Gall y datganiad helpu i liniaru’r risg o ddeddfwriaeth y Cynulliad, mewn rhai meysydd datganoledig, yn y dyfodol yn dod o fewn yr eithriad diwygiedig (er enghraifft, gorchmynion sy’n amddiffyn unigolion sy’n agored i niwed mewn lleoliadau gofal rhag ymddygiad gan drydydd parti sy’n achosi trallod.) Ond byddai’n well o lawer cael eglurder ynghylch hynny ar wyneb y Bil. At hynny, nid yw’r datganiad yn ymdrin â’n pryder ni ynghylch effaith bosibl yr eithriad ar gymhwysedd y Cynulliad mewn meysydd datganoledig eraill, lle y credwn ni y gall y Cynulliad ddeddfu ar hyn o bryd i ymdrin ag ymddygiad sy’n achosi aflonyddwch, braw neu drallod (megis tai neu’r gwasanaeth iechyd). Rwy’n ailddatgan y dylai’r Cynulliad gytuno ar unrhyw welliannau i Atodlen 7 i Ddeddf Llywodraeth Cymru, a dylai eu heffaith ar gymhwysedd deddfwriaethol y Cynulliad fod yn eglur - nid yw hynny’n wir yma.
The statement may help to mitigate the risk of future Assembly legislation in some devolved areas falling within the amended exception (for example, orders which have the purpose of protecting vulnerable individuals in care settings from third party behaviour causing distress). But it would be far better to have clarity about that on the face of the Bill.  Furthermore, the statement does not address our concern about the potential effect of the exception on Assembly competence in other devolved areas in which we believe the Assembly can currently legislate to deal with behaviour causing harassment, alarm or distress (such as housing or the health service). I repeat that any amendments to Schedule 7 to GOWA should be agreed with the Assembly, and their effect on the Assembly’s legislative competence should be clear – which is not the case here.