English: I'm delighted to be able to participate in this debate today. Reference has already been made to the thirtieth anniversary of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I think, of course, we must also remember another important anniversary that we will be commemorating tomorrow, which is the twentieth anniversary of the Waterhouse report. It was this Assembly's response to that report that led to us being the first Government administration in Wales to establish a children's commissioner - creatively, since we didn't have the legislative powers to do it at the time. And I think it is absolutely right to say that we have come a very long way towards realising children's rights, particularly children's rights for some of our most vulnerable people. But, as the Minister has said, we have got a very long way to go. There is so much in the commissioner's report, and I'd associate myself with everything the Minister and Janet Finch-Saunders have said about our gratitude to the commissioner, to her team, to the way that they work so effectively to remove the barriers to children's rights being realised. It's impossible, in the time available for me today, to comment on everything that I'd like to raise, but I would like to comment on three specific areas of the commissioner's recommendations, and perhaps ask the Minister for a little more information about the Government's response. On the first set of recommendations around residential care for children with the most complex needs, I'm very glad that the Government is accepting the commissioner's recommendations, although I share Janet Finch-Saunders's worry about recommendations accepted in principle, which we know from experience are often more honoured in the breach than the observance. I would urge the Minister and the Government to put urgency into their actions in this regard. I've been dealing just this week with the case of a very young man who has very various and very complex needs, both relating to the autism spectrum and to mental health. His family has discovered this week that he's likely to be placed in a remote institution a very, very long way away, in England. And we really need to move on this, because every day that those young people are away from home is a day too many, and every day that their relationships with their families are fractured is a day too many. I'd like to refer to the Government's response to the commissioner's recommendation 5, which is about ensuring that the new curriculum - that there's a duty, mentioned by Janet Finch-Saunders, on all relevant bodies to pay due regard to the convention. Now, I'm a bit confused by the Government's response, because the Government is saying that, given that the Ministers have to give due regard to the convention, it is unnecessary to place a duty on other bodies to give due regard to the convention. But, it is my understanding, Deputy Presiding Officer - I'm sure the Minister will correct me if I'm wrong - that the Government has already placed a duty of due regard on bodies through the additional learning needs legislation. So, I'd be interested to hear from the Minister why in principle you can do that in the additional learning needs legislation, but it isn't right to do this in the curriculum. Janet Finch-Saunders is right, of course, to say that it is not enough for the curriculum itself to have rights-respecting content, it must be delivered through rights-respecting institutions. And while we have some of the most amazing schools here in Wales, and I'm sure we all visit them on a regular basis, particularly in secondary education, there is a long way to go for those institutions to become fully rights-respecting. I am therefore confused at the Government's reluctance to place a duty of due regard in the legislation. I'd be interested to hear more from the Minister about her reasoning for that. Of course, there are those of us who are arguing for a fuller incorporation of the convention. We have partial incorporation into our legislative framework, and it is time to move on that. Had that taken place, the Minister might be right, it might not be necessary to place a duty of due regard on other organisations. But, as things stand, I'm confused that they won't do so. I'd then like to refer briefly to recommendation No. 7, which the Welsh Government has also not agreed to accept. I really am confused by this, because the commissioner asks for a review and the Government rejects the recommendation and then says that they're going to hold a review. Now, I may be missing something here, but I think there is a need - and it's good to see the Government saying that they're looking at this across portfolios, because of course this affects a number of portfolios - and if the Government accepts the need for a review, why are they saying that they are rejecting the commissioner's recommendation? Is it that they don't want the same sort of review that the commissioner recommends? So, it would be helpful, fully accepting the Minister's, and in this case the Government's, good intentions in this regard, to understand why the review that they are going to undertake is different from the review that the commissioner has recommended. And, as a final comment with regard to these issues about transport, the Government's response says that the arrangements for school transport and safety are generally working well. Well, I'm sure from my constituency caseload that that isn't always the case, particularly with regard to students post 16. I would argue, as the commissioner does, that the legislative framework that we have with the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008 is outdated as we have more and more young people staying in education full-time from 16 to 18 and even beyond. And it's of course particularly important that those children with additional learning needs have appropriate transport. I'll bring my remarks to a close, Deputy Presiding Officer. There is so much more, I'm sure, that we would all like to say. I know these issues will be explored further at length in the appropriate committee, but I do think there is much to be proud about with this institution's commitment to children's rights over the 20 years of our existence.
Welsh: Rwy'n falch iawn o allu cymryd rhan yn y ddadl hon heddiw. Cyfeiriwyd eisoes at ben-blwydd Confensiwn y Cenhedloedd Unedig ar Hawliau'r Plentyn yn ddeg ar hugain oed. Rwy'n credu, wrth gwrs, bod yn rhaid inni hefyd gofio pen-blwydd pwysig arall y byddwn yn ei goffáu yfory, sef ugeinfed pen-blwydd adroddiad Waterhouse. Ymateb y Cynulliad hwn i'r adroddiad hwnnw a barodd mai ni oedd y weinyddiaeth Llywodraeth gyntaf yng Nghymru i sefydlu comisiynydd plant - yn greadigol, gan nad oedd gennym y pwerau deddfwriaethol i wneud hynny ar y pryd. Ac rwy'n credu ei bod hi'n gwbl briodol dweud ein bod wedi dod yn bell iawn tuag at wireddu hawliau plant, yn enwedig hawliau plant ar gyfer rai o'n pobl fwyaf agored i niwed. Ond, fel mae'r Gweinidog wedi dweud, mae gennym ni ffordd bell iawn i fynd. Mae cymaint yn adroddiad y comisiynydd, a byddwn yn ategu popeth y mae'r Gweinidog a Janet Finch-Saunders wedi'i ddweud ynghylch pa mor ddiolchgar yr ydym ni i'r comisiynydd, i'w thîm, am y modd y maen nhw'n gweithio mor effeithiol i ddileu'r rhwystrau rhag gwireddu i hawliau plant. Mae'n amhosib, yn yr amser sydd ar gael i mi heddiw, i wneud sylwadau ar bopeth yr hoffwn ei godi, ond hoffwn wneud sylwadau ar dri maes penodol o argymhellion y comisiynydd, ac efallai gofyn i'r Gweinidog am ychydig mwy o wybodaeth am ymateb y Llywodraeth. O ran y gyfres gyntaf o argymhellion ynghylch gofal preswyl i blant sydd â'r anghenion mwyaf cymhleth, rwy'n falch iawn bod y Llywodraeth yn derbyn argymhellion y comisiynydd, er fy mod yn rhannu pryder Janet Finch-Saunders ynglŷn â derbyn argymhellion mewn egwyddor, y gwyddom o brofiad yn aml ei bod hi'n fwy arferol eu torri na'u hanrhydeddu. Byddwn yn annog y Gweinidog a'r Llywodraeth i weithredu ar frys yn hyn o beth. Rwyf wedi bod yn ymdrin yr wythnos hon ag achos dyn ifanc iawn sydd ag anghenion amrywiol iawn a chymhleth iawn, yn ymwneud â'r sbectrwm awtistiaeth ac iechyd meddwl. Mae ei deulu wedi darganfod yr wythnos hon ei fod yn debygol o gael ei roi mewn sefydliad anghysbell ymhell iawn i ffwrdd, yn Lloegr. Ac mae gwir angen inni weithredu ar hyn, oherwydd mae pob diwrnod y mae'r bobl ifanc hynny oddi cartref yn ddiwrnod yn ormod, a phob dydd y mae eu perthynas â'u teuluoedd wedi chwalu yn ddiwrnod yn ormod. Hoffwn gyfeirio at ymateb y Llywodraeth i argymhelliad 5 y comisiynydd, sy'n ymwneud â sicrhau bod y cwricwlwm newydd - bod dyletswydd, a grybwyllwyd gan Janet Finch-Saunders, ar bob corff perthnasol i roi sylw dyledus i'r confensiwn. Nawr, rwyf wedi drysu braidd gan ymateb y Llywodraeth, oherwydd mae'r Llywodraeth yn dweud, o gofio bod yn rhaid i'r Gweinidogion roi sylw dyledus i'r confensiwn, nad oes angen gosod dyletswydd ar gyrff eraill i roi sylw dyledus i'r confensiwn. Ond, yn ôl yr hyn a ddeallaf, Dirprwy Lywydd - rwy'n siŵr y bydd y Gweinidog yn fy nghywiro os wyf yn anghywir - mae'r Llywodraeth eisoes wedi gosod dyletswydd i roi sylw dyledus ar gyrff drwy'r ddeddfwriaeth anghenion dysgu ychwanegol. Felly, byddai gennyf ddiddordeb clywed gan y Gweinidog pam, mewn egwyddor, y gallwch chi wneud hynny yn y ddeddfwriaeth anghenion dysgu ychwanegol, ond nad yw hi'n briodol gwneud hyn yn y cwricwlwm. Mae Janet Finch-Saunders yn gywir, wrth gwrs, i ddweud nad yw'n ddigon i'r cwricwlwm ei hun gael cynnwys sy'n parchu hawliau, rhaid ei gyflwyno drwy sefydliadau sy'n parchu hawliau. Ac er bod gennym ni rai o'r ysgolion mwyaf anhygoel yma yng Nghymru, ac rwy'n siŵr ein bod ni i gyd yn ymweld â nhw'n rheolaidd, yn enwedig mewn addysg uwchradd, mae ffordd bell i fynd cyn bydd y sefydliadau hynny yn parchu hawliau'n llwyr. Rwyf felly wedi drysu ynghylch amharodrwydd y Llywodraeth i roi dyletswydd o sylw dyledus yn y ddeddfwriaeth. Byddai gennyf ddiddordeb clywed mwy gan y Gweinidog am ei rhesymau dros hynny. Wrth gwrs, mae rhai ohonom yn dadlau dros ymgorffori'r confensiwn yn llawnach. Rydym yn ei ymgorffori'n rhannol yn ein fframwaith deddfwriaethol, ac mae'n bryd symud hynny ymlaen. Pe bai hynny wedi digwydd, efallai bod y Gweinidog yn iawn, efallai na fyddai angen gosod dyletswydd i roi sylw dyledus ar sefydliadau eraill. Ond, fel y mae pethau, ni allaf ddeall pam na wnawn nhw hynny. Yna, hoffwn gyfeirio'n fyr at argymhelliad Rhif 7, nad yw Llywodraeth Cymru wedi cytuno i'w dderbyn chwaith. Rwy'n methu'n lân a deall hyn, oherwydd mae'r comisiynydd yn gofyn am adolygiad ac mae'r Llywodraeth yn gwrthod yr argymhelliad ac yna'n dweud eu bod yn mynd i gynnal adolygiad. Nawr, efallai fy mod yn methu rhywbeth yn hyn o beth, ond rwy'n credu bod angen - ac mae'n dda gweld y Llywodraeth yn dweud eu bod yn edrych ar hyn mewn gwahanol bortffolios, oherwydd wrth gwrs mae hyn yn effeithio ar sawl portffolio - ac os yw'r Llywodraeth yn derbyn yr angen am adolygiad, pam maen nhw'n dweud eu bod yn gwrthod argymhelliad y comisiynydd? A yw'n golygu nad ydynt eisiau yr un math o adolygiad ag y mae'r comisiynydd yn ei argymell? Felly, byddai'n ddefnyddiol, gan dderbyn yn llawn fwriadau da'r Gweinidog, ac yn yr achos hwn fwriadau da'r Llywodraeth, deall pam mae'r adolygiad y byddant yn ei gynnal yn wahanol i'r adolygiad y mae'r comisiynydd wedi'i argymell. Ac, fel sylw olaf o ran y materion hyn ynglŷn â chludiant, mae ymateb y Llywodraeth yn dweud bod y trefniadau ar gyfer cludiant a diogelwch yn yr ysgol yn gweithio'n dda ar y cyfan. Wel, rwy'n siŵr o'm llwyth achosion yn fy etholaeth nad yw hynny bob amser yn wir, yn enwedig o ran myfyrwyr ôl-16. Byddwn i'n dadlau, fel y mae'r Comisiynydd yn ei wneud, fod y fframwaith deddfwriaethol sydd gennym ni gyda Mesur Teithio gan Ddysgwyr (Cymru) 2008 yn hen ffasiwn gan fod gennym ni fwy a mwy o bobl ifanc yn aros mewn addysg yn llawn amser o 16 i 18 oed a thu hwnt. Ac mae hi wrth gwrs yn arbennig o bwysig bod gan y plant hynny sydd ag anghenion dysgu ychwanegol gludiant priodol. Deuaf â'm sylwadau i ben, Dirprwy Lywydd. Mae cymaint mwy, rwy'n siŵr, y byddem i gyd yn hoffi ei ddweud. Rwy'n gwybod y caiff y materion hyn eu harchwilio'n drwyadl yn y pwyllgor priodol, ond rwy'n credu bod llawer i ymfalchïo ynddo gydag ymrwymiad y sefydliad hwn i hawliau plant dros yr 20 mlynedd o'n bodolaeth.