English: Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, let me begin by just saying something on the points that Steffan Lewis started with. Because what seemed to me to be a basic mistake in the way that the UK Government went about this part of the negotiations was: instead of describing their paper as a starting point, something for further discussion, a way into some quite complex areas, they insisted on describing it from the beginning as some incredibly generous offer that people were bound to flock to want to sign up to. It inevitably ended, as Steffan Lewis said, in just disappointing people, having had their expectations raised. It's an utterly curious start for the UK Government not to refer even to the EU paper that had been published in advance of theirs in the document that they published, again offending people with whom you need to be able to come to a sensible agreement. So, my reading of the paper is that it was a sensible enough start, and had it been pitched in that way, and described in that way, I think it would have been easier to get engagement around it. It leaves, as Steffan Lewis said, a series of ambiguities about the status of EU citizens. Will they be able to support dependent parents? What rules will future spouses apply under, for example? And the issue of the cut-off date is fundamental here. I really do think that those UK politicians that I hear arguing that a cut-off date in the future would result in a mass influx of people to the United Kingdom trying to establish settled status - that is so far from the contemporary realities of migration, where what we have seen is actually a collapse in the number of people coming to the United Kingdom. When I spoke to the CBI last week, what their members wanted to say to me was how difficult they are now finding it to recruit people that they need to work in their businesses. So, the dangers of a cut-off date are much exaggerated at the UK level, and that ought to be resolved too. Did we publish a position paper? Well, as the Member knows, we didn't, but I can tell him that that did not mean for a moment that we were unable to unambiguously put our point of view to the UK Government on this matter. We're told by the UK Government that this will not be part of the repeal Bill mechanism, but will be part of a separate Bill, and there will be things that we will want to say, and want to say publicly, in advance of any such Bill being published. Steffan Lewis's final point is, in some ways, the most depressing, isn't it? If this was the easiest part, if this was an issue on which everybody agreed we needed to get rapid agreement on, then the failure to be able to make rapid progress in the way that we feel was eminently possible is a pretty bleak signal of the difficulties that lie ahead when far more tricky territory has to be negotiated.
Welsh: Wel, Dirprwy Lywydd, gadewch i mi ddechrau drwy ddweud rhywbeth am bwyntiau cychwynnol Steffan Lewis. Oherwydd mae'n ymddangos i mi mai camgymeriad sylfaenol yn y ffordd y mae Llywodraeth y DU wedi ymgymryd â'r rhan hon o'r trafodaethau oedd ei bod, yn hytrach na disgrifio eu papur fel man cychwyn, rhywbeth i'w drafod ymhellach, ffordd o ddynesu at feysydd go gymhleth, wedi mynnu ei ddisgrifio o'r dechrau fel rhyw fath o gynnig hynod o hael yr oedd pobl yn siŵr o heidio i ymrwymo iddo. Yn anochel, yn y pen draw, fel y dywedodd Steffan Lewis, siomi pobl yn unig a wnaeth ar ôl i'w disgwyliadau gael eu codi. Mae'n ddechrau hollol ryfedd i Lywodraeth y DU beidio â chyfeirio hyd yn oed yn y ddogfen a gyhoeddwyd ganddynt at bapur yr UE a gyhoeddwyd cyn eu papur hwy, gan dramgwyddo, unwaith eto, y bobl y mae'n rhaid i chi allu dod i gytundeb synhwyrol â hwy. Felly, fy nehongliad i o'r papur hwn yw ei fod yn ddechrau digon synhwyrol, a phe bai wedi cael ei gyflwyno yn y ffordd honno, a'i ddisgrifio yn y ffordd honno, credaf y byddai wedi bod yn haws sicrhau ymrwymiad iddo. Fel y dywedodd Steffan Lewis, mae'n gadael cyfres o amwyseddau ynglŷn â statws dinasyddion yr UE. A fyddant yn gallu cefnogi rhieni dibynnol? O dan ba reolau y dylai darpar briod wneud cais, er enghraifft? Ac mae mater y terfyn amser yn hollbwysig yma. Rwy'n credu'n wirioneddol fod gwleidyddion y DU sy'n dadlau y byddai terfyn amser yn y dyfodol yn arwain at fewnlif torfol o bobl i'r Deyrnas Unedig i geisio sicrhau statws preswylwyr sefydlog - mae hynny mor bell o realiti cyfoes ymfudo, lle rydym wedi gweld cwymp mewn gwirionedd yn nifer y bobl a ddaw i'r Deyrnas Unedig. Pan siaradais â Chydffederasiwn Diwydiant Prydain yr wythnos diwethaf, roedd eu haelodau'n awyddus i ddweud wrthyf pa mor anodd bellach yw recriwtio'r bobl sydd eu hangen arnynt i weithio yn eu busnesau. Felly, mae peryglon terfyn amser yn cael eu gorliwio'n fawr ar lefel y DU, a dylid mynd i'r afael â hynny hefyd. A wnaethom gyhoeddi papur sefyllfa? Wel, fel y gŵyr yr Aelod, ni wnaethom hynny, ond gallaf ddweud wrtho nad oedd hynny'n golygu am funud na fu modd i ni roi ein barn yn ddiamwys i Lywodraeth y DU ar y mater hwn. Dywedodd Llywodraeth y DU wrthym na fydd hyn yn rhan o fecanwaith y Bil diddymu, ond y bydd yn rhan o Fil ar wahân, a bydd yna bethau y byddwn yn awyddus i'w dweud, ac yn awyddus i'w dweud yn gyhoeddus, cyn i unrhyw Fil o'r fath gael ei gyhoeddi. Pwynt olaf Steffan Lewis, mewn rhai ffyrdd, yw'r un mwyaf digalon, onid e? Os mai hon oedd y rhan hawsaf, os oedd hwn yn fater roedd pawb yn cytuno bod angen inni gael cytundeb cyflym yn ei gylch, yna mae'r methiant i allu gwneud cynnydd cyflym yn y ffordd y teimlwn y byddai wedi bod yn hollol bosibl i ni ei wneud yn arwydd go ddigalon o'r anawsterau sydd o'n blaenau pan fydd angen trafod pethau llawer mwy cymhleth.