techiaith/cofnodycynulliad_en-cy huggingface dataset:
English: Thank you for that response, and following on from that, to speak more generally about this issue, could you just tell us about the risks that are associated with entering into these inter-governmental agreements, given that they're not legally binding? There's no legal basis for these agreements. They're agreements on the relationship between governments, so there are risks associated with that, and how would the Welsh Government's future proposals address those risks?
Welsh: Diolch am yr ateb yna. Ac ar ben hynny, gaf i siarad yn fwy cyffredinol, a dweud y gwir, wrth gwrs? Allwch chi jest olrhain y risgiau sy'n gysylltiedig efo llunio'r cytundebau rhynglywodraethol yma, o ystyried nad ydyn nhw wedi ei rhwymo'n gyfreithiol? Does yna ddim sylfaen gyfreithiol i hyn - cytundebau perthynas, efallai, rhynglywodraethol - felly mae yna risgiau ynghlwm â hynny, yn naturiol, a sut fyddai cynigion Llywodraeth Cymru yn y dyfodol, efallai, yn mynd i'r afael efo'r risgiau yna?
English: Well, first of all, if I could just agree with what Dr Lloyd said. Of course, the risks in any agreement are that they are not set out in legislation, and any side could withdraw from the agreement. Of course, the Welsh Government would also have that right of withdrawal, so both sides would have that right. Any body that signed up to an agreement can withdraw, of course. But the risk is that people do that and that the agreement then lapses. But at the moment, that hasn't happened, and there will be costs for any Government who work in that way. There will be a political price to pay and there will be reputational risk, too. So, of course, we are aware of the positives and the negatives of working in this way, but at the moment we believe that the experiences that we've had demonstrate that there is more to be gained from working in that way than is to be lost. In future, if there is a case for having such agreements, then we will draw from our experience, and not just these experiences, but the broader experiences.
Welsh: Wel, i ddechrau, jest i gytuno â beth roedd Dr Lloyd wedi'i ddweud. Wrth gwrs, y risgiau sydd yna mewn cytundeb yw dydyn nhw ddim mewn Deddf, ac mae unrhyw ochr yn gallu tynnu mas o'r cytundeb. Wrth gwrs, yr hawl i dynnu mas yw'r hawl sydd gan Llywodraeth Cymru hefyd, so mae yna ar bob ochr. Mae unrhyw gorff sydd wedi llofnodi y cytundeb, maen nhw yn gallu tynnu mas. Ond y risg yw bod pobl yn ei wneud e ac yna nid yw'r cytundeb yn parhau. Ar hyn o bryd, dydy hynny ddim wedi digwydd, a bydd costau i unrhyw Lywodraeth sydd yn gwneud pethau yn y ffordd yna - costau gwleidyddol, costau i'r reputational risk, ac yn y blaen. So, wrth gwrs, rydym ni'n ymwybodol o'r pethau positif a negatif yn y ffordd o'i wneud e fel hyn, ond ar hyn o bryd rydym ni'n meddwl bod y profiadau rydym ni wedi eu cael yn dangos bod mwy i'w gael mas o'i wneud e yn y ffordd yna nag sydd i'w golli. Yn y dyfodol, os bydd achos i gael cytundebau fel hyn, rydym ni'n mynd i dynnu o'r hanes sydd gennym ni, ond nid jest hanes fel hyn ond hanes ehangach hefyd.
English: Thank you for that. Now the Counsel General and Brexit Minister told us that the use of inter-governmental agreements doesn't impact the devolution settlement. So, how would you respond to concerns that they add an additional tier of governance to the devolution settlement?
Welsh: Diolch am hynna. Nawr, dywedodd y Cwnsler Cyffredinol a'r Gweinidog Brexit wrthym ni nad yw'r defnydd o gytundebau rhynglywodraethol yn effeithio ar y setliad datganoli. Sut fyddech chi'n ymateb felly i bryderon eu bod nhw'n ychwanegu haen lywodraethu arall i'r setliad datganoli?
English: I accept that point as well and, of course, the Counsel General made the same point and, to expand, he also said that inter-governmental agreements should not be subject to consent by the Assembly, as you've just said. However, when Governments can't agree on the content of provisions in UK Bills that would be subject to Assembly consent, why is it then appropriate to use inter-governmental agreements in their place that then won't be subject to Assembly consent?
Welsh: Rwy'n derbyn y pwynt yna hefyd ac, wrth gwrs, mi wnaeth y Cwnsler Cyffredinol yr un un pwynt ac, i ehangu, mae o hefyd wedi dweud na ddylai cytundebau rhynglywodraethol fod yn amodol ar gydsyniad y Cynulliad, fel rydych chi newydd ddweud. Fodd bynnag, pan na all Llywodraethau gytuno ar gynnwys darpariaethau ym Miliau'r Deyrnas Unedig a fyddai'n amodol ar gydsyniad y Cynulliad yma, pam ei bod hi'n briodol i ddefnyddio'r cytundebau rhynglywodraethol yn eu lle na fyddant wedyn yn amodol ar gydsyniad y Cynulliad?
English: Thank you. You've answered the final question, so we'll move on.
Welsh: Diolch yn fawr. Rydych chi wedi ateb y cwestiwn olaf, felly mi wnawn ni symud ymlaen.
English: You've finished, have you?
Welsh: Ti wedi dod i ben nawr, do fe?
English: Yes. Again, technical issues with regard to the withdrawal agreement Bill. How much scope do the Welsh Ministers have to make regulations that implement the separation agreements in ways that are unique and tailored to Wales? How much scope do the Welsh Ministers have to make those regulations that implement the separation agreements in ways that are unique to Wales?
Welsh: Ie. Eto, materion technegol yn ymwneud â'r Bil cytundeb ymadael yma. Faint o le sydd gan Weinidogion Cymru i wneud rheoliadau sy'n gweithredu'r cytundebau gwahanu mewn ffyrdd sy'n unigryw ac wedi'u teilwra i Gymru? Faint o sgôp sydd gan Weinidogion Cymru i wneud rheoliadau sy'n gweithredu'r cytundebau gwahanu yma mewn ffyrdd unigryw i Gymru?
English: Well, we do have powers under the Bill. The Bill before the Commons now isn't the Bill that we had agreed over a period of years. But, just to say that there were more opportunities for us to be part of the development of the Bill than we had expected following the first experience in 2018. So, there are many examples within the Bill where we have reached agreement with the Government in Westminster to provide us with powers to do things in ways that are appropriate to Wales. Now, I could ask Rob or Chris if they could provide some detailed examples for us, but I just wanted to put that on the record. Around a year ago, the JMC (EN), at each meeting, would have a report on the development of the Bill, and there would be opportunities for us and for Scotland to tell them where we wanted powers in order to do things in a way that would be appropriate and unique to us.
Welsh: Wel, mae pwerau gyda ni o dan y Bil. Dydy'r Bil sydd o flaen Tŷ'r Cyffredin nawr ddim y Bil roedden ni wedi'i drefnu dros y blynyddoedd. Ond, jest i ddweud, roedd mwy o gyfleon inni fod yn rhan o ddatblygiadau'r Bil nag roedden ni'n eu disgwyl ar ôl profiad yr un cyntaf yn 2018. Felly, mae nifer o enghreifftiau yn y Bil lle dŷn ni wedi cytuno gyda'r Llywodraeth yn San Steffan gyda'r Llywodraeth yn San Steffan i roi pwerau inni i wneud pethau mewn ffordd sy'n addas i Gymru. Gallaf i ofyn i Rob neu Chris os ydyn nhw'n gallu rhoi manylion enghreifftiau inni. Ond jest i gydnabod, yn ôl amboutu blwyddyn yn ôl, roedd y JMC (EN) yn cael, ym mhob cyfarfod, adroddiad ar ddatblygiadau'r Bil ac roedd cyfleon inni, a'r Alban hefyd, i ddweud lle roedden ni eisiau cael pwerau i wneud pethau mewn ffordd sy'n addas ac unigryw inni.
English: Great, because there are just a few other questions to press you a bit further on that. Following on from that question, what changes might have to be made to the Government of Wales Act 2006 as a result of implementing the separation agreements?
Welsh: Grêt, achos mae yna ambell i gwestiwn jest i'ch pwyso chi'n fanylach ar hynna. Allaf jest, ar gefn hynna, ofyn pa newidiadau y gallai fod yn rhaid eu gwneud i Ddeddf Llywodraeth Cymru 2006 o ganlyniad i weithredu'r cytundebau gwahanu yma?
English: We, Chair, don't believe that there will be any need for changes to the 2006 Act because of what's contained within the Bill before the Commons at the moment.
Welsh: Dŷn ni ddim yn meddwl, Cadeirydd, fod unrhyw le lle bydd yn rhaid inni newid Deddf 2006 o achos y pethau sydd yn y Bil o flaen Tŷ'r Cyffredin ar hyn o bryd.
English: Right. And moving on to a different point, but also a related point, as with the EU withdrawal Act 2018, the Bill includes broad regulation-making powers that can be exercised in devolved areas by the Welsh Ministers and UK Ministers. So, does the First Minister therefore envisage that, as happened under the EU withdrawal Act 2018, UK Ministers will make the majority of regulations under the Bill on behalf of the Welsh Ministers?
Welsh: Reit. Ac yn symud ymlaen i bwynt gwahanol, ond eto tebyg, yn debyg i Ddeddf ymadael â'r Undeb Ewropeaidd 2018, mae'r Bil yn cynnwys pwerau llunio rheoliadau eang y gellir eu harfer mewn meysydd datganoledig gan Weinidogion Cymru a Gweinidogion y Deyrnas Unedig. Ydy'r Prif Weinidog, felly, yn rhagweld, fel y digwyddodd o dan Ddeddf ymadael â'r Undeb Ewropeaidd 2018, y bydd Gweinidogion y Deyrnas Unedig yn gwneud y mwyafrif o reoliadau o dan y Bil ar ran Gwenidogion Cymru?
English: Well, Chair, I think it's important to bear the context in mind here in terms of the 2018 Act, and that was drawn up with a timetable where we had expected to leave the European Union in March 2019. So, there was huge pressure on the timetable, and that is why we had to rely on powers held by UK Ministers to do things on our behalf.
Welsh: Wel, Cadeirydd, dwi'n meddwl ei bod yn bwysig jest i gofio cyd-destun Deddf 2018, ac roedd honno'n cael ei chreu gydag amserlen lle roedden ni i lawr i ymadael â'r Undeb Ewropeaidd ym mis Mawrth 2019. So, roedd lot o bwysau ar yr amserlen, a dyna pam roedd yn rhaid inni ddibynnu ar bwerau Gweinidogion y Deyrnas Unedig i wneud pethau ar ein rhan ni.
English: Thank you for that. And the final question from me. There is always a very important principle in this committee, and it follows on from the discussion we've just had with regard to SICMs, the statutory instrument consent memorandums. And we understand the argument, of course, but the argument with regard to work pressures and so on is not meant to be part of a justification for why things can't be done. So, can the Welsh Government commit to tabling motions for statutory instrument consent memorandums, these SICMs, each time the UK Government uses its powers under the Bill to amend primary legislation in devolved areas, so that the Assembly here can formally consent? Because what tends to happen is that we don't know about them until they've just been passed, or ordinary Members are expected to table a SICM, which I would argue is an unsatisfactory situation.
Welsh: Diolch am hynna. A'r cwestiwn olaf wrthyf fi. Wrth gwrs, mae yna bwynt egwyddorol pwysig gyda ni yn y pwyllgor yma yn wastadol, sydd yn dilyn o'r drafodaeth yna ynglŷn â SICMs neu MCOSys yn Gymraeg, rwy'n credu. Wedyn, dŷn ni'n deall y ddadl, wrth gwrs, ond dydy'r ddadl ynglŷn â phwysau gwaith ac ati ddim i fod yn rhan o'r rheswm pam mae pethau ddim yn gallu cael eu gwneud. Felly, all Llywodraeth Cymru ymrwymo i gyflwyno cynigion ar gyfer y memoranda cydsynio offeryn statudol - SICMs - bob tro y mae Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig yn defnyddio ei phŵer o dan y Bil i ddiwygio deddfwriaeth sylfaenol mewn meysydd datganoledig fel y gall y Cynulliad yma gydsynio yn ffurfiol? Achos beth sy'n tueddu i ddigwydd ydy dŷn ni ddim yn gwybod am y rhain nes eu bod nhw un ai wedi cael eu pasio neu mae disgwyl i Aelodau cyffredin gyflwyno SICM gerbron, sydd, buaswn i'n fodlon dadlau, yn sefyllfa anfoddhaol.
English: Welcome everybody, and welcome to the sitting of the Plenary.
Welsh: Croeso pawb, a chroeso i eisteddiad y cyfarfod llawn.
English: The first item on our agenda is questions to the First Minister this afternoon, and question 1 is Joyce Watson.
Welsh: Yr eitem gyntaf ar ein hagenda yw cwestiynau i'r Prif Weinidog y prynhawn yma, a daw cwestiwn 1 gan Joyce Watson.
English: I thank the Member for that question, Dirprwy Lywydd. Last week, Welsh Ministers wrote to the Home Secretary supporting the retention of family reunion rights for refugee children. I regret the UK Government's decision to abandon its previous commitments in this area, and urge the House of Lords to support amendments that protect the rights of vulnerable children to a family life.
Welsh: Diolchaf i'r Aelod am y cwestiwn yna, Dirprwy Lywydd. Yr wythnos diwethaf, ysgrifennodd Gweinidogion Cymru at yr Ysgrifennydd Cartref yn cefnogi cadw hawliau aduniad teuluol ar gyfer plant sy'n ffoaduriaid. Rwy'n gresynu at benderfyniad Llywodraeth y DU i gefnu ar ei hymrwymiadau blaenorol yn y maes hwn, a phwysaf ar Dŷ'r Arglwyddi i gefnogi gwelliannau sy'n diogelu hawliau plant agored i niwed i gael bywyd teuluol.
English: I thank you for that answer, First Minister. But, by dropping from the EU withdrawal Bill proposals to protect child refugees, Boris Johnson's Government has clearly set out its stall. So, my question is: how can we in Wales distance ourselves from a UK Government that would abandon the most vulnerable children and betray Britain's proud humanitarian tradition? The Bill is now at the Committee Stage in the Lords this week and next week. So, will you, and will Welsh Government, lobby the Lords to restore the Dubs amendment, which would guarantee the right of unaccompanied child refugees to be reunited with their family members living in the UK after Brexit?
Welsh: Diolchaf i chi am yr ateb yna, Prif Weinidog. Ond, trwy hepgor cynigion i amddiffyn plant sy'n ffoaduriaid o gynigion Bil ymadael yr UE, mae Llywodraeth Boris Johnson wedi nodi ei safbwynt yn eglur. Felly, fy nghwestiwn i yw: sut gallwn ni yng Nghymru ymbellhau ein hunain o Lywodraeth y DU a fyddai'n cefnu ar y plant mwyaf agored i niwed ac yn bradychu traddodiad dyngarol balch Prydain? Mae'r Bil bellach ar y Cam Pwyllgor yn Nhŷ'r Arglwyddi yr wythnos hon a'r wythnos nesaf. Felly, a wnewch chi, ac a wnaiff Llywodraeth Cymru, lobïo'r Arglwyddi i adfer gwelliant Dubs, a fyddai'n sicrhau hawl ffoaduriaid sy'n blant ar eu pennau eu hunain i gael eu haduno ag aelodau o'u teulu sy'n byw yn y DU ar ôl Brexit?
English: I thank Joyce Watson for that supplementary question, Llywydd. The Welsh Government welcomed the inclusion in the withdrawal Act of 2018 section 17, which was the result of cross-party action on the floor of the House of Commons, which provided a legally binding commitment to negotiate the continuation of the current Dublin III arrangements. That was deleted last week in the EU withdrawal Bill, and it is absolutely right that the Welsh Government work with others to see that commitment restored. Last week, in the House of Lords, my colleagues the Deputy Minister for equalities and the Counsel General were, on two separate days, talking with peers who are interested to support amendments that we have drafted, and there will be amendments in the House of Lords to protect these most vulnerable children. The Welsh Government believe that the previous arrangements did not go far enough. At the very minimum, we need to secure the continuation of those protections that have been there in the past that the previous Conservative Government was prepared to see put on the face of the 2018 Act. Yesterday, in the House of Lords, Dirprwy Lywydd, Lord Callaghan said that the policy position of the UK Government remained unchanged. In that case, why did they amend the Bill? Why did they take away a commitment that they had already made? They ought to replace it, and they ought to give security to some of the most vulnerable children we see in this country.
Welsh: Hoffwn ddiolch i Joyce Watson am y cwestiwn atodol yna, Llywydd. Croesawodd Llywodraeth Cymru y ffaith bod adran 17 wedi ei chynnwys yn Neddf ymadael 2018, a oedd yn ganlyniad i weithredu trawsbleidiol ar lawr Tŷ'r Cyffredin, a oedd yn darparu ymrwymiad mewn cyfraith i negodi parhad trefniadau presennol Dulyn III. Dilëwyd hwnnw yr wythnos diwethaf ym Mil ymadael yr UE, ac mae'n gwbl briodol bod Llywodraeth Cymru yn gweithio gydag eraill i adfer yr ymrwymiad hwnnw. Yr wythnos diwethaf, yn Nhŷ'r Arglwyddi, roedd fy nghyd-Weinidogion, y Dirprwy Weinidog dros gydraddoldebau a'r Cwnsler Cyffredinol, ar ddau ddiwrnod ar wahân, yn siarad ag arglwyddi sydd â diddordeb mewn cefnogi gwelliannau yr ydym ni wedi eu drafftio, a bydd gwelliannau yn Nhŷ'r Arglwyddi i amddiffyn y plant mwyaf agored i niwed hyn. Mae Llywodraeth Cymru o'r farn nad oedd y trefniadau blaenorol yn mynd yn ddigon pell. Ar y lleiaf, mae angen i ni sicrhau parhad yr amddiffyniadau hynny sydd wedi bod yno yn y gorffennol yr oedd y Llywodraeth Geidwadol flaenorol yn barod i'w gweld yn cael eu rhoi ar wyneb Deddf 2018. Ddoe, yn Nhŷ'r Arglwyddi, Dirprwy Lywydd, dywedodd yr Arglwydd Callaghan nad oedd safbwynt polisi Llywodraeth y DU wedi newid. Felly, pam wnaethon nhw ddiwygio'r Bil? Pam wnaethon nhw ddileu ymrwymiad yr oedden nhw eisoes wedi ei wneud? Dylen nhw ei ddisodli, a dylen nhw roi sicrwydd i rai o'r plant mwyaf agored i niwed yr ydym ni'n eu gweld yn y wlad hon.
English: I'm very disappointed to hear the scaremongering from your back benches, and, indeed, from your Government today, on this very important and very sensitive matter. As you've already quite clearly stated, the policy position of the UK Government in respect of child refugees has not changed in the slightest, and the UK Government still wants to maintain the commitment that it has previously given, reiterated in the House of Commons last week as well. As you will know, the reason that the amendment was voted down, and that other amendments to the withdrawal agreement Bill were voted down, was because, frankly, to tack them on to that Bill is insufficient in regard to the importance of this policy. And that's why the UK Government has said, 'Let's address this separately in other ways rather than simply tacking it on to the end of this Bill.' Do you regret the shroud waving from your back benches and the shroud waving from your Government, and will you acknowledge the very clear commitments that have been given by the Government in terms of its stated policy?
Welsh: Rwy'n siomedig iawn i glywed y codi bwganod gan eich meinciau cefn, ac, yn wir, gan eich Llywodraeth heddiw, ar y mater pwysig iawn a sensitif iawn hwn. Fel yr ydych chi wedi ei ddweud yn gwbl eglur eisoes, nid yw safbwynt polisi Llywodraeth y DU o ran ffoaduriaid sy'n blant wedi newid o gwbl, ac mae Llywodraeth y DU yn dal i ddymuno cynnal yr ymrwymiad y mae eisoes wedi ei wneud, a ail-bwysleisiwyd yn Nhŷ'r cyffredin yr wythnos diwethaf hefyd. Fel y gwyddoch, y rheswm pam y pleidleisiwyd yn erbyn y gwelliant hwnnw, ac y pleidleisiwyd yn erbyn gwelliannau eraill i Fil y cytundeb ymadael, oedd oherwydd, a bod yn blwmp ac yn blaen, nid yw eu hatodi i'r Bil hwnnw'n ddigonol o ran pwysigrwydd y polisi hwn. A dyna pam mae Llywodraeth y DU wedi dweud, 'Gadewch i ni fynd i'r afael â hyn ar wahân mewn ffyrdd eraill yn hytrach na dim ond ei atodi i ddiwedd y Bil hwn.' A ydych chi'n gresynu'r codi bwganod gan eich meinciau cefn a'r codi bwganod gan eich Llywodraeth, ac a wnewch chi gydnabod yr ymrwymiadau eglur iawn a wnaed gan y Llywodraeth o ran y polisi a ddatganwyd ganddi?
English: Well, Llywydd, the Member simply gets the facts of the matter completely wrong. It's not a matter of amendments being voted down; the amendment was - the amendment is Government made. His Government, in the 2018 Act, included a legally binding commitment to negotiate the continuation of the Dublin III arrangements. They took it out, that's the change. That's what we're concerned about. It's not amendments, it's the change that your Government made and the amendments simply sought - [ Interruption.] Their amendments, the amendments in the Commons and the amendments in the Lords, simply seek to restore the position that he and his colleagues here and his colleagues in Westminster were supporting just a month or two ago. It's indefensible. He knows it's indefensible and he hasn't offered us even a smidgen of a defence this afternoon.
Welsh: Wel, Llywydd, yn syml, mae'r Aelod wedi camddeall ffeithiau'r mater yn llwyr. Nid yw'n fater o bleidleisio yn erbyn gwelliannau; cafodd y gwelliant - mae'r gwelliant wedi cael ei lunio gan y Llywodraeth. Fe wnaeth ei Lywodraeth ef, yn Neddf 2018, gynnwys ymrwymiad a oedd yn rhwymo mewn cyfraith i negodi parhad trefniadau Dulyn III. Fe'i tynnwyd allan ganddyn nhw, dyna'r newid. Dyna'r ydym ni'n pryderu amdano. Nid gwelliannau yw'r broblem, ond y newid a wnaeth eich Llywodraeth chi a'r cwbl yr oedd y gwelliannau yn ceisio - [ Torri ar draws.] Y cwbl y mae eu gwelliannau nhw, y gwelliannau yn Nhŷ'r cyffredin a'r gwelliannau yn Nhŷ'r Arglwyddi, yn ceisio ei wneud yw adfer y safbwynt yr oedd ef a'i gyd-Aelodau yn y fan yma a'i gyd-Aelodau yn San Steffan yn ei gefnogi dim ond mis neu ddau yn ôl. Ni ellir ei amddiffyn. Mae'n gwybod na ellir ei amddiffyn ac nid yw wedi cynnig hyd yn oed mymryn o amddiffyniad i ni y prynhawn yma.
English: Will your Government carry out an assessment of how vulnerable children are protected or not protected in Wales today - children living here? Because there are examples, and I'll give you this, First Minister, where a child can allege abuse constantly, constantly - . I don't know why you're shaking your head, First Minister. A child in Wales can allege abuse constantly, not be given an advocate. You can have a child with learning difficulties and he's not given an advocate, not taken to a place of safety to be interviewed, and then to be told off by police. What assessment - this is the question - what assessment will you do to ensure that our children living in Wales are protected?
Welsh: A wnaiff eich Llywodraeth gynnal asesiad o'r modd y mae plant sy'n agored i niwed yn cael eu hamddiffyn neu nad ydynt yn cael eu hamddiffyn yng Nghymru heddiw - plant sy'n byw yma? Oherwydd ceir enghreifftiau, a rhoddaf hon i chi, Prif Weinidog, lle gall plentyn honni ei fod yn cael ei gam-drin yn gyson, yn gyson - . Nid wyf i'n gwybod pam yr ydych chi'n ysgwyd eich pen, Prif Weinidog. Gall plentyn yng Nghymru honni ei fod yn cael ei gam-drin yn gyson, heb gael eiriolwr. Gallwch chi gael plentyn ag anawsterau dysgu ac nid yw'n cael eiriolwr, nid yw'n cael ei symud i fan diogel i gael ei gyfweld, ac yna'n cael ei geryddu gan yr heddlu. Pa asesiad - dyma'r cwestiwn - pa asesiad wnewch chi ei gynnal i sicrhau bod ein plant sy'n byw yng Nghymru yn cael eu hamddiffyn?
English: Llywydd, none of those points are relevant to the protection of child refugees, which is the subject of this question. The points the Member makes are no doubt proper points and ones that he can pursue. But I don't think he should try to hijack a question that is about a very important matter, specifically about child refugees, which I've attempted to answer this afternoon.
Welsh: Llywydd, nid yw'r un o'r pwyntiau hynny'n berthnasol i amddiffyn ffoaduriaid sy'n blant, sef testun y cwestiwn hwn. Nid oes amheuaeth bod y pwyntiau y mae'r Aelod yn eu gwneud yn bwyntiau priodol ac yn rhai y gall ef fynd ar eu trywydd. Ond nid wyf i'n credu y dylai geisio herwgipio cwestiwn sy'n ymwneud â mater pwysig iawn, am ffoaduriaid sy'n blant yn benodol, yr wyf i wedi ceisio ei ateb y prynhawn yma.