English: Thank you for the question, and, as has previously been set out by the First Minister in his evidence to the House of Lords EU Select Committee, the Welsh Government is fundamentally opposed to the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998, and, similarly, to any withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights. The Human Rights Act affects the Welsh Ministers and the Assembly in two very direct ways. Firstly, they are public authorities for the purpose of the Human Rights Act 1998, which means that they cannot act in a way that is incompatible with convention rights. And, secondly, the Welsh Ministers are under a statutory duty by virtue of the Government of Wales Act 2006 not to act or to legislate incompatibly with the convention rights, so that any Assembly Bill provision is outside the Assembly's competence if it is incompatible with convention rights. It is almost certain that imposing compliance with a British Bill of Rights on the Assembly will require the Assembly's consent by a legislative consent motion. Can I refer specifically to the Amnesty International campaign, which is a campaign I very much endorse, because the Human Rights Act has been something that has been grossly misrepresented by certain political organisations and parties? For me, it is a jewel in our constitution, in our legislative framework. It is very interesting, some of the points that have arisen in the Amnesty International campaign, and I was very disappointed to see that the posters were subsequently banned by Network Rail. But, just referring to the comments that were made, for example, by Becky Shah, whose mother died at Hillsborough, she said that: 'Without the Human Rights Act we would never, ever have had the second inquest. Without the Human Rights Act we would never, ever have got the verdicts of unlawfully killed against all the parties that were culpable. It was an absolutely imperative piece of legislation.' Again, the parents of John Robinson, who died in 2006 from a ruptured spleen, where, again, the issue of second inquest arose, where the family said that it was 'fundamental to everyone, in all walks of life. It opens access to justice for the man in the street. From the outset, all we wanted to know was the truth, and we were denied that by an inadequate first inquest. Using the Human Rights Act helped us achieve our goal. For me, my personal view and the view of the Welsh Government is one of opposition to it. The idea of supplanting the excellent Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights with a Bill of Rights, in my view, could do nothing other than probably lower the standards of human rights, and what would that say about the standing of the United Kingdom in the world - at the time, with everything that is happening, to be saying that our objective now is to lower the standard of human rights?
Welsh: Diolch am y cwestiwn, ac fel y nodwyd eisoes gan y Prif Weinidog yn ei dystiolaeth i Bwyllgor Dethol Tŷ'r Arglwyddi ar yr UE, mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn llwyr wrthwynebu diddymu Deddf Hawliau Dynol 1998, ac yn yr un modd, mae'n gwrthwynebu unrhyw dynnu'n ôl o'r Confensiwn Ewropeaidd ar Hawliau Dynol. Mae'r Ddeddf Hawliau Dynol yn effeithio ar Weinidogion Cymru a'r Cynulliad mewn dwy ffordd uniongyrchol iawn. Yn gyntaf, maent yn awdurdodau cyhoeddus at ddibenion Deddf Hawliau Dynol 1998, sy'n golygu na allant weithredu mewn ffordd sy'n anghydnaws â hawliau'r confensiwn. Ac yn ail, mae dyletswydd statudol ar Weinidogion Cymru yn rhinwedd Deddf Llywodraeth Cymru 2006 i beidio â gweithredu neu ddeddfu yn anghydnaws â hawliau'r confensiwn, sy'n golygu bod unrhyw ddarpariaeth ym Miliau'r Cynulliad y tu allan i gymhwysedd y Cynulliad os yw'n anghydnaws â hawliau'r confensiwn. Mae bron yn sicr y byddai mynnu bod y Cynulliad yn cydymffurfio â Deddf Hawliau Prydeinig yn galw am gydsyniad y Cynulliad, drwy gynnig cydsyniad deddfwriaethol. A gaf fi gyfeirio'n benodol at ymgyrch Amnesty International, sy'n ymgyrch rwy'n ei chefnogi'n frwd, gan fod y Ddeddf Hawliau Dynol wedi cael ei chamddisgrifio'n ddybryd gan rai sefydliadau a phleidiau gwleidyddol? I mi, mae'n un o drysorau ein cyfansoddiad, ein fframwaith deddfwriaethol. Mae rhai o'r pwyntiau a nodwyd yn ymgyrch Amnesty International yn ddiddorol iawn, ac roeddwn yn siomedig iawn o weld bod Network Rail wedi gwahardd eu posteri. Ond gan gyfeirio at y sylwadau a wnaed, er enghraifft, gan Becky Shah, a gollodd ei mam yn Hillsborough, dywedodd: Heb y Ddeddf Hawliau Dynol ni fyddem byth wedi cael yr ail gwest. Heb y Ddeddf Hawliau Dynol ni fyddem byth bythoedd wedi cael y rheithfarn o ladd anghyfreithlon yn erbyn y rhai a oedd ar fai. Roedd yn ddeddfwriaeth gwbl hanfodol. Unwaith eto, rhieni John Robinson, a fu farw yn 2006 o ddueg wedi rhwygo, lle y dywedodd y teulu, unwaith eto, pan gododd mater ail gwest, ei bod yn hanfodol i bawb, o bob cefndir. Mae'n sicrhau mynediad at gyfiawnder i'r dyn yn y stryd. O'r cychwyn cyntaf, yr unig beth roeddem am ei wybod oedd y gwir, ac ni chawsom hynny gan gwest cyntaf annigonol. Roedd defnyddio'r Ddeddf Hawliau Dynol yn gymorth i ni gyflawni ein nod. I mi, fy marn bersonol a barn Llywodraeth Cymru yw ein bod yn ei gwrthwynebu. Ni allai'r syniad o Ddeddf Hawliau i ddisodli'r Ddeddf Hawliau Dynol ragorol a'r Confensiwn Ewropeaidd ar Hawliau Dynol wneud dim, yn fy marn i, heblaw gostwng safonau hawliau dynol yn ôl pob tebyg, a beth fyddai hynny'n ei ddweud am statws y Deyrnas Unedig yn y byd - ar yr adeg hon, gyda phopeth sy'n digwydd, ein bod yn dweud mai ein hamcan yn awr yw gostwng safon hawliau dynol?