English: On a point of principle, I think I would like to say that we believe in differentiating clearly, or distinguishing clearly, between elected representation at various different levels for appropriateness and to avoid conflict of interest. Now, in terms of this group of amendments, we are supportive of the provision in the Bill, as presented, to disqualify Members of the House of Lords from membership of this Senedd to all intents and purposes. We oppose amendments 271 and 278 in the name of David Melding, therefore, which try and delete this provision. This is a sensible step, which is an extension of the arrangements already in place to disbar Assembly Members from being Members of the UK Parliament and Members of the UK Parliament from being Assembly Members. At the same time, we do support amendment 56, tabled by the Government in the name of Jeremy Miles, to prevent someone from being a councillor and a Member of the Senedd for the same reasons. Despite that, we do welcome the fact that it does note clearly that someone can stand as a candidate for the Senedd whilst continuing a role as a county councillor, where that is relevant and appropriate, as is guaranteed by the Government's amendment 61. We also support amendments 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 72 and 78, which are technical amendments to make minor drafting changes without significant policy implications, as far as we can identify. We are slightly concerned about the Government's attempts with a series of amendments to disqualify members of the armed forces, civil servants and Members of the Senedd staff - I'm referring to amendments 80, 82 and 83 - from standing as candidates in elections. We approach this Bill, from a point of principle, on the basis that we should expand our democracy and access to politics as far as is possible within the boundaries of what is appropriate, of course. Our point of principle is that it shouldn't be on the face of the Bill that certain disqualifications should be noted. Rather, it should be through a contract of employment that that should be done. We are particularly concerned, in the case of the Assembly Commission, about the Government's attempt to intervene in the work of the Commission. The staff of the Commission are not civil servants. We do understand that there are already contractual provisions that would prevent Commission staff from standing as candidates, but we don't think that that prohibition should be on the face of the Bill. I wonder if the Counsel General could tell us whether he's carried out any assessment of the impact of this, and also does he have any evidence that there is a specific problem that needs to be addressed through legislation? The Clerk and Chief Executive is disbarred from standing, as things stand, and that is entirely reasonable, given the prominence of that role, and there is a case to be made likewise in the case of the judiciary and holders of public roles such as the commissioners and tribunal presidents and so on, because of the separation of powers and their role within the three branches of Government, there is room for restriction there. Finally, we support the extension through amendment 79 by the Government to allow Members of the European Parliament and members of other parliaments to stand in elections as long as they stand down if they are elected, and that they don't do both roles. We have seen some conflict where people have tried to do both roles in the past. But I would welcome some clarity on the exact purpose of this and what exactly it states in terms of Members of Parliament. We don't want to prevent Members of Parliament from standing for a place here as long as they step down if they are successful in election. So, perhaps we could have an explanation of that in the context of amendment 79.
Welsh: Ar bwynt o egwyddor am hyn, dwi'n meddwl buaswn i'n licio dweud ein bod ni'n credu mewn gwahaniaethu'n glir rhwng cynrychiolaeth etholedig ar wahanol lefelau er mwyn priodoldeb mewn gwahanol ffyrdd ac i osgoi gwrthdaro buddiannau. O ran y grŵp yma, felly, rydym ni'n gefnogol i'r ddarpariaeth yn y Bil, fel y mae o wedi'i gyflwyno, i anghymwyso Aelod o'r Tŷ'r Arglwyddi rhag bod yn Aelod o'r Senedd i bob pwrpas. Rydyn ni'n gwrthwynebu gwelliannau 271 a 278 yn enw David Melding, felly, sy'n ceisio dileu'r ddarpariaeth hon. Mae hyn yn gam synhwyrol, dwi'n meddwl, sy'n estyniad o'r trefniant sydd wedi'i sefydlu'n barod i wahardd Aelodau Cynulliad rhag bod yn Aelod o Senedd y Deyrnas Unedig a gwahardd Aelod o Senedd y Deyrnas Unedig rhag bod yn Aelod Cynulliad. Yn yr un gwynt, mi ydyn ni yn cefnogi gwelliant 56 y Llywodraeth, gafodd ei gyflwyno yn enw Jeremy Miles, i atal rhywun rhag bod yn gynghorydd sir ac yn Aelod o'r Senedd ar yr un pryd, a hynny am yr un rhesymau. Er hynny, mi ydyn ni'n croesawu'r ffaith ei fod o'n nodi'n glir y gall rhywun sefyll fel ymgeisydd ar gyfer y Senedd tra'n parhau fel cynghorydd sir, lle bo hynny'n berthnasol, fel sy'n cael ei warantu gan welliant 61 y Llywodraeth. Rydyn ni'n cefnogi wedyn hefyd gwelliannau 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 72 a 78, sy'n welliannau technegol i wneud newidiadau bychan i'r drafftio heb oblygiadau polisi arwyddocaol, hyd y gwelwn ni. Rydyn ni yn pryderu rhywfaint am ymgais y Llywodraeth efo cyfres o welliannau i wahardd aelodau lluoedd arfog, gweision sifil, heddweision, staff y Senedd ac ati - a dwi'n cyfeirio at welliannau 80, 82, 83 - rhag gallu sefyll fel ymgeiswyr mewn etholiadau. Rydyn ni'n dod at y Bil yma, fel pwynt o egwyddor, ar y sail y dylid ehangu ein democratiaeth a mynediad i wleidyddiaeth hyd ag y gallwn ni o fewn ffiniau priodoldeb, wrth gwrs. Ein barn ni o ran egwyddor ydy: nad ar wyneb Deddf, o bosib, mae'r lle i gyflwyno rhai gwaharddiadau. Ond, yn hytrach, y dylid cydnabod mai drwy delerau cytundeb swydd mai gwneud hynny. Rydyn ni yn pryderu'n benodol, yn achos Comisiwn y Senedd, am ymgais y Llywodraeth i ymyrryd yng ngwaith y Comisiwn. Nid gweision sifil ydy staff y Comisiwn, er enghraifft. Rydyn ni'n deall bod yna eisoes waharddiadau mewn cytundebau'r staff i'w hatal nhw rhag sefyll fel ymgeiswyr, ond dydyn ni ddim yn credu mai mewn Deddf gwlad mai cynnwys hyn. Tybed all y Cwnsler Cyffredinol ddweud wrthym ni ydy o wedi gwneud asesiad o effaith hyn, a hefyd oes ganddo fe dystiolaeth bod yna broblem benodol mae angen ei chywiro drwy ddeddfwriaeth? Mae Clerc a Phrif Weithredwr y Senedd yn cael ei hatal rhag sefyll fel y mae. Mae hynny'n rhesymol, wrth ystyried amlygrwydd y rôl honno, ac mae yna le i ddadlau, yn yr un ffordd, efallai, yn achos y farnwriaeth a deiliaid swyddi cyhoeddus amlwg fel comisiynwyr Cymru a llywydd y tribiwnlysoedd ac ati, oherwydd rhaniad pwerau a'u lle o fewn y tair cangen o Lywodraeth, fod yna le i gyfyngiadau yn y fan honno. Rydym ni'n cefnogi, yn olaf, yr estyniad drwy welliant 79 y Llywodraeth i alluogi Aelodau Senedd Ewrop ac aelodau o seneddau eraill i sefyll mewn etholiadau, cyhyd a'u bod nhw'n sefyll lawr os cânt eu hethol a'u bod nhw ddim yn gwneud y ddwy swydd. Rydym ni wedi gweld y gwrthdaro lle mae pobl wedi ceisio gwneud y ddwy swydd yn y gorffennol. Ond mi fyddwn i'n gwerthfawrogi eglurhad ynglŷn ag union ddiben hyn a beth yn union mae o'n ei ddweud o ran Aelodau Seneddol. Dydyn ni ddim eisiau gwaharddiad ar Aelod Seneddol rhag sefyll i fan hyn, cyn belled â'u bod nhw'n camu i lawr wedyn, os yn llwyddiannus mewn etholiad. Felly, o bosib, cawn ni eglurhad ynglŷn â hynny yng nghyd-destun gwelliant 79.