English: Presiding Officer, I'm afraid I cannot support amendments 17 and 18, which seek to compel local authorities to refer parents to independent advocacy services. The Bill provides that independent advocacy services must be available for children, young people and case friends. It is right that the child or young person themselves - or a case friend on behalf of a child who lacks capacity - should be the user of the service. This ensures that the voices of vulnerable children and young people are heard. To expect local authorities to provide advocacy services for parents too does not fit with our policy that the system should be centred around the child or the young person. So, I do not support the amendments on a point of principle. But I'm also not convinced that the amendments would actually operate effectively in practice. They seem to suggest that local authorities must refer parents to advocacy services, whilst not also requiring authorities to make provision for services for parents. So, there would seem to be deliverability issues were the amendments to be agreed. If local authorities were required to make arrangements for advocacy services for parents, there would be potential financial implications for them, and that has not been costed or discussed with local authorities. Members should note that a local authority's duty under the Bill to make arrangements to provide information and advice, and to put in place arrangements for the avoidance and resolution of disputes, do cover parents. So, the Bill does provide for parents to access advice and ensures that they can raise concerns where that is appropriate. It's also worth Members bearing in mind that, in most cases, parents and children would be working together to pursue the child's best interests. So, an advocate for the child would also, in effect, be expressing parental views. For all of these reasons, I would urge Members to oppose the amendments.
Welsh: Llywydd, mae arnaf ofn na allaf gefnogi gwelliannau 17 a 18, sy'n ceisio gorfodi awdurdodau lleol i gyfeirio rhieni at wasanaethau eiriolaeth annibynnol. Mae'r Bil yn darparu bod yn rhaid i wasanaethau eiriolaeth annibynnol fod ar gael ar gyfer plant, pobl ifanc a chyfeillion achos. Mae'n iawn mai'r plentyn neu'r person ifanc ei hun - neu gyfaill achos ar ran plentyn nad oes ganddo alluedd - ddylai fod yn defnyddio'r gwasanaeth. Mae hyn yn sicrhau y clywir lleisiau plant a phobl ifanc sy'n agored i niwed. Nid yw disgwyl i awdurdodau lleol ddarparu gwasanaethau eiriolaeth ar gyfer rhieni hefyd yn cyd-fynd â'n polisi y dylai'r system ganolbwyntio ar y plentyn neu'r person ifanc. Felly, nid wyf yn cefnogi'r gwelliannau ar egwyddor. Ond nid wyf yn argyhoeddedig ychwaith y byddai'r gwelliannau mewn gwirionedd yn gweithredu'n effeithiol yn ymarferol. Mae'n ymddangos eu bod nhw'n awgrymu bod yn rhaid i awdurdodau lleol gyfeirio rhieni at wasanaethau eiriolaeth, gan hefyd beidio â'i gwneud yn ofynnol i awdurdodau lleol ddarparu gwasanaethau ar gyfer rhieni. Felly, ymddengys bod problemau o ran y gallu i gyflawni pe byddai'r gwelliannau yn cael eu cytuno. Pe byddai'n ofynnol i awdurdodau lleol wneud trefniadau i ddarparu gwasanaethau eiriolaeth i rieni, byddai goblygiadau ariannol posibl iddyn nhw, ac nid yw hynny wedi'i gostio na'i drafod gydag awdurdodau lleol. Dylai'r Aelodau nodi bod dyletswydd awdurdod lleol o dan y Bil i wneud trefniadau i ddarparu gwybodaeth a chyngor, ac i sefydlu trefniadau ar gyfer osgoi a datrys anghydfodau, yn cynnwys rhieni. Felly, mae'r Bil yn darparu ar gyfer rhoi cyngor i rieni a sicrhau eu bod yn gallu codi pryderon pan fo hynny'n briodol. Mae hefyd yn werth i'r Aelodau gofio, yn y rhan fwyaf o achosion, y byddai rhieni a phlant yn gweithio gyda'i gilydd er lles gorau'r plentyn. Felly, byddai eiriolwr dros y plentyn hefyd, mewn gwirionedd, yn mynegi barn y rhieni. Am yr holl resymau hyn, rwyf yn annog yr Aelodau i wrthwynebu'r gwelliannau.