English: Firstly, I thank you for the comments and the very constructive points that have been made, and there is, of course, a lot of consideration being given to the issue of a bill of rights and, of course, my colleague the Minister for Social Justice has commented on that already. I made the point also in earlier questions, of course, that the Bill, as it's drafted, actually is about transferring rights of citizens on human rights issues back to Strasbourg rather than being able to raise them in the UK courts. So, it is about restricting that, and that is a very strange thing to be thinking about that. Can I also say that what it also does is it raises very significant issues about the universality of international law? One of the reasons you have international courts is because it's clearly not appropriate, with fundamental principles, for the individual court to be able to pick and choose whether or not it likes those human rights or how it wants to interpret them. That has always been a fundamental principle, and, of course, it's a principle that UK Government recognises in terms of the International Criminal Court and the investigation of war crimes taking place in Ukraine. And it is a great irony, isn't it, that the Russian Duma has passed legislation to remove the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights from Russia at the same time as the UK Government is actually diminishing the role of the European Court of Human Rights for the United Kingdom, and there is a real concern about that overlap in terms of the approach to the importance of international law. Some very good analysis and articles have been coming out about the whole issue of human rights and where the UK stands within that, and I'd say this - this was from Professor Mark Elliott, a very senior academic at Cambridge University - 'the Government dislikes scrutiny and views accountability mechanisms as threats that should be neutralised or at least marginalised.' And I think that exactly sums up what the position is of the UK Government. He said it's an authoritarianism and an authoritarian restriction of scrutiny. And if you read through the Bill, that is exactly what it does and what it achieves. Of course, it has many other implications as well, but there will undoubtedly be further debate on this. We are very opposed to it, and we're also very supportive of work to look at how we might incorporate and maintain standards of human rights within our own constitutional structure and within our own legislation.
Welsh: Yn gyntaf, diolch am y sylwadau a'r pwyntiau adeiladol iawn a wnaed, ac wrth gwrs, mae llawer o ystyriaeth yn cael ei rhoi i fater bil hawliau ac mae fy nghyd-Weinidog, y Gweinidog Cyfiawnder Cymdeithasol, wedi gwneud sylwadau ar hynny eisoes wrth gwrs. Gwneuthum y pwynt hefyd mewn cwestiynau cynharach fod y Bil, fel y mae wedi'i ddrafftio, yn ymwneud â throsglwyddo hawliau dinasyddion ar faterion hawliau dynol yn ôl i Strasbourg yn hytrach na gallu eu codi yn llysoedd y DU. Felly, mae'n ymwneud â chyfyngu ar hynny, ac mae hynny'n beth rhyfedd iawn i fod yn meddwl amdano. A gaf fi ddweud ei fod hefyd yn codi materion pwysig iawn am gyffredinolrwydd cyfraith ryngwladol? Un o'r rhesymau pam y mae gennych lysoedd rhyngwladol yw oherwydd ei bod yn amlwg nad yw'n briodol, gydag egwyddorion sylfaenol, i'r llys unigol allu dewis a yw'n hoffi'r hawliau dynol hynny ai peidio neu sut y mae am eu dehongli. Mae hynny wedi bod yn egwyddor sylfaenol erioed, ac wrth gwrs, mae'n egwyddor y mae Llywodraeth y DU yn ei chydnabod o ran y Llys Troseddau Rhyngwladol a'r ymchwilio i droseddau rhyfel sy'n digwydd yn Wcráin. Ac mae'n eironi mawr, onid yw, fod Duma Rwsia wedi pasio deddfwriaeth i ddileu awdurdodaeth Llys Hawliau Dynol Ewrop o Rwsia ar yr un pryd ag y mae Llywodraeth y DU yn lleihau rôl Llys Hawliau Dynol Ewrop ar gyfer y Deyrnas Unedig, ac mae pryder gwirioneddol ynghylch y gorgyffwrdd hwnnw yn yr ymagwedd tuag at bwysigrwydd cyfraith ryngwladol. Cyhoeddwyd dadansoddiadau ac erthyglau da iawn ar fater hawliau dynol a lle mae'r DU yn sefyll o fewn hynny, ac rwyf am ddweud hyn - roedd hyn gan yr Athro Mark Elliott, academydd uchel iawn ym Mhrifysgol Caergrawnt - 'nid yw'r Llywodraeth yn hoffi craffu ac mae'n ystyried mecanweithiau atebolrwydd fel bygythiadau y dylid eu niwtraleiddio neu o leiaf eu gyrru i'r cyrion.' A chredaf fod hynny'n crynhoi'n union beth yw safbwynt Llywodraeth y DU. Dywedodd mai awdurdodaeth ydyw a'i fod yn gyfyngiad awdurdodaidd ar graffu. Ac os darllenwch drwy'r Bil, dyna'n union y mae'n ei wneud ac yn ei gyflawni. Wrth gwrs, mae iddo lawer o oblygiadau eraill hefyd, ond mae'n sicr y bydd dadlau pellach ar hyn. Rydym yn ei wrthwynebu'n gryf, ac rydym hefyd yn gefnogol iawn i waith i edrych ar sut y gallem ymgorffori a chynnal safonau hawliau dynol o fewn ein strwythur cyfansoddiadol ein hunain ac o fewn ein deddfwriaeth ein hunain.