The Miller versus the Crown case confirmed that the Sewel convention isn't worth the paper that it's written on. In fact, on at least seven occasions, Westminster has forced legislation on Wales without its consent. Under the Labour-Tory agreement on the withdrawal Bill, there is a new definition of 'consent'. Semantic arguments are being used by Ministers to argue that this revision to the Bill equates to a requirement of consent for Westminster to legislate in devolved areas. In fact, the amendment explicitly says if a motion refusing consent is passed in this Assembly, Parliament may continue to impose its legislation. Can the Counsel General give me another example in legislation where 'no' means 'yes'?

Cadarnhaodd achos Miller yn erbyn y Goron nad yw confensiwn Sewel yn werth y papur y mae wedi'i ysgrifennu arno. Yn wir, ar o leiaf saith achlysur, mae San Steffan wedi gorfodi deddfwriaeth ar Gymru heb ei chydsyniad. O dan y cytundeb Llafur-Torïaidd ar y Bil ymadael, ceir diffiniad newydd o 'gydsyniad'. Defnyddir dadleuon semantaidd gan Weinidogion i ddadlau bod y diwygiad hwn i'r Bil yn cyfateb i ofyniad am gydsyniad i San Steffan ddeddfu mewn meysydd datganoledig. Mewn gwirionedd, mae'r gwelliant yn dweud yn benodol os caiff cynnig yn gwrthod cydsyniad ei basio yn y Cynulliad hwn, gall y Senedd barhau i osod ei deddfwriaeth. A all y Cwnsler Cyffredinol roi enghraifft arall imi yn y ddeddfwriaeth lle mae 'na' yn golygu 'ie'?

Would you recognise that the shellfish industry is also a very important part of our fishing industry, that some 97 per cent of shellfish from the Menai strait is exported to the European Union and that they are very frightened about the possible effects of World Trade Organization tariffs of maybe 40 per cent on their exports?

A fyddech yn cydnabod bod y diwydiant pysgod cregyn hefyd yn rhan bwysig iawn o'n diwydiant pysgota; fod oddeutu 97 y cant o bysgod cregyn o'r Fenai yn cael eu hallforio i'r Undeb Ewropeaidd a'u bod yn ofnus iawn ynglŷn ag effeithiau posibl tariffau Sefydliad Masnach y Byd o 40 y cant, o bosibl, ar eu hallforion?

Thank you. You and your party colleagues and ourselves, have been very critical of the Welsh Government when it comes to condensing the scrutiny period for the single-use plastics Bill. You were quite rightly vocal that we weren't given enough time; we were only given three, four, five, six weeks to scrutinise that piece of legislation. Why is it therefore that you're happy with no scrutiny at all on this particular piece of legislation and just a matter of hours to read it?

Diolch. Rydych chi a'ch cyd-Aelodau yn eich plaid a ninnau, wedi bod yn feirniadol iawn o Lywodraeth Cymru ynglŷn â lleihau'r cyfnod craffu ar gyfer y Bil plastigion untro. Roeddech chi'n cwyno, yn gwbl briodol, nad oeddem wedi cael digon o amser; dim ond tair, pedair, pum, chwe wythnos a roddwyd i ni i graffu ar y ddeddfwriaeth honno. Pam felly eich bod chi'n hapus na chraffwyd o gwbl ar y ddeddfwriaeth benodol hon ac na chafwyd ond ychydig oriau i'w darllen?

Okay. Rhun, some of the things you wanted to ask have already been answered, but - .

Ocê. Rhun, mae rhai o'r pethau rwyt ti'n gofyn wedi cael eu gofyn eisoes, ond - .