English: I'm not embarrassed to say this yet again, that it is the Welsh Parliament that makes the law, not the Government. So, it's the very least we can expect as a first step from Government that it lays a Bill that is, first, complete; that is, secondly, fully fleshed out in terms of its policy objective and at least its initial delivery; and, thirdly, has been properly costed. I think the failure to accept certain recommendations from the Finance Committee on this is a mistake. I don't think that this Bill satisfies those three general principles. If it doesn't do that, I think as legislators we should reject it today, send it back and, maybe, reinvite it to be re-laid in a form that does satisfy those tests. That's notwithstanding the point that's already been made about the period in which this piece of legislation has been brought forward. The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee - the former version, of course, of Mick Antoniw's committee - said that amendments are for debating and suggesting improvements to a Bill, and not to deliver large and significant amounts of text and not to complete Bills that are not considered fully developed at the point of introduction. As an Assembly, of course, we ignored that when we passed the Senedd and elections Bill, and as legislators we shouldn't do that again. Fool us once and it's shame on you, Welsh Government, but fool us twice and it's shame on us. I'd like to say it's for the first time, but it's not. I think it is time for us to do our jobs and say why this is bad law now. So, just to look back at the Senedd and elections Bill, one of the arguments put forward by the Welsh Government was that the unscrutinised inclusion of votes for resident foreign nationals would be to make it more consistent with this - the contents of, at the time, an unseen Bill. Now, this unseen Bill will, belatedly, be offering votes to certain prisoners, although I heard what the Minister said earlier, and perhaps she could clarify the position now and what she meant when she said that she would not be asking officials to devote any more resources to this. But, the point is that it was completely inconsistent with the Senedd and elections Act, already poor reasoning on the part of the Welsh Government, and now they're seeking to have it both ways, unless the Minister has something else to say on this. As legislators, we should, therefore, say 'no'. The obvious question is why prisoner voting wasn't included in the original Bill. I'm sorry to say that the answers that the Minister gave to our committee in her evidence to us were particularly weak. We've known that responsibility for elections was to be devolved to this institution as far back as 2017, so there's been a good 18 months to prepare for a draft to be included at the beginning of the Bill on this. Citing the Hirst decision for a delay: you know, that's a decision that goes back, or the issue goes back, to 2005, so that's not very credible either. If you want further evidence of incomplete preparation, I think it's the inclusion of the 98 powers that Mick Antoniw referred to earlier. You've been at this for six years now - it's a lot for a lengthy Bill. At this stage, we would need to know why you're seeking powers, rather than committing to duties in some cases, and then the circumstances in which you would use those powers. You've had plenty of time for scenario planning, and we don't have clarity on that. We have some powers, as Mick mentioned, with no procedure attached to them, including powers material to changes in how councils conduct elections. Your justification for this is that it was done that way in legislation that predates the existence of the Assembly by almost 30 years. That's not a good reason. Those weighty powers relating to the operation of the single transferable vote: you should be clear now about how those should be used and they should be in a Schedule to this Bill. We've already heard about the creation of an electoral database. The problem with that, as you said, Minister, yourself, is that you hadn't worked it out yet. Conversely, we have a situation where the Government is certain about what it wants to do about certain types of publication, as in Schedule 4 - a couple of paragraphs there. But, rather than set it out, it actually seeks powers to do it instead, when there's no need for that. So, rather than repeat what others have said, I'll finish by drawing Members' and Ministers' attention to the recommendations that have been refused by the Minister - they do require further ministerial response - but also to chapter 3 of the committee's report, and to take to heart what it says, so that Government can draft better law and that we can become better legislators, quite frankly. I hope the Minister, and us all, as legislators, will bear that in mind. Thank you.
Welsh: Nid oes arnaf gywilydd dweud hyn unwaith eto, mai Senedd Cymru sy'n gwneud y gyfraith, nid y Llywodraeth. Felly, dyma'r lleiaf y gallwn ni ei ddisgwyl fel cam cyntaf gan y Llywodraeth ei bod yn gosod Bil sydd, yn gyntaf, yn gyflawn; yn ail, â chig digonol ar yr esgyrn o ran ei amcan polisi ac o leiaf ei ddarpariaeth gychwynnol; ac, yn drydydd, wedi ei gostio'n iawn. Rwy'n credu bod y methu â derbyn argymhellion penodol gan y Pwyllgor Cyllid ynghylch hyn yn gamgymeriad. Nid wyf yn credu bod y Bil hwn yn bodloni'r tair egwyddor gyffredinol hynny. Os nad yw'n gwneud hynny, rwy'n credu fel deddfwyr, y dylem ni ei wrthod heddiw, ei anfon yn ôl ac, efallai, ei ail-wahodd er mwyn ei ail-osod ar ffurf sy'n bodloni'r profion hynny. Mae hynny er gwaethaf y pwynt a wnaed eisoes ynghylch y cyfnod y mae'r darn hwn o ddeddfwriaeth wedi ei gyflwyno ynddo. Dywedodd y Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol a Deddfwriaethol - y fersiwn flaenorol, wrth gwrs, o bwyllgor Mick Antoniw - mai diben diwygiadau yw trafod ac awgrymu gwelliannau i Fil, ac nid darparu symiau mawr a sylweddol o destun na pheidio â chwblhau Biliau nad ystyrir eu bod wedi eu datblygu'n llawn ar adeg eu cyflwyno. Fel Cynulliad, wrth gwrs, anwybyddwyd hynny pan basiwyd Bil y Senedd ac Etholiadau, ac fel deddfwyr, ni ddylem wneud hynny eto. Os twyllwch ni unwaith yna rhag eich cywilydd, Lywodraeth Cymru, ond os twyllwch ni ddwywaith yna rhag ein cywilydd ni. Fe fyddwn i'n hoffi dweud mai dyma'r tro cyntaf, ond nid yw hynny'n wir. Rwy'n credu ei bod hi'n bryd i ni wneud ein gwaith a dweud pam y mae hon yn gyfraith wael nawr. Felly, dim ond i edrych yn ôl ar Fil y Senedd ac Etholiadau, un o'r dadleuon a gyflwynwyd gan Lywodraeth Cymru oedd y byddai cynnwys pleidleisiau ar gyfer gwladolion tramor preswyl heb graffu yn ei wneud yn fwy cyson â hyn - cynnwys, ar y pryd, Bil heb ei weld. Nawr, bydd y Bil nas gwelwyd hwn, yn hwyr, yn cynnig pleidleisiau i rai carcharorion, er i mi glywed yr hyn a ddywedodd y Gweinidog yn gynharach, ac efallai y gwnaiff hi egluro'r sefyllfa yn awr a'r hyn yr oedd yn ei olygu pan ddywedodd na fyddai'n gofyn i swyddogion neilltuo rhagor o adnoddau ar gyfer hyn. Ond, y pwynt yw ei fod yn gwbl anghyson â'r Ddeddf Senedd ac Etholiadau, sydd eisoes yn rhesymu gwael ar ran Llywodraeth Cymru, a nawr maen nhw'n ceisio ei chael hi bob ffordd, oni bai bod gan y Gweinidog rywbeth arall i'w ddweud am hyn. Fel deddfwyr, dylem, felly, ddweud 'na'. Y cwestiwn amlwg yw pam nad oedd pleidleisio gan garcharorion wedi ei gynnwys yn y Bil gwreiddiol. Mae'n ddrwg gennyf ddweud bod yr atebion a roddodd y Gweinidog i'n Pwyllgor yn ei thystiolaeth i ni yn arbennig o wan. Roeddem yn gwybod y byddai'r cyfrifoldeb dros etholiadau yn cael ei ddatganoli i'r sefydliad hwn mor bell yn ôl â 2017, felly bu 18 mis da i baratoi ar gyfer drafft i'w gynnwys ar ddechrau'r Bil ynghylch hyn. Dyfynnu penderfyniad Hirst i oedi: wyddoch chi, mae hwnnw'n benderfyniad sy'n mynd yn ôl, neu mae'r mater yn mynd yn ôl i 2005, felly nid yw hynny'n gredadwy iawn ychwaith. Os ydych eisiau rhagor o dystiolaeth o baratoi anghyflawn, rwy'n credu mai hynny fyddai cynnwys y 98 o bwerau y cyfeiriodd Mick Antoniw atyn nhw yn gynharach. Rydych chi wedi bod yn ymwneud â hyn ers chwe blynedd bellach - mae'n dipyn o gyfnod ar gyfer Bil hir. Ar hyn o bryd, byddai angen i ni wybod pam yr ydych chi'n ceisio pwerau, yn hytrach nag ymrwymo i ddyletswyddau mewn rhai achosion, ac yna o dan ba amgylchiadau y byddech chi'n defnyddio'r pwerau hynny. Rydych chi wedi cael digon o amser i gynllunio ar gyfer sefyllfa, a dydyn ni ddim yn glir ynglŷn â hynny. Mae gennym ni rai pwerau, fel y crybwyllodd Mick, heb unrhyw weithdrefn ynghlwm wrthynt, gan gynnwys pwerau sy'n berthnasol i newidiadau yn y ffordd y mae cynghorau'n cynnal etholiadau. Eich cyfiawnhad dros hyn yw iddo gael ei wneud felly mewn deddfwriaeth a oedd yn rhagflaenu bodolaeth y Cynulliad gan bron i 30 mlynedd. Nid yw hynny'n rheswm da. Y pwerau trymion hynny sy'n ymwneud â gweithredu'r bleidlais sengl drosglwyddadwy: dylech chi fod yn glir nawr ynglŷn â sut y dylid defnyddio'r rheini a dylent fod mewn Atodlen i'r Bil hwn. Rydym eisoes wedi clywed am greu cronfa ddata etholiadol. Y broblem ynglŷn â hynny, fel y dywedasoch, Gweinidog, eich hun, yw nad oeddech wedi gweithio pethau allan eto. Ar y llaw arall, mae gennym sefyllfa lle mae'r Llywodraeth yn sicr ynglŷn â'r hyn y mae eisiau ei wneud ynghylch mathau penodol o gyhoeddi, fel yn Atodlen 4 - ychydig o baragraffau yn y fan honno. Ond, yn hytrach na'i osod allan, mae mewn gwirionedd yn ceisio pwerau i wneud hynny yn hytrach, pan nad oes angen hynny. Felly, yn hytrach nag ailadrodd yr hyn y mae eraill wedi ei ddweud, rwyf eisiau gorffen drwy dynnu sylw Aelodau a Gweinidogion at yr argymhellion sydd wedi eu gwrthod gan y Gweinidog - mae arnyn nhw angen ymateb pellach gan Weinidogion - ond hefyd at bennod 3 o adroddiad y pwyllgor, ac i ystyried yr hyn a ddywed, fel y gall y Llywodraeth ddrafftio cyfraith well ac y gallwn ninnau ddod yn well deddfwyr, a dweud y gwir. Rwy'n gobeithio y bydd y Gweinidog, a ninnau i gyd, fel deddfwyr, yn cadw hynny mewn cof. Diolch.