English: Thank you for the question, and part of it I certainly agree with. The legislation that we passed - the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017 - of course went through all the correct processes in this Chamber. And of course, once legislation is passed here, it has to be endorsed, or there is a time period within which the UK Government can challenge its competence. Now, the UK Government, we had a letter from the Solicitor General at that time, which basically said the UK Government did not intend to challenge the competence of it. So, the UK Government was clearly accepting that when that legislation was passed, it was within our competence. I do not think it is appropriate at all then, when there have been further constitutional changes when the Government of Wales Act 2017 came into force, to somehow see that that is a mandate to actually trawl through and to overturn democratically passed legislation that has had the endorsement and consent of Her Majesty the Queen. Now, at the moment, the regulations that are proposed to be tabled imminently by the UK Government with regard to agency workers do not overturn our legislation and cannot overturn it. The supremacy of our primary legislation is beyond that. What has happened is that there has been an indication that they would want to do that to ensure that the legislation in England is the same as in Wales. Well, if that happens, then the Welsh Government would firmly resist any attempt to do so. To bring forward primary legislation in this way, without giving us any notification that that was the intention - and we've dealt with the disrespect part of it - you would need to actually show there was some purpose to that primary legislation and all the costs that were involved. In fact, there is no evidential base whatsoever that would justify overturning that legislation. In fact, all the evidential information that we do have is that it would actually damage social partnership; it would undermine good relations and the social partnership policy that we have, and, therefore, would serve no purpose whatsoever. I do welcome the comments that were made earlier. This is a matter that, I think, perhaps when taken out of the political arena, when wiser heads think about it, they would come to the view that this really serves no purpose whatsoever. It would achieve absolutely nothing; in fact, it would probably be damaging, and I really do wonder whether it is a matter that the UK Government really would want to proceed with.
Welsh: Diolch am y cwestiwn, ac rwy'n sicr yn cytuno â rhan ohono. Wrth gwrs, fe aeth y ddeddfwriaeth a basiwyd gennym - Deddf yr Undebau Llafur (Cymru) 2017 - drwy'r holl brosesau cywir yn y Siambr hon. Ac wrth gwrs, ar ôl i ddeddfwriaeth gael ei phasio yma, rhaid ei chymeradwyo, neu fe fydd cyfnod o amser lle y gall Llywodraeth y DU herio ei chymhwysedd. Nawr, Llywodraeth y DU, cawsom lythyr gan y Cyfreithiwr Cyffredinol bryd hynny, a ddywedai yn y bôn nad oedd Llywodraeth y DU yn bwriadu herio ei chymhwysedd. Felly, roedd Llywodraeth y DU yn amlwg yn derbyn, pan basiwyd y ddeddfwriaeth honno, ei bod o fewn ein cymhwysedd. Ni chredaf ei bod yn briodol o gwbl felly, pan fo newidiadau cyfansoddiadol pellach wedi bod pan ddaeth Deddf Llywodraeth Cymru 2017 i rym, i weld rywsut fod hynny'n fandad i edrych ar ac i wrthdroi deddfwriaeth a basiwyd yn ddemocrataidd ac sydd wedi cael cymeradwyaeth a chydsyniad Ei Mawrhydi y Frenhines. Nawr, ar hyn o bryd, nid yw'r rheoliadau y bwriedir eu cyflwyno'n fuan iawn gan Lywodraeth y DU mewn perthynas â gweithwyr asiantaeth yn gwrthdroi ein deddfwriaeth ac ni allant ei gwrthdroi. Mae goruchafiaeth ein deddfwriaeth sylfaenol y tu hwnt i hynny. Mae yna arwydd eu bod am wneud hynny i sicrhau bod y ddeddfwriaeth yn Lloegr yr un fath ag yng Nghymru. Wel, os yw hynny'n digwydd, byddai Llywodraeth Cymru yn gwrthwynebu'n gadarn unrhyw ymgais i wneud hynny. Er mwyn cyflwyno deddfwriaeth sylfaenol fel hyn, heb roi unrhyw hysbysiad inni mai dyna oedd y bwriad - ac rydym wedi ymdrin â'r rhan ohono sy'n ymwneud ag amarch - byddai angen ichi ddangos fod rhyw ddiben i'r ddeddfwriaeth sylfaenol honno a'r holl gostau a oedd yn gysylltiedig. Mewn gwirionedd, nid oes sail dystiolaethol o gwbl a fyddai'n cyfiawnhau gwrthdroi'r ddeddfwriaeth honno. Mewn gwirionedd, mae'r holl wybodaeth dystiolaethol sydd gennym yn nodi y byddai'n niweidio partneriaeth gymdeithasol; byddai'n tanseilio cysylltiadau da a'r polisi partneriaeth gymdeithasol sydd gennym, ac felly, ni fyddai'n cyflawni unrhyw ddiben o gwbl. Rwy'n croesawu'r sylwadau a wnaed yn gynharach. Mae hwn yn fater, o'i dynnu allan o'r arena wleidyddol, a phan fydd pennau doethach yn ei ystyried, y byddent efallai'n dod i'r casgliad nad yw'n ateb unrhyw ddiben o gwbl. Ni fyddai'n cyflawni dim o gwbl; mewn gwirionedd, byddai'n niweidiol yn ôl pob tebyg, ac rwy'n meddwl tybed o ddifrif a yw'n fater y byddai Llywodraeth y DU yn awyddus i fwrw ymlaen ag ef.