English: Contrary to some of the opening remarks of Sioned Williams, I don't think there was anything near unanimity in the sector among stakeholders on the need for this Bill, and I encountered, through discussion, many stakeholders who said to me that a Bill really isn't necessary to achieve what you want to achieve. But then, you either commission a report by Ellen Hazelkorn and listen to it, or you don't. The Hazelkorn report, which was published on 1 March 2016, was very clear that legislation would be needed in order to provide a seamless education sector prepared for 2030, and I think the Government has rightly taken the decision to listen to the recommendations of that report in creating this Bill. And I think, actually, this Bill would have been introduced a lot sooner in the previous Senedd had it not been for Diamond, for Donaldson and the pandemic. We would have seen this Bill introduced, perhaps in a slightly different form, by a different Member of a different political party, but it would have happened, had it not been for those things. So, I think the Minister, taking on this challenge, has indeed had a challenge, and it is a credit to his reasoned ability to listen, to engage, and to link with stakeholders in that the discontent that may have been out there has somewhat ebbed and now we are seeing practical engagement from the sector with this Bill. And I can say, as chair of the cross-party group on universities, that the Minister attended a rigorous, hour-long question-and-answer session with stakeholders, and answered every single question he was asked, and there were a lot of them. I was impressed by the detail in which he provided those answers, and I can see, in the response he gave in his opening statement today, that many of those questions have been answered by him, and that is a very positive thing to see. So, first of all, in relation to research and innovation, he said in his opening remarks that amendments would be introduced to strengthen the duty of research and innovation in the Bill. He said that there would be amendments to strengthen institutional autonomy. I'd be interested to hear whether that would be a general duty or whether that would be specific amendments, and I think we need to see what those amendments would be. And I think I understood that the power to dissolve certain types of institutions, those higher education corporations, would not be part of the Bill. So, can I just have some clarification there? Because what you could end up doing is that higher education corporations could be dissolved without the consent of those institutions, whereas other types of institutions wouldn't be subject to that. So, is he actually going to remove that power from the Bill, or is there another way of amending it? Again, as a member of the cross-party group, there remain questions about this registration system, which have been raised already, particularly by the committee Chairs. In particular, is it the intention for the commission to be able to set different registration conditions for individual providers? And is there any risk that this could lead to institutions being treated differently or unfairly? So, that's a key question that I'd like the Minister to answer in his response. Finally, I'll come to Jenny Rathbone's remarks. I met with the University and College Union representatives, who raised that issue of democratisation of individual institutions as well. I wonder whether the Minister might be interested in meeting with UCU representatives to talk about that, and perhaps myself and Jenny Rathbone might want to have a meeting with him to talk about this issue of democratisation. It's an interesting one, particularly Tony Benn's fifth test: how do we get rid of you? It would be an interesting thing to see vice-chancellors wondering whether their governing bodies were going to be asking that question, 'How do we get rid of you?' And I think it's something that anyone in power should fear that very question, as we all do, and have just done in an election that we faced last year. So, these are some key questions that the Minister's gone some way to answering. Once again, I thank him for his positive approach, and also all the work that the committees have done in probing those amendments. But what I can see across the Chamber is a general positive approach to this Bill, which does seem to be commanding support, and I think that is a credit to the Minister.
Welsh: Yn groes i rai o sylwadau agoriadol Sioned Williams, nid wyf i'n credu bod unrhyw beth yn agos at unfrydedd yn y sector, ymhlith rhanddeiliaid, ynglŷn â'r angen am y Bil hwn, ac fe ddes i ar draws, drwy drafodaeth, lawer o randdeiliaid a ddywedodd wrthyf nad oes gwir angen Bil i gyflawni'r hyn yr ydych chi eisiau ei gyflawni. Ond yna, rydych chi naill ai'n comisiynu adroddiad gan Ellen Hazelkorn ac yn gwrando arno, neu nid ydych yn gwneud hynny. Roedd adroddiad Hazelkorn, a gyhoeddwyd ar 1 Mawrth 2016, yn glir iawn y byddai angen deddfwriaeth er mwyn darparu sector addysg di-dor yn barod ar gyfer 2030, ac rwy'n credu bod y Llywodraeth, a hynny'n briodol, wedi penderfynu gwrando ar argymhellion yr adroddiad hwnnw wrth greu'r Bil hwn. Ac rwy'n credu, mewn gwirionedd, y byddai'r Bil hwn wedi cael ei gyflwyno'n llawer cynt yn y Senedd flaenorol oni bai am Diamond, Donaldson a'r pandemig. Byddem ni wedi gweld y Bil hwn yn cael ei gyflwyno, efallai ar ffurf ychydig yn wahanol, gan Aelod gwahanol o blaid wleidyddol wahanol, ond byddai wedi digwydd, oni bai am y pethau hynny. Felly, rwy'n credu bod y Gweinidog, gan ymgymryd â'r her hon, wedi wir wynebu her, ac mae'n glod i'w allu rhesymegol i wrando, ymgysylltu, a chysylltu â rhanddeiliaid bod yr anfodlonrwydd a allai fod wedi bod allan yno wedi'i leihau rhywfaint ac yn awr rydym yn gweld ymgysylltiad ymarferol gan y sector â'r Bil hwn. Ac a gaf i ddweud, fel cadeirydd y grŵp trawsbleidiol ar brifysgolion, fod y Gweinidog wedi mynychu sesiwn holi ac ateb drylwyr, awr o hyd gyda rhanddeiliaid, ac atebodd bob un cwestiwn a ofynnwyd iddo, ac roedd llawer ohonyn nhw. Gwnaeth y manylion a ddarparodd yr atebion hynny argraff arnaf, a gallaf weld, yn yr ymateb a roddodd yn ei ddatganiad agoriadol heddiw, fod llawer o'r cwestiynau hynny wedi cael eu hateb ganddo, ac mae hynny'n beth cadarnhaol iawn i'w weld. Felly, yn gyntaf oll, o ran ymchwil ac arloesi, dywedodd yn ei sylwadau agoriadol y byddai gwelliannau'n cael eu cyflwyno i gryfhau'r ddyletswydd ymchwil ac arloesi yn y Bil. Dywedodd y byddai gwelliannau i gryfhau ymreolaeth sefydliadol. Byddai'n ddiddorol clywed a fyddai hynny'n ddyletswydd gyffredinol neu a fyddai hynny'n welliannau penodol, ac rwy'n credu bod angen i ni weld beth fyddai'r gwelliannau hynny. Ac rwy'n credu fy mod yn deall na fyddai'r pŵer i ddiddymu mathau penodol o sefydliadau, y corfforaethau addysg uwch hynny, yn rhan o'r Bil. Felly, a gaf i rhywfaint o eglurhad yn y fan yna? Oherwydd yr hyn y gallech chi ei wneud yn y pen draw yw y gellid diddymu corfforaethau addysg uwch heb gydsyniad y sefydliadau hynny, tra na fyddai mathau eraill o sefydliadau yn ddarostyngedig i hynny. Felly, a yw'n mynd i ddileu'r pŵer hwnnw o'r Bil, neu a oes ffordd arall o'i ddiwygio? Unwaith eto, fel aelod o'r grŵp trawsbleidiol, mae cwestiynau o hyd am y system gofrestru hon, sydd eisoes wedi'u codi, yn enwedig gan Gadeiryddion y pwyllgorau. Yn benodol, ai'r bwriad yw i'r comisiwn allu pennu amodau cofrestru gwahanol ar gyfer darparwyr unigol? Ac a oes unrhyw risg y gallai hyn arwain at drin sefydliadau'n wahanol neu'n annheg? Felly, mae hwnnw'n gwestiwn allweddol yr hoffwn i'r Gweinidog ei ateb yn ei ymateb. Yn olaf, rwy'n dod at sylwadau Jenny Rathbone. Fe wnes i gyfarfod â chynrychiolwyr Undeb y Prifysgolion a'r Colegau, a gododd y mater hwnnw o ddemocrateiddio sefydliadau unigol hefyd. Tybed a allai fod gan y Gweinidog ddiddordeb mewn cyfarfod â chynrychiolwyr yr undeb i siarad am hynny, ac efallai y byddaf i a Jenny Rathbone eisiau cael cyfarfod ag ef i siarad am y mater hwn o ddemocrateiddio. Mae'n un diddorol, yn enwedig pumed prawf Tony Benn: sut mae cael gwared arnoch chi? Byddai'n beth diddorol gweld is-gangellorion yn meddwl tybed a fyddai eu cyrff llywodraethu yn gofyn y cwestiwn hwnnw, 'Sut mae cael gwared arnoch chi?' Ac rwy'n credu ei fod yn rhywbeth y dylai unrhyw un sydd mewn grym ofni'r union gwestiwn hwnnw, fel y gwnawn ni i gyd, ac rydym newydd ei wneud mewn etholiad a wynebwyd gennym y llynedd. Felly, dyma rai cwestiynau allweddol y mae'r Gweinidog wedi gwneud rhywfaint i'w hateb. Unwaith eto, diolch iddo am ei agwedd gadarnhaol, a hefyd am yr holl waith y mae'r pwyllgorau wedi'i wneud wrth ymchwilio i'r gwelliannau hynny. Ond yr hyn y gallaf i ei weld ar draws y Siambr yw ymagwedd gadarnhaol gyffredinol at y Bil hwn, sydd i bob golwg yn ennyn cefnogaeth, ac rwy'n credu bod hynny'n glod i'r Gweinidog.