Dragon Logo - National Assembly for Wales | Logo Ddraig y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Cofnod y Trafodion
The Record of Proceedings

Y Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol a Deddfwriaethol

The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee




Agenda’r Cyfarfod
Meeting Agenda

Trawsgrifiadau’r Pwyllgor
Committee Transcripts



3....... Cyflwyniad, Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datgan Buddiannau
Introduction, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of Interest


3....... Offerynnau nad ydynt yn Cynnwys Materion i Gyflwyno Adroddiad arnynt o dan Reol Sefydlog 21.2 na 21.3
Instruments that Raise No Reporting Issues under Standing Order 21.2 or 21.3


4....... Offerynnau sy’n cynnwys materion i gyflwyno adroddiad arnynt o dan Reol Sefydlog 21.2 neu 21.34
Instruments that raise issues to be reported to the Assembly under Standing Order 21.2 or 21.3


4....... Papurau i’w Nodi
Papers to Note


14..... Cylchoedd Gwaith y Pwyllgorau: Y Pwyllgor Materion Allanol a Deddfwriaeth Ychwanegol
Remits of Committees: External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee


14..... Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42 i Benderfynu Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o'r Cyfarfod
Motion Under Standing Order 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. Lle mae cyfranwyr wedi darparu cywiriadau i’w tystiolaeth, nodir y rheini yn y trawsgrifiad.


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. Where contributors have supplied corrections to their evidence, these are noted in the transcript.

Aelodau’r pwyllgor yn bresennol
Committee members in attendance


Michelle Brown

UKIP Cymru
UKIP Wales


Huw Irranca-Davies

Llafur (Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor)
Labour (Committee Chair)


Dai Lloyd

Plaid Cymru (yn dirprwyo ar ran yr Arglwydd Dafydd Elis-Thomas)

The Party of Wales (substitute for Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas)


David Melding

Ceidwadwyr Cymreig
Welsh Conservatives


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


Siân Giddins

Dirprwy Glerc
Deputy Clerk


Gwyn Griffiths

Uwch-gynghorydd Cyfreithiol
Senior Legal Adviser


Gareth Howells

Cynghorydd Cyfreithiol

Legal Adviser


Gareth Williams



Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 14:30.
The meeting began at 14:30.


Cyflwyniad, Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datgan Buddiannau
Introduction, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of Interest


[1]          Huw Irranca-Davies: Good afternoon, prynhawn da. Croeso, welcome, to this, the first of the autumn sessions of the meetings of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee here. Could I welcome you all back, first of all, formally, to these deliberations for the autumn? I think it's going to be a busy time. In extending the welcome to our regular committee members here—to Michelle and to David as well—could I also particularly welcome Dr Dai Lloyd, who is standing in very well, very effectively this afternoon, I'm sure, for our absent colleague, Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas? You're very welcome, and I note that you bring to this committee not only your good self, but your experience as a former Chair of this committee as well. So, thank you very much for joining with us.


[2]          We've got a fair bit of business in front of us this afternoon. As per normal, before we go into that, if I could simply advise Members that if there is an alarm, it will be an alarm and we leave the room by the marked fire exits; follow the instructions from the good staff here who will look after us. There is no test forecast for today. All mobile devices are switched to silent mode. Of course, we do have translation facilities available here as well to be used. And with that, on we go to item No. 2 on the agenda.




Offerynnau nad ydynt yn Cynnwys Materion i Gyflwyno Adroddiad arnynt o dan Reol Sefydlog 21.2 na 21.3
Instruments that Raise No Reporting Issues under Standing Order 21.2 or 21.3


[3]          Huw Irranca-Davies: We have instruments that raise no reporting issues under Standing Order 21.2 or 21.3. Those include four negative resolution instruments: the Food for Specific Groups (Information and Compositional Requirements) (Wales) Regulation 2016; the National Curriculum (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Wales) Regulations 2016; the National Curriculum (Desirable Outcomes, Educational Programmes and Baseline and End of Phase Assessment Arrangements for the Foundation Phase) (Wales) (Amendment) Order 2016; and the Water Quality and Supply (Fees) (Undertakers Wholly or Mainly in Wales) Order 2016. Do we have any observations or comments from Members? In the absence of any observations or comments, if you are content, those SIs can be noted. Thank you very much.




Offerynnau sy’n cynnwys materion i gyflwyno adroddiad arnynt o dan Reol Sefydlog 21.2 neu 21.3

Instruments that raise issues to be reported to the Assembly under Standing Order 21.2 or 21.3


[4]          Huw Irranca-Davies: We go on to item No. 3: instruments that raise reporting issues under Standing Order 21.2 or 21.3, and, if I could invite Gareth to comment, or Gwyn—. Oh, sorry, yes, if I could invite you to comment on this, please.


[5]          Mr Howells: Just to note, as stated in the draft report, the negative procedure seems appropriate for these regulations. We regularly see regulations enforcing EU law, and as far as I'm aware, every single one has been negative procedure.


[6]          Huw Irranca-Davies: Any observations or comments on those? Are we happy to—? Thank you very much for that, for that input. If Members are content then we will report to the Assembly in line with paper 2. Thank you very much.




Papurau i’w Nodi

Papers to Note


[7]          Huw Irranca-Davies: We move on to item No. 4. We have quite a few papers to note here—a range of papers, including correspondence from the committee to the Secretary of State for Wales on 5 July, from the committee to the Secretary of State for Wales on 18 August, from the Secretary of State for Wales to the committee on 7 September, and also correspondence with the House of Lords Constitution Committee on 14 July and also on 20 July. If I can briefly outline the background—I know most committee members will be aware of this—we have tried using all our possible devices behind the scenes, as well as more formally in letters, to achieve an outcome where we could have the Secretary of State come to us in public session and give evidence, and also where we could reflect back some of the evidence that we have heard as well. That hasn’t been possible. So, we have subsequently made approaches, because he had very generously agreed the offer to actually come in front of us in private session, which we have previously debated as a committee. Our preference was clearly that he should be here in public session so that we could add that to the evidence. But, that offer still remains on the table, and we have gone back to the Secretary of State, bearing in mind the timescale now is running on rapidly, in the feeling that we might want to avail ourselves of that opportunity, albeit in private, so that he can hear what we’ve heard and so that we can also hear his thoughts on these matters. That relates to the initial tranche of correspondence with the Secretary of State for Wales. The Secretary of State has now agreed to come and talk to us in private and we appreciate that offer, albeit in the context of our previous discussions where our clear preference would have been in public session. It may be possible to do this via video conference, bearing in mind our tight timescales as well of back and forth to London. But, I wonder what your thoughts are on this. David.


[8]          David Melding: Obviously, it would have been much better if we could’ve had an evidence session, as his predecessor gave us—and thank you for all your sterling efforts to try and bring that about—but we are where we are. I’d rather not meet via video conference, because I think these are serious matters and I think a face-to-face meeting would be best. I don’t want a briefing from the Secretary of State, useful as that would have been for some Members, perhaps, or those interested observers. We don’t need a briefing on the Wales Bill. So, if we’re going to meet him in private, I think it should be at a time when we are focused enough to really know what our main recommendations are likely to be and what we’ll put before the House of Lords and brief him on those. That’s how I would do it.


[9]          Huw Irranca Davies: Thank you, David, that’s really useful. Dai.


[10]      Dai Lloyd: Diolch, Gadeirydd. Yn yr un modd, a dweud y gwir, a allaf, yn y lle cyntaf, eich llongyfarch chi ar ansawdd eich llythyrau? Maen nhw’n esbonio’r pwyntiau yn hynod o glir. Rwy’n rhannu’ch siom, ar ddiwedd y dydd, nad yw’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol eisiau cyfarfod mewn sesiwn gyhoeddus yma. Rwy’n cytuno efo David Melding yn hyn o beth; nid ydym eisiau sesiwn friffio. Mi fydd yna amser pan fyddwn ni’n gwybod, fel pwyllgor, pa argymhellion rydym eisiau eu gosod gerbron, felly, fe ddylai fod yn gyfarfod o bobl sy’n gwybod beth sydd ei angen ac yn gyfarfod efo’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol ar safle o gyfartaledd, os ydych chi eisiau; nid bod rhywun yn briffio rhywun arall. Mi fyddwn ni mewn sefyllfa i wybod beth fyddwn ni eisiau gofyn amdano fel pwyllgor a dyna hefyd ddylai fod ymateb yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol—ei fod yn gyfarfod o bwyllgor go iawn. Rwy’n dal i resynu na fydd y cyfarfod hwnnw’n gyhoeddus; mi fuasai’n well petai’n gyhoeddus. Diolch yn fawr.


Dai Lloyd: Thank you, Chair. In the same way, in the first place, could I congratulate you on the quality of your letters? They explain the points very clearly. I share your disappointment, at the end of the day, that the Secretary of State doesn’t want to meet in a public meeting here, and I agree with David Melding in that sense; we don’t want a briefing session. There will be a time when we know, as a committee, which recommendations we want to submit, so, it should be a meeting of people who know what is needed and we should meet with the Secretary of State in a position of equality; not that somebody is briefing somebody else. We will be in a position to know what we want to ask for as a committee and that should be the response of the Secretary of State—that it is a committee meeting. I still regret that the meeting won’t be public; it would be better if it was public. Thank you very much.


[11]      Huw Irranca-Davies: Thank you very much, Dai. Michelle, do you have any thoughts on this?


[12]      Michelle Brown: I would support what Dai and David have said. It’s disappointing that the Minister won’t come and give evidence in public, but there we go.


[13]      Huw Irranca-Davies: I think those comments are a good reflection of where we are; in some ways, there’s water under the bridge now. I would suggest that it would be something that we need to return to sooner rather than later, which is that issue of how these discussions—inter-governmentally, but also inter-committees—and that issue of parity that Dai just raised. But as we are at the moment, the point that has been strongly made by all of you is that, if we are to do it, it needs to be at the right time, but it also needs to be on the basis that it’s not simply a briefing to us of how things are; it’s an opportunity for us to say, ‘Here is what we’ve heard, now, can you act on these issues?’


[14]      Now, that does take us into, possibly—. Let me briefly stray into the second batch of correspondence, because it might help a subsequent discussion on timing and how we do this. You’ve clearly said—and I agree with this—that it would be preferable if we could meet face to face. We have issues, of course, to do with the timing of Plenary sessions here, the conference and when it goes into the Lords, but we have had some good correspondence and back-channel communication with the Lords already and we’ve come to a point where we think, even within that tight timescale, we can see the right time where we know what our deliberations will be, having come out of the Commons—it’s still in the Commons at the moment—where we will have some clear recommendations and suggestions, possibly even down to the detail of amendments, which we’ll come back to in a moment, where we can go up to the Lords. Now, from what you’re saying, it might be at that juncture—albeit that it will have passed out of the Commons and will now be going into the Lords—it is at that point that we actually meet with the Secretary of State and anybody else we want to, there. Gareth, I wonder if you could just bring us up to date on where we are with the discussions that have flown from this correspondence, and your discussions with the Lords on possible dates and how we could do it.  


[15]      Mr Williams: In terms of a visit to the House of Lords, potentially we’re looking at the week commencing 10 October. That would be the most appropriate date for the Constitution Committee. They tend to meet on a Wednesday morning, and I know that may have difficulties for Members depending on what committees they have on those particular dates. So, that would be 12 October we’re potentially looking at at the moment, but the timetable will be tight. As soon as we’ve had formal notification of when the Bill will receive its Second Reading in the House of Lords, we should have a better idea of when the best date, optimum date, is likely to be.


[16]      Huw Irranca-Davies: That would be right on the cusp of when it is going into the Lords. We’re on a very tight timescale, but that doesn’t preclude us having some back-channel discussions with them on what we are likely to be putting in front of them come what may, because I think we can, from this meeting today, start putting those thoughts very clearly together. It would, of course, require us to do our normal, through our own whips, to make sure that we can all get up there on that date, but if we work on that sort of timescale, do you think that would be—? Happy? It’s around the tenth, eleventh, twelfth. The twelfth.


[17]      Michelle Brown: I’d need to check my calendar. I’ve just turned my phone off.


[18]      Huw Irranca-Davies: We can come back.


[19]      David Melding: I mean, I have committee in the morning, and obviously there’s Plenary in the afternoon, but I just think this is so important that, you know, one has to prioritise this. I think going there is important and, you know, it’s the moment that we have to do it, frankly. So, I intend to apologise for that committee meeting, and I would ask colleagues if I could have cover if there’s anything I would normally have been doing in Plenary that afternoon. So, I’m prepared to make those arrangements and attend a meeting on the twelfth if one can be arranged.


[20]      Dai Lloyd: Ie, yn yr un modd, buaswn i’n cytuno, achos mae’r pwnc yma mor bwysig mae’n rhaid jest creu’r amser. Wrth gwrs, mae yna ofynion eraill ar ein hamser ni, ond rwy’n credu, yn sylfaenol, mai’r egwyddor ddylai fod y dylem ni fod yna. Gallwn wastad estyn gwahoddiad i Dŷ’r Arglwyddi ddod lawr fan hyn, wrth gwrs, yn naturiol—gallai hynny efallai wneud pethau’n haws. [Chwerthin.]


Dai Lloyd: In the same way, I would agree, because this subject is such an important one we just have to create the time. Of course, there are other demands on our time, but, basically, the principle should be that we should be there. We could always extend an invitation to the House of Lords to come down here of course—perhaps that would make things easier. [Laughter.]

[21]      Huw Irranca-Davies: I think, in the future, this is exactly where we should be. However, for the moment, on the basis that we seem to have very good will from the House of Lords—they want to talk with us, they want to hear what we’ve heard and they want our observations—and if we can tie this in, then it might help with any technical difficulties with video conferencing, and so on, that might arise otherwise. Yes.


[22]      Michelle Brown: I’ll make sure I’m there as well.


[23]      Huw Irranca-Davies: Fantastic, thank you very much. That’s great. Okay. We’ll liaise with each other through our good team here on that and tie those loose ends together, and we’ll all have to do our liaison with our whips offices as well, but I’m hopeful that they will be very cognisant of the need for us to be there; this is an important thing. Thank you very much on that.


[24]      There’s nothing else I don’t think in relation to those two batches of correspondence, but we have—. Sorry, I won’t leave that item without saying that I think the point has been made here repeatedly in this committee that we don’t see a difficulty with us going to London to liaise with committees or with Secretaries of State, but conversely for them to come here. We don’t see it as a matter of issue, a matter of protocol. Our invitation is and remains there, and I think it is something we will need to return to because of this issue of parity of these institutions when you are discussing and negotiating on major constitutional issues. But we will come back to that.


[25]      If we move on, then, to item No. 5. No, no, sorry. We’re still on item No. 4, sorry—still on correspondence: the written statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure relating to the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2016 and various best practice guidance documents. My suggestion would be that we note that statement, unless there are any observations. David.


[26]      David Melding: Is Gwyn bursting to—


[27]      Huw Irranca-Davies: Gwyn, you are bursting to come in—my apologies. Yes, indeed.


[28]      Mr Griffiths: Diolch, Gadeirydd. Dim ond sylw byr iawn: yn ystod y Cynulliad diwethaf, fe gawsom ni rywbeth fel hyn, rwy’n meddwl, gan yr Ysgrifennydd iechyd, ac i’r rhai ohonom ni  sy’n cynllunio gwaith pwyllgor ac yn paratoi adroddiadau ac yn y blaen, mae cael datganiad fel hyn yn help mawr ar gyfer paratoi gwaith y pwyllgor, ac felly byddwn i’n cymeradwyo’r cam y mae’r Gweinidog wedi’i gymryd yn yr achos yma.


Mr Griffiths: Thank you, Chair. I have just a brief comment. During the last Assembly, we had something like this from the health Minister, and for those of us who plan committee work and prepare reports and so forth, having a statement like this is a great help for preparatory work for the committee and so forth, and so I approve of the steps taken by the Minister in this case.



[29]      Huw Irranca-Davies: Excellent. Thank you very much.


[30]      David Melding: I was going to say something similar, Chair, that if we do have framework or fairly broad primary legislation that needs a lot of filling in at the secondary level, then I think this approach is the way to do it. It does seem to be the best practice, but it now needs to be picked over by the relevant committee. But I don’t think there’s any harm in us writing back to the Minister to say that we note the approach and we approve of the approach. In fact, we think it is required when the Government chooses to operate in this manner in terms of delivering its legislative proposals.


[31]      Huw Irranca-Davies: That’s an excellent suggestion. If we can do that—. Thank you. Thank you very much.


[32]      That takes us on to the Waste (Meaning of Recovery) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Wales) Regulations 2016: correspondence from the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs. Do you have any observation on this? Gwyn.


[33]      Mr Griffiths: Diolch, Gadeirydd. Mae dwy agwedd i hyn, rwy’n meddwl. Yn gyntaf mae cynnwys y rheoliadau, sydd wedi’u gwneud gan yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol ar gyfer y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Y cwbl y maen nhw’n ei wneud ydy diweddaru cyfeiriadau at gyfarwyddeb Ewropeaidd mewn deddfwriaeth, ac mae hynny’n beth cwbl gymeradwy a byddwn i’n dadlau dim ynglŷn â chynnwys y rheoliadau. Fodd bynnag, mae yna ail bwynt, sydd yn bwynt y mae’r pwyllgor yma wedi’i ystyried amryw o weithiau, a hynny ydy’r defnydd o’r weithdrefn negyddol ar gyfer diwygio deddfwriaeth gynradd. A dyna beth roeddwn i am dynnu sylw’r pwyllgor ato. Yn yr achos yma, mae dwy Ddeddf seneddol yn cael eu diwygio gan ddefnyddio’r broses negyddol, ac er bod rhain yn rheoliadau gweddol di-nod yn eu hunain, wn i ddim a fyddai’r pwyllgor am wneud unrhyw sylwadau ynglŷn â’r dewis o weithdrefn yn yr achos yma.


Mr Griffiths: Thank you, Chair. There are two aspects to this, I think. First of all, there is the content of the regulations, made by the Secretary of State for the United Kingdom. All that this does is update references to a European directive, and that is something that is quite commendable and I wouldn’t argue against any of the content. But there is a second point, which is a point that this committee has considered on a number of occasions, and that is the use of the negative procedure for amending primary legislation. That is what I wanted to draw the committee’s attention to. In this case, there are two parliamentary Acts that have been amended though the negative procedure, and even though these regulations aren’t that important in and of themselves, I don’t know whether the committee would like to comment on the procedure used in this instance.

[34]      Huw Irranca-Davies: Any thoughts or comments? I know we have two former Chairs here as well, but Gwyn is clearly hinting that there is a better way to do these things.


[35]      Dai Lloyd: Ie, yn hollol, ac rwy’n mynd yn ôl blynyddoedd, ond rydym ni wedi gwneud y fath sylw o’r blaen fel pwyllgor tuag at Weinidogion, ac felly, i fod yn gyson, rwy’n credu, mae’n werth ategu’r geiriau y mae Gwyn newydd eu hadrodd mewn llythyr at y Gweinidog perthnasol.


Dai Lloyd: Yes, exactly, and I go back some years now, but we have made that kind of comment previously as a committee to Ministers, and so, to be consistent, I think, it’s worth echoing the words that Gwyn has just said in a letter to the relevant Minister.

[36]      Huw Irranca-Davies: Well, I’m certainly content to do this, particularly if this is re-emphasising points that have been made before; we need to keep on making them until they are heard. David, would you agree?


[37]      David Melding: Yes, it puts us in a difficult position, doesn’t it, if we suddenly say that we’re going to move from this principle of saying, ‘If you amend primary legislation, it’s got to be on the floor of the Assembly’, because then we have to make judgments as to how significant or relevant they are, whereas if the Minister knows he’s got to move an Order on the floor of the Assembly, he stands up and it is completely straightforward—it takes 30 seconds to do it, no Member speaks and we move on. If it is a problem, Members speak and we discuss it. So, that seems to me how it should work and there’s no need to go through this convoluted procedure of, ‘Well, sometimes, you don’t need to do it at all.’


[38]      Huw Irranca-Davies: Michelle, would you be happy with that? The proposal is that we actually put it in writing in a diplomatic but clear way. 


[39]      Michelle Brown: Yes, I would agree with—. It should be debated in the Chamber, I think, or at least we should have the opportunity.


[40]      David Melding: The opportunity, exactly.


[41]      Huw Irranca-Davies: The opportunity. So, if I could ask the team to put that together. Thank you very much, and thank you, Gwyn, for your observations on that as well.


[42]      We move on to correspondence from the Llywydd on committee statements in Plenary. We could include this as part of our discussions on ways of working as well, but I wonder if you have any observations. Yes, David.


[43]      David Melding: I think it’s an excellent idea and, as a way, for instance, of launching an inquiry, it would highlight the inquiry and its relevance to the whole Chamber, and it would map out our intended work plan with the inquiry, for instance. And—I should be careful, because we are, obviously, in public—given some of the things that we have to spend time on in Plenary, I think this is an example of really lifting some of the sessions and using the time very productively. So, I think we should encourage the Presiding Officer and the Business Committee to move in this direction and perhaps think of an early statement, because the best way of embedding this is to use it, isn’t it? So I would urge us—or you, rather, as Chair—to take an early opportunity to make a statement.


[44]      Huw Irranca-Davies: Well, perhaps we should look at that early opportunity at that moment where we head off to the big city, and clarify what our findings have been, what our proposals would be. That would be a very good and opportune one. Dai Lloyd.


[45]      Dai Lloyd: Diolch, Gadeirydd. Yn yr un modd, rwy’n credu bod hyn yn ddatblygiad cyffrous, a dylem ni fod yn ysgrifennu nôl ac yn cefnogi beth mae’r Llywydd eisiau ei wneud yn fan hyn achos, i fyny at nawr, rydym wedi bod yn cael dadleuon yn y Siambr pan fydd pwyllgor wedi cyhoeddi adroddiad ar ddiwedd rhyw adolygiad. Wel, rwy’n credu y byddai’n ychwanegu yn naturiol at y trafodaethau ein bod ni’n cael dadl ar ddechrau unrhyw ymchwiliad, ac rwy’n credu y byddai’n fodd i hysbysebu’r ffaith bod pa bynnag bwyllgor yw e yn bwriadu cynnal pa bynnag ymchwiliad yw e. Rwy’n credu ei fod e’n gam positif ymlaen.


Dai Lloyd: Thank you, Chair. In the same way, I think this is an exciting development, and we should write back and support what the Llywydd would like to do in this instance. Up until now, we’ve had debates in the Chamber when a committee has published a report at the end of some inquiry.  I think this would add naturally to the discussions if we had a debate at the beginning of any inquiry, and I think it would be a means of advertising the fact that whichever committee it is intends to undertake an inquiry. I think it’s a positive step forward.


[46]      Huw Irranca-Davies: Thank you. Michelle.


[47]      Michelle Brown: I like the idea. I think it’s a nice link between the work of the committee and the Assembly. Yes, I do like the idea.


[48]      Huw Irranca-Davies: Fantastic. I think that we do need to go back and show our very clear support for these proposals, and also explore with the Llywydd whether or not there is this opportunity where we can help make that vision a reality by a very early statement—an opportune statement. The timing would need to be precise on this so that it is actually in that week where we are heading up. Because, again, it is an opportunity, as Michelle was saying, not only to flag the work that we’re doing, but also publicly to help shape the deliberations on this Wales Bill.


[49]      Dai Lloyd: Efallai y dylai unrhyw ddatganiad, os yw’r pwyllgor yma yn mynd i fyny i Dŷ’r Arglwyddi, fod yr wythnos cyn hynny, neu fydd yna neb o’r pwyllgor yma i wneud y datganiad.


Dai Lloyd: Perhaps any statement, if this committee is going up to the House of Lords, should be before that, or there’ll be no-one from this committee here to make that statement.


[50]      Huw Irranca-Davies: Point well made, point well made. Thank you very much. By the way, I agree entirely with you. I think this is a good way, because we are seeing the way that, as the years have gone by, the committees have come to the fore, and in this session we should be lifting them up again, and this is a good way of doing it. Somebody over the weekend suggested to me—I won’t say who—that we should be doing far more of the committee work there in the Senedd, and so on. Quite interesting. We’ll come back to it at some point.




Cylchoedd Gwaith y Pwyllgorau: Y Pwyllgor Materion Allanol a Deddfwriaeth Ychwanegol
Remits of Committees: External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee

[51]      Huw Irranca-Davies: Right, if we move then on to the next paper, which is the Business Committee report on revising the remit of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, chaired by my next-door neighbour, Mr David Rees AM. Any comments on that, or are you happy simply to note that that committee is established, and the remit of it? Interesting in terms of this committee, of course, is their remit in terms of the Brexit detail, which is something that this committee previously recommended as well—that there should be a committee that looked at that, if this were to come to pass, on the details of European issues.




Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42 i Benderfynu Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o'r Cyfarfod
Motion Under Standing Order 17.42 to Resolve to Exclude the Public from the Meeting




bod y pwyllgor yn penderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o weddill y cyfarfod yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.42(vi).

that the committee resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi).


Cynigiwyd y cynnig.

Motion moved.



[52]      Huw Irranca-Davies: And we will now move, unless there are any other further comments on those pieces of business, into private session.


Derbyniwyd y cynnig.
Motion agreed.



Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am 14:54.
The public part of the meeting ended at 14:54.