English: 'I don't see this settlement as being any more permanent than any of the others Until we reach the point of having some sort of jurisdiction for Wales, then I don't think that the process of devolution will have been concluded. But, again, I do feel that the way in which these matters are to be reserved are dealt with in this particular Bill is something that can only be a temporary solution rather than a permanent one.' Those are not my words, but the words of the pre-eminent constitutional lawyer in Wales. And how do I know that he is pre-eminent? Well, he is emeritus professor of law at Bangor and Cardiff universities, and you can get no higher than that. Professor Thomas Glyn Watkin and others who provided evidence to the committee on this Bill have demonstrated clearly all the deficiencies that have been repeated in this Bill, because it was clear from the outset, when the original draft Bill was proposed, what path we were taking; namely, it was moving from a conferred-powers model to a reserved-powers model. But to me, that wasn't the question. The question was always how many reservations and exceptions there will be. The crucial thing for me is to compare the reservations in Scotland's devolution settlement and Northern Ireland's settlement and to see the rationale, and to ask the question - and I still ask the question: what is the constitutional reason as to why Wales must be treated differently? Now, I asked that question of the previous Secretary of State and asked him whether he had read the appropriate clause in the Northern Ireland Act that includes exceptions and reservations, because, as the First Minister will know, there are but a handful of these. Those in Northern Ireland, in terms of the conferred powers, do provide additional powers to the Government and Assembly of Northern Ireland so that they can deal with the republic on the same terms. So, these aren't barriers to prevent them doing things, but are enablers. Therefore it is clear to me that the model that we have followed in developing devolution - . I congratulate the new Chair on his work, and fellow members of the committee, when I was a member, and I was pleased to hear him make this point, and this is a crucial point: we must reach a position where we can legislate jointly with Westminster. If I may say so, we did that the other week, when, under the leadership of our Chair, we met with colleagues who are members of the Constitution Committee in the second Chamber at Westminster. I've never felt prouder of being a Member of this Assembly - and I happen also, because of my past, to be a member of the upper House at Westminster - because our performance at that committee was as good a performance as any politician or legislator in the UK or anywhere else in Europe - anywhere I have been, anyway. But again, here we are being restricted from doing that legislative work ourselves. I have taken advantage of the work of this committee and have tabled a number of draft amendments that will be discussed at the Committee Stage in the upper House the week after next. My colleague Baroness Morgan of Ely will be there with me. I don't know what her feeling is, but I am not particularly hopeful that the Government will listen. I'm not particularly confident, in terms of the conversations that I've had with the Government, that they are truly interested in responding to what we have said, which raises a very grave question in terms of the prejudice against this house in the rest of the UK. We must seek a totally different way of dealing with constitutional issues, and that must mean that the National Assembly for Wales, in my view, must be able to legislate jointly on its own constitution with Westminster and anywhere else.
Welsh: 'Nid wyf yn gweld y setliad yma mewn unrhyw ffordd yn fwy parhaol na'r lleill Tan i ni gyrraedd y pwynt o gael rhyw fath o awdurdodaeth arbennig ar gyfer Cymru, nid wyf yn credu y bydd y broses o ddatganoli wedi dod i ben. Ond, eto rwy'n teimlo bod y modd y mae'r materion sy'n cael eu cadw'n ôl yn cael eu delio â nhw yn y Bil yma eto yn rhywbeth sydd yn sefyllfa dros dro, nid yn sefyllfa barhaol mewn unrhyw ffordd.' Nid fy ngeiriau i, ond geiriau'r cyfreithiwr cyfansoddiadol disgleiriaf yng Nghymru. A sut ydw i'n gwybod mai fo ydy'r disgleiriaf yng Nghymru? Wel, mae o'n athro cyfraith er anrhydedd ym mhrifysgolion Bangor a Chaerdydd, a gallwch chi ddim mynd yn uwch na hynny. Mae'r Athro Thomas Glyn Watkin a'r rhai eraill a roddodd dystiolaeth i'r pwyllgor ar y Bil yma wedi dangos yn gwbl glir yr holl ddiffygion sydd wedi cael eu hailadrodd yn y Bil yma, oherwydd roedd hi'n amlwg o'r dechrau, pan gynigiwyd y Bil drafft gwreiddiol, pa lwybr roeddem ni'n ei ddilyn, sef llwybr o symud o bwerau wedi eu gosod i bwerau wedi eu cadw nôl. Ond, i mi, nid dyna oedd y cwestiwn; y cwestiwn bob tro oedd: sawl eithriad sydd yna? A'r peth allweddol i mi yw cymharu'r eithriadau sydd yn neddfwriaeth ddatganoli'r Alban a deddfwriaeth ddatganoli Gogledd Iwerddon a gweld beth yw'r rheswm, a holi - ac rwy'n dal i ofyn hyn: beth yw'r rheswm cyfansoddiadol pam fod Cymru yn gorfod cael ei thrin yn wahanol? Fe ofynnais i'r cwestiwn i'r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol cynt, a gofyn iddo fo os oedd o wedi darllen y cymal priodol yn Neddf Gogledd Iwerddon sydd yn cynnwys eithriadau, achos nid oes yna ddim - fel y gŵyr y Prif Weinidog yn iawn - ond ychydig iawn o eithriadau, ac mae'r eithriadau yng Ngogledd Iwerddon i bwerau cadwedig yn rhoi pwerau ychwanegol i Lywodraeth a senedd Gogledd Iwerddon er mwyn iddyn nhw allu delio â'r weriniaeth ar yr un telerau. Hynny yw, nid eithriadau i rwystro pobl rhag gwneud pethau, ond eithriadau i'w galluogi nhw i wneud rhywbeth. Felly, mae'n amlwg i mi nad yw'r model rydym wedi bod yn ei ddilyn i ddatblygu datganoli - . Rwy'n llongyfarch y Cadeirydd newydd ar ei waith, a fy nghyd-aelodau o'r pwyllgor, pan roeddwn i arno fo, ac rwy'n falch ei fod wedi gwneud y pwynt yma, ac mae hwn yn bwynt allweddol: mae'n rhaid inni ddod i sefyllfa lle rydym yn gallu cyd-ddeddfu gyda San Steffan. Ac, os caf i ddweud, fe wnaethom ni hynny yr wythnos o'r blaen, pan, o dan arweiniad y Cadeirydd, fe aethom ni i gwrdd â chyfeillion sy'n aelodau o Bwyllgor Cyfansoddiadol yr ail Dŷ yn San Steffan. Nid wyf erioed wedi teimlo'n falchach o fod yn Aelod o'r Cynulliad yma - ac rwy'n digwydd bod, hefyd, oherwydd y gorffennol, yn Aelod o'r ail Dŷ yn San Steffan - oherwydd roedd ein perfformiad ni yn y pwyllgor yna gystal ag unrhyw wleidyddion, gystal ag unrhyw ddeddfwyr yn y Deyrnas Unedig neu unrhyw fan yn Ewrop - lle rydw i wedi bod, beth bynnag. Ac eto, dyma ni'n cael ein cyfyngu rhag gwneud y gwaith deddfu ein hunain. Nawr, rwyf wedi manteisio ar waith y pwyllgor yma ac wedi gosod nifer o welliannau drafft fydd yn cael eu trafod yn y Cyfnod Pwyllgor yn yr ail Dŷ yr wythnos ar ôl nesaf, ac mi fydd fy nghyfaill y farwnes goch o Drelái yna efo fi. Nid wyf i'n gwybod beth yw ei theimlad hi, ond nid wyf i'n obeithiol iawn y bydd y Llywodraeth yn gwrando. Nid wyf i'n obeithiol iawn, o'r sgyrsiau rwyf wedi eu cael gyda'r Llywodraeth, bod ganddynt wirioneddol ddiddordeb mewn ymateb i'r hyn rydym ni'n ei wneud, sydd yn codi cwestiwn difrifol iawn ynglŷn â'r rhagfarnu yn erbyn y tŷ hwn yng ngweddill y Deyrnas Unedig. Mae'n rhaid inni geisio ffyrdd cwbl wahanol o ddelio â chwestiynau cyfansoddiadol, ac mae'n rhaid i hynny olygu bod Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru, yn fy marn i, yn gallu cyd-ddeddfu bob amser ar ei chyfansoddiad ei hun gyda San Steffan ac unrhyw le arall.