COMMISSION ON THE POWERS AND ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

of the

EVIDENCE OF:

Plaid Cymru the Party of Wales

held at

the National Museum, Cardiff

On

THURSDAY 27 February 2003

In Attendance

Lord Richard
Eira Davies
Vivienne Sugar
Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth
Tom Jones
Huw Thomas
Ted Rowlands
Dr Laura McAllister
Peter Price
Ieuan Wyn Jones AM
Cynog Dafis AM
Dafydd Trystan
Jocelyn Davies AM
Simon Thomas MP

Proceedings

LORD RICHARD: Thank you very much for coming and thank you for your submission. What we have been trying to do is to ask the person giving evidence whether they wish to open it up and then we will ask a number of questions. Could you identify yourself so that it gets on the record?

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Diolch am eich cyflwyniad a hefyd am y gwahoddiad i roi tystiolaeth i'ch Comisiwn yma heddiw. Ieuan Wyn Jones ydw i, fi yw arweinydd y Grwp yn y Cynulliad a Llywydd y Blaid hefyd. Yr hyn yr hoffwn ei wneud ar y cychwyn yw cyflwyno'r tîm sydd wedi ymuno â mi i roi tystiolaeth ichi heddiw. Ar y dde imi mae Cynog Dafis, sy'n Aelod o'r Cynulliad a hefyd yn Gyfarwyddwr Polisi Plaid Cymru, ac yn rhinwedd y swydd honno y mae'n ymuno â ni heddiw. Ar y llaw chwith imi mae Jocelyn Davies, sydd hefyd yn Aelod o'r Cynulliad a llefarydd y Blaid ar faterion cyfansoddiadol. Ar y dde imi mae Simon Thomas, sy'n cynrychioli Grwp Seneddol Plaid Cymru ac sy'n Aelod Seneddol dros Geredigion. Ar y chwith eithaf mae'r Dr Dafydd Trystan, Prif Weithredwr Plaid Cymru.

Pan gafodd y Cynulliad ei sefydlu ym 1999, gyda'r etholiadau cyntaf yn cael eu cynnal ym mis Mai y flwyddyn honno, roedd y gobeithion, wrth gwrs, yn uchel iawn. Dyma oedd y tro cyntaf i gorff cenedlaethol gael ei greu â phwerau democrataidd i weithredu set o bolisïau sydd wedi'u creu yng Nghymru ar faterion pwysig iawn megis datblygu'r economi a'r gwasanaethau cymdeithasol. Roedd yn cael ei sefydlu hefyd ar ôl 18 mlynedd o lywodraeth Dorïaidd, pan gafodd Cymru ei llywodraethu drwy'r Swyddfa Gymreig nid yn unig gan blaid na lwyddodd erioed i ennill mwyafrif yng Nghymru ond hefyd am gyfnodau hir iawn gan Ysgrifennydd Gwladol nad oedd hyd yn oed yn cynrychioli etholaeth yng Nghymru. O'r cychwyn cyntaf roedden ni'n ymwybodol o ddiffygion y corff newydd, Plaid Cymru a minnau. Roedd un aelod o'ch Comisiwn yn rhan o'r broses o fynd â'r Mesur drwy'r Senedd yn sgil refferendwm ac fe sylweddolodd y ddau ohonom fod yna wahaniaethau sylfaenol rhwng Deddf Cymru a Deddf yr Alban, a aeth drwy'r Senedd yr un pryd. Rwy'n siwr y gallwn ni fanylu ar hynny yn nes ymlaen.

Dydw i ddim yn meddwl bod neb wedi deall yn llwyr mor anodd fyddai hi i wneud i'r Cynulliad weithio'n llwyddiannus. Yn fy marn i mae dau brif reswm am hyn, y cyntaf ydy gwendid y pwerau presennol ac yn ail gymhlethdodau'r trefniadau presennol yn y Cynulliad. Hoffwn amlinellu rhai gwendidau canolog. Hyd yn oed o fewn y meysydd datganoledig mae'r pwerau yn aml yn wan, yn anghyflawn ac yn fratiog. Hyn sy'n gyfrifol yn rhannol, a dwi'n pwysleisio yn rhannol yn unig, am y parch isel sydd gan y cyhoedd tuag at y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol ar hyn o bryd yng Nghymru. Yn ail, cymhlethdod y setliad. Fel y gwyddoch chi dydy'r swyddogaethau ddim wedi'u datganoli dros feysydd polisi cyfan ond eu datganoli drwy nifer o orchmynion trosglwyddo swyddogaethau. Dim ond pwerau cyfyngedig drwy amryw o ddeddfau Seneddol sydd wedi'u rhoi i'r Cynulliad. Yn aml mae'n anodd, ac weithiau'n amhosibl, darganfod a ydy rhai swyddogaethau wedi'u datganoli o gwbl. O gofio'r cyfyngiadau hyn mae'n anodd gweld sut y gallwn ni wneud i'r setliad presennol weithio'n dda.

Rydyn ni'n derbyn bod modd gwneud gwelliannau ar y cyrion: gallem weithio i wella ewyllys da Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig mewn materion penodol; gallem geisio sicrhau gwell cydweithredu o du rhai o adrannau Whitehall; gallem wthio'r ddeddfwriaeth fframweithiol a cheisio cael gwell bargen ar ddeddfwriaeth sylfaenol a materion unigryw i Gymru. Fyddai'r un o'r rhain, yn ein barn ni, yn cymryd lle y pwerau deddfu a'r swyddogaethau llawn a fyddai, yn ein barn ni, yn arwain at lywodraeth well a mwy effeithlon a dim ond hynny yn y pen draw a fyddai'n arwain at greu agenda bolisi gyfrifol ac ymreolus.

Mae yna ganlyniadau o symud i'r drefn yma, ac mae ein cyflwyniad yn cydnabod hynny. Byddai angen cynyddu nifer yr aelodau i ryw 80 a dylai nifer yr Aelodau Seneddol yn San Steffan gael ei ostwng. Dydyn ni ddim wedi pennu union faint y gostyngiad yn ein cyflwyniad ond cafodd dadansoddiad ei wneud ym 1999 pe bai gennych chi etholaeth yng Nghymru sy'n cymharu o ran ei maint â Lloegr mae'n debyg y byddai'n cael ei ostwng i ryw 34. Dydyn ni ddim wedi cymryd i ystyriaeth newidiadau yn shifft y boblogaeth, ond dyna'r ffigur a gawson ni ar y pryd. Nes inni gael aelodaeth dylai Ysgrifennydd Gwladol Cymru aros, bydd o neu hi'n gallu chwarae rhan bwysig o gwmpas bwrdd y Cabinet a dadlau'r achos dros ddeddfwriaeth sylfaenol. Unwaith y bydd y pwer i ddeddfu gennyn ni bydd y baich gwaith yn crebachu a fydden ni ddim yn gweld bod angen Ysgrifennydd Gwladol ar wahân i Gymru, byddai'n hawdd wedyn i'r rôl gael ei chyflawni gan yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol dros y Tiriogaethau.

Rydym hefyd yn gweld yr achos dros ddatganoli rhagor o swyddogaethau, megis yr heddlu. Rydyn ni'n credu y dylai Senedd gael pwerau i godi trethi ac rydyn ni o blaid yr un pwerau i drethu ag yn yr Alban. Rydym hefyd am edrych ar bosibilrwydd amrywio'r dreth gorfforaeth a rhai trethi amgylcheddol.

Er mwyn sicrhau mwy o degwch yn y setliad ariannol rydym hefyd yn credu bod rhaid inni adolygu Fformwla Barnett. Mae'r setliad hwnnw'n dyddio'n ôl i ddiwedd y 70au ac mae yn y bôn yn fformwla fecanyddol sydd wedi'i seilio yn bennaf ar boblogaeth. Rydyn ni'n gwybod wrth gwrs beth oedd sefyllfa Cynnyrch Mewnwladol Crynswth Cymru pan gafodd y fformwla ei sefydlu i ddechrau, ond mae'r CMC yng Nghymru fel cyfran o gyfartaledd Prydain wedi gostwng yn sylweddol ers hynny. Yn ein barn ni, byddai adolygu Barnett ar sail angen yn golygu bod y Trysorlys yn talu 800 miliwn yn fwy inni yn ychwanegol at y bloc Cymreig - gallwn esbonio hynny yn nes ymlaen os hoffech chi. Mae gennyn ni waith sydd wedi'i wneud yn barod ar adolygu'r Fformwla a byddem yn ddigon bodlon rhannu'r wybodaeth gyda chi os byddai hynny o gymorth ichi.

I grynhoi, rydyn ni'n credu bod angen troi'r Cynulliad yn senedd ddeddfwriaethol erbyn yr etholiad yn 2007. Yn ein barn ni, dylai 2003 i 2007 fod yr olaf o dan y trefniadau presennol. Fel y gwelwch chi, mae barn pobl Cymru wedi symud yn fwy ac yn fwy i'r cyfeiriad yma dros y 5 mlynedd diwethaf. Rydyn ni'n credu bod yna gonsensws bellach ym myd gwleidyddiaeth yng Nghymru ac ymhlith pobl Cymru y dylen ni symud tuag at y sefyllfa honno ac mai'r cyfan y mae arnon ni ei angen bellach ydy'r ewyllys wleidyddol i sicrhau ein bod ni'n gwneud hynny.

Interpretation:

Thank you for your introduction and also for the invitation to give evidence to your Commission here today. I am Ieuan Wyn Jones, I am the leader of the Assembly Group and I am also the President of the Party. What I would like to do at the outset is to introduce the team that have joined me to give evidence to you today. On my right is Cynog Dafis, who is an Assembly Member and also the Policy Director of Plaid Cymru, and by virtue of that post he joins us today. On my left is Jocelyn Davies, who is also an Assembly Member and the Party spokesperson on constitutional affairs. On my right is Simon Thomas, who represents the Parliamentary Group of Plaid Cymru and he is the MP for Ceredigion. On my far left is Dr Dafydd Trystan, the Chief Executive of Plaid Cymru.

When the Assembly was established in 1999, with the first elections taking place in May of that year, the hopes, of course, were very high. This was the first time a national body was created with democratic powers to implement a set of policies which have been created in Wales on very important issues such as economic development and social services. It was also established after 18 years of Tory government, when Wales was ruled through the Welsh Office not only by a party that never achieved a majority in Wales but also for very long periods by a Secretary of State who was not even representing a constituency in Wales. From the very outset we were aware of the deficiencies of the new body Plaid Cymru and myself. One member of your Commission was part of the process of taking the Bill through Parliament following a referendum and both of us realised that there were fundamental differences between the Wales Act and the Scottish Act, which was passed through Parliament at the same time. I am sure we can go into more detail on that later on.

I do not think anyone had fully understood how difficult it would be to make the Assembly work successfully. In my opinion there are two main reasons for this, the first is the weakness of the current powers and secondly the complexities of the current arrangements in the Assembly. I would like to outline some central weaknesses. Even within the devolved areas the powers are often weak, incomplete and fragmented. This accounts in part, and I stress in part only, for the low public esteem with the National Assembly as currently held in Wales. Secondly, the complexity of the settlement. As you know functions have not been devolved over complete policy areas but devolved through a number of transfer function orders. Only limited powers through various acts of Parliament have been given to the Assembly. It is often difficult, sometimes impossible, to ascertain whether some functions have been devolved at all. Given these constraints it is difficult to see how we can make the current settlement work well.

We accept that on the margins some improvements can be made: We could work at improving the goodwill of the UK Government in certain matters; we could try to secure better co-operation from some Whitehall departments; we could push the framework legislation and get a better deal on primary legislation on exclusively Welsh matters. None of these would, in our view, replace the full legislative powers and functions that, in our view, would lead to a better and more efficient government and only this would eventually lead to the creation of a responsible and autonomous policy agenda.

There are consequences for moving to this arrangement, and our presentation acknowledges that. The number of members would need to increase to about 80 and there should be a reduction in the number of MPs in Westminster. We have not set a precise number on the reduction in our submission but an analysis was done in 1999 that if you actually had an average sized Welsh constituency in relation to England it would probably be reduced to about 34. We have not taken into account the changes in the population shift, but that is the figure we arrived at at the time. Until we have membership the Secretary of State for Wales should remain, he or she will continue to play an important role round the Cabinet table and argue the case for primary legislation. Once we have legislative power the work load will be reduced and we would not see the need for a separate Secretary of State for Wales, the role would then easily be fulfilled by the Secretary of State for the Territories.

We also see the case for devolving further functions, such as the police. We believe that Parliament should have taxation powers and we are in favour of the same taxation powers as in Scotland. We also want to look at the possibility of varying corporation tax and some environmental taxes.

In order to ensure more fairness in the financial settlement we also believe that we have to review the Barnett Formula. That settlement goes back to the end of the 70s and it is basically a mechanical formula based mainly on population. We know of course what the situation was with Welsh GDP when it was first put in place, but GDP in Wales as a percentage of the British average has fallen significantly since then. In our opinion the Barnett review on the basis of need would mean the Treasury would pay 800 million in addition to the Welsh block - we can explain that if you would like us to do so later on. We have work which has already been carried out on reviewing the Formula and we will be happy to share this information with you if that would be of assistance to you.

In summary we believe that the Assembly needs to be turned into a legislative parliament by the election in 2007. In our opinion 2003 to 2007 should be the last under the current arrangements. As you see, the opinion of the people of Wales has moved in this direction increasingly over the past 5 years. We believe that there is now a consensus in the political world in Wales and amongst the people of Wales that we should move to this position and that all we need now is the political will to ensure that we do so.

LORD RICHARD: Thank you very much. I wonder if I can start off by raising one issue which you talked about, you also said very specifically on page 3 of your paper, 'It is the gap between this set of aspirations on the one hand, and the reality of the constitutional arrangements put in place through the Government of Wales Act 1998 on the other, that has engendered the intense frustration, and it has to be said not inconsiderable disenchantment, experienced by the public at the National Assembly's failure to bring about change for the better'. It is that linkage that needs to be established, why do you say that? Could it be that the National Assembly has not done its job very well rather than the structure being wrong?

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Rhaid inni fynd yn ôl at y teimladau hynny o optimistiaeth, fel roedden nhw, yn enwedig yn y cyfnod rhwng 1997, pan gafodd y refferendwm ei ennill, a llofnodi a sefydlu'r Cynulliad ym 1999. Mae'n debyg bod y gobeithion yn rhy uchel ar y pryd. Roedd hyd yn oed y rhai ohonon ni oedd yn cydnabod cyfyngiadau'r Cynulliad yn disgwyl y buasai'n medru gwneud mwy nag y mae o wedi'i wneud. Fel y dywedais i, roedden ni'n cydnabod beth oedd y cyfyngiadau. A dweud y gwir, yn ymarferol dydw i ddim yn meddwl bod neb ohonon ni wedi sylweddoli mewn gwirionedd mor anodd fyddai hi. Mae wedi bod ychydig bach yn haws eu gweld nhw ers i'r Llywodraeth gydnabod bod yna wahaniaeth rhwng y Llywodraeth a rhedeg y Cynulliad fel corff.

Ga i fynd drwy rai o'r pethau sydd wedi bod yn rhwystredigaeth ofnadwy, yn gyntaf y cyfyngiad ei hun ar y pwerau a'r cyfyngiadau sydd ar y Cynulliad, ac yn enwedig ar Lywodraeth y Cynulliad, wrth wneud pethau.

Interpretation:

We have to go back to those feelings of optimism, as they were, particularly in the period between 1997, when the referendum was won, and the signing and setting up of the Assembly in 1999. Aspirations were probably too high at the time. Even those of us who recognised the limitations of the Assembly expected it to be able to do more than it has. As I indicated, we recognised what the limitations were. Actually in practice I do not think any of us really appreciated how difficult it would be. It has been a little bit easier to actually see them since the Government recognised there was a distinction between the Government and operating the Assembly as a body.

Can I go through some of the things we have found intensely frustrating, firstly the actual limitation on the powers and the constraints that there are on the Assembly, and particularly the Assembly Government, in doing things.

LORD RICHARD: Can you spell that out?

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Yn y dyddiau cynnar roedd y rhwystredigaeth, mae gennyn ni enghreifftiau yn y papur, roeddwn i'n gadeirydd y Pwyllgor Amaethyddiaeth yn y 9 mis cyntaf ac roedden ni'n mynd drwy gyfnod anodd iawn, iawn i ffermwyr Cymru ar y pryd, roedd yna broblemau aruthrol, ac roedden ni'n edrych ar bethau i weld a fedren ni wneud pethau'n wahanol yng Nghymru. Roedd rhyw 4 o bethau a gynigiwyd y bydden ni wedi hoffi eu gwneud, nid materion enfawr, pethau fel taliadau hylendid, cynlluniau prosesu lloi, pethau felly roedden ni'n meddwl y medren ni eu gwneud yn wahanol yng Nghymru.

Beth oedd yn tueddu i ddigwydd oedd ein bod yn cael cyngor gan weision sifil fod y pethau yma'n bosibl ond pryd bynnag y byddai'r rhain yn cael eu trafod wedyn gyda Whitehall byddai eu cyfreithwyr nhw'n arddel barn wahanol ac yn y pen draw byddai'r Cynulliad yn cyfaddef nad oedd y pwerau hynny'n bodoli. Er y buasai'n arwydd pendant i'r gymuned amaethyddol fod y Cynulliad yn fodlon gwneud pethau'n wahanol, bob tro y rhoddid cynnig arni fe ddywedwyd wrthon ni ei bod yn amhosibl am fod y pwerau ar y pryd yn eithriadol gyfyngedig. Yr hyn oedd yn ddiddorol oedd bod y gweision sifil eu hunain yn credu bod ganddyn nhw'r pwerau hyn ond eu bod yn cael eu perswadio gan gyngor cyfreithiol yn Llundain nad oedden nhw.

Interpretation:

The frustration was in the early days, we have some examples in the paper, I was chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the first 9 months and we were going through a very, very difficult period for Welsh farmers at the time, there were massive problems, and we were looking at ways to see whether we could do things differently in Wales. There were about 4 things we proposed that we wanted to do, they were not massive matters, they were things like hygiene charges, calf processing schemes, things like that which we thought we could do differently in Wales.

What tended to happen was we were getting advice from civil servants that these things were possible but whenever these were then discussed with Whitehall their lawyers took a different view and eventually the Assembly conceded that those powers did not exist. Although it would have been a clear signal to the agricultural community that the Assembly was prepared to do things differently, on every single occasion that it was tried we were told it was not possible because the powers were then extremely limited. What was interesting was the civil servants themselves thought that they had those powers but were persuaded by legal advice from London they did not.

LORD RICHARD: These examples of the 4 things you were talking about were they all agricultural?

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Yn yr achos penodol hwnnw, oedden, achos mai fi oedd Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor Amaethyddiaeth dyna oedd fy mhrofiad penodol innau. Roedd yna un achlysur enwog pan oedden ni'n credu bod yna bosibilrwydd o wneud rhywbeth a ches i fy ngalw i gyfarfod gyda'r gweinidog a gweision sifil hanner awr cyn bod y pwyllgor i fod i gyfarfod i ategu'r cynnig ond dywedodd Whitehall na fedrai gael ei wneud.

Interpretation:

In that particular case, yes, because I was Chairman of the Agriculture Committee that was my particular experience. There was one very famous occasion when we thought that there was a possibility of doing something and I was called to a meeting with the minister and civil servants half an hour before the committee was due to meet to endorse the proposal but Whitehall said it could not be done.

LORD RICHARD: Could you tell us what that was?

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Rydw i'n meddwl mai'r taliadau hylendid llaeth oedd yr achlysur. Y cyngor roedden ni wedi'i gael oedd pan gaiff ei gyflwyno yn Lloegr gall gael ei gyflwyno yng Nghymru. Dyna oedd y cyngor gawson ni. Dyna fy mhrofiad personol i am fy mod i wedi bod yn cadeirio'r Pwyllgor dydw i ddim yn sicr a ydy cydweithwyr wedi cael profiadau tebyg.

Interpretation:

I think that was the occasion of the dairy hygiene charges. The advice we had been given was when it is introduced in England it can be introduced in Wales. That was the advice we have been given. That was my personal experience because I had been chairing the Committee I am not sure whether colleagues have similar experiences.

LORD RICHARD: We would like to hear of instances where this has happened?

MR DAFIS: (In Welsh then interpreted) Yn ein dogfennau ni mae'n cyfeirio at yr hyn ddigwyddodd o ran y system berfformiad i athrawon a'r ddolen gyswllt rhwng y system honno a pherfformiad disgyblion. Dyna'r enghraifft berffaith o ble roedd pawb yn y Cynulliad yn ei chymryd yn ganiataol, oedd yn wir am y Gweinidog hefyd, y byddai modd cael gwared ar y cysylltiad yma rhwng perfformiad athrawon a pherfformiad disgyblion ond daeth i'r amlwg wedyn nad oedd ddim modd. Mae mater arall yn codi yn y fan hyn, sef penderfyniad yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol dros Addysg yn Llundain i drefnu ar gyfer rheoli perfformiad o dan un set o ddeddfwriaeth yn hytrach na set wahanol o ddeddfwriaeth, sef telerau tâl ac amodau athrawon.

Yn sicr barn y mwyafrif yn y Cynulliad oedd na ddylech chi gael cysylltiad rhwng tâl perfformiad athrawon ar un llaw a pherfformiad disgyblion ar y llaw arall. Roedd penderfyniad yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol yn Llundain yn ein hatal ni rhag medru gwneud hynny. Dyna un esiampl. Mae enghreifftiau eraill mae pobl yn gallu eu cofio na roddwyd cynnig arnyn nhw, pe buasai cynnig wedi'i wneud i gyflawni'r rheiny yna fe allen ni fanylu arnyn nhw hefyd.

Interpretation:

In our documents it refers to what happened in relation to the performance system for teachers and the link between that system and the performance of pupils. That is the perfect example of where everyone in the Assembly took for granted, that was also true of the minister, that it would be possible to get rid of this connection between the performance of teachers and performance of pupils but it emerged later on this was not possible. Another matter arises here, namely the decision of the Education Secretary of State in London to organise for the performance management under one set of legislation rather than a different set of legislation, namely the terms of pay and conditions for teachers.

Certainly the majority view in the Assembly was there should be no link between the performance pay for teachers on the one hand and the performance of pupils on the other hand. The decision of the Secretary of State in London prevented us from being able to do so. That is one example. There are other examples which people can recall which were not attempted, if an attempt had been made at achieving these then we could go into detail on those as well.

LORD RICHARD: This is exactly the sort of thing we are interested in, has the Assembly got the powers it needs to do the things it needs?

MS JOCELYN DAVIES: One thing that sticks out particularly in my mind is building regulations. I believe the Minister for Local Government has made representation on having that transferred to the Assembly. When Plaid Cymru did an independent programme and brought forward a number of proposals and suggested building regulations would be suited to policy development in our area, because we do not have that, and there is no logical explanation why we should not because if we purport to have powers over housing building regulations should not be any different.

LORD RICHARD: I am sure that is right. Is building regulations an instance where you thought you had the authority?

MS JOCELYN DAVIES: Yes. I think it was such that we were surprised.

LORD RICHARD: Was it a surprise to the Assembly, to the Government here?

MS JOCELYN DAVIES: Because the Welsh Office itself had powers sometimes it did come as a surprise but that had lapsed a number of years previously when Mr Lee, an official, retired that expertise was lost in the Welsh Office.

MR SIMON THOMAS: That is a very good example of the way devolution is done. I was on the research panel that did this work and when we found out that building regulations were not within the purview of the Assembly when we looked into it in the 70s and 80s it had been in the Wales Office as such but because an official had retired and moved on it had drifted back to Whitehall and because there was no devolution at that stage that had not been part of the transfer function of orders that took place.

I would also like to give a constituency example which effects local people. The people in Cardigan want to resurrect their harbour facility for recreation, leisure and so forth. It has taken me 3 months to get a briefing out of the House of Commons library on this. It is quite complicated but what it boils down to is this, if we want to do this in Cardigan we will have to have an order made by the Secretary of State for Transport to make the order to reconstitute the harbour for the port of Cardigan but if Cardigan was a fisheries port it could be done by my chairman. In Wales today we do not have a huge fishing industry, whatever the reason for that is, and most ports are a mix of fishing, leisure and so forth. It is hard to know where the public interest is maintained in not enabling the National Assembly to be able to make Cardigan a harbour port. It is frustrating. We are trying to get that done and somewhat frustratingly they have to appeal directly to Whitehall to the Secretary of State for Transport.

LORD RICHARD: If it is a harbour it has to be London and if it is a port ---

MR SIMON THOMAS: If it is a fisheries port it can be done by my chairman.

MR TOM JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Beth ydy'r broblem yn hyn o beth? Derbyn, ydy, mae hi'n gymhleth iawn nad yw pobl Aberteifi'n sicr ble dylen nhw fynd i gael ateb i hyn, ar ddiwedd y dydd fe fyddai'n bosibl i chi fel yr aelod lleol ofyn i'r gweinidog yn y Senedd ystyried hyn ond ydy'r broses yn fwy cymhleth oherwydd hyn?

Interpretation:

What is the problem in terms of this? Accepting, yes, it is very complex that the people of Cardigan are not sure where they should go in order to find an answer to this, at the end of the day it would be possible for you as the local member to ask the minister in Parliament to consider this but is the process more complex because of this?

MR SIMON THOMAS: I make two points, firstly that process is very complex. For example in advising this group I had taken for granted in the first place because part of the powers had been transferred to the Assembly I thought initially that this would be a simple matter and I was going to suggest they turn to their Assembly member to resolve this problem. After looking into the matter I had to get quite detailed information from the House of Commons library and I think this reflects the complexity of this issue that they have to go through with a fine toothcomb to find what powers had been transferred. We found there were two different harbour authorities, one had been transferred to the Assembly and one had not.

One general point I would make that arose during the FMD was when we discovered that things like tuberculosis had been transferred to the Assembly but foot and mouth had not been transferred to the Assembly what farmers were telling us and what people in Cardigan are telling me now is they do not mind - of course we as a party we have different views - but people want to be clear, they do not want to turn to one member for one matter and to another member for another matter, they want to be clear that everything in one area has been transferred. When agriculture has been devolved to the Assembly peoples= perception is that everything has been transferred in complexity, and that includes the accountability on this matter.

LORD RICHARD: Can I sum up where we have got to so far. You have given two examples from agriculture, one from education, one from building regulations and one from Cardigan port. Other witnesses we have heard from described this sort of thing as the jagged edges of the settlement. Various other people said if you can only sort out the jagged edges you do not actually need to look at the settlement too much if the devolution had taken place as it should have taken place. Why does this need your conclusions that you have to have powers of primary legislation?

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) I ryw raddau rydyn ni wedi'n llyffetheirio achos dim ond yr enghreifftiau sy'n dod i ni am eu bod nhw yn y bau gyhoeddus neu am eu bod nhw wedi'u trafod ar lawr y Cynulliad neu wedi'u trafod drwy bwyllgor sy'n dod i ni. Mae'n rhaid bod enghreifftiau sydd heb ddod inni sy'n adnabyddus i'r Llywodraeth yn Whitehall ac yng Nghaerdydd. Un sefyllfa yr ydyn ni'n gwybod amdani yw honno o dan y ddeddfwriaeth aelodau preifat sydd gennyn ni yn y Cynulliad rydyn ni wedi'i ennill yn amlach nag unrhyw blaid arall mae'n debyg, mi enillon ni mae'n debyg tua 85 y cant o'r amser.

Interpretation:

To a certain extent we are restrained because we only know about the examples that come to us because they are in the public domain or they have been discussed on the floor of the Assembly or they have been discussed through a committee. There must be examples that have not come to us that have been privy to the Government in Whitehall and in Cardiff. One situation which we do know about is that under the private members legislation that we have in the Assembly we have won it more often than any other party probably, we won probably about 85 per cent of the time.

LORD RICHARD: It is a ballot.

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Balot ydy o ond am ryw reswm rydyn ni fel pe baen ni'n gwneud yn dda ynddo. Yr hyn rydych chi'n gorfod ei wneud yw penderfynu pa fath o is-ddeddfwriaeth yr ydych am ei hybu ac rydyn ni wedi'i chael yn anodd dychrynllyd dod o hyd i unrhyw beth oedd (a) o fewn gallu'r Cynulliad a (b) yn offeryn statudol y medrech chi ei hybu. Mae gan Jocelyn brofiad mwy uniongyrchol achos dwi'n credu bod Jocelyn wedi gweithio gyda phob aelod i geisio dod o hyd i rywbeth inni sy'n offeryn statudol. Mae oriau, dyddiau, wythnosau wedi'u treulio yn ceisio dod o hyd i ddarn penodol o ddeddfwriaeth y medrwch chi ei hybu ac rydych chi'n dod ar draws gwahanol rwystrau. Byddech chi'n cael cyfarfod cychwynnol efo swyddogion ac mi ddweden nhw, "Ydy, mae hynny'n bosibilrwydd", ac yn y pen draw mi gaech chi ateb, "Sori, does gan y Cynulliad ddim pwerau yn y maes hwnnw" neu "Does dim angen deddfwriaeth statudol, gall hynny gael ei wneud dryw gyfrwng canllawiau". Mewn un achos roedd hi'n hanner awr cyn bod y ddadl i fod i ddechrau pan gawson ni wybod p'un a oedd y darn o ddeddfwriaeth yn rhywbeth oedd o fewn pwerau'r Cynulliad neu beidio. Medr Jocelyn siarad ychydig yn fwy am hyn, ond dyna'r profiad uniongyrchol sydd gennyn ni fel plaid.

Interpretation:

It is a ballot but for some reason we seem to do pretty well in that. What you have to do is decide what sort of piece of secondary legislation you want to promote and we found it intensely difficult to find anything that (a) was in the competence of the Assembly and (b) was a statutory instrument you could promote. Jocelyn has more direct experience because I think Jocelyn has worked with every member to try and find something that is a statutory instrument. Hours, days, weeks have been spent trying to find a particular piece of legislation that you can promote and you come across various obstacles. You would have an initial meeting with officials and they would say, "Yes, that is a possibility", and eventually an answer would come, "sorry, the Assembly has no powers in that field" or "you do not need statutory legislation, that can be done by guidance". In one case it was half an hour before the debate was due to start when we knew whether or not the piece of legislation was something that was within the powers of the Assembly. Jocelyn can speak a little bit more about that, but that was direct experience we have had as a Party.

MS JOCELYN DAVIES: Most of those have come to nothing. They failed because of pinpointing a specific power on which you can build that legislation. Very often the officials have no idea. A lot of effort and resources are wasted in working something up then to be told, A we thought we could do this but we can't do it@ , and that is the Assembly officials and our researchers. One of the problems is that you cannot actually get a feel for what the Assembly can do because people say, "yes, that probably is done by the Assembly". There is no logic to the pattern of the powers the Assembly has. That is what I found most frustrating, you just cannot work it out.

LORD RICHARD: That is what the lawyers have been telling us too.

MR ROWLANDS: Not one particular lawyer, with respect, your own lawyer, the lawyer who advised the Assembly has given us evidence - I do not know if you have read it - he is quite dismissive of all this argument, uncertainty and confusion. Mr Roddick has actually given evidence to us that it is not all that unclear and while it is quite complex all settlements of this kind tend to have complexities. In the case of some of the cause celebre that have been raised he said no. On some of the agricultural matters the implication is it was Europe rather than Whitehall that did not allow the calf processing schemes. We have to examine each and everyone of these. I think a rather different message came across when Mr Roddick gave evidence.

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Yr unig ateb y medra i ei roi i hynny ydy, a dydw i ddim yn siwr ai Mr Roddick ei hun a roddodd y cyngor ond yn nyddiau cynnar y Pwyllgor Amaethyddiaeth mi fedra i ddweud mai'r cyngor a roddwyd i ni fel Pwyllgor oedd bod y pwerau hynny ar gael i'r Cynulliad, ac o'i swyddfa fo y daeth o. Wedyn, pan gafodd cyngor gwahanol ei roi i'r swyddogion gan swyddfa Whitehall mi newidiodd y swyddfa honno ei meddwl ynglyn ag a oedd y pwerau hynny ar gael neu beidio. Mae hynny wedi'i gofnodi. Beth oedd yn tueddu i ddigwydd oedd bod cyngor yn cael ei roi i'r rhai oedd o fewn gallu'r Cynulliad ac yna roedden ni'n cael gwybod bod cyngor cyfreithwyr Whitehall yn wahanol. Dydw i ddim yn derbyn y ddadl sy'n cael ei disgrifio, roedd yna wahaniaeth barn bendant rhwng cyfreithwyr y Cynulliad a chyfreithwyr Whitehall.

Interpretation:

The only answer I can give to that is, and I am not sure whether it was Mr Roddick himself who gave the advice but in the early days of the Agriculture Committee I can tell you that the advice given to us as a Committee was that those powers were available to the Assembly, and it came from his office. Subsequently when different advice was given to officials by the Whitehall office that that office changed its mind as to whether or not those powers were available. That is matter of record. What was tending to happen was advice was given to those who were in the competence of the Assembly and we were then told that the advice of Whitehall lawyers was different. I do not accept the argument that is described, there was a clear difference of opinion between the Assembly lawyers and the Whitehall lawyers.

MR TRYSTAN: (In Welsh then interpreted) Mae yna'r gwahaniaeth hefyd rhwng y diffyg eglurder a'r cymhlethdod i Aelodau'r Cynulliad a'r diffyg eglurder a'r cymhlethdod i'r cyhoedd yn gyffredinol. Maen nhw'n ddwy ochr i'r un geiniog ond mae yna dystiolaeth bendant bod y cyhoedd wedi drysu ynglyn â phwerau'r Cynulliad, a galla i'ch cyfeirio at nifer o astudiaethau pwysig sydd wedi'u cynnal ar y Cynulliad ac ar lefel y cyfranogiad a hefyd astudiaethau gan y Comisiwn Etholiadol ar ddealltwriaeth pobl o bwerau'r Cynulliad. Yr hyn mae honno'n ei dangos yn glir yw hyd yn oed os na all aelodau penodol o'r Cynulliad, yn enwedig y rhai sydd â chefndir cyfreithiol, weithio allan beth yw'r system gymhleth yma yna mae'r bobl yn bendant yn aneglur. Rwy'n credu ei fod yn bwynt pwysig iawn i'w gadw mewn cof yn y trafodaethau hyn, dydyn ni ddim yn siarad am eglurder i aelodau'r Cynulliad yn unig ond hefyd eglurder i bobl Cymru.

Interpretation:

There is also the difference between the lack of clarity and complexity for Assembly members and the lack of clarity and complexity for the general public. They are two sides of the same coin but there is very clear evidence that the public at large is confused about the powers of the Assembly, and I can refer you to a number of major studies that have taken place of the Assembly and the level of participation and also studies by the Electoral Commission on people's understanding of the powers of the Assembly. What that clearly demonstrates is that even if certain Assembly members, particularly with a background in law, cannot work out what this complex system is then the people certainly are unclear. I think that is a very important point to bear in mind in these deliberations, we are not only talking about clarity for Assembly members but also clarity for the people of Wales.

LORD RICHARD: There is no Welsh statute book, is there? From a lawyer's point of view you have to have about 10 books open at the same time. That is a problem.

MR DAFIS: (In Welsh then interpreted) Fe ddefnyddioch chi'r term "jagged edges" wrth gyfeirio at y cymhlethdodau. Os ydych yn fodlon fe hoffwn ehangu'r drafodaeth ychydig ac edrych ar graidd y penderfyniad polisi. Os edrychwch chi ar faes addysg yn ystod cyfnod y Llywodraeth Geidwadol rhwng 1979 a 1997 yna cafodd nifer o newidiadau allweddol eu gwthio drwodd o ran addysg, er enghraifft holl broses cyflwyno marchnad gystadleuol ymhlith ysgolion. Buaswn i'n dadlau nad oes digon o ymgais wedi'i wneud yn y blynyddoedd diwethaf i geisio teilwra polisi Cymreig, rhaglen bolisi amgen i Gymru a dyna un o'r rhesymau nad yw Llywodraeth Cymru wedi bwrw'r rhwystrau hyn, efallai y buasai wedi gwneud pe bai wedi bod yn fwy radicalaidd yn ei hagwedd, ond dwy ddim am geisio gwneud pwyntiau pleidiol.

Bwriwch fod Llywodraeth y Cynulliad wedi herio rhai o'r newidiadau marchnad a gafodd eu cyflwyno yn ystod cyfnod y Ceidwadwyr, bwriwch ein bod ni'n awyddus i ddychwelyd i system – mae hyn yn ddyfyniad nawr yn gyffredinol ymhlith y mwyafrif o bleidiau'r Cynulliad – lle byddai'r ysgolion mewn system o gydweithredu yn hytrach na chystadlu a'ch bod chi am gyflwyno newidiadau yn strwythurau ariannu'ch ysgolion ar sail angen yn hytrach nag ar sail niferoedd y disgyblion maen nhw'n gallu eu recriwtio yn unig. Fe welson ni yn ystod yr ychydig wythnosau diwethaf y byddai angen deddfwriaeth sylfaenol ac wedyn byddech yn taro ar unwaith yn erbyn rhwystrau pwysig iawn a allai fod yn holl-bwysig ar gyfer datblygu'r math o system addysgol y bydden ni’n awyddus i'w sefydlu yma yng Nghymru.

Enghraifft arall yw'r arolygiaeth, mae yna lawer o alw yng Nghymru am newid y pwyslais ar systemau yng Nghymru sydd â mwy o gydbwysedd yn yr arolygiadau, yr hyn y mae ysgolion yn ei wneud, monitro'r hyn y maen nhw'n ei wneud ac ar y llaw arall cynnig gwasanaeth cymorth i'r ysgolion. Rhan o'r holl gwestiwn yma, wrth gwrs, yw defnyddio contractwyr sy'n cystadlu am gontractau i arolygu’r ysgolion. Pe baech chi’n symud y tu hwnt i hynny ac yn newid y pwyslais a chael gwared ar y system gystadleuol o gontractau i arolygwyr ysgol yna eto rydych chi'n taro'r angen am ddeddfwriaeth sylfaenol. Galla i roi llawer, llawer o enghreifftiau ichi. I ryw raddau mae diffyg eglurder wedi bod. Rwy'n cofio gofyn yn llyfrgell Ty'r Cyffredin ym 1999 am rai o'r materion hyn a'r argraff roeddwn i'n ei chael oedd bod y pwerau'n bodoli ac erbyn hyn rydyn ni'n cael ar ddeall nad yw'r pwerau'n bodoli. Mae'n rhaid i ymgais i ddatblygu agenda wleidyddol a fyddai'n nodedig o Gymreig neu'n amlwg yn Gymreig mewn meysydd polisi allweddol fod yn fwy effeithiol a mwy effeithlon, hefyd bydden nhw'n arbed adnoddau ariannol. Byddai hynny'n anodd iawn am eich bod yn bwrw cyfyngiadau ar eich pwerau ac yna mae'n rhaid ichi fynd â'ch cap yn eich llaw i San Steffan a byddai holl gwestiwn y dagfa ddeddfwriaeth yn codi a byddai amharodrwydd San Steffan i ganiatáu i system Gymreig gael ei datblygu yn her athronyddol i'r hyn sy'n cael ei weld fel rhyw fath o ddoethineb confensiynol ar lefel y Deyrnas Unedig ar hyn o bryd.

Interpretation:

You used the term "jagged edges" when you refer to the complexities. If you are willing for me to do so I would like to broaden this discussion out a little and look at the core of policy decision. If you look at the area of education during the period of the Conservative Government between 1979 and 1997 then a number of key changes were pushed through in terms of education, for example the whole process of introducing a competitive market amongst schools. I would argue that not enough attempt has been made during the past few years to try and tailor a Welsh policy, an alternative Welsh policy programme and that is one of the reasons why the Government of Wales has not hit these barriers, maybe it would have done had it been more radical in its approach, however I do not want to make party political points.

Let us say this Assembly Government had challenged some of the market-led changes that were introduced during the Conservative period, let us say we were keen to return to a system - this is a quote now generally amongst the majority of parties in the Assembly - where schools were in a system of co-operation rather than competition and you did want to introduce changes in the funding structures to schools so that you were funding schools on the basis of need rather than on the basis of the pupil numbers they are able to recruit only. We found during the past few weeks that would require primary legislation and then you would immediately hit very important barriers that could be vital in the development of the sort of educational system that we would be keen to establish here in Wales.

Another example is the inspectorate, there is a lot of demand in Wales to change the emphasis on systems in Wales having more balance on the inspections, what schools do, monitoring what they do and on the other hand offering a support service for schools. Part of that whole issue, of course, is the use made of contractors who compete for contracts to actually inspect schools. If you were to move beyond that and change the emphasis and get rid of the competitive system of contracts for school inspectors then again you hit this need for primary legislation. I can give you many, many examples. To some extent there has been a lack of clarity. I remember asking the House of Commons library in 1999 on some of these issue and I was given the impression that the powers existed and we are now given to understand those powers do not exist. An attempt to develop a political agenda that was notifiably Welsh or identifiably Welsh in key policy areas must be more effective and more efficient, also they would save financial resources. That would be very difficult because you are hitting limitations or your powers and then you have to go cap in hand to Westminster and the whole question of a legislative log jam would come up and the unwillingness of Westminster to allow the development of a Welsh based system would challenge philosophically what is seen as some sort of conventional wisdom on a UK level at the moment.

MR PRICE: You dealt with the issue of lack of powers and complexities in some detail, I would like to take forward the other constraints. What would you see as being the other sorts of constraints that would still be left in place if powers were greater and expressed in relatively simpler and understandable terms? What would be the main constraints remaining and how would you deal with them in order to minimise the impact of those constraints?

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Rhan o'r broblem yw eich bod chi yn aml iawn yn anymwybodol o rai o'r cyfyngiadau nes ichi fwrw'r rhwystr. Doedden ni ddim yn gwybod y cyfyngiadau a fyddai ar y gweinidog amaethyddiaeth yn y Cynulliad. Mi wydden ni fod ganddo fo bwerau dros amaethyddiaeth a dim pwerau dros iechyd anifeiliaid. O ganlyniad i'r profiad hwnnw, dylai'r Cynulliad gael deddfwriaeth iechyd anifeiliaid. Y ddau bwynt sy'n sail i'n cyflwyniad ni ydy eich bod yn gorfod delio â'r ddau fater efo'i gilydd, mater y cymhlethdod a'r diffyg pwerau, mae'r ddau yn mynd efo’i gilydd a fedrwch chi ddim datrys un heb ddatrys y llall. Y senario waethaf i ni yw cael pwerau i ddeddfu dros y swyddogaeth bresennol oherwydd petasech chi'n cael deddfu dros gymhlethdodau rydych chi'n datrys un broblem ac yn gadael un bwysig arall. Mae angen gwneud y ddau beth, mae angen datganoli dros y swyddogaeth gyfan yn hytrach na'u hollti nhw. Yn ail, mae arnoch chi angen pwerau i ddeddfu dros y swyddogaethau hynny. Unwaith mae gennych chi'r ddau beth efo'i gilydd yna gall nifer o bethau fod yn bosibl, y math o bethau rydyn ni wedi bod yn siarad amdanyn nhw. Mae'r cyfyngiadau felly rwy'n credu ar faterion penodol lle byddai angen cydweithredu ar draws y ffin. Un enghraifft amlwg yw tâl ac amodau i bobl yn y gwasanaeth iechyd, tâl ac amodau i athrawon a thâl ac amodau i weithwyr eraill yn y gwasanaeth cyhoeddus.

Interpretation:

Part of the problem is that very often you are unaware of some of the constraints until you hit the buffer. We did not know the constraints that would be on the agricultural minister in the Assembly. We knew he had powers over agriculture and no powers over animal health. As a result of that experience the Assembly should have animal health legislation. The two points that underlie our submission are you have to deal with the two issues together, the issue of complexity and the lack of powers, the two go together and you cannot solve one without solving the other. The worst case scenario for us is to have legislative powers over the existing function because if you had legislation over complexities you solve one problem and you leave another major one. You need to do the two things, you need to have devolution over complete function rather than split them. Secondly, you need legislative powers over those functions. Once you have those two things together then a number of things can be possible, the kind of things we have been talking about. The constraints then I think are on certain issues which would require cross-border co-operation. One obvious example is pay and conditions for people in the health service, pay and conditions for teachers and pay and conditions for other public service workers.

MR PRICE: As you mention them perhaps you can say how you would deal with them?

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Mi fydden ni am i'r pwerau gael eu trosglwyddo ond dydy hynny ddim o reidrwydd yn golygu y caen nhw eu defnyddio mewn ffordd a fyddai'n gwahaniaethau rhwng cyfraddau tâl gwahanol yn y gwasanaeth iechyd ac yn y blaen, oherwydd dw i'n credu y byddai yna broblemau petasai hynny'n digwydd, yn arbennig, wrth gwrs, yn yr ardaloedd yn union ar draws y ffin. Rydw i'n credu bod y rhain yn faterion y byddwch chi'n gorfod meddwl yn ofalus iawn amdanyn nhw yn Whitehall. Dyna'r rhai sy'n dod i'r cof ar unwaith, rhai ariannol yw'r cyfyngiadau eraill. Mae'n eglur bod rhaid ichi weithio o fewn y grant bloc ac mae'r math o bwerau trethu rydyn ni'n ei rag-weld yn weddol gyfyngedig. Rydyn ni'n siarad am yr un pwerau yn ein treth incwm â model yr Alban, ac o bosibl treth gorfforaeth a threthi amgylcheddol. Byddai yna gyfyngiadau o ran hynny hefyd. Y pwynt rydyn ni'n ei wneud yw ein bod ni am weld hynny.

Interpretation:

We would want to have the powers transferred but that does not necessarily mean those would be used in a way which would have distinction between differential rates of pay in the health service, and so forth, because I think there would be problems if that were to happen, particularly, of course, immediately in cross-border areas. I think those are issues that you will have to think very carefully about in Whitehall. Those are the ones that I can think of immediately, the other constraints are financial. Clearly you have to operate within a block grant and the kind of taxation powers that we are envisaging are fairly limited. We talk about the same powers in our income tax as the Scottish model, and possibly corporation tax and environmental taxes. There would be constraints in terms of that as well. The point we make is that we do want to see that.

MR PRICE: Would the financial constraints actually operate in such a way as to maintain the gap that you described between the aspirations of the Welsh people and the ability of the Assembly to achieve?

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Buasai'n pontio'r bwlch i raddau helaeth achos buasech chi wedyn yn medru cael datblygiadau polisi gwahanol ac ymreolus ar y math o bethau y gallwn ni siarad amdanyn nhw mewn iechyd, trafnidiaeth integredig a datblygu'r economi. Mae amrywiaeth o bethau a fedrai gael eu gwneud wedyn. Sut ydych chi'n ateb dyheadau pawb? Fedrwch chi ddim. Mae pob llywodraeth o dan gyfyngiad i'r graddau hynny. Dw i'n credu y byddai rhoi'r pwerau hyn i'r Cynulliad yn pontio'r bwlch yn sylweddol.

Interpretation:

It would substantially bridge the gap because you would then be able to have a distinctive and autonomous policy development of the kind of things we can talk about in health, integrated transport and economic development. There are a range of things that could then be done. How can you match everybody's aspirations? You cannot. All governments are constrained to that extent. I think giving the Assembly these powers would bridge that gap substantially.

MR DAFIS: (In Welsh then interpreted) Y prif gyfyngiad yw bod Cymru a Lloegr wedi'u hintegreiddio o ran daearyddiaeth, bod y ddwy wlad mor agos at ei gilydd. Mae cymaint o symud wedi bod ar draws y ffin dros y canrifoedd ac mae'n debyg o barhau. Dyna'r prif gyfyngiad sy'n fwyfwy perthnasol i bob gwlad, hyd yn oed Aelod-wladwriaethau sofran o fewn yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Wrth bennu lefelau treth mae'n rhaid i bob gwlad gymryd i ystyriaeth i ba raddau y byddai hynny’n effeithio ar symudiadau pobl ar draws ffiniau ac i ba raddau y bydden nhw'n colli arbenigedd i wledydd eraill. Maen nhw'n gorfod ystyried pethau yn nhermau tâl ac amodau. Dyw hynny ddim mewn unrhyw ffordd yn ddadl yn erbyn pwysigrwydd cael yr hawliau hynny, y penderfyniadau gwleidyddol a'r penderfyniadau synnwyr cyffredin ar unrhyw adeg benodol o ran i ba raddau y dylai'r hawliau hynny gael eu defnyddio neu eu gweithredu i sicrhau mantais benodol ar adeg benodol ac i fynd i'r afael â rhyw broblem benodol mewn perthynas â recriwtio mewn sectorau penodol o'r gwasanaeth cyhoeddus. Gallai penderfyniadau gael eu cymryd yng Nghymru mai'r ffordd rataf a'r ffordd orau o ddelio â phrinder neu ddiffyg wrth recriwtio fyddai codi lefelau cyflogau yng Nghymru ac i ba raddau y gallech chi fforddio gwneud hynny ac i ba raddau y byddech chi'n awyddus i wneud hynny ac i ba raddau y mae yna berygl o ymateb i dalu'r pwyth yn ôl ar draws y ffin, mae'r holl faterion hyn yn faterion o farn wleidyddol a materion o synnwyr cyffredin. Rwy'n credu bod gan Simon rywbeth i'w ddweud yn y maes yma.

Interpretation:

The main limitation is the geographical integration of Wales and England, the closeness between the two countries. There has been so much movement over the borders over the centuries and it is likely to continue. That is the main limitation which is increasingly relevant to all countries, even sovereign Member States within the European Union. Every country in setting taxation levels has to take into account what extent that would affect the movement of people across borders and to what extent they would lose expertise to other countries. They have to consider things in terms of pay and conditions. That is in no way an argument against the importance of having those rights, the political decisions and decisions of common sense at any given time as to what extent those rights should be used or implemented to have particular advantage at a particular time and to get to grips with some particular problem in relation to recruitment in certain sectors of public service. There could be decisions taken in Wales that the cheapest way and the best way of dealing with a shortage or deficiency in recruitment would be to raise the wage levels in Wales and to what extent one could afford to do so and to what extent one would be eager to do so and to what extent there is a danger of a tit-for-tat response across the border, all of these are matters of political opinion and matters of common sense. I think Simon has something to say in this area.

MR SIMON THOMAS: This is already happening within the United Kingdom, the Scottish Parliament has decided to raise the wages of teachers by 23 per cent, and that is significantly different to England and Wales. That is something that we are going to have to face increasingly within the settlement that we currently have within the United Kingdom, decisions are being taken in Scotland and in Northern Ireland which are in turn having an effect on England and Wales. The other timely example is if there was a different settlement for the fire brigade in any particular area, it is obvious what you would see if that came to pass. One other thing I wanted to emphasise here in terms of Westminster is the need to move away from the current pattern where, what I call the egg-timer mentality, the sand is being held back in that pinch point in Westminster, there is the need for legislative powers. At the moment we are only given one opportunity per year to introduce primary legislation for Wales in Westminster and because of that I am sure that my colleagues from the Assembly can tell you what the situation is. This year there were 4 or 5 suggestions in our paper and we choose the most popular one, which is St David's Day as a bank holiday. It is obvious to everyone there are broader issues. If I may quote something that has been written in terms of Scotland, one of the problems of governing Scotland from Westminster is apologetic Scottish provisions were tacked on to English legislation. In a typical session there is only one or two bills exclusive to Scottish interest which would pass through the Westminster Parliament. The current Secretary of State for Scotland said that a month ago in the House magazine in Westminster. That obviously transformed the situation in Scotland, they take the opportunity to applaud the current settlement in Scotland, to get rid of that particular aspect of holding things back. We are still facing that particular barrier.

LORD RICHARD: We spent three days in Scotland and one of the things was the extent to which Westminster is still legislating at Scotland's request. The Sewell motion is used. You could argue that Scotland have the best of all possible worlds, they have primary legislation and have Westminster to legislate for them. Do you use things like the Sewell motion?

MS JOCELYN DAVIES: We talked about it and we do not think we would be opposed to it as long as you were equal partners.

LORD RICHARD: Are Scotland and England equal?

MS JOCELYN DAVIES: That is the application of the Sewell point, the principle is that they do not have to have a log jam in Scotland and Westminster. Very often we see that in the Assembly, very often the statutory instrument is identical to that produced in Westminster. I wonder whether the implication of resources matters!

DR McALLISTER: Sticking with the Scottish case, you mentioned a few areas there in the past about deliberations, where Scotland has gone down a different line. In terms of your paper you mention as a short-term objective you would be prepared to do something along the lines of the Scottish model based on the Scotland Act, and so on. I just wonder whether you can think of any problems with Scottish legislation and with the operation of the Scottish Parliament where you might wish to create a slightly different model to that which exists in Scotland? Whilst we were there we did hear some critics of the operation of Parliament and the relationship between Parliament and the Executive and the Sewell motion, and so on. Surely an off-the-peg solution is not necessarily the best thing for Wales?

MS JOCELYN DAVIES: The thing we liked about the Scottish model is that Westminster laid down the transfer of function, that is something that has come and everything else remains. That is why we like the Scottish model. The assumption was the other way round, you look at what remains, you can argue about what should remain. With the Sewell convention and agreement between the Scottish Executive and Westminster Executive and not Scottish Parliament may be there is something there that needs to be looked at again. It may be if the agreement was more with the Executive rather than Parliament ---

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Ga i fynd â chi at broblem ymarferol rydyn ni'n ei hwynebu, dydw i ddim am siarad am bolisi penodol, ond serch hynny pan fyddwch chi'n paratoi'ch maniffesto mae yna nifer o fentrau rydych chi eu heisiau, byddai'n well gennych chi petasai gan y Cynulliad y pwerau i ddiwygio ond mi wyddoch chi nad ydyn nhw, a phan mae'r maniffesto'n cael ei gyhoeddi mi fydd yna nifer o fentrau lle mae angen deddfu.

Interpretation:

Can I take you to a practical problem that we face, I do not want to talk about specific policy, nonetheless when you prepare your manifesto there are a number of initiatives which you want, you would prefer if the Assembly had the powers to reform but you know they do not, and when the manifesto is announced there will be a number of initiatives that will require legislation.

LORD RICHARD: Give us an example?

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) O edrych ar y math yna o gynnig ac o edrych ar y rhagolygon y bydd deddfwriaeth yn pasio drwy San Steffan mae cyfyngiadau’r 4 blynedd diwethaf yn golygu o gofio'r cyfyngiadau hynny ar hyn o bryd ac o gofio parodrwydd San Steffan i ddeddfu mae'n debyg mai dim ond 4 mesur a fyddai'n mynd drwodd mewn tymor o 4 blynedd sy'n unigryw i Gymru. Dwi'n cydnabod y gall rhai fod yn rhan o ddeddfwriaeth Lloegr. Mae gennyn ni broblemau efo'r rheini oherwydd yn aml iawn y duedd yn San Steffan ydy eu bod nhw'n fodlon i'r cynigion hynny gael eu cynnwys ym mesur Cymru a Lloegr ar yr amod eu bod nhw'n fodlon ar weddill y Mesur. Mi fydden ni o dan gyfyngiad yn ein rhaglen am ein bod yn gwybod cyn dechrau, o gofio record y 4 blynedd cyntaf, mai dim ond 4 mesur mewn tymor o 4 blynedd y bydden ni'n debyg o'u cael, sy'n cyfyngu ar unwaith ar y pethau y medrwch chi eu cynnig yn y maniffesto. Byddai ar ein cynllun ni angen o leiaf 3 neu 4 mesur y flwyddyn, a'r record sydd gennyn ni yw nad ydy hynny'n debyg o ddigwydd.

Interpretation:

Looking at that kind of proposal and looking at the prospects of legislation passing through Westminster the constraints of the last 4 years are such that given those current restraints and given Westminster's willingness to legislate we would probably only get 4 bills through in a 4 year term that are exclusively Welsh. I acknowledge some can be as part of the English legislation. We have problems with those because very often the tendency in Westminister is that they are happy for those proposals to be included in the England and Wales Bill provided they are happy with the rest of the Bill. We would be constrained in our programme because we knew before we started, given the record of the first 4 years, we would be likely to only get 4 bills in a 4 year term, which is an immediate constraint to the kind of things you can pose in the manifesto. Our plan would require at least 3 or 4 bills a year, and the record that we have is that that is not likely to happen.

LORD RICHARD: How important do you think it is that there is the same party in Westminster?

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Dw i'n credu ei bod yn bwysig cael gwahaniaethau. Gwir prawf datganoli ydy ble mae yna bleidiau gwahanol.

Interpretation:

I think it is important there should be differences. The real test of devolution has to be where there are different parties.

LORD RICHARD: If you are operating the existing system surely it is a great help to have the same party? That must be true.

DR McALLISTER: Can we just go back to Scotland?

MR SIMON THOMAS: When we transpose European directives into UK legislation there is obviously a lesson there which is that when we are transposing legislation it has to apply through the UK. Sometimes there can be differences in the local application, for example the Waste Directive and the Landfill Directive where there will be different targets in different areas. Devolution comes into play in the way that we deal with that in the United Kingdom. The same way as energy, we know that energy will have different targets. European legislation is transposed to UK level so it does not make sense therefore for you to have Scottish legislation. To be legislating in London, Cardiff and Edinburgh all at the same time and all on the same issues of legislation would not make sense.

MR ROWLANDS: It has already happened in Wales by devolution, this is a perfect example of how the Bill was shaped by the need to deregulate and allow each component part of the United Kingdom to implement as it felt best. That is a very good example of how it should work.

MR SIMON THOMAS: The response I am trying to make is to ensure that we do not fall into the trap of thinking because we have that full devolution within the House of Commons to a legislative Assembly that means we are going to have more legislation. We need to use these conventions to make sure it works, it would be de facto.

The second example is on taxation. I think we mention in our paper that of course in taxation terms the Scottish Parliament could only vary income tax. What we found when we were thinking of proposals in terms of economic development and looking the EU Objective 1 was how useful it would be to lower corporation tax in the Objective 1 area to try and engender greater economic growth and get lower economic areas off the ground. Of course the Assembly does not have powers to do that, we have not got any further in this paper. The Scottish system is not directly transposable into Wales. We must learn the lessons of the Scottish model to see how a full legislative evolution for Wales would fit into the Welsh Assembly, it is not a direct move across.

MR HUW THOMAS: The point you mention on page 7 of your paper refers to the complexities that exist at present in terms of coming to an understanding of what exactly the powers of the Assembly are. On page 7 here you say that there is a tendency to actually lose powers. This is the first time I have seen this on paper. I would like to know if there are specific examples of this happening?

MS JOCELYN DAVIES: I understand that certainly in relation to some environmental legislation that we have lost powers. If you look at something like the Local Government Act Clause 6 gives the power to the secretary of state to oversee the plans of certain plans of local authorities even though the secretary of state does not have any function in relation to those plans. By accident or design it is possible for Westminster Parliament to snuff out devolution in a very short period of time if it wanted to. One of the things that came out in the Assembly was a set of principles that were endorsed by the entire Assembly that when new legislation was passed in Westminster that certain principles would be adopted in relation to new primary legislation, the Rawlings Principles, to protect the Assembly and to make it clear what we expect to see in legislation for us, for example general powers. Give the Assembly as much discretion as possible, we have yet to see that. I do not think the Westminster Government has said, "we like the idea of these principles, I think we will take them up".

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Ga i ddweud am y pwynt a wnaeth Huw mai'r unig bwerau sydd gan y Cynulliad yw pwerau drwy'r gorchmynion trosglwyddo swyddogaethau, a bod y swyddogaethau hynny'n gysylltiedig â'r ddeddf ac felly dim ond y pwerau sydd wedi'u trosglwyddo mewn deddf benodol sydd yn y trosglwyddiad swyddogaethau. Enghraifft Jocelyn wrth gwrs ydy os ydy'r ddeddf wreiddiol yn cael ei diwygio y cyfan mae'n rhaid i Lywodraeth Llundain ei wneud ydy dweud bod y cyfrifoldeb mewn man arall, eich bod chi wedi colli’r pwer oedd gennych chi dan y ddeddf wreiddiol ac nad oes angen i Lundain yn y ddeddf ddiwygiedig roi'r un pwerau ichi ag oedd gennych chi o dan y ddeddf wreiddiol. Mae dwy enghraifft o achosion lle mae hyn wedi digwydd mewn theori felly medrwch chi ddilyn y rhesymu a'r rhesymeg a gweld pe bai pob deddf yn cael ei diwygio yn y ffordd y mae Jocelyn yn awgrymu na fyddai yna ddim datganoli ar ôl.

Interpretation:

Can I say to the point made by Huw the only powers the Assembly has are through the transfer of functions orders, and those functions are related to the act and the therefore only the powers which have been transferred in a specific act are in the transfer of functions. Of course Jocelyn's example is that if the original act is amended all the Government in London has to do is say the responsibility lies somewhere else, you have lost the power you had under the original act and there is no need for London in the amended act to give you the same powers you had under the original act.

There are two examples of cases where this has happened in theory therefore you can follow that reasoning and logic and find that if every act was amended in the way in which Jocelyn suggests there would be no devolution left.

MS JOCELYN DAVIES: I remember the Minister who was the secretary for Local Government made a statement to the plenary through the Secretary of State that post devolution this was not acceptable. It is not logical anyway apart from it being unacceptable, the powers rest with the Secretary of State rather than us. What we are constantly told is we have to transfer the functions order at another time. The transfer of the functions order that was passed in 1999 was a snapshot in time, and that is constantly being rewritten. You can always say transfer the functions order but it makes it more and more complicated as time goes on.

DR DAFYDD TRYSTAN: (In Welsh then interpreted) Mae pwynt pwysig rydych chi'n ei godi hefyd sy'n bwydo i mewn wedyn, sef lefel y craffu y mae swyddfa Ysgrifennydd Gwladol Cymru yn gallu ei darparu ar ddeddfwriaeth seneddol ac i'r graddau y mae gan y swyddfa honno yr adnoddau cyfreithiol o gofio cymhlethdod y sefyllfa ac o gofio sut mae'r swyddogaethau'n cael eu trosglwyddo neu eu cymryd yn ôl i graffu ar bob darn o ddeddfwriaeth i gyflwyno sylwadau ar ran y Cynulliad ynglyn ag ydy swyddogaethau'n cael eu colli neu beidio. Rwy'n credu ei bod yn eithaf clir nad oes gan Swyddfa Cymru fel mae hi wedi'i chyfansoddi ar hyn o bryd mo'r adnoddau cyfreithiol angenrheidiol i graffu yn fanwl ar bob darn o ddeddfwriaeth seneddol i ddarganfod beth yw barn y darn hwnnw o ddeddfwriaeth ar y pwerau sydd wedi'u breinio yn y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol.

Interpretation:

There is also an important point which you raise and then feeds in, which is the level of scrutiny the office of the Secretary of State for Wales can provide on parliamentary legislation and to the extent to which that office has the legal resources given the complexity of the situation and given the way the functions are transferred or taken back to scrutinise every piece of legislation to make representations on behalf of the Assembly in relation to whether functions are being lost or not. I think it is pretty clear that the Wales Office as currently constituted does not have the necessary legal resources to scrutinise in detail every piece of parliamentary legislation to ascertain what the view is on that piece of legislation on powers vested in the National Assembly.

MR SIMON THOMAS: I would like to say something quite challenging now bearing in mind I have people from the Assembly here. Devolution happened before the inception of the Assembly. Devolution already existed before the Assembly was established. Devolution existed in areas which are not under the control of the Assembly, for example broadcasting. The Media and Communications Bill is going through the House of Commons at the moment and that will change broadcasting in Wales. At the moment Wales, not the Assembly, is a member on the Communication Technology Board, a member on the Independent Television Board and a member of OFCOM. As I understand it that is the level of representation which Wales has and that is an area which has not been devolved to the Assembly.

Under the new ability of OFCOM there will not be a member from Wales on OFCOM, the line which advertises in Wales is going to be lost, and that is an example of devolution in reverse, even though it is not emanating from the Assembly itself. The Assembly Government has specifically asked Westminster for members from Wales to sit on the new OFCOM Committee in order to maintain this link and this was proposed in the amendments by me on the floor of the House of Commons as well and that has been the rejected by the Government in Westminster.

I fear as well the possibility that the Assembly could loss powers at any point in the future through this kind of procedure powers which can be repealed. The other possibilities are that we see an attitude developing in Whitehall that only the areas devolved to the Assembly are the matters that can be devolved at all and where there well be representations on many other British bodies that could be lost, the broadcasting and media areas at the moment are very good examples of this process happening.

MS SUGAR: I have two questions. The one first one is on the mandate for additional powers. We have had local businesses speaking for or against the need for a referendum. The second question is about scrutiny and whether you feel that the current arrangements in the Assembly are sufficiently robust to hold the Executive to account and how you feel scrutiny arrangements would need to change and if you feel they would need to change if there was primary legislative powers?

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) O safbwynt y mandad yr ofn sydd gen i ydy na fyddai angen o reidrwydd am refferendwm ar symud tuag at senedd ddeddfwriaethol gyda phwerau cyfyngedig i drethu achos dydy hynny ddim yn drosglwyddiad arwyddocaol. Serch hynny, mae'n glir y byddai'r ddeddfwriaeth fframweithiol a'r gwelliannau yn gorfod cael eu pasio yn San Steffan. Y farn arall ydy mad oes angen hynny. O safbwynt craffu, wrth gwrs mewn corff deddfwriaethol mae gennych chi ddau fath o graffu. Un o'r agweddau sy'n peri siom rwy'n credu am y Cynulliad yw ein bod ni wedi methu â delio mewn ffordd sylweddol â chraffu ar yr is-ddeddfwriaeth. Rydyn ni wedi clywed mai dyma'ch cyfle chi i greu deddfwriaeth ar gyfer Cymru ond y ffaith amdani yw mai prin mae'r cyfle ar gael. Rwy'n credu ein bod yn cynnig ambell welliant i offeryn statudol, mae hyn bron yn dân ar groen y Cynulliad. Mae yna ddadleuon 5 munud yma ac acw tra byddwn ni'n bwrw ymlaen â phethau pwysig fel trafod adroddiadau, neu beth bynnag. Rydyn ni'n treulio oriau yn trafod adroddiadau a phapurau trafod ond yn treulio dim amser o gwbl fwy neu lai ar graffu.

Efo is-ddeddfwriaeth mae'n bwysig iawn o'r cychwyn eich bod yn deall bod angen craffu'n iawn er mwyn cael deddfwriaeth effeithiol. Fy marn i fy hun am y sector presennol yw mai ad hoc iawn yw'r craffu ar y Gweinidogion, mae'n gweithio'n dda iawn mewn rhai pwyllgorau ond heb fod cystal mewn pwyllgorau eraill am fod pob pwyllgor fe petai wedi datblygu ei ffordd ei hun o graffu ar y gweinidogion. Byddai'n well gen i weld gweithdrefn lawer mwy cytûn, wedi'i chytuno gan y Cynulliad cyfan, heb ddibynnu ar pwy ydy cadeirydd y pwyllgor. Mae braidd yn ad hoc a byddai'n well gen i weld sesiynau arbennig fel bod y gweinidogion yn cael eu dal yn gyfrifol dros gwestiynau ar lawr y Cynulliad a sesiynau craffu yn y pwyllgor. O ran craffu ar ddeddfwriaeth mae hynny'n fater arall, bydd rhaid edrych ar bethau yn ofalus iawn ac ar y dulliau ar gyfer craffu ar y ddeddfwriaeth.

Interpretation:

On the issue of the mandate my fear is that there would not necessarily be a need for a referendum on moving towards a legislative parliament with limited taxation powers because there is not significant transfer. However, clearly the legislation framing and the amending would have to be passed at Westminster. The other view is that that is not necessary. On the issue of scrutiny, of course in a legislative body you have two kinds of scrutiny. One of the disappointing facets I think of the Assembly has been our failure to deal in any significant way with the scrutiny of secondary legislation. We have been told this is your opportunity to create legislation for Wales but the fact is it is virtually non-existent. I think we occasionally put amendments down to statutory instrument, it is almost as though this is an irritant for the Assembly. There are 5 minute debates here and there while we get on with the important things of discussing reports, or whatever. We spend hours discussing reports and consultation paper but actually spend virtually no time on scrutiny.

With secondary legislation it is very important that from the beginning you understand the need to have effective legislation properly scrutinised. My own view of the current sector is that the scrutiny of ministers is very ad hoc, it works in some committees very well but does not work very well in other committees because each committee seems to have developed its on style of scrutinising ministers. I would prefer to see a much more agreed procedure, agreed by the whole Assembly, not just depending on who the chair of the committee is. It is a bit ad hoc and I would much prefer to see special sessions so that ministers can be held to account over questions on the floor of the Assembly and scrutiny sessions in the committee. On the issue of scrutiny legislation that is a different issue, things will have to be looked at very carefully and the methods by which legislation is scrutinised.

LORD RICHARD: You do have the power to amend, is that used often?

MS JOCELYN DAVIES: Once or twice in 4 years. We change standing orders, if there is a piece of secondary legislation coming to the plenary there are two votes, you amend the motion to the statutory instrument to make your point.

LORD RICHARD: You can amend the instrument.

MS JOCELYN DAVIES: You can amend the instrument but you have to do it by a cost benefit analysis and it very rarely happens. I sit on the Agriculture Committee and we do scrutinise legislation. Often we are presented with lists of statutory instruments and the title of the statutory instrument is not going to give you much of a clue about whether you want to have a good look at it. We try to work towards and develop that and improve that so we know what the instrument is about and maybe we can see the draft before we decide whether he want to amend it or not. It is very, very rare.

MS SUGAR: I just wanted to ask whether you feel it is possible for the committee system to be effective in scrutiny when the minister is a member of the committee?

MS JOCELYN DAVIES: It is a problem. I attended one committee, and I will not tell you which committee it was, the minister passed a piece of paper to one of their colleagues and the question, A scrutinise the minister@ came off the piece of paper. You cannot regard that as scrutiny. I visited the Scottish Parliament and I could not tell which political party the members were from because they were all scrutinising the minister and they were all putting pressure on the minister.

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Mae'n rhy gysurus.

Interpretation:

It is too cozy.

LORD RICHARD: Do you think the minister should be on the committee?

MS JOCELYN DAVIES: Our view is no. Up until very recently all of the briefing papers that came to a committee came from the minister's department, we never saw much that was very contrary to Government policy, which is a considerable disadvantage. I remember certainly when we were carrying out policy reviews where members of the public or outside bodies presented us with evidence that they see the minister, they see the recommendations to the committee too and they could be forgiven for thinking that is the policy of the minister because the minister has the right to choose to reject them all.

DR McALLISTER: In the Assembly's review procedures was it the view that the Assembly felt ministers should remain members?

MS JOCELYN DAVIES: Legislation says that, I do not think we had any choice.

DR McALLISTER: There was a discussion.

MS JOCELYN DAVIES: We suggested that they absent themselves, they do not sit on the committee, and certainly when the committee reports.

MS EIRA DAVIES: (In Welsh then interpreted) O ran diddordeb, ar sawl pwyllgor ydych chi'n eistedd?

Interpretation:

As a matter of interest how many committees do you sit on?

MS JOCELYN DAVIES: I sit on two subject committees, I sit on a business committee and I sit on the Audit Committee and I sit on the House Committee. I have sat on every Assembly committee except economic development.

MR DAFIS: (In Welsh then interpreted) Mae dwy agwedd i'r cwestiwn yma, un yn delio â gallu. Mae'r ffaith mai dim ond 60 aelod sydd gyda ni yn y Cynulliad yn golygu bod cyfyngiadau ar bosibiliadau rhoi mwy o amser i’r pwyllgorau iddyn nhw gael gwneud eu gwaith. Bob pythefnos maen nhw'n cyfarfod gydag ambell gyfarfod ychwanegol o bryd i'w gilydd. Os ydych chi am gael y cyfle i graffu ar gyrff cyhoeddus, y cyrff cyhoeddus sy'n cael eu noddi gan y Cynulliad, ac i graffu ar waith y gweinidogion mewn ffordd fanwl iawn mae'n bwysig eich bod yn cyfarfod fwy nag unwaith y bythefnos, ond mae hynny'n creu hunllefau o ran yr amserlennu gyda'r pwyllgorau eraill. Rwy i'n eistedd ar y Pwyllgor Amaethyddiaeth a'r Pwyllgor Addysg ac os yw'r Pwyllgor Addysg am gwrdd yn amlach na hynny byddai'n gwrthdaro â’r Pwyllgor Amaethyddiaeth ac mae hynny'n peri cryn dipyn o ddryswch. Hoffwn i godi'r cwestiwn yma ynglyn â nifer yr aelodau mewn senedd ddeddfwriaethol nawr. Rwy'n sicr yn credu y dylid cael 80 o aelodau er mwyn cael yr amser i'r pwyllgorau graffu ar ddeddfwriaeth mewn ffordd effeithiol, dyw'r 60 sydd gyda ni ar hyn o bryd ddim yn ddigon.

Pwynt cyffredinol arall am ddeddfwriaeth, pan fydd y Senedd yn San Steffan a'r senedd arall sydd o ddifrif yn ystyried deddfwriaeth, dyn nhw ddim yn dechrau drwy edrych ar ddarn penodol o ddeddfwriaeth ac ystyried sut gallan nhw ei newid, maen nhw'n dechrau o safbwynt polisi, maen nhw'n dechrau o'r cwestiwn beth ydyn ni am ei newid ym maes addysg neu iechyd, neu beth bynnag. Pan benderfynan nhw beth maen nhw am ei newid maen nhw'n edrych i weld pa ddeddfwriaeth mae angen ei diwygio neu pa ddeddfwriaeth newydd mae angen ei chyflwyno. Dyw hynny ddim yn bosibl yn y sefyllfa yma pan ydyn ni'n delio ag is-ddeddfwriaeth yn unig.

Y gwaith mwyaf diddorol y mae'r pwyllgorau wedi'i wneud a'r gwaith mwyaf defnyddiol a chreadigol y mae'r pwyllgorau wedi'i wneud yw gwneud polisi. Y peth naturiol fyddai bod hynny'n arwain at drafodaethau ar ddeddfwriaeth berthnasol am fod gan y pwyllgor y gallu i ddelio â hynny.

Interpretation:

There are two aspects to this question, one deals with capacity. The fact that we only have 60 members in the Assembly that means that there are constraints on the possibilities of allocating more time to committees for them to do their work. They meet once every fortnight with a few additional meetings from time to time. If you want the opportunity to scrutinise on public bodies, SAs and SPBs, and to scrutinise the work of ministers in a very detailed way it is important for you to meet more than once a fortnight, but that causes nightmare in terms of timetabling with the other committees. I sit on the Agriculture Committee and the Education Committee and if the Education Committee want to meet more often than that it would clash with the Agriculture Committee and that causes a great deal of confusion. I want to raise this question regarding the number of members in a legislative parliament now. I certainly believe there should be 80 members in order to have the time for the committees to be able to scrutinise legislation in an effective way, the 60 we have at the moment is not sufficient.

Another general point regarding legislation, when the Parliament in Westminster and the other serious parliament are considering legislation they do not start by looking at a certain piece of legislation and consider how they can change that, they start from the point of view of policy, they start from the question of what do we want to change in the field of education or health, or whatever. When they decide what they want to change they look to see what legislation needs to be amended or what new legislation need to be presented. That is not possible in this situation when we are dealing with subordinate legislation only.

The most interesting work which the committees have done and the most useful work and creative work the committees have done is in policy making. The natural thing would be for that to lead on to discussions on relevant legislation because the committee have the capacity to deal with that.

MR ROWLANDS: The transfer of the primary legislation powers, the addition of tax bearing powers, the increase in the membership of the Assembly, a reduction in the members of Westminster, the abolition of the secretary of state as a consequence of all that, is that not the Government of Wales Act we four had debated and was subject of a referendum, if nothing else. Surely this is a minor modest amendment to the Government of Wales Act and it should be put back to the Welsh people in a referendum.

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Yn fy marn i doeddwn i ddim yn credu bod angen refferendwm. Dw i yn meddwl bod yna bethau sy'n mynd y tu hwnt i'r farn honno.

Interpretation:

In my view I did not think it needed a referendum. I do think there are things which go beyond that view.

MR ROWLANDS: That selection I have just given you, what about them?

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Dwi'n deall os bydd San Steffan yn penderfynu bod angen refferendwm dydy hynny ddim yn peri pryder i mi. Dwi ddim yn meddwl bod yr achos dros refferendwm wedi'i seilio ar y cynigion rydyn ni wedi'u gwneud. Gadewch imi esbonio hyn hefyd, dwi'n credu mai rhan o'r broblem, a dwi'n gorfod dweud hyn, gyda'r setliad cyfansoddiadol presennol oedd nad oedd yna drafodaeth iawn cyn y refferendwm. Petaen ni wedi cael ein hamser eto byddai pawb, does bosib, yn cytuno y byddai'n well inni gael rhywbeth ar fodel confensiwn yr Alban, does dim amheuaeth am hynny yn fy meddwl i. Yn fy marn i roedd hynny'n gamgymeriad enbyd i'w wneud ar y pryd. Gallai llawer o'r materion rydyn ni'n eu trafod heddiw fod wedi’u tanlinellu mewn trafodaethau yn y cyswllt hwnnw.

Dwi'n credu pe baen ni'n ennill yr etholiad yn 2003 y bydden ni'n sefydlu confensiwn lle byddai pobl yn gallu cyflwyno tystiolaeth ar y math o fodel maen nhw ei eisiau. Byddai'n gonfensiwn cyfranogol yn yr ystyr y byddai pobl yn ymaelodi ag o. Fel y cymerodd confensiwn yr Alban feddiant yn y pen draw ar Fesur yr Alban, gall pobl Cymru gymryd meddiant ar Fesur Cymru.

Interpretation:

I understand that if Westminster decides a referendum is necessary that does not concern me. I do not think the case for a referendum has been made based on the proposals that we have done. Let me just explain this also, I believe that part of the problem, and I have to say this, with the current constitutional settlement was there no proper debate prior to the referendum. Had we had our time again everyone, surely, would agree it would be better for us to have something on the Scottish conventional model, there is no doubt about that in my mind. In my view that was an awful mistake to make at the time. A lot of the issues that we are discussing today could be highlighted in discussions in that connection.

My belief is that should we win the election in 2003. We would set up a convention during which people would be able to present evidence of the kind of model that they want. That would be a participative convention in the sense that people would become members of it. As the Scottish convention eventually took ownership of the Scotland Bill the people of Wales can have ownership of the Wales Bill.

MR ROWLANDS: Eventually they will have the right to endorse that package in a referendum.

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: The way you would endorse it would be, first of all, you would have fought an election on that basis and you would also have within the convention different points of view. The Assembly itself would need to endorse conclusions and the bill would have to go to Westminster.

LORD RICHARD: The Scottish convention went on for a very long time, it was years.

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Yr union amser rydyn ni'n ei rag-weld ar gyfer ein confensiwn ninnau.

Interpretation:

Precisely the time we envisage for our convention

LORD RICHARD: You live with what you have

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Yn hollol.

Interpretation:

Absolutely.

LORD RICHARD: Which might take, what, 5 or 6 years?

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) O na. Gadewch imi esbonio'r amseru. Yr amseru i ni fyddai bod y confensiwn yn adrodd ymhen 2 flynedd, o fewn 2 flynedd, sydd yn ein barn ni pe bai'r confensiwn yn dod o dan fesur byddai'r mesur yn mynd wedyn i'r Cynulliad i gael ei gadarnhau, ei basio drwy'r Cynulliad, ac yn mynd wedyn i San Steffan i gael ei ddeddfu. Ein barn ni, ac rydyn ni wedi gwneud hyn yn glir yn y cyflwyniad ac yn y Senedd, yw y byddai hynny'n ddigon o amser i ganiatáu i'r Cynulliad ddod yn gorff gweinyddol erbyn 2007.

Interpretation:

Oh no. Let me just explain the timing. The timing for us would be that the convention would report within 2 years, within 2 years, which in our view if the convention came under a bill the bill would then go to the Assembly for confirmation, passed through Assembly, and it would then go to Westminster for legislation. Our view, and we have made this clear in the submission and in Parliament, is that would be sufficient time to allow the Assembly to become an administrative body by 2007.

MR ROWLANDS: There is no substitute for asking the Welsh people for a very straightforward, direct vote. You quote it on page 4, opinion polls, why not have re-opinion polls?

DR DAFYDD TRYSTAN: (In Welsh then interpreted) Mae yna fater pwysig yma, rych chi'n sôn bod pobl Cymru wedi cael pleidlais ar Ddeddf Llywodraeth Cymru, chawson nhw ddim, pleidlais ar y cynigion yn y ddogfen "Llais dros Gymru" gawson nhw.

Interpretation:

There is an important issue here, you talk about the Welsh people having a vote on the Government of Wales Act, they did not, they had a vote on the proposals contained in the document "A Voice for Wales".

MR ROWLANDS: Which was reasonably translated as the Government of Wales Act.

DR DAFYDD TRYSTAN: (In Welsh then interpreted) Hoffwn eich annog chi fel Comisiwn i ystyried i ba raddau y mae'r gwelliannau a symud ymlaen â'r broses esblygu yn wahanol i'r hyn a nodwyd yn Llais dros Gymru. Mae'n bwysig cofio'r ffocws hwnnw.

Interpretation:

I would encourage you as a Commission to consider the extent to which the amendments and the moving forward of the evolution process differ from what was set out in A Voice for Wales. It is important to remember that focus.

LORD RICHARD: I think I will resist that invitation.

DR DAFYDD TRYSTAN: (In Welsh then interpreted) Dw i yn credu ei bod yn bwysig cofio mai ar sail Llais dros Gymru y cafodd y refferendwm ei gynnal.

Interpretation:

I do think it is important to remember the referendum was held on the basis of A Voice for Wales.

MR DAFIS: (In Welsh then interpreted) Gaf fi ofyn cwestiwn athronyddol, beth yw swyddogaeth refferendwm mewn unrhyw gyfundrefn gyfansoddiadol? Mae yna berygl y gallai refferendwm golli ei rym, gallai fynd yn ddigwyddiad sy'n llawer llai arwyddocaol, ac efallai y dylai. Mae’n werth nodi bod pobl Cymru ym 1997 wedi pleidleisio ar un cwestiwn, sef y cwestiwn a ddylid cael Cynulliad Cenedlaethol i Gymru, dyna'r dewis. A ddylid cael Cynulliad Cenedlaethol i Gymru? Fe fydd yna Gynulliad Cenedlaethol neu fydd yna ddim, dyna'r dewis. Rwy'n credu mai'r egwyddor y pleidleisiwyd arni oedd yr egwyddor benodol honno y dylid sefydlu corff cenedlaethol wedi'i ethol yn ddemocrataidd. Yn ein dogfen ryn ni wedi rhoi'n barn benodol ni am pryd y dylai fod angen refferendwm, sef pryd y gallai'r berthynas wleidyddol rhwng Cymru a gweddill y Deyrnas Unedig gael ei hailddiffinio yn sylfaenol, dwedson ni mai dyna pryd y mae refferendwm yn angenrheidiol.

Mater o farn yw ydych chi'n credu bod y model sydd gyda ni yn fodel mwy effeithiol sy'n rhoi pwerau newydd, sy'n rhoi pwerau ychwanegol. Dyw e ddim yn hynod wahanol o ran nifer yr aelodau o 60 i 80, dyw e ddim yn ddaeargryn gwleidyddol. Rhaid i bob un ohonon ni benderfynu p'un a yw hynny'n achos lle mae arnon ni angen refferendwm. Ryn ni wedi cynnig ffordd arall o benderfynu'r consensws cenedlaethol ar y mater yma, sef confensiwn cenedlaethol.

Interpretation:

May I ask a philosophical question, what is the function of a referendum in any constitutional system? There is a danger that a referendum could lose its power, it could become an event that is less significant, and maybe it should be. It is worth noting that the people of Wales in 1997 took a vote on a single question, which is the question as to whether there should be a National Assembly for Wales, that was the choice. Should there be a National Assembly for Wales? There will be a National Assembly or there will not be, that was the choice. I think the principle that was voted upon was that particular principle that there should be a democratically elected national body established. In our document we have given our specific opinion as to when a referendum should become necessary, that is when the political relationship between Wales and the rest of the UK could be redefined in a fundamental way, we said that is when a referendum is a necessity.

It is a matter of opinion whether you think that the model that we have is a more effective model which gives new powers, which gives additional powers. It is not dramatically different in terms of the number of members from 60 to 80, it is not a political earthquake. We all have to decide whether that is a case where we need a referendum. We have given alternative means of deciding what the national consensus is on this issue, which is a national convention.

MR VALERIO: On a recent visit to Scotland they said, A we have tax varying powers@ , but they said, A of course we choose not to implement them@ . That is up to them of course. In your evidence on page 11 you say the other options includes possibly some environmental tax and also Corporation Tax. In the very next paragraph you said that constitutes a persuasive case against imposing a higher personal tax burden than in England. This seems to be slightly contradictory, Scotland have them but they choose not to use them. Here we would like them, even though we are worse off financially than they are in England, we want to have these powers to vary tax. Am I right in saying we are the political party that is going to campaign on lowering the taxes?

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Ga i ateb y cwestiwn rydych chi'n ei ofyn, o ran pwerau eithriadol ein barn ni yw y dylai senedd ddeddfwriaethol yng Nghymru gael y math o bwerau cyfyngu sy'n bodoli yn yr Alban. Mi awgrymon ni ambell newid yn y dreth amgylcheddol neu'r dreth gorfforaeth. Esboniodd Simon y rhesymeg y tu ôl i'r newid yma ar y Dreth Gorfforaeth, am fod yna ffordd o fewn ardal Amcan 1 i'w defnyddio yn hwb i'r economi a dyna pam mae wedi'i grybwyll yma yn ein papur.

Interpretation:

Can I just answer the question you ask, for exceptional powers our opinion is that a legislative Parliament in Wales should have the kind of limitation powers that exist in Scotland. We suggested some alterations to environmental tax or corporation tax. Simon explained the reasoning behind this change on Corporation Tax, because there a means within an Objective 1 area to use that as a boost to the economy and that is why we mentioned it here in our paper.

MR VALERIO: You do ask an interesting question in this sense, you are asking for taxation powers on the one hand, are you therefore suggesting in your paper you would not use those powers?

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Y realiti, fel dwi'n ei weld o, ydy yn ogystal â chael y pwerau hynny i godi treth dwi'n credu bod arnon ni angen setliad gwahanol o ran fformwla Barnett, yn yr ystyr bod angen inni ddiwygio fformwla Barnett fel ei bod yn fformwla newydd wedi'i seilio ar anghenion yn hytrach nag yn fformwla fecanyddol, sydd gennyn ni ar hyn o bryd, sydd wedi'i seilio bron yn llwyr ar boblogaeth. Fy marn bersonol i yw er y byddai gan y Senedd bwerau i amrywio trethi y byddai'n annhebyg y byddai unrhyw lywodraeth yng Nghymru â'r mandad gwleidyddol i newid y dreth yn gwneud hynny tra bo setliad Barnett yn parhau fel y mae. Dwi ddim yn gweld sut y medrwch chi ddadlau hynny os nad ydych chi'n cael setliad teg gan Lundain, ydych chi? Ydych chi'n mynd i wneud hynny i fyny drwy gynyddu treth pobl Cymru – mae hynny'n ddadl wleidyddol anodd iawn.

Rydyn ni'n dweud bod angen inni newid setliad Barnett. Rydw i'n hapus ichi weld y papur mae Phil Williams wedi' baratoi, sydd wedi'i dderbyn o ran seiliau ei ddadl gan bwyllgor dethol yn Nhy'r Arglwyddi, y bydd yna ryw 800 miliwn yn ychwanegol at y bloc. Yn y dyfodol, am y dyfodol rydyn ni'n siarad rwan, byddai perfformiad yr economi wedi'i gryfhau gan gynnyrch mewnwladol crynswth Cymru yn cynyddu'r lefel gyfartalog ledled y Deyrnas Unedig. O dan yr amgylchiadau hynny, mae'n bosibl y byddai Llywodraeth Cymru am amrywio'r dreth.

I ateb eich cwestiwn, gallwn rag-weld sefyllfa'n codi lle bydden ni am ostwng y dreth. Holl bwynt cael pwerau i amrywio'r trethi, yn enwedig y Dreth Gorfforaeth, fyddai defnyddio’r pwer mewn gwirionedd i ostwng trethi.

Interpretation:

The reality, as I see it, is that as well as having those taxation powers I believe that we need to have a different settlement as regards the Barnett Formula, in this sense we need to amend the Barnett Formula so that it is a new formula based on needs rather than a trans mechanical formula, which we have at the moment, which is based almost entirely on population. My personal opinion is that although Parliament would have powers to vary taxes it would be unlikely that any government in Wales with the political mandate to change taxation would do so while the Barnett settlement continues as it is. I do not see how can you argue that if you are not given a fair settlement from London, do you? Are you going to make that up by increasing taxation on the people of Wales - that is a very difficult political argument.

We are saying that we need to change the Barnett settlement. I am happy for you to see the paper Phil Williams prepared, which has been accepted as regards the basis of his argument by a select committee in the House of Lords, that there will be round 800 million in addition to the block. In future, we are talking of the future now, performance of the economy strengthened by the GDP in Wales would increase the average level through the UK. Under those circumstances it possible that the Government of Wales would want to vary taxation.

To answer your question, we can foresee a situation arising where we would want to lessen taxation. The whole point of having tax varying powers, particularly Corporation Tax, would be to use that power to actually decrease taxation.

MR VALERIO: This is conditional in the Barnett Formula and something that we in Wales should consider to be more equitable.

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Dydy hi ddim yn amodol, dydy'r pwer caffael ddim yn amodol. Mae'n rhaid i'r pwer i godi treth ddod drwy ddeddfwriaeth sylfaenol, mae Fformwla Barnett yn gallu cael ei diwygio drwy gytundeb. Yr hyn dw i'n ei ddweud ydy y byddai'r rheidrwydd gwleidyddol yng Nghymru ar ôl cael y pwerau yn golygu na fyddai'r un llywodraeth yn debyg o ddefnyddio'r pwerau hynny.

Interpretation:

It is not conditional, the acquiring power is not conditional. The power to raise access has to come through primary legislation, the Barnett Formula can be amended by agreement. What I am saying is that the political imperative in Wales after getting the powers would be that no government would be likely to use those powers.

LORD RICHARD: Do you think you have a real chance of getting Barnett amended?

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Difyr iawn oedd casgliad pwyllgor dethol Ty'r Arglwyddi. Dwi'n ategu'n llwyr yr hyn roedden nhw'n ei ddweud, wrth gwrs, byddai angen cael cytundeb rhwng Cymru, yr Alban, rhanbarthau Lloegr a Llywodraeth San Steffan. Buon nhw hyd yn oed yn siarad am y math o gynigion, y math o feini prawf yr hoffen nhw eu gweld. A bod yn onest dwi ddim yn credu bod problem ynglyn â chael y fformwla mae'n fater o ewyllys wleidyddol. Ar hyn o bryd byddwn yn dychmygu nad oes ewyllys wleidyddol ar gael yn San Steffan i newid Barnett.

Interpretation:

I was very interested in the conclusion which the House of Lords select committee came to. I fully enforce what they were saying, of course, there would need to be agreement between Wales, Scotland, the regions of England and the Westminster Government. They even talked about the kind of proposals, the kind of criteria they would like to see. Frankly I believe it is not a problem about getting the formula it is about the political will. Currently I would image that the political will is not in Westminster to change Barnett.

MR SIMON THOMAS: In regional governments outside London in England there would be a political imperative surely.

MR DAFIS: (In Welsh then interpreted) O safbwynt trethu mae’r cwestiwn cyfansoddiadol yn gwestiwn pwysig iawn, a ddylai Llywodraeth y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol gael opsiwn yn y maes penodol yma? Os edrychwch chi'n ofalus ar ein papur yna dyn ni ddim yn dweud yn benodol y dylai'r hawl i amrywio trethi gael ei roi i'r Cynulliad. Dw i yn bersonol yn credu y dylai gael ei drosglwyddo. Dweud ryn ni y dylai'r Cynulliad gael yr hawl i amrywio treth, nid treth bersonol o reidrwydd, yr hawl i amrywio treth.

Mae un esiampl arall y cyfeiriwyd ati sef treth amgylcheddol, mae'r taliadau tagfeydd yn fath o dreth amgylcheddol sydd wedi'u cyflwyno yn Llundain, y math yna o drethu amgylcheddol. Un posibilrwydd fyddai codi lefel y dreth dirlenwi yng Nghymru i lefel uwch fel bod modd codi cyllid ychwanegol a allai gael ei ddefnyddio wedyn i gryfhau diwydiannau newydd neu i hybu twf y diwydiant gwastraff neu'r diwydiant ailgylchu, sef un o'r posibiliadau pwysicaf ar gyfer twf yn y dyfodol yng Nghymru. Yr hyn ryn ni'n ei ddweud yn y fan hyn yw y dylai fod opsiynau ar gyfer pwerau i amrywio trethi.

Interpretation:

On the question of taxation the constitutional question is a very important question, should the National Assembly Government have an option in this particular area? If you look carefully at our paper then we are not really specifically saying that the right to vary taxation should be given to the Assembly. I personally believe it should be transferred. We are saying that the Assembly should have the right to vary tax, not necessarily personal tax, the right to vary tax.

There is one other example referred to which is environmental tax, the congestion charges are a sort of environmental tax which has been introduced in London, that kind of environmental taxation. One possibility would be to raise the level of landfill tax in Wales to a higher level so that additional finance could be raised which could then be used for strengthening new industries or to boost the growth of the waste industry or recycling industry, which is one of the most important possibilities for the future in Wales. What we are saying here is that there should be options for varying taxation powers.

MR TOM JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Tri chwestiwn byr sy gen i, rydych chi'n siarad hefyd am y gallu i fenthyg er mwyn buddsoddi. Yr ail gwestiwn, cyfeiriodd Simon yn gynharach at a fyddai San Steffan yn rhoi'r pwerau dros iechyd anifeiliaid i gael eu trosglwyddo i'r Cynulliad. Y trydydd cwestiwn yw, ydy rôl Aelodau Seneddol yn mynd i newid. Rydych chi'n sôn am ostwng nifer yr Aelodau Seneddol, oes arnon ni angen disgrifiad swydd newydd i Aelodau Seneddol yn y dyfodol, o gofio bod pwerau wedi'u datganoli? Efallai y daw'r pwerau ymhen amser. Ydych chi'n gweld rôl wahanol? Y cwestiwn olaf, yn fyr iawn, oes yna rôl neu pa mor effeithiol ydy’r pwyllgorau rhanbarth, oes ganddyn nhw rôl?

Interpretation:

I have 3 brief questions, you also talk about the ability to borrow in order to invest. The second question, earlier Simon referred to whether Westminster would give the powers for animal health to be transferred to the Assembly. The third question is, is the role of MPs going to change. You mention a decrease in the number of MPs, do we need a new job description for MPs in future, bearing in mind that powers have been devolved? The powers may come in time. Do you see a different role? Last question, very briefly, is there any role or how effective are the regional committees, do they have a role?

MR SIMON THOMAS: I will try and deal with the first two - I will not touch the regional committees. It is very important because we have been discussing tax varying powers. You have also drawn our attention to borrowing rights, which is again another boom to any government, which would also be appropriate to Wales. What is interesting here is what was proposed in the White Paper for English regions will give local government regions and local assemblies the right to borrow money. Borrowed money for investment specifically would be something that we would want to see as one of the great boosts that any government in Wales could give to development and for public services also.

The second thing on the role of MPs is a very interesting question. Out of necessity the role of MPs is going to change substantially after any settlement which would bring about a legislative parliament and a tax raising parliament in Wales. It already raises a very complex questions in term of MPs in Scotland. There is some sort of convention which is informal in nature where Scottish members do not vote on issues which are England-only issues, some of them are more eager to vote for England and Wales issues and some of them are less so. The whole thing is a bit of a minefield at the moment and we need to redefine this.

We also need to look once again at the number of MPs, as has been referred to earlier on. Of the 5 issues that Ted raised fundamental constitutional changes are occurring as a result of this paper, 2 of those things are already happening in Scotland, they cut the number of MPs and possibly getting rid of the Secretary of State for Scotland. We already see this pattern emerging in the UK. The fundamental question for us is how can we strike this new deal which is more equitable for Wales in terms of Wales, England and Scotland. We have not gone any further on that than just to acknowledge that we do need to cut the number and change the role fundamentally. While there is a system that ties Wales, England and Northern Ireland together as one Parliament, Westminster, there will be a need for a representation of Wales. Of course there is another issue as to the House of Lords.

MR TOM JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Mi sonioch chi am San Steffan, does dim awgrym o'n rhan ni fod penderfyniad ar fin cael ei gymryd.

Interpretation:

You mentioned Westminster, there is no suggestion for our part that a decision is about to be taken.

MR IEUAN WYN JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Mae hyn yn enghraifft eithaf pwysig o'r ffordd mae dyheadau'r Cynulliad mewn gwirioned yn cael eu tagu, i fod yn onest, achos mi dderbyniwyd ar y dechrau o ganlyniad i glwy'r traed a'r genau y buasai'n ddefnyddiol petasai'r pwerau hyn yn cael eu trosglwyddo i'r Cynulliad, roedd pob plaid yn y Cynulliad yn cytuno a chytunodd y diwydiant amaethyddiaeth â'r rhai yng Nghymru i’r cais gael ei wneud i San Steffan. Penderfynodd San Steffan gyflwyno'r Mesur Iechyd Anifeiliaid yn gyflym iawn iawn ac am eu bod nhw wedi gwneud hynny doedd yna ddim ymgynghori â'r Cynulliad o gwbl a phan ddarllenwch chi'r Mesur dydy Cymru ddim yn bodoli. Doedd dim trafodaethau pan gyflwynodd y Gweinidog y Mesur i Dy'r Cyffredin, chafodd anghenion Cymru mo'u hystyried o gwbl, doedd dim sôn amdanyn nhw gan y gweinidog ac mi wyddon ni, fel y dywedodd y gweinidog yn y Cynulliad, fod y cais am y ddeddfwriaeth yma wedi'i gyflwyno ar ran Cymru a phan herion ni Lywodraeth y Cynulliad ynglyn â pham na lwyddon nhw i gael cynnwys hyn yn y Mesur mi ddywedon nhw, "gallwn ni ei wneud o hefyd drwy orchymyn trosglwyddo swyddogaethau yn nes ymlaen". Yr amser i wneud y newid oedd yn y mesur ei hun. Roedd yn glir bod y cais wedi'i wneud ac wedi'i wrthod yn San Steffan a bod angen rhagor o drafodaethau. Mae'n enghraifft glasurol o anallu Whitehall i dderbyn y pwerau yng Nghymru, a gafodd eu derbyn ar draws holl rychwant y Cynulliad.

Efo'r pwyllgorau rhanbarth, llwyddiant rhannol maen nhw wedi'i gael. Mae Pwyllgor y Gogledd wedi bod yn bwyllgor cymharol lwyddiannus yn yr ystyr ei fod o wedi symud o amgylch rhanbarth y Gogledd. Mae yna nifer dda iawn yn dod iddo fo. Os ewch chi i gyfarfod Pwyllgor Rhanbarth y Gogledd yn y gorllewin neu'r dwyrain fe welwch chi 100 neu ragor yn aml yn y cyfarfodydd hyn. Mae rhyw fath o ddeialog iach yn gallu digwydd pan fydd cynulleidfa felly gennych chi. Yn ôl profiad aelodau eraill, dydy'r pwyllgorau eraill ddim mor llwyddiannus.

Fy marn i am y pwyllgorau rhanbarth ydy er bod llawer o bobl yn dod iddyn nhw yn y Gogledd does dim llawer yn digwydd yn sgil y pwyllgorau yma, does dim digon o gysylltiad rhwng yr hyn ddigwyddodd yn y pwyllgor a'r hyn ddigwyddodd yn y Cynulliad. Dwi'n credu bod angen inni wneud dau beth, naill ai mae angen inni sefydlu rhyw fecanwaith, sy'n golygu bod yr hyn sy'n cael ei drafod yn y pwyllgor rhanbarth yn cael ei fwydo wedyn i bwyllgorau'r Cynulliad neu fod pwyllgorau pwnc y Cynulliad yn ymweld â’r gwahanol ranbarthau yn fwy rheolaidd ac yn rhoi llawer mwy o ffocws ar weithgareddau'r Cynulliad yn y rhanbarthau ac yna rydych chi'n gwybod bod yna gysylltiad a mewnbwn y medrwch chi ei wneud ac edrych arno.

Interpretation:

This is quite an important example of the way that the aspirations of the Assembly are actually being smothered, to be honest, because it was accepted at the very outset as a result of foot and mouth that it would be useful for those powers to be transferred to the Assembly, every party in the Assembly agreed and the agricultural industry agreed with those in Wales for the application to be made to Westminster. Westminster decided to introduce the Animal Health Bill very, very quickly and because they had done so there was no consultation with the Assembly whatsoever and when you read the Bill Wales does not exist. There were no discussions when the Minister presented the Bill to the House of Commons, the needs of Wales were not considered at all, there was no mention by the minister of them and we know, as the minister said in the Assembly, that the bid for this legislation had been presented for Wales and when we challenged the Assembly Government as to why they did not succeed to get this included in the Bill they said, A we can also do it by transfer of function order later on@ . The time to make the change was in the Bill itself. It was quite clear the bid had been made and rejected in Westminster and further discussions were needed. It is a classic example of the deficiency in Whitehall to accept the powers in Wales, which were accepted across the spectrum of the Assembly.

With the regional committees their success has been partial. The North Wales Committee has been a relatively successful committee in the sense that it has moved round the North Wales region. It has very good attendance. If you go to a North Wales Regional Committee meeting in the west or the east you will see 100 or a 100 plus very often attending those meetings. Some kind of healthy dialogue can take place when you have such an audience. According to other members' experience the other committees are not as successful.

My opinion about the regional committees is although a great many people attend in North Wales not much happens as a result of these committees, there is not an enough of a link between what happened in the committee and what happened in the Assembly. I believe we need to do two things, we either need to put some mechanism in place, which means what is discussed in the regional committee is then feed into the Assembly committees or that the subject committee of the Assembly visits various regions more regularly and it gives far greater focus to the activities of the Assembly in the regions and then you know there is linkage and input that you can make and look at that.

LORD RICHARD: Can I thank you very much. We have had a good hour and a half and we are grateful to you for the generosity of your time. I found it very, very interesting. Thank you very much.