techiaith/cofnodycynulliad_en-cy huggingface dataset:
English: It could do that. So, in terms of timescales, you could have two Acts, one talking about a period of a month for a step to be taken, and another talking about 28 days. Then, there's a need to make a choice, in terms of consolidation, which description is most suitable. The current drafting practice suggests that to measure in days would be clearer and more accessible, but that kind of choice is involved in that process. In terms of fees, the practice has been in the past to set a fee on the face of an Act. More recently, you see a power to create fees outside the clause, or perhaps to change the fee through subordinate legislation. So, there's a process in that in deciding which way would be the best way. But, those issues would be described in the memorandum.
Welsh: Fe allai wneud hynny. Felly, o ran cyfnodau amser, fe allech chi gael dwy Ddeddf, un yn sôn am gyfnod o fis efallai ar gyfer rhyw gam i gael ei gymryd, ac un arall yn sôn am gyfnod o 28 diwrnod. Mae angen wedyn gwneud dewis, os ydych chi'n cydgrynhoi, p'un o'r ddau ddisgrifiad sy'n fwy addas. Mae'r arfer drafftio cyfredol yn awgrymu y byddai mesur mewn diwrnodau yn fwy eglur a hygyrch, ond mae'r math yna o ddewis ynghlwm wrth y broses. O ran ffioedd, mae'r arfer wedi bod yn y gorffennol efallai i osod ffi ar wyneb Deddf. Yn fwy diweddar, rŷch chi'n gweld pŵer i greu ffioedd tu fas i'r cymal, neu efallai i newid y ffi drwy is-ddeddfu ac ati. Felly, mae proses ynghlwm wrth hynny o ddewis pa ffordd yw'r ffordd orau. Ond, byddai'r pethau hynny yn cael eu disgrifio yn y memorandwm.
English: And they would still be described as minor and non-controversial changes, I would hope, because that's the emphasis. I have further questions on a similar theme, relating to the vision with regard to consolidation. Does consolidation also mean that you could change a definition in the Wales Act?
Welsh: Ac yn dal yn mynd o dan y testun eu bod nhw'n newidiadau mân ac annadleuol, buaswn i'n gobeithio, achos dyna ydy'r pwyslais. Mae yna gwestiynau eraill ar hyd yr un math o lwybr rŵan o dan yr un math o weledigaeth am cydgrynhoi. Ydy cydgrynhoi hefyd yn gallu newid diffiniad yn Neddf Cymru?
English: Could I just make one broad point, if I may, about how we've reached the point where we're using these terms? If you look at the way that other parliaments and governments have gone about this process, on one hand you have wide discretion in some legislatures, and in others you have much more detailed regulations and rules. We have decided to be as transparent as possible in describing these sorts of things. I think it's right to say that there's not quite as much detail in the process of the Parliament in Westminster. So, we want to be transparent about that. With regard to the question of definitions and the Act that you referred specifically, I wouldn't expect, on the whole, that the consolidation process would change the definitions in that Act. The one occasion that, perhaps, that would happen would be if there's a reference in the Schedules to that Act to an Act that is consolidated with another. Perhaps that would be an example. But on the whole, 'no' is the answer.
Welsh: A gaf i jest wneud un pwynt bras, os caf i, am sut dŷn ni wedi dod at y man lle dŷn ni'n defnyddio'r termau yma? Os edrychwch chi ar y ffordd y mae seneddau a llywodraethau eraill wedi mynd wrthi ar y broses yma, ar un llaw mae gyda chi ddisgresiwn eang mewn rhai deddfwrfeydd, ac mewn eraill mae gyda chi lot fwy o reolau manwl. Rŷn ni wedi dewis bod mor dryloyw ag y gallwn ni fod wrth ddisgrifio'r mathau o bethau. Rwy'n credu ei fod yn iawn i ddweud nad oes y math o fanylder yma yn ymddangos ym mhrosesau'r Senedd yn San Steffan, er enghraifft. Felly, rŷn ni eisiau bod yn dryloyw am hynny. O ran y cwestiwn o ddiffiniadau a'r Ddeddf y gwnaethoch chi gyfeirio ati hi'n benodol, fuaswn i ddim yn erfyn ar y cyfan fod y broses o gydgrynhoi yn mynd i newid y diffiniadau yn y Ddeddf honno. Yr un achlysur, efallai, y buasai hynny'n digwydd yw os oes cyfeiriad yn y Schedules i'r Ddeddf honno sy'n sôn am enw Deddf sy'n cael ei chydgrynhoi gydag un arall. Efallai y byddai hynny'n enghraifft. Ond ar y cyfan, 'na' yw'r ateb.
English: And continuing in the same vein, when there is a situation where different enactments make contradictory provision, about any matter really, is it then appropriate that the contradiction is rectified by consolidation? And how is rectification of this kind likely to be minor and non-controversial if a correction is needed or that you decide that a correction needs to be made when there are provisions in similar legislation that contradict each other, potentially?
Welsh: Wel, ar yr un un math o drywydd, pan fydd yna sefyllfa o wahanol ddeddfiadau'n gwneud darpariaeth gyferbyniol sydd ddim yn cyfuno efo'i gilydd, ynghylch unrhyw fater a dweud y gwir, a ydy hi'n briodol bod y gwrthddweud yn cael ei unioni drwy gydgrynhoi, felly? A sut mae cywiro o'r fath yn debygol o fod yn fân ac yn annadleuol wedyn os oes angen cywiro neu eich bod chi'n dewis bod angen cywiro pan fydd yna ddarpariaethau yn yr un un Ddeddf sy'n gwrthddweud ei gilydd, potentially?
English: Well, you have a set of options here, don't you? If you have the same situation, or a similar situation having quite a different treatment in different Acts, you have a choice of keeping that difference or rectifying it by choosing one or the other. Maybe there's a third option that's more suitable in terms of drafting technique. Those are the options on a broad basis. There is a risk in trying to define this question of 'minor and non-controversial' - that you might go round and round in circles. But in my view, the criterion that is most useful is that, in looking at how the legislature has dealt with this in different ways, in the same sort of situation, the question is, was that intentional or was it unintentional? Therefore, that's what I think is the easiest way of looking at it. And if you can make the argument that it's something that's happened without being intentional, then you have a case for choosing one path or the other. There's a good example of this is in the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014. The consultation document refers to that Act, as it dealt with online documents in a different way to paper documents, for example, and then the Acts that were consolidated were being treated differently. But following the passing of that Act, they dealt with the rules in the same way. It's those sorts of things, I would say, that are the kind of changes we're talking about.
Welsh: Wel, mae gyda chi set o ddewisiadau yn fan hyn, onid oes e? Os oes gyda chi yr un sefyllfa, neu sefyllfa debyg yn cael triniaeth ychydig yn wahanol mewn dwy Ddeddf, mae gyda chi'r dewis, wrth gwrs, i gadw'r gwahaniaeth neu i unioni'r peth drwy ddewis y naill neu'r llall, ar y cyfan. Efallai fod trydydd opsiwn - hynny yw, un sy'n fwy cymwys o ran techneg drafftio. Ond dyna'r dewisiadau yn fras. Mae risg wrth drial diffinio'r cwestiwn yma o ' minor' a ' non-controversial ' onid oes - eich bod chi jest yn troi mewn cylchoedd? O fy rhan i, y maen prawf sydd yn fwyaf defnyddiol yw, o edrych ar sut mae'r ddeddfwrfa wedi trin hyn mewn ffyrdd gwahanol, yn yr un math o sefyllfa, y cwestiwn yw a oedd hynny'n fwriadol neu a oedd e'n anfwriadol, felly. Dyna dwi'n meddwl yw'r ffordd hawsaf i edrych arno fe. Os ydych chi'n gallu creu dadl ei fod e'n rhywbeth sydd wedi digwydd heb fod yn fwriadol, mae gyda chi achos wedyn dros grynhoi a dewis un o'r ddau lwybr. Mae enghraifft dda o hyn yn y Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014. Mae'r ddogfen ymgynghori'n cyfeirio at y Ddeddf honno, a oedd yn trin dogfennau ar-lein mewn ffordd ychydig yn wahanol i ddogfennau papur, er enghraifft. Wedyn, roedd y Deddfau a oedd yn cael eu cydgrynhoi yn cael eu trin mewn ffyrdd gwahanol. Ond wedi i'r Ddeddf honno gael ei phasio, fe wnaethon nhw ddelio gyda'r rheolau yn yr un ffordd. Y math yna o beth, buaswn i'n dweud, yw'r math o newidiadau rŷn ni'n sôn amdanyn nhw.
English: Okay. Thank you. Moving on, paragraph 52, I believe, outlines the importance of scrutiny and the ability of this Senedd to scrutinise what the Government is doing. We've already heard, you've given evidence and the Chair also suggested that the consolidation process - we've seen it in planning already - is a mammoth task. It's already taken a great amount of time and it's extremely complex. So, taking that as a live example, we expect that the consolidation projects are all going to take longer than usual. So, would you agree that this Senedd will need to ensure that it has plenty of time for us to be able to scrutinise consolidation legislation and that it shouldn't be done as a matter of urgency, because we do need to scrutinise processes that can be complex, such as has happened in the area of planning?
Welsh: Ocê. Diolch. Ac, yn symud ymlaen, mae paragraff 52, dwi'n credu, yn amlinellu pwysigrwydd craffu a gallu'r Senedd yma i graffu ar beth mae'r Llywodraeth yn ei wneud. Ac rydym ni wedi clywed eisoes, mae'r dystiolaeth gerbron, ac fel roedd y Cadeirydd yn awgrymu eisoes, fod y prosiect cydgrynhoi - rydym ni wedi'i weld o ym maes cynllunio yn barod - yn dasg enfawr. Mae eisoes wedi cymryd amser hir ac yn hynod gymhleth. Wedyn, o gymryd hwnnw fel esiampl sy'n fyw ac yn rhedeg ar hyn o bryd, mae yna ddisgwyl bod y prosiectau cydgrynhoi fel ei gilydd yn mynd i fod yn cymryd dipyn mwy o amser na'r arferol. Felly, fuasech chi'n cytuno y bydd angen i'r Senedd yma sicrhau bod yna ddigon o amser i ni gael craffu ar ddeddfwriaeth gydgrynhoi, efallai, a'i bod hi'n anodd gwneud pethau ar fater o frys, felly, achos yr angen yma i graffu ar brosesau sy'n gallu bod yn gymhleth, fel sydd wedi digwydd ar hyn o bryd ym maes cynllunio?
English: I accept that the circumstances around where there is a need to consolidate urgently are difficult to describe. However, I would also say that, certainly in my view, it's not at all the case that a consolidation Act will take more time to scrutinise than an Act that changes the law. You mentioned the planning, legislation which, of course, is very substantial in terms of the areas it covers. But I would suggest that the starting point that is perhaps most useful - and this is a matter for the committee, of course - is not to look at the range of issues that are dealt with in a consolidation Act, but the changes that are important changes.
Welsh: Dwi'n derbyn bod yr amgylchiadau pan fydd angen cydgrynhoi ar frys efallai yn anodd i'w disgrifio, ond buaswn i hefyd yn dweud, dyw e'n sicr, yn fy marn i, ddim yn angenrheidiol o bell ffordd fod Deddf cydgrynhoi yn mynd i gymryd mwy o amser i gael ei chraffu na Deddf sy'n newid y gyfraith. Fe wnaethoch chi sôn am y ddeddfwriaeth gynllunio, sydd, wrth gwrs, yn sylweddol iawn o ran y meysydd mae'n cyfro. Ond, buaswn i'n awgrymu mai'r man cychwyn efallai sydd fwyaf defnyddiol - wrth gwrs, mater i'r pwyllgor yw hyn - yw nid edrych ar yr ystod o bethau sy'n cael eu delio â nhw mewn deddf cydgrynhoi ond y newidiadau sydd yn newidiadau pwysig.
English: I think it's true to say that, in other legislatures, the process of describing the changes and describing the options that are used in that process puts a focus on the main issues that I myself would expect to be looking at in detail, and then committees, I think, have sampled, for example, in sessions such as these, other changes and challenged and asked for explanations to ensure that the committee and the Parliament have assurances that it is only consolidation that is happening. The truth is that if we were in a situation where the scrutiny of consolidation was taking more time than the scrutiny of legislation that changed the law, we would quite quickly see less and less consolidation happening, for completely obvious reasons. So, it's important that we have a system - and this is why I mentioned earlier to the Chair this process of transparency and trust - a system that assures the committee and the Senedd that it is consolidation only that is happening, and so the questions arising wouldn't be about the scrutiny of policy, but about scrutinising, 'Why has this come from here? Why was that choice made in the consolidation?
Welsh: Rydw i'n credu ei fod e'n wir i ddweud, mewn deddfwrfeydd eraill, fod y broses o ddisgrifio'r newidiadau a disgrifio'r dewisiadau sydd yn cael eu gwneud yn y broses yn sicrhau ffocws ar y prif bethau y byddwn i'n disgwyl fy hun i edrych arnyn nhw mewn manylder, a wedyn mae'r pwyllgorau, rydw i'n credu, wedi samplo, er enghraifft, mewn sesiynau fel hyn, newidiadau eraill a herio a gofyn am esboniadau i sicrhau bod gan y pwyllgor a'r Senedd sicrwydd mai cydgrynhoi yn unig sydd yn digwydd. Felly, y gwir plaen yw os byddwn ni mewn sefyllfa lle mae craffu cydgrynhoi yn cymryd mwy o amser na chraffu ar ddeddf sy'n newid cyfraith, yn gyflym iawn fe welwn ni y bydd llai a llai o gydgrynhoi yn digwydd, am resymau cwbl amlwg. Felly, mae'n bwysig i ni gael system - a dyma pam roeddwn i'n sôn yn gynharach i'r Cadeirydd am y broses yma o dryloywder ac ymddiriedaeth - system lle mae'r pwyllgor a'r Senedd yn sicr mai cydgrynhoi'n unig sydd yn digwydd, a wedyn nid cwestiynau o ran craffu ar bolisi fyddai'n digwydd ond cwestiynau o ran craffu, 'Pam mae hwn wedi dod o fan hyn? Pam wnaethpwyd y dewis hwnnw yn y cydgrynhoi?'
English: And it would be entirely clear where these changes in consolidation happened. There will be some tracking method, I take it, because if they're minor, non-controversial changes, we would want to see them regardless, wouldn't we, as people who scrutinise?
Welsh: A bydd hi'n gyfan gwbl amlwg lle mae'r newidiadau yma wrth gydgrynhoi'n digwydd, drwy ryw fath o dracio, rydw i'n cymryd, achos os ydyn nhw yn newidiadau mân ac annadleuol, dŷn ni hefyd eisiau eu gweld nhw, onid ydym ni, i'r sawl sydd yn craffu?
English: I'll ask Dylan to explain in a minute how it happens in detail, but I would just add that we're not just looking at tracking, because one of the ambitions we have here is to remake the law in a more accessible way. So, maybe tracking isn't the answer, but there will be a detailed explanation of where every clause that's changed has come from and why that change has occurred. Dylan.
Welsh: Fe wnaf ofyn i Dylan esbonio mewn eiliad sut mae'n digwydd mewn manylder, ond gaf i jest ddweud nad ydw i'n credu ein bod ni'n edrych ar sefyllfa o jest tracio, oherwydd un o'r uchelgeisiau sydd gyda ni fan hyn yw ail-wneud y gyfraith mewn ffordd mwy hygyrch? Felly, efallai nad tracio yw'r ateb, ond bydd esboniad manwl o le mae pob cymal yn dod sy'n newid, a pham mae'r newid yn digwydd. Dylan.
English: Yes. In terms of paragraph 73, there's talk there of the fact that there would be a need to recategorise some primary legislation and some subordinate legislation. So, can the Counsel General give examples of provision that could, by consolidation, be moved from the category of primary legislation to subordinate legislation, based on the Senedd's approach to the balance between primary and subordinate legislation? And vice versa, therefore, can the Counsel General give examples of provision that could, by consolidation, be moved from subordinate legislation to primary legislation?
Welsh: Ie. Ynglŷn â pharagraff 73, os cofiaf i, mae yna sôn yn fanna am y ffaith y byddai'n rhaid ailgategoreiddio peth deddfwriaeth sylfaenol a pheth is-ddeddfwriaeth. Felly, a all y Cwnsler Cyffredinol roi enghreifftiau o ddarpariaeth, drwy gydgrynhoi, efallai, a fyddai'n cael ei symud o gategori deddfwriaeth sylfaenol i is-ddeddfwriaeth, yn seiliedig ar ddull y Senedd o ymdrin â'r cydbwysedd rhwng deddfwriaeth sylfaenol ac is-ddeddfwriaeth? Ac felly, i'r gwrthwyneb, oes yna enghreifftiau o ddeddfwriaeth a fyddai'n symud o is-ddeddfwriaeth i mewn i ddeddfwriaeth sylfaenol?
English: Perhaps the best examples to give are those that emanate from the work of the Law Commission on planning law, because there is an analysis there that suggests that that should, indeed, happen. So, in section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, it does allow Ministers to make development orders that explain which bodies should be consulted with in the context of any proposal for development. On the whole, those are all listed in the development order, but one body remains on the face of the Act with regard to the development of caravan sites, for example. So, the Law Commission suggests that, in order to reflect the drafting practice, the current practice, that should be moved from the face of the legislation to the development order. There are other examples in terms of the content of forms and so on, and the content of processes, that they suggest should go from the face of the legislation to subordinate legislation. On the other hand, you have examples where subordinate legislation changes the effect of primary legislation, and they suggest that, in those cases, that should then be on the face of the legislation, rather than in subordinate legislation. Something arises with regard to the community infrastructure levy as well. They suggest that one of the clauses in that regard, which is currently in subordinate legislation, should move to the face of the legislation. So, there are examples of moving in both directions.
Welsh: Efallai'r enghreifftiau gorau i'w rhoi yw'r enghreifftiau sy'n deillio o waith Comisiwn y Gyfraith ar y gyfraith cynllunio, oherwydd mae dadansoddiad mewn aml i fan sy'n awgrymu y dylai hynny ddigwydd. Felly, yn adran 74 o'r Town and Country Planning Act 1990, mae'n caniatáu i Weinidogion gwneud gorchymyn datblygu, sy'n esbonio pa gyrff y dylid ymgynghori â nhw yng nghyd-destun unrhyw gynnig am ddatblygu. Ar y cyfan, mae'r rheini i gyd yn cael eu rhestru yn y development order, ond mae un corff ar ôl sydd ar wyneb y Ddeddf, sy'n ymwneud â datblygu seits carafannau, er enghraifft. So, mae Comisiwn y Gyfraith yn awgrymu, er mwyn adlewyrchu practis drafftio, practis deddfu cyfredol, symud y cyfeiriad hwnnw o wyneb y Ddeddf i'r gorchymyn datblygu. Mae enghreifftiau eraill yn nhermau cynnwys ffurflenni ac ati, a chynnwys prosesau, y maen nhw'n argymell dylai fynd o wyneb y Ddeddf i ddeddfwriaeth eilradd. Wedyn, ar y llaw arall, mae gennych chi enghreifftiau lle mae deddfwriaeth eilradd yn newid effaith deddfwriaeth sylfaenol ac maen nhw'n awgrymu, yn yr achosion hynny, y dylai hynny fod ar wyneb y Ddeddf yn hytrach nag yn y ddeddfwriaeth eilradd. Mae rhywbeth sy'n codi yng nghyd-destun y community infrastructure levy hefyd. Maen nhw'n awgrymu y dylai un o'r camau sydd ynghlwm â hynny, sydd ar hyn o bryd drwy ddeddfwriaeth eilradd, fod yn symud i wyneb y Ddeddf. Felly, mae enghreifftiau'n symud y ddwy ffordd yn y cyd-destun hwnnw.
English: Therefore, in terms of subordinate legislation, in what way could procedures change for subordinate legislation, for example, in terms of changing the Assembly's procedure for subordinate legislation in order to improve consistency or coherence of the relevant body of legislation?
Welsh: Felly, ynglŷn ag is-ddeddfwriaeth, ym mha ffordd y gall gweithdrefnau newid ynglŷn ag is-ddeddfwriaeth, er enghraifft, ynglŷn â newid gweithdrefn y Cynulliad ei hun ar gyfer is-ddeddfwriaeth er mwyn gwella cysondeb neu gydlyniad y corff perthnasol o ddeddfwriaeth?
English: In terms of the Senedd's processes to deal with subordinate legislation, on the whole, I don't think that the processes need to be changed. One example of where that might not be the case is, clearly there's a great deal of potential for us to decrease the number of Orders and subordinate legislation that exist, and we would set an aim to ensure that only one set of regulations should relate to any particular power, for example, in order to ensure accessibility. Also, when regulations change, we could ensure greater accessibility through re-making the subordinate legislation rather than just putting it forward as amendments to legislation that's already on the statute book, and that you have one set of regulations to one power, and then, as with the point that Dai Lloyd made with regard to tracking, the Assembly could look at a version that has been amended but that shows the changes in tracked form. Perhaps that would mean that there should be some sort of new process in the Senedd, so that the Senedd's decision would be relevant just to the changes as it currently stands. That, I think, would require a change in process, but ultimately that's a question for the Senedd.
Welsh: O ran prosesau'r Senedd i ddelio â deddfwriaeth eilradd, ar y cyfan, dwi ddim yn credu bod angen newid prosesau. Un enghraifft o le y buasai hynny, efallai, ddim yn wir yw, mae'n amlwg bod lot o botensial gennym ni i leihau'r nifer o Orchmynion a deddfwriaeth eilradd sy'n bodoli a buasem ni'n gosod nod i sicrhau mai dim ond un set o reoliadau sydd yn berthnasol i unrhyw bŵer, er enghraifft, er mwyn sicrhau hygyrchedd. Hefyd, pan fydd rheoliadau'n newid, gallwn ni sicrhau mwy o hygyrchedd drwy ail-wneud y ddeddfwriaeth eilradd yn hytrach na jest ei wneud fel gwelliannau i ddeddfwriaeth sydd eisoes ar y llyfrau statud, a bod gyda chi un set o reoliadau gydag un pŵer, ac wedyn, fel gyda'r pwynt a wnaeth Dai Lloyd gynnau ynglŷn â thracio, fod y Cynulliad yn edrych ar fersiwn sy'n ddiwygiedig ond yn dangos y newidiadau mewn tracio. Felly, byddai hynny yn golygu bod angen rhyw fath o broses newydd yn y Senedd fel bod penderfyniad y Senedd yn berthnasol jest i'r newidiadau, fel y mae ar hyn o bryd. Buasai hynny yn gorfodi, rwy'n credu, newid proses, ond ar ddiwedd y dydd, cwestiwn i'r Senedd wrth gwrs yw hynny.
English: Okay. And the last question from me for now: in terms of the humans rights legislation, in what way can you ensure that the Assembly considers how to ensure that legislation is legislation that is consistent with human rights legislation? Also, in what way would human rights be included in the body of legislation ultimately? If we're talking about ultimately having some sort of code where people can look at the law, and where Welsh law is, in what way will you ensure that human rights are part of that code? We're talking about steps up to that now. Is it therefore possible to consolidate human rights legislation given, of course, that the legislation itself is changing with every case?
Welsh: Ocê. A'r un diwethaf wrthyf i am nawr: ynglŷn â'r gyfraith hawliau dynol, ym mha ffordd allwch chi sicrhau bod y Cynulliad yn ystyried sut i sicrhau bod deddfwriaeth yn ddeddfwriaeth sydd yn gyson â'r gyfraith hawliau dynol? A hefyd ym mha ffordd byddai hawliau dynol yn cael eu gwneud yn rhan o'r corff o ddeddfwriaeth yn y pen draw? Os ŷn ni'n dweud yn y pen draw ein bod ni'n mynd i gael rhyw fath o god, efallai, sydd yn mynd i fod yn rhywbeth lle mae pobl yn gallu edrych ar y gyfraith, ynglŷn â lle mae cyfraith Cymru, ym mha ffordd allwch chi sicrhau bod hawliau dynol yn rhan o'r cod hwnnw? Rŷm ni'n siarad am gamau lan at hwnna nawr. A yw e felly yn bosibl i gydgrynhoi cyfraith hawliau dynol wrth gofio, wrth gwrs, fod y gyfraith ei hunan yn newid gyda phob achos?