English: I think this may be my favourite of the items we're discussing today, amending our Standing Orders to reflect our departure from the European Union. It's a relatively short report that went to Business Committee. It says, 'Had the committee' - and this is the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee - 'Had the committee consider that it did not, it could make written representations - '. That relates to subsidiarity. I assume that sentence should read, 'Had the committee considered that it did not, it could have made representations - '. And it then goes on: 'to the relevant House of Commons or Lords committee with a view to having those representations incorporated into a reasoned opinion to be submitted by that committee to the relevant EU authorities.' So, that relates to subsidiarity and, supposedly, a legal process for ensuring it was applied. What isn't in the paper is whether that process was ever used, and if so, whether it ever had any effect. But the paper then continues, 'Subsidiarity is grounded in the Treaty on European Union and ceased to apply in the UK on exit day.' Now, I disagree with that phrase very strongly. Subsidiarity is taking decisions at the lowest possible level, and the process of leaving the European Union didn't end subsidiarity; it vastly increased subsidiarity by moving a huge plethora of powers that had been exercised at the European Union level so that they're instead exercised either at Westminster or by us in Cardiff. I mean that's an increase in subsidiarity, not the end of it. Of course, it was a concept that John Major pushed to get inserted into the treaty at Maastricht, and I would question how much it has ever had real applicability in the European Union, and certainly in practical terms, if not the specific statutory terms described, there's going to be an awful lot more of this subsidiarity now we're outside the European Union. But it is, of course, sensible that we remove this now redundant provision, if it was ever not redundant, from Standing Orders. The other issue that this arises is: what about the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee? I remember, when I was on Business Committee for a period at the beginning of this Assembly, that the committee was described, at least unofficially, as the Brexit committee. And I'd understood that it was there to help with the huge amount of legislation that had to be reconsidered in light of Brexit and to ensure that our statute book appropriately dealt with the requirements of Brexit and the amount of work that was going to involve. So, I agreed to the establishment of that committee, but I'd understood it was a temporary committee for this Assembly, with that as its focus. And we were told that, in the fourth Assembly, committees were so overburdened and there was so much legislation that we needed this additional legislation committee that could be combined with looking at Brexit. But I'm not sure how much it has been used for that, or really whether the pressure of legislation justifies having a further committee, and Brexit, as we've heard earlier, is now over. So, why do we still have this committee? And should we have any references in Standing Orders that imply it should in any way continue into the sixth Assembly or Senedd?
Welsh: Rwy'n credu efallai mai dyma fy hoff eitem o'r rhai rydym yn eu trafod heddiw, am ei bod yn diwygio ein Rheolau Sefydlog i adlewyrchu ein hymadawiad â'r Undeb Ewropeaidd. Adroddiad cymharol fyr a aeth i'r Pwyllgor Busnes. Mae'n dweud, 'Pe bai'r pwyllgor' - sef y Pwyllgor Materion Allanol a Deddfwriaeth Ychwanegol - 'Pe bai'r pwyllgor o'r farn nad oedd deddfwriaeth yn cydymffurfio â'r egwyddor sybsidiaredd, câi wneud sylwadau ysgrifenedig - '. Mae hynny'n ymwneud â sybsidiaredd. Ac yna mae'n mynd rhagddo: 'i bwyllgor perthnasol Tŷ'r Cyffredin neu Dŷ'r Arglwyddi, a hynny er mwyn cynnwys y sylwadau hynny mewn barn resymedig i'w chyflwyno gan y pwyllgor i awdurdodau perthnasol yr UE.' Felly, mae hynny'n ymwneud â sybsidiaredd ac, yn ôl pob sôn, â phroses gyfreithiol ar gyfer sicrhau ei fod yn cael ei gymhwyso. Yr hyn nad yw'r papur yn ei ddweud yw a ddefnyddiwyd y broses honno erioed, ac os felly, a gafodd unrhyw effaith erioed. Ond mae'r papur wedyn yn parhau, 'Mae sybsidiaredd wedi'i wreiddio yn y Cytuniad ar yr Undeb Ewropeaidd a beidiodd â bod yn gymwys yn y DU ar y diwrnod ymadael.' Nawr, rwy'n anghytuno â'r ymadrodd hwnnw'n gryf iawn. Mae sybsidiaredd yn golygu gwneud penderfyniadau ar y lefel isaf bosibl, ac nid oedd y broses o adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd yn rhoi diwedd ar sybsidiaredd; mae'n cynyddu sybsidiaredd yn helaeth drwy symud nifer enfawr o bwerau a oedd wedi'u harfer ar lefel yr Undeb Ewropeaidd fel eu bod yn cael eu harfer naill ai yn San Steffan neu gennym ni yng Nghaerdydd. Cynnydd mewn sybsidiaredd yw hynny, nid rhoi diwedd arno. Wrth gwrs, roedd yn gysyniad y gwnaeth John Major wthio i'w gael wedi'i gynnwys yn y cytuniad ym Maastricht, ac rwy'n amau pa mor gymwys ydoedd mewn gwirionedd yn yr Undeb Ewropeaidd, ac yn sicr yn ymarferol, os nad yn y termau statudol penodol a ddisgrifiwyd, bydd llawer mwy o'r sybsidiaredd hwn gan ein bod bellach y tu allan i'r Undeb Ewropeaidd. Ond mae'n synhwyrol, wrth gwrs, ein bod yn dileu'r ddarpariaeth hon sydd bellach yn ddiangen, os bu'n unrhyw beth heblaw diangen erioed, o'r Rheolau Sefydlog. Y cwestiwn arall y mae hyn yn ei godi yw: beth am y Pwyllgor Materion Allanol a Deddfwriaeth Ychwanegol? Pan oeddwn yn aelod o'r Pwyllgor Busnes am gyfnod ar ddechrau'r Cynulliad hwn, rwy'n cofio i'r pwyllgor gael ei ddisgrifio, yn answyddogol o leiaf, fel y pwyllgor Brexit. Ac roeddwn wedi deall ei fod yno i helpu gyda'r ddeddfwriaeth helaeth y bu'n rhaid ei hailystyried yng ngoleuni Brexit ac i sicrhau bod ein llyfr statud yn ymdrin yn briodol â gofynion Brexit a faint o waith y byddai hynny'n galw amdano. Felly, cytunais i sefydlu'r pwyllgor hwnnw, ond roeddwn wedi deall mai pwyllgor dros dro i'r Cynulliad hwn ydoedd, gyda hynny'n ffocws iddo. A dywedwyd wrthym fod pwyllgorau, yn y pedwerydd Cynulliad, wedi'u gorlwytho cymaint a bod cymaint o ddeddfwriaeth fel bod angen y pwyllgor deddfwriaeth ychwanegol hwn arnom, pwyllgor y gellid ei gyfuno ag edrych ar Brexit. Ond nid wyf yn siŵr faint o ddefnydd a fu arno ar gyfer hynny, neu a yw pwysau deddfwriaeth yn cyfiawnhau cael pwyllgor pellach, ac fel y clywsom yn gynharach, mae Brexit bellach ar ben. Felly, pam y mae'r pwyllgor hwn gennym o hyd? Ac a ddylem gael unrhyw gyfeiriadau yn y Rheolau Sefydlog i awgrymu y dylai barhau i'r chweched Cynulliad neu Senedd mewn unrhyw ffordd?