English: The first thing is to thank the Member for his offer of the paper. I have looked at the paper, and I agree very much with its content and its analysis, which very much reflects, I think, also the analysis that's been included in the statement of the First Minister to this Chamber. And I think it's an analysis that has considerable common ground across all those within the legal profession, and the legal academics, but I think all those who are looking at the constitutional relationship and the issues around this particular Bill. It also reflects very much the considerable and detailed analysis that's taken place in the House of Lords Constitution Committee, and, in particular, a paper that I think came out two weeks ago, which was from the House of Lords Brexit EU committee, which has made a number of similar points, and also made a number of concerns about the way in which Henry VIII powers might be used. One of the issues, of course, that arises from there, during any transition period, is the issue of the European Court of Justice. I've set out my views in the past on this - that I think this is an argument that the UK Government has got totally wrong. Any international agreement, any international convention, any international arrangement, will have a disputes forum, which is effectively a judicial process. And it is disappointing to see the misrepresentations, I think, that have been made of the impact and the role of the European Court of Justice. I note also that one of the points that Baroness Hale herself has made - her first speech, in fact, as president - was the need for clarity about what exactly the UK Government is saying about the judicial process and the disputes process. Because, if the Supreme Court is confused, and believes there was a complete lack of clarity, then heaven help the rest of society in understanding exactly what is being proposed. The amendments are the ones that are aimed, actually, to deal with the power grab, and, of course, the power grab goes at the core of the paper you referred to, and many other papers. It is a power grab that could have been avoided, I believe, by proper engagement and consultation. The positions that the Welsh Government has and the Scottish Government has are very similar. And what had been put forward are a number of what I think are very reasonable and very sensible amendments, which basically just require the consent of Welsh and Scottish Government in respect of those powers that are devolved areas of responsibility. Now, it seems to me there is difficulty to see why that should be objectionable, but, unless those matters are addressed, it is really inconceivable that Welsh Government, that this Assembly, would pass a legislative consent motion to the repeal Bill. Obviously, the amendment process is under way, and there will no doubt be further discussions. The First Minister met with the First Secretary of State, Damian Green, last month, to discuss the Welsh Government's concerns, and to offer suggestions to resolve the current impasse, and the Welsh Government remains willing to continue to work towards this. The First Minister is meeting again with Damian Green, I believe today, and the JMC (EN) meeting that's planned for later this month will also provide a further opportunity for that engagement. And I hope the willingness of the Welsh Government to work responsibly with the UK Government to resolve this is something that is taken up.
Welsh: Y peth cyntaf i'w wneud yw diolch i'r Aelod am gynnig y papur. Rwyf wedi edrych ar y papur, a chytunaf yn llwyr â'i gynnwys a'i ddadansoddiad, sydd hefyd yn adlewyrchu, rwy'n credu, y dadansoddiad a grybwyllwyd yn natganiad y Prif Weinidog i'r Siambr hon. A chredaf ei fod yn ddadansoddiad sydd â chryn dipyn o dir cyffredin ar draws yr holl bobl hynny ym mhroffesiwn y gyfraith, ac academyddion y gyfraith, ond pawb, rwy'n credu, sy'n edrych ar y berthynas gyfansoddiadol a'r materion sy'n ymwneud â'r Bil penodol hwn. Mae hefyd yn adlewyrchu'r dadansoddiad sylweddol a manwl a wnaed gan Bwyllgor Cyfansoddiad Tŷ'r Arglwyddi, ac yn benodol, papur a gyhoeddwyd bythefnos yn ôl, rwy'n credu, gan bwyllgor UE Tŷ'r Arglwyddi ar Brexit, sydd wedi gwneud nifer o bwyntiau tebyg, ac wedi mynegi nifer o bryderon hefyd ynglŷn â'r modd y gellid defnyddio pwerau Harri VIII. Un o'r materion sy'n deillio o hynny, wrth gwrs, yn ystod unrhyw gyfnod pontio, yw mater Llys Cyfiawnder Ewrop. Rwyf wedi nodi fy marn ynglŷn â hyn yn y gorffennol - credaf fod hon yn ddadl y mae Llywodraeth y DU wedi bod yn hollol anghywir yn ei chylch. Bydd unrhyw gytundeb rhyngwladol, unrhyw gonfensiwn rhyngwladol, unrhyw drefniant rhyngwladol, yn cynnwys fforwm anghydfodau, sef proses farnwrol i bob pwrpas. Ac mae'n siomedig gweld, rwy'n credu, y modd y mae effaith a rôl Llys Cyfiawnder Ewrop wedi cael eu camgyfleu. Nodaf hefyd mai un o'r pwyntiau a wnaed gan y Farwnes Hale ei hun - ei haraith gyntaf, mewn gwirionedd, fel llywydd - oedd yr angen am eglurder ynglŷn â beth yn union y mae Llywodraeth y DU yn ei ddweud am y broses farnwrol a'r broses anghydfodau. Oherwydd, os yw'r Goruchaf Lys mewn dryswch, ac o'r farn fod yna ddiffyg eglurder llwyr yn hyn o beth, nid oes gan weddill cymdeithas obaith o ddeall yn union beth sy'n cael ei gynnig. Y gwelliannau yw'r rhai a fwriedir, mewn gwirionedd, i fynd i'r afael â chipio pwerau, ac wrth gwrs, cipio pwerau sydd wrth wraidd y papur y cyfeirioch chi ato, a llawer o bapurau eraill. Credaf y byddai ymgysylltu ac ymgynghori priodol wedi gallu atal y cipio pwerau. Mae safbwyntiau Llywodraeth Cymru a Llywodraeth yr Alban yn debyg iawn. A chyflwynwyd nifer o welliannau rhesymol a synhwyrol iawn yn fy marn i, gwelliannau nad ydynt ond yn galw am gydsyniad Llywodraeth Cymru a Llywodraeth yr Alban yn y bôn mewn perthynas â'r pwerau hynny sy'n feysydd cyfrifoldeb datganoledig. Nawr, mae'n ymddangos i mi ei bod yn anodd gweld pam y dylai hynny fod yn annerbyniol, ond oni bai ein bod yn mynd i'r afael â'r materion hynny, mae'n hynod annirnadwy y buasai Llywodraeth Cymru, y Cynulliad hwn, yn pasio cynnig cydsyniad deddfwriaethol i'r Bil diddymu. Yn amlwg, mae'r broses o wneud gwelliannau ar y gweill, ac nid oes amheuaeth y bydd trafodaethau pellach. Cyfarfu'r Prif Weinidog â'r Prif Ysgrifennydd Gwladol, Damian Green, y mis diwethaf, i drafod pryderon Llywodraeth Cymru, ac i gynnig awgrymiadau i ddatrys y cyfyngder presennol, ac mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn parhau i fod yn barod i weithio tuag at hyn. Mae'r Prif Weinidog yn cyfarfod â Damian Green eto, heddiw rwy'n credu, a bydd cyfarfod y Cyd-bwyllgor Gweinidogion (Negodiadau'r UE), a gynlluniwyd ar gyfer yn nes ymlaen y mis hwn, yn rhoi cyfle pellach ar gyfer yr ymgysylltiad hwnnw hefyd. Ac rwy'n gobeithio y bydd parodrwydd Llywodraeth Cymru i weithio'n gyfrifol gyda Llywodraeth y DU i ddatrys hyn yn rhywbeth y manteisir arno.