English: I thank the leader of the opposition for his contribution. He starts by saying that the people of Wales would rather us be talking about education and the health service, and yet, I notice that when he had the opportunity to ask me questions, he chose not to deal with either of those matters. Indeed, I cannot help but notice that in the weeks that have now gone by since the election, he's not chosen once to ask me a question about the global pandemic in which Wales is still gripped. So, we all make choices, and the leader of the opposition makes his. I don't agree with him in his general suggestion that we shouldn't be focused on constitutional matters. We have no choice but to be focused on them. We're dealing with them every day. When I meet, as I do every week, with Michael Gove and the leaders of the other Parliaments in the UK, I see absolutely close up the stresses and strains that there are in Northern Ireland, and the impact that the Northern Ireland protocol is having on relations between the Government there and the Government in the United Kingdom. The Scottish Government was elected on a platform of another referendum on Scottish independence. If that happens, it will happen during this Senedd term. How can we not grapple with those issues here if we are not serious about them? I'm sure the leader of the opposition is serious about his commitment to the continuation of the United Kingdom. The point I'm trying to make this afternoon is that we won't be able to make that case if we don't spend some time now thinking about what that case should be. We have to persuade people in every part of the United Kingdom that it is in their best interests to remain part of the United Kingdom. We won't do that without having the arguments that convince them of that, and that's what our document is designed to do. It's designed to show that there is a different way of organising the United Kingdom, which I think would add up to a compelling case for its continuation. You don't make that case by taking decisions away from the Senedd that was elected to make them. If the Member can't think of any, let me just give him these three. The UK Government decided to take away from us the powers that we have to design a compensation scheme for fishers here in Wales. That's been devolved to us since the very beginning of devolution, and yet, in the post-Brexit era, instead of us being able to design a system that would fit Wales, and then using the funding to implement that scheme, the UK Government decided that it will make the scheme for Wales, and it avoided any scrutiny here in the Senedd by doing so. The UK Government regularly threatens - the Secretary of State was at it again only last week - to impose a free port on Wales without the agreement of the Welsh Government. And just to be clear, the Welsh Government has always said we will be prepared to agree a free port on the terms that we set out in our letter of February of last year, a letter to which we have never received a reply. And here's a third example for him: the overriding of the expressed view of this Senedd when it comes to the Sewel convention - not just now in relation to major matters of state. While I don't agree with the UK Government's use of the Sewel convention, I could at least understand why it felt it needed to do that in those circumstances. But during our election, we had an example where a most routine matter, where this Senedd ought to have been able to be asked for its consent - because it was convenient to a UK Government, they just went ahead and did it anyway without that ever coming to Members here as the constitutional settlement required. That is a casual level of disrespect for the devolution settlement, which has got into the way of thinking of the current UK Government. It's bad for devolution, it's bad for the United Kingdom. There is a better way. It's set out in our document, not because we have all the answers, but because we believe in a serious debate. I was heartened by some of the things that the leader of the opposition said about his commitment to that serious debate. I didn't make the remarks that he repeated several times in his questions, because every statement a Government Minister makes says 'check against delivery' at the end of it. The Member was checking, and yet he didn't think that he would follow what I had said rather than a document that I didn't follow. I didn't do it for some of the reasons that he himself outlined. Let's hope that, across the Chamber, we are able to go on having these absolutely necessary discussions - those of us who believe that there is a case for the United Kingdom that's there to be made but can only be made on the basis of a different sort of future, a future that regards our collective interests as a voluntary association - I'm quoting Mrs May, his previous Conservative Prime Minister - of nations, where we stay together because we know that the case for doing so is compelling.
Welsh: Rwy'n diolch i arweinydd yr wrthblaid am ei gyfraniad ef. Dechreuodd drwy ddweud y byddai'n well gan bobl Cymru inni siarad am addysg a'r gwasanaeth iechyd, ac eto i gyd, rwy'n nodi, pan gafodd ef gyfle i ofyn cwestiynau i mi, ei fod ef wedi dewis peidio ag ymdrin â'r naill fater na'r llall. Yn wir, ni allaf i ond nodi, yn ystod yr wythnosau sydd wedi mynd heibio ers yr etholiad erbyn hyn, nad yw wedi dewis gofyn cwestiwn imi am y pandemig byd-eang sy'n parhau i ddal ei afael ar Gymru. Felly, gwneud dewisiadau yr ydym ni i gyd, ac mae arweinydd yr wrthblaid yn gwneud ei ddewisiadau yntau. Nid wyf i'n cytuno ag ef o ran ei awgrym cyffredinol na ddylem ni ganolbwyntio cymaint ar faterion cyfansoddiadol. Nid oes gennym ni ddewis ond canolbwyntio arnyn nhw. Rydym ni'n ymdrin â nhw bob dydd. Pan fyddaf i'n cyfarfod, fel y gwnaf i'n wythnosol, â Michael Gove ac arweinwyr y Seneddau eraill yn y DU, rwy'n gweld gyda mwy o fanylder pa mor fawr yw'r straen sydd ar Ogledd Iwerddon, a'r effaith y mae protocol Gogledd Iwerddon yn ei chael ar y berthynas rhwng y Llywodraeth yno a'r Llywodraeth yn y Deyrnas Unedig. Fe etholwyd Llywodraeth yr Alban ar gynsail refferendwm arall ar annibyniaeth i'r Alban. Pe byddai hynny'n digwydd, fe fyddai'n digwydd yn ystod tymor y Senedd hon. Sut allem ni beidio â mynd i'r afael â'r materion hynny yn y fan hon os ydym ni o ddifrif yn eu cylch nhw? Rwy'n siŵr bod arweinydd yr wrthblaid o ddifrif yn ei ymrwymiad ef i barhad y Deyrnas Unedig. Y pwynt yr wyf i'n ceisio ei wneud y prynhawn yma yw na fyddwn ni'n gallu cyflwyno'r achos hwnnw os na threuliwn ni rywfaint o amser nawr yn ystyried sylwedd yr achos hwnnw. Fe fydd yn rhaid inni berswadio pobl ym mhob rhan o'r Deyrnas Unedig ei bod er eu lles nhw i barhau i fod yn perthyn i'r Deyrnas Unedig. Ni fyddwn ni'n gwneud hynny heb gynnal y dadleuon i'w hargyhoeddi nhw o hynny, ac i'r diben hwnnw y cynlluniwyd ein dogfen ni. Fe'i cynlluniwyd i ddangos bod yna ffordd arall o drefnu'r Deyrnas Unedig a fyddai, yn fy marn i, yn meithrin achos cymhellol dros ei pharhad hi. Ni fyddwch chi'n meithrin yr achos hwnnw drwy ddwyn penderfyniadau oddi ar y Senedd a etholwyd i'w gwneud nhw. Os na all yr Aelod feddwl am un, gadewch imi roi'r tri hyn iddo. Fe benderfynodd Llywodraeth y DU ein dihysbyddu ni o'r pwerau sydd gennym i lunio cynllun iawndal ar gyfer pysgotwyr yma yng Nghymru. Cafodd hynny ei ddatganoli inni ers dechrau datganoli, ac eto, yn ystod y cyfnod ar ôl Brexit, yn hytrach na'n bod yn gallu cynllunio system a fyddai'n addas i Gymru, ac yna'n defnyddio cyllid i weithredu'r cynllun hwnnw, fe benderfynodd Llywodraeth y DU mai hi sy'n llunio'r cynllun i Gymru, ac roedd hynny'n osgoi unrhyw graffu yma yn y Senedd drwy weithredu felly. Mae Llywodraeth y DU yn aml yn bygwth - roedd yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol yn gwneud hynny dim ond yr wythnos diwethaf - gorfodi porthladd rhydd ar Gymru heb unrhyw gytundeb gan Lywodraeth Cymru. Ac i fod yn glir, mae Llywodraeth Cymru bob amser wedi dweud y byddwn ni'n barod i gytuno ar borthladd rhydd ar y telerau a nodir gennym ni yn ein llythyr dyddiedig fis Chwefror y llynedd, llythyr na chafwyd ateb iddo byth. A dyma'r drydedd enghraifft iddo: anwybyddu barn ddiamwys y Senedd hon o ran confensiwn Sewel - nid dim ond nawr o ran materion gwladol pwysig. Er nad wyf i'n cytuno â defnydd Llywodraeth y DU o gonfensiwn Sewel, gallaf o leiaf ddeall pam mae'n teimlo bod angen iddi wneud felly yn yr amgylchiadau hynny. Ond yn ystod ein hetholiad ni yma, fe welsom enghraifft o fater arferol iawn, pryd y dylid bod wedi gofyn i'r Senedd hon am ei chydsyniad - gan fod hynny'n gyfleus i Lywodraeth y DU fe aeth ati a gweithredu beth bynnag, heb i hynny gael ei roi gerbron yr Aelodau yn y fan hon fel sy'n ofynnol yn y setliad cyfansoddiadol. Dyna ddiffyg parch i'r setliad datganoli heb falio dim, sydd wedi mynd yn nodwedd o feddylfryd Llywodraeth bresennol y DU. Mae hyn yn difrodi datganoli, mae'n difrodi'r Deyrnas Unedig. Mae yna well ffordd na honno. Mae ein dogfen ni'n ei nodi, nid am fod yr holl atebion gennym eisoes, ond am ein bod ni'n credu mewn dadl sy'n ddifrifol. Fe gefais fy nghalonogi gan rai o'r pethau a ddywedodd arweinydd yr wrthblaid am ei ymrwymiad ef i'r ddadl ddifrifol honno. Ni fynegais i'r sylwadau a ailadroddodd ef sawl gwaith yn ei gwestiynau, oherwydd mae pob datganiad y mae Gweinidog yn y Llywodraeth yn ei wneud yn nodi 'gwiriwch yn ôl y traddodi' ar ei ddiwedd. Roedd yr Aelod yn gwirio, ac eto i gyd nid oedd wedi ystyried y byddai'n dilyn yr hyn a ddywedais yn hytrach na dogfen nad oeddwn i wedi ei defnyddio. Fe benderfynais i ymatal rhag defnyddio'r ymadrodd hwnnw am rai o'r rhesymau a amlinellodd ef ei hun. Gadewch inni obeithio, ar draws y Siambr, y gallwn ni barhau i gael y trafodaethau hollol angenrheidiol hyn - y rhai ohonom ni sy'n credu bod achos i'w ddadlau o blaid y Deyrnas Unedig ond ni ellir gwneud hynny heb ei fod ar sail dyfodol amgen i ni, dyfodol sy'n ystyried ein buddiannau cyfunol ni mewn cymdeithas wirfoddol o genhedloedd - rwy'n dyfynnu Mrs May, ei Brif Weinidog Ceidwadol blaenorol ef - lle'r ydym ni'n aros gyda'n gilydd gan ein bod ni'n gwybod fod yr achos dros wneud hynny mor rymus.