English: Diolch, Llywydd, and I'd like to thank the three Members for their contributions to this debate. I am grateful to Huw Irranca-Davies and the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their scrutiny, and I very much regret that the Senedd has not had longer to consider this Bill. I wrote to the Llywydd on 27 June last year, outlining that the UK Government chose not to work with devolved Governments when developing this Bill, and that really put us on the back foot right from the beginning in a way that I don't think any of us would want. It's a very complex Bill, and my officials have been working very hard to understand exactly what it will mean for Wales, and I think that's also the case with the other devolved administrations. Sam Kurtz asked why we've laid this LCM. Well, from my viewpoint, I've done it to protect the devolution settlement. Sam Kurtz, as a Conservative, you might not care about that, but I passionately care about that. We're having to do the work now that, really, we should have done last year, right at the beginning, and if we'd had that proper engagement from the UK Government on the detail of the Bill, I think we would have been allowed to undertake this work at a much earlier stage. Huw Irranca-Davies referred to a variety of Standing Orders and asked why we laid it under the particular Standing Order that we did. A 'relevant Bill' is one that's under consideration in the UK Parliament that makes relevant provision in relation to Wales, as set out in Standing Order 29. We believe that genetically modified organisms are firmly within the legislative competence of this Senedd, and the precision breeding Bill does not make any provisions directly in relation to Wales. We wanted to take a cautionary approach to genetic engineering, and I fully understand the difference between GM and GE, but we chose to take that approach. I think what this debate really shows today is that, where the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 negatively impacts on devolution we have to act to minimise its effects, and we will continue to challenge the negative impacts of the Act and champion the rights of this Senedd to legislate without interference in areas devolved to Wales. Huw Irranca-Davies referred to the scrutiny session that you had with the Counsel General yesterday, and the effects of UKIMA on this Bill and the single-use plastics Bill. I know that the Counsel General will be writing to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee on this issue, so I won't muddy the water here now. I'm very happy to support, if Huw Irranca-Davies and his committee want to write to the Business Committee - and I'm sure that the Llywydd would agree - if you believe in a review of Standing Orders, I'm sure that that would be looked at by the Llywydd and the Business Committee. I think Sam Kurtz, in his contribution, was really thinking that we'd dismissed this, and I haven't dismissed it; I don't dispute that the technology has great promise, and could have great promise, but what I don't understand is that you can't see that it's our duty as lawmakers to carefully consider the evidence for change first and the potential ramifications, and that's what we are proposing to do. I think we've got the time to carefully consider what we do here. So, let's take it. Why not take it? I've only had one meeting with the UK Government Minister, and I'll come to that in a moment, but certainly, my understanding from him was that this will take a couple of years, for the first PB organisms to come on the market. We've got the time, so let's take that time, let's consider it, and let's ask for views. You also asked about labelling, and that was my main question, or one of my main questions, to Lord Benyon, the Minister in the UK Government, and the answer was that, if we labelled this in the way that the Welsh Government has suggested, consumers could believe that there was a safety risk, because it was labelled. Now, in the years I've been dealing with Welsh food and drink - and I would have thought Sam Kurtz would agree - consumers want to know where their food is coming from. They want to know what's in it, because they want to make those informed decisions. So, why not have it if it's nothing to worry about? If you've got nothing to hide, why not have that labelling? So, I think it was really disappointing that the Minister didn't recognise that. So, to conclude, we cannot support consent for this Bill. I think it drives a coach and horses through the devolution settlement, and, as I said at the outset, I ask Members to withhold consent for this Bill. Diolch.
Welsh: Diolch, Llywydd, a hoffwn ddiolch i'r tri Aelod am eu cyfraniadau i'r ddadl hon. Rwy'n ddiolchgar i Huw Irranca-Davies ac i'r Pwyllgor Deddfwriaeth, Cyfiawnder a'r Cyfansoddiad am eu gwaith craffu, ac rwy'n gresynu'n fawr nad yw'r Senedd wedi cael mwy o amser i ystyried y Bil hwn. Ysgrifennais at y Llywydd ar 27 Mehefin y llynedd, yn amlinellu bod Llywodraeth y DU wedi dewis peidio â gweithio gyda'r Llywodraethau datganoledig wrth ddatblygu'r Bil hwn, ac mae hynny wir yn ein rhoi ar y droed ôl o'r dechrau mewn ffordd nad ydw i'n credu y byddai unrhyw un ohonon ni ei eisiau. Mae'n Fil cymhleth iawn, ac mae fy swyddogion wedi bod yn gweithio'n galed iawn i ddeall beth yn union y bydd yn ei olygu i Gymru, ac rwy'n credu bod hynny'n wir hefyd am y gweinyddiaethau datganoledig eraill. Gofynnodd Sam Kurtz pam ein bod ni wedi cyflwyno'r cynnig cydsyniad deddfwriaethol hwn. Wel, o'm safbwynt i, rwyf wedi gwneud hynny i ddiogelu'r setliad datganoli. Sam Kurtz, fel Ceidwadwr, efallai nad ydych chi'n poeni am hynny, ond rwy'n poeni'n angerddol am hynny. Rydyn ni'n gorfod gwneud y gwaith nawr, mewn gwirionedd, y dylen ni fod wedi ei wneud y llynedd, reit ar y dechrau, a phe byddem wedi cael yr ymgysylltiad priodol hwnnw gan Lywodraeth y DU ar fanylion y Bil, rwy'n credu y byddem ni wedi cael ymgymryd â'r gwaith hwn yn llawer cynharach. Cyfeiriodd Huw Irranca-Davies at amrywiaeth o Reolau Sefydlog a gofynnodd pam ein bod ni wedi'i gyflwyno o dan y Reol Sefydlog benodol yr ydym ni wedi'i gyflwyno oddi tano. Mae 'Bil perthnasol' yn un sydd dan ystyriaeth yn Senedd y DU sy'n gwneud darpariaeth berthnasol mewn perthynas â Chymru, yn unol â hynny yn Rheolau Sefydlog 29. Rydym ni'n credu bod organebau sy'n cael eu haddasu yn enetig yn gadarn o fewn cymhwysedd deddfwriaethol y Senedd hon, ac nid yw'r Bil bridio manwl yn gwneud unrhyw ddarpariaethau'n uniongyrchol mewn perthynas â Chymru. Roeddem ni am gymryd ymagwedd ofalus tuag at beirianneg enetig, ac rwy'n deall yn iawn y gwahaniaeth rhwng GM a GE, ond fe ddewison ni gymryd yr ymagwedd honno. Rwy'n credu mai'r hyn y mae'r ddadl hon yn ei ddangos mewn gwirionedd heddiw yw, lle mae Deddf Marchnad Fewnol y Deyrnas Unedig 2020 yn effeithio'n negyddol ar ddatganoli mae'n rhaid i ni weithredu i leihau ei effeithiau, a byddwn yn parhau i herio effeithiau negyddol y Ddeddf a hyrwyddo hawliau'r Senedd hon i ddeddfu heb ymyrraeth mewn meysydd sydd wedi'u datganoli i Gymru. Cyfeiriodd Huw Irranca-Davies at y sesiwn graffu a gawsoch gyda'r Cwnsler Cyffredinol ddoe, ac effeithiau UKIMA ar y Bil hwn a'r Bil Plastig untro. Rwy'n gwybod y bydd y Cwnsler Cyffredinol yn ysgrifennu at y Pwyllgor Deddfwriaeth, Cyfiawnder a'r Cyfansoddiad ar y mater hwn, felly ni wnaf ddrysu pethau yma nawr. Rwy'n hapus iawn i gefnogi, os yw Huw Irranca-Davies a'i bwyllgor eisiau ysgrifennu at y Pwyllgor Busnes - ac rwy'n siŵr y byddai'r Llywydd yn cytuno - os ydych chi'n credu mewn adolygiad o Reolau Sefydlog, rwy'n siŵr y byddai'r Llywydd a'r Pwyllgor Busnes yn edrych ar hynny. Rwy'n credu bod Sam Kurtz, yn ei gyfraniad, wir yn meddwl ein bod ni wedi diystyru hyn, a dydw i ddim wedi ei ddiystyru; dydw i ddim yn anghytuno bod gan y dechnoleg addewid mawr, ac y gallai gael addewid mawr, ond yr hyn nad ydw i'n ei ddeall yw na allwch chi weld mai ein dyletswydd ni fel deddfwyr yw ystyried yn ofalus y dystiolaeth am newid yn gyntaf a'r goblygiadau posib, a dyna rydyn ni'n bwriadu ei wneud. Rwy'n credu bod gennym ni'r amser i ystyried yn ofalus yr hyn rydyn ni'n ei wneud yma. Felly, gadewch i ni ei gymryd. Pam ddim ei gymryd? Dim ond un cyfarfod rydw i wedi ei gael gyda Gweinidog Llywodraeth y DU, ac fe ddof fi at hynny yn y man, ond yn sicr, fy nealltwriaeth i ganddo oedd y bydd hyn yn cymryd cwpl o flynyddoedd, i'r organebau PB cyntaf ddod ar y farchnad. Mae gennym ni'r amser, felly gadewch i ni gymryd yr amser hwnnw, gadewch i ni ei ystyried, a gadewch i ni ofyn am farn. Fe wnaethoch chi hefyd ofyn am labelu, a dyna oedd fy mhrif gwestiwn, neu un o fy mhrif gwestiynau, i'r Arglwydd Benyon, y Gweinidog yn Llywodraeth y DU, a'r ateb oedd, pe bai ni'n labelu hyn yn y ffordd mae Llywodraeth Cymru wedi awgrymu, gallai defnyddwyr gredu bod yna risg diogelwch, oherwydd ei fod wedi'i labelu. Nawr, yn y blynyddoedd rydw i wedi bod yn delio â bwyd a diod o Gymru - a byddwn i wedi meddwl y byddai Sam Kurtz yn cytuno - mae defnyddwyr eisiau gwybod o ble mae eu bwyd yn dod. Maen nhw eisiau gwybod beth sydd ynddo, oherwydd eu bod nhw eisiau gwneud y penderfyniadau gwybodus hynny. Felly, pam ddim ei gael os nad yw'n unrhyw beth i boeni amdano? Os nad oes gennych chi unrhyw beth i'w guddio, beth am gael y labelu hwnnw? Felly, rwy'n credu ei bod yn siomedig iawn nad oedd y Gweinidog yn cydnabod hynny. Felly, i gloi, ni allwn ni gefnogi caniatâd ar gyfer y Bil hwn. Rwy'n credu ei fod yn dinistrio'r setliad datganoli, ac, fel y dywedais ar y cychwyn, rwy'n gofyn i Aelodau atal caniatâd ar gyfer y Bil hwn. Diolch.