English: Can I thank all Members and Chairs of the committees for their comments, and can I just echo that I do not disagree with the concerns that have been raised in terms of the issue of scrutiny? I think it is one of the unfortunate parts of the way legislation has been coming from Westminster and the speed at which we have to deal with issues, amendments and changes, and to have to almost tortuously negotiate through Sewel to get to a final conclusion. You'll notice, on this legislation, effectively, were it not for two items there, there wouldn't be a need for a legislative consent motion at all on this. We brought the consent motion specifically to reiterate the competence issues that we have - not the disagreements on the policy aspect, but the fact that we believe there are competence matters, and we will incorporate those within future legislation. Can I also say that, of course, one of the problems, as you'll have noticed from the various dates that have been mentioned, is that the negotiations have been ongoing. The timescale was impacted by a reshuffle and then certain personal circumstances et cetera that delayed the inter-ministerial meetings. And, in fact, it went right up to the wire in terms of those last two items in terms of negotiations and changes. But I do recognise that, and there's a fundamental issue there that I think is more an inter-governmental one in terms of the proper legislative process that is there. In terms of the points that were made by Rhys, we're not consenting to the Bill. Our requirement under our Standing Orders is to deal with those points that relate to our devolved competence, and the only bits we are agreeing to are, in fact, those particular items that have been identified there. And as I've already said, the majority of the proposed Bill has been actually carved out - Wales has been carved out of that. Can I agree with his analysis on that? Can I also just confirm to Alun that, yes, we do need to - ? By carving out the arrangements in respect of the Electoral Commission with regard to the Welsh aspect, I think that has been really significant. And it, of course, does concern me about what remains within the UK Bill, but that is not within our competence. And of course the issue of electoral reform is one that I've already commented on in my statement. And can I just reiterate the point that was particularly made by Alun - and it would be churlish of me, wouldn't it, to mention that, if you'd had your way on the 2017 Act, we would not now be in a position to actually have carved out this legislation because it would have applied automatically? And I think that there was prescience in the Government's position back at that time, that we recognised the importance of having that constitutional control over our electoral system. And I think some credit should be given to the Welsh Government for that particular decision at that particular time. Diolch, Llywydd.
Welsh: A gaf i ddiolch i holl Aelodau a Chadeiryddion y pwyllgorau am eu sylwadau, ac a gaf i ategu nad wyf yn anghytuno â'r pryderon a godwyd o ran craffu? Rwy'n credu ei fod yn un o'r rhannau anffodus o'r ffordd y mae deddfwriaeth wedi bod yn dod o San Steffan a pha mor gyflym y mae'n rhaid i ni fynd i'r afael â materion, gwelliannau a newidiadau, a gorfod mynd ar daith droellog bron drwy Sewel i ddod i gasgliad terfynol. Byddwch yn sylwi, ar y ddeddfwriaeth hon, i bob pwrpas, oni bai am ddwy eitem yno, ni fyddai angen cynnig cydsyniad deddfwriaethol o gwbl ar hyn. Daethom â'r cynnig cydsyniad yn benodol i bwysleisio'r materion cymhwysedd a gawn - nid yr anghytuno ar yr agwedd bolisi, ond y ffaith ein bod yn credu bod materion cymhwysedd, a byddwn yn ymgorffori'r rheini mewn deddfwriaeth yn y dyfodol. A gaf i ddweud hefyd, wrth gwrs, mai un o'r problemau, fel y byddwch chi wedi sylwi o'r gwahanol ddyddiadau sydd wedi'u crybwyll, yw bod y trafodaethau wedi bod yn mynd rhagddynt. Effeithiwyd ar yr amserlen gan ad-drefnu ac yna rhai amgylchiadau personol ac yn y blaen a ohiriodd y cyfarfodydd rhyng-weinidogol. Ac, mewn gwirionedd, aeth i'r eiliad olaf o ran y ddwy eitem ddiwethaf hynny o ran trafodaethau a newidiadau. Ond rwy'n cydnabod hynny, ac mae mater sylfaenol yno sydd, yn fy marn i, yn fwy o un rhynglywodraethol o ran y broses ddeddfwriaethol briodol sydd yno. O ran y pwyntiau a wnaethpwyd gan Rhys, nid ydym yn cydsynio i'r Bil. Ein gofyniad o dan ein Rheolau Sefydlog yw ymdrin â'r pwyntiau hynny sy'n ymwneud â'n cymhwysedd datganoledig, a'r unig ddarnau yr ydym yn cytuno iddynt, mewn gwirionedd, yw'r eitemau penodol hynny sydd wedi'u nodi yno. Ac fel yr wyf eisoes wedi ei ddweud, mae'r rhan fwyaf o'r Bil arfaethedig wedi'i dynnu allan mewn gwirionedd - mae Cymru wedi'i thynnu allan o hwnnw. A gaf i gytuno â'i ddadansoddiad ar hynny? A gaf i hefyd gadarnhau wrth Alun, bod angen i ni - ? Drwy dynnu allan y trefniadau o ran y Comisiwn Etholiadol o ran yr agwedd ar Gymru, rwy'n credu bod hynny wedi bod yn arwyddocaol iawn. Ac mae'n peri pryder i mi, wrth gwrs, am yr hyn sy'n aros o fewn Bil y DU, ond nid yw hynny o fewn ein cymhwysedd. Ac wrth gwrs, mae diwygio etholiadol yn fater yr wyf eisoes wedi gwneud sylwadau arno yn fy natganiad. Ac a gaf i ailadrodd y pwynt a wnaethpwyd yn arbennig gan Alun - a byddai'n anfoesgar i mi, oni fyddai, i sôn, pe baech wedi cael eich ffordd ar Ddeddf 2017, na fyddem yn awr mewn sefyllfa i dynnu allan y ddeddfwriaeth hon oherwydd y byddai wedi gwneud cais yn awtomatig? Ac rwy'n credu bod y llywodraeth yn y sefyllfa yn ôl bryd hynny, ein bod yn cydnabod pwysigrwydd cael y rheolaeth gyfansoddiadol honno dros ein system etholiadol. Ac rwy'n credu y dylid rhoi rhywfaint o glod i Lywodraeth Cymru am y penderfyniad penodol hwnnw ar yr adeg benodol honno. Diolch, Llywydd.