English: Diolch, Llywydd. I'll do my best. Can I say to the Cabinet Secretary that the disagreement here, I think, is not around the work that he has undertaken or the hard work that he and his officials have done? It's between those of us who do not have the touching faith that he has exhibited today in the UK constitution to deliver for Wales, and who want to take a much more critical and much more robust line on protection of this Parliament's powers. If I may say, he over-relies on an inter-governmental agreement to deliver equity for this Parliament, and I think that's where I have a fundamental disagreement with what he has set out today. As I don't have much time, can I just urge him to listen and revise the very pertinent questions put to him by both Mick Antoniw and David Rees, who have gone to the heart of some of the questions I would have wanted to rehearse with him as to the weaknesses in such an inter-governmental agreement delivering on a parliamentary side? In effect, though we have a reference to the Assembly in these agreements and in the memorandum, ultimately, Westminster, after 40 days - not in the wilderness, but after 40 days - can take action in these 24, plus 12 other fields that have yet to be agreed on. So, that could increase by 50 per cent. And if I can also just make the point that we are talking about eight years, not seven years - this agreement comes in on leave date plus two years, plus five years. That's eight years. So, all of us who have an interest in being Government in Wales have to realise that we are selling away our ability to take action in these 24 fields for eight long years. Now, there are practical ways that the Cabinet Secretary set out as to why that won't happen, because England's frozen as well, but I don't see much progress in England, thank you very much. And when we're talking about the devolution of agricultural support policy, for example, I don't want us to wait eight years for England to decide what they want to do; I want us to take action from day one. We are stopped from doing that in this regard. If I conclude with two particular questions, first of all, he talks about this agreement having the ability to move on. He says it's a significant step in terms of working co-operatively. Yet the agreement only sets out what he has in the past described as little better than St Fagans parish council. What actually in this agreement sets out that co-operative working? He hasn't got the joint council of Ministers that he wanted to have, working in the way he wanted. There's no independent arbitration. There's no way of referring things to an alternative dispute mechanism. If you compare this agreement with the fiscal framework that he agreed and which Plaid Cymru, by the way, fully supported, you see those elements there, and you don't see them in this agreement. That's the first weakness, in practical terms, that will happen here. He describes the final decision of Parliament here as a 'backstop'. I would describe it as a veto. When we look at the agreement that has the exercise of this veto, it is peppered with the term 'normal'. It's been raised several times, but you have not yet replied to this: what does 'normal' mean in these circumstances? It's clear from the agreement that - . We've talked about clause 11 here, but it's also clear from the agreement that it's now allowed for the UK Government to use clauses 7, 8 and 9 to interfere directly in the other areas that already are devolved - not the 24 that are being returned, but the ones that come here. The UK Parliament can still reach in and scoop out our powers in those areas - again but will not normally do so. What does 'normal' mean? I put it to him that politics has changed the meaning of 'normal' in politics over the last two years in a very fundamental way.
Welsh: Diolch, Lywydd. Fe wnaf fy ngorau. A gaf fi ddweud wrth Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet nad yw'r anghytundeb yma yn ymwneud â'r gwaith a gyflawnodd na'r gwaith caled y mae ef a'i swyddogion wedi'i wneud? Mae'n anghytundeb rhwng y rhai ohonom nad oes gennym y ffydd y mae wedi ei arddangos heddiw yng nghyfansoddiad y DU i gyflawni dros Gymru, y rhai ohonom sy'n awyddus i ddilyn safbwynt llawer mwy beirniadol a llawer mwy cadarn ar amddiffyn pwerau'r Senedd hon. Os caf ddweud, mae'n gorddibynnu ar gytundeb rhynglywodraethol i sicrhau tegwch ar gyfer y Senedd hon, ac rwy'n credu mai dyna ble rwy'n anghytuno'n sylfaenol â'r hyn y mae wedi'i nodi heddiw. Gan nad oes gennyf lawer o amser, a gaf fi ei annog i wrando ac adolygu'r cwestiynau perthnasol iawn a roddwyd iddo gan Mick Antoniw a David Rees, sydd wedi mynd at wraidd rhai o'r cwestiynau y buaswn wedi dymuno eu gofyn iddo ynghylch y gwendidau mewn cytundeb rhynglywodraethol o'r fath yn cyflawni ar ochr seneddol? Mewn gwirionedd, er bod gennym gyfeiriad at y Cynulliad yn y cytundebau hyn ac yn y memorandwm, yn y pen draw, gall San Steffan, ar ôl 40 diwrnod - nid yn yr anialwch, ond ar ôl 40 diwrnod - weithredu yn y 24 maes, ynghyd â 12 maes arall sydd eto i'w cytuno. Felly, gallai hynny gynyddu 50 y cant. Ac os caf wneud y pwynt hefyd ein bod yn sôn am wyth mlynedd, nid saith mlynedd - daw'r cytundeb hwn yn weithredol ar y diwrnod ymadael a dwy flynedd, a phum mlynedd wedyn. Dyna wyth mlynedd. Felly, mae'n rhaid i bob un ohonom sydd â diddordeb mewn bod yn Llywodraeth yng Nghymru sylweddoli ein bod yn gwerthu ein gallu i weithredu yn y 24 maes am wyth mlynedd hir. Nawr, ceir ffyrdd ymarferol y mae Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet wedi'u nodi pam na fydd hynny'n digwydd, oherwydd bod Lloegr wedi'i rhewi yn ogystal, ond nid wyf yn gweld llawer o gynnydd yn Lloegr, diolch yn fawr iawn. A phan siaradwn am ddatganoli polisi cymorth amaethyddol, er enghraifft, nid wyf eisiau inni aros wyth mlynedd i Loegr benderfynu beth y maent am ei wneud; rwyf am inni weithredu o'r diwrnod cyntaf un. Cawn ein hatal rhag gwneud hynny yn y cyswllt hwn. Os caf ddod i ben gyda dau gwestiwn penodol, yn gyntaf oll, mae'n sôn bod y cytundeb hwn yn meddu ar y gallu i symud ymlaen. Dywed ei fod yn gam sylweddol o ran cydweithio. Eto nid yw'r cytundeb ond yn nodi'r hyn y mae ef yn y gorffennol wedi'i ddisgrifio fel rhywbeth sydd ond ychydig yn well na chyngor plwyf Sain Ffagan. Beth yn y cytundeb hwn sy'n sefydlu'r gweithio cydweithredol hwnnw mewn gwirionedd? Nid oes ganddo'r cyd-gyngor Gweinidogion yr oedd am ei gael, yn gweithio yn y ffordd yr oedd ei eisiau. Nid oes unrhyw gyflafareddu annibynnol. Nid oes unrhyw ffordd o gyfeirio pethau at fecanwaith anghydfod amgen. Os cymharwch y cytundeb hwn â'r fframwaith cyllidol a gytunwyd ganddo ac a gefnogwyd yn llawn gan Blaid Cymru, gyda llaw, fe welwch yr elfennau hynny yno, ac nid ydych yn eu gweld yn y cytundeb hwn. Dyna'r gwendid cyntaf, yn ymarferol, a fydd yn digwydd yma. Mae'n disgrifio penderfyniad terfynol y Senedd yma fel 'ôl-stop'. Buaswn yn ei ddisgrifio fel feto. Pan edrychwn ar y cytundeb sy'n cynnwys arfer y feto hwn, mae'r term 'fel arfer' yn frith drwyddo. Mae wedi'i godi sawl gwaith, ond nid ydych wedi ateb hyn eto: beth yw ystyr 'fel arfer' yn yr amgylchiadau hyn? Mae'n amlwg o'r cytundeb - . Rydym wedi siarad am gymal 11 yma, ond mae hefyd yn amlwg o'r cytundeb y caniateir i Lywodraeth y DU ddefnyddio cymalau 7, 8 a 9 bellach i ymyrryd yn uniongyrchol mewn meysydd eraill sydd eisoes wedi'u datganoli - nid y 24 sy'n cael eu dychwelyd, ond y rhai sy'n dod yma. Gall Senedd y DU ddal i estyn i mewn a bachu ein pwerau yn y meysydd hynny - ond na fydd fel arfer yn gwneud hynny unwaith eto. Beth y mae 'fel arfer' yn ei olygu? Rwy'n dweud wrtho fod gwleidyddiaeth wedi newid ystyr 'fel arfer' mewn gwleidyddiaeth dros y ddwy flynedd ddiwethaf mewn ffordd sylfaenol iawn.