English: Can I say to the Cabinet Secretary for Education that she, like Plaid Cymru, at least had the courage to go into an election with an alternative to the current system and to call out the emperor's new clothes around the tuition subsidy? It costs too much, and it's unsustainable, and I've been saying that for four years. The silence from the Labour benches, for not having the courage to go into an election to say what they believed in, is something that you can hear here today. [Interruption.] You certainly did - it was a useless policy, but you certainly had one, so that's fair enough. [Laughter.] That's fair enough. So, the Cabinet Secretary knows, and she understands and appreciates, the depth of the challenges facing her. She will know as well that Professor Diamond has made a very valiant report that covers just about all aspects of the issues, apart from the one that Llyr Gruffydd in particular has highlighted: the need to attract more students to study and stay in Wales in order to strengthen our universities and in order to make that link with a developing economy in Wales. I think she does, and I welcome the fact that she's reached out to look at how we can work together on that, but I think that she must acknowledge as well that that is a weakness in the current system. Nothing in Diamond immediately addresses that, although it is, of course, highlighted. Can I just say that I was unable to attend Professor Diamond's briefing this morning, so I'm very grateful to Mark Reckless for telling me that Professor Diamond did not, in fact, carry out one of the remits that he was given and that it changed because of instruction from the Welsh Government? I distinctly remember negotiating the remit with your predecessor, Huw Lewis, line by line, as an agreement between two parties of how we could address this funding issue. It now seems that the remit agreement was changed, without any reference to the original parties that made that agreement, and was changed in a way that could have influenced the way that Professor Diamond produced his report. So, I put on notice, unless you can reply immediately, that I will be examining how that came about. Can I also ask the Cabinet Secretary whether she has any schadenfreude at all, as a Liberal Democrat in a Labour Cabinet, in introducing the element of means testing that was the only thing that the Labour Party actually ruled out in their manifesto - the means testing that I think, based on universality, is an inevitable consequence of going down the line of market testing within higher education? I've fought against that all my political life - voted against it in the House of Commons time after time when Labour was all lined up to vote it through. We have to deal with the situation we have and the limited resources we have. Therefore, the principle that she's set out is one that I support and one that I welcome. However, there are two elements of the principles that you said in your statement that I thought were missing. I don't disagree with the ones that you set out as the way forward, but there were two that I thought were part of Diamond and are no longer there. One is to equalise the playing field between FE and HE - to have a more level system of choices so that people can genuinely choose an FE future, and that we do see that the resources that we spend as a nation are as supportive of FE as they are of HE. In that context, could you just - because I haven't had time, I'm afraid, to read the detail of the report - reiterate the reasoning for linking student support to the living wage, and which living wage - John McDonnell's living wage, Boris Johnson's living wage? Which living wage? It seems wonderful, doesn't it? It seems like a good socialist principle to link student support to living wage. But why are we linking Welsh student support to a living wage we have no control over, and a living wage that is not related to our economic circumstances? Why are we linking student support to a living wage when apprenticeships and apprentices do not get that kind of support? This, again, I'm concerned can skew us down to over-supporting HE at the cost of FE, and I think the future for Wales and the future for many of our communities is actually to increase the number of people going to FE and get those higher level apprenticeships. So, I'm really questioning what the basis for that is - not the principle, because I accept the principle, but what the basis of that is - and whether the true affordability is built into that. And I think students would get a very generous - . As Lynne Neagle said, it is very generous, but is it commensurate with our economic investment - that co-investment that she talked about? And the second element that I would like to ask about - because that's the level playing field - and the second principle that I thought was missing was one that said that we want to use this system now to close the HE funding gap in Wales. She stood on a manifesto commitment to restore part of the teaching grant. That's no longer part of Diamond and it's no longer part of her statement, but if we're not going to restore the teaching grant, then how can you tell us how the released resources, which you mentioned in reply to questions, will flow back to investment in higher education? We know the funding gap is real - it's about £90 million at the moment in HE. It's grown over the years. We were unable to address it when we just funded students and we didn't fund universities. In what way does Diamond now enable us to address that funding gap, and is it indeed a principle that she will hold dear to?
Welsh: A allaf ddweud wrth Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros Addysg fod ganddi hi, fel Plaid Cymru, o leiaf y dewrder i sefyll yn yr etholiad, gan gynnig dewis amgen i'r system bresennol ac i dynnu sylw at wendidau'r cymhorthdal ffioedd dysgu? Mae'n costio gormod, ac nid yw'n gynaliadwy, ac rwyf wedi bod yn dweud hynny am bedair blynedd. Mae'r distawrwydd o feinciau'r blaid Lafur, am beidio â bod yn ddigon dewr i sefyll yn yr etholiad a datgan yr hyn maent yn ei gredu, yn rhywbeth y gallwch ei glywed yma heddiw. [Torri ar draws.] Yn sicr fe wnaethoch chi hynny - yr oedd yn bolisi diwerth, ond yn sicr roedd gennych chi un, felly mae hynny'n ddigon teg. [Chwerthin.] Mae hynny'n ddigon teg. Felly, mae Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet yn gwybod, ac mae hi'n deall ac yn gwerthfawrogi, anferthedd yr heriau sy'n ei hwynebu hi. Bydd hi'n gwybod hefyd fod yr Athro Diamond wedi cyflwyno adroddiad cadarn iawn sy'n cwmpasu bron pob agwedd ar y materion hyn, ar wahân i'r un y gwnaeth Llyr Gruffydd yn arbennig dynnu sylw ato: yr angen i ddenu mwy o fyfyrwyr i astudio ac i aros yng Nghymru er mwyn gwella ein prifysgolion, ac er mwyn gwneud y cysylltiad hwnnw ag economi sy'n datblygu yng Nghymru. Rwy'n credu ei bod yn gwybod hynny, ac rwy'n croesawu'r ffaith ei bod wedi estyn llaw i weld sut y gallwn ni weithio gyda'n gilydd ar hynny, ond rwy'n credu bod yn rhaid iddi gydnabod hefyd fod hynny'n wendid yn y system bresennol. Nid oes dim yn adroddiad Diamond sy'n mynd i'r afael â hynny'n uniongyrchol, er, wrth gwrs, y tynnir sylw ato. A gaf i ddweud nad oeddwn yn gallu bod yn bresennol yng nghyfarfod briffio yr Athro Diamond y bore yma, felly rwy'n ddiolchgar iawn i Mark Reckless am ddweud wrthyf nad wnaeth yr Athro Diamond, mewn gwirionedd, gynnal un o'r cylchoedd gorchwyl yr oedd yn gyfrifol amdanynt a bod hynny wedi newid oherwydd cyfarwyddyd gan Lywodraeth Cymru? Rwy'n bendant yn cofio trafod y cylch gorchwyl â'ch rhagflaenydd, Huw Lewis, fesul llinell, fel cytundeb rhwng dwy blaid o ran sut y gallem ni fynd i'r afael â'r mater cyllido hwn. Mae'n ymddangos yn awr y cafodd y cytundeb ar y cylch gorchwyl ei newid, heb unrhyw gyfeiriad at y pleidiau gwreiddiol a bennodd y cytundeb hwnnw, a chafodd ei newid mewn ffordd a allai fod wedi dylanwadu ar y ffordd y cynhyrchodd yr Athro Diamond ei adroddiad. Felly, rwy'n rhoi rhybudd, oni bai eich bod yn gallu ateb yn syth, y byddaf yn archwilio sut y digwyddodd hynny. A allaf hefyd ofyn i Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet a oes ganddi unrhyw schadenfreude o gwbl, fel Democrat Rhyddfrydol mewn Cabinet Llafur, wrth gyflwyno'r elfen o brawf modd, sef yr unig beth y gwnaeth y Blaid Lafur ei ddiystyru yn eu maniffesto mewn gwirionedd - rwy'n credu bod y prawf modd, sy'n seiliedig ar gyffredinolrwydd, yn ganlyniad anochel o fynd ar drywydd profi'r farchnad o fewn addysg uwch? Rwyf wedi ymladd yn erbyn hynny drwy gydol fy mywyd gwleidyddol - gwnes i bleidleisio yn erbyn hynny yn Nhŷ'r Cyffredin dro ar ôl tro pan oedd Llafur i gyd wedi trefnu i bleidleisio o'i blaid. Mae'n rhaid i ni fynd i'r afael â'r sefyllfa sydd gennym a'r adnoddau cyfyngedig sydd gennym. Felly, mae'r egwyddor y mae hi wedi'i nodi yn un rwy'n ei chefnogi ac yn un rwy'n ei chroesawu. Fodd bynnag, roeddwn yn meddwl bod dwy elfen o'r egwyddorion y gwnaethoch chi eu nodi yn eich datganiad ar goll. Nid wyf yn anghytuno â'r rhai yr ydych chi'n eu nodi fel y ffordd ymlaen, ond roedd yna ddwy yr oeddwn i o'r farn eu bod yn rhan o'r adroddiad Diamond, nad ydynt yno bellach. Un ohonynt yw sicrhau mwy o chwarae teg rhwng Addysg Bellach ac Addysg Uwch - cael system o ddewisiadau sy'n fwy cytbwys fel y gall pobl ddewis dyfodol addysg bellach mewn gwirionedd, a'n bod ni'n gweld bod yr adnoddau yr ydym ni'n gwario arnynt fel cenedl yr un mor gefnogol o addysg bellach ag y maent o Addysg Uwch. Yn y cyd-destun hwnnw, a allech chi - oherwydd nid wyf wedi cael amser i ddarllen manylion yr adroddiad mae arnaf ofn - ailadrodd y rhesymeg ar gyfer cysylltu cymorth i fyfyrwyr â'r cyflog byw, a pha gyflog byw - cyflog byw John McDonnell, cyflog byw Boris Johnson? Pa gyflog byw? Mae'n ymddangos yn rhyfeddol, yn tydi? Mae'n ymddangos yn egwyddor sosialaidd da i gysylltu cymorth i fyfyrwyr â chyflog byw. Ond pam yr ydym ni'n cysylltu cymorth i fyfyrwyr yng Nghymru â chyflog byw nad oes gennym ni unrhyw reolaeth drosto, a chyflog byw nad yw'n gysylltiedig â'n hamgylchiadau economaidd? Pam yr ydym ni'n cysylltu cymorth i fyfyrwyr â chyflog byw pan nad yw prentisiaethau a phrentisiaid yn cael y math hwnnw o gymorth? Rwy'n pryderu, unwaith eto, y gall hyn beri i ni roi gormod o gefnogaeth i Addysg Uwch ar draul Addysg Bellach, ac rwy'n credu mai'r dyfodol i Gymru a'r dyfodol i lawer o'n cymunedau mewn gwirionedd yw cynyddu nifer y bobl sy'n dilyn addysg bellach a sicrhau'r prentisiaethau lefel uwch hynny. Felly, rwyf wirioneddol yn cwestiynu beth yw'r sail ar gyfer hynny - nid yr egwyddor, gan fy mod yn derbyn yr egwyddor, ond beth yw'r sail ar gyfer hynny - a pha un a yw'n wirioneddol fforddiadwy. Ac rwy'n credu y byddai myfyrwyr yn derbyn cynnig hael iawn - . Fel y dywedodd Lynne Neagle, mae'n hael iawn, ond a yw'n gymesur â'n buddsoddiad economaidd buddsoddiad - y cyd-fuddsoddiad hwnnw y soniodd hi amdano? A'r ail elfen yr hoffwn holi amdani - oherwydd mai hynny sy'n sicrhau chwarae teg - a'r ail egwyddor yr oeddwn i o'r farn ei bod ar goll oedd un a oedd yn dweud ein bod am ddefnyddio'r system hon yn awr i gau'r bwlch o ran cyllido Addysg Uwch yng Nghymru. Fe safodd ar sail ymrwymiad maniffesto i adfer rhan o'r grant addysgu. Nid yw hynny bellach yn rhan o adroddiad Diamond ac nid yw bellach yn rhan o'i datganiad, ond os nad ydym ni am adfer y grant addysgu, yna sut y gallwch chi ddweud wrthym sut y bydd yr adnoddau a fydd yn cael eu rhyddhau, y gwnaethoch chi eu crybwyll wrth ymateb i'r cwestiynau, yn cael eu cynnwys eto wrth fuddsoddi mewn addysg uwch? Rydym yn gwybod bod y bwlch cyllido yn bodoli - y mae oddeutu £90 miliwn ar gyfer Addysg Uwch ar hyn o bryd. Mae wedi tyfu dros y blynyddoedd. Nid oeddem ni'n gallu rhoi sylw iddo pan oeddem ni'n ariannu myfyrwyr yn unig a phan nad oeddem ni'n ariannu prifysgolion. Ym mha ffordd y mae adroddiad Diamond nawr yn ein galluogi i fynd i'r afael â'r bwlch cyllido hwnnw, ac a yw wir yn egwyddor y bydd yn dal i ymlynu ati?