|Llyr Gruffydd AM||Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor|
|Mike Hedges AM|
|Nick Ramsay AM|
|Rhianon Passmore AM|
|Rhun ap Iorwerth AM|
|Claire Fife||Cynghorwr Polisi i'r Cwnsler Cyffredinol, Llywodraeth Cymru|
|Policy Advisor to the Counsel General, Welsh Government|
|Dylan Hughes||Prif Gwnsler Deddfwriaethol, Llywodraeth Cymru|
|First Legislative Counsel, Welsh Government|
|Jeremy Miles AM||Y Cwnsler Cyffredinol a'r Gweinidog Brexit|
|Counsel General and Brexit Minister|
|Ben Harris||Cynghorydd Cyfreithiol|
|Bethan Davies||Dirprwy Glerc|
|Georgina Owen||Dirprwy Glerc|
|1. Cyflwyniad, ymddiheuriadau, dirprwyon a datgan buddiannau||1. Introductions, apologies, substitutions and declarations of interest|
|2. Papurau i’w nodi||2. Papers to note|
|3. Goblygiadau ariannol Bil Deddfwriaeth (Cymru): Sesiwn dystiolaeth||3. Financial implications of the Legislation (Wales) Bill: Evidence session|
|4. Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42 i benderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o weddill y cyfarfod||4. Motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of 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.
Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 09:02.
The meeting began at 09:02.
Bore da, bawb. Croeso i gyfarfod y Pwyllgor Cyllid y bore yma. Mae yna glustffonau ar gael, wrth gwrs, ar gyfer offer cyfieithu neu i addasu lefel y sain, ac a gaf fi atgoffa Aelodau i ddiffodd y sain oddi ar unrhyw ddyfeisiadau electronig? Oes gan unrhyw Aelod unrhyw fuddiannau i'w datgan? Nac oes. Iawn. Diolch yn fawr.
Gaf fi felly groesawu dau Aelod newydd i'r pwyllgor: Rhianon Passmore ac Alun Davies? Croeso, Rhianon. Mae Alun yn ymddiheuro—nid yw'n gallu bod gyda ni y bore yma. Rydyn ni hefyd wedi derbyn ymddiheuriad oddi wrth Neil Hamilton.
Buaswn i'n licio hefyd nodi cyfraniad Steffan Lewis, wrth gwrs, i'r pwyllgor yma. Fe fuodd yn Aelod o'r pwyllgor ers ei ethol yn 2016 ac, er na ches i'r cyfle i wasanaethu ar y pwyllgor yma gydag e, dwi'n clywed gan Aelodau, wrth gwrs, fod ei gyfraniad e wedi bod yn sylweddol ac yn werthfawr. Ac mae ein cofion, ein cariad a'n cydymdeimlad ni, wrth gwrs, gyda'i deulu a'i ffrindiau fe ar yr adeg anodd iawn yma.
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the meeting of the Finance Committee this morning. There are headsets available for translation or for sound amplification and could I remind Members to ensure that any electronic devices are on silent? Do any Members have any interests to declare? No. Thank you.
Let's move on, therefore, and could I welcome two new Members to the committee: Rhianon Passmore and Alun Davies? Welcome, Rhianon. Alun has sent his apology—he can't join us this morning. We've also received apologies from Neil Hamilton.
I would also like to note, of course, the contribution of Steffan Lewis to this committee. He was a member of the committee since his election in 2016 and, even though I didn't have an opportunity to serve on this committee with him, I hear from other Members that his contribution was considerable and very valuable. And our sympathies are extended, of course, to his family and friends at this very difficult time.
Mae gennym ni rai papurau i'w nodi. Y papur cyntaf yw ymateb gan y Swyddfa Archwilio Cymru i'r gwaith craffu sydd wedi bod. Mae yna lythyr hefyd gan Paul Davies ar y Bil Awtistiaeth (Cymru) a fu'n destun dadl yn y Cynulliad ddoe. Ac mae cofnodion cyfarfod a gynhaliwyd ar 9 Ionawr eleni. Ydy Aelodau yn hapus i nodi'r papurau yna? Iawn. Diolch yn fawr iawn i chi.
We do have some papers to note. The first paper is a response from the Wales Audit Office to the scrutiny that's happened. There's also a letter from Paul Davies on the Autism (Wales) Bill, which we debated yesterday in the Assembly. And, of course, there are the minutes of the meeting held on 9 January. Are Members happy to note those papers? Fine. Thank you very much.
Ymlaen â ni felly i brif eitem y cyfarfod y bore yma, sef i edrych ar oblygiadau ariannol Bil Deddfwriaeth (Cymru). Gaf fi groesawu Jeremy Miles, y Cwnsler Cyffredinol, a'i swyddogion, Dylan Hughes, sy'n Brif Gwnsler Deddfwriaethol gyda Llywodraeth Cymru, a Claire Fife, sy'n gynghorwr polisi i'r Cwnsler Cyffredinol yn Llywodraeth Cymru?
Os ydy'n iawn gyda chi, awn ni'n syth mewn i gwestiynau ac mi ddechreuaf fi efallai drwy jest ofyn i chi rhoi amlinelliad byr i ni o amcanion y Bil, pam fod angen y Bil ar hyn o bryd, a pha weithgareddau a fydd yn cyflawni amcanion y Bil.
We move on therefore to the main item of the meeting this morning, which is to look at the financial implications of the Legislation (Wales) Bill. Could I welcome Jeremy Miles, the Counsel General, and his officials, Dylan Hughes, First Legislative Counsel for the Welsh Government, and Claire Fife, policy adviser to the Counsel General in the Welsh Government?
If it's okay with you, we'll go straight into questions and I will start by just asking you to give a brief outline of the objectives of the Bill, why it's necessary at this point in time, and what activities will deliver its objectives.
Diolch am y cyfle i roi tystiolaeth yma'r bore yma. Pwrpas y Bil yw sicrhau bod cyfraith Cymru dros gyfnod yn dod yn fwy hygyrch, yn haws i'w ddefnyddio ac yn gliriach i bobl sydd yn ei ddefnyddio mewn cyd-destun proffesiynol—neu'r uchelgais yw ei fod e'n hygyrch i bobl sy'n ei ddefnyddio fe fel dinasyddion Cymreig.
Mae'r Bil yn gwneud dau brif beth: y peth cyntaf yw sicrhau bod cyfrifoldebau ar Lywodraeth Cymru i sicrhau hygyrchedd y gyfraith fel system o gyfraith ynghyd â Mesurau a Biliau a Deddfau unigol. Yr ail beth yw sicrhau bod dehongli'r gyfraith yn haws yng Nghymru drwy gael set o ddiffiniadau a thermau diffinio sy'n gymwys ac yn fodern ac yn ddwyieithog i'n deddfwriaeth ni yma yn y Cynulliad.
O safbwynt arian ac ati, o safbwynt gwerth am arian, un o'r prif ysgogiadau i hyn yw effeithlonrwydd. Ar hyn o bryd, mae'r llyfr statud yn gymhleth iawn yn nhermau deddfau cynradd, sylfaenol, a deddfau eilradd, ac mae darganfod y gyfraith yn anodd, ac mae deall y gyfraith pan rŷch chi yn ei darganfod hi hefyd yn anodd. Mae'r broblem honno yn broblem sydd yn gyffredin ar draws y Deyrnas Unedig, ond mae gyda ni sialens benodol yma yng Nghymru yn sgil cymhlethdod ein setliad datganoli ni, sydd yn gwneud y broblem yn waeth. Felly, mae gwastraff amser i bobl wrth ddarganfod y gyfraith—amser gallan nhw fod yn ei ddefnyddio yn gwneud pethau mwy adeiladol na ffeindio mas lle mae pethau. Felly, y bwriad yn y Bil yw sicrhau bod cynllun o gydgrynhoi a chodeiddio ar sail cydgrynhoi, a hefyd cyhoeddi'r gyfraith yn well, a sicrhau bod pobl yn gallu deall y gyfraith yn well pan fyddan nhw'n dod ar ei draws hi.
Gwnaethoch chi ofyn y cwestiwn, 'Pam nawr?' Mae Comisiwn y Gyfraith wedi bod yn ein hannog ni i wneud hyn am sbel, oherwydd cymhlethdod y sefyllfa sydd gyda ni. Roedd y Bil wedi ei seilio ar y gwaith maen nhw wedi'i wneud, felly roedd gyda ni adnodd wedi'i gryn ddatblygu yn sgil y gwaith maen nhw wedi'i wneud, a hefyd, os edrychwch chi ar gyd-destun Brexit ar hyn o bryd—hynny yw, efallai'r brif ffynhonnell o bwysau ar bethau'n gyffredinol ar hyn o bryd—un o'r pethau a ddaw yn sgil Brexit, rwy'n credu, yw mwy o gymhlethdod yn y gyfraith, yn hytrach na llai, ac felly mae'r egwyddorion sydd yn y Bil hwn yn gweithio yn erbyn hynny ac yn ein hannog ni i sicrhau, hyd yn oed yn sgil hynny, fod hygyrchedd y gyfraith ar dop ein rhestr ni.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide evidence this morning. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that Welsh law, over a period of time, becomes more accessible and clearer for people who use it in a professional context—or the ambition is that it should be accessible to people using it as Welsh citizens.
The Bill does two main things: the first thing is to ensure that there is a responsibility on the Welsh Government to ensure the accessibility of law as a system of law along with individual Measures, Bills and Acts. And the other thing is ensuring that the interpretation of the law is easier in Wales by having a set of definitions and defined terms that are appropriate, modern and bilingual, and therefore appropriate to our legislation here in the Assembly.
In terms of the financial issues and value for money, one of the main drivers for this is efficiency. At the moment, the statue book is very complex in terms of primary legislation as well as subordinate legislation, and finding the law is difficult, and understanding it when you do find it is also difficult. That problem is one that is common across the UK, but we do have a specific challenge here in Wales, given the complexity of our devolved settlement, which makes the problem even worse. So, there is a great deal of time wasted in people searching for law when they could be using their time more constructively, rather than simply scrolling through documents. So, the intention of the Bill is to ensure that there is a plan of consolidation and codification in place, and that the law should be published in a more accessible way, and that people can understand it better when they do come across it.
Now, you asked the question, 'Why now?' The Law Commission has been encouraging us to do this for quite some time, because of the complexity of the situation that we face. The Bill was based on work that they had done, so we had a developed resource to draw on as a result of their work, and also, if you look at the context of Brexit—perhaps the main source of pressure on things generally at the moment—one of the things that will happen as a result of Brexit is more complexity in the law rather than less, and therefore the principles underpinning this Bill do counteract that and encourage us to ensure, even in light of that, that the accessibility of law is at that top of our agenda.
Ocê. Wel, diolch yn fawr iawn am y trosolwg yna. Mi oedd yr asesiad effaith rheoleiddiol drafft, wrth gwrs, roeddech chi wedi ymgynghori arno fe yn cynnwys costau lefel uchel, ond, o beth dwi'n deall, dwi ddim yn credu eich bod chi wedi cael unrhyw ymatebion uniongyrchol i'r agwedd yna, er bod yna gwestiwn penodol hefyd yn gofyn amdano fe. Felly, ŷch chi'n fodlon gyda'r ymatebion rŷch chi wedi eu cael i effaith ariannol y Bil?
Okay, thank you very much for that overview. The draft regulatory impact assessment that you consulted on included high-level costs, but, from what I understand, you didn't have any direct responses to that aspect, even though there was a specific question that asked for that. So, are you satisfied with the responses that you've had to the financial impact of the Bill?
Wel, efallai fod y math yma o Fil yn wahanol i'r mathau sydd yn gwneud newid uniongyrchol ym mywyd bob dydd pobl, ac efallai bod hynny wrth wraidd y lefel o ymateb sydd wedi bod i'r cwestiynau yma. Gallech chi, ar un llaw, fod yn gweld hynny'n beth siomedig; ar y llaw arall, gallwch chi ddweud, 'Wel, ar y cyfan, dyw pobl ddim yn ei weld e fel blaenoriaeth.' Felly, siŵr o fod, 'rhywle yn y canol' yw'r ateb. Rwy'n credu bod rhanddeiliaid yn mynd i ymateb i bethau sydd yn debygol o gael effaith bob dydd arnyn nhw, ac efallai dyw pobl ddim yn gweld hynny yn y cyd-destun penodol hwn.
Well, perhaps this kind of Bill is different to other Bills that make direct changes to the everyday lives of citizens, and that is perhaps the reason for the level of response to that question. On the one hand, you could see that as being disappointing; on the other hand, you could say, 'Well, generally speaking, people don't see it as a priority.' So, I'm sure the answer is somewhere between the two. I think stakeholders will respond to things that are likely to have an impact on their daily lives, and perhaps they don't see that in that specific context.
Ocê. Nawr, mi gyhoeddodd Comisiwn y Gyfraith asesiad effaith ochr yn ochr â'u hadroddiad nhw, 'Ffurf a Hygyrchedd y Gyfraith sy'n Gymwys yng Nghymru'. A ddefnyddioch chi hwnnw i lywio costau ar gyfer eich Bil deddfwriaeth, ac, os wnaethoch chi, sut?
Okay. Well, the Law Commission published an impact assessment alongside its report, 'Form and Accessibility of the Law Applicable in Wales'. Has this been used to inform costings for this Legislation (Wales) Bill, and, if so, how?
Wel, roedd asesiad impact Comisiwn y Gyfraith yn fan cychwyn perthnasol, wrth gwrs, ac yn ddefnyddiol yn hynny o beth, ond ar ddiwedd y dydd roedd yn rhaid inni wneud dadansoddiad ein hunain o'r costau. Mae rhifau Comisiwn y Gyfraith, er enghraifft, ddim yn cynnwys rhan ddehongli'r Bil, a dyw e ddim yn cymryd yn gyflawn i mewn i ystyriaeth costau cyfieithu chwaith. Rŷn ni'n llawer mwy cyfarwydd â hynny yma, fel Llywodraeth ac fel Cynulliad. Roedd hefyd rhannau o ddadansoddiad Comisiwn y Gyfraith yn edrych ar y cwestiwn o staffio mewn ffordd wahanol i sut rŷn ni'n edrych arno fe. Rŷn ni'n edrych arno fe mewn ffordd llawer mwy wedi integreiddio i'r systemau sydd gyda ni yn barod, felly doedd e ddim yn gymhariaeth berffaith yn hynny o beth. Ond, wedi dweud hynny, un o'r pethau wnaethon nhw ei bwysleisio oedd gwerth y math yma o Fil yn arbed amser pobl, ac fe wnaethon nhw wneud ymgais i roi ffigur ar hynny—rhyw £24 miliwn. Mae hynny yn bwysig o safbwynt tystiolaeth bod gwerth ariannol i'r peth, ond gwnes i benderfynu peidio â rhoi gormod o bwyslais ar y ffigwr penodol hwnna. Dwi'n credu gallai fe fod yn rhywbeth y gallem ni gael trafodaeth greadigol amdano fe—beth yw'r scale iawn. O'm safbwynt i, er bod hynny'n beth gwerthfawr i'r Bil, cyfiawnder cymdeithasol yw un o'r prif bethau sy'n gyrru'r Bil, sicrhau bod pobl yn gallu darganfod y gyfraith, yn enwedig mewn cyd-destun lle mae legal aid ac ati'n cael ei gwtogi. Mae angen sicrhau bod llywodraethau a chynulliadau ym mhobman yn sicrhau bod y gyfraith yn hygyrch i bobl fel mesur cyfiawnder, a dyna beth oedd prif ysgogiad y Bil.
Well, the Law Commission impact assessment was a starting point, and it was a pertinent and useful starting point, but at the end of the day we had to carry out our own analysis of the costs. The numbers provided by the Law Commission, for example, don't include the interpretation section of the Bill, and it doesn't fully take into account the costs of translation. We are far more familiar with that, of course, as a Government and an Assembly. There were also parts of the Law Commission's analysis that looked at the question of staffing in a way that is different to our approach to that. We look at it in a far more integrated way, in terms of the systems we already have, so it wasn't a perfect comparison in that regard. But, having said that, one of the things that they did emphasise was the value of this kind of Bill in terms of saving time. They did try to put a figure on that—I think it was around £24 million. That's important in terms of providing evidence that there is value for money here, but I decided not to place too much emphasis on that specific figure. I think it could be something that we could have a creative discussion about in terms of what the scale should be. From my point of view, although that is valuable in terms of the Bill, social justice is one of the main drivers of the Bill and in ensuring that people can access the law, particularly in a context where legal aid is being cut. We need to ensure that governments, assemblies and parliaments everywhere ensure that the law is accessible in terms of justice, and that was the main driver of the Bill.
Ie, felly, rŷch chi'n dweud doedd y ffactorau ariannol ddim yn brif ystyriaeth, wrth gwrs, ond faint o flaenoriaeth oedd y costau yn ystod datblygiad y Bil, a sut gafodd y costau yna eu datblygu wedyn yn dilyn yr ymgynghoriad? Oedd yna ddiwygio a newid?
So, you say that the financial factors weren't the main consideration, but what priority was given to costs during the development of the Bill, and how were those costs developed following the consultation? Were there any revisions of that?
Wel, mae'r gost, yn amlwg, yn bwysig, a buaswn i'n dweud, yn gyffredinol, os edrychwch chi ar uchelgais y Llywodraeth i sicrhau cyfraith fwy hygyrch yn gyffredinol, gallech chi wneud hynna heb y Bil ar un lefel, ac efallai gawn ni drafodaeth am hynny maes o law. Gallech chi ddweud, 'Wel, mae'n berffaith bosib i'r Llywdoraeth a'r Cynulliad flaenoriaethu hyn os ydyn nhw eisiau', ac ati, ac, felly, mae'r cwestiwn o gostau wastod yn bwysig i sicrhau beth yw'r adnoddau sydd ar gael ar gyfer y math yna o beth. Dyw'r elfen o roi'r Bil yn ei le yn benodol, felly, ddim yn ychwanegu at y sgwrs honno, fel petai.
Well, clearly, the costs are important. I would say, in general terms, that if you look at the Government's ambition in ensuring the accessibility of law more generally, you could do that without the Bill on the one level, and perhaps we'll have a discussion on that later on. You could say, 'Well, it's perfectly possible for the Government and the Assembly to prioritise this if they so choose'. So, the question of cost is always important in terms of the resources available for this kind of development. The element of putting the Bill in place specifically doesn't add anything to that conversation, as it were.
Ocê, iawn. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Mike.
Okay, fine. Thank you very much. Mike.
Just carrying on from what you said a few moments ago, you said around £24 million. That was just something that had been said, but that wasn't the major driver of it. Who, do you think, is going to get that benefit? Whatever it is, who benefits from it?
Well, yes. I think the time that's spent in locating the law and interpreting the law is time that's not spent, I suppose, applying the law or doing other things. So, any organisation, in any sector, really, which currently uses the statute book, will, I hope, over time, find the benefit here. So, for example, in the world of planning—and you'll know that there's a significant amount of work going on in relation to planning law on the basis of the Law Commission's own work—it is possible, I think, to see that as a significant asset in the planning process—a more rational, more ordered planning statute book—and this Bill, effectively, leads us down the path towards that sort of clarity, essentially. So, that's one area of it, but there are other benefits. I think, in the work of the Government, for example, in any project for law reform, the first task is, clearly, to understand the law as it is today, and, so, making that part of the process more streamlined obviously frees up resources then to deploy on law reform and other activities. So, I think organisations of any sort, really, will benefit from spending less time on this, if I could put it like that.
Will my constituents, or your constituents, benefit from lower billable hours by very expensive lawyers?
Yes. Well, I would hope that, but the other aspect to that is that some of the—. So, take housing law as an example. We know that the cuts to legal aid in the field of housing mean that, in parts of Wales, there are no housing lawyers providing legally aided services, in particular in north Wales. So, advice services are coming under significant pressure to give more and more sophisticated advice to members of the public, and we will all know from speaking to advice services that they are under their own pressure. So, providing a code of housing law in the longer term will facilitate that and will support their work. So, the short answer to your question is, yes, that would be the ambition.
I tell you what, you really are pushing me to want to talk about both planning and housing law, but this is not allowing me to—
—there are problems there that putting things on the statute book are not going to resolve. There are intrinsic problems within those. And I'll just stop there before you tell me off.
How will you ensure there are sufficient resources available to resource the Bill? You, Chair, and I serve on the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, where we're continually told about the pressure on the legal staff of the Assembly in dealing with Brexit and trying to deal with the effects on agriculture and fisheries, which we discussed yesterday. How are you going to have sufficient legal resources to do it when your colleague Lesley Griffiths continually says about the huge pressure that they're under and the lack of staff they've got in order to deal with the environmental parts of Brexit?
Yes, that's a very live question, a very live discussion, obviously. The purpose of the duty in the first part of the Bill is, effectively, to make sure that resources are deployed to this task. There is, obviously, existing work of consolidation, which happens on a piecemeal—if I may put it like that—basis, and it is, by its nature, the sort of work within Government and within a legislature that is—. Most of us weren't elected with a burning ambition to put consolidation of the law at the top of the agenda. I'm not making a judgment on that, but that's the practical political reality of it. So, I do understand the fact that these things are competing priorities, if I can put it like that. So, it's the fact of imposing that duty that draws to it the requirement to find those resources in the long term.
I've had very productive conversations with each of my Cabinet colleagues in relation to the benefits to their portfolios of the sorts of work envisaged by the Bill. In fact, environment, energy and agriculture is an area that would benefit very significantly, potentially, in the longer term from consolidation and codification, and I have discussed with them a basis on which resources can be made available. You've seen the sorts of figures we're talking about here across all portfolios, effectively.
I'm not allowed to talk about those; other people are going to talk about them. But, really, what I'm talking about is the physical resources of people. You're going to be having—. You've got a limited number of people who are legally qualified within the Government. Recruiting more is both expensive and recruiting people with the right skills is difficult. Tell me if I'm wrong on either of those. If that's the case, then, if you're going to do this, is there something else that is not going to be done? And is that going to be part of the Brexit? This isn't about cost. Whether it costs £1 million or £10, I don't know, or £10 million, I don't care—from the questions I'm asking. Other people will care about that. What I care about is actually, physically getting people to deal with it.
Sure. Well, the point of committing the resources is to give sufficient visibility to be able to recruit legislative counsel to do the work, essentially. So, that is the point of getting the visibility on the resource. I completely understand your perspective, which is to say, on the existing staff base, this is not achievable, and that's correct. It's achievable on a piecemeal basis, but that is the sort of thing that you would see, perhaps, being, for obvious reasons, dislocated by Brexit. But the point is to be able to commit to taking on legislative counsel to do that.
So, it's more important to take on legislative staff to deal with this than it is to deal with Brexit.
Well, the point of this is not to see—. The benefits to this can accrue as a consequence of some of the challenges we face in Brexit. Brexit will complexify the law even further, and this is a programme that enables us to make the law more straightforward in the longer term.
Bore da. Rydych chi’n sôn am ddelifro rhywbeth sydd yn fwy effeithiol. Mae dyblygu’n gallu bod yn aneffeithiol, ac mae yna Ddeddf dehongli arall yn bodoli, sef Deddf Dehongli 1978 y Deyrnas Unedig. Oes yna beryg bod cael dwy Ddeddf yn rhedeg ochr yn ochr â’i gilydd yn creu cymhlethdod, a thrwy gymhlethdod arwain at aneffeithlonrwydd?
Good morning. You talk about delivering something that's more effective. Duplication can be ineffective, and there is an interpretation Act that already exists, namely the UK Interpretation Act 1978. Is there a danger that having two interpretation Acts running alongside each other could create complexity and, therefore, lead to inefficiency?
Mae hwnna’n bendant yn beth wnaethon ni ei gysidro, a gwnaethon ni drafod hyn gyda’r Alban a gyda Gogledd Iwerddon, lle mae’r sefyllfa hynny’n bodoli eisoes, i ddeall beth oedd yr effaith byd go iawn ar gael dwy Ddeddf. A’r ateb oedd nad oedden nhw wedi darganfod problemau—problemau ymarferol, hynny yw. Mae’r cwestiwn o effeithlonrwydd yn bwysig. Mae gyda ni ddeddfwrfa yma sy’n deddfu’n ddwyieithog, er enghraifft. Does gyda ni ddim termau dehongli mewn deddfwriaeth sydd yn addas ar gyfer y gwaith hynny ar hyn o bryd. A hefyd, mae Deddf 1978 yn hen ffasiwn mewn lot o ffyrdd erbyn hyn a dyw e ddim yn gymwys i’r oes fodern sydd gyda ni. Felly, dyna’r prif ysgogiad ar hynny.
Yn nhermau a oes yna aneffeithlonrwydd yn yr egwyddor o gael dwy Ddeddf, maen nhw’n effeithio ar bethau gwahanol, felly un o fy mlaenoriaethau i yw sicrhau ei bod yn hawdd i bobl ddeall pa Ddeddf sy’n gymwys—pa Ddeddf sylfaenol, hynny yw.
That is something that we considered and we discussed this with Scotland and Northern Ireland, where that situation already exists, in order to understand what the real-term impact of having two Acts was. The answer was that they hadn't found any practical problems. Now, the question of efficiency is important. We have a legislature here that legislates bilingually, for example. We don't have interpretation in legislation that is appropriate for that work at the moment. And also, the 1978 Act is old-fashioned and dated in many ways now. It's not appropriate for these times, and that's the main driver in that regard.
In terms of whether there is inefficiency in the principle of having two Acts, well, they impact on different areas, and so one of my priorities is to ensure that it's easy for people to understand which piece of legislation applies. I'm talking here of primary legislation, of course.
Rŷch chi’n sôn am bobl a chael pobl i ddeall. Pwy ydych chi’n eu gweld—rydyn ni’n sôn am y cyhoedd yn gyfan, wrth gwrs—ond pwy, yn benodol, ydych chi’n eu gweld fel rhanddeiliaid yn y broses yma? A sut ydych chi’n bwriadu estyn allan at y rhanddeiliaid yna i adael iddyn nhw wybod am y gwaith yma a bod hyn yn mynd i fod ar gael iddyn nhw? A pha adnoddau sy’n mynd i fod ar gael i wneud y gwaith yna o ymgysylltu â nhw?
You talk about people and getting people to understand this. Who do you see—we're talking here about the public in its entirety, of course—but who do you see as the stakeholders in this process? And how do you intend to reach out to those stakeholders to let them know about this work and that this is going to be available to them? And what resources are going to be available to do that work of engaging with them?
Yn benodol am ran ddehongli’r Bil rŷch chi’n sôn nawr.
Specifically in the interpretation section—is that what you’re talking about?
Wel, o ran y bwriad yn gyffredinol o egluro ein deddfwriaeth yn well.
Well, in terms of explaining legislation better more generally.
O ran yr elfen ddehongli, y rhanddeiliaid, a dweud y gwir, yn yr elfen honno, yw cyfreithwyr a phobl sy’n darparu gwasanaethau cyfreithiol—barnwyr ac ati. Felly, yn nhermau ymestyn allan atyn nhw a’u bod nhw’n deall y byddwn ni’n darparu canllawiau ac ati, bydd hynny’n rhan o’r explanatory memorandum ar gyfer Deddfau eraill yn y dyfodol. Felly, dwi ddim yn gweld hynny’n rhywbeth o ran y cyhoedd yn gyffredinol. Dwi ddim yn gweld, yn realiti’r peth, eu bod nhw’n gweld eu hunain fel rhanddeiliaid yn y rhan honno o’r Ddeddf.
Yn fwy cyffredinol, rwy’n credu bod yr elfen o sicrhau bod pobl yn deall bod y peth yma’n digwydd yn bwysig, wrth gwrs, ond y peth pwysicaf yw effaith y Ddeddf hon ar ddeddfwriaeth arall. Felly, byddwn ni eisiau sicrhau bod pobl yn deall ein bod ni’n gwneud y gwaith yma, ond cael cyfreithiau cliriach yn y tymor hir yw’r fantais.
Well, in terms of the interpretation section, the stakeholders are lawyers and those providing legal services—judges and so forth. So, in terms of extending out to them and for them to understand that we will be providing guidance and so on, that will be included in the explanatory memorandum for further legislation in future. So, I don't see that as being relevant to the public in general. I don't see, when you consider the reality of the situation, that they see themselves as stakeholders in that section of the Act.
In more general terms, I think the element of ensuring that people do understand that this is happening is important, of course, but the most important thing is the impact of this Act on other legislation. So, we will want to ensure that people understand that we are carrying out this work, but getting good legislation in place in the long term will be the advantage.
Ac oes yna fwriad i neilltuo adnoddau penodol ar gyfer y gwaith o ddweud wrth bobl, 'Mae hyn yn digwydd a dyma ydy goblygiadau'r hyn sydd yn digwydd'?
And is there an intention to ring-fence resources in order to inform the public about this work and to explain its implications?
Do you want to speak a little bit about that, Claire or Dylan?
This was on resources to the public? Sorry, I missed your question.
I was asking what particular resources have been set aside or you envisage being needed in order to do that work of engaging with people and letting them know, 'This is happening, this is what's happening, this is how it will affect you, or will be useful to you'.
The resources for engaging with stakeholders on the Bill are within Welsh Government at the moment. We're rolling that out. If it was on individual projects, the Bill teams that are working on those would do that. So, on planning, they have an extensive stakeholder list and they will engage with them. So, if, as the Counsel General was saying, we were talking about planning consolidation, that would be part of that planning consolidation project and would engage them and tell them all about the changes that are coming through a consolidated planning project. Was that the point you were—?
Yes. So, you're not envisaging additional resource; resource would be from within—
Dim byd mawr. Y peth arall i'w nodi yw y byddwn ni'n defnyddio gwefan Cyfraith Cymru, Law Wales, er mwyn esbonio effaith y Ddeddf—gobeithio y gwnaiff hi gael ei phasio—a does dim byd tebyg i gael nawr; does dim lot o esboniad o effaith Deddf 1978. Felly, y bwriad yw y bydd yna ganllawiau penodol, fel yr oedd y Cwnsler Cyffredinol yn ei ddweud, i gyfreithwyr. Mae rhan 2 o'r Bil yn bennaf yn bwysig i gyfreithwyr, felly byddwn ni'n sicrhau bod cyfreithwyr yn deall beth sy'n digwydd, a byddwn ni'n defnyddio'r wefan er mwyn egluro effaith y Bil.
Ac un peth arall sy'n bwysig i'w nodi yw, o ran y gymhariaeth rhwng y Bil a Deddf 1978, mae lot o'r nodiadau esboniadol yn cyfeirio at Ddeddf 1978, yn esbonio beth sy'n wahanol, yn esbonio os oes yna unrhyw beth newydd, neu'n esbonio bod yr effaith yr un peth. Felly, mae lot o waith wedi cael ei wneud yn barod ac mae lot o ddogfennau sydd wedi cael eu cynhyrchu'n barod yn esbonio’r effaith.
No major resource. The other thing to note is that we will be using the Cyfraith Cymru, Law Wales website to explain the impact of the Act—when it's passed, hopefully—and there is nothing of that kind available now; there's not much explanation of the impact of the 1978 Act. Therefore, the intention is that there will be specific guidance in place, as the Counsel General said, for lawyers. Part 2 of the Bill mainly applies to lawyers and is applicable to them, so we will ensure that lawyers understand what's happening, and we'll be using the website in order to explain the impact of the Bill.
And one other thing that's important to note is that, in terms of the comparison between the Bill and the 1978 Act, many of the explanatory notes refer to the 1978 Act and explain what is different, what is new, or they explain that the impact is the same. So, a great deal of work has been done already and many of the documents that have already been produced explain the impact.
Cyn inni symud at Nick, mae Rhianon eisiau dod i mewn.
Before we move to Nick, Rhianon wants to come in.
Diolch, Chair. In that regard, for clarity, you mentioned that there are no extra resources attached to the actual programme projects. Am I correct in saying that the costs that we've got here are purely atttached to the accessibility?
Okay. So, is that realistic in terms of four or five projects per year, pro tem, per programme?
Yes, that's per programme over a five-year term. So, they're figures we've assumed—
Diolch, Chair. Good morning, Counsel General. The explanatory memorandum suggests that all costs will fall to the Welsh Government. Is that realistic, or is it likely that there will be some level of cost to the private and public sectors?
Well, the—. I've just talked to Mike about the benefits. We've also considered how changing the law would obviously impact in terms of costs. The only functions imposed by the Bill are in Part 1, and they're all attached to the Welsh Government. So, in that sense, it is the Welsh Government who will bear the costs of discharging that function. Part 2 obviously imposes obligations, or affects other devolved authorities rather, but in fact that doesn't impose specific duties on them to act in a particular way. So, in that sense, I don't think Part 2 does that either.
Clearly, Part 2 introduces a new set of terms and a new set of practices, which any user of the law needs to understand and needs to get to grips with. Again, I think the nature of an interpretation Act probably means that, once that has been understood, then the cost of understanding it is the cost that will be borne, basically, by lawyers working in law firms or local government, or whatever. And I think that's just in the ordinary course of—
So, would that capacity already be there in those sectors, or are you saying that there might be some limited costs, but it would be a one-off cost?
It would be a one-off cost in that sense of learning what the new law says, but it's the sort of thing that you would expect to be a very minor part of anyone's day job, in a sense. You know, 'What does this say? How does that relate to legislation being passed in future?' It's just being current in the law, essentially, so, in that sense, it's de minimis, I'd say.
Okay. And you consider three options in the impact assessment that accompanied the Bill upon introduction, but there's no 'do nothing' option. How seriously were other options considered?
Well, the 'do nothing' option is, I suppose—how best to put this? Doing what we are doing at the moment is a consideration in the regulatory impact assessment so, conceptually, the other alternatives are to do less than we're doing now, which we don't think is a sustainable approach. And then the other two options, conceptually, are: we carry on doing it in a more programmatic way, but without imposing a duty on ourselves, or we do it in a programmatic way in which we impose a duty and you get to hold the Government to account for it, essentially. So, I think, conceptually, that covers all the bases.
The 'do nothing' option takes us back from where we are now, which I don't think—
So, it wasn't even worth having it as a comparison with the other options.
Well, we didn't feel it was a realistic way forward, essentially, and the current programme, or the current activity, is piecemeal and opportunistic, and you would expect that to be the baseline of any Government, really.
Okay. And there's an exact cost in there in terms of the majority of costs. There's also a £20,000 range in the overall cost. Why do you think it was necessary to produce a range for some costs but not for others?
Yes. It was a bit of a technical question, wasn't it? The majority of costs have been considered as an exact cost, but there's also a £20,000 range in the overall costs.
I was wondering why it's necessary to produce a range for some costs, but not for others.
The range cost relates to the variables in laying the programme, reporting on the programme and revising the programme, which depends on how the Assembly scrutinises the Bill, and whether a revision is necessary. The precise costs relate to the estimated costs of staffing the legislative counsel—the translators and the administrative staff—based on a speculative programme of four to five Bills. The precise details of the programme would be for each future Assembly.
What this does, clearly, is to set the obligation to have a programme, but the nature and content and, frankly, the scale of ambition of that programme are matters for the Government of the day looking at the other priorities, essentially.
So, they're two different things, really—the exact costs that are within it, and then the range relates to something else. Thanks. And the RIA notes that the Welsh Government hasn't tried to substantiate the Law Commission estimate that implementing its recommendations could result in an annual £24 million benefit.
Yes. As I was touching on earlier, firstly, that wasn't the principal driver for the Bill, really, but, having assessed that, I think we felt that making our own judgments was the better approach than analysing the Law Commission's numbers, effectively, although that's helpful to give a sense of scale, I think.
Do you not feel that that would have helped you to sell the Bill? You know, a big figure like that would be—
It would be if I was able to say to you, 'I've looked at every penny in that and I think it's completely defensible', but my personal view was that I would rather say to you, 'This is why I want to do the Bill, and this is my view of the costs', rather than rely on that. Although, it's obviously helpful to have that as an external indicator of the scale of benefit.
Well, I don't want to be confident about saying that, because, to the point that Mike was making earlier, this is felt differently by different kinds of organisations, isn't it, and so, in a sense, it depends on the make-up of the programmes that follow it.
So, you didn't think that that was a necessary aspect of what you're trying to do. That's their opinion, but it's not really relevant to you progressing.
I wouldn't say it's irrelevant; it's very relevant, but my view of it was that, since that wasn't the principal driver, I was keen not to put too much weight on that because I anticipated that you would want me to explain exactly why that was. [Laughter.] I believe I was right in that. [Laughter.]
Very briefly, would it be true to say that it's public cost and private benefit?
No, because the law applies to charities, public sector organisations, local government and a range of other public services that are equally under pressure from the complexity of the law.
Thank you, Chair. So, in regard to the emergent log jam of the statute of Brexit—and that's affecting us all across UK plc—is there enough emphasis around the importance of this being foundational of a crowded statute book at the moment? And I suppose—. I have a more detailed question in a minute around the costings that you've given us, but bearing in mind the tsunami of issues that are going to start hitting us all, and are hitting us, and will increasingly do so, I'm trying to understand the scale of importance of this as a sort of foundational level, as to how that will make it easier for us moving forward. And is that a very important driver, because you did say that Brexit—and I can understand why—could derail this very important piece of consolidative work?
Well, I think it is important. The programme and the duties that the Bill imposes, effectively—at least, the duty to introduce the programme that drives the consolidation comes into effect, effectively, for the next Assembly term, and is the beginning of a five-year programme for the first term. But, to be clear about this, this is not a question of us spending the next two years consolidating the statute book, or the next two years doing something else. This is a programme that will continue. The task of making a radical difference in the simplification of the statute book is the work of a generation, really, and the question that you're asking is the sort of question that is often asked in the context of giving any priority to this work, because we will all be able to think of things that we would prefer today to allocate those resources to, and that will usually be for good reason. But the consequence of applying that on a universal basis is the problem that we have today and the problem that other parts of the UK have as well.
My feeling is that Brexit poses even more of a challenge to our statute book, and, on whatever basis that occurs, it is going to mean that our statute book needs an awful lot of work in the longer term to make sure it's accessible to people. And that is just to make a new post-Brexit legislative world intelligible to people, which I think is a significant benefit.
Okay. So, I suppose then that that leads into the human resources side, which seems quite minimal regarding—. And I know you've qualified in terms of the extent of years ahead that this work will take. So, you've mentioned that the largest cost will be to resource the legislative counsel—human resource. So, is that £377,000 a fixed price, or do you presume that that will fluctuate in terms of this Assembly term and next, or is it your best guesstimate at this moment?
It's basically fixed, subject to normal fluctuations in salaries, basically, but that is, essentially, the core cost. You could imagine, in circumstances, you might deploy additional resource, if that was required and if that was justifiable, and it is conceivable that some of this resource could be deployed in exceptional circumstances on other things, but that's basically the core cost. It'll fluctuate with salary costs, but that's essentially it.
So, an administrative team of three staff to be created to deliver the programme and the project. So, can you outline the specific objectives of this team? But, I suppose, wider to that precise question for me is: are we confident that, with the deployment of civil servants around the wider issue around Brexit, this is a sound thing to do moving forward?
Are we talking about the costs on page 53 of the RIA, which is the estimated cost of developing and reporting on a programme? Is that right?
So, an administrative team—it's a specific HR costing. So, we've talked about the legislative counsel. So, you've allocated a team of three just to do the admin. It's just really a basic question around what their specific objectives to the team would be. But I think that really answers itself as a question, to be honest.
Absolutely, yes. Some of the role of the administrative team is certainly to support the process of developing the consolidation Bills and ensuring that the programme is developed—as the Counsel General says, the preparing of the programme. But, then, there are the other functions that the explanatory memorandum goes into and which the Counsel General has already touched upon—things like maintaining, developing, enhancing the offer through the Cyfraith Cymru/Law Wales website. So, that's about identifying commentaries, ensuring the information and explanatory material on there is up to date.
We also want that team to be working with the National Archives to update legislation.gov.uk. In the past, the Counsel General has spoken about the problems of the fact that the Welsh language text on that website is not as up to date, in many forms, as the English language text. So, it's about working with them to ensure the Welsh legislation is edited and updated. And, then, in the Counsel General's written statement towards the end of last year, he talked about organising the existing law by subject area, and that would be a key part of the work of this administration team, making sure that legislation.gov.uk is organised by subject in relation to the law applicable in Wales, both starting now and over the longer term.
So, the digital offer is a key part of the administration team's work, but then I think other future work could be developing the glossaries on the Welsh language, which the Counsel General has talked about in the past. Part of that duty under section 1 and section 2 is facilitating the use of the Welsh language, so it would be finding ways and mechanisms to do that. But it is about making sure—. That team is about making sure that the accessibility of the law is over and above the consolidation and codification.
So, in regard to technologies—we've mentioned this a couple of times this morning—I would presume that that's going to play a major part within this, in terms of how we harness that.
Well, that would be the ambition, certainly. When I appeared before the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, I spoke briefly about the discussions we've been having with Google and with other technology providers just to understand the range of future options in some of this work. Obviously, it's important to make sure that the resources that we deploy today are, as far as any of us can gauge, fit for the future—one says that tentatively, but, clearly, to try and do our best at this point to make sure that that sort of technology is possible to be deployed in future. But none of that at this point is—. I am not saying to you, 'We have a plan for technology and this is how much it costs.' It's a much more kind of embryonic set of discussions. But it's absolutely clear that there'll interesting opportunities to look at how Welsh language texts work together, how to hyperlink between them, how Members in scrutiny sessions are able to see that perhaps more effectively than we can even on our online resources today. So, there are some longer term gains there, if I can just put it like that.
And, finally, there's a mention that you're deploying resources for this for early 2019. Has that been achieved?
Well, it's for the early financial year, 2019. And, yes, I'm confident that we'll have that resource.
Diolch. Why has the resource requirement placed on other teams within other Welsh Government not been costed in the RIA?
So, the principal resource challenge is going to be a drafting resource challenge. That's the large part of it, given the nature of the work. The point of it, consolidation-wise, is not to be changing the law. That's the basic point. There'll be a set of Standing Orders, which enable the Assembly to scrutinise, but in a different way than the Assembly would scrutinise a reform Bill. So, the large part of the work will be done on that basis, but there obviously will be work that policy colleagues will need to engage with, but that's in the nature of any piece of legislation that is being developed, essentially. So, in that sense, it's treated in the same way.
Thanks. And, in terms of the £12,000 costs associated with preparing and laying a programme for the Assembly term, can you provide any details of the resources that would be required?
Yes. That's one executive band 2 person working on the consultation programme, and then looking at the results, and developing the paper. And Claire is envisaged to be that resource now.
I am. [Laughter.]
I am the executive band 2.
We don't often get that, so that's—. It's certainly not dry, law, is it, when you can actually bring it alive, putting a face to the name?
There is a one-off transition cost of £5,000 in the Bill, in Part 2 and Part 3. What else will be required to make sure that stakeholders understand the requirements and the changes this will mean?
That goes back to the discussion I was having with Rhun earlier. There is a modest figure, which is really around providing guidance to professionals, essentially, about what Part 2 does. I'm not envisaging the public at large being informed differently, particularly, from that. I think the key point is to make sure that the people who operate the provisions—and these are default provisions in law, really, aren't they—the professionals and people giving legal advice, understand the changes, and that's really the target.
So, it's not really like the tax changes, for instance, where there's been a public awareness-raising campaign in force that's specific for the users of the law.
Don't forget that in future Acts it will be, 'Under this Act, these are some of the key changes'—that sort of thing.
It's a different type of legislation to what we're used to dealing with—
Well, it's legislation about the law, isn't it? You know, so in that sense—
Well, it's the first time we've done that here, I think, so in that sense—.
Yes, it's interesting. You told the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee that you hope to have resources in place by this year, by 2019. Is everything on track in terms of your assessment of where we should be, and where we are?
Can you outline how the ongoing programme is going to evaluate the efficacy of programmes delivered under the legislation?
Well, there are two aspects to that. The Bill itself is a Bill to keep the law under review. So, that includes within it a review of the efficacy of the Bill in delivering that outcome, essentially. And the benefit—well, there are many benefits, but one of the benefits of having a duty is that it provides the ability for scrutiny, obviously, and accountability and review. And the financial assumptions currently envisage three reports over the course of an Assembly term—formal reports to the Assembly on where we are with the programme, which will obviously have been published. But I envisage perhaps more frequent, you know, oral reports in the Chamber, or statements, and opportunities for Members to hold the Counsel General to account. But I think the proof of this particular pudding isn't so much in that, I would suggest—probably stakeholders aren't going to be focused so much on that. The benefit to stakeholders will be: 'Are you actually consolidating the law?', basically. So, it will be felt at that end. But I would plan to use the Law Wales website, when that's been revamped, if you like, as a means of keeping people currently up to date.
I was going to ask you in terms of your communication—it's not a very sexy issue, is it, for the public? So, how are you going to communicate the importance of this? Is that your main vehicle?
Yes. People who will be interested, I hope, will know where to find it, and it will be in there, basically. But there are—
Okay. You mentioned the issue earlier around advice centres around housing. There are many ways of doing that. So, that's your main vehicle.
Could you just, because this is different—and I'm trying to get my head around it as well—how long do you anticipate—? Because there's very little cost attached to this on the surface, and you've mentioned this floating figure of £24 million out there—in that regard, how long do you anticipate that this programme could take, bearing in mind the highly unique position we're in with external factors at the moment?
Okay. Well, that is entirely a factor of the ambition of the Government of the day, from time to time, and its other priorities. But the existence of the duty will, on any scenario, increase the pace, if I can put it like that—or at least it should increase the pace. But this is not the work of one Assembly term, or two Assembly terms, in truth—it is the work of many Assembly terms. We've envisaged four or five consolidation measures per Assembly term. Plainly, in the future, if there is a Government who has access to vastly more resources, or—. There's a sense in which you could deploy more resources and make faster progress, but we feel that is a sensible run rate, if you like. But if you say to me, 'Well, how long will it take?', I can't put a figure on it specifically.
Okay. And finally, then, with regard to the importance of this as a generic issue and agenda for Wales, we've mentioned the issues around Brexit, and how that's going to impact our legislative programmes—how would you grade this in terms of importance of how and when it should occur? It's obviously happening, but how important do you think it is?
I think it's important. The question is why we are doing it. There are a number of different reasons for doing it. There's the very well-understood issue about democratic accountability—what do we say, and what laws are we passing? The laws that we pass, if people don't know what their rights and responsibilities are, are going to be less effective, aren't they? So, that's one argument. The other argument, which I'm personally very strongly persuaded by, is the social justice argument of enabling people to know where the law is, in circumstances where they don't have access to lawyers, bluntly.
Diolch yn fawr. Jest cyn inni gloi, jest i bigo lan ar y pwynt roedd Nick Ramsay wedi ei wneud ynglŷn â'r adnoddau sydd ar gael i chi nawr. Rŷch chi wedi dweud wrth CLAC fod yna adnoddau yn mynd i fod yn gynnar eleni. Nid yw hwnna yn ymddangos yn yr RIA. Dwi jest yn meddwl—a fyddech chi'n gallu darparu manylion y gost yna rŷch chi eisoes yn ei wario?
Thank you very much. Just before we close, just to pick up on a point that Nick Ramsay made about the resources available to you now. You've told the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee that there will be resources available this year. That doesn't appear in the RIA. I'm just thinking—would you be able to provide details of that cost that you're already spending?
Wel, mae'r gost—y cwestiwn yw: a fydd adnoddau ar gael yn y flwyddyn ariannol nesaf, hon sy'n dechrau nawr? A'r ateb roeddwn i'n ei roi yw ein bod ni wedi sicrhau hynny.
Well, the question is whether resources will be available in the next financial year, this financial year that's about to start. And the answer I was giving was that we have secured those resources.
Achos mi ddywedoch chi wrth CLAC eich bod chi'n gobeithio cael adnoddau yn eu lle erbyn dechrau'r flwyddyn nesaf—y flwyddyn ariannol roeddech chi'n ei feddwl, nid y flwyddyn galendr, ie?
You told CLAC that you would hope to have resources in place by the next year—the next financial year is what you meant, not the calendar year.
Dyna ddywedais i wrth CLAC. Camgymeriad oedd hwnna; mi wnes i ei gywiro fe mewn llythyr. Y flwyddyn ariannol yw'r cyfnod iawn.
That's what I told CLAC. That was a mistake and I corrected it in a letter. It's the financial year that I was referring to.
Popeth yn iawn. Felly, does yna ddim manylion i'w rhannu, felly, ar hyn o bryd, o ran beth yw'r—
Right. So, there are no details to share at present, in terms of—
Rŷn ni'n gwybod beth rŷn ni'n ei ddarogan ei gael yn y cyfnod newydd.
We know what we're anticipating to receive in the next period.
Yr un ffigurau ydyn nhw. Y ffigurau sydd yn yr RIA yw'r ffigurau sydd ddim yn cael eu gwario nawr, gobeithio.
They're the same figures. The figures in the RIA are the figures that are not being spent now, hopefully.
Ocê, iawn. Diolch yn fawr am yr eglurder yna, a diolch i chi am eich presenoldeb y bore yma, a'r dystiolaeth—bydd yn help mawr i ni. Ac mi fyddwn ni, wrth gwrs, yn adrodd, pan ddaw'r amser, ein safbwynt ni fel pwyllgor. Ac mi fydd copi o'r trawsgrifiad ar gael i chi, wrth gwrs, jest i chi ei 'check-io' ar gyfer cywirdeb. Felly, diolch o galon i chi am ymuno â ni.
Okay, fine. Well, thank you very much for that clarity, and thank you also for your attendance this morning, and for the evidence—that will be a great help to us. And, of course, we will be reporting, at the appropriate time, our viewpoint as a committee. And a copy of the transcript will be available to you, of course, just for you to check for accuracy. So, thank you very much for joining us this morning.
Cyn inni fynd i sesiwn breifat, mi wnes i, wrth groesawu Rhianon Passmore ac Alun Davies fel aelodau o'r pwyllgor, anghofio diolch, wrth gwrs, i ddau gyn-aelod o'r pwyllgor, sef David Rees a Jane Hutt. Ac rwy'n siŵr ein bod ni eisiau nodi yn ffurfiol ein diolch ni am eu cyfraniad sylweddol nhw i waith y pwyllgor yma dros y cyfnod diwethaf hefyd.
Before we go into private session, in welcoming Rhianon Passmore and Alun Davies as committee members, I forgot to thank two previous members of the committee—David Rees and Jane Hutt. And I'm sure we would want to note formally our thanks for their great contribution to this committee's work over the recent years.
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.
Reit, mi awn ni mewn i sesiwn breifat nesaf. Felly, gaf i gynnig, o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42(vi), ein bod fel pwyllgor yn gwahardd y cyhoedd o weddill y cyfarfod? Ydy Aelodau yn hapus i gytuno i hynny?
Right, we'll go into private session now. Could I propose, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi), that the committee resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting? Are Members content to agree to that?
Iawn. Diolch yn fawr. Awn i mewn i sesiwn breifat, felly.
Thank you very much. We'll go into a private session, then.
Derbyniwyd y cynnig.
Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am 09:48.
The public part of the meeting ended at 09:48.