Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee

That takes us on to item 2: legislative consent memorandum on the Water (Special Measures) Bill—evidence session. Can I welcome the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs, Huw Irranca-Davies? Do your officials want to introduce themselves?

Yes, indeed. Shall we go from the end?

Hi. Clare Fernandes, deputy director for water and flood.

James Mugleston, legal services.

Hi. Scott Tyler, head of UK legislation.

Diolch yn fawr. I'll go straight on to questions. Why does the Cabinet Secretary believe that it is appropriate that this provision is taken forward in a UK Bill, rather than a Senedd Bill?

Thank you, Chair. I'm delighted to be in front of you here today. The reason we think it's appropriate is because there's clearly significant cross-over here in terms of waters—no boundaries—but also in terms of the regulatory approach within the UK. The water quality in our rivers and our seas is clearly a matter of public concern. It's a priority for this Government, as for the UK Government. We've been working in partnership with the UK Government since the moment this Bill was announced in the King's Speech, because we've identified that there is significant commonality in the way that we want to take these measures forward, but, in doing so, just to make clear, this has been very much close collaboration and engagement. I do realise that, sometimes, I face the accusation, Chair, of being poacher turned gamekeeper here, but I do recall, when I was sitting in the seat facing Ministers down this end, there was often a pattern of not great collaboration and engagement. This is signally different.

We were keen to, having identified the opportunity, work with the UK Government on this, but make it fit for Wales as well, in the fact that it deals with enforcement of regulatory requirements in the water sector, with water company performance in England and Wales, albeit recognising that we have one of our two companies in Wales, which is different, as it's a not-for-dividend model, so we're making sure that that's reflected. And even though the Bill is being developed at some significant pace, we are right in there, right in that space, and have been from the word 'go', making sure that the measures consider all the potential impacts in Wales. But the commonalities here are significant. There will be slightly different ways this will proceed, and that's why we're keen, Chair, to make sure we take it forward. It's a framework, in essence. We will take forward the secondary regulation here in Wales, giving us the opportunity to engage with stakeholders, to consult and to get it right for Wales, and to have that proper engagement. But, no, there are such commonalities, Cadeirydd, this seems an obvious one for good collaboration to bring this Bill forward together.

What factors did the Welsh Government take into account when deciding to agree to include provision for Wales in this Bill?

I think it is very much, to return to that opening point, the cross-border nature of not just our water, but water bodies—the organisations within that regulatory space. So, actually, a Bill introduced in the UK Parliament is an effective approach now to deal with our shared goals. We have within the UK Labour Government's manifesto in terms of dealing with water quality and water regulation, and the structures and the penalties and so on, clear ambitions, and it mirrors very much what we share with those ambitions here in Wales, in the health of our water bodies. But we wouldn't be doing this, just to make it clear, unless we felt that there was really effective engagement and collaboration, and that is a signal mark of this Bill. Both at an official level and a ministerial level we're having that engagement as it proceeds at pace as well, Cadeirydd. We're in there, we're making adjustments, having those reflected as well, and we might come to some of those. So, that's the reason why we wanted to include provisions here for Wales.

But, in those provisions, when we bring them forward in secondary regulation, we will then have the opportunity in Wales to make sure that they are fully consulted on and scrutinised, and also, in terms of secondary regulations specifically, that they are bilingual, because I know it's one thing that this committee has been very focused on over many years. If you can bring forward made-in-Wales legislation, then it is bilingual at point source. If we are relying on an England-and-Wales Bill, even if we have that close collaboration—bearing in mind, of course, that there is much of the England-and-Wales legislation in water bodies that's already either England and Wales, or Wales—at least we'll have our secondary regulations that can nail that down here in Wales and bilingually.

Diolch. Alun.

Yes, poacher turned gamekeeper was exactly what was going through my mind on reading the LCM, I have to say. I think your argument would be stronger, Minister, had Welsh Ministers previously been making these points. Now, I don't remember either you or other Ministers, or your predecessor Ministers, making many of these points in argument across there, or suggesting there was any need for legislating in this field at all. In fact, I brought forward a Member's legislative proposal, as your officials may be aware—it was about 18 months ago, I think, or whatever—on some of these subjects and I was told it wasn't necessary. So, it's difficult then when a Minister comes to this committee and says, 'Actually, we wanted to do this all along.'

Alun, you make a fair point, and it's probably a reflection as well of the priorities at any moment in time—as a former Minister, you'll know this—and the priorities of the Welsh Government in a legislative programme and what they can put in and what they cannot take forward. But I think this, realistically and pragmatically, when you identify within the King's Speech that there is an opportunity to do something in this space that does, actually, strengthen our regulatory approach, strengthen some of the application of penalties for water pollution—. Whilst it wasn't able to be put within our legislative programme of made-in-Wales legislation, my goodness, if the UK Government bring this forward and we look at it and we're invited to the table to say, 'How does this feel for you?', as opposed to telling us, 'This is what we're going to do, now buck up your ideas', we went straight at it and said, 'Well, will this work—would this be something that is not in our current legislative programme, but, if we had time, we would make time to do in future?' So, that's the pragmatic opportunism, frankly, of saying, 'Does this Bill fit with what we're trying to do?' Yes, it does. Are they engaging with us genuinely to hear our voice within Wales on this? Yes, they are. In which case, let's go for it. But I take your point entirely: why wasn't this in a Welsh Government programme? We've got other Bills coming forward in Welsh legislation, which is very busy—coal tip legislation, environmental governance, the bus Bill, and so on. Ours is packed already, but we can engage with this and we can direct resource from our end to make the differences as this Bill goes forward.

I've got no issue with that and we've both heard Ministers making that argument on numerous occasions. I accept that completely. But I'm uncomfortable with the decision you've taken on this, if I'm quite honest, because I'm not convinced—I was going to say 'muddying the waters', but it's not quite the phrase I'm looking for—that we are not continuing to confuse the statute book through having these responsibilities here in Wales and then using Westminster legislation to deliver a legislative agenda with it. I'm not convinced that that is where the Welsh Government should be, but I recognise that you've reached a different conclusion on that.

Can I give you an 'in defence'?

Yes, of course.

This is not unique but it's slightly unusual, in that the statute book on water regulation is already, because of that cross-border nature of it and the regulatory structures and the regulatory bodies, and will continue to be, actually, a mixture of England-and-Wales legislation and regulation, and Wales-only regulation. It'll continue to be. The task of, if you like, a major consolidation to bring it all entirely into Wales, when we have UK-wide regulatory structures and bodies within it as well, is partly in my defence, but I know I've enticed Adam now too.

Ie, jest ar hwnna, mae hynny dim ond oherwydd y penderfyniad polisi dŷch chi wedi'i wneud—hynny yw, mae'r pwerau rheoleiddio wedi'u datganoli. Fe allwch chi gael gwared ar Ofwat yfory a chreu corff rheoleiddio Cymreig, fel sydd yn yr Alban. Fe allwch chi gael gwared ar y Drinking Water Inspectorate, sydd yn cyfro Cymru a Lloegr—cael gwared ohono fe a chreu corff Cymreig. Does yna ddim byd yn y fframwaith pwerau sy'n golygu bod yna fframwaith rheoleiddio Cymru a Lloegr, felly dyw'ch dadl chi ddim yn sefyll i'r graddau dŷch chi'n awgrymu. Penderfyniad polisi yw e, a dyna pam rŷch chi'n dweud bod yn rhaid ichi fynd lawr y llwybr yma.

Thank you for that, and I was worried, as I laid that defence down to Alun, and I anticipated you might come in with exactly that point, and you did, and fair play. But, actually, we're playing with the deck as we currently have. There is a regulatory structure, and our approach to this Bill reflects exactly where we are now. In future, there may well be arguments for further devolution of the regulatory bodies et cetera, but neither is that within this current Bill nor does it reflect where we currently are. So, this is actually a very pragmatic approach, Adam, I would say, to where the current regulatory body sits, where the current regulatory structure is, the mixture of England-and-Wales and Wales-only regulations that flow from the various legislation that's out there, rather than a future look at what could be at some point. But I do take your point—it could be done at some time in the future, if parties put forward the proposals and there was a consensus from the people of Wales and the Senedd to do it; it's just not where we are quite now.

Can I return to your original arguments? I accept what you're saying, but I think we also need to accept that this is not an act of God, but this is an act of Ministers taking decisions to do exactly what you're suggesting they've done. But you seem to be subtly changing the approach and stance of the Welsh Government as well, because the Welsh Government has always taken the view—and did when I was the water Minister—that the political border should be the border for water. And you will remember that the Welsh Government—and your officials will certainly remember—sought amendments to the Government of Wales legislation to reflect that, to remove the right of the Secretary of State to intervene on these occasions. So, the Welsh Government stance has always been that—. You say in the LCM,

'water is inherently a cross-border issue'.

That has not been the policy of the Welsh Government in the past, and that seems to me to be a significant change in the policy of the Welsh Government. Certainly, the Welsh Government has always sought to have—. And I don't think there is any inherent difficulty with having a single regulator. You can certainly follow the route that Adam has suggested, and I have no issue with that either—we do with Natural Resources Wales—but there has never been a serious attempt to make an argument that, because we have Ofwat, we cannot have political control of the water industry or legislative political control in Wales. That argument has not been made before, except, actually, in my experience, by David Jones, when he was Secretary of State, who was very clear about that. So, it's not been the Labour position, it's not been the Welsh Government position, in the past. And I would be very uncomfortable if the Welsh Government were to change its position on this and to say that, 'We cannot legislate. We shall have to do all of this stuff cross-border, because water is inherently a cross-border issue', otherwise we wouldn't have any environmental legislation at all, of course.

Well, I happen to agree with you fully. We're not changing our policy and we're not changing our position; we're actually being agile—

But the LCM says something different, and that's my issue.

The LCM recognises that there are significant areas of cross-border policy when it comes to the current regulatory structure, and also the way that we need to work together on water quality. I've said this repeatedly, from a policy perspective, on the floor of the Senedd. When we look at some of our iconic rivers, they do not look at where the border flows, as the Severn or the Wye travels back and forth across the border country. So, there is a pragmatic reason why, on this particular Bill, Alun—on this particular Bill—we've actually said, 'We want to be in that space, because we do have a commonality of agenda here', which, in our written submission, we've tried to explain. That doesn't mean that we don't do the water policy in Wales. We have our devolved competences here across water policy, but just sometimes, when a King's Speech throws up an element like this, which we might not be able to see the opportunity to legislate for until the seventh Senedd, but we are seized by the public concern around water quality, my goodness, we will get in there and say, 'How can we work effectively together?' But it doesn't take away at all, Alun, from the fact that we control our water policy here within Wales, our environmental approach, our pollution on rivers and all of that, and much of the regulatory structure. And of course, we still have that direct engagement with Ofwat and with other parts of the regulatory structure as well.

Yes. Look, I've no issue with opportunism, by the way. [Laughter.]

Okay.

Politically, you should know that of me. And I think leaping on an opportunity to achieve an objective is something that I have no issue with, and there's clearly going to be more commonality of interest between a UK Labour Government and a Welsh Labour Government than there would be between Governments of other colours in either place. So, we can anticipate and expect this, and I have no issue with that at all. My concern is, first of all, the wording of the LCM, which I'm not sure reflects what you've just said—and I welcome what you've just said, by the way; I welcome that clarity. And I'm not sure that it reflects also the place of the industry, if you like, in Wales. I'm not sure it reflects the Welsh situation, if you like. And certainly my concern would be that if a successor to yourself were to wish to continue to change the regulations around water quality in the way that you've done and I've voted for and welcomed then the arguments that you're pursuing on this occasion may undermine their ability to do that.

I understand what you're saying; I would simply make it clear that our approach to this Bill does not determine the approach of future and successive Governments or Ministers in this space. So if, for example, it was the will of the Senedd to take the Drinking Water Inspectorate and Ofwat and to move them entirely to Wales, then Ministers could respond to that. But we're not resiling here from our principled approach to making legislation within Wales within our devolved competences whatsoever. This is a pragmatic response, I have to say, to a Bill coming forward in the King's Speech. But I do know as well—. I think both the Counsel General and Minister for Delivery and I will both be back in front of the committee in a few weeks' time, not too long, where we can explore in great detail then the approach that we're taking forward and how that affects the wider UK legislation. Because this, of course, is not the only Bill that has been identified within the King's Speech that may give opportunities for Wales. And I think that is an important point: it's opportunities for Wales, as opposed to hanging on the coat tails of something that's come along for the sake of it. We wouldn't even be involved in this space, Alun, genuinely, unless we thought that this could deliver stuff that was good for our ambitions in Wales.

Nobody's arguing about that, and I don't want to carry on, because I know time is short, but the issue is, Deputy First Minister, that we've got a legislature just across the corridor there to do all of those different things, and, as you well know, when Ministers say, 'Okay, we're going to bypass the Senedd', then that creates real problems of democratic accountability for the process of legislating and the ability then to read the statute book with a level of coherence. There are problems from beginning to end with that process. I don't mind the opportunism, but when opportunism becomes a way of working, then we have a very real and serious problem.

Indeed. And simply to respond to that point, I mentioned in my earlier remarks that that is why this coming through as a framework Bill is of assistance to us, because, recognising those very points, that the Senedd doesn't have a direct impact on the primary legislation going through, we are very keen that, in the measures that flow from it in the secondary regulations, those will be brought through and they will be in that space.

I understand that, but that's where we were in 1999.

Okay. Thank you, Alun. Adam.

Thank you, Chair. This isn't a policy committee, so I want to respect that, but, just in general, would it be true to say that the policy approach in this area in Wales, as far as influence on the area in question, has been more encouraging and collaborative in nature with water companies, rather than punitive, which is core to this Bill? It's presenting serious new offences and penalties, and, to me, it doesn't go hand in hand with the kind of policy approach and tone that you've taken. So, am I right, therefore, that you're now changing your policy due to the direction of the Westminster Bill, which follows their policy?

No, it's a very good point. What we are doing within this Bill—if this Bill proceeds and passes; it's still a Bill at the moment, but I suspect, with the majority of the UK Labour Government, it will, with amendments being taken through as well, with proofing it for Wales as well—what we are doing, Adam, is we're taking the tools necessary. And it is reflective, I have to say, of Welsh Government intent on tackling water quality, tackling as well the responsibility of water companies. I mentioned earlier in remarks, of course, that we do have, with one of the two water companies in Wales, Dŵr Cymru, a not-for-dividend model. We do have an approach in Wales as well where we have sought to be very collaborative in the space around driving water quality, but we recognise as well, as is implicit in our taking forward measures in here for Wales within this Bill, that you also need those harder edged tools as well to hold people accountable and to drive that performance when they fail.

Okay, okay. A quickfire session now, Huw, because we're short on time.

Okay, yes.

Pa newidiadau ŷch chi wedi gofyn amdanyn nhw ŷch chi wedi llwyddo eu cael yn barod yn y Bil mor belled ag y mae Cymru yn y cwestiwn?

I missed a little bit of that.

Pa newidiadau ŷch chi wedi gofyn amdanyn nhw ŷch chi eisoes wedi cael cytundeb iddyn nhw?

Diolch yn fawr. I should have just listened in Welsh then. So, some of the significant ones we've already had include things such as making sure that the responsibilities of Welsh Ministers in this space are reflected within this Bill so that Welsh Ministers hold the powers. Also, you may have picked up that there was one aspect quite early on that we opted out of, because we weren't sure that it was directly applicable to Wales, but we took some time to look at that, and that was the pollution incident reduction plans, where we already have them on a voluntary basis within Wales, and we thought, 'Well, that probably does the job.' But, actually, on reflection, we've put forward now an amendment to actually seek to have Wales as part of that as well, and I think it reflects, Adam, the fact that there's a genuine live engagement here and a willingness to engage with the Welsh approach.

Pa rôl neu ba allu sydd gennym ni fel Aelodau o'r Senedd i gynnig gwelliannau y gallwch chi wedi hynny eu cyflwyno ar ran y Senedd i Lywodraeth San Steffan?

Well, genuinely, we would very much welcome—you wouldn't expect anything less from me, formerly being on this committee and also the climate change committee—we'd welcome suggestions and ideas coming forward, and, if they aligned with our imperatives as Welsh Government, clearly, we'd want to work with suggestions that were coming forward, whether that was on policy, or whether it was on other areas pertinent to this committee.

Pa waith ymgynghori ŷch chi wedi ei wneud tu fas i'r Senedd gyda rhanddeiliaid eraill a'r cyhoedd yng Nghymru i gael eu syniadau nhw ar gyfer gwelliannau i'r Bil?

The speed of this Bill has meant that we have not been able to do the normal widespread consultation on it. However, what we are very seized with is the opportunity of this within a framework Bill. We have, by the way, done stakeholder engagements; we've engaged with a range of stakeholders to get a Welsh perspective on the fundamental principles of this framework Bill, so we feel we're in a very good space on that. But when we actually take forward the detailed measures in secondary regulation, there will be much more opportunity, then, for not just stakeholder engagement, but, as appropriate, consultation with people as well. And that is, Adam, as well, why I don't think there'll be much of a difference, when we get to it, on the implementation timescales for this, but we might, in a couple of areas, actually want to go out and consult in a little bit more detail to get it absolutely right for Wales. That's our devolved competence.

Ie. Gyda'r is-ddeddfwriaeth, faint o sgôp fydd gyda ni fel Senedd i ddewis a dethol yr elfennau yn y Bil fydd yn cael eu gweithredu yng Nghymru? Hynny yw, pa mor eang fydd ein pwerau ni ar lefel eilradd?

I might turn to one of my colleagues here to show the extent to which we see both the regulations coming down the line and where they will appear on the Senedd. James, I don't know if you want to—.

Yes. There are a number of regulation-making powers contained in the Bill that sit with the Welsh Ministers in relation to Wales, including on reducing the standard of proof for certain civil sanctions, automatic penalties, potentially, in terms of pollution incident reduction plans. So, there are a number of regulation-making powers where that sits firmly with the Welsh Ministers.

Rwy'n credu bydd Natasha Asghar eisiau mynd i mewn i fwy o fanylder ar hynny, ond un cwestiwn olaf. Roeddech chi wedi sôn eich bod chi'n dal i gredu mewn datganoli pwerau dros ddŵr yng Nghymru. Ydych chi wedi, neu ydych chi'n bwriadu nawr, gweithredu ar y cymal yn dilyn Deddf Cymru 2017 fydd yn rhoi pŵer i ni yng Nghymru dros bob elfen o ddŵr yng Nghymru, nid dim ond y cwmnïau sydd â rhan fwyaf o'u gweithrediadau yng Nghymru?

That's slightly separate and outwith—

But it's somewhat relevant, isn't it? If you're introducing these new powers and offences, then it's important for us to know, as a Senedd, who will be making those decisions, whether it'll be Wales or Westminster, in relation to all companies that have water activities in Wales.

Do you want to add?

Yes. So, the enactment of section 48(1) of the Wales Act is what you're referring to, I think. So, our position has been that the creation of Hafren has meant that there's less of an immediate need to do that, because there are no longer any water companies operating mainly in England that provide services to Wales. So, there is less of an incentive, because, effectively, we do have full control over the water within our boundaries. However, we have committed to commencing the provision. It's a complex piece of work that will impact on several other areas of legislation. That needs to be properly considered, and it is taking some time. Our priority, at the moment, is to properly resource the Water Act and the work that goes behind that, whilst also still trying to keep the section 48(1) work progressing.

Okay.

Natasha.

Thank you so much, Chair. Thank you so much for the answers you've given so far. You mentioned, Minister, earlier on, about how various companies have different structures in Wales, particularly you touched upon Welsh Water, for example—they're operating as a not-for-dividend company. Was this taken into account in the development of the Bill to begin with?

The instigation of this Bill, clearly, has come from the King's Speech. But, from the very beginning of that, we were in those discussions and made very clear, both at official and ministerial level, that the different nature and characteristics of our not-for-dividend model needed to be taken into account, and that's been well received, I have to say. It also is preceded, on a policy basis, by the regular discussions we have with Ofwat and others in terms of the regulator, where we also make very clear—. But, in terms of this Bill, yes, our engagement has been very clear and precise on that matter.

Okay. And the different structures have been taken into account whilst making the Bill.

Yes, indeed. And, of course, the Bill is still ongoing as well, so we're continuing to have those discussions as well. But there is no doubt that UK Ministers are very seized by the different nature of one of the two water companies here in Wales.

Okay, great. Delegated powers under clause 6 of the Bill would allow the Welsh Ministers to specify in regulations the offences where automatic penalties must be imposed by Natural Resources Wales. Do you think it's appropriate for this to be a delegated power, rather than including the relevant offences on the face of the Bill itself?

We do. That is our judgment, because to have all the specific offences set out on the face of the Bill may not offer the flexibility that is required, and would not, actually, give the opportunity for us to come forward in that manner I've described, where we can bring forward the secondary regulation, properly engage with stakeholders, do consultations as necessary, and then fit it to Wales. But the secondary regulation model, as the committee will well know, also gives that flexibility for 'in future as well', for futureproofing it. So, rather than bolt it down in immutable black and white on the face of the primary legislation, giving that engagement going forward, and flexibility, we think, is the right way.

Before exercising any powers going forward, do you have any plans to make a commitment to undertake a consultation with the relevant stakeholders on a draft of the regulations?

On a draft of the regulations? Are we at that point where we've considered that yet, doing a draft on all the regulations, or is it more to do—? Sorry, I'm genuinely consulting here. Or is it going to be on specific ones as needed? Because that would have been my intention, I think, unless I'm going to be countermanded here, that we would do it on the ones that are specifically required, because some of them may be very technical, minor, and others would have more substantive impact. Clare.

I don't think we've got to the stage where we have fully ironed out the implementation. My understanding is that it would be clause specific, so we wouldn't necessarily consult on all of the regulations. But I think that will be decided as we progress, as the Bill goes through.

Is there a particular timeline you have in place, as to when you'll be in a better position to give us a timeline as to when that may actually take place?

No. We don't have a specific timeline, because the Bill is proceeding at pace, but we want to see the measures that flow from this Bill implemented in a timely manner with no significant delay from what might happen on an England basis. We're trying to do this in collaboration. There's sense as well in getting there roughly on the same timescale. I would anticipate, as the Minister taking this forward, that we might have a slight delay on some of the individual clauses, because we want to go out and consult and make sure it's right for Wales, but no significant delay. We don't have a specific timetable yet, because we haven't got the Bill progressed yet through Westminster.

That's fine. Thank you so much. Under clause 7, can you just confirm for the committee—or, in fact, you could reject it—whether the delegated powers under the Bill would be subject to negative procedures?

Yes, negative procedure. And we think this is right, by the way. We've looked at previous precedent on this, because what this is looking to do is move the abstraction and the impounding activities into a different spot within the legislative framework. It's largely administrative, it's aimed at futureproofing, as opposed to a significant policy development. So, on that basis and based on precedent of these sort of things, a negative procedure seems to us to be the right one. It's certainly been the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs’s analysis. We've looked at that analysis as well. We concur with that analysis that this should be a negative procedure.

Is there a reason why you did not ask for these powers to be made subject to the affirmative procedure, to potentially allow a greater role for the Senedd in scrutinising any proposed legislation?

It's because we see this as primarily an administrative measure, in moving those aspects of abstraction and impounding activities into another area. It's not fundamentally changing policy; it's just where they will be dealt with in legislation. So, on that basis, it seems more appropriate that a negative procedure is relevant for that. And, as I say, it's also based on previous precedent in similar changes within regulation.

Fine. Thank you so much, Chair.

Finally, from me, what regulatory and financial impact assessments have been undertaken on the provisions of the Bill that impact on Wales?

Thank you, Chair. Because of the speed of the development in the introduction of this Bill, there's been no opportunity to complete a regulatory and economic impact assessment. However, the secondary legislation that will flow from the Bill—and I've mentioned the way in which that helps us here in Wales—will be accompanied by all the required impact assessments.

Okay. Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary, for coming along and giving evidence to us this morning. I've got to tell you this: the transcript will be available—but I think you probably know that—for you to check. We're very pleased you came along, and thank you very much. We'll now break until 13:30.

Thank you very much. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Can I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language, Mark Drakeford, to the meeting this afternoon? I'd also like to welcome his officials. Thank you for joining us. Would your officials like to introduce themselves?

Bethan Webb, dirprwy gyfarwyddwr 'Cymraeg 2050', Llywodraeth Cymru.

Iwan Roberts. Dwi'n gyfreithiwr efo Llywodraeth Cymru.

Diolch. I'll start off with a very short question: are you satisfied that the Bill is within the Senedd's legislative competence?

Chair, thank you. Yes, of course we are confident that the Bill is within the competence of the Senedd. The Llywydd published a statement to set out her view that the provisions of the Bill are within the Senedd's competence as well.

Thank you. The explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill does not discuss human rights. Can you give us further details regarding the impact that the Bill will have on children and their families, with particular reference to article 2 of the first protocol to and article 14 of the European convention on human rights?

Thank you, Chair. I might see if Iwan wants to add anything to what I'm going to say. The explanatory memorandum doesn't deal directly with human rights. Of course, this is a Bill that essentially operates within the framework that already exists; children already attend school, and all the arrangements around their education are set out in earlier legislation. Chapter 9 of the EM does provide a summary of the impact assessments that were undertaken in order to give us confidence that the Bill is Human Rights Act 1998 compliant. That summary is a distillation of a series of separate impact assessments that were published together when the Bill was introduced to the Senedd on 15 July, and I think you will find that the children's impact assessment is clearly available to colleagues there. That gives us confidence that the human rights considerations that have to be satisfied in order for the Bill to be within competence—. The children's rights impact assessment gives us confidence that those aspects have been properly considered.

Diolch yn fawr. Natasha.

Thank you so much, Chair. Thank you so much, Cabinet Secretary. The Welsh Government carried out a public consultation on the proposals in the Bill during 2023. Why did you not consult on a draft Bill?

This has been a Bill in gestation for a long time. The original ideas that culminate in the Bill were there in documents that were published and discussed prior to the pandemic, and the pandemic had the same impact on capacity to legislate here as it did on so many other things. We did not choose to publish a draft Bill because of the depth of discussion that had already been carried out, and preferred instead to publish a White Paper. So, there was a White Paper, it was consulted upon in the normal way, it received hundreds of responses, and, of course, it came as well as part of the co-operation agreement's set of commitments.

I was very keen, when I did another job, to make sure that a place in the legislative programme was safeguarded for this Bill. A draft Bill would have pushed the legislative timetable even further towards the end of this Senedd term, and I think that would have eroded confidence that we could complete its Stages during this Senedd term. So, the depth of prior discussion, the needs of the timetable and the fact of the White Paper meant that I thought a draft Bill was not necessary.

Thank you so much for that. The Bill places a target of 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050—it's a figure we all have heard many times—on a statutory footing. What is the purpose of this, and what is the consequence for everyone if the target is not met?

The purpose of putting the target on a statutory basis—. And, of course, Natasha Asghar is right that that target existed already—so, it's not a new target in that sense. What the Bill does is to give it statutory force, and, in that sense, statutory stature as well; it just reinforces the importance of it. It's a target that has already captured the imagination. Lots of people are aware of it; it drives thinking and policy making in this area. Making it statutory, I think, ensures that we can futureproof it as a target, and give a clear context to support future decision making.

The second part of Natasha's question is a good one, though: what are the consequences of not achieving it? In some ways, the consequences are reputational rather than legal, because I don't think it's right to place legal jeopardy on the shoulders of people who are not in control of the outcome that you are seeking to achieve. There are so many things that Ministers can do and so much that the Senedd can do, but in the end, you are not in charge of all the different factors that would contribute to whether or not that target is achieved.

Of course, in front of a different committee, Chair, I was asked what would happen if the 1 million speakers were achieved ahead of the target. Would we have to slow down, because the target was 2050 and we wouldn't be allowed to reach it before then? Of course, that isn't the effect of putting it on a statutory basis. So, the consequences will be reputational and an impact on policy making, but not a strictly legal consequence.

Thank you so much, Cabinet Secretary. Section 10(3) specifies that the minimum amount of Welsh language education for the primarily English language, partly Welsh language category must be no less than 10 per cent. In evidence to the Children, Young People and Education Committee, your official noted that this does not mean that every single pupil across Wales has to have 10 per cent and that gives 'a bit of leeway'. Can you explain how this will be provided for in regulations made under section 10?

The obligation is on the school not on the individual, so the school must ensure that a minimum of 10 per cent of the compulsory part of the school day is devoted to the Welsh language. And just to be clear, Chair, that doesn't mean that the whole of that has to be teaching Welsh; it can be delivering a sports lesson using the Welsh language as the medium of instruction. But it's for the school to achieve that 10 per cent. You can't place that at the level of an individual pupil. Children fall ill. Children are not in school for other reasons as well. The question was asked in the context of children with additional learning needs and how would it be possible for them to secure this. Well, placing the obligation at the school level does allow that bit of leeway to accommodate the requirements of the Bill with the circumstances of an individual child.

Thank you so much. Section 28 of the Bill requires each local authority to prepare its own local Welsh in education strategic plan. In doing so, they have to consult a significant list of consultees, as set out in section 28(4), including their neighbouring authorities, who will probably be doing their own consulting as well. If all 22 local authorities are preparing their plans at around the same time, is it feasible for all of the consultees to deal with this workload?

My understanding—and again, I'll make sure that I give you the best information I can—is that the consultation requirements that this Bill sets out essentially reflect the consultation arrangements around the WESPs that were set out in the founding Act, the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013. The obligation to consult neighbouring authorities, for example, is in that Act and has been part of WESP preparation ever since.

There are a couple of new consultees identified in this Bill, but they are not ones I think you'd regard particularly burdensome. There's a requirement, for example, to seek the views of the Welsh Language Commissioner. The commissioner will have views and the commissioner will be publishing material on this, so you wouldn't have to make a special effort to hear from the Welsh Language Commissioner. The national institute that the Bill brings into being is also a consultee for these purposes. But the list of things, Natasha, that you went through—I'll just check—is broadly the same list of consultees that are currently required.

Yes, that's right.

All right, fine. I'm very glad that you touched upon the National Institute for Learning Welsh, because that was going to be my next question. Part 5 of the Bill creates the National Institute for Learning Welsh, and section 37(2) sets out the steps that the institute must take to meet its objectives. Those steps involve a number of third parties but there is no requirement on the face of the Bill for those third parties to engage with the institute, nor is there any consequence if those third parties do not comply with what the institute requires when discharging its duties under section 37(2). So, can you please just set out for me, as well as the committee, how this is intended to actually work in practice? What consequences will there be for the third parties, if, indeed, they don't comply with anything required by them from the institute itself?

So, Chair, the relationship is essentially a contractual one. So, the national institute will contract with a number of Welsh language learning providers. You would expect the institute to monitor that contract, to monitor compliance with that contract, and if a provider was not carrying out the terms of the contract, to intervene to secure compliance. In the end, the consequence for the provider, for the third party, is that they lose the contract. So, there is a significant potential penalty for an organisation, in that relationship with the national institute, if it fails to deliver what it has been contracted to deliver.

So, the only outcome for not complying will be losing the contract, nothing else?

Well, I think that's the ultimate sanction, isn't it? As I said, you would expect the institute to have contract monitoring. It's the way the Welsh Government would monitor grants, in our case, that we make to third sector organisations. You receive regular reports, you monitor to make sure it's doing what the grant is set out to do, you can intervene if you feel that it's going off track. The backstop is losing the contract; it's what happens at the end, if you haven't been able to put things right otherwise, not the first thing that you would do.

Okay. Thank you so much for that. I'm so sorry, I was about to call you First Minister then—my apologies. So, Cabinet Secretary, the explanatory memorandum to the Bill states that the new institute will be an arm's-length body. Can you please explain how this will work in practice, given that its chair and its non-executive members are going to be appointed by Welsh Ministers here, and it is to operate within a strategic planning and funding framework established by Welsh Ministers?

Well, Chair, the national institute will operate in just the same way as any other arm's-length body that is established by the Welsh Government. Of course, Natasha is right that the chair and the board will be appointed by Welsh Ministers, but that's not an arbitrary process. As you know, we are governed by a code of conduct for public appointments. The involvement of the commissioner is always part of that. Ministers will get advice in which the commissioner will have been directly involved. So, yes, Ministers appoint, but it's not a matter of Ministers choosing names from the phone book. There's a rigorous process that lies behind it, with an element of independence in it. And, yes, the chief funding stream for the institute will be the Welsh Government, but it will have its own accountable officer, who will be responsible for the financial oversight of the organisation and will have independent legal obligations and capacities of their own.

So, I think, 25 years into devolution, we've a significant history now of a maturing relationship between the Welsh Government and the arm's-length bodies that it establishes, which aims to make sure that those bodies are aligned with the democratically agreed purposes of the Welsh Government, but have a sufficient degree of independence to be able to pursue those objectives without the Welsh Government being in a daily oversight relationship.

Okay. Thank you so much, Chair.

Diolch. Adam.

Thank you, Chair. I should, at the outset, declare some kind of—. Well, I'm not sure whether it's an interest or not, but I would just note my involvement with the co-operation agreement, and we had some discussions, I remember, with regard to the White Paper, although I didn't see a draft of the Bill that we are discussing today. I just wanted to put that on the record.

Just to begin with a quick question: are private schools captured within the scope of this Bill?

No.

Why not? That's the next question.

Well, it's a policy decision that the Bill focuses on schools that are the responsibility of the state. So, in the sense that they're dealing with schools, it's state schools that are being dealt with. You could argue, perhaps, that some parts of the Bill, potentially, in some way or another, could have some effect on non-state schools, but one of the main purposes of the Bill is to focus on state schools, and that's what those sections do. They don't deal directly with independent schools.

Jest i aros yn fanna, i ddilyn y rhesymeg hynny—a diolch am yr ateb—onid yw e'n bosib, yn wir, i ddweud ar y lefel uchaf mai un o nodau'r Bil ydy galluogi pob disgybl, pob plentyn yng Nghymru, i adael y system addysg yn meddu ar y ddwy iaith, bod o leiaf isafswm o sgiliau Cymraeg gyda phawb, a bod hwnna'n rhyw fath o hawl y gall unrhyw blentyn yng Nghymru ei disgwyl? Pam amddifadu tua 10,000, neu rywbeth felly, o blant ar unrhyw adeg sydd mewn ysgolion preifat o'r hawl hynny? Ac onid yw Llywodraeth Cymru yn rheoleiddio rhai agweddau o addysg mewn ysgolion preifat?

Wel, mae'n wir i ddweud bod y Llywodraeth yn rheoleiddio rhai elfennau, ond fel, mae'n debyg, y byddwch chi'n gwybod, i gymharu â'r rheolaeth sydd yna ar ysgolion y wladwriaeth, does yna ddim cymhariaeth, a bod yn onest. Os ydych chi'n edrych ar bethau fel y cwricwlwm, er enghraifft, mae yna lot o ddeddfu ynglŷn â beth sy'n mynd ymlaen yn ysgolion y wladwriaeth, ond dim ar gyfer ysgolion annibynnol. Mae'n gwestiwn digon teg, ond cwestiwn polisi, yn ei hanfod, ydy o, o ran—

Gan ei fod e'n gwestiwn polisi, efallai y dylem ni adael i'r gwleidydd ateb. Hynny yw, beth yw'r penderfyniad polisi sydd wedi gyrru'r eithriad yma i'r ysgolion preifat?

Wel, dwi'n meddwl mai'r rheswm polisi oedd i ganolbwyntio ar ysgolion ble mae'r Llywodraeth yn gallu cael yr effaith fwyaf. Ac wrth gwrs, mae pobl sy'n mynd i'n hysgolion ni yng Nghymru yn byw yng Nghymru. Nid yw lot o'r plant sy'n mynd i ysgolion preifat yn byw yng Nghymru o gwbl. So, rydyn ni wedi canolbwyntio ar ysgolion ble rydyn ni'n gallu cael yr effaith fwyaf i'n helpu ni, fel roedd Adam Price yn dweud, i gyrraedd y nod ble bydd miliwn o siaradwyr Cymraeg a ble bydd pobl ifanc sy'n dod mas o'r system addysg yn gallu cyfrannu at y nifer yna achos byddan nhw'n fwy hyderus yn eu defnydd o'r iaith Gymraeg.

Pe bai'r polisi yn newid mor belled ag ysgolion preifat, a fyddai'r Bil yn rhoi'r gallu trwy reoliadau i ymestyn sgôp y Bil—sgôp y Ddeddf, hynny yw—i'r ysgolion preifat?

Ddim ar hyn o bryd, na.

Ocê. O ran y nod yma o sicrhau, o ran y deilliant ieithyddol, fod pawb yn gadael y system addysg yn gallu siarad Cymraeg yn hyderus, mi oedd yna gyfeiriad at hynny yn y Papur Gwyn, onid oedd, ac mi oedd yna ddiffiniad o ran beth sydd yn gyfystyr â hyn—lefel B2 o dan y fframwaith cyfeirio Ewropeaidd cyffredin, CEFR. Roedd hynny yn y Papur Gwyn, ac mae'n awgrymu bod hynny'n cael ei gyflawni erbyn 2050. Yn y Bil, a chywirwch fi os ydw i'n anghywir, dwi'n credu ei fod e'n dweud ar hyn o bryd, yn hytrach na blwyddyn glir, y bydd erbyn dyddiad a bennir gan Weinidogion Cymru drwy reoliadau—hynny yw, bydd hynny'n cael ei osod gan Weinidogion. Pam y newid hynny rhwng y Papur Gwyn oedd â blwyddyn darged glir a’r hyn sydd yn y Bil, os ydw i’n gywir yn hyn o beth?

Wel, Cadeirydd, mae nifer o bethau yn y Bil, ac maen nhw'n dibynnu ar yr amserlen, ac ambell waith rŷn ni wedi tynnu mwy o hyblygrwydd i ddweud pryd fydd pethau yn digwydd achos y byddan nhw'n dibynnu ar bethau eraill yn y Bil. O flaen y pwyllgor plant, roedden nhw’n gofyn am amserlen. Mae popeth yn yr EM yn barod, ac rŷn ni wedi tynnu mas o’r EM ryw fath o amserlen eithaf syml i helpu pobl i ddeall beth sy’n mynd i ddigwydd a phryd, ac i helpu pobl i weld perthynas rhwng beth rŷn ni’n mynd i wneud ar ddechrau’r daith—achos mae’r Bil yn Fil eithaf hirdymor; mae’n mynd i gymryd degawd i wneud popeth sydd yn y Bil—. Dwi’n hapus i rannu'r llythyr a’r amserlen gyda’r pwyllgor i helpu ateb y cwestiwn mae Adam wedi'i ofyn.

Jest i fi ddeall—hynny yw, adran 11, dwi’n meddwl, a’r nodau dysgu Cymraeg dwi’n cyfeirio atyn nhw—yr awgrym yw bod y rheini'n gallu cael eu gosod, yr amserlen ar gyfer y rheini, trwy reoliadau. Ar ôl gosod y rheoliadau a gosod y targed, a fyddai Llywodraeth newydd yn gallu dileu'r targedau hynny trwy reoliadau hefyd, gan nad yw'r targed, felly, ar wyneb y Bil?

Na. Y ffordd mae’n gweithredu ydy, ar hyn o bryd, fod ysgolion prif iaith Saesneg, rhannol Gymraeg yn dysgu mewn cyd-destun sylfaenol, felly rydyn ni angen symud pob ysgol dros y pum i 10 mlynedd nesa, yn dibynnu ar argaeledd gweithlu, i dop A2, ac wedyn mi fyddwn ni'n gallu gwneud rheoliadau i symud yr ysgolion prif iaith Saesneg, rhannol Gymraeg, fel ein bod ni’n gallu nodi mai eu nod dysgu nhw ydy B1, a B2 wedyn, fel dysgwyr annibynnol. Felly, dyna pam mae o wedi cael ei nodi fel hyn, achos, ar hyn o bryd, dydy’r gallu i gyrraedd y nod yna ddim gyda’r ysgolion prif iaith Saesneg, rhannol Gymraeg, ond, mewn degawd, mi fyddwn ni’n gallu gosod rheoliadau sy’n eu symud nhw i fyny’r continwwm iaith. Ar hyn o bryd, yn y ffordd mae’r Bil wedi cael ei greu, mae yna nod gallu yn y Gymraeg yn cael ei rhoi yn gyfystyr â phob categori iaith. Felly, dros amser, mi fydd yna gynnydd yng ngallu’r disgyblion hynny ym mhob categori iaith.

Ond a oedd yna awgrym yn y Papur Gwyn y byddai nod clir o ran y targed ar wyneb y Bil, hynny yw ble fyddem ni’n cyrraedd erbyn 2050, ac ydy hynny yn awr wedi cael ei adael i reoliadau? Dwi’n deall yr angen, efallai, i newid wrth gyrraedd tuag at y targed, ond oedd yna fwriad i roi’r targed o ran y nodau dysgu erbyn 2050 ar wyneb y Bil?

Part 1 outlines the target of reaching a million Welsh speakers on the face of the Bill, and that means that everyone who would be leaving the education system would need to be Welsh speakers—independent speakers. So, there's a link between the million target and moving the system along the language continuum.

O ran y targed o filiwn o siaradwyr Cymraeg, sut ŷch chi’n diffinio beth yw siaradwr Cymraeg, a sut ŷch chi’n mynd i’w fesur e?

Wel, dŷn ni ddim yn diffinio hynny ar wyneb y Bil achos rŷn ni jest yn aros gyda’r egwyddor o hunanddiffiniad.

So, it's a fundamental principle, which is now reflected in this Bill, that if Welsh belongs to everybody, then it is for individuals to say whether or not they believe themselves to be speakers of the language, rather than for the Government to instruct them as to whether they are or not, and that does lead you into some difficulties of how do you define who is a Welsh speaker or not.

Well, take me as an example: I speak Welsh every day. I engage in Cwis Bob Dydd every day. But would you describe me as a Welsh speaker? I have a huge lack of confidence in speaking Welsh in formal settings like this. I'm happy to speak it in chapel, happy to speak it in my community. And I'm sure there are a lot of other people like me. I mean, which side do I come down on: as a Welsh speaker or a non-Welsh speaker?

Well, I think you've absolutely illustrated, Chair, the difficulties we would be in if there was a Government definition, that you then had to use what we believed to be the case, rather than, as an individual, being able to describe yourself in different ways, depending upon the context that you are in. Where this Bill will undoubtedly help will be that, through the use of the European common framework, you will be able to assess your own ability according to the levels that the common framework sets out. And I think that will help people enormously in that very fraught question for lots of people: do you say you are a Welsh speaker or not? Because, in some contexts, you would regard yourself in that way and, in other contexts, you would not. And that basic principle is preserved in this Bill.

Hyd yn oed yn y cyd-destun, wrth gwrs, o atebion hunanddiffiniedig, mae gyda chi data y cyfrifiad 10 mlynedd, ac wedyn mae gyda chi arolygon sydd yn digwydd rhwng cyfrifiadau, sydd yn rhoi darluniau pur wahanol, mewn ffordd. Hynny yw, pa un o'r rheini, felly, ŷch chi'n bwriadu eu defnyddio i fesur cynnydd yn erbyn y targed sydd ar wyneb y Bil?

Wel, mae'r Bil yn rhoi pwerau i'r Gweinidogion defnyddio ffyrdd o ddata newydd, posibiliadau newydd, sy'n dod atom ni dros yr amser sydd i ddod. Rŷn ni wedi dibynnu ar y cyfrifiad, ond rŷn ni'n gwybod dyw dyfodol y cyfrifiad ddim yn hollol glir. Yn y Llywodraeth ddiwethaf, roedd yna lot o bethau roedden nhw wedi'u dweud am ailwampio'r cyfrifiad i gyd. So, rŷn ni wedi creu pwerau yn y Bil i ddefnyddio'r cyfrifiad, fel rŷn ni wedi, pan fo hwnnw ar gael, ond hefyd i ddefnyddio ffynonellau eraill o ddata i'n helpu ni yn y maes. Fel mae'r pwyllgor yn gwybod, mae lot o wahaniaeth rhwng y cyfrifiad ar un ochr a'r ffigurau eraill sy'n dod mas bob blwyddyn. So, mae'r Bil yn ein helpu ni achos gallwn ni wneud mwy yn y dyfodol i ddefnyddio'r data ble fydd posibiliadau newydd yn codi.

I aros gyda diffiniadau a thermau am ychydig bach yn fwy, mae'r Bil yn defnyddio'r term 'addysg Gymraeg' yn hytrach na'r term efallai mwy confensiynol, 'addysg gyfrwng Cymraeg'. Allwch chi esbonio pam a beth yw'r wahaniaeth—pam ddewis y naill ac nid y llall?

Diolch, Cadeirydd, i Adam Price, achos mae hwnna'n bwynt pwysig yn y Bil. Mae'r Bil yn cefnogi addysg drwy gyfrwng y Gymraeg, ac rŷn ni eisiau gweld mwy o blant yng Nghymru yn dod i gael addysg drwy gyfrwng y Gymraeg, ac mae'r Bil yn gefnogol o hynny. Ond hefyd rŷn ni'n gwybod, ar hyn o bryd, mae'r mwyafrif o blant yng Nghymru yn cael eu haddysg, mwy neu lai, drwy'r Saesneg, ac mae'r Bil hefyd yn canolbwyntio arnyn nhw.

So, alongside the support that the Bill gives to Welsh-medium education, we use this broader term of 'Welsh language education', because we will not succeed in getting to that 1 million speakers unless we can turn out, from primarily English-medium schools, children who are better able to use the Welsh language than they are now, 30 years after it became a compulsory subject in mostly English schools. So, we use the term 'Welsh language education' because the Bill has a real emphasis on making a better job of turning out young people who are confident and capable users of the language whose primary medium of instruction is English. So, the term is there because it is broader than Welsh-medium education, although the Bill is absolutely supportive of Welsh-medium education and the wish to see that an expanded part of our future.

If we may turn now to a subject that you've already covered in evidence to the Children, Young People and Education Committee, namely these exemptions—esemptiadau in Welsh, that's what I've got down in front of me now—for schools that request additional time to reach that minimum of 10 per cent, isn't it, of Welsh language education. You have the ability, over time, to increase that minimum. So, very simply, what happens if you use this power? Does the clock, as it were, start again? Can a school that's used its exemptions—? I believe my notes state that you've confirmed that schools will only be able to do that twice. But can a school then use two further exemptions because that minimum level has increased?

No. The Bill doesn't provide an opportunity for schools to re-use exemptions. So, we've provided exemptions in order to help schools meet the 10 per cent level and those schools have a decade to reach that point. When they are at that level, anything that future Governments will do to raise that level, that will come out of the work that we're doing with schools, so that floor will already be there. At the moment, we don't think it would be reasonable to provide more opportunities after that to have further exemptions. So, there are exemptions in order to help people meet the level. After that, the intention or the ambition is to raise that level, but I don't see a strong case to provide more opportunities after that to use exemptions to delay our ambition to raise the level.

Okay. Well, that's very clear. Moving on now to section 20(2) of the Bill, it gives the Welsh Ministers a regulation-making power in respect of community special school Welsh language education plans to set out a number of matters, such as the duration of the plan, the timing and so on. Those matters are set out on the face of the Bill for other schools, so why was this not possible for the community special schools?

Well, the Bill makes it a requirement for schools of that kind to draw up a plan and to have a plan as part of the new system that we're creating. But the Bill doesn't make it a requirement for schools to be in any one category and that just reflects the fact that pupils will have many different needs.

Dwys a gwahanol.

They could have different needs. So, schools will have the right to say, 'We're in 'this category', but we're not making it a requirement to do so, in order to reflect the fact that the children will have different needs.

Thank you for that.

Natasha.

I'm so sorry to interrupt. Cabinet Secretary, there's a question in my mind that's been rattling in my brain. You touched upon ALN—additional learning needs—earlier, and I appreciate that different schools have different students with different needs. I've met with the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, and I'm sure many colleagues have as well, and one issue that they have is that there are not enough therapists across the board, as it is, in Wales, and there are even fewer who speak in Welsh. My concern is that, and power to everyone who wants to learn Welsh and I admire the target—. But my question is: in this Bill, what's going to be done or what process are you going to be bringing into place to provide those speech therapists and language therapists with the skills and tools to learn Welsh to be able to teach it to children and young people, and people from all backgrounds and ages, who want to learn Welsh and learn it well?

Thank you to Natasha Asghar for the question, Chair. The biggest challenge at the heart of the Bill is the workforce; it’s to be able to develop a workforce capable of delivering the level of involvement in the Welsh language that the Bill seeks to establish and then to expand. And that is true of classroom teachers, but it is also true, in the case of children with particular needs, of all those support staff that those children will rely on. It is partly for those reasons that, in those community special schools, we haven’t required them to place themselves in a particular language category, because it’s an understanding not only of the challenges of the young people in those schools but the complexity of the care that those children will require and the range of different professional disciplines that they will need to draw on. Now, our ambition is to grow those capacities and to do that with that ancillary team alongside classroom teachers, but that’s why we haven’t made it obligatory. And it’s also why, as I said in an earlier answer, this is a Bill for the long term, because it recognises that those capacities will have to be grown, and you can’t necessarily do that in the short run.

Okay, thank you. Thanks so much.

Mae'r Bil yn ei gwneud hi'n ofynnol i gyrff llywodraethu ac awdurdodau lleol gytuno rhyngddynt ar gynlluniau cyflawni addysg Gymraeg, a hefyd wedyn i’r awdurdod lleol a Gweinidogion Cymru gytuno ar gynlluniau strategol lleol Cymraeg mewn addysg. Beth sy’n digwydd os oes yna impasse ar y naill lefel neu’r llall? Hynny yw, oes modd i’r Gweinidogion wedyn arosod os oes rhaid, a dim modd dod i gytundeb ar gynllun? Hynny yw, rydyn ni’n gyfarwydd iawn gyda’r cynlluniau strategol Cymraeg mewn addysg, er enghraifft, hynny yw, cyrraedd y pwynt yna lle mae pobl yn rhwystredig oherwydd does yna ddim symud ymlaen. So, sut mae’r system newydd yn mynd i fod yn wahanol, a sut mae modd yn y diwedd sicrhau bod yna gynnydd yn digwydd?

Wel, Cadeirydd, yn y diwedd, mae’r pwerau gyda’r Gweinidogion o dan Ddeddf 2013, pwerau mae’r Gweinidogion yn gallu defnyddio os oes impasse wedi ei gyrraedd. Fel roeddwn i’n dweud yn yr ateb i gwestiwn Natasha, mae hwnna’n rhywbeth ar ddiwedd y dydd. Mae lot o brofiad nawr gyda’r awdurdodau lleol trwy’r WESPs ac yn y blaen, a’r ffordd orau, wrth gwrs, i ddelio â’r system newydd yw trwy gydweithio. Yn y diwedd, os dyw hwnna ddim yn digwydd ac mae’r system wedi dod i’r pwynt lle dydyn nhw ddim yn gallu symud ymlaen heb gael mewnbwn wrth bobl eraill, bydd pwerau gan Weinidogion yn y Llywodraeth i sefyll i mewn—

Adam—sorry, I thought you'd finished then—can we move on to Alun? We're into the last 21 minutes. If you've got anything—

Yes, sure.

Ond, jest i fod yn glir, dyw'r Bil yma ddim yn rhoi unrhyw bwerau newydd i Weinidogion Cymru ymyrryd mewn sefyllfa lle mae awdurdod addysg lleol yn gwrthwynebu cynllun addysg y Gymraeg.

Mae Iwan yn moyn dod i mewn.

Jest i adio i beth oedd yr Ysgrifennydd yn ei ddweud, swyddogaethau addysg fydd y rhain, felly mae'r pwerau sydd yn Neddf 2013 sy'n berthnasol i awdurdodau lleol a Gweinidogion Cymru—hynny yw, gorfodi os oes rhaid—. Felly, mae hwn yn eistedd o fewn y system yma.

Diolch. Thank you. Alun.

Roeddwn i'n meddwl efallai fod Bethan eisiau ychwanegu rhywbeth.

Ie, jest i ychwanegu bod y targedau'n dargedau statudol y tro hyn o dan y Ddeddf. Dyna'r gwahaniaeth rhwng y system gyfredol a'r system o dan y Bil, achos targedau anstatudol rydyn ni'n eu gweithredu ar hyn o bryd mewn cydweithrediad efo'r awdurdodau lleol. Ond mae'r ffaith bod y filiwn yn darged statudol ar wyneb y Bil rŵan, yn gyrru'r cynllunio strategol, yn golygu bod y targedau sydd yn cael eu gosod drwy'r cynlluniau lleol yn dargedau statudol, ac felly'n gweithredu'n wahanol i Ddeddf 2013.

Diolch. And now on to you, Alun.

Diolch yn fawr. Dwi eisiau jest edrych ar gydbwysedd y pwerau sydd yn bodoli ac yn cael eu creu yn y Bil yma. Mae yna dros, dwi'n credu, 30 o bwerau newydd sy'n cael eu creu i Weinidogion fel rhan o'r Bil, a dwi'n awyddus i ddeall os ydy'r Gweinidog yn hyderus bod y cydbwysedd yna o ran beth sydd ar wyneb y Bil a beth sy'n dod wedyn mewn is-ddeddfwriaeth yn gytbwys.

I believe it is, Chair. There are subordinate legislation powers in the Bill, but the majority of them are for use through the affirmative procedure. There is more on the face of the Bill than the White Paper suggested. So, we have moved more things into the primary legislation than was originally planned, and that was in response to some of the points raised in the White Paper consultation. I think that those powers that are subject to the negative procedure—I think there are eight of them in the Bill all together—genuinely do conform to the guidance that the Welsh Government has published—that's to say that they are technical in nature, and administrative in nature—and where there are powers in the Bill to proceed via regulation, any of those that have a substantive impact will be subject to further scrutiny by the Senedd through its own subordinate legislation procedures.

A dyna'r cwestiwn sydd gen i. Os ydyn ni'n edrych ar adran 23(9), mae hynny'n creu grym, os ydw i'n deall hyn yn iawn, i wneud gwelliannau drwy reoliadau, ac nid drwy ddeddfu. So, dŷch chi'n newid deddfwriaeth sydd wedi'i chreu gan y Senedd drwy orchymyn, drwy air Gweinidog, ac mae hynny wedyn yn meddwl does dim craffu i'w gael gan y Senedd. Dwi'n deall y procedures dŷch chi'n eu defnyddio, ond mae'n meddwl bod y Senedd wedi cytuno deddfwriaeth a bod Gweinidog wedyn yn gallu newid y ddeddfwriaeth heb y fath o graffu y buasem ni eisiau ei weld ar y ddeddfwriaeth ei hun.

Wel, dydy Gweinidogion ddim yn gallu newid y gyfraith heb gael cytundeb y Senedd, a dyna pam—

Ond heb y craffu, dyna dŷn ni'n sôn amdano.

Well, I didn't come here this afternoon to be controversial, Chair—that was never part of my ambition—but I do remember a previous conversation in front of this committee, and I'll make the point again. The procedures that the Senedd has to have overnight of and scrutiny of subordinate legislation, I think, are very significant. Whether the Senedd uses them to the extent that it should is a matter for the Senedd, of course, not for Ministers. You will have sat, and I have sat, many times in the Senedd when subordinate legislation is brought forward, where it is using the affirmative procedure, or even sometimes the superaffirmative procedure, often at the urging of committees, and the debate goes like this: the Minister introduces the regulations; the Llywydd says, 'I have no further speakers, does the Minister wish to respond?', and it's all over. So, if I was to identify a weakness in the system, it would be less in the way in which legislation creates subordinate ways of doing things than that the Senedd itself doesn't always make full use of the powers of scrutiny that it has in the making of that legislation.

Now, I believe that this Bill gets the balance right. When there are merely administrative changes, it's a negative procedure; where there are more significant uses of subordinate legislation, this Bill provides the Senedd with, I think, a suitable opportunity to make sure that things are scrutinised.

Rydych chi'n gwneud pwynt teg ac yn ei wneud e'n bwerus iawn, a dwi'n cytuno â hynny, fel mae'n digwydd. Ond pan ddaw hi i'r pwyllgor yma a'r pwyllgorau eraill yn craffu ar y Bil fel y mae e, pan fydd cymaint o reoliadau yn dod wedi hynny, a phwerau i Weinidogion ddod â rheoliadau newydd i mewn, mae'n anodd wedyn i graffu ar y Bil mewn pwyllgor, a'r pwyllgor plant a phobl ifanc sy'n gwneud hynny. Er enghraifft, rydyn ni'n sôn, yn section 10, dwi'n meddwl, lle mae Gweinidogion yn gwneud rheoliadau fydd yn diffinio faint o addysg Gymraeg sy'n digwydd mewn un categori iaith. Nawr, mae hynny'n eithaf pwysig. Rydyn ni i gyd yn gwybod ei fod yn gallu bod yn rhywbeth eithaf controversial hefyd, mewn rhai settings. Hwn yw'r math o beth lle efallai mae yna gwestiwn da, ac efallai bod angen mwy o feddwl ai mynd drwy'r rheoliadau ydy'r ffordd orau. Dwi'n gallu gweld y ddadl dros hynny, ond, i ni fel Aelodau sy'n trio craffu ar y Bil, mae'n gwneud ein job ni yn anodd iawn, a phan ddaw hi at reoliadau penodol yn dod nôl i'r Senedd, wrth gwrs, rydyn ni'n ei wneud e mewn ffordd eithaf piecemeal, onid ydyn ni? Dydyn ni ddim yn edrych ar y darlun llawn, a dwi'n meddwl bod hynny'n broblem i ni hefyd.

Wel, Cadeirydd, dwi'n cytuno taw pwyntiau teg y mae Alun Davies wedi'u gwneud. Wrth gwrs, yng nghyd-destun y pwerau penodol, rŷn ni wedi rhoi 10 y cant ar wyneb y Bil, so dyna ble ŷn ni'n dechrau. Yn y dyfodol, os bydd hwnna yn cael ei newid, dwi ddim yn meddwl mai'r ffordd orau fyddai mynd nôl at Fil newydd i newid y ffigur yna. So, mae hwnna'n mynd i gael ei wneud trwy regulations ac yn y blaen, ac mae hwnna jest yn rhywbeth ymarferol. Dwi'n cytuno ei fod e'n creu rhyw fath o sialens ar hyn o bryd, achos bydd hwnna'n mynd i ddigwydd yn y dyfodol. Ond hwnna yw'r ffordd i gadw'r Bil yn fyw, ac mae'r Bil yn mynd i gael effaith ar y maes addysg a chyfleon i blant dros ddegawd a mwy. Dyna'r cyfle i ni roi pethau yn eu lle i'n helpu ni i wneud hynny yn y tymor hir, a dyna pam mae'n bwysig cadw rhyw fath o hyblygrwydd trwy is-ddeddfwriaeth.

Dwi'n fodlon â hynny. Mae'r Gweinidog, wrth ateb y cwestiwn, wrth gwrs, wedi herio'r pwyllgor hefyd, ac mae yna Fil sy'n dod gerbron y Senedd yfory sy'n delio â sut rŷn ni'n delio ag is-ddeddfwriaeth, a dwi'n meddwl efallai y dylai'r pwyllgor feddwl amboutu geiriau'r Gweinidog pan fyddwn ni'n ystyried hynny yn nes ymlaen yn ystod y misoedd nesaf.

Dwi'n fodlon. Dim mwy o gwestiynau gen i.

Okay, fine. Did we complete everything you wanted to complete, Adam? Because we jumped on when you were in full flow.

Dim ond un cwestiwn oedd gyda fi ar ôl. Mae'n un penodol iawn. Mae Cadeirydd y pwyllgor plant wedi ysgrifennu atoch chi, dwi'n credu, i dynnu sylw at y gwahaniaeth rhwng testun Cymraeg a thestun Saesneg y Bil. Allwch chi gadarnhau y bydd adolygiad trylwyr yn cael ei gynnal i sicrhau cysondeb rhwng y fersiynau gwahanol?

Gallaf i gadarnhau hwnna, Cadeirydd. Roedd e'n rhywbeth a wnaeth fy nharo i wrth dderbyn y llythyr: wrth gwrs, mae'r Bil hwn wedi cael ei greu yn Gymraeg, ac wedi'i gyfieithu i'r Saesneg, a dyw hwnna ddim yn digwydd bob tro. Fel arfer, mae pobl yn codi pethau lle nad yw'r Gymraeg cweit yn gwneud yr un peth â'r Saesneg. Y tro yma, roedd y broblem gyda'r Saesneg nid gyda'r Gymraeg, ac roedd hwnna'n ddiddorol, roeddwn i'n meddwl. Ond gallaf i ddweud, wrth gwrs, ein bod ni bob tro yn mynd trwy'r Gymraeg a'r Saesneg i fod yn glir eu bod nhw yn y lle gorau a bod un yn adlewyrchu'r llall.

Iawn, diolch yn fawr. Ocê, dwi wedi gorffen.

Finally, it comes to me. The statement of policy intent refers on numerous occasions to there being correlation between various regulation-making powers and duties in the Bill. However, the nature of this correlation is not stated. Can you provide further information about what the correlation between the powers and duties actually is?

Chair, the term 'correlation' is used, I think, three times in the Bill, and it is there simply to make sure that different strands across the Bill are drawn together when they have a cumulative impact on the policy intention that the Government is pursuing, because this is a Bill with five different Parts. They are interrelated in a number of different ways, and for the sake of trying to make sure that the policy intent is clearly conveyed to those who are interested in it, we used that term in that sense. I'm sure we can offer some examples of how that is to be used in a practical way.

Yes, it's about the interrelationship and the sequencing, as the Minister said, between the different Parts. So, Part 2, which is the code to describe the common European framework, then needs to be in place for other bits of the Bill to work. So, it's about the interrelationship and the sequencing.

Okay, if there are no more questions, can I thank you very much, Minister, for coming along, and also thank you for bringing your officials along as well? When you leave, we'll have a short break until half past. Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr.

Item 4, instruments that raise issues to be reported to the Senedd under Standing Order 21.2 or 21.3. Item 4.1, the Local Government Finance (Consequential and Miscellaneous Amendments and Revocations) (Secondary Legislation) (Wales) Regulations 2024. Paper 4 is a draft report. These regulations make amendments to secondary legislation in consequence to amendments made by the Local Government Finance (Wales) Act 2024 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the Local Government Finance Act 1992. They also make other amendments that are not consequential to the 2024 Act, and revoke statutory instruments or omit provisions that no longer have effect. Senedd lawyers have identified three technical reporting points, and a Welsh Government response has been requested. Over to Kate.

Thank you. The first technical reporting point raises a question of vires; that's whether the regulations are within scope of the Welsh Ministers' powers. The issue here is that one of the enabling powers is conferred on the Secretary of State. There's a footnote in the regulations that states that this power was transferred to the original National Assembly for Wales via the transfer of functions Order in 1999, and was then transferred to the Welsh Ministers, in accordance with the Government of Wales Act 2006. However, the 1999 transfer of functions Order does not appear to transfer this particular power, and so, to the extent that the regulations are made using that power, there appears to be doubt as to whether they're intra vires.

The second technical point identifies potentially defective drafting, where sub-divisions have been incorrectly described.

And then, the final technical point is seeking a further explanation from the Welsh Government in relation to regulation 23. This states that amendments made by England-only Orders to the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989 apply in relation to hereditaments in Wales. This drafting approach means that the text of the 1989 regulations is not actually amended, but the reader is required to read across the England-only amendments. It's not clear why the Welsh Ministers have taken this approach rather than making their own textual amendments to the 1989 regulations, which would make the law clearer and more accessible. We're waiting for the Welsh Government's response.

Members, do you have anything to add? Are we happy to agree these reporting points? Yes.

Item 4.2. These regulations make largely technical corrections to the Education (Co-ordination of School Admission Arrangements and Miscellaneous Amendments) (Wales) Regulations 2024, which the committee considered at its meeting on 17 June. The corrections seek to address some of the points that were raised by this committee in its report on the regulations. Senedd lawyers have identified one technical point, and a Welsh Government response has been requested. First, Kate, would you like to run us through the reporting point?

The technical reporting point is asking Welsh Government whether these regulations are in fact being made under section 89C(1) of the 1998 Act rather section 89C(2), which is what's been cited in the preamble. We're waiting for the Welsh Government to respond to that point. In addition, while not specifically noted in the draft report, Members may wish to note that there is a very clear explanation in section 2 of the explanatory memorandum as to which reporting points in the committee's previous reports are being addressed in these regulations. That level of detail is obviously welcome.

Thank you. Members, do you have anything to add? No. Are we happy to agree the reporting point? Yes.

Item 5, instruments that raise issues to be reported to the Senedd under Standing Order 21.2 or 21.3—previously considered. SL(6)521, the Applications for Scheduled Monument Consent (Wales) Regulations 2024. We have a Welsh Government response. The committee considered this instrument at its meeting on 30 September, and laid its report the same day. Members are invited to note the Welsh Government's response to the report, which has since been received. Kate, do you have anything to add?

Yes. The first reporting point identified that the location of an amenmdent made by these regulations was unclear. The Welsh Government has disagreed with this reporting point, and they note that the Lexis legal database has correctly identified the location of the amendment. Members may just wish to note that Lexis is a legal database, compiled by experts who may well be able to work out the location of an amendment from context, but that doesn't change the point that the current drafting would be unclear to a lay reader.

Okay. Are we happy to note the Government's response?

That's not good. No, I'm sorry, I'm not buying that one, purely because we always talk about how we want to have everything more transparent, more readable, more accessible. We're isolating so many people by having this—. Sorry, is it Lexis you called it? Yes. It's ridiculous. No, sorry. It's a 'no' from me on that one.

What do you want to do, then?

Tell them they have to make it reader friendly, normal person friendly, layman on the street friendly, because, ultimately, if we are a Parliament for the people, the people, the public should be able to have access to it.

Are we happy to say that? One nod; Adam's looking down—Adam's nodding. Yes, we're happy to say that, then, Natasha.

Item 5.2, the Charges for Residues Surveillance (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2024. We have paper 8 and paper 9—the report and the Welsh Government response. The committee considered this instrument at its meeting on 7 October and laid its report the same day. Members are invited to note the Welsh Government response to the report, which has since been received. Kate, do you have anything to raise?

No further comments on this one.

Thank you.

Affirmative resolution instruments: item 5.3, the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023 (Consequential Provision) (Primary Legislation) Regulations 2024. The committee considered this instrument at its meeting on 14 October and laid its report the same day. Members are invited to note the Welsh Government response to the report, which has since been received. Kate, do you have anything to raise?

No comments on this one.

Members? No. Okay.

Item 6, notifications and correspondence under the inter-institutional relations agreement. Under correspondence from the Welsh Government on inter-ministerial group meetings, we have a letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Education on the Education Ministers Council, 15 October 2024, and a letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language on the Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee, 16 October.

The Cabinet Secretary for Education informs us that a meeting of the Education Ministers Council, which is being hosted by Northern Ireland, will take place on 20 November.

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language confirms that he attended a meeting of the Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee on 3 October, and provides a link to the communiqué that has since been published. The Cabinet Secretary notes that he will be hosting the next meeting in Wales. Are Members content to note that correspondence?

Correspondence with the Secretary of State for Wales, subordinate legislation laid only in English. A letter from the Secretary of State for Wales, 15 October 2024. A letter to the Secretary of State for Wales, 20 September 2024. Members are invited to note the correspondence with the Secretary of State for Wales in relation to subordinate legislation laid in English only in the Senedd. The Secretary of State states that she has asked her officials to look into this matter further and she would welcome any additional views from the committee in relation to this issue. Members may wish to defer discussion on this item to the private session. Yes.

Item 7.2, correspondence with the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs, the Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment and Legislative Functions) and Animal Health (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Wales) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022. A letter from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs, 18 October 2024. A letter to the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs, 24 September 2024. The Deputy First Minister responds to our letter seeking further information about the Welsh Government’s efforts to correct an error in these regulations and change the scrutiny procedures applicable to the delegated powers in the regulations. The Deputy First Minister confirms that his officials are working to introduce an amendment statutory instrument to correct the errors identified in the regulations within the next six months, and he will inform the committee should the timings for this change. The Deputy First Minister also confirms that, although he is keen for the change to the scrutiny procedure applicable to the delegated powers in the regulations to be delivered, there's currently no legislative vehicle available to enable this change to be made. He feels strongly that

'It is not for this Cabinet to determine the will of future Cabinets by fixing a date by which opportunities to address this reporting point will stop being sought.'

He further notes that his officials will continue to routinely look for opportunities to enact this change, but he will not be providing an update to the Senedd until such time as there's something to report. We can defer consideration of this item to the private session, if Members are content.

Item 8. In accordance with Standing Order 17.42, I invite the committee to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. Do Members agree?