English: I'm in the same position as you, Minister, in terms of having this cough. Thank you for your statement. Could I just start with the points on which we agree, perhaps? The process for implementing standards is expensive and bureaucratic, and I would like to - and I'm happy to - support you with any changes in that regard. But another thing that's expensive, of course, is to ask the commissioner to hold standards investigations on hundreds of institutions within rounds 3 and 4 of the timetable, receiving those reports in 2016-17, and then seeing no steps taken by the Government as a result of that. So, my first question is: how are you going to use the information in those reports in any way that is meaningful? If these reports are essentially binned immediately, and if that happens, well, how much money have you wasted on that process? Although you'd like to think that those institutions had started to prepare for delivering the new standards, they are likely to see today's announcement as an excuse to pause that work that they've already commenced. So, how will you act now - and I do mean now - in order to encourage them to continue with their proposals? There is nothing new in your statement to persuade me on the core purpose of the creation of a new commission, I have to say. The responses to the consultation didn't particularly favour this over other options, and to me it remains entirely unclear as to how independent that new body would be. And this is important, because if it isn't entirely independent, then you don't resolve this problem, namely that the organisation making the rules shouldn't be enforcing them, and the legislator shouldn't be enforcing legislation. At the moment, there are barriers there: the Government makes the regulations and the commissioner enforces these. If this new commission isn't entirely independent on Government - . Arm's length isn't sufficient here - it is then constitutionally unsound. As you know, the commissioner has some promotional duties too, and the previous Minister, of course, made it difficult for the commissioner to deliver those statutory duties, but they could be restored. So, essentially, what is the difference between your commission and the commissioner? What precludes you from reforming the commissioner's office rather than replacing it? Reform would allow a commissioner to lead the cultural change that we agree is required. There is also scope, as we've discussed in the past, to enhance the quasi-judicial responsibilities of the commissioner, to ensure that language regulations are not introduced in a discriminatory manner. Thank you for the update on the current programmes. The decline in the number of teachers going on to teach Welsh or to teach through the medium of Welsh seems to me to be a clear and present danger to the success of Cymraeg 2050. We're now halfway through this Assembly term, and it's only now that you are introducing this incentive of £5,000 to help to sort that problem out. So, when will you be in a position to say that it's had a significant impact? Because I appreciate what you've said on capital, but there is a problem here with the number of people who are willing to do this work. I have the same concerns about the education workforce as you had on the health workforce. There is still a problem remaining there and it remains difficult to deal with that, I think. Finally, as you know, without a commitment from the world of employment, in all sectors, not just the private sector, to create a bilingual working environment, there is another clear and present danger for Cymraeg 2050. So, can you tell us a little more about the Work Welsh programme? What is exceptional about that demand and what is the geographical spread? Also, importantly, how can we assess whether that demand is going to create more confident Welsh speakers who are willing to use their Welsh more often? Specifically, what should you and us consider to be good outcomes in these initiatives in SMEs? Thank you.
Welsh: Rydw i yn yr un lle, Weinidog, ynglŷn â'r peswch yma. Diolch am y datganiad yma. A gaf i jest ddechrau gyda lle rŷm ni'n cytuno, efallai? Mae'r broses ar gyfer gweithredu'r safonau yn gostus ac yn fiwrocrataidd a hoffwn - ac rwy'n fwy na bodlon - eich cefnogi chi gydag unrhyw ddiwygiad i hynny. Ond beth sydd hefyd yn gostus, wrth gwrs, yw gofyn i'r comisiynydd gynnal ymchwiliadau safonau ar gannoedd o sefydliadau o fewn rowndiau 3 a 4 yr amserlen, derbyn adroddiadau'r ymchwiliadau hynny yn 2016-17, ac wedyn ddim gweld unrhyw gamau gan y Llywodraeth ar gefn hynny. Felly, y cwestiwn cyntaf i fi yw: sut ydych chi'n mynd i ddefnyddio'r wybodaeth yn yr adroddiadau yna mewn unrhyw ffordd ystyrlon? Os yw'r adroddiadau hyn yn mynd, yn y bôn, yn syth i'r bin, neu os bydd hyn yn digwydd, wel, faint o arian ydych chi wedi'i wastraffu gyda'r broses yma? Er yr hoffech feddwl bod y sefydliadau yna wedi dechrau paratoi ar gyfer cyrraedd y safonau newydd, maen nhw'n debygol o weld y cyhoeddiad heddiw fel esgus i atal gwneud mwy o hynny nawr, a jest atal beth maen nhw wedi'i wneud yn barod. Sut fyddwch chi'n gweithredu nawr - ac rydw i'n meddwl nawr - i'w hannog i barhau i fynd ymlaen â'u cynlluniau? Nid oes dim byd newydd yn y datganiad i'm mherswadio o ran pwrpas creu comisiwn newydd, mae'n rhaid imi ddweud. Nid oedd yr ymatebion i'r ymgynghoriad yn ffafrio hyn, yn arbennig o ran opsiynau eraill, ac mae'n parhau i fi i fod yn gwbl aneglur pa mor annibynnol fydd y corff hwnnw. Ac mae hyn yn bwysig, achos os nad yw'n gwbl annibynnol, nid ydych chi'n datrys y broblem hon, sef na ddylai'r corff sy'n gwneud y rheolau fod y corff sy'n gorfodi'r rheolau, ac ni ddylai'r deddfwr fod yn orfodwr deddfwriaeth. Ar hyn o bryd, mae rhwystrau a gwrthbwyso yna: mae'r Llywodraeth yn gwneud y rheolau, mae'r comisiynydd yn eu gorfodi. Os nad yw'r comisiwn newydd hwn yn gwbl annibynnol ar Lywodraeth - . Nid yw hyd braich yn ddigon - mae'n anniogel o safbwynt cyfansoddiadol. Fel y gwyddoch, mae gan y comisiynydd ddyletswyddau hyrwyddo hefyd, ac mae'r Gweinidog blaenorol, wrth gwrs, wedi ei gwneud hi'n anodd i'r comisiynydd gyflawni'r dyletswyddau statudol hynny, ond gellir eu hadfer. Felly, yn y bôn, beth yw'r gwahaniaeth rhwng eich comisiwn a'r comisiynydd? Beth sy'n eich atal rhag diwygio swyddfa'r comisiynydd yn lle ei disodli? Byddai diwygiad yn caniatáu i gomisiynydd arwain newid diwylliannol, ac rydym yn cytuno ar y dyhead hwnnw. Mae lle hefyd, fel rydym wedi trafod o'r blaen, i ehangu pwerau lled-farnwrol y comisiynydd i greu comisiynydd ieithoedd, i sicrhau nad yw deddfwriaeth hawliau'n cael ei gweithredu mewn ffordd wahaniaethol. Diolch am y diweddariad ar y rhaglenni cyfredol. Mae'r cwymp yn nifer yr athrawon sy'n mynd ymlaen i addysgu Cymraeg, neu i addysgu trwy gyfrwng y Gymraeg, i fi yn fygythiad clir a chyfredol i lwyddiant Cymraeg 2050. Rydym hanner ffordd, nawr, trwy dymor y Cynulliad hwn, ond dim ond nawr rŷch chi'n cyflwyno cymhelliant o £5,000 i helpu sortio hynny mas. Felly, pryd y gallwch chi ddweud bod gan y cynllun hynny effaith sylweddol? Achos rwy'n gwerthfawrogi beth rŷch chi wedi'i ddweud ynglŷn â'r cyfalaf, ond mae yna broblem yma gyda nifer y bobl sy'n fodlon gwneud y gwaith. Mae gyda fi yr un pryderon ynglŷn â'r gweithlu addysg ag y cawsoch chi ynglŷn â'r gweithlu iechyd. Mae'n dal yn broblem ac mae'n anodd wynebu hynny, rydw i'n credu. Yn olaf, fel y gwyddoch, heb ymrwymiad gan y byd gwaith a chyflogaeth, ymhob sector, nid dim ond yn y sector preifat, i greu amgylchedd gweithio dwyieithog, mae gennym ni fygythiad clir a chyfredol arall i Cymraeg 2050. Felly, a allech chi ddweud tipyn bach mwy am y cynllun Cymraeg Gwaith? Beth sy'n eithriadol am y galw a beth yw'r lledaeniad daearyddol? Yn bwysicach, sut y gallwn ni fesur a fydd y galw'n mynd i gynhyrchu siaradwyr sydd tipyn bach mwy hyderus ac sy'n fodlon iwso eu Cymraeg yn amlach? Yn benodol, beth y dylech chi a ni ei ystyried yn ganlyniad da ym mentrau bach a chanolig? Diolch.