English: I thank the Member for his comments. I'm disappointed at the outset about the suggestion that the Government would not be committed to taking action to improve services were it not for the Bill. That is simply not true. If he had listened to previous debates within this Chamber, he would recognise that - and our previous meetings. It is simply not true to say that, without his Bill, there would be no code. There was a commitment given by this Government some time ago to look at a code to try and provide greater permanence and certainty about what our expectations are for the delivery of services. It would have to - it's simply not a case of a code being so transient that it is of no value. I don't accept that at all. We have a number of codes that directly affect service provision and outcomes for people. If any person in the future wished to change the code or revoke it, they would have to positively do so. The code is already planned in to the work that we have, so we have budgeted for it and expect not only to go through the process of consultation but to deliver services. The Bill and the model that you propose would direct services in a different direction. It is perfectly reasonable for me to point out to Members that using money in a different way would provide different outcomes. The Bill that he proposes, I believe, would be a poor use of resource and would take it away from direct service provision. It is a matter for him to make the case for his Bill and the money that he wishes to see used and what that actual resource is. There will of course be robust scrutiny from people who do still broadly agree that we want to improve services with and for autistic people. We do, however, have an honest disagreement about whether a more rigid path of legislation is the right answer for doing so.
Welsh: Diolch i'r Aelod am ei sylwadau. Rwy'n siomedig ar y cychwyn ynghylch yr awgrym na fyddai'r Llywodraeth wedi ymrwymo i gymryd camau i wella gwasanaethau oni bai am y Bil. Nid yw hynny'n wir o gwbl. Pe bai wedi gwrando ar ddadleuon blaenorol yn y Siambr hon, byddai'n cydnabod hynny - a'n cyfarfodydd blaenorol. Nid yw'n wir dweud, heb ei Fil, na fyddai cod. Ymrwymodd y Llywodraeth hon beth amser yn ôl i edrych ar god er mwyn ceisio rhoi mwy o sefydlogrwydd a sicrwydd ynghylch beth yw ein disgwyliadau ar gyfer darparu gwasanaethau. Byddai'n rhaid iddo - nid yw'n achos o fod â chod mor fyrhoedlog nad yw o unrhyw werth. Nid wyf yn derbyn hynny o gwbl. Mae gennym ni nifer o godau sy'n effeithio'n uniongyrchol ar ddarpariaeth gwasanaeth a chanlyniadau ar gyfer pobl. Pe dymunai unrhyw un yn y dyfodol newid y Cod neu ei ddirymu, byddai'n rhaid iddynt wneud hynny mewn modd cadarnhaol. Mae'r cod eisoes wedi ei gynllunio i fod yn rhan o'r gwaith sydd gennym, felly rydym ni wedi cyllidebu ar ei gyfer ac yn disgwyl nid yn unig i fynd drwy'r broses ymgynghori ond i ddarparu gwasanaethau. Byddai'r Bil a'r model yr ydych chi'n eu cynnig yn cyfeirio gwasanaethau mewn cyfeiriad gwahanol. Mae'n berffaith resymol i mi i ddweud wrth Aelodau y byddai defnyddio'r arian mewn ffordd wahanol yn rhoi gwahanol ganlyniadau. Byddai'r Bil a gynigir ganddo, rwy'n credu, yn ddefnydd gwael o adnoddau ac yn eu dargyfeirio o ddarparu gwasanaethau uniongyrchol. Mae'n fater iddo ef ddadlau dros ei Fil a'r arian y mae'n dymuno ei weld yn cael ei ddefnyddio a beth yw'r adnodd hwnnw mewn gwirionedd. Wrth gwrs, bydd craffu cadarn gan bobl sy'n dal i gytuno yn fras ein bod ni eisiau gwella gwasanaethau gyda ac ar gyfer pobl awtistig. Fodd bynnag, mae gennym ni anghytundeb gonest ynglŷn ag ai llwybr mwy anhyblyg o ddeddfwriaeth yw'r ateb cywir o ran gwneud hynny.