English: Thank you, Llywydd. I'm a little surprised by the Minister's response because, in fairness to the Cabinet Secretary, during the committee proceedings, he did concede that some form of sunset clause could be reasonably considered. He thought a far longer period than 10 years would be most appropriate, if the Government went down that road. But we now hear from the Minister that complete abolishment is the intention. I have to say that there was a different emphasis in the Government's evidence as we went through Stages 1 and 2 - that the right to buy was not something that was opposed in principle and that even something like a sunset clause could get looked at. On your other argument about how somehow a sunset clause deters new build in terms of housing associations, or if we have a new age of council housing, one way around that would be, as I previously mentioned, ensuring that new builds have to be socially rented for a period of 15 or 20 years or whatever. There are other mechanisms, rather than completely abolishing a cherished right that has been exercised by so many people. If someone in 1980 said that getting on for 150,000 people in Wales would exercise a particular right, you would have thought, 'Wow, that is offering the citizenry something that is highly desirable.' So, I do urge the Chamber to think that some nuance could be brought into the Bill that is in front of us. I do agree that the issue of supply is at the heart of this. Therefore, I think it's reasonable, after 10 years, to examine the issue again and to ask ourselves, 'The evidence that some people have found convincing: does that still have the strength that it has today?' And I don't think that is, in any way, weakening the Bill before us. After all, it would only take a resolution in this house or regulation. We're not talking about the Bill expiring and then you'd have to start the whole process again; it would just require an affirmative vote here. Can I also say at this point that the Welsh Government has consistently mentioned the alternative of homeownership assistance schemes such as Help to Buy? But what I think you consistently fail to acknowledge is that most people on the lowest incomes would fail to qualify for such schemes as their income would be below the threshold, and many of these people have taken advantage of the Right to Buy and the discounts that it has given them. During Stage 1, Steve Clarke stated: 'In our consultation of 2015, and our joint statement with TPAS Cymru, 100% of tenants agreed that Welsh Government needed to do more to increase social housing supply. In those consultations, 60% of tenants stated they did not want to see an end to RTB but supported restrictions on discounts and temporary suspension where there was a demonstrated need.' So, I think this amendment is much more in tune with what the tenants, when they're consulted, are saying and the type of flexibility and sophistication they would expect in the policy and its architecture that we are constructing this afternoon. So, I really think that we could be innovative and do something that would be a first for this Assembly, and also acknowledge that there clearly is divided opinion. I have to say, you know, in this Chamber there is a clear majority for this measure, probably, in its most robust form from your point of view, but when it comes to public opinion, I think you'll find that the arguments that we're making on this side - and we are supported, I acknowledge, by members of the UKIP group - have far greater resonance with the electorate out there, and I think that ought to be a concern during this period of what some people think is unresponsive or jaded democracy. So, I do hope Members will think carefully about how they're going to vote on this amendment.
Welsh: Diolch ichi, Lywydd. Rwy'n synnu braidd gan ymateb y Gweinidog oherwydd, er tegwch i Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet, yn ystod trafodion y Pwyllgor, cyfaddefodd y gellid ystyried rhyw fath o gymal machlud rhesymol. Roedd yn credu y byddai cyfnod hwy o lawer na 10 mlynedd yn fwy priodol, pe bai'r Llywodraeth yn mynd i lawr y ffordd honno. Ond bellach rydym yn clywed gan y Gweinidog mai'r bwriad yw diddymiad llwyr. Rhaid imi ddweud bod pwyslais gwahanol yn nhystiolaeth y Llywodraeth wrth inni fynd trwy Gyfnod 1 a 2 - nad oedd yr hawl i brynu yn rhywbeth a oedd yn cael ei wrthwynebu mewn egwyddor ac y byddai hyd yn oed rhywbeth fel cymal machlud yn cael ei ystyried. O ran eich dadl arall am sut, rywsut, y mae cymal machlud yn atal adeiladu newydd o ran cymdeithasau tai, neu os cawn oes newydd o dai cyngor, un ffordd o amgylch hynny, fel y soniais o'r blaen, fyddai sicrhau bod yn rhaid i adeiladau newydd fod ar rent yn gymdeithasol am gyfnod o 15 neu 20 mlynedd neu beth bynnag. Mae mecanweithiau eraill ar gael, yn hytrach na llwyr ddiddymu hawl a drysorir ac a gafodd ei harfer gan gynifer o bobl. Pe dywedai rhywun ym 1980 y byddai rhywbeth tebyg i 150,000 o bobl yng Nghymru yn arfer hawl benodol, byddech wedi meddwl, 'Hei, mae hynny'n cynnig rhywbeth dymunol iawn i ddinasyddion.' Felly, rwy'n annog y Siambr i feddwl y gellid dod â newid pwyslais yn y Bil sydd ger ein bron. Ac rwy'n cytuno bod y mater o gyflenwi wrth wraidd hyn. Felly, onid yw'n rhesymol, ar ôl 10 mlynedd, i ystyried y mater eto ac i ofyn i ni'n hunain, 'Y dystiolaeth y mae rhai pobl yn ei hystyried yn argyhoeddiadol: a yw honno'n dal mor gryf heddiw?' Ac ni chredaf fod hynny, mewn unrhyw ffordd, yn gwanhau'r Bil ger ein bron. Wedi'r cyfan, ni fyddai ond yn cymryd penderfyniad yn y tŷ hwn neu reoliad. Nid ydym yn sôn am y Bil yn dod i ben ac yna byddai'n rhaid ddechrau ar y broses gyfan unwaith eto; ni fyddai ond angen pleidlais gadarnhaol yma. A gaf i hefyd ddweud ar y pwynt hwn fod Llywodraeth Cymru yn gyson wedi crybwyll y dewis o gynlluniau cymorth perchentyaeth amgen fel Cymorth i Brynu? Ond yr hyn y credaf yr ydych yn methu â'i gydnabod yn gyson yw y byddai'r rhan fwyaf o bobl ar yr incwm isaf ddim yn gymwys am gynlluniau o'r fath gan y byddai eu hincwm yn is na'r trothwy, ac mae llawer o'r bobl hyn wedi manteisio ar yr Hawl i Brynu a'r gostyngiadau a roddwyd iddynt. Yn ystod Cyfnod 1, dywedodd Steve Clarke: Yn ein hymgynghoriad yn 2015, a'n datganiad ar y cyd â TPAS Cymru, cytunodd 100% o'r tenantiaid fod angen i Lywodraeth Cymru wneud mwy i gynyddu'r cyflenwad o dai cymdeithasol. Yn yr ymgynghoriadau hynny, dywedodd 60% o'r tenantiaid nad oeddent am weld diwedd ar yr hawl i brynu ond roeddent yn cefnogi cyfyngiadau ar ostyngiadau ac atal dros dro lle'r oedd angen wedi ei ddangos. Felly, credaf fod y gwelliant hwn mewn mwy o gytgord â'r hyn y mae'r tenantiaid, pan ymgynghorir â nhw, yn ei ddweud a'r math o hyblygrwydd a soffistigeiddrwydd a ddisgwylir ganddynt yn y polisi a'i bensaernïaeth yr ydym yn ei greu y prynhawn yma. Felly, credaf mewn gwirionedd y gallem fod yn arloesol a bod y Cynulliad hwn yn gwneud rhywbeth na ddigwyddodd o'r blaen, gan gydnabod hefyd yn amlwg fod gwahaniaeth barn. Rhaid imi ddweud, wyddoch chi, yn y Siambr hon mae mwyafrif clir o blaid y Mesur hwn, fwy na thebyg, yn ei ffurf gadarnaf o'ch safbwynt chi, ond pan ddaw i farn y cyhoedd, credaf y cewch fod y dadleuon yr ydym yn eu gwneud ar yr ochr hon - ac rydym yn cael ein cefnogi, rwy'n cydnabod, gan aelodau o'r grŵp UKIP - wedi plesio'r etholwyr yn llawer mwy. Credaf y dylai hynny fod yn destun pryder yn ystod y cyfnod hwn o ddemocratiaeth sydd, ym marn rhai pobl yn anymatebol neu'n ddiflas. Felly, gobeithio y bydd yr Aelodau yn meddwl yn ofalus am sut y maen nhw'n mynd i bleidleisio ar y gwelliant hwn.