English: Deputy Presiding Officer, there are really three points that I wanted to contribute in this particular debate. The first point actually relates to the timescale for the consideration of this. I started reading these 450 pages this morning. I don't believe there is a single person in this Chamber who has yet had time or the ability to actually digest the incredibly technical content of this. Now, the Prime Minister said that, if he doesn't get his timetable through, he will pull the Bill. Well, listen, I think that on something as important as this, constitutionally, if he'd rather pull his Brexit Bill than have it face proper security, then he shouldn't have brought it before Parliament in the very first place. And it is also making a mockery of our parliamentary procedures internationally. I see this comment from the Institute for Government, who've given so much advice during this process. What they say is: 'the Brexit Bill would have less time in the Commons than the Wild Animals in Circuses Act.' They say, an Act, that affects, 'only 19 wild animals left in circuses in the U.K. - among them a zebra, two camels, three racoons and a zebu.' I don't know what a zebu is. 'All of whom now have the honor of attracting more House of Commons' debate thanthe historic legal treaty securing the U.K.'s departure from the European Union.' This is not the way to do proper constitutional reform. That's the first point I make. The second point I make relates to the issue of workers' rights, which to many of us has been such a fundamental issue. It's an issue that was such an important promise during the Brexit referendum - that there would be guarantees of workers' rights. I remember how hard we fought to get the social chapter signed, and how pleased we were when it was signed in 1997. And I tell you, it was a fight - it was a fight on our side, because Blair wanted to cherry-pick bits and pieces, and it was really the trade unions who said, 'No, we take the whole of the social chapter, because we signed up to social Europe.' I'm thinking of a conversation with the First Minister the other day, who said, 'Yes, I remember those debates well. What was the Tory position?' 'Up yours, Delors.' Quite frankly, that has very much been part of the Tory position ever since. There was a point that was made very cleverly, I think, by Keir Starmer during the debate in Westminster, and it was this - because we heard today from the UKIP/Brexit; whatever they're called these days - if you're going to make the point that we have certain terms and conditions and employment legislation that is better than EU standards, well of course the point is that EU standards have always been a baseline. There has never been any restriction on providing better and higher standards, and if it is the case that you don't want to reduce employment legislation, then why abolish the baseline? The answer, as we know quite clearly, is because the intention is to shred the ability to protect employment rights - those rights that we got from the social chapter. And if you read this document - and I read those particular bits - there is no guarantee in there that that baseline will in any way be protected, and nor could it be protected, because in order to do a trade deal with the US, in order to do that US trade deal, we have to agree to the abolition and the lowering of standards in order to be compliant and have a level playing field with the United States. So, the Tory Party should be honest that that really is their intention and that has always been one of the big bugbears of membership of the EU in the first place anyway - the fact that it gave that social chapter and it had that particular social agenda. I think the final point I'd like to make is this: if you refer to section 36 of the draft Bill, there is the most bizarre statement in there in terms of sovereignty, and sovereignty at a time, actually, when there's also the abolition of section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which is the body that actually gives time for Parliament to scrutinise international treaties. That is being abolished within the Bill, and I haven't heard any discussion of that yet. Just leaving that particular part aside, if we look at that part of the Bill in terms of sovereignty and so on, if the intention of Parliament is to rely on that section 36 and to proceed in such a way that it basically drives a nail into the coffin of Sewel, then that is again yet another move towards the break-up of the United Kingdom. I refer to this section within the legislative consent memorandum that went before the Scottish Parliament, and they refer to our own paper that we discussed and supported in this Chamber only the other week: 'The Welsh Government recently published proposals which endorsed the idea of the United Kingdom as an association based on a recognition of popular sovereignty in each part of the UK, and concluded that the traditional doctrine of sovereignty of parliament no longer provides a firm foundation for the constitution of the UK'. That is the position that was adopted by this Chamber, recognised by the Scottish Parliament, but not recognised anywhere within any of these documents. And if we get to a situation where the UK Government presses ahead, it is the end of Sewel and it is the end of the primacy of the devolution statutes within our UK constitutional structure, and it is a step on the way to the break-up of the United Kingdom.
Welsh: Dirprwy Lywydd, mae yna dri phwynt yr oeddwn i eisiau eu cyfrannu yn y ddadl arbennig hon. Mae'r pwynt cyntaf yn ymwneud mewn gwirionedd â'r amserlen ar gyfer ystyried hyn. Dechreuais ddarllen y 450 tudalen yma y bore 'ma. Dydw i ddim yn credu bod yna un person yn y Siambr hon sydd eto wedi cael yr amser neu sydd â'r gallu i ddeall y cynnwys hynod dechnegol hwn. Nawr, dywedodd Prif Weinidog y DU, os na all gyflawni ei amserlen, y bydd yn diddymu'r Bil. Wel, gwrandewch, rwy'n credu, gyda rhywbeth mor bwysig â hyn, yn gyfansoddiadol, petai'n well ganddo ddiddymu ei Fil Brexit na'i fod yn destun craffu priodol, yna ni ddylai fod wedi ei gyflwyno gerbron y Senedd yn y lle cyntaf. Ac mae hefyd yn gwneud ein gweithdrefnau Seneddol yn gyff gwawd yn rhyngwladol. Rwy'n gweld y sylw hwn gan y Sefydliad Llywodraethu, sydd wedi rhoi cymaint o gyngor yn ystod y broses hon. Yr hyn a ddywedant yw: byddai gan y Bil Brexit lai o amser yn Nhŷ'r cyffredin na'r Ddeddf Anifeiliaid Gwyllt mewn Syrcasau. Maen nhw'n dweud, bod Deddf, sy'n effeithio, dim ond 19 o anifeiliaid gwyllt ar ôl mewn syrcasau yn y DU - yn eu plith; sebra, dau gamel, tri racŵn a sebw. Dydw i ddim yn gwybod beth yw sebw. Pob un ohonynt bellach â'r anrhydedd o fod yn destun mwy o ddadl yn Nhŷ'r Cyffredin nay cytuniad cyfreithiol hanesyddol sy'n sicrhau ymadawiad y D.U. o'r Undeb Ewropeaidd. Nid dyma'r ffordd i gyflawni diwygio cyfansoddiadol yn briodol. Dyna'r pwynt cyntaf a wnaf. Mae'r ail bwynt a wnaf yn ymwneud â hawliau gweithwyr, a fu'n fater mor sylfaenol i lawer ohonom ni. Mae'n fater a oedd yn addewid mor bwysig yn ystod refferendwm Brexit - y byddai gwarantau o ran hawliau gweithwyr. Rwy'n cofio mor galed y buom yn ymladd i gael llofnodi'r benod gymdeithasol, a pha mor falch oeddem ni pan gafodd ei llofnodi yn 1997. Ac rwy'n dweud wrthych chi, roedd hi yn frwydr - roedd hi'n frwydr ar ein hochr ni, oherwydd roedd Blair eisiau dewis a dethol darnau, a'r undebau llafur mewn gwirionedd a ddywedodd, 'na, rydym ni'n cymryd y benod gymdeithasol gyfan, oherwydd rydym ni wedi ymrwymo i Ewrop gymdeithasol.' Rwy'n meddwl am sgwrs gyda Phrif Weinidog Cymru y diwrnod o'r blaen, a ddywedodd, 'ydw, rwy'n cofio'r dadleuon hynny'n dda. Beth oedd safbwynt y Torïaid? 'Naw wfft ichi, Delors.' A dweud y gwir, bu hynny'n rhan o safbwynt y Torïaid fyth ers hynny. Roedd pwynt a wnaethpwyd yn ddeheuig iawn, mi gredaf, gan Keir Starmer yn ystod y ddadl yn San Steffan, a dyma oedd hwnnw - oherwydd fe glywsom ni heddiw gan UKIP/Brexit; beth bynnag y'u gelwir nhw y dyddiau hyn - os ydych chi'n mynd i wneud y pwynt bod gennym ni delerau ac amodau penodol a deddfwriaeth gyflogaeth sy'n well na safonau'r UE, wel wrth gwrs y pwynt yw bod safonau'r UE wedi bod yn llinell sylfaen erioed. Ni fu unrhyw gyfyngiad erioed ar ddarparu safonau gwell ac uwch, ac os yw'n wir nad ydych chi eisiau cwtogi ar ddeddfwriaeth gyflogaeth, yna pam diddymu'r llinell sylfaen? Yr ateb, fel y gwyddom yn ddigon clir, yw mai'r bwriad yw cael gwared ar y gallu i ddiogelu hawliau cyflogaeth - yr hawliau hynny a gawsom ni o'r bennod gymdeithasol. Ac os darllenwch y ddogfen hon - a darllenais y darnau penodol hynny - nid oes sicrwydd yno y caiff y llinell sylfaen honno ei diogelu mewn unrhyw ffordd, ac ni ellid ei hamddiffyn chwaith, oherwydd er mwyn cael cytundeb masnach â'r Unol Daleithiau, er mwyn inni sicrhau'r cytundeb masnach hwnnw, mae'n rhaid inni gytuno i ddiddymu a gostwng safonau er mwyn cydymffurfio a chael chwarae teg â'r Unol Daleithiau. Felly, dylai'r blaid Dorïaidd fod yn onest mai dyna yw eu bwriad mewn gwirionedd a dyna fu un o'r prif feini tramgwydd erioed o ran aelodaeth o'r UE yn y lle cyntaf beth bynnag - y ffaith iddo gyflwyno'r bennod gymdeithasol honno a bod ganddo'r agenda gymdeithasol benodol honno. Rwy'n credu mai'r pwynt olaf yr hoffwn ei wneud yw hyn: os edrychwch chi ar adran 36 o'r Bil drafft, ceir y datganiad mwyaf rhyfedd yn y fan honno o ran sofraniaeth, a sofraniaeth ar adeg, mewn gwirionedd, pan fo adran 20 o'r Ddeddf Diwygio Cyfansoddiadol a Llywodraethu 2010 yn cael ei diddymu hefyd, sef y corff sydd mewn gwirionedd yn rhoi amser i'r Senedd graffu ar gytuniadau rhyngwladol. Caiff hynny ei ddileu yn y Bil, ac nid wyf wedi clywed dim trafodaeth ar hynny eto. Gan roi'r rhan benodol honno o'r neilltu, os edrychwn ni ar y rhan honno o'r Bil sy'n ymwneud â sofraniaeth ac ati, os mai bwriad y Senedd yw dibynnu ar adran 36 a mynd ymlaen yn y fath fodd fel ei bod hi yn y bôn yn rhoi'r farwol i Gonfensiwn Sewel, yna mae hynny unwaith eto'n symudiad arall tuag at chwalu'r Deyrnas Unedig. Cyfeiriaf at yr adran hon yn y memorandwm cydsyniad deddfwriaethol a aeth gerbron Senedd yr Alban, a chyfeiriant at ein papur ein hunain a drafodwyd ac a gefnogwyd gennym yn y Siambr hon dim ond yr wythnos o'r blaen: Yn ddiweddar, cyhoeddodd Llywodraeth Cymru gynigion a ategodd y syniad o'r Deyrnas Unedig fel cymdeithas wedi'i seilio ar gydnabyddiaeth o sofraniaeth boblogaidd ym mhob rhan o'r DU, a daeth i'r casgliad nad yw'r athrawiaeth draddodiadol o sofraniaeth y Senedd bellach yn darparu sylfaen gadarn ar gyfer cyfansoddiad y DU. Dyna'r safbwynt a fabwysiadwyd gan y Siambr hon, a gydnabuwyd gan Senedd yr Alban, ond na chafodd ei gydnabod yn unman yn unrhyw un o'r dogfennau hyn. Ac os byddwn ni'n cyrraedd sefyllfa lle mae Llywodraeth y DU yn bwrw ymlaen, dyna ddiwedd confensiwn Sewel a dyna ddiwedd goruchafiaeth y statudau datganoli o fewn strwythur cyfansoddiadol y DU, ac mae'n gam ar y ffordd i chwalu'r Deyrnas Unedig.