English: I thank the Member for the questions. Can I first start by actually saying what were the two key points that were the subject of our detailed submission to the Supreme Court? Why did we actually intervene? One was the fundamental importance of this major constitutional change taking place in Parliament, guaranteeing parliamentary sovereignty not being taken by use of a royal prerogative. We need to understand what that royal prerogative is. The royal prerogative is those powers that kings and queens used to have to basically do whatever they wanted, until, effectively, Parliament and development of parliamentary democracy put constraints on it and we started to develop our democratic system. So, it was fundamental that any change that took place to the legislative status, the devolved status, of Wales and the other devolved administrations had to be within the auspices of Parliament and parliamentary democracy. That's why it was fundamental that that issue was before the court. And the Supreme Court regarded this as fundamentally important as well. This is the most important constitutional decision for over 300 years. That is why every single lord justice was actually present, and the actual outcome, the 8:3, is an endorsement of the strength of that argument. Had any football team won 8-3, I think we would say that is a magnanimous victory, and I think this was a magnanimous victory - a victory for democracy and parliamentary sovereignty. Where does Sewel come in? Our argument on Sewel is that we have never argued for a veto. It was never part of our case, and I've said that in this Chamber on a number of occasions. The importance of Sewel is that Sewel is a parliamentary process, and Sewel could not kick in, could not become effective, unless these key decisions were being taken under the auspices of Parliament and parliamentary sovereignty. So, it was the matter of our fundamental democracy that if we were to have a voice in these fundamental issues, we had to succeed with this decision, and I'm delighted that we have succeeded. On the issue of what happens to those powers that are in Brussels at the moment, well, it is very clear to me that that will become the subject of a further piece of legislation in due course, which will also require the engagement of Sewel, which will almost certainly require the engagement of this Assembly and a vote in this Assembly, and, as has been said on numerous occasions, those areas that come within the devolved areas of responsibility clearly should come to this Assembly - to the Welsh Government and to the Welsh Assembly. With regard to the cost, could I say I have every sympathy with what the Member says about cost? I didn't want to be in the Supreme Court. I don't think many of us wanted to be there, with all the costs that were incurred, but I have to say that reason we were there -
Welsh: Diolch i'r Aelod am y cwestiynau. A gaf i ddechrau yn gyntaf drwy ddweud mewn gwirionedd beth oedd y ddau bwynt allweddol a oedd yn destun ein cyflwyniad manwl i'r Goruchaf Lys? Pam wnaethom ni ymyrryd mewn gwirionedd? Un pwynt oedd pwysigrwydd sylfaenol y newid cyfansoddiadol mawr hwn sy'n digwydd yn y Senedd, gan warantu nad yw sofraniaeth seneddol yn cael ei chymryd gan ddefnyddio uchelfraint frenhinol. Mae angen i ni ddeall beth yw'r uchelfraint frenhinol honno. Yr uchelfraint frenhinol yw'r pwerau hynny oedd yn arfer bod gan frenhinoedd a breninesau yn y bôn i wneud beth bynnag yr oeddent yn ei ddymuno, hyd nes, yn effeithiol, i Senedd a datblygiad democratiaeth seneddol roi cyfyngiadau arni ac y dechreuwyd datblygu ein system ddemocrataidd. Felly, roedd yn hanfodol bod yn rhaid i unrhyw newid a ddigwyddodd i statws deddfwriaethol, statws datganoledig, Cymru a'r gweinyddiaethau datganoledig eraill fod o fewn nawdd y Senedd a democratiaeth seneddol. Dyna pam roedd yn hanfodol bod y mater hwnnw gerbron y llys. Ac roedd y Goruchaf Lys yn ystyried hyn yn sylfaenol bwysig hefyd. Dyma'r penderfyniad cyfansoddiadol pwysicaf am dros 300 o flynyddoedd. Dyna pam roedd pob un arglwydd cyfiawnder mewn gwirionedd yn bresennol, ac mae'r canlyniad gwirioneddol, yr 8:3, yn ardystiad o gryfder y ddadl honno. Pe byddai unrhyw dîm pêl-droed wedi ennill 8-3, rwy'n meddwl y byddem yn dweud bod honno'n fuddugoliaeth fawrfrydig, ac rwy'n credu bod hon yn fuddugoliaeth fawrfrydig - buddugoliaeth i ddemocratiaeth a sofraniaeth seneddol. Ble mae Sewel yn dod i mewn? Ein dadl ar Sewel yw nad ydym erioed wedi dadlau am feto. Ni fu erioed yn rhan o'n hachos ni, ac rydw i wedi dweud hynny yn y Siambr hon ar sawl achlysur. Pwysigrwydd Sewel yw bod Sewel yn broses seneddol, ac ni allai Sewel ddechrau, ni allai fod yn effeithiol, oni bai bod y penderfyniadau allweddol hyn yn cael eu cymryd dan nawdd y Senedd a sofraniaeth seneddol. Felly, roedd yn fater o ddemocratiaeth sylfaenol os oeddem yn mynd i gael llais yn y materion sylfaenol hyn, ac roedd yn rhaid i ni lwyddo gyda'r penderfyniad hwn, ac rwyf wrth fy modd ein bod wedi llwyddo. O ran beth sy'n digwydd i'r pwerau hynny sydd ym Mrwsel ar hyn o bryd, wel, mae'n amlwg iawn i mi y bydd hynny'n dod yn destun darn arall o ddeddfwriaeth maes o law. Bydd hefyd yn gofyn am ymgysylltiad Sewel, a fydd bron yn sicr yn gofyn am ymgysylltiad y Cynulliad hwn a phleidlais yn y Cynulliad hwn, ac, fel y dywedwyd droeon, dylai'r meysydd hynny sy'n dod o fewn meysydd cyfrifoldeb datganoledig clir ddod i'r Cynulliad hwn - i Lywodraeth Cymru ac i Gynulliad Cymru. O ran y gost, a gaf i ddweud bod gennyf pob cydymdeimlad â'r hyn y mae'r Aelod yn ei ddweud am y gost? Doeddwn i ddim eisiau bod yn y Goruchaf Lys. Dwi ddim yn meddwl fod llawer ohonom eisiau bod yno, gyda'r holl gostau a dalwyd, ond rhaid i mi ddweud mai'r rheswm yr oeddem ni yno -