English: I'm broadly in sympathy with what the First Minister wants to see achieved at the end of the day, but I do think that this is making a mountain out of a molehill. I find it quite extraordinary that the leader of Plaid Cymru should be talking about the powers of this Assembly being constrained or reduced. The powers that we are talking about here we don't currently enjoy, and there was no complaint whatsoever from Plaid Cymru or most of the Labour Party, the SNP, and certainly not the Liberals, when powers that used to reside in the popularly elected United Kingdom Parliament were sent to Brussels to be decided upon by unelected commissioners, over whose power there is very little democratic control at all. So, what Brexit for me is all about, and has always been about, is actually the recovery of democratic control over technocratic decisions that are taken by people whom you very often can't even name, let alone elect or dismiss. So, we should embrace this as a reinvigoration of parliaments, this one included. And, yes, I strongly agree with the First Minister that all the powers that currently reside within our devolved areas, but currently reside in Brussels, should come to the Welsh Government and to this Assembly. I've said that many times here, and he'll have my strong support for ensuring that that does happen. But there is, of course, in other parties, explicitly Plaid Cymru and the Liberals, and, indeed, the SNP as well, a policy of wanting to reverse the entire Brexit process. And to create a new weapon whereby this could be frustrated, despite the outcome of the referendum in June last year, is, for me, completely unacceptable. Although I don't think that Theresa May has handled relations with the devolved administrations in a very sensible way, and I agree with the First Minister that there has been too much of a dictatorial attitude and not enough attempt to engage and persuade, I don't think that it's worth paying the price that we might have to pay if we were to engage in a kind of trench warfare in Parliament over the process by means of which we recover powers that currently we don't have. So, I don't see this is in any way an assault upon the devolution process. In the statement, the First Minister referred to the exclusion of the charter of fundamental rights. I well remember, in the year 2000, when this was being discussed, the Blair Government at the time said that it would veto any attempt to legislate for that, and Keith Vaz, of course, very famously said it had no more legal power than a copy of the 'Beano'. And yet, now, this is being elevated to something of supreme importance. And, yes, I understand why Members say that things like employment rights are vitally important, but, at the end of the day, if we believe in democracy, we have to accept that parliaments ought to have the right to do things that we don't like. We may not think they're very sensible to do so, but, ultimately, the test is: can you get the people at the ballot box to support you in your policies? It's not, I think, for judges or civil servants, or, indeed, corpuses of law, to remove from the people their power to decide what legislative changes should or should not take place, and I believe that the attempt, described by the leader of Plaid Cymru a moment ago, to try to mark out areas of law that can never be changed, because they become fundamental, is quite contrary to the entire democratic process. So, I'd say to the First Minister that, yes, I do sympathise with him in what he has said. I think he's quite right, actually, on the objective, but I am very wary about the means whereby he seeks to obtain that objective, and so we will look very carefully at these amendments before we decide whether we'll support them or not.
Welsh: Rydw i, yn fras, yn cydymdeimlo â'r hyn y mae'r Prif Weinidog yn dymuno'i gyflawni yn y pen draw, ond credaf fod hyn yn gwneud môr a mynydd o bethau. Mae'n eithaf rhyfeddol fod arweinydd Plaid Cymru yn sôn am gyfyngu ar bwerau'r Cynulliad hwn neu eu lleihau. Nid oes gennym y pwerau yr ydym yn sôn amdanyn nhw yma, ar hyn o bryd, ac nid oedd unrhyw gŵyn o du Plaid Cymru na'r rhan fwyaf o'r Blaid Lafur, yr SNP, ac yn sicr nid y Rhyddfrydwyr, pan anfonwyd y pwerau a oedd yn arfer bod gan Senedd y Deyrnas Unedig etholedig boblogaidd i Frwsel i'w penderfynu gan gomisiynwyr anetholedig, ac nad oes fawr ddim rheolaeth ddemocrataidd ganddyn nhw o gwbl ar eu pŵer. Felly, mewn gwirionedd, i mi mae Brexit yn ymwneud, ac erioed wedi ymwneud, ag adfer rheolaeth ddemocrataidd dros benderfyniadau technocrataidd a gaiff eu gwneud gan bobl na allwch chi hyd yn oed eu henwi, yn aml, heb sôn am eu hethol neu eu gwrthod. Felly, dylem groesawu hyn fel adfywiad seneddol, gan gynnwys hon. Ac, ydw, rwy'n cytuno'n gryf â'r Prif Weinidog y dylai'r holl bwerau yn y meysydd datganoledig sydd gennym ar hyn o bryd, ond y mae'r pwerau ym Mrwsel ar hyn o bryd, ddod i Lywodraeth Cymru ac i'r Cynulliad hwn. Rwyf wedi dweud hynny lawer tro yma, a bydd ganddo fy nghefnogaeth gref i sicrhau bod hynny'n digwydd. Ond, wrth gwrs, mewn pleidiau eraill, yn benodol Plaid Cymru a'r Rhyddfrydwyr, ac, yn wir, yr SNP hefyd, gwelir polisi o awydd i wrthdroi'r broses Brexit gyfan. Ac mae creu arf newydd i allu rhwystro hyn, er gwaethaf canlyniad y refferendwm fis Mehefin y llynedd, i mi, yn gwbl annerbyniol. Er nad wyf yn credu bod Theresa May wedi trafod cysylltiadau â'r gweinyddiaethau datganoledig mewn ffordd synhwyrol iawn, ac rwy'n cytuno â'r Prif Weinidog y bu gormod o agwedd unbenaethol heb ymdrech ddigonol i ymgysylltu a dwyn perswâd, nid wyf yn credu ei bod yn werth talu'r pris y gallai fod yn rhaid i ni ei dalu os ydym yn cychwyn math o ryfel ffosydd yn y Senedd ynglŷn â'r broses i adennill pwerau nad oes gennym ar hyn o bryd. Felly, nid wyf yn ystyried bod hyn yn ymosodiad ar y broses ddatganoli mewn unrhyw ffordd. Yn y datganiad, cyfeiriodd y Prif Weinidog at hepgor siarter hawliau sylfaenol. Cofiaf yn dda, yn y flwyddyn 2000, pan drafodwyd hyn, dywedodd Llywodraeth Blair ar y pryd y byddai'n rhoi feto ar unrhyw ymgais i ddeddfu ar gyfer hynny. Ac wrth gwrs, dywedodd Keith Vaz, yn gofiadwy iawn, nad oedd ganddo ddim mwy o bŵer cyfreithiol na chopi o'r 'Beano'. Ac eto, erbyn hyn, mae hyn yn cael ei ddyrchafu yn rhywbeth o bwys mawr. Ac, ydw, rwy'n deall pam mae'r Aelodau'n dweud bod pethau fel hawliau cyflogaeth yn hanfodol bwysig, ond, ar ddiwedd y dydd, os ydym ni'n credu mewn democratiaeth, mae'n rhaid i ni dderbyn y dylai fod gan seneddau yr hawl i wneud pethau nad ydym ni'n eu hoffi. Efallai na fyddwn yn credu eu bod yn synhwyrol iawn yn gwneud hynny, ond, yn y pen draw, y prawf yw: a allwch chi gael y bobl i gefnogi eich polisïau ger y blwch pleidleisio? Yn fy marn i, ni ddylai barnwyr neu weision sifil, neu, yn wir, gyrff cyfreithiol, dynnu pŵer oddi ar y bobl i benderfynu pa newidiadau deddfwriaethol y dylid neu na ddylid eu rhoi ar waith, ac rwyf i'n credu bod yr ymgais, a ddisgrifiwyd gan arweinydd Plaid Cymru foment yn ôl, i geisio nodi meysydd y gyfraith na ellir byth eu newid, oherwydd eu bod yn mynd yn rhai sylfaenol, yn groes i'r broses ddemocrataidd gyfan. Felly, dywedaf wrth y Prif Weinidog, ydw, rwy'n cydymdeimlo ag ef yn yr hyn a ddywedodd. Rwy'n credu ei fod yn hollol gywir, mewn gwirionedd, o ran ei amcan, ond rwy'n hynod bryderus ynghylch y modd y mae'n ceisio cyflawni'r amcan hwnnw, ac felly byddwn ni'n edrych yn ofalus iawn ar y gwelliannau hyn cyn i ni benderfynu a fyddwn ni'n eu cefnogi ai peidio.