English: Thanks to the committee for bringing today's debate, and also for the large and informative report that they produced. Now, Huw was just talking about the new ways of working and I think all of us are learning at the moment how to function under the so-called new normal. It is unfortunate that the massive crisis of COVID-19 occurred when it did, when the electoral reform committee had already finished most of its work, because COVID is going to have a major impact on how we work going forward, and that impact has not informed in any way the findings of this report. That isn't the fault of the committee, of course; it's just a misfortune of timing. As I said, this is a voluminous report that has thoroughly examined several issues that were of interest to the committee. The problem is that other solutions, like planning in detail how to continue operating with 60 Members, were of almost no interest to it. So, the report barely touches on this. As Huw mentioned, it does go into it a little bit, but the underlying assumption is that we will ultimately have to have close to 90 Members here. So, I fear I must profoundly disagree with this assumption. The fixation on getting extra Members was the starting point for this report, so it's a bit like the old joke when somebody is on a motoring holiday abroad and they ask a local, 'Can you tell us the quickest way to get to the city centre?', and the local says, 'Well, I wouldn't start from here.' That's my problem with this report: I wouldn't have started from here. I wouldn't have started from the presumption that this place cannot operate properly without another 25 to 30 Members. We sit here for two days in Plenary each week. In the House of Commons, they sit for four days a week. It's not like we're paid much less than MPs; certainly, we are paid a full-time salary. So, if we are overworked, why aren't we having Plenary for more than two days a week? A major problem is the business of committees. This is a big issue. But when we discussed this in 2017, I suggested that the number of committees, the amount of committee meetings and the number of AMs that would have to sit on committees could all be looked at. My remarks were treated rather witheringly. Lo and behold, a few months later we had a reorganisation and it was decided by the Business Committee that we didn't need eight Members on committees after all; we could have six. So, given that, could we now also look at the number of committees we have or, more usefully perhaps, the volume of work that is undertaken? We could look to cut down on the number of meetings when we do the forward work programmes because, as we know, work expands to fill the time available. A witness was quoted as saying that in this report. Once committees are set up, they like to feel important, and they like to have a full programme of work, but let's be honest: we're not discussing legislation all the time on committees, are we? Even if we are debating legislation, what good would extra Members do? We operate here in a party political system with party whips. Members are whipped as to how to vote on legislation. They don't just sit there and listen to the evidence and then decide for themselves how they're going to vote - they're told how to vote by the party whips. If you had another 20 Labour Members here, then what earthly good would it do? They wouldn't provide any greater level of scrutiny since those extra Members would still be told how to vote by their party whips. This system would be the same if we had 60 Members, 90 Members or 100 Members, and we'd still get perfectly good opposition amendments being voted down by the Government. That is the reality of party politics, and that reality is being completely overlooked in this report. This is a time of uncertain public finances. People in the real world are losing their jobs and their livelihoods. This is the very worst time to try and convince the general public of the need for 30 more Members of this Chamber, at a cost to them of millions of pounds a year. For that reason, while I appreciate the work that has gone into this report, I must oppose its findings completely and utterly. Many members of the public are concluding that we don't need 90 Members of the Senedd. We don't even need 60. We need precisely zero, because we don't need this place. But don't trust my opinion; ask the public themselves directly in a referendum if they want 30 more Members, or if they would rather abolish the Assembly altogether. I know which way I would vote. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Welsh: Diolch i'r pwyllgor am gyflwyno'r ddadl heddiw, a hefyd am yr adroddiad mawr a llawn gwybodaeth a gynhyrchwyd ganddynt. Nawr, roedd Huw'n sôn am y ffyrdd newydd o weithio a chredaf fod pob un ohonom yn dysgu ar y foment sut i weithredu o dan y normal newydd fel y'i gelwir. Mae'n anffodus fod argyfwng enfawr COVID-19 wedi digwydd pan wnaeth, pan oedd y pwyllgor ar ddiwygio etholiadol eisoes wedi gorffen y rhan fwyaf o'i waith, oherwydd bydd COVID yn cael effaith fawr ar sut y gweithiwn yn y dyfodol, ac nid yw'r effaith honno wedi llywio canfyddiadau'r adroddiad hwn mewn unrhyw ffordd. Nid bai'r pwyllgor yw hynny, wrth gwrs; amseru anffodus yn unig ydyw. Fel y dywedais, mae hwn yn adroddiad swmpus sydd wedi archwilio nifer o faterion a oedd o ddiddordeb i'r pwyllgor yn drylwyr. Y broblem yw nad oedd atebion eraill, fel cynllunio'n fanwl sut i barhau i weithredu gyda 60 o Aelodau, o fawr ddim diddordeb iddo. Felly, prin fod yr adroddiad yn cyffwrdd â hyn. Fel y soniodd Huw, mae'n sôn ychydig am hynny, ond y rhagdybiaeth sylfaenol yw y bydd yn rhaid inni yn y pen draw gael bron i 90 o Aelodau yma. Felly, mae arnaf ofn fod yn rhaid i mi anghytuno'n llwyr â'r rhagdybiaeth hon. Yr obsesiwn â chael Aelodau ychwanegol oedd man cychwyn yr adroddiad hwn, felly mae'n debyg i'r hen jôc pan fydd rhywun ar wyliau moduro dramor ac maent yn gofyn i rywun lleol, 'A allwch chi ddweud wrtha i pa ffordd yw'r gyflymaf i ganol y ddinas?', ac mae'r unigolyn lleol yn dweud, 'Wel, fyddwn i ddim yn dechrau o'r fan hon.' Dyna fy mhroblem gyda'r adroddiad hwn: ni fyddwn wedi dechrau o'r fan hon. Ni fyddwn wedi dechrau o'r rhagdybiaeth na all y lle hwn weithredu'n iawn heb 25 i 30 Aelod arall. Rydym yn eistedd yma am ddeuddydd yn y Cyfarfod Llawn bob wythnos. Yn Nhŷ'r Cyffredin, maent yn eistedd am bedwar diwrnod yr wythnos. Cawn ein talu bron gymaint ag Aelodau Seneddol; yn sicr, telir cyflog amser llawn inni. Felly, os ydym yn orlwythog â gwaith, pam nad ydym yn cael Cyfarfod Llawn am fwy na deuddydd yr wythnos? Un broblem fawr yw busnes pwyllgorau. Mae hwn yn fater o bwys. Ond pan drafodwyd hyn gennym yn 2017, awgrymais y gellid edrych ar nifer y pwyllgorau, nifer y cyfarfodydd pwyllgor a nifer yr Aelodau Cynulliad y byddai'n rhaid iddynt eistedd ar bwyllgorau. Cafodd fy sylwadau eu trin braidd yn ddeifiol. Ac wele, ychydig fisoedd yn ddiweddarach cawsom ad-drefnu a phenderfynodd y Pwyllgor Busnes nad oedd angen wyth Aelod ar bwyllgorau wedi'r cyfan; gallem gael chwech. Felly, o gofio hynny, a gawn ni edrych yn awr hefyd ar nifer y pwyllgorau sydd gennym neu'n fwy defnyddiol efallai, faint o waith sy'n cael ei wneud? Gallem geisio lleihau nifer y cyfarfodydd pan fyddwn yn gwneud y blaenraglen waith oherwydd fel y gwyddom, mae gwaith yn ehangu i lenwi'r amser sydd ar gael. Dyfynnwyd tyst yn dweud hynny yn yr adroddiad hwn. Pan fydd pwyllgorau wedi'u sefydlu, maent yn hoffi teimlo'n bwysig, ac maent yn hoffi cael rhaglen waith lawn, ond gadewch inni fod yn onest: nid ydym yn trafod deddfwriaeth drwy'r amser ar bwyllgorau, ydym ni? Hyd yn oed os ydym yn dadlau am ddeddfwriaeth, pa les fyddai Aelodau ychwanegol yn ei wneud? Rydym yn gweithredu yma mewn system wleidyddol bleidiol gyda chwipiaid pleidiau. Caiff Aelodau eu chwipio o ran sut i bleidleisio ar ddeddfwriaeth. Nid dim ond eistedd yno a gwrando ar y dystiolaeth a phenderfynu drostynt eu hunain wedyn sut y bwriadant bleidleisio a wnânt - dywedir wrthynt sut i bleidleisio gan chwipiaid y pleidiau. Pe bai gennych 20 Aelod Llafur arall yma, pa les fyddai hynny'n ei wneud? Ni fyddent yn darparu lefel uwch o graffu gan y byddai'r Aelodau ychwanegol hynny'n dal i gael gwybod sut i bleidleisio gan chwipiaid eu plaid. Byddai'r system yr un fath pe bai gennym 60 o Aelodau, 90 Aelod neu 100 o Aelodau, a byddem yn dal i weld gwelliannau da gan y gwrthbleidiau'n cael eu gwrthod gan y Llywodraeth. Dyna realiti gwleidyddiaeth plaid, ac mae'r realiti hwnnw'n cael ei anwybyddu'n llwyr yn yr adroddiad hwn. Mae hwn yn gyfnod o ansicrwydd ym maes cyllid cyhoeddus. Mae pobl yn y byd go iawn yn colli eu swyddi a'u bywoliaeth. Dyma'r adeg waethaf un i geisio argyhoeddi'r cyhoedd o'r angen am 30 yn fwy o Aelodau i'r Siambr hon, ar gost o filiynau o bunnoedd y flwyddyn. Am y rheswm hwnnw, er fy mod yn gwerthfawrogi'r gwaith sydd wedi'i wneud yn yr adroddiad hwn, rhaid imi wrthwynebu ei ganfyddiadau'n llwyr. Mae llawer o aelodau o'r cyhoedd yn dod i'r casgliad nad oes arnom angen 90 o Aelodau o'r Senedd. Nid oes angen 60 arnom hyd yn oed. Nid oes angen unrhyw Aelodau o'r Senedd, gan nad ydym angen y lle hwn. Ond peidiwch ag ymddiried yn fy marn i; gofynnwch i'r cyhoedd eu hunain yn uniongyrchol mewn refferendwm os ydynt am gael 30 Aelod arall, neu a fyddai'n well ganddynt ddiddymu'r Cynulliad yn gyfan gwbl. Gwn pa ffordd y byddwn i'n pleidleisio. Diolch yn fawr iawn.