English: I welcome the Supreme Court judgment insofar as it goes. As somebody who has served in both Parliaments, I think it was the correct decision. A parliamentary Act took us into the European Union - the European Community - confirmed by a referendum. The reverse process is now under way; we've had a referendum advising Parliament what to do and Parliament now must pass an Act in order to take us out of the European Union. That's the best way and most constitutional way forward. But there is a constitutional elephant in the room, which I think we should mention, which is the ridiculous and absurd idea, in the twenty-first century, that we're reliant on challenging a royal prerogative, that we're part of a royalty, that we're part of somebody not elected, but inheriting powers - exercised by a Government, it has to be said, but, nevertheless, in theory, inheriting those powers to exercise them over us. That is a constitutional iniquity that must be swept aside sooner or later. And, since Charles I has been mentioned, let's remember what Oliver Cromwell did: the first thing he did was march into Parliament, take away the mace - the fool's bauble as he called it - and there was no royal prerogative after that mace had gone, I can tell you. So, let's at least acknowledge that we've moved a little way onwards since then, but not an awful lot, not an awful lot. If we're challenging at the Supreme Court our royal prerogative, we haven't come very far in 400 years, have we? But it does leave us with some real questions. It leaves us with some real questions around the Sewel convention. The Supreme Court has confirmed that this is a political convention, not a constitutional arrangement. Now, that is very dangerous for the future, I think, of Welsh democracy. How does the Counsel General see us being able to take this forward when we thought that by embedding the Sewel convention in the Wales Bill, already in the Scotland Act, this does make it part of the UK constitution? The Supreme Court doesn't agree; it's a political arrangement. And the Supreme Court calls or prays in aid, as part of its argument for this, a case from the 1960s, Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke, a case from southern Rhodesia. Well, that's putting us in our place. It's colonial rule that tells us the Sewel convention allows the powers to rest in Westminster to tell this Parliament what we decide for the people of Wales. Again, until we can ensure that the Sewel convention becomes a proper constitutional relationship between the four Parliaments in these islands then we will not have a settled constitution and we will be continually arguing these points. I regret that the Supreme Court couldn't make that decision for itself today, but I think that's one of the key things that the Welsh Government now has to take forward in the terms and context of the constitutional arrangements - which the First Minister has consistently talked about, to be fair to him, but that now needs to be embedded and taken forward, perhaps, in the joint ministerial committee, as a way forward. 'Convention' itself is a dangerous and slippery term. It's only very recently that we've had a convention that we have a vote in Parliament before war, one which Robin Cook sacrificed his political life over. Before then, the royal prerogative could be exercised to go to war. That's a convention. We need to get away from conventions and into the proper constitutional relationship between all Parliaments on these islands. Until we do that, we will, in fact, be exercising colonial powers. Now, I'm not suggesting we declare a unilateral declaration of independence, but I do think that we need to move further forward on these relationships. The second point that I'd - . Well, I'd like him to answer something about the Sewel convention and how we can embed that. The second point I'd like him to answer is a confirmation from the Welsh Government that it will bring forward an LCM. It's almost inevitable that the Act that Westminster will be debating will impinge on our powers, so let's just have the confirmation today that an LCM is appropriate, so that we can know that we're going to debate and decide on that. The third and final point is one that we've raised several times before, which is around the idea and the principle that there should be some form of continuity Bill debated here in the Welsh Parliament around the powers retained following the decision to leave the European Union. Several Members have noted that the position is there that, as powers are returned from the European Union, we may get more powers - that's true. But if they just stop in Westminster, then we won't be getting those, and we've seen already talk by many people, including in the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as regards agriculture policy and as regards environmental policy, of keeping the powers in London and not, in fact, allowing them to flow here to Cardiff bay. So, wouldn't it be a positive response to the great reform Bill that's being produced that we have a continuity Bill here in the Assembly, so that we can debate and ensure that the powers are retained?
Welsh: Rwy'n croesawu dyfarniad y Goruchaf Lys o ran hynny. Fel rhywun sydd wedi gwasanaethu yn y ddwy Senedd, yn fy marn i, dyna'r penderfyniad cywir. Deddf seneddol aeth â ni i mewn i'r Undeb Ewropeaidd - y Gymuned Ewropeaidd - a gadarnhawyd gan refferendwm. Mae'r broses yn gweithio fel arall bellach; rydym wedi cael refferendwm yn cynghori'r Senedd beth i'w wneud ac mae'n rhaid i'r Senedd basio Deddf er mwyn mynd â ni allan o'r Undeb Ewropeaidd. Dyna'r ffordd orau a'r ffordd fwyaf cyfansoddiadol ymlaen. Ond mae yna broblem nad oes neb am ei thrafod, a chredaf y dylid ei chrybwyll, sef y syniad chwerthinllyd a hurt, yn yr unfed ganrif ar hugain, ein bod yn dibynnu ar herio uchelfraint frenhinol, ein bod ni'n rhan o frenhiniaeth, ein bod ni'n rhan o rywun na chafodd ei ethol, ond sy'n etifeddu pwerau - sy'n cael eu harfer gan Lywodraeth, mae'n rhaid dweud, ond, serch hynny, mewn theori, yn etifeddu'r pwerau hynny i'w harfer drosom ni. Mae hynny'n annhegwch cyfansoddiadol y mae'n rhaid ei ysgubo o'r neilltu yn hwyr neu'n hwyrach. Gan fod Siarl y Cyntaf wedi'i grybwyll, gadewch i ni gofio beth wnaeth Oliver Cromwell: y peth cyntaf a wnaeth oedd gorymdeithio i'r Senedd, mynd â'r brysgyll i ffwrdd - tegan y ffŵl fel y'i galwodd - ac nid oedd unrhyw uchelfraint frenhinol ar ôl i'r brysgyll fynd, gallaf ddweud wrthych. Felly, gadewch i ni o leiaf gydnabod ein bod wedi symud ymlaen rywfaint ers hynny, ond nid llawer iawn, nid llawer iawn. Os ydym yn herio ein huchelfraint frenhinol yn y Goruchaf Lys, nid ydym wedi dod yn bell iawn mewn 400 mlynedd, ydyn ni? Ond mae'n ein gadael ni gyda rhai cwestiynau gwirioneddol. Mae'n ein gadael ni gyda rhai cwestiynau gwirioneddol ynghylch confensiwn Sewel. Mae'r Goruchaf Lys wedi cadarnhau bod hwn yn gonfensiwn gwleidyddol, nid trefniant cyfansoddiadol. Yn awr, mae hynny'n beryglus iawn ar gyfer dyfodol democratiaeth Cymru, yn fy nhyb i. Sut mae'r Cwnsler Cyffredinol yn gweld y gallwn fwrw ymlaen â hyn pan oeddem yn credu, trwy ymgorffori confensiwn Sewel ym Mil Cymru, sydd eisoes yn Neddf yr Alban, bod hyn yn ei wneud yn rhan o gyfansoddiad y DU? Nid yw'r Goruchaf Lys yn cytuno; mae'n drefniant gwleidyddol. Ac mae'r Goruchaf Lys yn galw neu'n gweddïo am gymorth, fel rhan o'i ddadl dros hyn, achos o'r 1960au, Madzimbamuto v. LARDNER-Burke, achos o dde Rhodesia. Wel, dyna ein rhoi yn ein lle. Rheol drefedigaethol sy'n dweud wrthym fod confensiwn Sewel yn caniatáu i'r pwerau orffwys yn San Steffan i ddweud wrth y Senedd hon yr hyn yr ydym yn ei benderfynu ar gyfer pobl Cymru. Unwaith eto, hyd nes y gallwn sicrhau bod confensiwn Sewel yn llwyddo i fod yn berthynas gyfansoddiadol briodol rhwng pedair Senedd yr ynysoedd hyn, yna ni fydd gennym gyfansoddiad sefydlog a byddwn yn dadlau'r pwyntiau hyn yn barhaus. Rwy'n gresynu na allai'r Goruchaf Lys wneud y penderfyniad hwnnw drosto'i hun heddiw. Ond rwy'n credu bod hynny'n un o'r pethau allweddol y mae'n rhaid i Lywodraeth Cymru ei ddatblygu ymhellach o ran telerau'r trefniadau cyfansoddiadol a'u cyd-destun - y mae'r Prif Weinidog wedi siarad amdanynt yn gyson, i fod yn deg ag ef. Ond bellach mae angen i hynny gael ei ymgorffori a'i ddatblygu, efallai, yn y pwyllgor gweinidogol ar y cyd, fel ffordd ymlaen. Mae 'confensiwn' ei hun yn derm peryglus a llithrig. Dim ond yn ddiweddar iawn yr ydym wedi cael confensiwn fod gennym bleidlais yn y Senedd cyn rhyfel, un yr aberthodd Robin Cook ei fywyd gwleidyddol drosto. Cyn hynny, gellid arfer yr uchelfraint frenhinol i fynd i ryfel. Confensiwn yw hynny. Mae angen i ni symud i ffwrdd oddi wrth gonfensiynau ac i mewn i'r berthynas gyfansoddiadol briodol rhwng pob Senedd ar yr ynysoedd hyn. Hyd nes y gwnawn hynny, byddwn, mewn gwirionedd, yn arfer pwerau trefedigaethol. Nawr, nid wyf yn awgrymu ein bod yn gwneud datganiad unochrog o annibyniaeth, ond rwy'n credu bod angen inni symud ymlaen ymhellach ar y perthnasoedd hyn. Yr ail bwynt yr - . Wel, hoffwn iddo ateb rhywbeth am gonfensiwn Sewel a sut y gallwn ymgorffori hynny. Yr ail bwynt yr hoffwn iddo ei ateb yw cadarnhad gan Lywodraeth Cymru y bydd yn cyflwyno Cynnig Cydsyniad Deddfwriaethol. Mae'n bron yn anochel y bydd y Ddeddf y bydd San Steffan yn ei thrafod yn effeithio ar ein pwerau ni. Felly gadewch i ni gael y cadarnhad heddiw bod Cynnig Cydsyniad Deddfwriaethol yn briodol, fel y gallwn wybod ein bod yn mynd i drafod a phenderfynu ar hynny. Mae'r trydydd pwynt a'r olaf yn un yr ydym wedi ei godi sawl gwaith o'r blaen, sef y syniad a'r egwyddor y dylid trafod rhyw fath o Fil parhad yma yn Senedd Cymru o gwmpas y pwerau a gadwyd yn dilyn y penderfyniad i adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Mae nifer o Aelodau wedi nodi mai'r sefyllfa yno yw, wrth i bwerau gael eu dychwelyd gan yr Undeb Ewropeaidd, efallai y byddwn yn cael mwy o bwerau - mae hynny'n wir. Ond os ydynt yn dod i ben yn San Steffan, yna ni fyddwn yn cael y rheini, ac rydym eisoes wedi clywed llawer o bobl, gan gynnwys yn Adran yr Amgylchedd, Bwyd a Materion Gwledig mewn cysylltiad â pholisi amaethyddol ac o ran polisi amgylcheddol, yn siarad am gadw'r pwerau yn Llundain ac nid, yn wir, eu galluogi i lifo yma i fae Caerdydd. Felly, oni fyddai'n ymateb cadarnhaol i'r Bil diwygio mawr sy'n cael ei gynhyrchu bod gennym Fil parhad yma yn y Cynulliad, fel y gallwn drafod a sicrhau bod y pwerau yn cael eu cadw?