English: Thank you, Llywydd. And thank you for the comments that have been made by the Chair of EAAL. I do find that, after the very detailed comments that have been made by the Cabinet Secretary and by the Chair, it's a bit like being the best man at a wedding when you find that the groom has stolen your speech and made all the points that you wanted to make. But can I say that, in our committee, we treated this Bill as we would any other, and that is to maximise the scrutiny and the focus on the intention in the Bill and in terms of it achieving what it is intended to do? For that, I'm very grateful for the considerable work that's gone in from the clerk and the members of support staff of the committee and indeed the legislative drafters, because this has been a matter that's been turned around within a very, very short space of time. But I do believe the report is detailed and deals with all the key scrutiny issues that we wished to raise. I should say at the outset that our report was not unanimous. One Member did not agree to it, and I won't pre-empt any comments my fellow Member wishes to make, so I won't say any more on that particular point. We made eight recommendations to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, and the report, as I said, I hope proves helpful to Assembly Members in taking the necessary decisions on this particular Bill. Exiting the EU has raised serious concerns as to which legislature should exercise powers in devolved areas once the UK leaves the EU. Until we see changes to the EU withdrawal Bill, we have accepted that there is a need for this Bill, as the Cabinet Secretary has already mentioned, and we see this Bill as providing a means of filling a potential legislative void. In our view, the absence of any alternative plan for dealing with a decision of the National Assembly to withhold consent means that the introduction of this Bill represents a sensible and a responsible approach. We agree with the Welsh Government also that the preferred option should be to continue to protect devolution via the EU withdrawal Bill, and we do urge all parties to continue to work together to achieve an outcome whereby the National Assembly could be in a position to give its consent to the withdrawal Bill. Should agreement not be reached, this Bill becomes one of the most important Bills ever to be scrutinised by this National Assembly. The same issues of principle apply to the regulation-making powers in the Bill as apply in relation to the EU withdrawal Bill, and these are that regulation-making powers must not be used to shift the balance of power excessively towards Governments and away from legislatures, Henry VIII powers must be clearly justified and, at the very least, be subject to the affirmative procedure, and that regulation-making powers are considered in the context of how they could be used, not the intention of their use. I'll just return briefly to some of the conclusions and recommendations we have made. The Cabinet Secretary has referred to some of those, and we will consider carefully his written response in due course within the course of the coming days. Sections 3, 4 and 5 form the heart of the Bill by giving Welsh Ministers broad powers to make regulations that retain direct EU law, restate EU derived enactments, and ensure that provisions made under EU-related powers continue to have effect. We raised a number of questions with the Cabinet Secretary around the use of these powers, and, in the light of his responses, we recommended that he confirms our understanding of the use of the powers under section 4 of the Bill is correct, and he has done that, and whether the self-limiting ordinances contained in the Bill are more restrictive than those contained in the EU withdrawal Bill, and he has given assurances in respect of that. Turning to section 7, we welcome also that the charter of fundamental human rights influences the interpretation of all regulations made under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill. I'm grateful for the clarification that has been given there as well. Section 11 contains a very wide power, allowing the Welsh Ministers to mirror EU law after exit day using subordinate legislation subject to the enhanced affirmative procedure. Section 11 therefore gives the Welsh Ministers powers, by regulations, to mirror EU law that is passed by both the European Parliament and the EU Council but that will no longer be subject to influence by the UK. Section 11 is arguably a constitutionally novel approach and one that we had concerns about as to whether or not it was satisfactory. In the circumstances, to first justify and then strengthen the approach, we made recommendations: first, that the Cabinet Secretary justifies why primary legislation cannot be used to deliver regulatory alignment on a case-by-case basis, instead of the subordinate legislation envisaged under section 11 - and, of course, these were the points that were raised by Dai Lloyd and there's been a response, which, again, we will give further consideration to in due course - secondly, that the Cabinet Secretary should consider an amendment to section 11, if retained, to narrow its scope solely to matters that maintain regulatory alignment with the European Union, as set out in the explanatory memorandum. I'm grateful for the comments that have been given, and, again, we'll give further consideration to that. Finally, the Cabinet Secretary should table amendments to the Bill to provide a sunset clause requiring that section 11 is repealed with effect after five years from exit day unless regulations, subject to the affirmative procedure, provide otherwise. Before such regulations are made, we recommend they are informed by a review undertaken by an Assembly committee. Sections 13 and 14 do not provide a consent role for the National Assembly, even where UK Ministers are amending primary legislation, including Acts and Measures of the National Assembly. For that reason, we recommended in our report that he justified this approach and explained how the consent role fits with the statutory instrument consent process set out in Standing Order 30A. That's recommendation 6. All regulations made under the Bill are subject to the scrutiny framework set out in Schedule 2, which provides for three different scrutiny procedures: the standard affirmative procedure, the urgent procedure and the enhanced affirmative procedure. We recommended that the Cabinet Secretary should table amendments requiring explanatory memoranda accompanying regulations made under the Bill to be clear and transparent in explaining, for example, why the affirmative and urgent procedures should apply, what changes are being made by the regulations and why, and the impact that the regulations may have on equality and on human rights. We look forward to the written and the detailed responses in due course, but I'm also grateful for the extent to which the Cabinet Secretary has been able to deal with some of those matters in advance of this particular Plenary session.
Welsh: Diolch ichi, Llywydd. A diolch i chi am sylwadau Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor Materion Allanol a Deddfwriaeth Ychwanegol. Ar ôl sylwadau manwl iawn Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet a'r Cadeirydd, rwy'n teimlo ychydig fel gwas priodas mewn priodas pan fo'r priodfab wedi dwyn eich araith a gwneud yr holl bwyntiau hynny yr oedd arnoch chi eisiau eu gwneud. Ond a gaf i ddweud, yn ein pwyllgor ni, fe wnaethom ni drin y Bil hwn fel y byddem yn trin unrhyw un arall, sef drwy graffu mor fanwl â phosibl ar y Bil ac i ganolbwyntio mor fanwl â phosibl ar y bwriad yn y Bil ac o ran ei fod yn cyflawni yr hyn y mae yn bwriadu ei wneud? Yn hynny o beth, rwy'n ddiolchgar iawn am y gwaith sylweddol y mae'r Clerc ac aelodau o staff cymorth y Pwyllgor wedi ei wneud ac yn wir i'r drafftwyr deddfwriaethol, oherwydd bu hwn yn fater a gafodd ei gwblhau mewn amser byr iawn. Ond rwyf yn credu bod yr adroddiad yn fanwl ac yn ymdrin â'r holl faterion craffu allweddol yr oeddem ni eisiau eu codi. Dylwn ddweud ar y cychwyn nad oedd ein hadroddiad yn unfrydol. Roedd un aelod nad oedd yn cytuno ag ef, a wna' i ddim achub y blaen ar unrhyw sylwadau y mae fy nghyd-Aelod yn dymuno eu gwneud, felly wna' i ddim dweud mwy ar y pwynt penodol hwnnw. Fe wnaethom ni wyth argymhelliad i Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros Gyllid, ac rwy'n gobeithio y bydd yr adroddiad, fel y dywedais, yn ddefnyddiol i Aelodau'r Cynulliad wrth wneud y penderfyniadau angenrheidiol ynglŷn â'r Bil penodol hwn. Mae gadael yr UE wedi codi pryderon difrifol ynglŷn â pha ddeddfwrfa ddylai arfer pwerau mewn meysydd datganoledig ar ôl i'r DU adael yr UE. Hyd nes y gwelwn ni newidiadau i Fil ymadael yr UE, rydym ni wedi derbyn bod angen ar gyfer y Bil hwn, fel y soniodd Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet eisoes, ac rydym yn gweld y Bil hwn yn darparu modd o lenwi gwagle deddfwriaethol posibl. Yn ein barn ni, mae absenoldeb unrhyw gynllun amgen ar gyfer ymdrin â phenderfyniad y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol i wrthod cydsyniad yn golygu bod cyflwyno'r Bil hwn yn ffordd gyfrifol a synhwyrol o fynd ati. Rydym yn cytuno â Llywodraeth Cymru hefyd mai'r dewis delfrydol fyddai parhau i warchod datganoli drwy gyfrwng Bil ymadael yr UE, ac rydym yn annog pob plaid i barhau i gydweithio er mwyn sicrhau canlyniad lle y gallai'r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol fod mewn sefyllfa i roi ei gydsyniad i'r Bil ymadael. Os na fydd cytundeb, bydd y Bil hwn yn un o'r Biliau pwysicaf erioed i'r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol hwn graffu arno. Mae'r un materion o egwyddor yn berthnasol i'r pwerau gwneud rheoliadau yn y Bil ag sy'n berthnasol i Fil ymadael yr UE, sef na cheir defnyddio pwerau gwneud rheoliadau i newid y cydbwysedd pŵer yn ormodol tuag at lywodraethau ac oddi ar y deddfwrfeydd, mae'n rhaid bod cyfiawnhad clir i bwerau Harri'r VIII ac, o leiaf, dylent fod yn ddibynol ar y weithdrefn gadarnhaol, ac yr ystyrir pwerau gwneud rheoliadau yng nghyd-destun sut y gellid eu defnyddio, nid y bwriad o'u defnyddio. Dychwelaf yn fyr at rai o'r casgliadau a'r argymhellion a wnaed gennym. Mae Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet wedi cyfeirio at rai o'r rheini, a byddwn yn ystyried yn ofalus ei ymateb ysgrifenedig maes o law yn ystod y dyddiau nesaf. Mae adrannau 3, 4 a 5 yn ffurfio craidd y Bil drwy roi pwerau eang i Weinidogion Cymru wneud rheoliadau sy'n cadw cyfraith uniongyrchol yr UE, ailddatgan deddfiadau sy'n deillio o'r UE, a sicrhau bod darpariaethau a wnaed o dan y pwerau sy'n gysylltiedig â'r UE yn parhau i fod mewn grym. Fe wnaethom ni ofyn nifer o gwestiynau i Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet ynghylch y defnydd o'r pwerau hyn, ac, yng ngoleuni ei ymatebion, fe wnaethom ni argymell ei fod yn cadarnhau ein dealltwriaeth o'r defnydd o bwerau o dan adran 4 y Bil yn gywir, ac mae wedi gwneud hynny, a pha un ai a yw'r ordinhadau hunan-gyfyngol a geir yn y Bil yn fwy cyfyngol na'r rhai a geir ym Mil ymadael yr UE, ac mae wedi rhoi sicrwydd o ran hynny. Gan droi at adran 7, rydym yn croesawu hefyd bod y siarter hawliau dynol sylfaenol yn dylanwadu ar sut y dehonglir yr holl reoliadau a wneir o dan adrannau 3, 4 a 5 y Bil. Rwy'n ddiolchgar am yr eglurhad a roddwyd ynghylch hynny hefyd. Mae adran 11 yn cynnwys pŵer eang iawn, gan alluogi Gweinidogion Cymru i adlewyrchu cyfraith yr UE ar ôl y diwrnod ymadael gan ddefnyddio is-ddeddfwriaeth sy'n ddarostyngedig i'r weithdrefn gadarnhaol uwch. Mae adran 11 felly yn rhoi pwerau i Weinidogion Cymru, drwy reoliadau, i adlewyrchu cyfraith yr UE sy'n cael ei basio gan Senedd Ewrop a chyngor yr Undeb Ewropeaidd ond ni fydd modd i'r DU ddylanwadu ar hynny mwyach. Gellir dadlau bod adran 11 yn ddull cyfansoddiadol newydd ac yn un y bu gennym ni bryderon yn ei gylch o ran pa un a oedd yn foddhaol ai peidio. O dan yr amgylchiadau, er mwyn cyfiawnhau yn gyntaf ac yna cryfhau'r dull, fe wnaethom ni argymhellion: yn gyntaf, bod Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet yn cyfiawnhau pam na ellir defnyddio deddfwriaeth sylfaenol i gyflawni cyfochri rheoleiddiol fesul achos, yn hytrach na'r is-ddeddfwriaeth a ragwelir o dan adran 11 - ac, wrth gwrs, dyma oedd y sylwadau a wnaeth Dai Lloyd, a bu ymateb, a byddwn, unwaith eto, yn rhoi ystyriaeth bellach iddo maes o law - yn ail, y dylai Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet ystyried gwelliant i adran 11, os cedwir hwnnw, i gyfyngu ar ei gwmpas fel ei fod yn berthnasol dim ond i faterion ble mae cyfochri rheoleiddiol yn parhau gyda'r Undeb Ewropeaidd, fel y nodir yn y Memorandwm Esboniadol. Rwy'n ddiolchgar am y sylwadau a wnaed, ac, unwaith eto, byddwn yn rhoi ystyriaeth bellach i hynny. Yn olaf, y dylai Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet gyflwyno gwelliannau i'r Bil i gynnwys cymal machlud a fyddai yn ei gwneud hi'n ofynnol i ddiddymu adran 11 pum mlynedd ar ôl y diwrnod ymadael oni bai bod rheoliadau, y mae a wnelon nhw â'r weithdrefn gadarnhaol, yn darparu fel arall. Cyn gwneud rheoliadau o'r fath, rydym yn argymell eu seilio ar adolygiad a gynhelir gan bwyllgorau'r Cynulliad. Nid yw adrannau 13 a 14 yn rhoi swyddogaeth cydsyniad i'r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol, hyd yn oed pan fo Gweinidogion y DU yn diwygio deddfwriaeth sylfaenol, gan gynnwys Deddfau a Mesurau'r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol. Am y rheswm hwnnw, rydym yn argymell yn ein hadroddiad ei fod wedi cyfiawnhau'r dull hwn ac wedi esbonio sut y mae'r swyddogaeth cydsyniad yn cyd-fynd â'r broses cydsyniad offeryn statudol a nodir yn Rheol Sefydlog 30A. Dyna argymhelliad 6. Mae'r holl reoliadau a wneir o dan y Bil yn ddarostyngedig i'r fframwaith craffu sydd i'w weld yn Atodlen 2, sy'n darparu ar gyfer tair gweithdrefn graffu wahanol: y weithdrefn gadarnhaol safonol, y weithdrefn frys a'r weithdrefn gadarnhaol uwch. Rydym yn argymell y dylai Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet gyflwyno gwelliannau yn ei gwneud hi'n ofynnol i'r Memoranda Esboniadol sy'n mynd gyda'r rheoliadau a wnaed o dan y Bil fod yn glir ac yn dryloyw wrth egluro, er enghraifft, pam mae angen defnyddio'r gweithdrefnau cadarnhaol a brys, pa newidiadau a wneir gan y rheoliadau a pham, a'r effaith y gall y rheoliadau eu cael ar gydraddoldeb a hawliau dynol. Edrychwn ymlaen at gael yr ymatebion ysgrifenedig a manwl maes o law, ond rwyf hefyd yn ddiolchgar am y graddau y mae Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet wedi gallu ymdrin â rhai o'r materion hyn cyn y cyfarfod llawn penodol hwn.