Thank you, Llywydd. I support amendment 78, tabled by Sioned Williams. I believe that the amendment will address, as she mentioned, concerns raised by stakeholders and the recommendations of the Children, Young People, and Education Committee regarding transparency in relation to the exercising of the commission's funding powers. I'm pleased that I've been able to work with Sioned in drafting this amendment to take forward the commitment that I made at Stage 2 in light of the comments and recommendations of the committee.

Requiring the commission to consult on and publish a statement of its funding policy, whilst having regard to the principle that funding decisions should be made in a way that's transparent, will help to ensure that stakeholders are kept informed about how the commission proposes to exercise its funding functions in relation to the full range of tertiary education provision and in respect of research and innovation.

Just to respond to the question from Hefin David, I do foresee that the consultation under this new duty would include the terms and conditions that the commission intends to impose on all of its budget.

Now, considering the requirements and changes made by amendment 78, amendment 31 removes requirements for the commission to consult prior to determining the terms and conditions applicable to its higher education funding. Amendment 31 provides for a coherent approach to the application of the terms and conditions of funding by the commission throughout the Bill by deleting provision that is no longer required in light of the wider consultation duty under amendment 78.

Amendment 58 in my name, but that reflects constructive discussions with Laura Anne Jones—and I thank her for her co-operation—addresses the recommendation of the Children, Young People, and Education Committee for the Bill to provide a more consistent and wide-ranging approach to the equal opportunity and widening access duties for all parts of the post-16 sector, and not just registered providers.

The amendment also goes further than the recommendation, creating greater consistency and alignment in terms of the commission's regulatory oversight of registered and non-registered providers. It achieves this by requiring the commission to consider imposing terms and conditions on its funding to non-registered providers in relation to matters addressed by the mandatory ongoing conditions of registration under Part 2 of the Bill.

The commission, when determining the terms and conditions to be imposed on its funding to a non-registered provider, must consider whether to impose requirements relating to quality, the effectiveness of the governance and management of the provider, financial sustainability, the effectiveness of the provider's arrangements for supporting and promoting the welfare of its students and staff, and the delivery of measurable outcomes in respect of equality of opportunity aims.

The amendment does not mandate which terms and conditions should be applied. It rightly puts the commission in control of its own terms and conditions, as what may be appropriate in respect of a large, recurrent grant may be unnecessary and unduly burdensome for a small, ad hoc contractual arrangement. The commission will be best placed to decide on the specific conditions for a particular funding stream.

Taken together, amendments 31 and 58 improve coherence across the Bill, ensure more equitable treatment of registered and non-registered providers, and afford the commission the necessary flexibility to tailor the terms and conditions so that they're proportionate, appropriate and reasonable, depending on the particular circumstances of a given funding arrangement. I therefore call on Members to support all of the amendments in this group.