English: Can I first of all thank the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee for a very detailed presentation of the report and the arguments as to why we need to support that. We are talking about the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, clearly - something that may not happen, depending on what happens in the weeks ahead of us. But it is important that we get this right, because whichever Bill we end up with, we need to ensure we have the proper scrutiny process for that particular Bill. The External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee did look at the EU withdrawal Bill in quite some detail as well, and we had some shared sessions with the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee on this. But we put forward amendments to the EU withdrawal Bill to Members of Parliament, and they were all accepted and all taken forward by Members of Parliament in the Committee Stage. Unfortunately, none of them were accepted by the Government. But we highlighted at that stage six objectives, one of them being to ensure powers available to Welsh Ministers under the Bill are strictly limited, and far more tightly drawn than those currently set out in the Bill. Because we recognise the important need to have the Ministers accountable to this legislature and not to be have the wide and broad-ranging powers that the Bill was proposing. As has been mentioned, Henry VIII powers are very wide, and very often negative procedures. We did not agree with that. We had to ensure that Welsh Ministers were accountable to this institution, and that we were able to restrict their powers in that sense. I would recognise that CLAC has the same views and concerns on that as many, by the way, have expressed in other committees across the Commons and across the Lords. So, that's not new, but we focused upon that. We also highlighted that objective 6 was to ensure that the Assembly can set its own scrutiny arrangements, which I think is very crucial. It's acknowledged by the powers provided to the Assembly by the Government of Wales Act 2006 that it's for the Assembly alone, as the democratically accountable institution for Wales, to set its own procedures. That's an important fact that we should remember. The Bill, as it is drafted, actually, would undermine that constitutional aspect by seeking to set, on behalf of us as the Assembly, the procedures that will apply to scrutiny of secondary legislation. I appreciate the sifting mechanism that's put in place - that actually doesn't take that away from us - in the Bill; that's still there. So, we need to address that and we highlighted this. The withdrawal Bill does seek to impose procedure on us, as an Assembly, without any consultation. And, in the absence of acknowledging our view expressed in our report on the White Paper, the Government was going ahead with that. Professor John Bell, in written evidence to the committee, said that 'The provisions on Scrutiny are inadequateThe Bill does not recognise the magnitude of the task and therefore the need to have differently designed procedures to ensure adequate scrutinyThe Bill assumes current procedures will be used, but that is simply not possible. Very serious attention needs to be given to how scrutiny will operate.' I appreciate very much the work done by CLAC to look at those aspects of scrutiny, because we were deeply concerned about how we, as an institution, would be able to scrutinise secondary legislation that was going through Parliament in particular, which affected devolved competency, but we would have no ability to comment upon it. The Institute of Welsh Affairs gave us written evidence: 'Corresponding powers are conferred on devolved institutions by clause 10 and schedule 2, meaning that Welsh Government Ministers could also take Henry VIII powers under this Bill should they wish. It would of course be unsatisfactory to see this power replicated in Wales, without action to rebalance the scrutiny mechanisms availableDefects in parliamentary scrutiny ought not to be replicated in Cardiff.' So, this Bill needs to be amended. This report needs to be supported to ensure that we are making the message quite clear that the devolved institutions should have the right to set their own scrutiny procedures and we should also follow the example of the sifting mechanism, and allow a committee to take on the task when there is a negative procedure, to assess that particular item of secondary legislation. So, I fully ask Members to support the motion.
Welsh: A gaf fi yn gyntaf ddiolch i Gadeirydd y Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol a Deddfwriaethol am gyflwyniad manwl iawn o'r adroddiad a'r dadleuon ynglŷn â pham y mae angen inni gefnogi hynny. Rydym yn sôn am Fil yr Undeb Ewropeaidd (Ymadael), yn amlwg - rhywbeth na fydd yn digwydd o bosibl, yn dibynnu ar beth sy'n digwydd yn yr wythnosau sy'n dod. Ond mae'n bwysig ein bod yn cael hyn yn iawn, oherwydd pa Fil bynnag a fydd gennym yn y pen draw, mae angen inni sicrhau bod gennym broses graffu briodol ar gyfer y Bil penodol hwnnw. Edrychodd y Pwyllgor Materion Allanol a Deddfwriaeth Ychwanegol ar y Bil ymadael â'r UE yn fanwl iawn hefyd, a chawsom sesiynau ar y cyd â'r Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol a Deddfwriaethol ar hyn. Ond rydym wedi cyflwyno gwelliannau i'r Bil ymadael â'r UE i Aelodau Seneddol a chawsant eu derbyn i gyd a'u symud ymlaen gan Aelodau Seneddol yn y Cyfnod Pwyllgor. Yn anffodus, ni chafodd yr un ohonynt eu derbyn gan y Llywodraeth. Ond nodwyd chwe amcan gennym ar y cam hwnnw, ac un ohonynt oedd sicrhau bod pwerau sydd ar gael i Weinidogion Cymru o dan y Bil wedi'u cyfyngu'n llym, ac wedi'u llunio'n llawer tynnach na'r rhai a nodir ar hyn o bryd yn y Bil. Oherwydd rydym yn cydnabod yr angen pwysig i Weinidogion fod yn atebol i'r ddeddfwrfa hon a pheidio â chael y pwerau eang a phellgyrhaeddol roedd y Bil yn ei argymell. Fel y crybwyllwyd, mae pwerau Harri VIII yn eang iawn ac yn weithdrefnau negyddol yn aml iawn. Nid oeddem yn cytuno â hynny. Bu'n rhaid inni sicrhau bod Gweinidogion Cymru yn atebol i'r sefydliad hwn, a'n bod yn gallu cyfyngu ar eu pwerau yn yr ystyr honno. Buaswn yn cydnabod bod gan y Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol a Deddfwriaethol yr un farn a phryderon ynglŷn â hynny ag a fynegwyd gan lawer, gyda llaw, mewn pwyllgorau eraill ar draws Tŷ'r Cyffredin a Thŷ'r Arglwyddi. Felly, nid yw hynny'n newydd, ond fe ganolbwyntiom ar hynny. Nodwyd gennym hefyd mai amcan 6 oedd sicrhau y gall y Cynulliad bennu ei threfniadau craffu ei hun, a chredaf fod hynny'n hanfodol iawn. Cydnabyddir gan y pwerau a roddwyd i'r Cynulliad gan Ddeddf Llywodraeth Cymru 2006 mai mater i'r Cynulliad yn unig, fel y sefydliad sy'n atebol yn ddemocrataidd ar gyfer Cymru, yw pennu ei weithdrefnau ei hun. Mae honno'n ffaith bwysig y dylem ei chofio. Byddai'r Bil fel y'i drafftiwyd, mewn gwirionedd, yn tanseilio'r agwedd gyfansoddiadol honno drwy geisio pennu, ar ein rhan ni fel y Cynulliad, y gweithdrefnau a fydd yn gymwys i graffu ar is-ddeddfwriaeth. Rwy'n derbyn y dull sifftio a roddir ar waith - nid yw'n mynd â hynny oddi wrthym - yn y Bil; mae hwnnw'n dal i fod yno. Felly, mae angen inni ymdrin â hynny ac rydym wedi tynnu sylw at hyn. Mae'r Bil ymadael yn ceisio gosod gweithdrefn arnom, fel Cynulliad, heb unrhyw ymgynghori. A heb gydnabod ein barn a fynegwyd yn ein hadroddiad ar y Papur Gwyn, roedd y Llywodraeth yn mynd i fwrw ymlaen â hynny. Dywedodd yr Athro John Bell, mewn tystiolaeth ysgrifenedig i'r pwyllgor, fod Y darpariaethau ar gyfer Craffu yn annigonol Nid yw'r Bil yn cydnabod maint y dasg, ac felly yr angen i gael gweithdrefnau wedi'u cynllunio'n wahanol er mwyn sicrhau bod gwaith craffu digonol yn digwydd Mae'r Bil yn rhagdybio y bydd gweithdrefnau presennol yn cael eu defnyddio, ond nid yw hynny'n bosibl. Mae angen rhoi sylw difrifol iawn i sut y bydd craffu'n gweithredu. Rwy'n gwerthfawrogi'n fawr iawn y gwaith a wnaeth y Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol a Deddfwriaethol i edrych ar yr agweddau hynny ar graffu, oherwydd roeddem yn pryderu'n fawr ynglŷn â sut y byddem ni fel sefydliad yn gallu craffu ar is-ddeddfwriaeth a oedd yn mynd drwy'r Senedd yn arbennig, gan effeithio ar gymhwysedd datganoledig, ond ni fyddai gennym unrhyw allu i gyflwyno sylwadau yn ei chylch. Rhoddodd y Sefydliad Materion Cymreig dystiolaeth ysgrifenedig i ni: Rhoddir pwerau cyfatebol i sefydliadau datganoledig gan gymal 10 ac atodlen 2, sy'n golygu y gallai Gweinidogion Llywodraeth Cymru hefyd gymryd pwerau Harri VIII o dan y Bil hwn pe baent yn dymuno. Wrth gwrs, byddai'n anfoddhaol i weld y pŵer hwn yn cael ei efelychu yng Nghymru, heb weithredu i ailgydbwyso'r systemau craffu sydd ar gael Ni ddylai diffygion mewn craffu seneddol gael eu hefelychu yng Nghaerdydd. Felly, mae angen diwygio'r Bil hwn. Mae angen cefnogi'r adroddiad hwn er mwyn sicrhau ein bod yn gwneud y neges yn gwbl glir y dylai sefydliadau datganoledig gael yr hawl i bennu eu gweithdrefnau craffu eu hunain a dylem hefyd ddilyn esiampl y dull sifftio, a galluogi pwyllgor i ymgymryd â'r dasg pan geir gweithdrefn negyddol, er mwyn asesu'r eitem honno o is-ddeddfwriaeth. Felly, rwy'n gofyn i'r Aelodau roi eu cefnogaeth lawn i'r cynnig.