English: These are also, I think, potentially quite important amendments and I'm not sure why they're being made, entirely. Some of them I think are sensible, like the references to the commissioners and ombudsman. Removing those and having a general provision rather trying to update for each specific commissioner or ombudsman seems sensible. But at the moment, we have a rule that allows the Presiding Officer to decide that a matter that relates to active judicial proceedings can be raised. And our Standing Orders have stated that if the Presiding Officer is satisfied that the matter clearly related to a matter of public importance, or a ministerial decision in question, then the matter can be raised, and I think that that's sensible. Without that, we have a situation where anyone can lay a judicial review claim - you can file one of those and there's precedent that the cost through to permission stage should be no more than perhaps a couple of £1,000 and that can sometimes take several months - and after the laying of that claim, that's then active proceedings in the court, and, as a legislature, we can't discuss any issue that that relates to. I think that that's far too wide, particularly in the field of judicial review that questions the decisions of public authorities. If a Minister decides something that's a matter of political controversy and some of us support it and others don't, and we want to continue discussing the merits, this change in the Standing Orders would seem to provide for that discussion of elected Members to be cut short just because, say, one private citizen decides to issue a claim of judicial review. That can't be right, in my view. There is a carve-out in the new Standing Order proposed, but it's much narrower. And yes, of course, legislation, or subordinate legislation, we should discuss, but why on earth can't we debate a decision that's been made by a Minister that's controversial just because someone else is so opposed to it that they launch a claim of judicial review? There's a reference, 'except to the extent permitted by the Presiding Officer', but it's a much narrower carve-out. Situations in which the Presiding Officer should consider allowing debate to continue even if there is a matter before the courts are now set out, and when they're not set out I think it will become much harder for a Presiding Officer to allow that sort of discussion to continue. Clearly, at the moment, it's right that we've got the restrictions on matters going before a jury or a family matter case, but for other cases where you have a judge or judges sitting, particularly in the field of judicial review, the idea that we as legislators can't debate or discuss any such matters I think is wrong. The chance of that judge or those judges being prejudiced on account of our debate is I think nugatory and it's something they could easily deal with. To rule out this whole field of discussion for us I just think is quite wrong. We've got perfectly sensible ways of dealing with this issue at the moment - we've an item later on it - and I think those methods should continue, rather than changing these Standing Orders in a wholly unnecessary way.
Welsh: Credaf y gallai'r rhain hefyd fod yn welliannau eithaf pwysig ac nid wyf yn hollol siŵr pam eu bod yn cael eu gwneud. Credaf fod rhai ohonynt yn synhwyrol, fel y cyfeiriadau at y comisiynwyr a'r ombwdsmon. Mae dileu'r rheini a chael darpariaeth gyffredinol yn hytrach na cheisio diweddaru ar gyfer pob comisiynydd neu ombwdsmon penodol yn ymddangos yn synhwyrol. Ond ar hyn o bryd, mae gennym reol sy'n caniatáu i'r Llywydd benderfynu y gellir codi mater sy'n ymwneud ag achosion barnwrol gweithredol. Ac mae ein Rheolau Sefydlog wedi datgan y gellir codi'r mater os yw'r Llywydd yn fodlon ei fod yn amlwg yn ymwneud â mater o bwys cyhoeddus, neu benderfyniad gan Weinidog, a chredaf fod hynny'n synhwyrol. Heb hynny, mae gennym sefyllfa lle gall unrhyw un hawlio adolygiad barnwrol - gallwch gyflwyno un o'r rheini ac mae cynsail na ddylai'r gost drwodd i'r cam caniatâd fod yn fwy na chwpl o £1,000 efallai ac weithiau gall hynny gymryd sawl mis - ac ar ôl gosod yr hawliad hwnnw, mae hynny wedyn yn achos gweithredol yn y llys, ac fel deddfwrfa, ni allwn drafod unrhyw fater y mae hynny'n ymwneud ag ef. Credaf fod hynny'n rhy eang o lawer, yn enwedig ym maes adolygiadau barnwrol sy'n cwestiynu penderfyniadau awdurdodau cyhoeddus. Os bydd Gweinidog yn penderfynu rhywbeth sy'n destun dadl wleidyddol a bod rhai ohonom yn ei gefnogi ac eraill heb fod yn ei gefnogi, a'n bod am barhau i drafod y rhinweddau, mae'n ymddangos y byddai'r newid hwn yn y Rheolau Sefydlog yn darparu ar gyfer torri'r drafodaeth honno ar Aelodau etholedig am fod un dinesydd preifat, dyweder, yn penderfynu hawlio adolygiad barnwrol. Ni all hynny fod yn iawn yn fy marn i. Mae yna eithriad yn y Rheol Sefydlog newydd a gynigir, ond mae'n llawer culach. Ac wrth gwrs y dylem drafod deddfwriaeth, neu is-ddeddfwriaeth, ond pam ar y ddaear na allwn drafod penderfyniad sydd wedi'i wneud gan Weinidog sy'n ddadleuol am fod rhywun arall mor wrthwynebus iddo fel eu bod yn hawlio adolygiad barnwrol? Ceir cyfeiriad, 'ac eithrio i'r graddau a ganiateir gan y Llywydd', ond mae'n eithriad llawer culach. Mae sefyllfaoedd lle dylai'r Llywydd ystyried caniatáu i ddadl barhau hyd yn oed os oes mater gerbron y llysoedd wedi'u nodi bellach, a phan nad ydynt wedi'u nodi, rwy'n credu y bydd yn llawer anos i Lywydd ganiatáu i drafodaeth o'r fath barhau. Yn amlwg, ar hyn o bryd, mae'n iawn fod gennym gyfyngiadau ar faterion sy'n mynd gerbron rheithgor neu achos ar fater teuluol, ond ar gyfer achosion eraill lle mae gennych farnwr neu farnwyr yn eistedd, yn enwedig ym maes adolygiadau barnwrol, credaf fod y syniad na allwn ni fel deddfwyr drafod unrhyw faterion o'r fath yn anghywir. Mae'r perygl y bydd ein dadl yn dylanwadu ar y barnwr neu'r barnwyr yn fach iawn yn fy marn i ac mae'n rhywbeth y gallent ymdrin yn hawdd ag ef. Rwy'n credu bod dyfarnu na chawn drafod hyn o gwbl yn hollol anghywir. Mae gennym ffyrdd cwbl synhwyrol o ymdrin â'r mater ar hyn o bryd - mae gennym eitem arno yn nes ymlaen - a chredaf y dylai'r dulliau hynny barhau, yn hytrach na newid y Rheolau Sefydlog mewn ffordd gwbl ddiangen.