English: Well, of course, I don't see them as being a contradiction or a conflict in that sense, because each particular Bill has to be assessed in terms of the particular circumstances that are applicable to that. And, of course, LCMs are a constitutional requirement that we have to deal with as a result of UK Government legislation, where it changes or impacts in respect of devolution. You are certainly right in respect of the fact that it is not an appropriate vehicle in terms of ensuring that legislation has perhaps the degrees of scrutiny that you should have. And, of course, that particularly is exacerbated when UK Bills are produced late, have substantial amendments that are made to them very late in the day, with limited opportunity then for proper scrutiny. I think those are things that need to be considered constitutionally, and I'm hopeful that the inter-governmental review will provide a mechanism for at least reviewing how that actually operates. Some of the points you raise go back to Sewel itself. You mentioned the Professional Qualifications Bill and the position there that has been taken, which is not to give consent. The point you raised with the health Minister, I think is of a different nature because it is about consequential amendments. And, of course, we could adopt the position where we would say, 'No, these minor consequential amendments that you have the power to make we would oppose', but if that's the case then you have to remember that, of course, we also make consequential amendments to UK Government legislation. So, were we to adopt that position, it would then impact on the way we conduct our own legislation where we need to make consequential amendments there as well.
Welsh: Wel, wrth gwrs, nid wyf yn ystyried eu bod yn gwrthdaro nac yn anghyson yn y ffordd honno, oherwydd mae'n rhaid asesu pob Bil penodol yng ngoleuni'r amgylchiadau penodol sy'n berthnasol iddo. Ac, wrth gwrs, mae cynigion cydsyniad deddfwriaethol yn ofyniad cyfansoddiadol y mae'n rhaid inni ymdrin â hwy o ganlyniad i ddeddfwriaeth Llywodraeth y DU, lle mae'n newid neu'n effeithio ar ddatganoli. Rydych yn sicr yn gywir nad yw'n gyfrwng priodol i sicrhau bod deddfwriaeth yn destun y lefel o graffu y dylech ei wneud arni o bosibl. Ac, wrth gwrs, caiff hynny ei waethygu yn enwedig pan fo Biliau'r DU yn cael eu cynhyrchu'n hwyr, a nifer sylweddol o welliannau'n cael eu gwneud iddynt yn hwyr iawn, heb fawr o gyfleoedd i graffu'n briodol o ganlyniad i hynny. Credaf fod y rheini'n bethau y mae angen eu hystyried yn gyfansoddiadol, ac rwy'n gobeithio y bydd yr adolygiad rhynglywodraethol yn darparu mecanwaith ar gyfer adolygu o leiaf sut y mae hynny'n gweithredu mewn gwirionedd. Mae rhai o'r pwyntiau a godwch yn mynd yn ôl at Sewel ei hun. Fe sonioch chi am y Bil Cymwysterau Proffesiynol a'r safbwynt a fabwysiadwyd yno, sef peidio â rhoi cydsyniad. Rwy'n credu bod y pwynt a godwyd gennych gyda'r Gweinidog iechyd o natur wahanol oherwydd mae'n ymwneud â diwygiadau canlyniadol. Ac wrth gwrs, gallem fabwysiadu'r safbwynt lle byddem yn dweud, 'Na, byddem yn gwrthwynebu'r mân ddiwygiadau canlyniadol hyn y mae gennych bŵer i'w gwneud', ond os felly mae'n rhaid ichi gofio ein bod ni hefyd, wrth gwrs, yn gwneud diwygiadau canlyniadol i ddeddfwriaeth Llywodraeth y DU. Felly, pe baem yn mabwysiadu'r safbwynt hwnnw, byddai'n effeithio ar y ffordd y cyflawnwn ein deddfwriaeth ein hunain lle mae angen inni wneud diwygiadau canlyniadol yno hefyd.