English: Well, it depends. As you say in the question, in many countries the effect of court decisions doesn't carry the same weight, and so on. But in the examples that we've looked at in terms of where other legislatures have consolidated and codified - for example, New Zealand, Australia, and so on - those do work according to the same system as we do. The question you asked about whether it's appropriate to take questions from common law into a code, I would say, when you have a situation where there is a specific definition, for example, or that you have a decision in common law that has been part of law for a very, very long time, you then have an opportunity to use a small element of common law in that consolidation and codification process. I wouldn't say that in a wider sense. But say, for example, as we mentioned in the context of human rights, that you have a clause that has been defined in a way by courts consistently over a long period of time, well you have a case for using that definition then in the legislation that is then consolidated. Or perhaps you may have an example where - and I think this also arises in the context of planning law - even though you have wide-ranging powers on the face of the Bill, common law says that you have to consider A, B, and C before using those powers, and that law is settled, well, you then have a case for using common law. But I would say that, of course, you have to be very careful in this instance. At one end of the spectrum, you have, perhaps, a decision made by the House of Lords that has been in place for decades and the courts have been applying that for decades. As a starting point, that is more certain than, perhaps, a decision made by one of the lower courts that is a more recent decision, perhaps. In that context, you would be more careful in using that kind of principle to define or to expand a definition in the code or in the consolidation legislation, I would say.
Welsh: Wel, mae'n dibynnu. Fel ŷch chi'n dweud yn y cwestiwn, wrth gwrs mewn lot o wledydd, dyw effaith penderfyniad llys ddim yn cario'r un pwysau, ac ati. Ond mae'r enghreifftiau rŷm ni wedi edrych arnyn nhw o ran lle mae deddfwrfeydd eraill wedi cydgrynhoi a chodeiddio - hynny yw, Seland Newydd, rhannau o Awstralia, ac ati - mae'r rheini, wrth gwrs, yn gweithio o fewn yr un gyfundrefn ag yr ydym ni. O ran y cwestiwn lle roeddech chi'n sôn a ydy e'n addas i gymryd cwestiynau o'r gyfraith gyffredin, common law, i mewn i god, buaswn i'n dweud pan fydd gennych chi sefyllfa lle mae diffiniad penodol, er enghraifft, neu fod gennych chi benderfyniad yn y common law sydd wedi bod yn rhan o'r gyfraith am gyfnod hir iawn, mae gennych chi gyfle wedyn i ddefnyddio elfen fach o'r gyfraith gyffredin yn y broses o gydgrynhoi a chodeiddio. Buaswn i ddim yn dweud hynny'n ehangach. Ond dywedwch, er enghraifft, fod gennych chi, fel roeddem ni'n sôn yng nghyd-destun hawliau dynol, gymal wedi cael ei ddiffinio mewn ffordd gan lysoedd yn gyson dros gyfnod hir, wel mae gennych chi achos dros ddefnyddio'r diffiniad hwnnw yn y Ddeddf sydd wedi ei chydgrynhoi. Neu efallai bod gennych chi enghraifft le - ac rwy'n credu bod hwn hefyd yn codi yng nghyd-destun cyfraith cynllunio - er bod gennych chi bwerau eang ar wyneb y Ddeddf, mae'r gyfraith gyffredin wedi dweud bod angen cysidro A, B ac C cyn eu defnyddio nhw, ac mae'r gyfraith hynny'n settled, wel, mae gennych chi achos wedyn dros ddefnyddio'r gyfraith gyffredin. Ond, buaswn i'n dweud, wrth gwrs, fod yn rhaid bod yn ofalus yn fan hyn. Ar un ochr y sbectrwm mae gennych chi benderfyniad o Dŷ'r Arglwyddi sydd wedi bod mewn lle ers degawdau ac mae'r llysoedd wedi bod yn ei ddefnyddio ers degawdau. Wel, fel man cychwyn, mae hynny'n fwy sicr nag efallai penderfyniad gan un o'r llysoedd is sydd yn benderfyniad mwy diweddar, efallai. Yn y cyd-destun hwnnw, buasech chi'n fwy gofalus o ddefnyddio'r math yna o egwyddor er mwyn diffinio neu ehangu diffiniad yn y cod neu yn y Ddeddf cydgrynhoi, buaswn i'n dweud.