Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru
The National Assembly for Wales

 

Y Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol a Deddfwriaethol
The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee

 

 

Dydd Llun, 18 Mawrth 2013

Monday, 18 March 2013

 

 

Cynnwys
Contents

 

Cyflwyniad, Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datganiadau o Fuddiant

Introduction, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of Interest    

 

Offerynnau nad ydynt yn Cynnwys Unrhyw Faterion i’w Codi o dan Reolau Sefydlog Rhifau

21.2 neu 21.3

Instruments that Raise no Reporting Issues under Standing Order Nos. 21.2 or 21.3

 

Offerynnau sy’n Cynnwys Materion i Gyflwyno Adroddiad arnynt i’r Cynulliad o dan Reolau

Sefydlog Rhifau 21.2 neu 21.3

Instruments that Raise Issues to be Reported to the Assembly under Standing Order Nos. 21.2

or 21.3

 

Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog Rhif 17.42 i Benderfynu Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o’r Cyfarfod

Motion under Standing Order No. 17.42 to Resolve to Exclude the Public from the Meeting

 

Tystiolaeth Mewn Perthynas â’r Ymchwiliad i Ddeddfu a’r Eglwys yng Nghymru

Evidence in Relation to the Inquiry on Law Making and the Church in Wales           

 

Cynnig ar gyfer Cyfarwyddeb gan Senedd Ewrop a’r Cyngor ar y Defnydd o Seilwaith

Tanwydd Amgen (COM(2013)0018)

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Deployment of

Alternative Fuels Infrastructure (COM(2013)0018)    

 

Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog Rhif 17.42 i Benderfynu Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o’r Cyfarfod

Motion under Standing Order No. 17.42 to Resolve to Exclude the Public from the Meeting

 

 

Cofnodir y trafodion yn yr iaith y llefarwyd hwy ynddi yn y pwyllgor. Yn ogystal, cynhwysir trawsgrifiad o’r cyfieithu ar y pryd.

 

The proceedings are reported in the language in which they were spoken in the committee. In addition, a transcription of the simultaneous interpretation is included.

 

Aelodau’r pwyllgor yn bresennol
Committee members in attendance

 

Suzy Davies

Ceidwadwyr Cymreig
Welsh Conservatives

Mike Hedges

Llafur (yn dirprwyo ar ran Julie James)

Labour (substitute for Julie James)

David Melding

Y Dirprwy Lywydd a Chadeirydd y Pwyllgor
The Deputy Presiding Officer and Committee Chair

Eluned Parrott

Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol Cymru

Welsh Liberal Democrats

Simon Thomas

Plaid Cymru
The Party of Wales

 

Eraill yn bresennol
Others in attendance

 

Charles Anderson

Cyfreithiwr ar gyfer yr Eglwys yng Nghymru

Solicitor for the Church in Wales

Alex Granville

Pennaeth Gwasanaeth Eiddo yr Eglwys

The Church’s Head of Property Services

Y Parchedicaf/The Most Reverend Barry Morgan

 

Archesgob Cymru ac Esgob Llandaf

Archbishop of Wales and Bishop of Llandaff

Swyddogion Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru yn bresennol
National Assembly for Wales officials in attendance

 

Gwyn Griffiths

Uwch-gynghorydd Cyfreithiol
Senior Legal Adviser

Ruth Hatton

Dirprwy Glerc
Deputy Clerk

Owain Roberts

Y Gwasanaeth Ymchwil

The Research Service

Alys Thomas

Y Gwasanaeth Ymchwil

The Research Service

Gareth Williams

Clerc
Clerk

 

Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 2.00 p.m.
The meeting began at 2.00 p.m.

 

Cyflwyniad, Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datganiadau o Fuddiant
Introduction, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of Interest

 

[1]               David Melding: Good afternoon, and welcome to this meeting of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee. I will start with the usual housekeeping announcements. We do not expect a routine fire drill, so, if we hear the alarm, please follow the instructions of the ushers, who will help us to leave the building safely. Please switch off all electronic equipment, as, even on silent, they will interfere with our broadcasting equipment. These proceedings will be conducted in Welsh and English. When Welsh is spoken, there is a translation available on channel 1, and channel 0 will amplify our proceedings. We have received apologies from Julie James and I am delighted to welcome Mike Hedges as the substitute this afternoon.

 

2.41 p.m.

 

Offerynnau Nad Ydynt yn Cynnwys Unrhyw Faterion i’w Codi o dan Reolau Sefydlog Rhifau 21.2 neu 21.3
Instruments that Raise no Reporting Issues under Standing Order Nos. 21.2 or 21.3

 

[2]               David Melding: These instruments are listed for Members, if anyone has any queries. I see that we are content.

 

Offerynnau sy’n Cynnwys Materion i Gyflwyno Adroddiad arnynt i’r Cynulliad o dan Reolau Sefydlog Rhifau 21.2 neu 21.3
Instruments that Raise Issues to be Reported to the Assembly under Standing Order Nos. 21.2 or 21.3

 

[3]               David Melding: These instruments are listed. First, there is one affirmative resolution and there are a couple of negative resolutions. Are there any issues that Members want to query?

 

[4]               Simon Thomas: Rwyf am wneud sylw am y Rheoliadau Gorfodi Sifil ar Dramgwyddau Traffig Ffyrdd (Darpariaethau Cyffredinol) (Cymru) 2013. Mae hon yn enghraifft arall eithaf cyffredin o reoliadau yn cael eu gwneud yn uniaith Saesneg. Mae un arall, sydd hefyd yn yr iaith Saesneg, sef y Gorchymyn ar gynllun effeithlonrwydd ynni’r ymrwymiad lleihau carbon. Byddwn yn dadlau nad oes fawr o ddiddordeb gyda’r cyhoedd o leiaf yn y pwnc hwnnw a’i fod yn eithaf technegol, ond mae gorfodi sifil yn ymwneud â pharcio a thramgwyddau traffig ffyrdd yn rhywbeth hynod boblogaidd ymysg pobl ac yn rhywbeth y mae pobl yn dod ar ei draws bob dydd. Felly, mae’n siom fawr nad yw’r rheini wedi’u gwneud yn ddwyieithog ac nad yw’n bosibl i’r cyhoedd ddarllen yn Gymraeg beth sydd yn y rheoliadau hyn sy’n effeithio ar y ffordd maent yn mynd o gwmpas eu busnes bob dydd.

 

Simon Thomas: I just want to comment on the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (General Provisions) (Wales) Regulations 2013. This is another fairly common example of regulations being made in English only. There is another one in English only, which is the carbon reduction commitment energy efficiency scheme Order. I would argue that the public would not be particularly interested in that issue and that it is quite technical in nature, but the civil enforcement of road traffic contraventions and in relation to to parking is of great interest to the public and is something that people come across on a daily basis. So, it is a great disappointment that these regulations have not been made bilingually and that it is not therefore possible for the public to read in Welsh what they contain, as they will impact upon how they go about their daily business.

[5]               David Melding: Do we want to boost that part of our report, saying that given the relevance to the public, we are surprised that priority was not given in producing these bilingually?

 

[6]               Mr Griffiths: Mae’r egwyddor yr un fath yn y ddau achos, sef bod yr offerynnau yn cael eu cyflwyno i ddeddfwrfeydd eraill. Y gwahaniaeth efallai yw bod y Gorchymyn ynni yn anarferol dros ben, oherwydd mae’r broses yn un lle mae angen cymeradwyaeth nid yn unig gan y ddau dŷ yn San Steffan, ond gan Senedd yr Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon. Mae offerynnau fel hyn, sy’n gymwys i’r Deyrnas Gyfunol gyfan, fel arfer yn fater i San Steffan yn unig. Nid oes gen i gof o weld offeryn o’r math hwn, ond hyd yn oed petaem yn gallu darbwyllo Senedd San Steffan y dylai dderbyn deddfwriaeth yn ddwyieithog, ni allwn ddisgwyl i Ogledd Iwerddon a’r Alban wneud hynny.

 

Mr Griffiths: The principle is the same in both cases, in that the instruments are introduced to other legislatures. The difference perhaps is that the energy Order is very unusual because the process needs approval not just from both houses in Westminster, but also from the Scottish Parliament and from Northern Ireland. Instruments such as these that apply to the whole of the UK would usually be a matter for Westminster only. I do not remember another instrument such as this, but even if we could convince the Westminster Parliament that it should receive legislation bilingually, we cannot expect Northern Ireland or Scotland to do so.

[7]               Mae’r offeryn parcio yn gymwys i Gymru yn unig ac, felly, gellid cyfiawnhau gwneud sylw pellach, ond mae’r ddadl yr un peth: mae’n cael ei gyflwyno gerbron San Steffan ac yn cael ei wneud ar y cyd gyda’r Arglwydd Ganghellor, ac felly mae wedi ei wneud yn Saesneg yn unig.

 

The parking instrument relates to Wales only and, therefore, we can justify making a further comment on that, but the argument is the same: it will be laid before Westminster and is made jointly with the Lord Chancellor, and therefore it has been made in English only.

[8]               David Melding: Okay. Let us beef it up then and we will send a warning shot. If there are no other matters on item 3—I do not see any Members indicating—we will move to item 4.

 

2.04 p.m.

 

Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog Rhif 17.42 i Benderfynu Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o’r Cyfarfod
Motion under Standing Order No. 17.42 to Resolve to Exclude the Public from the Meeting

 

[9]               David Melding: I move that

 

the committee resolves to exclude the public in accordance with Standing Order No. 17.42(vi).

 

[10]           I see that there are no objections. We will now meet in private. Please clear the public gallery and switch off the broadcasting equipment.

 

Derbyniwyd y cynnig.

Motion agreed.

 

Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am 2.05 p.m.
The public part of the meeting ended at 2.05 p.m.

 

Ailymgynullodd y cyfarfod yn gyhoeddus am 3.00 p.m.
The committee reconvened in public at 3.00 p.m.

 

Tystiolaeth Mewn Perthynas â’r Ymchwiliad i Ddeddfu a’r Eglwys yng Nghymru
Evidence in Relation to the Inquiry on Law Making and the Church in Wales

 

[11]           David Melding: This meeting of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee is now back in public session. I am particularly delighted to welcome the Most Reverend Barry Morgan, the Archbishop of Wales and Bishop of Llandaff to this session. We also welcome your officials, Archbishop, namely Charles Anderson, a solicitor for the Church in Wales, and Alex Granville, who is the head of property services for the Church in Wales. I do not believe that the structure of this meeting will surprise you at all. We have prepared a series of questions, which we will put to you in turn; I will then encourage any supplementary questions and any development of the points that are being discussed. If either of your officials wishes to attract my attention and say something in reply, Archbishop, we would be delighted with that as well.

 

[12]           I will ask the first question, which is a very general one. How did this issue get on your radar? Was it while listening to the Today programme, or did you suddenly realise that a major legislative change was being proposed, and that you had no foreknowledge of it? We will then drill into the specific points and answers, and pieces of evidence, that we want to gain this afternoon. Therefore, a fairly short introductory answer will be great—thank you.

 

[13]           The Most Reverend Morgan: The Church in Wales was not consulted at all when the Government decided that it wanted to introduce a same-sex marriage Bill. It merely stated that the Church in Wales would be barred from holding these marriages. That seemed to be an extraordinary position, given the fact that there had been no consultation at all with us. The Church in Wales was faced with a difficulty. An anomaly of disestablishment is that we are forced by law to marry—and we do not mind that position at present—anyone who lives within our parishes; we have a duty to marry people. That means that, if the Government changes its marriage laws so that it embraces same-sex unions, the Church in Wales would have to do that, even if it did not want to do it. However, to bar it from doing so would not give it any voice at all. We are in a different position from the Church of England because that church—because it is the established church—can change law by Measure. Therefore, the Church of England was in a different position. We therefore got in touch with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and with the Secretary of State, Maria Miller. I must say that, from that moment on, when they realised the problems that we faced, they have been nothing except accommodating.

 

[14]           David Melding: We will now follow up some of these points specifically. Suzy Davies will take us through the first few questions.

 

[15]           Suzy Davies: Archbishop, are you able to tell us a little more about those conversations? You state in your written evidence that you were concerned about the statement in December last year for two specific reasons, which you have briefly outlined. It is nice to hear that you are enjoying good conversations with the Government. How has that helped you to date?

 

[16]           The Most Reverend Morgan: As I said, the first that we heard of this issue was that we read about it, and we obviously reacted to that. I believe that I gave an interview to the Today programme at one stage. That then came on the Government’s radar, and it got in touch with us. Initially, the Government asked whether we could go to London during the week before Christmas, which was not quite possible for me. [Laughter.]

 

[17]           Simon Thomas: Did they know what job you were in? [Laughter.]

 

[18]           The Most Reverend Morgan: I said to them, ‘If you want us to meet, we can meet in Cardiff, but I cannot come to London this week’. Subsequently, two officials duly arrived in Cardiff on the Friday before Christmas. We told them that we wanted to be protected in law from being prosecuted if we do not marry same-sex couples, because that is not the church’s current position. On the other hand, we do not want to be proscribed by an Act of Parliament from so doing if that is what we want to do eventually, because, in order to undo that, we shall have to have another Act of Parliament.

 

[19]           That is enormously complicated, because, as some of you will know, the Marriage Act 1949 was amended in 2010 to catch up with the different kind of residence qualifications that the Church of England had introduced by Measure in 2008, I believe; that had to be done by an Act of Parliament. It was only because we managed to persuade somebody in the House of Lords and the House of Commons to work with us and for us, that we got that through in record time. However, there would be no guarantee that we could do it again. In any case, it means that the Government would have to give time for it to happen.

 

[20]           We gave the Government that problem, and it said that it was quite a tall order. Officials also said, ‘Well, the Prime Minister wants to have this sorted out by the middle of January’. I am afraid that I did say that that was the Prime Minister’s problem, not mine. [Laughter.] The officials went away and, in fairness, they came back again. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has spoken to me twice about it; she has realised the problem and has tried to do something about it.

 

[21]           Suzy Davies: Is that where clause 8 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill came in?

 

[22]           The Most Reverend Morgan: That is right.

 

[23]           Suzy Davies: Did it come in as a direct result of this?

 

[24]           The Most Reverend Morgan: Yes; it did. I must confess that having realised the problem, having realised that it had not consulted and having realised the peculiar position—if I can put it like that—of the Church in Wales, the Government has been nothing but accommodating; I must pay tribute to that.

 

[25]           Suzy Davies: It is better late than never, but at least we know from where this clause 8 idea came from.

 

[26]           The Most Reverend Morgan: Absolutely. All that we asked the Government to do was to ensure that clergy are not prosecuted for not marrying same-sex couples. On the other hand, we do not want to be barred from doing so, so we asked officials whether they could find a way around that. They came up with the idea that we would have no duty to marry, but that if the Church in Wales changed its mind on the marriage of same-sex couples, it would be possible, by giving power to the Lord Chancellor, for it to be able to do so. I think that we are arguing about the words ‘may’ and ‘shall’, but there is a legal nicety as to whether you can actually compel the Lord Chancellor to do something. However, the intention is that the Lord Chancellor would lay that legislation before Parliament if the Church in Wales wanted to preside at the unions of same-sex couples.

 

[27]           Suzy Davies: A power is available, even though the Church in Wales is unlikely to be calling for it to be used in the near future.

 

[28]           The Most Reverend Morgan: At the minute, that is true, but who knows what will happen in future?

 

[29]           Suzy Davies: That is great; thank you.

 

[30]           Simon Thomas: Ymhellach i hynny, ai chi neu’r Llywodraeth awgrymodd yr Arglwydd Ganghellor fel y ffordd allan o’r sefyllfa hon?

 

Simon Thomas: Following on from that, did you or the Government suggest the Lord Chancellor as a way out of this situation?

 

[31]           Y Parchedicaf Morgan: Y Llywodraeth, oherwydd nid oeddwn yn hollol siŵr sut oedd y Llywodraeth yn mynd i oresgyn y broblem hon. Mae ganddi bobl sy’n gweithio ar y pethau hyn bob dydd trwy’r dydd, felly gadawsom i’r Llywodraeth weithio hynny allan. Dyma’r unig ffordd yr oedd yn meddwl y gallem oresgyn y broblem hon, a dyna beth sydd wedi digwydd.

 

The Most Reverend Morgan: It was the Government, because I was not entirely sure how the Government was going to get around this particular problem. It has officials who work on these things all day every day, so we allowed the Government to work that out. This was the only way that it thought that we could overcome the problem, and that is what has happened.

[32]           Simon Thomas: A ydych yn gwybod pam y mae wedi dewis yr Arglwydd Ganghellor yn hytrach na Gweinidog?

 

Simon Thomas: Do you know why the Government chose the Lord Chancellor rather than a Minister?

[33]           Y Parchedicaf Morgan: Rwy’n credu oherwydd mai ef yw pennaeth yr adran gyfreithiol. Hefyd, wrth gwrs, fel Arglwydd Ganghellor, mae’n annibynnol, mewn un ystyr, o fod yn wleidydd.

 

The Most Reverend Morgan: I think that it was because he is the head of the legal department. Also, of course, as Lord Chancellor, he is independent, in one sense, of politics.

[34]           Simon Thomas: Dyna pam, wrth gwrs, mae cwestiwn ynglŷn â rhoi dyletswydd arno i gyflwyno’r cyfan hyn. Fel yr ydych newydd ei ddweud mewn ymateb i Suzy Davies, mae cwestiwn o ran gorfodi’r Arglwydd Ganghellor i weithredu. Ar y llaw arall, mae’n glir o’r hyn sydd wedi’i roi yn y Bil ar hyn o bryd eich bod yn gofyn ei fod yn sbarduno—rwy’n meddwl mai’r gair sydd yn y memorandwm yw ‘trigger’—y confensiwn hwnnw. Fodd bynnag, nid oes dyletswydd i gyflwyno deddfwriaeth gerbron y ddau Dŷ yn San Steffan; a ydych yn gwbl gysurus gyda’r sefyllfa honno?

 

Simon Thomas: That, of course, is why there is a question in relation to placing a duty on him to introduce all of this. As you have just mentioned in response to Suzy Davies, there is a question of compelling the Lord Chancellor to act. On the other hand, it is clear from what is set out in the Bill at present that you are asking that it triggers—I think that that is the word used in the memorandum—that convention. However, there is no duty to table legislation before both Houses of Parliament; are you entirely comfortable with that situation?

[35]           Y Parchedicaf Morgan: Nid wyf yn gwybod beth fyddai’r ddau air yn y Gymraeg, ond mae gwahaniaeth rhwng ‘may’ a ‘shall’. Ar y llaw arall, mae’r atebion yr ydym yn eu cael gan y Llywodraeth yn dweud mai dyna’r bwriad. Rydym i gyd yn gwybod paham mae’r cymal hwn yn y Bil. Mae’n rhaid i ni, i ryw raddau, felly, gyd-fynd â hynny.

 

The Most Reverend Morgan: I am not sure what the corresponding words in Welsh would be, but there is a difference between ‘may’ and ‘shall’. On the other hand, the responses that we have received from the Government have told us that that is the intention. We all know why this clause is in the Bill. To a certain extent, therefore, we have to go with that.

 

[36]           Simon Thomas: Rydych yn fodlon byw gyda’r sefyllfa; a yw hynny’n wir?

 

Simon Thomas: You are content to put up with the situation; is that so?

[37]           Y Parchedicaf Morgan: Efallai y bydd yn fater yn y pen draw o orfod byw gyda’r sefyllfa. Wrth gwrs, efallai y bydd y Llywodraeth yn newid ei meddwl ac yn gosod y gair ‘shall’ yn hytrach na ‘may’ yn y Bil. Os na wnaiff, ceisiwn newid y peth ar lawr Tŷ’r Cyffredin.

The Most Reverend Morgan: At the end of the day, perhaps it will be a matter of having to put up with the situation. Of course, perhaps the Government will change its mind and will use the word ‘shall’, rather than ‘may’ in the Bill. If it does not, we will try to have it amended on the floor of the House of Commons.

 

[38]           Simon Thomas: Yr opsiwn arall, wrth gwrs, yw defnyddio Gweinidog arall, fel y Gweinidog diwylliant a threftadaeth, oherwydd mae modd rhoi dyletswydd ar Weinidogion. Felly, mae dau opsiwn ar gael er mwyn ei gyflawni. Yr hyn rwy’n ceisio gyrraedd ato yw bod tystiolaeth gan yr Athro Watkin, er enghraifft—rydych yn gyfarwydd ag ef, rwy’n siŵr—yn awgrymu y byddai’r rhan hon o’r Bil, fel mae’n edrych ar hyn o bryd, fel y dywedodd yn Saesneg, yn

 

Simon Thomas: The other option, of course, is to use a different Minister, such as the Minister for culture and heritage, because it is possible to place that duty on Ministers. Therefore, there are two options available to achieve this. What I am trying to get to is that the evidence from Professor Watkin, for example—I am sure that you are familiar with him—suggests that this part of the Bill, as it looks at present, as he has said, would

[39]           ‘fly in the face of disestablishment’.

 

[40]           Hynny yw, rydych yn dal mewn sefyllfa lle nad yw’r hyn y byddai’r Eglwys yng Nghymru, efallai,  rywbryd yn y dyfodol, yn dymuno ei weld yn gallu cael ei gyflawni achos bod rhywun yn Lloegr yn gwrthwynebu.

 

That is, you are still in a situation where the Church in Wales would, perhaps, not be able to do something at some point in the future because someone in England objects. 

[41]           Y Parchedicaf Morgan: Rydym yn y sefyllfa hon oherwydd ein bod mewn sefyllfa od fel eglwys ddatgysylltiedig sy’n parhau i weinyddu’r sacrament hon o briodas i bawb sydd yn dymuno o fewn ei muriau.

 

The Most Reverend Morgan: We are where we are because we are in a strange situation as a disestablished church that continues to administer the sacrament of marriage to anyone who wishes to be married within its walls.

 

[42]           Simon Thomas: Rydych wedi derbyn hynny yn y gorffennol fel rhyw fath o etifedd o’r gorffennol, bron.

 

Simon Thomas: You have accepted that in the past almost as some kind of legacy from the past.

[43]           Y Parchedicaf Morgan: Do, ac fel rhywbeth cenhadol, yn yr ystyr nad ydym am fod yn eglwys sy’n gwneud dim ond edrych ar ôl ein haelodau ein hunain. Rydym am fod yn eglwys sydd yn barod i agor ei drysau i bawb sydd eisiau ei defnyddio. Felly, dyna sy’n digwydd cyn belled ag y mae bedyddio, priodi a chladdu yn y cwestiwn.

 

The Most Reverend Morgan: Yes, and as a missionary activity, in the sense that we as a church do not wish to be simply looking after our own members. We want to be a church that is willing to open its doors to everyone who wishes to make use of it. Therefore, this happens in terms of baptism, marriage and burial.

[44]           Simon Thomas: Diolch am hynny; mae’n amlwg bod posibilrwydd profi’r system trwy gyflwyno gwelliannau yn y ddau Dŷ. Gan symud at y dyfodol, mae cynsail wedi ei osod yn awr, os yw’r Bil yn mynd trwyddo fel ag y mae, o ddefnyddio Gorchymyn Gweinidog i gyflawni’r hyn y mae’r Eglwys yng Nghymru yn dymuno ei weld yn y cyd-destun hwn. Rydych wedi sôn am y gorffennol, ac rydych newydd sôn am gladdu hefyd. Mae nifer o bethau eraill y mae’r eglwys yn ei wneud ac yn gorfod mynd i lawr y llwybr deddfwriaethol o gael Bil Preifat trwy Dŷ’r Cyffredin a Thŷ’r Arglwyddi er mwyn eu cyflawni. A yw hyn yn rhoi cynsail ar gyfer y dyfodol? A ydych yn gweld bod defnyddio Gorchmynion gweinidogol fel hyn yn ffordd ymlaen i’r Eglwys yng Nghymru i gyflawni hyn?

 

Simon Thomas: Thank you for that; it appears that there is a possibility to test the system by introducing amendments in both Houses. Looking to the future, a precedent has now been set, if the Bill goes through as it stands, of using ministerial Orders to achieve what the Church in Wales wants to see happening in this context. You have spoken about the past and you have just mentioned burials. There are many other things that the church does that means that it has to go down the legislative path through Private Bills in the House of Commons and the House of Lords in order to achieve them. Does this, therefore, set a precedent for the future? Do you think that using ministerial Orders in this way is the way forward for the Church in Wales to achieve this? 

[45]           Y Parchedicaf Morgan: Mae’n dibynnu’n hollol ar faint o’r gyfraith yn y pen draw sydd yn cael ei datganoli i’r Cynulliad a Llywodraeth Cymru. Er enghraifft, pe baem yn symud yng Nghymru yn yr un modd â’r hyn sy’n digwydd yn yr Alban—hynny yw, bod popeth yn cael ei ddatganoli ar wahân i’r pethau sydd yn cael eu dal yn ôl—byddai’r sefyllfa’n newid, oherwydd ni fyddai’n gwneud llawer o synnwyr i’r corff hwn roi lle arbennig i eglwys ddatgysylltiedig fel yr Eglwys yng Nghymru. Fodd bynnag, nid ydym yn y sefyllfa hon ar hyn o bryd. Mae’n rhaid inni ymateb i’r broblem sydd gennym, a dyna oedd y broblem a oedd gennym.

 

The Most Reverend Morgan: It depends entirely on how much of the law is devolved to the Assembly and the Welsh Government. If, for example, we were to move in Wales towards a Scottish model—that is, that everything would be devolved apart from retained issues—the situation would change, because it would not make much sense for this legislature to give a disestablished church like the Church in Wales a particular role. However, we are not in that position at present. We have to respond to the problem that we are currently facing, and that was the problem that we had.

[46]           Simon Thomas: Mae eich tystiolaeth i gomisiwn Silk yn dweud bod yr eglwys yn dymuno gweld y model Albanaidd hwnnw o bwerau wedi’u cadw yn ôl a bod hynny’n rhoi eglurder i’r system. Yn y bôn, mae hwn yn ateb i’r broblem arbennig a gododd o gwmpas y weithred arbennig hon ac nid oes dim byd ehangach iddo.

 

Simon Thomas: Your evidence to the Silk commission says that the church wants to see that Scottish model of retained powers being introduced and that that gives clarity to the system. Essentially, this is a solution to the particular problem that arose around this particular action and there is nothing broader to it.

[47]           Y Parchedicaf Morgan: Yn hollol. Roedd yn rhaid inni wneud rhywbeth, oherwydd ein bod yn y sefyllfa hon. Mewn un ystyr, mae’n rhyw fath o gyfaddawd. Rwy’n gwybod bod Thomas Watkin yn dweud ei fod braidd yn od, ond credaf y byddai braidd yn od hyd yn oed pe bai Gweinidog arall yn gwneud y peth.

 

The Most Reverend Morgan: Yes, exactly. We had to do something, because we had found ourselves in this position. It is a compromise in some sense. I know that Thomas Watkin has said that this is a little peculiar, but it would be peculiar even if another Minister were responsible. 

[48]           Simon Thomas: Byddech yn dal yn yr un sefyllfa.

 

Simon Thomas: You would still be in the same situation.

[49]           Y Parchedicaf Morgan: Byddem.

 

The Most Reverend Morgan: Yes.

 

[50]           Mike Hedges: May I start by saying that it is not just a Scottish model? It is a Northern Ireland model and a European model.

 

[51]           The Most Reverend Morgan: Indeed.

 

[52]           Mike Hedges: We are almost unique in having the model that we have.

 

[53]           Do you think that there is something slightly bizarre in a disestablished church having to involve the Lord Chancellor in order to achieve something that Baptist chapels, such as the one that I belong to, can do on their own?

 

[54]           The Most Reverend Morgan: That is because of the nature of the disestablished church in 1919. In 1914, it was envisaged that all vestiges of establishment would be taken away from the Church in Wales. By 1919, most things were taken away, and the church was disendowed, but it was still allowed to keep its ability to marry anybody living within its parish. That is a matter of law. So, we have a duty to marry anybody who has a qualifying connection. That is an anomaly for a disestablished church, but that is the law of the land as it stands at the minute.

 

3.15 p.m.

 

[55]           Mike Hedges: Professor Watkins’s view is that reverting to the original intention of the 1914 Act, making the position of the Church in Wales the same as that which applies to other churches, makes the most sense. Would you agree with that?   

 

[56]           The Most Reverend Morgan: If, for example, marriage and all the other issues were devolved to the National Assembly, as happens in Northern Ireland and Scotland, then I think that to preserve the vestiges of establishment to a disestablished church would not make any sense. The way that we have looked at it in the Church in Wales is not as putting us in any kind of position of privilege—although others may think that we are—but to see it as a pastoral act. In other words, anybody who wants to get married within our doors can do so. You do not have to be a member or be on the electoral roll. You could be somebody who simply lives in the parish. Therefore, it is a deeper theological point, I suppose, of the church of God being open to all-comers.

 

[57]           David Melding: However, the governing body of the Church in Wales could say that its mission is to marry any qualifying person in Wales and that that is open, whatever denomination they belong to. You do not need an Act of Parliament or the lack of a change to an Act of Parliament to do that.

 

[58]           The Most Reverend Morgan: No, but I suppose that you would need a registrar or clergy—all clerics of the Church in Wales are, at the minute, registrars of marriage. Therefore, they do not need anybody else there. That is the only thing, I suppose, that would change.

 

[59]           David Melding: However, that could be dealt with in law.

 

[60]           The Most Reverend Morgan: That could be dealt with in that way.

 

[61]           Mike Hedges: I have a wedding in a Baptist chapel this Friday. The Baptist chapel itself has a secretary who is the registrar and you do not need anybody else present.

 

[62]           The Most Reverend Morgan: Yes, you have to appoint a person, I suppose.

 

[63]           Mike Hedges: If somebody is appointed and acceptable to the local authority, it does not have to be clergy. Baptist chapels—which I know a lot more about than the Church in Wales—normally appoint the secretary of the chapel to fulfil that legal role and to ensure that things are signed properly.

 

[64]           Simon Thomas: Hoffwn droi at yr holl gwestiwn o briodas a’i statws cyfreithiol. Faint o hyn gaiff ei lywio gan y ffaith bod gan Lywodraeth y Deyrnas Gyfunol ddiddordeb byw mewn rheoliadau fisa, gallu pobl tramor i ddod yma i briodi ac ati, a statws yr eglwys, yng Nghymru ac yn Lloegr, i briodi unrhyw un sy’n byw yn y plwyf? A yw hyn yn llywio’r ddadl hon o gwbl?  

Simon Thomas: I would like to turn to the whole question of marriage and its legal status. How much of this is coloured by the fact that the United Kingdom Government has a real interest in visa regulations, in  foreign people being able to come here to get married and so forth, and the church’s status, in Wales and England, to marry anybody who lives in the parish? Does this colour the debate at all?

 

[65]           Y Parchedicaf Morgan: Nac ydy, nid wyf yn meddwl hynny. Mae problemau wedi bod, wrth gwrs, ynglŷn â phriodasau ffug ac yn y blaen, ond ni chredaf fod y mater hwn wedi llywio hyn o gwbl.

 

The Most Reverend Morgan: No, I do not think that it does. There have been problems, of course, in terms of fake marriages and so forth, but I do not think that this issue has coloured this at all.

[66]           Simon Thomas: Nid ydych yn cael yr argraff bod hyn yn effeithio ar y ffordd maent yn eich trin chi a’ch statws fel un o’r ychydig eglwysi sy’n cael gwneud hyn.

 

Simon Thomas: You do not have the impression that this has affected how they treat you and your status as one of the few churches that are allowed to do this.

[67]           Y Parchedicaf Morgan: Na, nid wyf yn cael yr argraff honno o gwbl, i fod yn deg.

 

The Most Reverend Morgan: No, I do not get that impression at all, to be fair. 

[68]           Eluned Parrott: Dr Morgan, returning to this question of the so-called vestiges of establishment, to what extent would you say that that is a legal reality and to what extent is it, partially, a mindset of the Church in Wales?

 

[69]           The Most Reverend Morgan: A legal reality becomes a kind of mindset, does it not, in a sense? The fact is that we are legally obliged to marry anybody who lives within the parish or, now, who has a qualifying connection. That is as the law stands. The law would have to be changed if we were to change our position.

 

[70]           Eluned Parrott: Would it suit the Church in Wales to change that? Professor Doe, giving evidence last week, suggested that

 

[71]           ‘the church seems to enjoy what it sees as its privilege to minister to anybody who is resident in a parish’.

 

[72]           Is it against your best interests to do away with these last vestiges of establishment?

 

[73]           The Most Reverend Morgan: As the Chair has just said, there would be other ways around it. However, I think that the Church in Wales sees it as its mission to offer marriage to anybody who lives within its borders, because it does not want to make distinctions. It has perhaps come to that conclusion as a result of where it stood legally before disestablishment and as a result of disestablishment. It is a deeply held pastoral and theological point within the Church in Wales that it is not just a church for members. I think that it was Archbishop William Temple who said that it is the only organisation that exists for the benefit of non-members. We very much want to minister to the whole of the community.

 

[74]           Eluned Parrott: I understand that point, but I wonder whether, historically, it was a practical rather than a theological discussion. The right to marry was about the fact that it was the only alternative available to people wishing to marry. Now, there is a wide range of churches that people can choose from and there are registry offices and civil ceremonies available to people. Why has the church not sought to disestablish that in the 100 years since original disestablishment?

 

[75]           The Most Reverend Morgan: Changing any law is quite a difficult thing to do. You have to have a private Member’s Bill and you have to persuade people to do it. It is very costly and has to go through both Houses of Parliament. When the Marriage (Wales) Act 2010 went through, we just happened to be lucky that there were people there who were willing to do it. The Church of England had changed its qualifications two years before, so it was not seen as controversial. We were able to go on the back of that. It is not possible to do it on the back of every Church of England measure, because the Church of England does not have responsibility for the Church in Wales. That is the reason why. It is simply because it is quite complicated and costly. If, however, it was a devolved matter, that would simplify matters.

 

[76]           Eluned Parrott: If you were to devolve that as it relates to the Church in Wales, you are re-establishing the Church in Wales, are you not?

 

[77]           The Most Reverend Morgan: No; what I am saying is that it would then not make any sense to give a privileged position, if one looks at it in terms of privilege, to the Church in Wales.

 

[78]           Eluned Parrott: Moving on to look at some of the other duties, you mention in your submission to Silk, I think, which I have here, the situation with regard to burials. Can you explain to us the difference between your duties in terms of burials and your duties in terms of marriage?

 

[79]           The Most Reverend Morgan: Again, we have a duty to bury anybody who lives within the parish. The anomaly that we face in Wales is that, again perhaps as a result of historical factors, fees for burials are set through the office of the First Minister, which seems a bit anomalous. The other difference between us and the Church of England is that closed churchyards in the Church of England can be handed over to local authorities, whereas that cannot happen in the Church in Wales. Therefore, that means that the Church in Wales has to be responsible for closed churchyards. There is no income coming in and a vast sum of money is going out to keep these closed churchyards in a good condition, which, again, we have a legal obligation to do.

 

[80]           Eluned Parrott: In the management of the Church in Wales, what priority do these legal anomalies over marriage and burial have? Do you discuss them on a regular basis? Are they something that you are concerned about and something that you have pressed to try to change?

 

[81]           The Most Reverend Morgan: To be perfectly fair and honest, until the whole business of same-sex marriage came up, I suppose that we went along with the whole idea of our duty to marry because it fitted in with our theology of being open to all comers anyway. The whole question about burial is a different matter. We have no problem again in burying everyone, but we are fast running out of space. Churches are unwilling to buy fields in order to bury more people when there is no financial help to do so. When those become full, it is the Church in Wales and its living members who have to pay for the dead, if you will excuse the pun.

 

[82]           Eluned Parrott: Returning to the issue that started this off—this issue of equal marriage—obviously, this Bill has opened up a can of worms for you, and opened up a lot of issues that perhaps have been—and forgive the phrase—buried for the best part of 100 years. Do you think that, in the future, the Church in Wales will seek to untangle some of these threads that, effectively it seems, have not quite been fully disestablished?

 

[83]           The Most Reverend Morgan: It can only do that, I think, in conversations with Government, as we have done now. If the thing became devolved, we are very willing to have those kinds of conversations with the Welsh Government. As far as burial is concerned, as I understand it, virtually everything is devolved in any case. I think that we might have fruitful conversations about that in a way that we cannot have about marriage, because that is not a devolved issue, which is why we have had to talk, as it were, to the UK Government about it. If burial is a totally devolved issue—and most of the burial Acts are—I think that there is an avenue for discussion there about providing more space for people who want to be buried. What do we do about closed churchyards? Is it right that the First Minister determines the fees for burial, because it does not happen in any other denomination?

 

[84]           Eluned Parrott: Okay. Finally from me, would you say that it is fair to summarise your position that you would rather see, from the point of view of marriage, threads transferred to Wales rather than threads cutting completely?

 

[85]           The Most Reverend Morgan: I may have my personal opinion about it and I suspect that there are lots of people in the Church in Wales who disagree with what I have to say. But, it seems to me that if we are moving to a more devolved system of government in Wales, which I firmly believe in, and if marriage does become a devolved issue, it does not make sense to keep the position of one denomination within Wales and to single that out.

 

[86]           David Melding: Just to check, Archbishop, closed burial grounds, presumably, are quite a liability.

 

[87]           The Most Reverend Morgan: They are.

 

[88]           David Melding: If they are not upkept, you face—

 

[89]           The Most Reverend Morgan: Yes, we face—

 

[90]           David Melding: We all hear about these great Victorian edifices crumbling and people getting injured. In fact, I think that, sometimes, burial grounds collapse if they are on hills and in valleys and all that. Presumably, practically speaking, that is really quite a pressing issue.

 

[91]           The Most Reverend Morgan: It really is. I am thinking of two churchyards, from the top of my head, the first of which is at St Martin’s Church in Caerphilly, which is a huge burial ground. The other one that I can think of, because I just happen to have been there recently, is Cadoxton-juxta-Neath, which is huge and there are huge perimeter walls. You have to maintain the churchyard, maintain the walls, and cut the grass. If the churchyards are closed, that means that there is no income and the Church in Wales has to pay for all of that.

 

[92]           David Melding: The majority of people—and I think that it is quite a large majority—choose to be cremated on death. Is there still quite a large demand for burial?

 

[93]           The Most Reverend Morgan: Yes, there is, and we are fast running out of space. As far as cremated remains are concerned, we have sections of churchyards that are given over to the burial of cremated remains.

 

3.30 p.m.

 

[94]           Mr Granville: We did some survey work about four years ago. Then, we estimated that, within 10 years, in two thirds of our burial grounds, there would be no space for new burials. In that sense, they are filling up fast and there will come a point when we will not be able to fulfil this duty, because we will not have any space to do it in, in simple terms. That is the scale of the problem.

 

[95]           David Melding: In effect, some people who would have wished to have been buried will end up having to be cremated. Is that a possibility?

 

[96]           The Most Reverend Morgan: Yes. That happens now in some areas, because if the churchyard in the place where you live is closed, you cannot be buried there. So, you either have to find another grave spot or you are cremated, and your cremated remains are buried there.

 

[97]           David Melding: I still have a couple of Members who want to follow up on some of these interesting and important points.

 

[98]           Simon Thomas: Mae gennyf ddau gwestiwn. Mae’r cyntaf ar y mater yr ydych newydd sôn amdano, sef amlosgi a’r lludw sy’n dod o hynny. A ydych o dan unrhyw oblygiad neu ddyletswydd gyfreithiol i baratoi lle ar gyfer hynny, neu a ydych chi’n ei wneud, fel eglwys, fel rhan o’r rôl genhadol yr oeddech yn sôn amdano?

 

Simon Thomas: I have two questions. The first is on the issue to which you just referred, namely cremation and the ash that emanates from that. Are you under any obligation or legal duty to prepare a place for that, or do you just do it, as a church, as part of the missionary role that you spoke about?

 

 

[99]           Y Parchedicaf Morgan: I fod yn hollol onest, nid wyf yn siŵr; gofynnaf i Alex. Buaswn i’n ei weld fel rhywbeth cenhadol.

 

The Most Reverend Morgan: To be entirely honest, I am not sure; I will ask Alex. I would see it is being a missionary activity.

[100]       Have we got a legal obligation to bury cremated remains? I would have thought so, given that we have a legal obligation to—

 

[101]       Mr Granville: I do not think that we distinguish between full burial or cremated remains; the same rules apply, as it were.

 

[102]       Simon Thomas: Diolch. Roeddwn i eisiau bod yn glir am hynny. Mae fy ail gwestiwn ynglŷn â phriodas, fel rydym newydd ei thrafod. Nid wyf yn gwybod os gallaf eich temtio i ddweud unrhyw beth ar hyn. Nid yw tystiolaeth yr eglwys i’r comisiwn Silk yn sôn am ddatganoli’r gyfraith dros briodas o gwbl. Fodd bynnag, rydym wedi trafod yn y pwyllgor y ffaith y byddai hynny’n gam a fyddai’n unioni’r sefyllfa anghysurus bresennol.

 

Simon Thomas: Thank you. I just wanted to be clear about that. My second question is about marriage, which we have just discussed. I do not know if I can tempt you to say anything on this. The church’s evidence to the Silk commission does not mention the devolution of the law on marriage at all. However, we have discussed in the committee the fact that that would be a step towards straightening out the current uncomfortable situation.

[103]       Y Parchedicaf Morgan: Mae ein tystiolaeth i Silk yn dweud efallai y dylem symud i’r sefyllfa sydd yng Ngogledd Iwerddon a’r Alban, ac felly byddai popeth yn cael ei ddatganoli—

 

The Most Reverend Morgan: Our evidence to Silk states that perhaps we should move towards the situation that they have in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and so everything would be devolved—

 

[104]       Simon Thomas: O dan yr ymbarél; rydych wedi sôn am hwnnw. Ond, rydych wedi sôn, yn eich tystiolaeth i Silk, ynglŷn â’r broblem; fel yr ydych yn ei ddweud:

 

Simon Thomas: Under the umbrella; you talked about that. However, you have mentioned, in your evidence to Silk, the problem that you have; as you say:

[105]       ‘English based civil servants are not always aware of the Welsh context.’

 

[106]       A ydych chi wedi peidio â dweud, yn blwmp ac yn blaen, yn eich tystiolaeth, bod angen datganoli’r gyfraith dros briodasau, oherwydd nad yw’r eglwys, ar hyn o bryd, yn gytûn ar hynny? Rydych chi, mwy neu lai, wedi awgrymu eich bod chi’n bersonol o’r farn mai honno yw’r ffordd ymlaen. A yw’n wir i ddweud nad yw’r eglwys yn siŵr?

 

Have you failed to say, clearly, in your evidence, that marital law needs to be devolved, because the church, at present, is not in agreement on that? You have more or less suggested that you are personally of the opinion that that is the way forward. Is it true to say that the church is not sure about it?

[107]       Y Parchedicaf Morgan: Nid ydym wedi dadlau’r peth yn y corff llywodraethol, ond rwy’n siŵr y byddai rhai pobl o blaid y ffaith ein bod yn y sefyllfa arbennig hon ac ni fyddent am newid hynny.

 

The Most Reverend Morgan: We have not debated this in the governing body, but I am sure that some people would be in favour of the status quo and they would not want to see that changed.

[108]       Mike Hedges: I can talk about Swansea better than anywhere else. The Church in Wales in Swansea tends to use the council’s burial grounds. In my constituency of Swansea East, I do not think that you have a burial ground in any of the churches, which is probably fortunate for you because, in the last 10 years, you have closed two of them. Is the use of council burial grounds normal, or is it just an anomaly within a city?

 

[109]       The Most Reverend Morgan: I am not sure. It depends how wide you define Swansea, because if you look at Sketty—

 

[110]       Mike Hedges: I am talking about east Swansea.

 

[111]       The Most Reverend Morgan: And Killay; there are burial grounds there.

 

[112]       Mike Hedges: Yes, but what about the east of Swansea? That is the area that I represent, from St Thomas’s—St Thomas Church does not have a burial ground—right up to Morriston. St John’s Church did not have a burial ground and St David’s Church does not have a burial ground.

 

[113]       The Most Reverend Morgan: If there are no burial grounds there, people cannot be buried. However, in lots of areas, councils do not provide cemeteries. For example, in the Porthmadog area, the church where I was an incumbent—in Treflys—had a huge churchyard, which lots of people used because there was not a local authority one.

 

[114]       David Melding: Finally, we have addressed this issue in several questions, but I just want to encapsulate it. My understanding is that if we did have a reserve powers model adopted, and given that you commend that constitutional structure to the Silk committee, you would think it most logical then to complete disestablishment. You would not want burials and marriages having some sort of a link to law making in the Assembly.

 

[115]       The Most Reverend Morgan: No, I think that it would make sense that, if you are going to have a devolved system of government, you cannot retain vestiges of establishment to one particular church. That would be my personal view, but I am quite sure that you would find people within the Church in Wales who would disagree with that viewpoint. I think that that would be an anomalous situation. In a way, the two things go together, because, if we are complaining about the fact that we have to maintain closed churchyards and have a legal obligation to do so, and we would like to hand those back to whoever would like to have them, then I do not think that we can argue for a privileged position about marriage.

 

[116]       David Melding: If I completely understand this, hypothetically, you could see the church being in a position with other Christian denominations and other faith groups in arguing that priests and ministers of religion can also be civic registrars, so that people can marry in a religious setting. That is the sort of approach that you would then be adopting for everyone, which is to go on that path.

 

[117]       The Most Reverend Morgan: Yes, that it is right.

 

[118]       David Melding: I do not think that we have any further questions, unless there is something relevant that you think has not been covered and that you or your colleagues want to bring to our attention, Archbishop.

 

[119]       The Most Reverend Morgan: I do not think that there is anything, Chair. We can leave you a short document about the Church in Wales—or perhaps you have had it already—and also something about our educational brief in Wales. Perhaps some Members are not aware of the fact that we have quite a lot of church schools within the principality and the peculiar position of those as well.

 

[120]       David Melding: Thank you, your grace. We would be delighted to have any further information that you think is relevant. I thank you and your officials for attending this afternoon and adding to the evidence in a very clear and helpful way.

 

[121]       The Most Reverend Morgan: Thank you very much.

 

[122]       Diolch yn fawr iawn i chi i gyd.

Thank you very much to you all.

 

[123]       David Melding: Croeso.

David Melding: You are welcome.

 

3.37 p.m.

 

Cynnig ar gyfer Cyfarwyddeb gan Senedd Ewrop a’r Cyngor ar y Defnydd o Seilwaith Tanwydd Amgen (COM(2013)0018)
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Deployment of Alternative Fuels Infrastructure (COM(2013)0018)

 

[124]       David Melding: This proposal has been brought to our attention because we are in the slightly strange position that the UK Government feels that there is a probably a case that this contradicts subsidiarity, but the UK Parliament does not have the same misgivings. We are usually in the reverse position. There is some correspondence that highlights the concerns that the Scottish Parliament has, and the Northern Ireland Assembly has also expressed concerns. I ask for your guidance as to whether we want to add our concerns, given that they are not likely to be echoed by the parliamentary process in this instance, but at least we would then have on record our misgivings, if we feel that they are substantial enough to record them in that manner. Also, I think that some objections have been raised in the rest of Europe and, if I recall, Bavaria has submitted a reasoned opinion against it.

 

[125]       Simon Thomas: Mae’n anodd penderfynu wrth edrych arno a yw hwn yn codi cwestiynau ai peidio. Rwy’n gweld bod yr Alban yn glir o’r farn ei fod yn gwneud hynny ac, felly, nid wyf yn gwybod ym mha ffordd y gallwn godi hwn os nad yw’r pwyllgorau priodol yn San Steffan yn ymdrin ag ef. Mae’n debyg y gallwn gysylltu’n uniongyrchol â’r comisiwn, ond nid wyf yn siŵr a oes gwerth gwneud hynny. Yn sicr, gallech weld sut mae’n effeithio ar sybsidiaredd yn y fan hon o safbwynt pethau megis isadeiledd ar gyfer ceir trydanol, sydd yn rhywbeth y byddai’r Llywodraeth yn y fan hon am hyrwyddo, efallai. Gallai hynny ddod tu fewn i gwmpawd hyn, yn sicr.

 

Simon Thomas: It is difficult to decide from looking at it whether this raises questions or not. I see that Scotland is clearly of the opinion that it does that, so I do not know how we can raise this unless the appropriate committees in Westminster deal with it. I suppose that we could contact the commission directly, but I am not sure if it would be of any value. Certainly, you could see how it would impact upon subsidiarity here in terms of issues such as infrastructure for electric cars, which is something that the Government here may want to promote. That could certainly fall within this remit.

[126]       David Melding: Gwyn has an answer, perhaps.

 

[127]       Mr Griffiths: Os caf ymateb i hynny, efallai y dylwn dynnu eich sylw at y ffaith mai drafft o gyfarwyddeb ar gyfer Senedd Ewrop a’r Cyngor yw hwn. Felly, hyd yn oed pe na bai ymateb y Cynulliad yn mynd at y Comisiwn drwy’r pwyllgorau priodol yn San Steffan i’r Comisiwn o dan y broses sybsidiaredd, byddai cyfle eto drwy anfon ein sylwadau at yr Aelodau Senedd Ewrop o Gymru i ni chwarae rhan yn y broses.

 

Mr Griffiths: If I may respond to that, perhaps I should draw your attention to the fact that this is a draft of a directive for the European Parliament and the Council. So, even if the Assembly’s response did not go to the Commission through the appropriate committees in Westminster under the subsidiarity process, there would be another opportunity, by sending our comments to the MEPs from Wales, for us to play a part in the process.

 

[128]       Simon Thomas: Ai deddfu ar y cyd mae’r Cyngor a’r Senedd?

 

Simon Thomas: Is this joint legislation between the Council and the Parliament?

[129]       Mr Griffiths: Ie.

 

Mr Griffiths: Yes.

[130]       David Melding: We could do both, then, could we not? We could comment to both the European Parliament and Westminster, because Westminster does not seem minded to push the issue. Shall we do that then, along the lines of the Scottish letter and what the Bavarian Landtag or Parliament has raised and make similar points? Is that okay? Perhaps we will circulate the points before it gets sent, although I think that we are up against the deadline, so you will have to respond quite quickly if you have any issues when you see the text of the letter.

 

3.41 p.m.

 

Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog Rhif 17.42 i Benderfynu Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o’r Cyfarfod
Motion under Standing Order No. 17.42 to Resolve to Exclude the Public from the Meeting

 

[131]       David Melding: I move that

 

the committee resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting in accordance with Standing Order No. 17.42(vi).

 

[132]       Does any Member object? I see that no Member objects.

 

Derbyniwyd y cynnig.

Motion agreed.

 

Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am 3.41 p.m.
The public part of the meeting ended at 3.41 p.m.