English: Well, this is a very serious Bill, a very serious piece of legislation, with very serious consequences. The concerns about those consequences, I believe, are shared across all political parties at the moment. I believe it is legislation that is ideologically driven by a small minority in Westminster, and I think there are serious consequences for all the Governments of the UK if the Bill proceeds in its current format. The first thing to say is that we had very little engagement with it, with the content of the Bill. In fact, I think, as I reported to this Senedd, the first notice that we had was a call to meet on a Saturday with the Minister, Suella Braverman at that particular time, where we were given very little information about what would be involved. What I can say is that, since then, I have had a whole host of meetings. I have met on several occasions with Minister Rees-Mogg; we've had numerous items of correspondence, including a joint letter right at the beginning from myself and from the Scottish Government that highlighted the serious concerns about trying to change legislation in this particular way. This isn't a party-political point; this is about bad law. It is a bad way to change law, and it gives unfettered powers to the UK Government, with very serious consequence. It is also a way of bypassing Parliament, because it does not give powers to Parliament itself, to the scrutiny of legislation, to an understanding of what major pieces of legislation may change, but it gives it solely into the hands of UK Government Ministers. That should be something that should concern all those who are concerned with parliamentary democracy. On top of the letters, I have met yesterday with Felicity Buchan, UK Government Minister, to reiterate those concerns, and I will be attending a meeting next week of the Interministerial Standing Committee, which I will be chairing, where this issue will also be raised again. Two major concerns we have, of course, are that it contains concurrent powers that would enable the UK Government to change Welsh law without any reference to the Welsh Government. It also has a sunset clause, where all the retained EU law is revoked, irrespective of what it is or what scrutiny it may or may not have had, by 31 December 2023. The UK Government Ministers have given for themselves within this Bill a sort of get-out-of-jail card to be able to extend it, when they realised the consequence of what they're trying to do. We have asked for exactly the same powers and, unfortunately, we are not being given those either. What I can say is that every concern that we have, which are shared by Scotland, and I believe are shared by many across political parties in Westminster Government, which are shared by businesses, who will bear considerable costs as a result of this Bill if goes through in its current format - . And there have been no adequate responses to the concerns that have been raised.
Welsh: Wel, mae hwn yn Fil difrifol iawn, yn ddeddfwriaeth ddifrifol iawn, gyda chanlyniadau difrifol iawn. Mae'r pryderon am y canlyniadau hynny, rwy'n credu, yn cael eu rhannu ar draws pob plaid wleidyddol ar hyn o bryd. Credaf ei bod yn ddeddfwriaeth sy'n cael ei llywio'n ideolegol gan leiafrif bach yn San Steffan, ac rwy'n credu bod canlyniadau difrifol i holl Lywodraethau'r DU os yw'r Bil yn bwrw ymlaen ar ei ffurf bresennol. Yn gyntaf, ni chawsom fawr o ymwneud ag ef, â chynnwys y Bil. Yn wir, fel yr adroddais i'r Senedd hon, rwy'n credu mai'r hysbysiad cyntaf a gawsom oedd galwad i gyfarfod ar ddydd Sadwrn gyda'r Gweinidog, Suella Braverman ar yr adeg benodol honno, ac ni chawsom lawer o wybodaeth am yr hyn a fyddai'n cael ei drafod. Gallaf ddweud fy mod wedi cael llu o gyfarfodydd ers hynny. Rwyf wedi cyfarfod ar sawl achlysur â'r Gweinidog Rees-Mogg; rydym wedi cael nifer o eitemau o ohebiaeth, gan gynnwys llythyr ar y cyd ar y dechrau oddi wrthyf fi ac oddi wrth Lywodraeth Yr Alban a amlygodd y pryderon difrifol ynglŷn â cheisio newid deddfwriaeth yn y ffordd hon. Nid pwynt gwleidyddiaeth plaid mo hwn; mae hyn yn ymwneud â chyfraith wael. Mae'n ffordd wael o newid cyfraith, ac mae'n rhoi pwerau dilyffethair i Lywodraeth y DU, gyda chanlyniadau difrifol iawn. Mae hefyd yn ffordd o osgoi'r Senedd, oherwydd nid yw'n rhoi pwerau i'r Senedd ei hun i graffu ar ddeddfwriaeth, i ddeall yr hyn y gall darnau pwysig o ddeddfwriaeth ei newid, ond yn hytrach mae'n rhoi'r pwerau hyn i gyd yn nwylo Gweinidogion Llywodraeth y DU yn unig. Dylai hynny fod yn rhywbeth a ddylai boeni pawb sy'n ymwneud â democratiaeth seneddol. Ar ben y llythyrau, cyfarfûm â Felicity Buchan, Gweinidog Llywodraeth y DU, ddoe i ailadrodd y pryderon hynny, a byddaf yn cadeirio cyfarfod o'r Pwyllgor Sefydlog Rhyngweinidogol yr wythnos nesaf lle bydd y mater hwn yn cael ei godi eto. Dau bryder mawr sydd gennym, wrth gwrs, yw ei fod yn cynnwys pwerau cydamserol a fyddai'n galluogi Llywodraeth y DU i newid cyfraith Cymru heb gyfeirio at Lywodraeth Cymru o gwbl. Mae ganddo hefyd gymal machlud, lle mae holl gyfreithiau'r UE a ddargedwir yn cael eu diddymu, ni waeth beth ydyw ac ni waeth pa graffu a wnaed, neu na wnaed arno, erbyn 31 Rhagfyr 2023. Mae Gweinidogion Llywodraeth y DU wedi rhoi rhyw fath o docyn achub i'w hunain o fewn y Bil fel y gallant ei ymestyn, wedi iddynt sylweddoli beth fydd canlyniad yr hyn y maent yn ceisio ei wneud. Rydym wedi gofyn am yr un pwerau'n union ac yn anffodus nid ydym yn cael y rheini chwaith. Yr hyn y gallaf ei ddweud yw bod pob pryder sydd gennym, sy'n cael eu rhannu gan yr Alban, sy'n cael eu rhannu gan lawer ar draws y pleidiau gwleidyddol yn Llywodraeth San Steffan rwy'n credu, ac sy'n cael eu rhannu gan fusnesau, a fydd yn ysgwyddo costau sylweddol o ganlyniad i'r Bil hwn os bydd yn cael ei dderbyn ar ei ffurf bresennol - . Ac nid oes ymatebion digonol wedi bod i'r pryderon a fynegwyd.