, I use my casting vote in the negative, that is, against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Order 6.20. Therefore, amendment 200 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 179 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we now move to a vote. The question is that amendment 179 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. Any abstentions? I see no abstentions. That means in relation to amendment 179, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 179 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 180 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we now move to a vote, and the question is that amendment 180 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means in relation to amendment 180, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means that amendment 180 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 181 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I'll therefore take a vote, so the question is that amendment 181 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And no abstentions. So, that means in relation to amendment 181, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 181 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 182 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote on amendment 182, so the question is that amendment 182 is agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means in relation to amendment 182, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 182 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 183 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We now move to a vote, so the question is that amendment 183 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. I see no abstentions. So, that means in relation to amendment 183, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 183 is not agreed.
As I stated when giving evidence to the committee earlier this year, the prominence of research and innovation could be further strengthened on the face of the Bill, and amendment 7 in this group is intended to deliver this change. The Bill as introduced, Chair, requires the commission to promote the undertaking of research and innovation, and also includes reference to research and innovation within the collaboration, continuous improvement and global outlook strategic duties. Amendment 7 brings together these provisions into a single cohesive strategic duty, thereby strengthening the suite of strategic duties and ensuring the importance of research and innovation is adequately reflected. The strategic duty also requires the commission to promote the competitiveness of research and innovation in Wales in line with the recommendation of the committee and other stakeholders.
In promoting the undertaking of research and innovation, the commission will also be core in promoting the undertaking of research and innovation and associated activities through the medium of Welsh. This strategic duty and the subsequent focus for the commission that it will bring about helps us deliver on our national ambition for an excellent research and innovation system, one that continues to contribute to national prosperity, to well-being, an understanding of who we are as a community and a country as well as a wider understanding of global developments and challenges. Amendments 4, 13 and 35 are consequential on amendment 7, and they remove existing provision in the Bill to reflect the insertion of the new stand-alone strategic duty.
Turning to amendment 34, this responds to calls from stakeholders and places a duty on the commission to have regard to the desirability of maintaining any distinctive characteristics of a provider when providing research and innovation funding under section 102. This amendment ensures alignment with the commission’s higher education funding functions under sections 85 and 86 and replicates the duties currently placed on HEFCW under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The commission will be required, when exercising its discretion in relation to the provision of financial support, to take into consideration the desirability of maintaining any distinctive characteristics of a provider eligible to receive research and innovation funding. This could, for example, relate to the specialist nature of a provider and the costs associated with maintaining its particular research infrastructure.
I'm afraid I cannot support amendment 120 in this group, Chair. Section 103(4) is our statement in the Bill of what is often referred to as the Haldane principle—the principle that decisions on individual research work and proposals should be made by researchers, rather than by politicians. This is something that a number of stakeholders have called for and mirrors provision in existing legislation such as the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. The provision is requiring the commission to have regard to a broad principle. As such, I don't consider the requirement to be overly detailed in relation to the operational arrangements of the commission itself.
Thank you, Chair. I wish to speak to amendment 120, which is tabled in my name. Very briefly, this amendment reflects HEFCW's proposed amendment at Stage 1 to omit 103(4) in relation to funding allocation. Going back to my earlier comments, it's clear that HEFCW is concerned about the Welsh Government's control over certain operational matters of the commission, actually mentioning that it is a level of operational detail too far in legislation because the commission should have to be reasonable and have a robust basis on which to make allocations anyway, and that protections of public law are already sufficient. So, I'd like to hear from the Minister why this level of detail is needed and whether he has faith in the ability of both the commission and public law to both make fair funding allocation and provide protections.
I will be supporting the Minister's amendments, which include the expansion of the commission's strategic duty regarding the promotion of research and innovation. As the committee and Minister will know, a lot of those who gave evidence to the committee, including the Russell Group of universities, really pushed hard for this separate duty, saying that they needed more clarity and for the duties to be more directed to research and innovation. I'm really pleased, therefore, that the Minister has heard these calls, and is including them in his Stage 2 amendments. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Chair. I echo the welcome that Laura Anne Jones has given to the fact that the Minister has included, in his amendments, this support for the dual system for research funding. We heard so much evidence from so many bodies relating to this essential work, and we've heard this morning, regarding the announcements on the research excellence framework, how important research is, and innovation of course, to our nation. So we very much welcome this amendment. Concerns were raised, as the Minister knows and as the Minister's heard and has responded to, regarding Welsh-medium research, and therefore we also welcome the fact that the Minister has brought this amendment forward. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. To respond on the principal point that Laura Anne Jones made in her remarks, I would just say that the principle that is reflected in section 103(4) in the Bill is a well-established principle that a number of stakeholders have been keen to make sure continues to be reflected. The drafting of the provision in the Bill itself I will submit to the committee reflects an appropriate level of detail without overburdening in regard to operational impact. The language of the subsection is that the commission must have regard to the principle—that is, the Haldane principle. I would suggest that that's an appropriate level of generality, Chair.
The question is that amendment 184 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we now move to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 184 be agreed. Those in favour please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions, so that means in relation to amendment 184 there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 184 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 185 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, there's an objection. So, we now move to a vote. The question is that amendment 185 be agreed. Those in favour please raise your hands. Those against. I see there are no abstentions, so that means amendment 185—. The result is two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 185 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 186 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we now move to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 186 be agreed. Those in favour please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. That means, in relation to amendment 186, two in favour, four against, and no abstentions. And that means amendment 186 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 187 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we now move to a vote on amendment 187. The question is that amendment 187 be agreed. Those in favour please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. That means, in relation to amendment 187, two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 187 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 188 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we now move to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 188 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means in relation to amendment 188 there were two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 188 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 189 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we now move to a vote on amendment 189. The question is that amendment 189 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means in relation to amendment 189 there were two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 189 is not agreed.
Okay, so the question is that amendment 190 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We now move to a vote on amendment 190. So, the question is that amendment 190 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. Any abstentions? No. So, that means the total is that, for amendment 190, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 190 is not agreed.
Okay, so we now move on to group 5. So, group 5 relates to equality of opportunity. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 1 in the name of the Minister.
So, I move amendment 1 in the name of the Minister and call on the Minister to speak to his amendment and the other amendments in this group. Minister.
Thank you, Chair. Amendments 1, 2 and 3 amend the existing strategic duty for equality of opportunity so as to require the commission to encourage increased participation in the carrying out of research and innovation in Wales by under-represented groups.
These amendments accompany the research and innovation strategic duty that we discussed in the previous group, and help ensure that research and innovation is provided sufficient prominence on the face of the Bill. These amendments also support our commitment to increased equality of opportunity and participation in research and innovation by groups who are currently under-represented as a result of social, cultural, economic or organisational factors. I am sure that we all share, Chair, the ambition to build and support research capability within under-represented groups, and break down those barriers that continue to exist within the system.
Sioned Williams referred to the REF results in her earlier remarks, and we've seen that Wales has done well in those results, but I am sure that when we further interrogate them, and much like the rest of the UK, there is still more to do in supporting institutions to break down those barriers and support greater diversity in our research and innovation system. Placing this duty on the commission ensures that it will receive the attention that it needs.
Chair, I support the intention behind the remaining amendments in this group, and agree that providers who are funded by the commission, but not themselves registered, should also be required to deliver outcomes in respect of equality of opportunity. However, I can't support the amendments in their current form. In response to the recommendation of this committee that these amendments seek to address, I am already exploring options for amendments to be brought forward at Stage 3, and I would welcome the views of the committee in developing these amendments.
In respect of why I can't support amendments 90, 92, 101, 107 and 119 as they are currently drafted, the key issue is proportionality, Chair. Funding under Part 3 of the Bill will probably be a mixture of large grant funding arrangements and then smaller and more ad hoc contracts. Any mandatory terms and conditions set out in the Bill to attach to this funding need to be proportionate, appropriate, and not place undue burdens on providers. Rather than providing for additional mandatory terms and conditions, which might not always be appropriate to every scenario in which funding is being provided, the amendment I propose, Chair, would require the commission to have regard to the need to subject this funding to terms and conditions relating to relevant mandatory ongoing registration conditions.
In addition to addressing the delivery of measurable outcomes to further the equality of opportunity aims, this would also capture matters such as quality, effectiveness of the provider’s governance, financial management and financial sustainability, helping to ensure parity between the arrangements for registered providers and funded unregistered providers. This would put a reference to these matters on the face of the Bill itself in relation to the funding powers in Part 3, without disproportionately limiting the commission’s ability to impose terms and conditions where appropriate on those providers that it funds.
In respect of amendment 115, I don't anticipate applying the proposed amendment to the funding power set out in section 100(1) as this power relates to the provision of financial resources in relation to the provision of information, advice and guidance, and the development of links between employers and providers and students. I do not consider that the matters being discussed in this context work with this funding power.
So, I call on Members to support amendments 1, 2 and 3 and to reject the remaining amendments whilst, however, acknowledging the merit of the underpinning policy intention.
Thank you, Chair. I wish to speak to my own amendments, 90, 92, 101, 107, 115 and 119. On my own amendments, they should be viewed as complementing the Minister's own amendments, rather than competing with them. Although I accept the Minister has put forward his amendments, I feel my own amendments are more in line with the spirit of the committee's recommendation 22. I draw the committee's attention to the fact that my amendments include the following points: increasing participation; the retention of students who are members of under-represented groups to the end of courses; the reduction of gaps in attainment in relevant tertiary education provided in Wales between different groups of students specified in the terms and conditions where the differences arise from social, cultural, economic or organisational factors; and the provision of support for students finishing courses of tertiary education provided in Wales who are members of under-represented groups to continue their tertiary education, find employment or start a business. It's absolutely vital that we do include these areas, and we're talking about under-represented groups. It's not just about funding, it's about ensuring that they are given the proper support throughout their course and equality of opportunity and aspiration.
I'm particularly struck by evidence from groups such as Wonkhe, who are clear that they feel that there should be fewer of the metrics outcomes, especially when disabled students are stating that they are battling poor compliance with the Equality Act 2010. I would therefore be more than happy to work with the Minister to bring forward amendments at Stage 3, but I'm very keen that we have these areas where the commission and Welsh Ministers can help to increase participation and support for those from under-represented groups to achieve their dreams. Thank you.
Chair, I agree with many of the points that Laura Anne Jones has made in support of the amendment that she is proposing. The amendments to which I was referring in my opening remarks are ones that haven't yet been tabled, because they're being developed for Stage 3, Chair, and I would be very happy to work with the committee in developing those and reflecting the kinds of principles that I outlined in my opening remarks. I absolutely understand and support the underpinning policy rational that has led to these amendments being tabled.
Okay. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I hear an objection, so that means that we move to a vote. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. I see there are no abstentions. So, that means that, with regard to amendment 1, there are four in favour, two against, no abstentions, which means that amendment 1 is agreed.
I move amendment 2 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll now move to a vote on amendment 2. So, the question is that amendment 2 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And no abstentions. Therefore, for amendment 2, the results are four in favour, two against, no abstentions, and that means that amendment 2 is agreed.
I move amendment 3 in the name of the Minister. So, the question is that amendment 3 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we'll now move to a vote by show of hands. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means, in relation to amendment 3, those in favour four, two against, no abstentions, and that means that amendment 3 is agreed.
We now move on to group 6, which relates to additional learning needs. The lead and lone amendment in this group is amendment 51 in the name of Laura Anne Jones. I call on Laura to move amendment 51 and speak to this amendment. Laura.
Thank you, Chair, I speak to the only amendment in the group, amendment 51 on additional learning needs. The amendment is on the principle of inclusion for students with additional learning needs under section 4 of the Bill. The sentiment behind this amendment—and I agree with Learning Disability Wales—is that we do need to see the commission becoming clear in how they treat people with additional learning needs in their policy, especially surrounding supported internships and apprenticeships, which will be integrated into the Bill.
Now, we have barriers for those with learning disabilities entering the workforce, and this Bill is a huge opportunity to break down those barriers. As the Minister will know, the committee expressed its concerns about the commission in relation to the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018, and I do note his response, which mentioned that detailed arrangements for implementing post-16 ALN reforms are currently being finalised. So, I'd be very grateful if the Minister could clarify when he expects these detailed arrangements to be implemented, and how these will affect the commission's policy on the provision of ALN in the tertiary and higher education sectors. Also, I'd like to know whether funding for supported internships and apprenticeships will be included in this policy.
It is clear that the Welsh Government has already embarked on significant reforms to ALN in the education sector, and as ALN is lifelong, we do need to ensure that there is a seamless transition from schools to tertiary education, and then, if possible, into work. Thank you, Chair.
I agree with the need, Chair, to ensure absolutely clarity on the commission’s role in encouraging increased participation in tertiary education for all learners, including those with additional learning needs. The 2018 Act, which is underpinned by a number of principles, including collaboration, integration and inclusiveness, sets out a number of duties for local authorities, further education institutions and others in respect of supporting post-16 learners who have additional learning needs. In addition, the ALN reforms are based on a rights-based approach, and the Act deals with individual entitlement to additional learning provision, whilst the Bill we’re discussing today, and the commission it establishes, is focused on determining facilities at a population level, rather than an individual level.
We've looked closely, Chair, at the interface between the 2018 Act and this Bill and the functions of the commission, recognising the importance, obviously, of meeting the needs of learners with additional learning needs in the way that Laura Anne Jones just stated. I agree with the intention behind the first part of the amendment, and will be exploring further the options for capturing this aspect of the amendment within the strategic duties. But, just to be clear, Chair, the Bill already makes explicit reference to the provision secured by local authorities under the 2018 Act, in the context of the commission taking account of the facilities that might reasonably be secured by others. The commission will have a role to play in assessing the sufficiency of facilities for ALN provision at a general population level, as I said, and that is the right fit for this new body. The intention, importantly, I think, is to avoid duplication of resources and to maximise the benefits for learners.
I envisage that the commission will, clearly, need to work closely with a range of organisations, such as the consortia and the Welsh Local Government Association, for example, as well as local authorities, to fulfil its strategic duties and its duties to secure further education and training facilities specifically in a way that supports the wider ALN agenda. So, I don't, in light of that, consider the provisions in subsections (2) and (3) of the amendment to be necessary.
The ALN system includes requirements about local authorities securing specialist provision for young people at independent special post-16 institutions, and the aim is for that to be tailored specifically to the individual learner's particular complex needs. As Members will know, in many cases authorities will have been supporting these learners through their education from a very young age, in many cases, and I remain of the view that local authorities are best placed to make decisions in relation to these placements, specifically as specified in the Act itself.
Thank you; thank you for your response, Minister. It was always meant to be more of a probing amendment to try and relay our concerns, which you have demonstrated, so thank you for that. On that basis, Chair, I'd like to withdraw our amendment.
Thank you, Laura. Does any Member object to the withdrawal of amendment 51 in the name of Laura Anne Jones? No. No Member objects, so amendment 51 is now withdrawn. Thank you for that.
Okay. So, welcome back to everybody. We'll make a start on group 7, which is relating to learner voice, well-being and protection. So, the lead amendment in this group 52 in the name of Laura Anne Jones. I call on Laura to move amendment 52 and speak to the amendment and other amendments in the group.
Thank you, Chair. I want to speak to my own amendments first before turning to the Minister's amendments. On amendment 52, this provides an overarching duty for the commission to support students in relation to their mental health and well-being. During our evidence sessions at Stage 1, the committee heard from those, including Estyn, who suggested that a strategic duty would help the Welsh Government's whole-system approach on mental health and well-being, alongside the 'no wrong door' approach. Specifically, Estyn noted that:
'In light of the Curriculum for Wales and Curriculum and Assessment Act, is there a strong enough focus in the Bill as introduced on wellbeing and the aims of the four purposes to develop young people into capable adults, in terms of effective transition for learners from compulsory to post-compulsory education and training?'
Chair, you'll know that the previous Children, Young People and Education Committee conducted two inquiries into the mental health and well-being of children and young people. Their report last year concluded that improvements to mental health services were not happening quickly enough and that there was still no whole-system approach towards mental health, despite examples of good practice across Wales, meaning that there are gaps with existing services. Specifically, the transition from child and adolescent mental health services to adult mental health support services is something that is receiving growing attention and we're still talking about the missing middle.
Additionally, the Health and Social Care Committee recently published its 'Waiting well?' report on waiting times within the NHS and recovery from COVID-19. It found a number of issues specifically in regards to CAMHS and specialist CAMHS and the lengthy waiting times there specifically. Delays in treatment for mental health conditions, including eating disorders, can not only intensify the suffering of individuals, they can also result in more complex needs and higher costs when people do receive treatment. Stakeholders were particularly concerned about specialist CAMHS services where substantial waits can have significant consequences for children, young people and their families.
MIND Cymru outlined that an insufficient response historically to mild and moderate mental health problems has resulted in people's conditions escalating until they require the CAMHS service, further adding to waiting times and the pressure on specialist services. As tertiary and higher education straddles the transition from childhood to adulthood, it's key that they play a role. The Children, Young People, and Education Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee are likely to begin a joint inquiry soon into the mental health of children and young people and tertiary providers must be able to help support students on this journey, along with the commission. I do think that this is an apt time for us to include the importance of mental health and well-being, so I'd hope the Minister accepts my amendment.
Amendment 53 also promotes the learner voice in line with recommendation 18 of the committee. We heard from a variety of stakeholders, including NUS Wales, who said that the Bill does not reflect the importance of the student voice. They felt that the Bill was a real golden opportunity to give students a real say in their education, no matter what they're studying or the module of study. They said that the Bill shows a fundamental misunderstanding about what good student representation is.
The Open University called for learner engagement to take account of the non-traditional part-time learner voices. They flagged that Open University students are not represented by NUS Wales. NUS Wales agreed that there was a huge lack of parity of esteem between student voices, depending on where you study. They highlighted that HE students have access to stronger and more independent advocacy compared to peers in further education or adult community learning.
Now it's clear that everyone here agrees that promotion of the learner voice is important, but our views slightly differ. I don't think the Minister's amendments 5 and 6 go far enough to promote this learner voice in terms of the commission's position, so I will be opposing them today. There must be consistency in this approach across Wales, no matter the student and what form their study takes.
Speaking to amendments 129, 130, 131 and 132, amendment 129 requires learner protection plans to take account of student learner welfare and ensure that student learners can continue to learn through the medium of Welsh, in line with recommendation 32 of the committee. Furthermore, it is noted that the Minister is considering whether this will be in better guidance to the commission. Can he confirm this and say to the committee what the guidance will look like, please?
Amendments 130, 131 and 132 relate to the concerns raised by the Universities Wales at Stage 1. Under the Bill as it stands:
'The Commission can approve a learner protection plan ‘with or without modifications’ (s.114 (3)), which as drafted allows the Commission to impose its own modifications without the provider’s agreement. The Commission must be able to specify requirements as a condition for approval. It should be a matter for the governing body to determine whether to accept the modifications. Following this, it will be for the Commission to decide whether to approve or
reject the plan. However, attempts to impose the modifications directly without the provider’s consent would seemingly risk the Commission being in breach of its duty in relation to charity law, and means the legislation is relying on provisions that are unworkable.'
The clause should be amended to remove the ability of the commission to make unilateral changes to plans. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Chair. Learners are at the heart of the reforms that this Bill is delivering, and I'd like to thank Laura Anne Jones for tabling amendments 52 and 129. They highlight a matter that is personally important to me. I know it is, obviously, to her as well, and I was very pleased to hear her use the terminology 'the whole-system approach', which goes beyond the whole-school approach, and that whole-system approach is the priority that I and Lynne Neagle have together in relation to the mental health and well-being of our young people.
Supporting and promoting the health and well-being of learners is essential, obviously, to improving educational outcomes and life chances as well, and is at the heart of my education strategy. It's a critical area in how we take forward the implementation of many aspects of this Bill, Chair, in particular the learner protection plans. I'm not able to recommend to the committee they accept these amendments as they're drafted, but I would like to offer Laura Anne Jones and the committee the opportunity to work together on an amendment for tabling at Stage 3. My reasons for calling on Members not to support amendment 52 is that: a desire to explore how we best reflect the importance of learner well-being further in the Bill, including consideration of where it's best placed in the Bill. So, for example, we might look at additional provision as it relates to registration conditions specifically.
In respect of amendment 129, the intention is that learner protection plans will be learner centred and include arrangements to safeguard learners' well-being and mental health, and enabling learners to continue their education through the medium of Welsh. As currently drafted, the Bill does not specify the contents of a learner protection plan. The commission is under a duty to issue guidance on the preparation and revision of these plans, and it's my intention that they are underpinned by a common set of principles, based on that guidance, to ensure consistency for learners across the sector. Draft principles have been shared, Chair, with stakeholders, prior to the introduction of the Bill, and whilst stakeholders welcomed the development of a consistent high-level set of principles, responses in fact generally indicated a preference that the principles should be co-produced, rather than being set in legislation, which colours our response to this amendment.
Whilst I understand the intention behind amendment 53, I don't actually consider that it is necessary, as there is already in the Bill equivalent provision as it is. The commission must prepare and publish a learner engagement code about the involvement of learners in decisions by providers, including, Chair, ensuring that learners are able to participate in the making of these decisions and, crucially, have the opportunity to give their views. The commission, then, must also monitor compliance with the learner engagement code and include in its annual report its conclusions from that monitoring as to the effectiveness of the code itself.
Thank you. Thank you, Minister, for your responses. Again, I'm really pleased that learner well-being is so important to the Minister, and we would be very happy to work with him on Stage 3 to ensure that it's firmly placed on the agenda for tertiary and higher education, moving forward.
I was happy with what you said about the protection plans. We will still go ahead with this, just to make the point, but, yes, I was pleased with what you said. I'm not sure it's robust enough, but I was pleased with what you said on that one—just to note that.
You'd like to withdraw amendment 52. That's fine. Does any Member object to the withdrawal of amendment 52? I can see no objection, so amendment 52 is withdrawn.
The question is that amendment 53 is to be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, so we move to a vote. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. And those against. I see no abstentions, so that means, in relation to amendment 53, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 53 is not agreed.
I move amendment 4 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed. Does any Member object? I hear no objection, so that means that amendment 4 is agreed.
I move amendment 5 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I hear an objection, so we will move to a vote. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against. And I see no abstentions. So, that means that, in relation to amendment 5, there were four in favour, two against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 5 is agreed.
I move amendment 6 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections, so that means amendment 6 is agreed.
I move amendment 7 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed. Does any Member object? I hear no objection, so that means that amendment 7 is agreed.
We'll now move on to the next group, and that is group 8, and group 8 relates to apprenticeships, vocational education, and adult community learning. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 54, in the name of Laura Anne Jones. I call on Laura to move amendment 54 and speak to the amendment and other amendments in this group. Laura.
Thank you, Chair. I will speak to all the amendments in this group. Overall, I believe a more rounded tertiary education system includes traineeship programmes, employability programmes and apprenticeships. I'm concerned about the place of these programmes within the Bill. Their full inclusion is essential in improving a sustainable and innovative economy, which will be of the utmost importance for Wales in the future.
Amendment 54 will include expanding the duty on the commission to contribute to a sustainable and innovative economy by including apprenticeships, traineeships and employability programmes. This is in line with recommendation 35 from the committee, which outlines amendments to broaden the definition of tertiary education to include adult community learning, in line with the definition in the explanatory memorandum. Additionally, the Education Workforce Council has said they believe that the Bill should clearly specify what is in or out of scope of the new body's responsibilities, to ensure clarity within the sector.
Amendment 126 would allow Ministers to give specific details about the content of apprenticeship frameworks, which is supported by amendment 127.
Amendment 128 would see targets set for things like disabled people and ethnic minority participation in apprenticeships, and increase numbers of those taking care apprenticeships. The amendment would see a summary report of all those activities, and more in an annual report.
I'd also like to emphasise the importance of degree apprenticeships, and will expand on this later on, in our system. And I would like to see a significant expansion of these—offering people routes to success outside a university setting should be top priority for this Government. Thank you.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. I cannot, I'm afraid, agree amendment 54, which, as Laura Anne Jones has said, has the effect of adding apprenticeships, traineeship programmes and employability programmes to the definition of tertiary education for the purpose of the strategic duty in respect of a sustainable and innovative economy in Wales. I don't myself see that this is supported by the specific recommendation in the committee's report. The definition of tertiary education, Chair, is broad, and captures apprenticeships already. Traineeship programmes no longer exist, and responsibility for employability programmes will, in fact, remain with the Welsh Ministers. So, those are the reasons why I cannot support amendment 54.
I also, I'm afraid, don't agree with amendments 126 and 127, which remove the ability of Welsh Ministers to prepare and publish the specification of requirements in relation to approved Welsh apprenticeships. In addition, no replacement provision is inserted as regards the preparation of a Welsh apprenticeship specification, significantly weakening, Chair, the legislative arrangements put in place by the Bill.
The Welsh specification will be prepared and issued by Welsh Ministers following consultation with the commission and with other stakeholders. The specification acts as a vehicle for Welsh Ministers to articulate a cross-cutting policy to ensure that apprenticeships are responsive to changing economic conditions in Wales. This might include, for example, being able to respond rapidly to new inward investment opportunities that arise. But the commission will have full responsibility for developing and issuing all apprenticeship frameworks against the standards in the specification, and will be responsible for the quality, for integrity and for the robustness of all apprenticeship frameworks. The commission will also maintain a register of approved apprenticeship frameworks, Chair.
Finally, I do not support amendment 128, as I consider the Bill already includes sufficient provision in relation to this. The Bill requires the commission to prepare an annual report on a range of matters including, already, details of how the commission has exercised its functions during the year, which would include its funding powers and activities in respect of apprenticeships and vocational qualifications. In addition to that concern, Chair, providing for express provision in relation to apprenticeships and vocational qualifications in the annual report risks creating an imbalance when compared to the other kinds of tertiary education within the remit of the commission.
I am considering preparing and issuing statutory guidance under section 18 of the Bill, which would set out expectations on the commission in respect of its annual report. And that approach, I would submit to the committee, would maintain an appropriate level of specification in legislation and then allow the commission an appropriate degree of flexibility to decide how it discharges its duties. And so, I call on Members to reject each of the amendments in this group.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Minister. We take on board the points you raised, but we will continue to press for the amendments to be voted on. Thanks.
Thank you, Laura. So, the question is that amendment 54 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay. We'll go to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 54 is agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And I see no abstentions. So, that means, in relation to amendment 54, two in favour, four against, no abstentions. And amendment 54 is not agreed.
So, I move amendment 8 in the name of the Minister, and call on the Minister to speak to his amendment and the other amendments in this group. Minister.
Thank you, Chair. The amendments in this group respond to recommendations made by this committee and reflect the Welsh Government's ambition, and my own ambition, in relation to increasing the use of Welsh and the number of Welsh speakers. All the amendments relate to the strategic duty in respect of promoting Welsh-medium tertiary education, with amendment 8 expanding the duty, requiring the commission to encourage demand for tertiary education through the medium of Welsh and encourage participation in provision of this kind.
Whilst I agree with the intention behind amendment 55, I cannot support the amendment as the matters it seeks to address are already included in amendments that I have tabled. The provision of resources is something that is covered by the 'all reasonable steps' aspect of this strategic duty, as amended by amendment 8. To single out resources risks making the duty less clear, as it may introduce ambiguity as to whether provision of resources falls within the 'all reasonable steps' aspect. In addition, the new strategic duty in respect of promoting research and innovation, and the committee has already voted on that duty, includes provision in respect of promoting the undertaking of research and innovation through the medium of Welsh.
Amendment 9 further refines the strategic duty, removing the word 'reasonable' in relation to demand, thereby requiring the commission, as part of the duty, to take all reasonable steps to meet the demand for Welsh-medium tertiary education, including the demand that they generate through discharging the strategic duty. The inclusion of 'reasonable' was not intended to be a limiting factor in respect of this duty, nor was that the impact, in my view, but I do acknowledge the concerns raised by the committee and by stakeholders about how this could be interpreted, so, I agree with its removal.
The final amendment in this group, namely amendment 10, requires the Welsh Ministers to designate a person to provide advice to the commission to assist them in the discharge of the strategic duty. The amendment sets out the matters on which a person must be able to advise the commission in order to be designated. The commission is required to have regard to the advice provided by the person in respect of this strategic duty. If no person meets the requirements, then the duty does not apply. I am satisfied that the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol does meet the listed matters, and I am therefore confident that this meets and indeed goes further than the committee's recommendation that we bring forward an amendment to ensure that the commission works with the coleg in a strategic manner. I don't want to pre-empt the legal process of making the designation, however, it is my view that, if I were to designate a body today, I would be designating the coleg for the purposes of this provision. Designating the coleg would provide clarity in terms of the relationship between the two bodies, ensuring that the commission is able to benefit from the coleg's expertise.
Chair, the Welsh language belongs to us all, and we must keep on encouraging and creating opportunities to use the Welsh language, particularly in our tertiary education sector. I therefore call on Members to support all of the amendments in this group, tabled in my name, and to reject amendment 55.
Diolch. I wish to speak to amendment 55, which would also strengthen and enhance the duty of the commission to promote Welsh-medium tertiary education to reflect the ambition of 'Cymraeg 2050'. I was pleased to see that the Minister's own amendments actually went further in the original draft than I would have tabled, and will, of course, be supporting them today.
But I do believe that the Welsh Government needs to sustain these practical policies in order to meet the ambitious target of 1 million Welsh speakers. Although my amendment 55 seems to clash with the Minister's amendments, I have tabled this amendment as I do want some reassurance on the resources element of providing education through the medium of Welsh, as the Welsh Government should be doing everything it can to stimulate the growth and uptake of Welsh language education provision in order to meet the 'Cymraeg 2050' targets. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. I'd like to discuss all the amendments in the group. In terms of amendments 8 and 9 in the name of the Minister, these are certainly to be welcomed because they acknowledge that there is a need to encourage the demand for Welsh-medium education, as well as just responding to it. That's an important lesson that we learnt in relation to the Welsh in education strategic plans, and it's very good to see those lessons being transferred to the tertiary sector, where they're still as relevant. There is a need to promote the advantages of Welsh-medium provision to learners and draw attention to the great demand in workforces and workplaces for workers who are confident in communicating through the medium of Welsh. There are clear advantages in employability, whatever the area, for most learners. But there is a need to build confidence in learners that Welsh-medium or bilingual pathways are possible for them and that the appropriate support will be there for them.
At times, there might be need for organisations to provide provision through the medium of Welsh even when the demand for it is not completely clear, because, sometimes, the best encouragement is to create and expand the provision for people to opt in to. That happens in the schools sector, where new Welsh-medium schools are often overflowing within a short time.
All of this relates to the duty and the idea of encouraging demand, so I encourage Members to vote in favour of amendments 8 and 9. We welcome the intention to get rid of the word 'reasonable' in this section too, because it does strengthen the duty on tertiary organisations to provide sufficient provision through the medium of Welsh.
I'd like to talk to amendment 55 briefly. I welcome the statement that the Minister has made this morning regarding the role of the coleg Cymraeg, that they are the body that has led in the area of planning and increasing the provision of Welsh-medium and bilingual provision in the sector for over a decade now, and, of course, we have been celebrating the tenth anniversary and all the hard work that's happened in this field. So, I was a little bit concerned about amendment 55, where it wasn't completely clear in terms of who exactly would take the decisions in terms of these resources that were mentioned in the amendment, because I am certainly of the view—and it's great to hear that the Minister sounds as if he is certainly of the view—that the coleg has to decide and advise on how any Welsh-medium resources are allocated through the commission, that they're channelled, therefore, through the coleg Cymraeg. In their evidence to the committee, the coleg outlined why it would be beneficial for the commission, and therefore the Government's aims in relation to the promotion of Welsh-medium provision, that funding responsibilities and allocation of resources should happen, as with planning processes, through the coleg. So, I'm pleased to hear the messages we've heard this morning regarding the Minister's vision in this field.
Sorry, one additional thing: I would just like to draw attention to something in the drafting in relation to amendment 10. The text in section 7 regarding research and innovation defines a 'relevant person', but there is no definition of 'person' in the context of section 8 in relation to this definition of the term 'person'. So, I was pleased to hear the assurance that the Minister has given us that a 'person', in the context of this amendment on Welsh-medium education, can be a body or an organisation. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. Well, I'm just happy to confirm the final point that Sioned Williams raised in her contribution just now: a number of us were in the celebration yesterday, celebrating the tenth anniversary of the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol, and it was an opportunity to remember all of the work that they've done over the past decade, and they have a vital role to play in ensuring continuity from statutory education to post-16 education in the future, along with the work that they'll be doing in future, working with the commission.
With regard to the specific question of resources—Laura Anne Jones asked that question—just to give assurance to the committee, the requirement in the Bill to take 'all reasonable steps' already includes the requirement to provide resources, so there is significant risk, in terms of drafting, that dealing with that in an additional way might lead to ambiguity in terms of the level of responsibility on the commission, so that's why it has been treated the way it has been in the Bill.
Okay, thank you. So, we'll first of all say—. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed. Does any Member object? I hear no objections, so amendment 8 is agreed.
I move amendment 9 in the name of the Minister. So, the question is that amendment 9 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections, so that means amendment 9 is agreed.
I move amendment 10 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 10 is agreed.
We now move on to group 10, and group 10 relates to drafting, technical and general interpretation amendments. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 11 in the name of the Minister.
So, I move amendment 11 in the name of the Minister, and call on the Minister to speak to his amendment and the other amendments in this group. Minister.
Chair, thank you. The amendments in this group are all minor and technical in nature, or they relate to Senedd procedure or they provide for consequential amendments. Amendments 11 and 12 are minor technical amendments that ensure consistency in the drafting of the Bill. Amendment 32 responds to recommendations of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee and clarifies that the list of additional functions set out in section 59(2) that can be conferred on the chief inspector by way of regulations is not exhaustive. Amendments 46 and 47 provide for consequential amendments to the Education (Fees and Awards) Act 1983 and the Education Act 1997 to reflect the establishment of the commission by this Bill.
In relation to amendment 147, I do, of course, understand the intention behind it, but I don't consider that it is necessary. Adult community learning is already captured within the existing definitions, and it could, in fact, introduce ambiguity into the Bill, as the amendment does not include its own definition of adult community learning. So, I call on Members to support the Government amendments in this group, and not to support amendment 147.
Thank you, Chair. I wish to speak to amendment 147 in this group, which would insert 'adult community learning' onto the face of the Bill. As with amendment 54, we would want to ensure that adult community learning is there. I know the Minister is content, as he just outlined, that adult community learning is captured within the definition of further education and training, but we do need a bit more clarity.
Turning to the Minister's amendments, in the main, they are technical amendments, but I am opposed to the Minister's amendment 32, as this will provide more regulation-making power for Ministers. As noted by the Minister's purpose and effect table, it inserts new text into the Bill to clarify that this list of additional functions that can be conferred on the chief inspector by way of regulations is not exhaustive and will ensure that Welsh Ministers are able to make regulations that confer additional functions on the chief inspector other than those outlined. Unfortunately, this is a common theme throughout the Bill, and I cannot support Welsh Government Ministers hoarding powers in this way when there should be more collaboration and more oversight in the hands of the Senedd.
Just to restate what I said in my opening remarks, Chair, that amendment 32 responds to the recommendations in the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee's report. Thank you.
So, we'll move to a vote on amendment 11. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed. Does any Member object? I can hear no objections. So, amendment 11 is agreed.
I move amendment 12 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed. Does any Member object? No Member is objecting, so that means amendment 12 is agreed.
I move amendment 14 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I hear an objection. We will therefore take a vote. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed. Those in favour, raise your hands. Those against. And those abstaining. No abstentions. That means that in relation to amendment 14, there are four in favour, two against, no abstentions. That means amendment 14 is agreed.
I move amendment 15 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 15 is agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I hear an objection. We move to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 15 is agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And any abstentions? No abstentions. So, that means that in relation to amendment 15, there are four in favour, two against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 15 is agreed.
I move amendment 16 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I hear an objection. We will move to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 16 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And no abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 16, that means four in favour, two against, no abstentions, and therefore amendment 16 is agreed.
We now move on to group 11. Group 11 relates to institutional autonomy, academic freedom and freedom of speech. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 17 in the name of the Minister.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. The amendments in this group tabled in my name respond to the recommendations of this committee. These amendments confirm and ensure that the Bill provides appropriate protections in relation to the academic freedom of higher education providers and their staff, together with the institutional autonomy of tertiary education providers.
Amendments 17 and 18 bring existing protections for the academic freedom of academic staff at higher education institutions within a single section, setting out the duty of the Welsh Ministers and the commission to have regard, when exercising their functions under this Bill, to the importance of protecting the academic freedom of higher education academic staff. The amendments clarify that academic freedom includes the freedom of academic staff within the law to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without jeopardising their employment or privileges.
Amendment 19 responds to a recommendation of this committee to introduce a duty on the commission and the Welsh Ministers to have regard to the institutional autonomy of tertiary education providers in Wales. This amendment will provide additional assurance that the Welsh Ministers and the commission must have regard to the importance of protecting the freedom of providers to continue to conduct their day-to-day affairs independently of the commission and of Welsh Ministers.
I'm afraid I cannot support amendments 56, 57, 58 and 59. Chair, these amendments draw wholesale on the UK Government’s fundamentally flawed and misguided Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill. Their effect would, far from enabling greater freedom of expression and breadth of debate in our universities, risk in fact stifling and suffocating free speech under a fear of litigation and bureaucracy. As Members will perhaps be aware, the parliamentary joint select committee on human rights concluded in its very through 2018 investigation that the extent to which students restrict free speech at universities should not be exaggerated. I am simply not convinced that there is a substantive threat to free speech at universities in Wales. Rather, our institutions continue to be open, supportive environments where free and frank exchange of ideas takes place daily, as it should. Members should also note that the law already places sufficient duties on education institutions to protect freedom of speech. The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 requires that governing bodies of higher and further education institutions in Wales
'take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers.'
The 1986 Act also required institutions to publish and update a code of practice setting out procedures to be followed regarding meetings and the conduct of staff and students in connection with these activities as it pertains to freedom of expression. I am confident that these duties and universities' other duties under equalities, harassment and other legislation are sufficient to safeguard free speech.
Finally, Chair, I do not think it is wise to introduce a statutory tort against universities such as that proposed in this amendment. Sector stakeholders have been very clear that this could leave universities open to vexatious or frivolous suits that would prove expensive and divert effort and resources from the core business of universities, which is teaching and research. I therefore call on Members to support the amendments tabled in my name and reject all the other amendments.
Thank you, Chair. I wish to speak to amendments 56, 57, 58 and 59 on academic freedom and freedom of speech. I do welcome the Minister's position on academic autonomy, so we'll be supportive of amendment 19, and I recognise he has his own amendments on academic freedom and freedom of speech.
Academic freedom is an essential part of our way of life. Educational institutions should protect freedom of speech as places where ideas can be freely expressed and explored. It is imperative that the commission takes measures to protect freedom of speech for all, including, but not limited to, staff, students and visiting speakers. I will oppose 17 and 18. I don't think they go quite far enough to support academics—I can think of current examples that I'm sure the Minister is aware of right now—nor do they provide reassurance. I also think of the new bill of rights announced by the UK Government and how this Bill intends to support freedom of speech, which will be an integral part of the UK Government's future plans.
The amendment I've tabled, amendment 56, will go much further than the Minister's amendments on academic freedom of speech, making it an absolute priority. This will provide academics with reassurance that their jobs and prospects of promotion will not be put at risk because of providing an alternative point of view that may be controversial or unpopular, but within the bounds of current law. This amendment will mean that academics can express their views without intimidation or be threatened by others within the institution that their progress might be stymied and their career held back. Amendments 57 and 59 support this. These amendments underpin what is so important about education, with the freedom to express yourself and be exposed to new ideas in an environment where the aim is self-improvement and the development of knowledge. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Chair. Just in relation to amendments 56, 57, 58 and 59, I agree that they go further than my amendment, but they go further, I'm afraid, in the opposite direction and take us to a world where there is less freedom of speech rather than more, and so I would encourage the committee to reject those amendments. Diolch, Gadeirydd.
Thank you, Minister. So, the question is that amendment 17 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we'll now move to a vote. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed. Those in favour raise your hands. Those against. And any abstentions? No abstentions. That means that on amendment 17 there are four in favour, two against and no abstentions. That means amendment 17 is agreed.
I move amendment 18 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. And any abstentions—no abstentions. Therefore, we have, on amendment 18, four in favour, two against, no abstentions. That means amendment 18 is agreed.
I move amendment 19 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed. Does any Member object? No Members object, so that means amendment 19 is agreed.
Thank you. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I hear an objection, so we now move to a vote on amendment 56. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. That means that, in relation to amendment 56, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions. That means that amendment 56 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 57 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I hear the objection, so we now move to a vote on amendment 57. Those in favour of amendment 57. Those against. No abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 57, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 57 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 58 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote on amendment 58. Those in favour of amendment 58. Those against. No abstentions. That means that on amendment 58 there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions. That means amendment 58 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 59 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote on amendment 59. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed. Those in favour raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. That means on amendment 59, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions. That means amendment 59 is not agreed.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. The amendments in this group respond to calls from stakeholders for refinement of the general protection duty in respect of compatibility with charity law and the governing documents of tertiary education providers, or they make technical amendments to these provisions that address identified gaps in their application.
Amendment 20, Chair, extends the general protection duty so that it applies to the Welsh Ministers' functions under the Bill as well as the commission’s, whilst amendments 21 and 41 ensure the protection applies to schools in the same way as to other tertiary education providers. Amendment 22 makes a technical amendment to ensure that the general protection duty applies in circumstances where a tertiary education provider may operate as a company but also has governing documents of another type listed under section 17(2). I call on Members to support all of the amendments in this group, Chair.
I move amendment 21 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections, so amendment 21 is agreed.
I move amendment 22 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 22 is agreed.
The question is that amendment 60 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay. We'll now move to a vote on amendment 60. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And no abstentions. So, that means, in relation to amendment 60, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 60 is not agreed.
We'll now move on to group 13. Group 13 relates to Senedd procedure and process for making regulations. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 61, in the name of Laura Anne Jones. I call on Laura to move amendment 61 and speak to the amendment and other amendments in this group. Laura.
Thank you, Chair. Most of these amendments relate to the significant negative regulation powers provided to Welsh Ministers through this Bill. In the Bill placed before us today, there are 47 powers to make regulations and one power to make commencement Orders, 26 of these by negative procedure. This has been a long-running argument of my group across many years, but we remain deeply concerned that the Welsh Government Ministers seem to be satisfied to leave much of the detail within legislation to a later date. I am concerned about the lack of oversight built into the Bill. It is essential that this institution is respected as the place where elected Members examine legislation and hold Welsh Government to account, and not a place where we are overridden by the executive power of the Welsh Government. As elected Members in this place, we have a responsibility to oversee these significant powers, whether that is in the Siambr or through a relevant Senedd committee.
Turning to amendment 61, this requires that a direction given by the Welsh Ministers is to be made by statutory instrument, subject to the affirmative procedure. It also requires that Welsh Ministers consult the relevant Senedd committee before giving such a direction. It relates to recommendation 21 of the committee, on which it is stated that
'On the ability of Welsh Ministers to issue general directions without any Senedd scrutiny, we agree with stakeholders that the Bill should be amended to bring it in line with current processes and for the Senedd to have a role to scrutinise.'
While I accept that both the committee's recommendation and the Minister's amendments 39 and 40 place the procedure as negative, I remain of the opinion that this should be affirmative, given the number of negative regulations that have been tabled by the Minister within the Bill and the lack of full Senedd scrutiny that entails. I will, therefore, be opposing amendments 39 and 40.
Amendments 62, 63, 65, 78, 79 and 86 are drafted as probing amendments to encourage clarification from the Minister on the categories of registration and consultation with appropriate bodies, as outlined in recommendation 36 of the committee's report. Respondents to the committee's consultation outlined their abject concern about the registration and de-registration requirements, including the need for clarifications on the categories, a statement of policy intent, as providers can only register in one of these categories, plus the need to consider the devolution of responsibility for standards to the commission in FE, and no similar reference is made to HE. The right of Ministers to provide additional conditions of registration is vague, and section 27 provides further burdens, as it would allow CTER to impose specific registration conditions at any time. The Minister has not provided any such reassurance since the conditions were raised.
It should also be noted that the Minister rejected this recommendation on the basis that stakeholders are afforded ample opportunities to inform the development of regulations and ensure they reflect refinement to the Bill. Yet, he has not outlined how they can be consulted on regulations once they are laid. Today, I urge the Minister to recognise these concerns outlined by providers, and ensure that they are really taken forward in your proposals so that they have some knowledge and certainty about what you intend to do.
Similarly, we need more clarification on eligible persons in sections 91 and 107, as noted by amendments 93, 94 and 125. Amendments 141 and 142 also change negative regulation-making powers to affirmative, again to show that we need more detail on the face of the Bill.
I also wish to withdraw amendment 143, Chair. Apologies—this was in relation to the draft amendment that I did not table in the end.
Finally, amendments 146, 148 and 149 relate to the removal of the Henry VIII powers exercised by this Bill. I would agree wholeheartedly with Cardiff University and Universities Wales that the original draft of the Bill left too many powers within regulations, and with their arguments that any future changes to major legislation should come before the Senedd—for example, the Bill shouldn't contain significant Henry VIII powers that allow Ministers to amend primary legislation through regulations. It is therefore incumbent upon us, as the Welsh legislature, to ensure that powers aren't stretched by the Executive. It is, after all, our democratic duty. Thank you.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. The amendments in this group tabled in my name are in response to recommendations of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee. Amendment 61 requires general directions under section 19 of the Bill to be made by statutory instrument, whilst amendment 144 subjects the SI to the affirmative Senedd procedure. The general direction power enables Welsh Ministers to give the commission directions in relation to specific matters set out on the face of the Bill. Amendment 142 is, of course, consequential to amendment 144. These directions, Chair, relate to a single body and specific matters, and do not provide for general law making of a wider nature. The requirement to publish the direction, report it to the Senedd and lay a copy of the directions before the Senedd will, I would submit, ensure the accessibility and transparency of any directions.
Chair, amendments 140 and 141 have the effect of subjecting every single regulation-making power in the Bill to the affirmative Senedd procedure—every single one. I don't agree with this amendment; it's not necessary, it's not appropriate for all subordinate legislation to be subject to the affirmative Senedd procedure and debate. This would be disproportionate, especially in respect of some of the more technical regulations that it would encompass. I'm content that all the delegated powers in the Bill have been considered carefully, and the appropriate Senedd procedure applied. And in light of the recommendations made by the LJC committee, these have been further reviewed, Chair, and some refinements made where that was appropriate, in light of that committee's advice.
Amendment 145, as I indicated, subjects regulations under section 23(5) and 23(8) to the affirmative Senedd procedure. These regulations have been assigned the negative Senedd procedure, as the substance of the provision is already set out clearly on the face of the Bill. These regulations prescribe technical and administrative matters, which may need to be updated, naturally, from time to time, and therefore, in light of that, the negative procedure is, I would suggest, appropriate.
Amendment 39 in my name provides for regulations made under section 78, in respect of the duty to monitor and report on financial sustainability, now to be subject to the affirmative Senedd procedure, reflecting the LJC committee recommendation.
Amendment 40 in my name subjects regulations under sections 39(6) and 41(13), in respect of transitional and saving provisions in connection with the removal of a tertiary education provider from a category of the register, to the negative procedure, again reflecting an LJC committee recommendation.
In relation to amendment 146, I don't recognise the broad characterisation by Laura Anne Jones of these powers being Henry VIII powers. Amendment 146 subjects regulations made under section 141 of the Bill, which is around consequential amendments or incidental or transitional provision in relation to subordinate legislation, to the affirmative Senedd procedure. I consider that this is unnecessary, Chair, as such amendments are, by their nature, technical and do not generally deliver substantive policy change.
The question is that amendment 61 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we move to a vote on amendment 61. The question is that amendment 61 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. Any abstentions? That means, in relation to amendment 61, two in favour, four against and no abstentions. That means that amendment 61 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 62 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We now move to a vote on amendment 62. The question is that amendment 62 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. That means that, for amendment 62, there are two in favour, four against and no abstentions, and that means that amendment 62 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 63 is agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote on amendment 63. The question is that amendment 63 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. The results are that, for amendment 63, there are two in favour, four against and no abstentions, and that means that amendment 63 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 64 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We now move to a vote on amendment 64. The question is that amendment 64 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. I see that there'll be no abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 64, there are two in favour, four against and no abstentions, which means that amendment 64 is not agreed.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. The Bill, as introduced, does not require the commission to consult prior to publishing a document specifying the requirements that providers must meet to satisfy the initial registration conditions.
Amendment 24 ensures consistency in the consultation requirements relating to the initial and general registration conditions by requiring the commission, if it appears appropriate, to consult before publishing a document setting out its initial registration conditions requirements. This amendment also clarifies the ability of the commission to revise the document setting out its initial registration conditions requirements, including a requirement to consult on, if it appears appropriate, and then to publish, the revised document. The amendment will ensure the commission engages with stakeholders in the development of its requirements to be met for satisfaction of the initial conditions of registration. Amendment 26 is a minor technical amendment to achieve consistency in drafting throughout the Bill in respect of statutory consultation duties.
Amendments 29 and 30 contribute to the delivery of recommendation 22 of the Stage 1 report of this committee to bring forward amendments at Stage 2 to provide a more consistent and wide-ranging approach to the commission's equal opportunity and widening access duties. The Bill as introduced enables the Welsh Ministers to specify in regulations the categories of registration to which a mandatory, ongoing equality of opportunity condition must apply. As such, not all registered providers would be subject to these conditions of registration. Amendment 29 removes the regulation-making power from section 31(1), and requires the commission to ensure a mandatory ongoing registration condition relating to equality of opportunity is applied to each registered tertiary education provider. Amendment 30 is consequential to amendment 29, and defines relevant tertiary education for the purposes of the imposition of a mandatory ongoing registration condition on equal opportunity. This amendment ensures that a registered provider will be concerned with delivering equality of opportunity outcomes in respect of the kind of tertiary education relating to its registration category. Chair, I am exploring options for bringing forward further amendments for Stage 3 concerning equality of opportunity in respect of providers who are not registered but benefit from funding from the commission.
Amendments 23, 25, 27 and 28, tabled in my name, ensure that the commission sets both initial and ongoing registration conditions that relate to the quality of education delivered by third parties leading to qualifications awarded by registered providers under validation arrangements. These amendments will ensure that the commission can be assured that, where Welsh universities award their qualifications to students at third party providers, appropriate quality assurance arrangements are in place, safeguarding confidence in the collective quality and reputation of the Welsh higher education sector.
Thank you, Chair. I wish to speak to my own amendments on registration. I won't go into mine in detail, but I want to outline that we will be opposing all the Minister's amendments in this group. As the NPTC Group of Colleges put it, the right of Ministers to prescribe additional initial and/or ongoing mandatory conditions of registration as described is vague. The Minister's amendments do not address these concerns and we would additionally like to see a process of consultation on this matter. Additionally, on amendment 29, I have concerns about how the commission would exercise its powers and the Bill must be clearer on that.
Regarding my amendments 66 and 77, I have tabled them to give more certainty and specificity—sorry, I can't say that word—to the Bill. The Bill currently permits the commission to unilaterally impose conditions on individual providers any time it wants for any reason, which would be enforceable by an injunction. There needs to be more clarity on this, as it's quite frankly unfair. If the power was exercised, it could cause the commission to be in breach of its duty to not require universities to act in compatibility with their charity law requirements. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you. The question now is that amendment 23 be agreed. Does any Member object. [Objection.] We'll now move to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 23 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. That means that on amendment 23 there are four in favour, two against, no abstentions. That means amendment 23 is agreed.
I move amendment 24 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We now move to a vote. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. In relation to amendment 24, it's four in favour, two against, no abstentions. That means that amendment 24 is agreed.
I move amendment 25 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We will move to a vote. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. In relation to amendment 25, there are four in favour, two against, no abstentions, which means amendment 25 is agreed.
The question is that amendment 65 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote. The question is that amendment 65 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. So, regarding amendment 65, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and amendment 65 is not agreed.
I move amendment 26 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We will move to a vote. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means that, in relation to amendment 26, there are four in favour, two against, no abstentions, and amendment 26 is agreed.
The question is that amendment 66 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay. We will now move to a vote on amendment 66. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And no abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 66, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 66 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 67 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll move to a vote on amendment 67. The question is that amendment 67 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. Any abstentions? No abstentions. So, in relation amendment 67, that's two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and amendment 67 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 68 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote. The question is that amendment 68 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And no abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 68, that's two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and amendment 68 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 69 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote. The question is that amendment 69 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. Any abstentions? No abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 69, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and amendment 69 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 70 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I hear an objection, so we will now move to a vote. The question is that amendment 70 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 70, that's two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 70 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 71 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, that means we will now move to a vote on amendment 71. The question is that amendment 71 be agreed. Those in favour, raise your hands. Those against. And any abstentions? No abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 71, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 71 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 72 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I hear an objection, so we will now move to a vote. The question is that amendment 72 be agreed. Those in favour, raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 72, two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 72 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 73 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I hear an objection, so we'll now move to a vote. The question is that amendment 73 be agreed. Those in favour, raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 73, two in favour, four against, and amendment 73 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 74 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we now move to a vote on amendment 74. The question is that amendment 74 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. I see no abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 74, two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 74 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 75 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll move to a vote. The question is that amendment 75 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means, in relation to amendment 75, two in favour, four against, and amendment 75 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 76 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll move to a vote on amendment 76. The question is that amendment 76 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 76, two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 76 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 77 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we'll now move to a vote on amendment 77. The question is that amendment 77 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means, in regard to amendment 77, two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 77 is not agreed.
I move amendment 27 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we now move to a vote on amendment 27. So, the question is that amendment 27 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 27, that's four in favour, two against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 27 is agreed.
I move amendment 28 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we now move to a vote on amendment 28. So, the question is that amendment 28 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. There'll be no abstentions, so that means, in relation to amendment 28, four in favour, two against, and that means amendment 28 is agreed.
I move amendment 29 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll now move to a vote on amendment 29. So, the question is that amendment 29 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And there will be no abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 29, four in favour, two against, and that means amendment 29 is agreed.
So, the question is that amendment 78 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll move to a vote on amendment 78. So, the question is that amendment 78 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. There'll be no abstentions. So, in regard to amendment 78, two in favour, four against, and no abstentions, which means amendment 78 is not agreed.
I move amendment 30 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll now move to a vote on amendment 30. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. There'll be no abstentions. So, that means, in relation to amendment 30, four in favour, two against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 30 is agreed.
The question is that amendment 79 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, that means we will move to a vote on amendment 79. The question is that amendment 79 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means, in relation to amendment 79, two in favour, four against, and that means that amendment 79 is not agreed.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. In developing the amendments to the continuous improvement strategic duty in respect of learners' views, consideration was also given to how the Bill could be further strengthened in this respect. So, amendment 31, tabled in my name, adds consideration of the views of learners about the quality of the tertiary education that they receive to the list of matters included in quality assurance frameworks that the commission may publish under section 48 of the Bill. This further emphasises the importance of the views of learners and builds on the amendment that this committee has already discussed and agreed, adding reference to learner views to the continuous improvement duty.
I can't support, however, amendments 80 and 81, tabled in the name of Laura Anne Jones. These amendments are actually unnecessary, Chair, and don't align with the purpose and effect of the regulation-making power under section 55(1)(f). No further regulations, beyond those already in the Bill, are required to ensure that appropriate quality assessment arrangements are in place for degree apprenticeships in Wales. The Bill is clear as to the arrangements for the quality assurance of both further education and higher education, with responsibility for both sitting with the commission. As degree apprenticeships are higher education, then the duty to assess the quality of degree apprenticeships could fall within the scope of section 52 of the Bill and be delegated to a designated body for higher education quality assessment under section 54 and Schedule 3. This is not dissimilar to the law at present, which is also clear: the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales holds the comparable duty at present under the Higher Education (Wales) Act 2015. I appreciate that there have, in fact, been considerations within the sector about what role Estyn could and should play in the quality oversight of degree apprenticeships given their experience inspecting other apprenticeships, and there have been discussions to this effect between relevant stakeholders. Ultimately, the commission will make a final determination on this, and if it is decided that degree apprenticeships should form part of Estyn's remit, regulations could be made under section 55(1)(f), without any amendment to the current text.
In addition, Chair, the commission may ask Estyn to perform a non-inspection-related role in advising on the quality of degree apprenticeships, which it could do under its power to commission research in the existing section 132. So, I ask Members to support amendment 31 in my name and to reject amendments 80 and 81.
Thank you, Chair. I wish to speak to amendments 80 and 81 on quality assurance. I'll be supporting the Minister's amendment because it includes consideration of the views of learners on the quality assurance frameworks.
And my two, 80 and 81, are just probing amendments. I would like clarity about degree apprenticeships, which Labour and Plaid Cymru have committed to expanding in their coalition deal. I would appreciate answers on the following, if that's all right, Minister: what timetable is the Minister working to to ensure degree apprenticeships are expanded rapidly; how will the commission work with NHS Wales, HEIW, and Care Inspectorate Wales to ensure that degree apprenticeships will help to increase recruitment; how will the commission ensure that those from under-represented groups are able to participate in degree apprenticeships; and what measures is the Minister intending to introduce to ensure that the commission will be working with businesses to fill gaps and skills in the Welsh economy, through degree apprenticeships? Thank you.
Chair, thank you. Some of those matters are questions for the commission, once it's established, of course, but Members will be aware of the priority that the Welsh Government, including in the co-operation agreement, attaches to degree apprenticeships, and we think that the reforms that are set out in this Bill, including those that we've already discussed this morning in relation to the framework for apprenticeships and so on, will facilitate the expansion in the way that I'm sure we all want to see.
The question is that amendment 80 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I hear an objection, so we'll now move on to voting. So, the question is that amendment 80 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. Any abstentions? No abstentions. So, amendment 80, two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and that means amendment 80 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 81 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I'll move to a vote on amendment 81. The question is that amendment 81 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 81, two are in favour, four against, and that means amendment 81 is not agreed.
I move amendment 32 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote on amendment 32. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means, in relation to amendment 32, there are four in favour, two against, and amendment 32 is agreed.
We now move on to group 16. So, group 16 relates to the Welsh Ministers' intervention powers, reports on financial sustainability, financial support directions. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 82, in the name of Laura Anne Jones. So, I call on Laura to move amendment 82 and to speak to the amendment and the other amendments in this group. Laura.
Thank you, Chair. I wish to speak to the amendments on intervention powers, reports on financial sustainability and financial support directions. My amendments, 82, 85, remove the Welsh Ministers' power to intervene in the conduct of further education institutions. For example, NPTC colleges stated that further clarity is required, as it could be interpreted as a repeal to the freedoms and requirements afforded by the Further and Higher Education (Governance and Information) (Wales) Act 2014 and how this impacts on the status of FE, as well as how it interacts alongside the role of Welsh Government as a principal regulator of FE institutions as exempt charities. A review of the constitution of the institutions will be needed if the clause is enacted.
Amendment 87 is a HEFCW-recommended amendment for the legislation to only require a reasonable summary of the financial sustainability of providers to be shared with Welsh Government Ministers, as those providers may be reluctant to hand over a full report, given the confidentiality and commerciality of sensitive data. It should be for the commission to determine what is relevant to include.
Amendment 122 will remove section 106—the powers to enable Welsh Ministers to give the commission financial support directions—which HEFCW says 'muddies the waters' in terms of respective responsibilities. Again, like many other amendments, I'm opposed to the concentration of significant overreaching powers in the hands of Welsh Government Ministers. I'm opposed to the Minister's amendment here because amendment 85 leaves out section 70. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Chair. I can't support amendments 82, 83, 84 and 85. These amendments, as we have heard, would remove the sections of the Bill that enable Welsh Ministers to intervene in the conduct of providers of further education where they are satisfied that one or more grounds for intervention, which are prescribed on the face of the Bill, exist. These intervention powers, Chair, are not new; they are a continuation of existing arrangements under section 57 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and would be exercised in light of the amendment that the committee has passed this morning in relation to the institutional autonomy of tertiary education providers.
These powers will play a vital role in protecting and assuring the provision of further education in Wales and in ensuring that the commission is able to discharge its duties in respect of further education and training. They're an important means, Chair, for Welsh Ministers to intervene when there is a serious case of mismanagement or other failures that have been identified at the relevant institutions. They will allow action to be taken where other forms of intervention, such as those under terms and conditions of funding, don't provide an appropriate or effective means to address the types of failures to which these powers relate, or where interventions could adversely impact on the future viability of the institution through imposing funding-related sanctions. So, I think these powers are necessary in order to safeguard what is a very significant public investment in further education institutions and the significant impact that failures at these institutions would have on students, but also on the reputation of tertiary education in Wales and on the delivery of further education provision in the area where the institution operates.
Amendment 33 in my name, Chair, is in response to a recommendation of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee that requires Welsh Ministers to lay before the Senedd the statement or the revised statement they publish under section 70 of the Bill as soon as possible after its publication. The statement under section 70 sets out how Welsh Ministers propose to exercise their powers to intervene under section 68 of the Bill in respect of the conduct of further education institutions. The grounds for intervention are set out in the Bill in section 67.
I also call on Members to reject amendment 87, which removes the requirement for the commission to send a report annually to the Welsh Ministers containing a summary of the financial outlook for registered providers and further education providers who are not registered but are funded by the commission. It is essential, Chair, that tertiary education providers in Wales continue to be financially sustainable in order to protect the public funds they receive, to preserve the reputation of the sector and, importantly, to protect the interests of students. These provisions will play an important part in delivering this. It's intended that the financial outlook report will consider financial sustainability on a longer term basis than the financial position report that the commission is also required to submit annually under section 78 of the Bill.
Thank you, Minister. Before I move to Laura, I'd just like to welcome all those young people who have filled the gallery. So, welcome. It's so nice to see you. On behalf of the Children, Young People and Education Committee, you're very welcome. So, thank you for joining us.
Thank you. So, the question is that amendment 82 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, that means we move to a vote. The vote is on amendment 82. The question is that amendment 82 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. I see there are no abstentions. So, that is, in relation to amendment 82, two in favour, four against, and that means that amendment 82 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 83 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll now move to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 83 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means, in relation to amendment 83, two in favour, four against, and that means amendment 83 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 84 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll move to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 84 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means, in relation to amendment 84, two in favour, four against, and that means that amendment 84 is not agreed.
Thank you, Laura. So, if amendment 85 is agreed, amendment 33 falls. So, the question is that amendment 85 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote. The question is that amendment 85 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. Any abstentions? No abstentions. So, that means, in relation to amendment 85, two in favour, four against, and that means that amendment 85 is not agreed and amendment 33 will have fallen. No, it hasn't fallen; it's not agreed. Fine. So, there we go. Thank you.
So, now we go to amendment 33 in the name of the Minister. I move amendment 33 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay. So, we'll now move to a vote on amendment 33. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. So, that means, in relation to amendment 33, four in favour, two against, and that means that amendment 33 is agreed.
The question is that amendment 86 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay. We move to a vote. This will be a vote by show of hands again. The question is that amendment 86 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And any abstentions. No abstentions. That means that, in relation to amendment 86, two in favour, four against, and that means amendment 86 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 87 be agreed. Does any Member object. [Objection.] Okay, so that means we move to a vote. The question is that amendment 87 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. So that means, in relation to amendment 87, two in favour, four against, and that means that amendment 87 is not agreed.
Okay, so we move to a vote on amendment 88. The question is that amendment 88 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, so the question is that amendment 88 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 88, two in favour, four against, and that means amendment 88 is not agreed.
We now move to group 17. Group 17 relates to outcome agreements, funding controls and transparency. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 89 in the name of Laura Anne Jones. I call on Laura to move amendment 89 and speak to this amendment and the other amendments in this group. Laura.
Thank you, Chair. I wish to speak to the amendments 89, 121, 123 and 124 regarding outcome agreements, funding controls and transparency. Amendment 89, my lead amendment, removes reference to outcome agreements. In evidence, the committee received a number of concerns about the impact of outcome agreements, including from the Welsh Local Government Association, who said that the new funding arrangements will effect sixth forms, adult community learning and FEIs as funding is currently provided through Welsh Government or via councils:
'Should Outcome Agreements be used to determine how funding is allocated, these will be new requirements for many of these provides and there is still little in the way of explanation as to what these will look like.'
Amendment 121 is based on Higher Education Funding Council for Wales evidence, and would make expectations indicative rather than specific, so the commission can be more flexible and agile when arranging collaborative partnerships with others.
Additionally, amendment 123 is a probing amendment, which seeks to clarify regarding the details of the commission's funding allocations, formulas, financial outturns and overall transparency regarding funding.
And amendment 124 further underlines the transparency requirement. This transparency would be greatly welcomed by me and would increase confidence in the new commission. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. As we've heard, amendment 89 seeks to remove the ability of Ministers to require the commission to enter into outcome agreements with the bodies it funds. I don't agree with the amendment, Chair, because outcome agreements are a core component of the strategic funding system that the commission will be operating. They're a mechanism by which the commission, through its funding decisions, can contribute to implementing its own strategic plan, which, in turn, contributes to the achievement of Welsh Ministers' strategic priorities for tertiary education and research. It establishes that clear and public line of sight between the Welsh Government's priorities and how the commission envisages providers will contribute towards them. And Welsh Ministers will only set the circumstances in which the commission will be required to enter into outcome agreements with funded bodies. Outcome agreements will not be required in relation to all types of funding, Chair. So, for example, they may not be necessary where contractual arrangements are in place, for funds which are ring-fenced, or where funding doesn't exceed a specified amount. So, they are used in appropriate circumstances.
Furthermore, to the point that Laura Anne Jones was making, the commission will have autonomy to decide how outcome agreements should be designed and agreed and evaluated, but that will happen following consultation with providers. They'll be negotiated between the commission and the funded bodies, and the commission will be in a position to learn the lessons from the use of outcome agreements in Scotland and then to design them to suit its own objectives whilst ensuring they don't introduce undue burdens or bureaucracy, focusing on the matters of greatest national priority or significance.
I can't support amendment 121. I acknowledge the views, Chair, of stakeholders and the recommendation of the committee in respect of the consent for collaborating bodies provisions and am already developing an amendment in respect of these provisions. I can't agree with the removal of these provisions in their entirety, as there certainly remains a need to ensure that funding passing from directly funded providers to other bodies is subject to appropriate controls, but recognise that section 105 has ended up being more bureaucratic than it was intended.
So, whilst we are developing an amendment in respect of these provisions, section 105 provides clarity, subject to those amendments, as to the way in which the commission is able to exercise its function of providing consent and provides a form of protection for those in receipt of funding by requiring the commission to take into account the representations they make where the commission proposes to withdraw or to suspend or to vary consent.
Thank you, Chair. Whilst I'm disappointed that the Minister isn't prepared to accept my amendments on transparency, I look forward to hopefully working with him on Stage 3 on furthering these amendments.
So the question is that amendment 89 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we now move to a vote on amendment 89, so the question is that amendment 89 be agreed. Those in favour please raise your hands. Those against. So, in relation to amendment 89, two in favour, four against, and that means amendment 89 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 90 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 90 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 90, that's two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and amendment 90 is not agreed.
So, we move on to group 18. Group 18 relates to Welsh Ministers' funding powers. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 91 in the name of Laura Anne Jones, so I call on Laura to move amendment 91 and speak to this amendment and the other amendments in this group. Laura.
Thank you. I wish to speak to the amendments on WM funding powers. Amendment 91 includes the removal of section 89, based on an amendment request by HEFCW. They say in evidence that:
'The hard-wiring of existing legislation that enables Ministers to fund particular higher education courses could undermine the concept of a single tertiary education sector and the Commission's strategic oversight of all provision within that sector. The rationale in the explanatory memorandum that the retention of these powers enables current initiatives to be funded in the short to medium term does not appear proportionate.'
They go further, and note that current legislation could be repealed and the commission should be the ones to decide on funding courses, not giving that power to Ministers.
Amendments 95 to 99 remove reference to 'Welsh Ministers' in section 94 on financial support for further education or training, as per HEFCW's request. HEFCW also noted in evidence that powers in sections 94 to 100 enable Welsh Ministers to fund further education and training at the same time and in the same way as the commission. This would likely result in unclear strategic priorities that blur the lines of accountability and add unnecessary complexity for the providers. Thank you.
I can't support amendment 91, which removes section 89 of the Bill. This section enables Ministers to fund a very limited range of higher education courses, in line with their existing powers, Chair, under the Learning and Skills Act 2000. The Bill does not enable Welsh Ministers to fund higher education in general, nor does it undermine the commission's role in that regard. I've heard the arguments that Laura Anne Jones has rehearsed today previously. I just don't think they bear very much scrutiny, Chair, if I may say. Higher education courses that may be funded include those in preparation for professional exams at a higher level—so, courses that are not degrees but lead to qualifications accredited by professional bodies. These could include qualifications relevant to health and social care or industry-specific qualifications that meet a social need or maybe improve employment prospects. So, they are limited powers.
I also can't support the amendments to sections 94, 96, 97 and 100. So, those are amendments 95 to 100, 102 to 106, 108 to 114 and 116 to 118. A key purpose of retaining these funding powers for the Welsh Ministers relates to the new employability and skills plan, in which we've confirmed that all Welsh Government-led employability programmes will be delivered directly by the Welsh Government, under a new single operating model from 2023 onwards. Employability programmes vary. So, for instance, Communities for Work delivers community engagement activities and mentoring services. But the one thing that most employability programmes have in common is that they are focused on, obviously, gaining employment and removing barriers to employment. This is already a complex legislative landscape. Employment law and welfare benefits obviously are not devolved to us in the Senedd and Government, and the UK Government and its agencies deliver a range of employability programmes and services. So, adding more legislative requirements, Chair, for employability programmes into this Bill would cause confusion, I think, amongst partners and could lead to very unhelpful duplication, including the duplication of services.
The Welsh Government is best placed to directly manage inter-governmental relations on employability programmes and then to work with the UK Government on a co-ordinated response in Wales within its current powers. Retaining these funding powers will also mean that Welsh Ministers can fund certain interventions and pilots, an example of which is the junior apprenticeships. These are a 14 to 16 intervention supporting disengaged learners, allowing them early access to vocational learning routes at their local college. This is primarily funded by the schools budget, but does include top-up funding directly from the Welsh Ministers to further education providers. Another example, Chair, relates to in-year teachers' pay awards, made on a whole-school basis, which would require the Welsh Ministers to make payments to local authorities, and that would include an element of post-16 funding.
The question is that amendment 91 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We now move to a vote, and the question is that amendment 91 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 91, that's two in favour, four against, and that means that amendment 91 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 92 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote. So, a vote on amendment 92. The question is that amendment 92 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means in relation to amendment 92, two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and amendment 92 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 93 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote on amendment 93. The question is that amendment 93 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. That means that, in relation to amendment 93, there are two in favour, four against, and amendment 93 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 94 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote. The question is that amendment 94 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means that in relation to amendment 94, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and amendment 94 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 95 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We now move to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 95 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means in relation to amendment 95, two in favour, four against, and that means amendment 95 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 96 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 96 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. That means that in relation to amendment 96, there are two in favour, four against, and that means amendment 96 is not agreed.
In relation to amendment 97, the question is that amendment 97 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll go to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 97 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. I see there are no abstentions. So, that's amendment 97: two in favour, four against. That means that amendment 97 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 98 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 98 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means that in relation to amendment 98, there are two in favour, four against, and amendment 98 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 99 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 99 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. I see there have been no abstentions. So, that means that in relation to amendment 99, there are two in favour, four against, and that means amendment 99 is not agreed.
So, the question is that amendment 100 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We go to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 100 is agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means that in relation to amendment 100, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and amendment 100 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 101 is agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we now move to a vote on amendment 101. So, the question is that amendment 101 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means, in relation to amendment 101, there are two in favour and four against, and amendment 101 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 102 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 102 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 102, there are two in favour and four against, and that means that amendment 102 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 103 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we now move to a vote on amendment 103. The question is that amendment 103 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 103, there are two in favour and four against. Amendment 103 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 104 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll go to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 104 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. That means, in relation to amendment 104, there are two in favour and four against, and that means that amendment 104 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 105 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We go to a vote on amendment 105. The question is that amendment 105 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 105, there are two in favour and four against; amendment 105 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 106 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We go to a vote on amendment 106. The question is that amendment 106 is agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 106, there are two in favour and four against, and that means that amendment 106 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 107 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We go to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 107 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. The result is that for amendment 107 there are two in favour and four against, and that means that amendment 107 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 108 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we go to a vote, and that means that the question is that amendment 108 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means that for amendment 108 there are two in favour and four against, and that means that amendment 108 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 109 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We go to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 109 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. That means that in relation to amendment 109, there are two in favour and four against. Amendment 109 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 110 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we'll go to a vote. The question is that amendment 110 is agreed. Those in favour. Those against. That means that, in relation to amendment 110, there are two in favour, four against, and amendment 110 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 111 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We now go to a vote on amendment 111. So, the question is that amendment 111 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. That means that, in relation to amendment 111, there are two in favour, four against. Amendment 111 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 112 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote on amendment 112. So, the question is that amendment 112 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. In relation to amendment 112, there are two in favour, four against. That means amendment 112 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 113 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay. We move to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 113 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. In relation to amendment 113, there are two in favour, four against. And that means amendment 113 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 114 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we go to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 114 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. That means, in relation to amendment 114, that there are two in favour, four against. And that means amendment 114 is not agreed.
So, the question is that amendment 115 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay. We move to a vote on amendment 115. The question is that amendment 115 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means that, on amendment 115, there are two in favour, four against. And that means amendment 115 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 116 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We go to the vote. The question is that amendment 116 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. So, that means that, in relation to amendment 116, there are two in favour, four against. And that means that amendment 116 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 117 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll go to the vote. The question is that amendment 117 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. So, that means that, in relation to amendment 117, there are two in favour, four against. Amendment 117 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 118 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We go to a vote on amendment 118. The question is that amendment 118 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. That means that, in relation to amendment 118, there are two in favour, four against, and amendment 118 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 119 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll move to a vote on amendment 119. The question is that amendment 119 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. That means that, in relation to amendment 119, there are two in favour, four against, and that means that amendment 119 is not agreed.
I move amendment 34 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 34 be agreed. Does any Member object? Okay, I hear no objections, so that means that amendment 34 is agreed.
The question is that amendment 120 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I heard the objection, so we'll now move to a vote. The question is that amendment 120 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. And that means, in relation to amendment 120, two in favour, four against, and that means amendment 120 is not agreed.
I move amendment 35 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. So, amendment 35 is agreed.
The question is that amendment 121 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll go to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 121 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. And that means two in favour, four against, so amendment 121 is not agreed.
So, the question is that amendment 122 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we'll move to a vote on amendment 122. The question is that amendment 122 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. So, that means, in relation to amendment 122, two in favour, four against, and that means amendment 122 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 123 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 123 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. So, that means, in relation to amendment 123, two in favour, four against, and amendment 123 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 124 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We go to the vote. So, the question is that amendment 124 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. So, that means, in relation to amendment 124, two in favour, four against, and amendment 124 is not agreed.
So, the next question is that amendment 125 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, so we move to a vote on amendment 125. The question is that amendment 125 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. That means, in relation to amendment 125, two in favour, four against, and that means amendment 125 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 126 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote on amendment 126. So, the question is that amendment 126 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. So, that means, in relation to amendment 126, two in favour, four against, and amendment 126 is not agreed.
So, the question is that amendment 127 be agreed. Does anybody object? [Objection.] So, we go to a vote. The question is that amendment 127 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. That means, in relation to amendment 127, two in favour, four against, and that means 127 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 128 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We go to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 128 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. That means, in relation to amendment 128, two in favour, four against, and that means 128 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 129 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, so we now move to a vote. The question is that amendment 129 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. Those abstaining. One abstention. So, that means, on amendment 129, it's two in favour, three against and one abstention, and that means that amendment 129 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 130 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, so we move to a vote on amendment 130. The question is that amendment 130 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. Any abstentions? One abstention. So, that means, in relation to amendment 130, two in favour, three against, one abstention, and that means amendment 130 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 131 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We go to a vote on amendment 131. The question is that amendment 131 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. Any abstentions? One abstention. So, in relation to amendment 131, two in favour, three against, one abstention, and that means 131 is not agreed.
So, we'll now move to that vote. In relation to amendment 132, the question is that amendment 132 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. Any abstentions? An abstention. So, that means, in relation to amendment 132, two in favour, three against, one abstention, and that means amendment 132 is not agreed.
And just before we move on to the next section, I would like to welcome all the young people who've joined us in the gallery. We've been doing lots of voting today, so thank you for joining with us, anyway. On behalf of Children, Young People, and Education Committee, you're very welcome.
We'll move on to group 19 now. Group 19 relates to information. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 133, in the name of Laura Anne Jones, and I call Laura to move amendment 133 and speak to the amendment and the other amendments in this group. Laura.
Thank you, Chair. I wish to speak to amendments 133, 134, 135, 136 and 137 on information. I'm opposed to the Minister's amendment, as it includes section 89 of the Bill, which we want removed. Section 89 will give the Welsh Government Ministers the powers to directly fund certain higher education courses, a power I believe they should not have. My amendments tally with what HEFCW has requested, including removing sections 129 and 130 as these sections are overly prescriptive. Additionally, data referenced in these sections are already held by UCAS and, as such, are not needed here. Thank you, Chair.
Diolch Cadeirydd. I cannot support amendment 133, which amends section 126 of the Bill, which would remove the ability of the Welsh Ministers to request data from the commission relating to, or obtained in the exercise of, any of its functions. This provision, actually, is a continuation of the legislative arrangements currently in place in respect of HEFCW, and all information provided to the Welsh Government will, obviously, remain subject to data protection legislation.
The intention, Chair, is for the commission to be a data hub, and the Welsh Ministers will rely on the commission to perform that role, as they do now with HEFCW. However, Welsh Ministers will be responsible to the Senedd for spending public money provided to the commission, and will, from time to time, require access to information on the sector. Section 54 of, and Schedule 3 to, the Bill enable the commission to designate a body to exercise its functions in respect of the assessment of the quality of higher education. Section 128 lists the Government departments, bodies, persons and organisations that may share information with the commission for the purposes of the exercise of any of its functions. Amendment 134 removes the body designated under Schedule 3 from the list of persons that may share information with the commission. I cannot support this amendment, as it will be necessary for this body to give the commission information.
Amendment 135 expands the list of persons who may share information with the commission to include any other person the commission considers appropriate or that may hold information about any matter in relation to which the commission has a function. The list of persons in section 128 has been developed so as to be appropriately broad to capture all persons who may need to share information with the commission. In addition, Chair, the Welsh Ministers may add other persons to the list via regulations. This approach will enable persons to be added to the list in a controlled manner, following the necessary consideration and appropriate scrutiny by the Senedd.
Turning to amendments 136 and 137, which remove, as we heard, sections 129 and 130 of the Bill, equivalent provisions are included within the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. Those provisions allow the Secretary of State to require bodies that provide services to English higher education providers relating to applications for admission onto higher education courses to provide application-to-acceptance information for use for qualifying research. The Welsh Government also needs access to application-to-acceptance data, to increase our understanding of issues relating, for example, to widening access and in order to be better informed to take steps to address these long-standing problems. The education research community in Wales would be at a distinct disadvantage if Wales did not have access to this information. Our aim is to provide insights for policy development concerning social mobility and to build on our success in this area. Data protection and security are primary concerns for the Government, and we recognise that if the public is to have confidence that its data will be protected, there must be rigorous safeguards on use, access and handling in place, and strict control of the purposes to which the data will be put. Chair, only named and approved individual researchers within the Government and from approved bodies, who are qualified to handle data, will have access to the data. All data will be de-identified before being received by approved researchers, and we will publish guidance on the factors to be taken into account when deciding whether to approve or not a body or individual researcher. The storing, sharing and processing of the data will have to comply, of course, with restrictions set out in relevant legislation and regulations, including the Data Protection Act 2018.
So, the question is that amendment 133 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote. The question is that amendment 133 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. No abstentions. On amendment 133, there are two in favour, four against, no abstentions, and 133 is not agreed.
I move Amendment 36 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 36 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means that, on amendment 36, there are four in favour, two against. That means that amendment 36 is agreed.
The question is that amendment 134 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We now move to a vote on amendment 134. The question is that amendment 134 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means that on amendment 134, there are two in favour, four against, and amendment 134 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 135 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We go to a vote on amendment 135. The question is that amendment 135 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means that on amendment 135, there are two in favour, four against, and amendment 135 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 136 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We go to a vote on amendment 136. The question is that amendment 136 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. That means that, in relation to amendment 136, there are two in favour, four against, and that means 136 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 137 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We go to a vote on amendment 137. The question is that amendment 137 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, in regard to amendment 137, there are two in favour, four against, and that means 137 is not agreed.
We now move on to group 20. Group 20 relates to the dissolution of higher education corporations. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 138 in the name of Laura Anne Jones. I call on Laura to move amendment 138 and speak to the amendment and the other amendments in this group.
Thank you, Chair. I wish to speak to amendments on the dissolution of higher education corporations. My own amendments remove the Welsh Government's power to dissolve higher education institutions in line with evidence to the committee. The Minister has failed to justify why it is necessary to retain these powers when it has been removed elsewhere in the UK, making Wales an unnecessary and negative outlier in the United Kingdom. This power threatens the independence of higher education corporations without a royal charter, which would have a particular negative impact in Wales as it covers half of our universities. This is an unnecessary power for Welsh Government to have and amendments 138 and 139 remove it. In line with other amendments I have made, they follow the theme of this Welsh Government seeking to concentrate power and influence at the expense of good management of higher education in Wales. Cardiff Metropolitan University has said it would weaken rather than strengthen the sector should these universities been given less autonomy. Wrexham Glyndŵr University pointed out that this would put HECs in Wales in the weakest position across the entire UK. In England, such provisions were removed from legislation in 2017. I'll be opposing the Minister's amendments. I welcome that there would be some limitation of ministerial power; however, for both amendments, I would like to know what justification there is for them being kept at all. Thank you.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. I'll start, if I may, by speaking to the first of the amendments tabled in my name, which is amendment 37, and that is a response to the recommendation of this committee regarding the power of Welsh Ministers to dissolve higher education corporations, as we've heard. This amendment provides that the Welsh Ministers' ability to make an order to dissolve a higher education corporation, or HEC, is subject to the affected HEC requesting an order be made, or the HEC giving their consent to the making of the order. The ability for the Welsh Ministers to make an order without the consent of the HEC, where they consider consent has been unreasonably withheld or delayed, is necessary to ensure appropriate measures are in place to protect learners and public money, and ensure arrangements can be made for the transfer of learners, property, rights and liabilities to other institutions in a controlled manner. It's also for this reason that I can't support amendments 138 and 139. The retention of a power to dissolve a HEC is necessary to ensure that, in certain exceptional circumstances, and subject to safeguards and protections, arrangements can be made to smoothly, and at appropriate speed, dissolve a HEC, thereby protecting learners and public money.
Returning to the amendments tabled in my name, Chair, a decision by the Welsh Ministers that consent has been unreasonably withheld or unreasonably delayed will be amenable to challenge by way of judicial review. Ministers' reasons for coming to that view will need to be sufficiently strong to justify that decision, and the decision will need to have been taken in line with public law principles, or else the court could declare it to be unlawful and/or strike it down. Further important safeguards are provided by amendment 38, which requires the Welsh Ministers to publish, and keep under review, a statement setting out the circumstances in which it is proposed to exercise the power to make an order to dissolve a higher education corporation in Wales. Prior to publishing such a statement, the Welsh Minister must consult persons they consider appropriate, and the statement must be laid before the Senedd as soon as possible after its publication.
Charter institutions and higher education corporations historically are created and dissolved using different legal instruments and processes, but through these amendments, I am seeking to ensure, in substance, that we minimise the difference between those institutions in this regard, and that universities in Wales that are higher education corporations are not substantively disadvantaged when compared to charter universities in respect of a necessary dissolution, subject to the safeguards that are set out. As I said at the start, Chair, the dissolution power is there for completely exceptional circumstances, so that we protect public money and learner interests when the need might arise. I do not intend it to facilitate Welsh Ministers dissolving a higher education corporation on a whim or as part of some grand restructuring, and I think the amendments reflect that. So, I call on the Members to support the amendments tabled in my name and to reject amendments 137 and 138.
The question is that amendment 138 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We go to a vote on amendment 138. The question is that amendment 138 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, on amendment 138, that's two in favour, four against, and amendment 138 is not agreed.
If amendment 139 is agreed, amendment 37 falls. So, the question is that amendment 139 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We now move to a vote on amendment 139. So, the question is that amendment 139 is agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means that, in relation to amendment 139, there are two in favour, four against, and amendment 139 is not agreed.
We now move on to amendment 37 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 37 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We go to a vote on amendment 137. So, the question is that amendment 37 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means that, for amendment 37, it's four in favour, two against, and that means that amendment 37 is agreed.
I now move amendment 38 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We now move to a vote on amendment 38. So, the question is that amendment 38 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, on amendment 38, it's four in favour, two against, and amendment 38 is agreed.
The question is that amendment 140 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We now move to a vote on amendment 140. The question is that amendment 140 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, on amendment 140, two in favour, four against, and amendment 140 is not agreed.
If amendment 141 is agreed, amendments 142, 143, 144, 145, 39, 146 and 40 all fall. So, the question is that amendment 141 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We now move to a vote on amendment 141. So, the question is that amendment 141 is agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, on amendment 141, there are two in favour, four against, and amendment 141 is not agreed.
So, the question is that amendment 142 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We go to a vote on amendment 142. The question is that amendment 142 is agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, for amendment 142, two in favour, four against, and that means that 142 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 144 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We now move to a vote on amendment 144. So, the question is that amendment 144 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means, in relation to amendment 144, there are two in favour, four against, and amendment 144 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 145 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we'll now move to a vote. The question is that amendment 145 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means that, in relation to amendment 145, there are two in favour, four against, and amendment 145 is not agreed.
I move amendment 39 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We go to a vote on amendment 39. The question is that amendment 39 is agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 39, four in favour, two against, and that means that amendment 39 is agreed.
The question is that amendment 146 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We go to a vote on amendment 146. The question is that amendment 146 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 146, two in favour, four against, and amendment 146 is not agreed.
I move amendment 40 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We go to a vote on amendment 40. So, the question is that amendment 40 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means, in relation to amendment 40, four in favour, two against, and that means amendment 40 is agreed.
I move amendment 41 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed. Does any Member object? I hear no objections. So, that means amendment 41 is agreed.
The question is that amendment 147 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We go to a vote on amendment 147. So, the question is that amendment 147 is agreed. Those in favour of amendment 147. Those against. No abstentions. And that means in relation to amendment 147, two in favour, four against, and amendment 147 is not agreed.
I move amendment 42 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We go to a vote on amendment 42. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means, in relation to amendment 42, four in favour, two against, and amendment 42 is agreed.
The question is that amendment 148 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We go to a vote on amendment 148. The question is that amendment 148 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 148, two in favour, four against, and that means that amendment 148 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 149 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We now go to a vote on amendment 149. The question is that amendment 149 is agreed. Those in favour. Those against. So, no abstentions. So, that means that, in relation to amendment 149, two in favour, four against, and amendment 149 is not agreed.
I move amendment 46 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed. Does any Member object? I hear no objections, so that means amendment 46 is agreed.
I move amendment 47 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 47 be agreed. Does any Member object? I hear no objections. So, amendment 47 is agreed.
We now move on to group 21, the final group. Group 21 relates to sixth forms. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 191 in the name of Laura Anne Jones. I call on Laura to move amendment 191 and speak to the amendment and other amendments in this group. Laura.
Thank you, Chair. I wish to speak to the amendment on sixth forms. We disagree with the Welsh Government having complete powers to rationalise sixth forms. There must be a broader process, involving governing bodies and local authorities. The commission, sixth forms themselves and local authorities must have a collaborative role in the process, not just Welsh Government Ministers. Sixth forms are often the lifeblood of their local communities and offer a strong link between 11 to 16 education and adulthood in a school environment. Regarding the rationalisation of sixth forms, amendment 191 will remove Chapter 3A. The rationalisation process has raised concerns across the board in education. The National Education Union is extremely concerned that the power to reorganise sixth forms will go to the commission, and the National Association of Head Teachers Cymru believes that there should be a clearly defined and full consultation process before any group is given power to shut sixth forms. The Education Workforce Council have concerns that rationalised sixth forms will be removed from local authority control and subsumed into a larger body, away from their local area.
Amendment 192 is consequential and removes the power for Welsh Ministers to approve proposals that would impact on sixth forms. These significant powers for Welsh Ministers are a continuous and troubling undercurrent throughout this Bill. I will oppose the Minister's amendments 48 and 50 as simply rewording, seeking to soften the language of rationalisation, and 49 comes into direct conflict with my amendment 192, which I tabled to remove the duty from Welsh Ministers to approve proposals impacting sixth-form education in its entirety. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. I recognise the concerns that Laura Anne Jones has outlined. At Stage 1, the committee heard a number of concerns regarding the proposed relationship of the commission with post-16 provision within sixth forms. We heard concerns regarding the fact that the commission had the strategic responsibility for ensuring appropriate facilities for pupils aged 16 to 19, that the commission, under some circumstances, would be able to direct that sixth forms in schools could be established or brought to an end. Carmarthenshire County Council's education department said it could be a disaster if the local context disappeared in decision making. It also thought that it undermined subsidiarity principles, local management and the emphasis seen in the new curriculum. Laura Anne Jones has spoken about the concerns of the Education Workforce Council that powers over sixth forms could lead to removing local accountability for this unique element of education provision, and UCAC agreed, saying that it undermined democracy and local representation and could impact negatively on schools' ability to recruit teachers.
The Welsh Language Commissioner mentioned the important and unique role that the sixth form plays in Welsh-medium education, enabling pupils by maintaining and developing the language skills of those pupils who have received their statutory education through the medium of Welsh and contributing to the Welsh language ethos of those schools.
We support the Minister's amendments, which respond to these concerns, in our view. 'Restructure' does correspond with the wording of the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013 at the moment and is less threatening, we think, than 'rationalise', and that any proposals regarding a sixth form can now be referred to Welsh Ministers if there is valid objection. This level of transparency and accountability is very important, and safeguards the options and choices of learners and safeguards the immersion model in Welsh-medium education.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. Before I speak to the amendments in this group, I'd like to put on record my thanks to the stakeholders who have worked with us to refine the changes that the Bill makes to the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013. This has helped ensure that we maintain the necessary protections and safeguards in respect of these important provisions. I don't really recognise the description that Laura Anne Jones gave of the effect of the Bill nor of the amendments. Chair, what the Bill does is insert a new Chapter 3A into the 2013 Act. We've developed these new provisions, rather than amend existing provisions, to better reflect the regulatory landscape brought about by the creation of the commission.
The provisions in the new Chapter will enable the commission to take a more strategic approach, offering a wider perspective to school sixth-form provision and ensuring it can support choice, progression and avoid unnecessary duplication. Through the provisions, we are establishing a legislative framework that enables the commission to adopt this strategic view and to direct local authorities to bring forward proposals ensuring the link back to the local level that both Laura Anne Jones and Sioned Williams have spoken about. In response to stakeholder feedback, specifically, and concerns that they raised regarding the wording used in this new Chapter, amendments 48 and 50 replace 'rationalise' with 'restructure'. Revisiting the 2013 Act, which includes the word 'rationalise', has allowed us the opportunity of replacing that term with language that is, perhaps, less freighted with perhaps negative connotations. But that is specifically a terminological change that stakeholders have requested.
The amendments made to the 2013 Act are not intended to remove protections or safeguards. These remain with the requirements of the Act and also within the statutory school organisation code. These protections include ensuring Welsh language provision and provision within schools with a religious character is duly considered in any proposals brought forward for reorganisation. And, of course, we now have an updated Welsh language strategic duty as a guiding principle.
Chair, it's my intention to review and revise the school organisation code as part of the implementation of the change to the 2013 legislation so as to ensure that it continues to provide the necessary protections and safeguards across these key areas.
Having considered the amendments to the 2013 Act further, I have tabled amendment 49, which requires Welsh Ministers to approve proposals affecting sixth-form education where a written objection has been made, in line with the requirements of the 2013 Act, and not withdrawn in writing within the relevant time frame. The current provisions in the Bill enable the commission to refer proposals that are subject to a valid objection. This change will make the involvement of Welsh Ministers automatic in those circumstances.
Thank you, Minister. We take some comfort from what you've just said but also have some remaining concerns, and I'd ask the committee to take that into consideration when voting. Thank you.
Okay. So, if amendment 191 is agreed, amendment 48 falls. So, the question is that amendment 191 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We now move to a vote on amendment 191. The question is that amendment 191 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. I see no abstentions. So, that means, amendment 191, in favour two, against four, and amendment 191 is not agreed.
I move amendment 48 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 48 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We go to a vote on amendment 48. The question is that amendment 48 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. That means that, in relation to amendment 48, four in favour, two against, and amendment 48 is agreed.
If amendment 192 is agreed, amendment 49 falls. The question is that amendment 49 be agreed. Does any Member object? Oh—. The question is that amendment 192 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we hear that. So, the question is that amendment 192 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. That means amendment 192, two in favour, four against—192 is not agreed.
So, I move amendment 49 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 49 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay. We move to a vote on amendment 49. The question is that amendment 49 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, amendment 49, four in favour, two against, and amendment 49 is agreed.
The question is that amendment 193 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay. That means we move to a vote, and the question is that amendment 193 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, amendment 193, two in favour, four against, and amendment 193 is not agreed.
If amendment 194 is agreed, amendment 50 falls. So, the question is that amendment 194 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We now move to a vote on amendment 194. The question is that amendment 194 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, on amendment 194, that's two in favour, four against, and amendment 194 is not agreed.
I move amendment 50 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We go to a vote on amendment 50. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, that is, on amendment 50, four in favour, two against, and that means amendment 50 is agreed.
The question is that amendment 195 be agreed. Does anybody object? [Objection.] We go to a vote on amendment 195. The question is that amendment 195 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means, on amendment 195, two in favour, four against. Amendment 195 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 196 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we move to a vote on amendment 196. The question is that amendment 196 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 196, two in favour, four against, and 196 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 197 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] It means we move to a vote on amendment 197. The question is that amendment 197 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 197, two in favour, four against, and amendment 197 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 198 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote on amendment 198. The question is that amendment 198 is agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 198, two in favour, four against, and amendment 198 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 150 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We now move to a vote on amendment 150. The question is that amendment 150 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. No abstentions. So, that means, on amendment 150, two in favour, four against, and amendment 150 is not agreed.
I'd just like to thank the Minister and his officials for coming here today and for your attendance. You should know that you will be sent a transcript of the meeting to check for factual accuracy, but I'm sure some of the words will be embedded in your brain as well—but, please do that. Thank you for your patience as well and thank you for coming.
And this completes Stage 2 proceedings. Stage 3 begins tomorrow, and the relevant dates for Stage 3 proceedings will be published in due course. Standing Orders make provision for the Minister to prepare a revised explanatory memorandum, taking account of the amendments agreed today. The revised memorandum will be laid at least five working days before Stage 3 proceedings.
So, once again, I'd like to close this meeting and thank the Minister and officials, and Members, here today for their patience. Thank you very much.
Subsections (4) and (5), which amendment 60 seeks to remove, enable a direction to be framed by reference to a course of study being provided and assessed through the medium of Welsh or to areas of research or innovation specified in the commission's approved strategic plan. This approach ensures that the Welsh Ministers will have similar powers of direction as afforded to the Secretary of State in England in respect of the Office for Students under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.
The remaining amendments in the group, Chair, relate to recommendation 20 of this committee, and the ability of the Welsh Ministers to modify the commission's strategic plan when approving that plan. Amendment 15 provides that Welsh Ministers must seek the agreement of the commission to any modification they propose making before they make the modification.
Amendment 16 provides that where Welsh Ministers have made modifications to the plan in respect of which it has not been possible to secure the commission's agreement, they must set out their reasons for each modification not agreed to and provide them to the commission. The commission is then required to publish those reasons when it publishes its approved strategic plan.
As this committee has stated in its report, Welsh Ministers may, in exceptional circumstances, need the power to change the plan. These amendments retain that ability whilst putting further safeguards in place to ensure that it's balanced against the independence of the commission, ensuring that any modifications are reached in a consultative manner.
The requirement on Ministers to provide their reasons for any modification to which there has not been agreement, and for the commission to publish those reasons, I believe will help ensure transparency. So, I call on Members to support amendments 15 and 16, and to reject amendments 60 and 151.
Schedule 1 to the Bill, Chair, requires Ministers, when appointing the board, to have regard to the desirability of the commission's members having experience and capability in relation to the provision of education or training; promoting the needs of learners in tertiary education; carrying out, or the administration of, research; industrial, commercial or financial matters or the practice of any profession. Amendment 43, tabled in my name, adds to that list the desirability of members having experience of, and capability in, the provision of education or training through the medium of Welsh or the promotion of that.
I've considered amendments 199 and 200, Chair, and remain of the view that it would not be appropriate for associate board members to be entitled to vote. These members have a crucial function in advising the commission about matters relating to governance and service delivery from a workforce and a learner perspective. That approach, Chair, has the benefit of maintaining a separation between those activities required as a member of the commission and the wider activities of the trade unions, NUS or learner representative bodies themselves, reducing the potential for conflicts of interest. I note of course amendment 200, but I'm afraid that it just doesn't deal with the fundamental issue and cannot offer the protection on both sides that's provided through associate membership.
Additionally, some stakeholders have highlighted that a union or learner representative body may be reluctant to bind itself to the decisions of the commission, should these not be endorsed by all their members. And the arrangements that I'm proposing will safeguard their position. I believe that in order to ensure that the balance of the commission's membership is sufficient to be effective across its broad range of functions, the associate members need to be additional to the board's minimum numbers. This does not detract from their importance to the board, but reflects the need to maintain a cohesive and agile board.
I'd remind Members, if I may, Chair, that we have set a minimum, rather than a maximum, number of learner and workforce members to ensure that the breadth of perspective and advice is available whilst avoiding an oversized board. So, any proposal to change the voting rights would have to lead to keeping associate member numbers to the minimum, risking that we would in fact weaken the voice of learners and the voice of the workforce, rather than strengthening them. So, I call on Members to support the amendment tabled in my name and reject all other amendments in this group.
To reflect and support the new strategic duty that I've just referred to, the purpose of the research and innovation committee, as set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill, is expanded by amendment 45 in my name to comprise advising the commission on matters relating to research and innovation. Currently, the purpose of the committee relates to advising on the exercising of the commission's research and innovation funding powers. I call on Members, therefore, to reject amendment 120 in this group whilst supporting all of the other amendments in this group.
Laura Anne Jones asked for confirmation that the work is under way in relation to the discussions with local authorities regarding the transfer of responsibilities, and I can confirm that that work is currently under way, Chair.
Chair, in line with the recommendations of this committee and the views of stakeholders such as the National Union of Students Wales, amendment 5 has the effect of expanding the continuous improvement strategic duty to include a duty on the commission to have regard to the importance of the views of learners about the quality of the tertiary education that they receive. Amendment 6, then, is a minor technical amendment consequential on the substantive amendment in amendment 5.
I cannot support amendments 130, 131 and 132, I'm afraid. I think it's very important for the commission to retain the ability to modify the learner protection plan so as to make sure that these plans are suitable and robust and, vitally, that they remain focused on the learner.
So, I would ask Members to support amendments 5 and 6, tabled in my name, Chair, and to reject the other amendments in this group.
The provision that is removed by amendment 148 is necessary, and it's necessary to ensure that regulations providing for the Open University to be treated as a tertiary education provider in Wales can modify provisions in the Bill to ensure that they operate as intended when being applied to the OU. Again, this only applies to one body—the Open University—and, in addition, these regulations are subject to the affirmative Senedd procedure.
The remaining amendments in this group, I'm afraid, are also unnecessary. The Welsh Government formally consults as standard when preparing subordinate legislation, which answers Laura Anne Jones's concern, and we also publish summary reports following the conclusion of these consultations, as Members will be aware.
As I've stated, all regulation-making powers, Chair, have been considered and the appropriate Senedd procedure applied, thereby enabling the Senedd to scrutinise the subordinate legislation. I don't consider, then, it is necessary to provide a statutory requirement to publish draft regulations ahead of the regulations being laid or made. So, in light of all of that, I call on Members to support the amendments in this group tabled in my name and to reject all the other amendments.
Turning to the amendments to section 27, tabled in the name of Laura Anne Jones, I cannot support amendments 66 through to 77, which would have the effect of restricting the commission's ability to apply specific ongoing conditions of registration. Specific registration conditions are intended to be an essential component of the commission's regulatory oversight toolkit. Chair, the purpose of specific ongoing conditions is twofold. Firstly, it's to ensure that the provider addresses any shortcomings that the commission may identify when processing a provider's registration application, which, although not sufficiently serious to prevent registration, need to be addressed. Secondly, it's to ensure that registered providers address matters that the commission identifies during the course of monitoring their compliance with the general ongoing conditions of registration. Specific conditions will be tailored to address particular issues in relation to individual providers. This approach avoids unnecessary bureaucracy for other providers and ensures that action can be taken where needed to protect the interests of learners, protect the use of public funds and the reputation of the Welsh tertiary education sector.
The commission may wish to specify an outcome or action to be achieved by the provider and specify the steps needed to be taken along with the timescales within which the commission expects action to be taken by the provider. The commission needs to be able to apply specific ongoing registration conditions at any point during a provider's registration when it identifies a matter that it considers requires closer regulatory oversight. As specific conditions of registration will have implications for providers, the Bill already incudes protections relating to their imposition, variation and removal. The commission is required to notify the governing body of a provider of its intention to impose, vary or remove a specific condition. Providers will then be able to make representations in relation to the commission's proposal to impose, vary or remove a specific registration condition. In addition, the Bill allows providers to seek a review of a decision by the commission to impose or vary. In addition, the new duty in respect of institutional autonomy, on which this committee has already voted, will require the commission to have regard to protecting the institutional autonomy of the provider when considering specific registration conditions.
In light of all of that, Chair, I call on Members to support the amendments tabled in my name and to reject the other amendments in this group.
Whilst the financial position report will provide an indication of the current financial position of the providers that the commission monitors under this duty, the financial outlook report is intended to provide a means for the commission to identify and advise the Welsh Ministers of emerging patterns, of trends and other matters that could impact on the future financial sustainability of some or all of the providers that it monitors. The report, Chair, is intended to be advisory in nature and will ensure that Welsh Ministers are advised of any important matters that could impact on the future financial sustainability of tertiary education providers.
Chair, amendment 122 removes section 106 of the Bill, which enables the Welsh Ministers to direct the commission in relation to a provider where it appears that the financial affairs of that provider have been or are being mismanaged. I can't support this amendment as these provisions are necessary to ensure that Ministers are able to direct the commission to take appropriate action where financial mismanagement has been identified at a specified provider that the commission funds. These provisions provide a very important means to protect the interests of students, safeguard public funding and prevent serious reputational damage to the sector in Wales. These provisions also are not new; similar provisions exist under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which allow Welsh Ministers currently to give directions to HEFCW about the provision of financial support to a provider of higher education if it means that the financial affairs of that provider have been or are being mismanaged. So, I call on Members, in light of that, to support the amendment in my name, Chair, and to reject the other amendments in this group.
On amendment 123, Chair, I also do not support that. As I've already detailed when speaking to the amendments in group 8, I think the Bill already includes sufficient protection in relation to the commission's annual reporting arrangements. The requirements in Schedule 1 to the Bill to prepare an annual report including
'details of how the Commission has exercised its functions during the year'
will include how it has discharged its funding powers.
The option for Welsh Ministers issuing statutory guidance under section 18 of the Bill, which I mentioned when we were talking about group 8, would equally apply in respect of setting out the expectations on the commission for its annual report and the details of how it exercises the funding functions.
On amendment 124, in relation to funding transparency, while I agree with the idea behind the amendment, I'm already developing an amendment for bringing forward at Stage 3 setting out the principles the commission would be required to act in accordance with when exercising their funding powers. So, I would welcome the views of the committee on this amendment as it's developed further, Chair.
In light of those remarks, I call on Members to reject the amendments in this group.
Chair, amendment 36 in my name is a technical amendment inserting a cross-reference that was missed from the Bill at introduction, and ensuring that all relevant funding powers are included within section 127 of the Bill. Section 127 allows the commission to request information for the purposes of the exercise of its functions from those bodies listed in the section, including providers that it funds or regulates. I ask Members, therefore, to support the amendment tabled in my name, and reject all other amendments as they significantly weaken Part 6 of the Bill.
In light of the above, I cannot support amendments 191 to 198. I call on Members to support the amendments in this group tabled in my name and to reject all other amendments.