English: I thank the Member for those remarks. I think that the very point of devolution is that different parts of the UK can reach different outcomes and different conclusions about how to approach this sort of question, and that is what happened, ultimately, in this case. The Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament, took a different view ultimately than we did here in Wales, and that is inherent in the nature of devolution and, in fact, if you're a devolutionist, it's a thing to be celebrated. Different considerations apply, but the Welsh Government was clear from the start that our main objective was to secure appropriate amendments to the EU withdrawal Act, as it is now, and that the continuity Bill was a means of achieving progress in relation to that. I would also say that we have benefited throughout by working very closely with the Scottish Government in relation to the development of the inter-governmental agreement, and subsequently, as well. I think this is the start of a longer process as all parts of the UK withdraw from the European Union; that kind of collaboration and co-operation will, I think, stand us in good stead as we go forward over the coming months, and no doubt, years. Just on the point that he makes, really, which echoes the point in the Supreme Court case of Miller, i.e. that without a legislative intervention, the withdrawal from the European Union extends the competence in those devolved areas rather than limits it. The argument that an Act of Parliament is needed before a devolved legislature can act in area where EU law is withdrawn is obviously fundamentally at odds with that observation. But I would also point at the inter-governmental agreement - as it was originally conceived, which had the much broader attack, actually, on the devolution settlement - was accepted by the UK Government as requiring, under the Sewel convention, a legislative consent motion, which suggests an acknowledgement on their part that there's a baseline level of competence, even in relation to matters relating to the withdrawal from the European Union. So, I think that is at odds with how the Attorney General's put his case here, and I hope that we will prevail in relation to that when our arguments are made before the Supreme Court.
Welsh: Diolch i'r Aelod am y sylwadau hynny. Credaf mai holl bwynt datganoli yw galluogi gwahanol rannau o'r DU gyrraedd canlyniadau gwahanol a gwahanol gasgliadau ynghylch sut i fynd ati gyda'r math hwn o gwestiwn, a dyna beth ddigwyddodd, yn y pen draw, yn yr achos hwn. Cymerodd Llywodraeth yr Alban, Senedd yr Alban, farn wahanol yn y pen draw i'r hyn y gwnaethom ni yma yng Nghymru, ac mae hynny yn elfen annatod o natur datganoli ac, yn wir, os ydych chi'n ddatganolwr, mae'n rhywbeth i'w ddathlu. Mae ystyriaethau gwahanol yn berthnasol, ond roedd Llywodraeth Cymru yn glir o'r dechrau mai ein prif amcan oedd sicrhau gwelliannau priodol i'r Ddeddf ymadael â'r EU, fel y mae yn awr, a bod y Bil parhad yn ffordd o sicrhau cynnydd mewn perthynas â hynny. Byddwn hefyd yn dweud ein bod wedi elwa, drwy gydol hyn, ar gydweithio'n agos â Llywodraeth yr Alban wrth ddatblygu cytundeb rhynglywodraethol, ac wedi hynny, hefyd. Rwy'n credu mai hwn fydd dechrau proses hirach, wrth i bob rhan o'r DU ymadael â'r Undeb Ewropeaidd; bydd y math hwnnw o gydweithio a chydweithredu rwy'n meddwl, yn ein rhoi ni mewn sefyllfa dda wrth inni symud ymlaen dros y misoedd, ac yn ddiau, y blynyddoedd nesaf. O ran y pwynt y mae'n ei wneud, mewn gwirionedd, sy'n adleisio'r pwynt yn achos Miller y Goruchaf Lys, h.y. heb ymyriad deddfwriaethol, mae ymadael â'r Undeb Ewropeaidd yn ymestyn cymhwysedd yn yr ardaloedd datganoledig hynny yn hytrach nag yn ei gyfyngu. Mae'r ddadl bod angen Deddf Seneddol cyn y gall deddfwrfa ddatganoledig weithredu mewn maes lle caiff cyfraith yr UE ei thynnu'n ôl yn amlwg yn y bôn yn groes i'r sylw hwnnw. Ond byddwn hefyd yn nodi bod y cytundeb rhynglywodraethol - fel y cafodd ei lunio yn wreiddiol, a oedd ag ymosodiad ehangach o lawer, mewn gwirionedd, ar y setliad datganoli - wedi'i dderbyn gan Lywodraeth y DU fel un a oedd, dan gonfensiwn Sewel, yn ofynnol iddo gael cynnig cydsyniad deddfwriaethol, sy'n awgrymu cydnabyddiaeth ar ei rhan hi fod lefel sylfaenol o gymhwysedd, hyd yn oed mewn perthynas â materion yn ymwneud ag ymadael â'r Undeb Ewropeaidd. Felly, credaf fod hynny'n mynd yn groes i sut y mae'r Twrnai Cyffredinol yn cyflwyno ei achos yma, ac rwy'n gobeithio y byddwn yn gorchfygu mewn perthynas â hynny pan roddir ein dadleuon gerbron y Goruchaf Lys.