English: Llywydd, I wasn't planning to speak, but having listened to the contributions I thought that I should. One of the issues that is never addressed by those people who want to see abolition is what it means for the rest of the UK, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and why it is that Wales, apparently alone, should not have its own voice. Why is it that Wales alone - compare us to Scotland, Northern Ireland, England, the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, take your pick, Gibraltar - shouldn't have its own legal jurisdiction? Why is it that in two years' time it will be possible to be arrested for an offence in England that isn't an offence in England? Namely, if you hit a child, you cannot use the defence of reasonable chastisement. It will be possible to be arrested in Newcastle for an offence that isn't an offence in Newcastle. That is legal nonsense. It's nonsense. It doesn't make any sense at all. And the issue with jurisdiction is not as radical as people think. It's normal, actually. This is the abnormal situation where a Parliament does not have a jurisdiction. I listened to Mark Reckless's arguments. He made them at an event we both attended in Newcastle. I have to remind him that we did not seek income tax varying powers. They were imposed on us, effectively, by a Conservative Government. That's what happened. So it's not as if we deceived the people of Wales in 2011. It was decided by a Conservative Government that we needed - and I don't necessarily disagree with the logic - to have revenue-raising powers in order to be able to borrow. But it wasn't something that we particularly sought, because Northern Ireland didn't have revenue-raising powers, but did have the ability to borrow. Do I think Wales should be on a par with Scotland and Northern Ireland? Yes, I do. And I heard him on Saturday say with pride that his grandfather was a Fianna Fáil TD, so, a member of the anti-treaty forces in the Irish civil war. But is that not a lesson for us? That if Irish home rule had been granted - and the first world war intervened, we know that - then Ireland might not be independent today. It was the intransigence of the Westminster system that led to the slicing off of one part of the UK back in 1921, because the UK, remember, is not even 100 years old with its current boundaries. My argument would be - and I listen to what he says about where does this end, devolution is a process not an event, where does it end - for me, it ends with a structure that makes everything clear. There are others in the Chamber who want independence. I don't seek that; for me, it's four territories with their own powers and, call it what you want, a federal parliament at the top. It doesn't mean more politicians. You don't need 600 MPs in a federal parliament. The UK Government delivers very, very few services across the whole of the UK, very few: border control, currency, fiscal policy, and that is pretty much it. Even vehicle licensing is devolved in Northern Ireland, and that's not done by - . [ Interruption.] Sorry? Defence. I knew I'd missed one out. I'm not looking for the devolution of defence. And so, that's something we need to consider. You wouldn't need to have a large UK Parliament in order to scrutinise a UK Government in those circumstances. And I have to say, this idea that it's an institution's fault - . Now, it's perfectly democratic, of course, for others in this Chamber to criticise the Welsh Government. I don't agree with what they've said, but this is what the Chamber is for, to have that kind of debate, and if this Chamber wasn't here, there wouldn't be that debate. In fact, none of us in this Chamber wouldn't have a voice. There'd be no debate at all. And that's something we have to remember because I could argue that in the 1980s Westminster was a malevolent force in Wales. It destroyed the coal industry. It destroyed the steel industry. I could argue, 'Well, the problem is Westminster, let's abolish Westminster.' Equally, you could argue that the problem is democracy: 'Let's get rid of democracy because the problem is in Wales, people vote for the wrong parties.' And it's not fair that the centre right - well, he calls himself the centre right, Neil Hamilton - in Wales don't have a voice. Win some elections. I'm not going to stand here and apologise for the fact that my party has been successful for the past 20 years. I know it gets more difficult with every election - of course, it does. People say, 'Well, you've been in power a long time', and I know that that's something that you have to work hard to combat. But to say people in Wales are effectively too stupid to vote for the right kind of politics is a reason to abolish the institution that they themselves created in 1997, and they themselves in 2011 decided by a majority of nearly two to one - and it would have been higher if the opinion polls hadn't shown it was going to be a clear victory. They decided by two to one in 2011, a mere nine years ago, that we should have primary powers here in Wales. It was clear what people voted for and people did it as a matter of pride and there was a cross-party campaign, in fairness, that supported that. And finally, I'll simply say this: you cannot pretend, as I said earlier, to be any kind of nation if you have no political structure, especially in a country like the UK where there'd be a Scottish Parliament, a Northern Ireland Assembly, Manchester, London, Westminster Parliament and Wales would have nothing. Even Cornwall has a county council. And the idea that somehow Welsh MPs are so devoid of work that they could actually scrutinise a Welsh mayor - the only way I can describe it - I just find that fanciful. I'm sure that they are overwhelmed with work as it is. And of course, it fails to address the question: does that mean then that the 40 Welsh MPs could instigate their own legislation? Because if that's not the case, then that directly goes against the referendum result in 2011 when the people of Wales decided by a hefty majority that this was the place where primary legislation would be drafted and passed in devolved areas. I've gone on for longer than I wanted to, Llywydd, but surely the time has come across the whole of the UK for a stable constitutional settlement that's in everyone's interest.
Welsh: Lywydd, nid oeddwn yn bwriadu siarad, ond ar ôl gwrando ar y cyfraniadau, meddyliais y dylwn. Un o'r materion nad eir i'r afael ag ef byth gan y bobl sydd am weld diddymu'r Cynulliad yw'r hyn y mae'n ei olygu i weddill y DU, yr Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon, a pham na ddylai Cymru, yn unig mae'n ymddangos, gael ei llais ei hun. Pam na ddylai Cymru'n unig - cymharwch ni â'r Alban, Gogledd Iwerddon, Lloegr, Ynys Manaw, Jersey, Guernsey, dewiswch chi, Gibraltar - gael ein hawdurdodaeth gyfreithiol ein hunain? Pam, ymhen dwy flynedd, y bydd modd cael eich arestio am drosedd yn Lloegr nad yw'n drosedd yn Lloegr? Hynny yw, os ydych yn taro plentyn, ni allwch ddefnyddio cosb resymol yn amddiffyniad. Bydd modd i chi gael eich arestio yn Newcastle am drosedd nad yw'n drosedd yn Newcastle. Nonsens cyfreithiol yw hynny. Lol llwyr. Nid yw'n gwneud synnwyr o gwbl. Ac nid yw mater awdurdodaeth mor radical ag y mae pobl yn ei feddwl. Mae'n normal, mewn gwirionedd. Dyma'r sefyllfa annormal lle nad oes gan Senedd awdurdodaeth. Gwrandewais ar ddadleuon Mark Reckless. Fe'u cyflwynodd mewn digwyddiad a fynychwyd gennym ein dau yn Newcastle. Rhaid imi ei atgoffa na wnaethom geisio pwerau i amrywio'r dreth incwm. Fe'u gorfodwyd arnom, i bob pwrpas, gan Lywodraeth Geidwadol. Dyna beth a ddigwyddodd. Felly nid yw fel pe baem wedi twyllo pobl Cymru yn 2011. Penderfynodd Llywodraeth Geidwadol fod arnom angen - ac nid wyf o reidrwydd yn anghytuno â'r rhesymeg - cael pwerau codi refeniw er mwyn gallu benthyca. Ond nid oedd yn rhywbeth roeddem yn ei geisio'n benodol, oherwydd nid oedd gan Ogledd Iwerddon bwerau codi refeniw, ond roedd ganddynt allu i fenthyca. A wyf yn credu y dylai Cymru fod yn gyfartal â'r Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon? Ydw. Ac fe'i clywais ddydd Sadwrn yn dweud gyda balchder fod ei daid yn Fianna Fáil TD, felly, yn aelod o'r lluoedd gwrth-gytuniad yn rhyfel cartref Iwerddon. Ond onid yw honno'n wers i ni? Pe bai Iwerddon wedi cael ymreolaeth - ac fe wyddom fod y rhyfel byd cyntaf wedi tarfu ar hynny - efallai na fyddai Iwerddon yn annibynnol heddiw. Diffyg anhyblygrwydd system San Steffan a arweiniodd at dorri un rhan o'r DU oddi ar y gweddill yn ôl yn 1921, oherwydd nid yw'r DU, cofiwch, yn 100 oed hyd yn oed gyda'i ffiniau presennol. Fy nadl i fyddai - ac rwy'n gwrando ar yr hyn y mae'n ei ddweud ynglŷn â ble y daw hyn i ben, mai proses yw datganoli nid digwyddiad, ble mae'n dod i ben - i mi, mae'n dod i ben gyda strwythur sy'n gwneud popeth yn glir. Mae eraill yn y Siambr am gael annibyniaeth. Nid wyf fi eisiau hynny; i mi, mae'n bedair tiriogaeth gyda'u pwerau eu hunain a senedd ffederal, beth bynnag rydych chi am ei alw, ar y brig. Nid yw'n golygu mwy o wleidyddion. Nid oes angen 600 o ASau mewn senedd ffederal. Ychydig iawn o wasanaethau y mae Llywodraeth y DU yn eu darparu ar draws y DU i gyd, ychydig iawn: rheoli ffiniau, arian cyfred, polisi cyllidol, a dyna ni fwy neu lai. Mae trwyddedu cerbydau hyd yn oed wedi'u datganoli yng Ngogledd Iwerddon, ac ni wneir hynny gan - . [ Torri ar draws.] Mae'n ddrwg gennyf? Amddiffyn. Roeddwn i'n gwybod fy mod wedi methu un. Nid wyf yn dymuno datganoli amddiffyn. Ac felly, mae hynny'n rhywbeth y mae angen i ni ei ystyried. Ni fyddai angen ichi gael Senedd fawr yn y DU er mwyn craffu ar Lywodraeth y DU o dan yr amgylchiadau hynny. Ac mae'n rhaid i mi ddweud, mae'r syniad hwn mai bai sefydliad ydyw - . Nawr, mae'n gwbl ddemocrataidd, wrth gwrs, i eraill yn y Siambr feirniadu Llywodraeth Cymru. Nid wyf yn cytuno â'r hyn y maent wedi'i ddweud, ond dyna yw diben y Siambr, i gael dadleuon o'r fath, a phe na bai'r Siambr hon yma, ni fyddai'r dadleuon hynny'n digwydd. Mewn gwirionedd, ni fyddai gan yr un ohonom yn y Siambr hon lais. Ni fyddai unrhyw ddadl o gwbl. A dyna rywbeth y mae'n rhaid i ni ei gofio oherwydd gallwn ddadlau mai grym maleisus oedd San Steffan yn yr 1980au yng Nghymru. Dinistriodd y diwydiant glo. Dinistriodd y diwydiant dur. Gallwn ddadlau, 'Wel, y broblem yw San Steffan, gadewch inni ddiddymu San Steffan.' Yn yr un modd, gallech ddadlau mai democratiaeth yw'r broblem: 'Gadewch inni gael gwared ar ddemocratiaeth oherwydd y broblem yw bod pobl yng Nghymru yn pleidleisio dros y pleidiau anghywir.' Ac nid yw'n deg nad oes llais gan y dde-ganol - wel, mae'n galw ei hun yn dde-ganol, Neil Hamilton - yng Nghymru. Enillwch etholiadau. Nid wyf am sefyll yma ac ymddiheuro bod fy mhlaid wedi bod yn llwyddiannus dros yr 20 mlynedd diwethaf. Rwy'n gwybod ei bod yn mynd yn anos gyda phob etholiad - wrth gwrs ei fod. Mae pobl yn dweud, 'Wel, rydych chi mewn grym ers tro byd', ac rwy'n gwybod bod hynny'n rhywbeth y mae'n rhaid i chi weithio'n galed i'w ymladd. Ond mae dweud bod pobl yng Nghymru yn rhy dwp i bob pwrpas i bleidleisio dros y math iawn o wleidyddiaeth a bod hynny'n rheswm dros ddiddymu'r sefydliad a grewyd ganddynt hwy eu hunain yn 1997, ac y penderfynasant hwy eu hunain yn 2011 drwy fwyafrif o bron i ddau i un - a byddai wedi bod yn uwch pe na bai'r arolygon barn wedi dangos y byddai'n fuddugoliaeth glir. Penderfynasant o ddau i un yn 2011, naw mlynedd yn ôl yn unig, y dylem gael pwerau sylfaenol yma yng Nghymru. Roedd hi'n amlwg dros beth y pleidleisiodd pobl ac roedd pobl yn ei wneud fel mater o falchder a chafwyd ymgyrch drawsbleidiol, a bod yn deg, a oedd yn cefnogi hynny. Ac yn olaf, rwyf am ddweud hyn: fel y dywedais yn gynharach, ni allwch esgus bod yn unrhyw fath o genedl os nad oes gennych unrhyw strwythur gwleidyddol, yn enwedig mewn gwlad fel y DU lle byddai Senedd gan yr Alban, Cynulliad gan Ogledd Iwerddon, Manceinion, Llundain, Senedd San Steffan, a dim gan Gymru. Mae gan Gernyw hyd yn oed gyngor sir. Ac mae'r syniad rywsut fod ASau Cymreig mor brin o waith fel y gallant graffu ar faer Cymreig - yr unig ffordd y gallaf ei ddisgrifio - ffantasi lwyr yw honno. Rwy'n siŵr eu bod yn cael eu llethu gan waith fel y mae. Ac wrth gwrs, mae'n methu mynd i'r afael â'r cwestiwn: a yw hynny'n golygu felly y gallai'r 40 o ASau Cymreig gychwyn eu deddfwriaeth eu hunain? Oherwydd os nad yw hynny'n wir, mae hynny'n mynd yn uniongyrchol groes i ganlyniad y refferendwm yn 2011 pan benderfynodd pobl Cymru o fwyafrif helaeth mai dyma lle byddai deddfwriaeth sylfaenol yn cael ei drafftio a'i phasio mewn meysydd datganoledig. Rwyf wedi bod wrthi am fwy o amser nag y bwriadwn, Lywydd, ond does bosibl, ar draws y DU i gyd, nad yw'r amser wedi dod i gael setliad cyfansoddiadol sefydlog er budd pawb.