English: Can I, first of all, welcome your statement and the detail with which you've answered the various points that have been raised? It is right, as you will expect, that we adopt a cautious approach until we actually know the full details, until we've actually seen the amendments themselves and where they actually fit within the legislation. That is our role as a legislature: to scrutinise that, to also look at the interaction of all those sections. And, I have to say, having read through the papers on a number of occasions, the interrelationship between them is extremely complex; it's almost going back to the resurrection of dialectical material as I'm trying to work out precisely what the arrangements are. But I do recognise also, as you've said, that there will be a full debate and decision in this Chamber, in the sense that there will be a legislative consent motion. Can I also recognise that, in many ways, it has been a testimony to your input and the Welsh Government's input that, at times, the statesmanship from Wales has almost been the only part that has actually created a certain degree of sanity and kept these negotiations and discussions in movement? I think it's very, very important that that is recognised. There are a number of questions I want to ask, but I will make one comment on the point that you made about the section about consent not being unreasonably withheld. It seems to me that that's a bit of a tautology in the sense that any decision that might be taken in this place to not give consent could in no way ever be unreasonable, because, as a Parliament, we take decisions on behalf of the people and as such those decisions clearly cannot be unreasonable in the constitutional sense. So, I'm not quite sure what that phrase means, and I would like you to comment a little bit, in due course, on whether you think this would eventually lead now to a proper consideration of the inter-parliamentary arrangements and the actual JMC structure, because much of what you've mentioned about the framework arrangements and discussions continuing are absolutely dependent on that procedure actually being reformed, and the make-or-break, in some ways, of that actually working is going to be dependent on those changes taking place. It's clear that the issue of consent is not in the strict sense a red line, and one of the areas that I will want to explore and consider very carefully is the way in which consent or agreement is achieved, but also the particular implications this agreement will have, for example, for the Trade Bill, because the trades agreements that could be achieved - you'll be aware of the concerns that have previously been expressed - could undermine frameworks. They could have a significant impact on frameworks, potentially overriding frameworks, and it is absolutely fundamental that the legislation that is pursuant to the withdrawal Bill also reflects the principles of agreement - if they are approved and if an LCM is eventually granted to those - or the whole arrangement, the whole agreement, could actually fall apart or be overridden. I'd just like a view on the reference in the memorandum - clause 11 regulations - because there is in there, of course, the 40-day arrangement, whereby action won't be taken for a 40-day period. But, of course, we have a slightly different constitutional arrangement to Scotland because, in terms of secondary legislation here, there is a requirement for legislative consent that doesn't exist within Scotland. I wonder if you could clarify how that might actually operate, because my reading of it seemed to imply that, after the 40-day period, the UK Government could proceed, and that would seem to be a lesser position than we have at the moment in terms of legislative consent. Now, I may be misinterpreting that, but I'd be grateful for some clarification on that. The only final thing is, in respect of the ongoing discussions that are taking place, particularly with regard to Scotland, I welcome what you say in terms of the ongoing nature of this agreement being available and so on, but were there to be an agreement with Scotland that offered a position that actually was what we could see as better than what we have at the moment, is it the case that there'll be no question of anything other that arose that we thought was preferential that we would not be able to take advantage of as well? Other than that, what I'll say is that I do look forward to your attending the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, because the scrutiny side of this is really the key, and that's why I think it is so absolutely important that we don't come to premature judgments of what has been agreed and what its full implications are.
Welsh: A gaf fi, yn gyntaf oll, groesawu eich datganiad a'ch manylder wrth ateb y pwyntiau amrywiol a godwyd? Mae'n iawn, fel y byddwch yn disgwyl, ein bod yn mabwysiadu ymagwedd ofalus hyd nes y byddwn yn gwybod y manylion llawn, hyd nes ein bod wedi gweld y gwelliannau eu hunain mewn gwirionedd a lle maent yn ffitio o fewn y ddeddfwriaeth. Dyna ein rôl fel deddfwrfa: craffu ar hynny, ac edrych hefyd ar y berthynas rhwng yr holl adrannau. Ac mae'n rhaid imi ddweud, ar ôl darllen drwy'r papurau ar nifer o achlysuron, mae'r gydberthynas rhyngddynt yn gymhleth iawn; mae bron fel dychwelyd at atgyfodi deunydd dilechdidol wrth imi geisio darganfod yn union beth yw'r trefniadau. Ond rwy'n cydnabod hefyd, fel rydych wedi dweud, y bydd dadl lawn a phenderfyniad yn y Siambr hon, yn yr ystyr y bydd yna gynnig cydsyniad deddfwriaethol. A gaf fi hefyd gydnabod, mewn sawl ffordd, ei fod wedi bod yn dyst i'ch mewnbwn a mewnbwn Llywodraeth Cymru, ar adegau, mai'r doethineb gwleidyddol o Gymru a oedd yr unig ran, bron, a greodd rywfaint o gallineb ac a gadwodd y negodiadau a'r trafodaethau hyn i symud? Credaf ei bod yn bwysig iawn inni gydnabod hynny. Rwyf am ofyn nifer o gwestiynau, ond rwyf am wneud un sylw ar y pwynt a wnaethoch am yr adran ar beidio â chadw cydsyniad yn ôl yn afresymol. Mae'n ymddangos i mi'n dawtolegol braidd yn yr ystyr na allai unrhyw benderfyniad y gellid ei wneud yn y lle hwn i beidio â rhoi cydsyniad fod mewn unrhyw ffordd yn afresymol, oherwydd, fel Senedd, rydym yn gwneud ein penderfyniadau ar ran y bobl ac fel y cyfryw mae'n amlwg na all y penderfyniadau hynny fod yn afresymol yn yr ystyr gyfansoddiadol. Felly, nid wyf yn hollol siŵr beth yw ystyr yr ymadrodd hwnnw, a hoffwn i chi ddweud ychydig bach, maes o law, ynglŷn ag a ydych yn credu y bydd hyn yn y pen draw yn arwain at ystyriaeth briodol o'r trefniadau rhyngseneddol a strwythur y Cyd-bwyllgor Gweinidogion ei hun, oherwydd mae llawer o'r hyn a ddywedoch am drefniadau fframwaith a thrafodaethau'n parhau yn gwbl ddibynnol ar ddiwygio'r weithdrefn honno mewn gwirionedd, ac mae i ba raddau y gall hynny weithio yn mynd i fod yn ddibynnol mewn rhai ffyrdd ar weld y newidiadau hynny'n digwydd. Mae'n amlwg nad yw mater cydsyniad yn yr ystyr gaeth yn llinell goch, ac un o'r meysydd y byddaf am eu harchwilio a'u hystyried yn ofalus iawn yw'r modd y sicrheir cydsyniad neu gytundeb, ond hefyd, goblygiadau penodol y cytundeb hwn i'r Bil Masnach, er enghraifft, oherwydd gallai'r cytundebau masnach y gellid eu cyflawni - fe fyddwch yn ymwybodol o'r pryderon a fynegwyd yn flaenorol - danseilio fframweithiau. Gallent effeithio'n sylweddol ar fframweithiau, ac anwybyddu fframweithiau o bosibl, ac mae'n gwbl hanfodol fod y ddeddfwriaeth sy'n unol â'r Bil ymadael hefyd yn adlewyrchu egwyddorion y cytundeb - os cânt eu cymeradwyo, ac os caiff memorandwm cydsyniad deddfwriaethol ei roi i'r rheini yn y pen draw - neu gallai'r trefniant cyfan, y cytundeb cyfan, chwalu mewn gwirionedd, neu gael ei anwybyddu. Hoffwn glywed barn ar y cyfeiriad yn y memorandwm - rheoliadau cymal 11 - oherwydd mae'r trefniant 40 diwrnod i mewn yno, wrth gwrs, lle na fydd gweithredu'n digwydd am gyfnod o 40 diwrnod. Ond wrth gwrs, mae gennym drefniant cyfansoddiadol ychydig yn wahanol i'r Alban oherwydd, ar gyfer is-ddeddfwriaeth yma, mae gofyn cael cydsyniad deddfwriaethol nad yw'n bodoli yn yr Alban. Tybed a allwch egluro sut y y byddai'n gweithredu mewn gwirionedd, oherwydd yn ôl yr hyn rwy'n ei ddeall ohono roedd fel pe bai'n awgrymu, ar ôl y cyfnod o 40 diwrnod, y gallai Llywodraeth y DU fwrw ymlaen, a byddai hynny'n ymddangos yn sefyllfa waeth nag sydd gennym ar hyn o bryd mewn perthynas â chydsyniad deddfwriaethol. Nawr, efallai fy mod yn ei gamddehongli, ond hoffwn eglurhad ar hynny. Yr unig beth olaf yw hyn: mewn perthynas â'r trafodaethau sydd ar y gweill, yn enwedig mewn perthynas â'r Alban, rwy'n croesawu'r hyn a ddywedwch ynghylch natur barhaus y cytundeb hwn ac ati, ond pe ceid cytundeb gyda'r Alban a fyddai'n cynnig sefyllfa y gallem weld ei bod yn well na'r hyn sydd gennym ar hyn o bryd, a yw'n wir na fydd unrhyw gwestiwn y byddem yn gallu manteisio hefyd ar unrhyw beth arall a fyddai'n codi y byddem yn ei ystyried yn well? Heblaw hynny, fe ddywedaf fy mod yn edrych ymlaen at eich gweld yn mynychu'r Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol a Deddfwriaethol, oherwydd yr ochr graffu i hyn sy'n allweddol mewn gwirionedd, a dyna pam rwy'n meddwl ei bod hi'n hollbwysig nad ydym yn ffurfio barn yn rhy gynnar ynglŷn â'r hyn a gytunwyd a beth yw ei oblygiadau llawn.