English: Thank you, Chair. I move amendment 9. You will have noticed during the course of deliberations this morning that I've been happy to leave elements of qualified children and so on from the face of the Bill and to leave it to regulation. Well, this is a direct part of the reason for that, because this amendment emerges from recommendation 12 in our committee's Stage 1 report, namely that we call for amendment of the Bill to ensure that regulations made under section 1 should be subject to the superaffirmative procedure, rather than the affirmative procedure. And, secondly, that any changes to regulations made under section 1 should be made using the superaffirmative procedure too. Because so much of the detail is left to regulation, and because of the scope of the powers sought in regulations for Ministers, then as the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee has highlighted in its report on the Bill, we need a counterbalance to that. The committee's conclusion is that the superaffirmative procedure is the appropriate means of achieving that, and I want to note that I am content with the affirmative procedure in terms of section 2 of the Bill, but not section 1 specifically. The superaffirmative procedure would mean a more detailed scrutiny process, and it's one of those core elements, I think, that members of this committee have been grappling with: this disconnect, or this distance between the Bill itself and the Government's policy. And I think, therefore, we do need the superaffirmative procedure in this case, as the Government implements its policy through the regulations. It would mean, of course, consultation with stakeholders, it would mean laying draft regulations before the Assembly, and it would require a statement from the Minister, but it would be a clear and transparent process and would help to ensure that the regulations were not only fit for purpose, but that they had been properly scrutinised in the most thorough manner before they're implemented.
Welsh: Diolch, Gadeirydd. Rwy'n cynnig gwelliant 9. Mi fyddwch chi wedi sylwi yng nghwrs y trafodaethau hyd yma fy mod wedi bod yn hapus i adael elfennau o ddiffinio plant sy'n gymhwysol ac yn y blaen oddi ar wyneb y Bil a'i adael e i reoliadau i'w bennu fe. Wel, mae hwn yn uniongyrchol, felly, yn rhan o'r rheswm am hynny, i bob pwrpas, oherwydd mae'r gwelliant yma'n deillio o argymhelliad 12 a oedd yn adroddiad Cyfnod 1 y pwyllgor, sef ein bod ni'n galw am ddiwygio'r Bil i ddarparu y dylai'r rheoliadau a wneir o dan adran 1 fod yn destun gweithdrefn uwchgadarnhaol, yn hytrach na'r weithdrefn gadarnhaol. Ac, yn ail, y dylid gwneud unrhyw newid i reoliadau a wnaed o dan adran 1 gan ddefnyddio'r weithdrefn uwchgadarnhaol hefyd. Am fod cymaint o'r manylion yn cael eu gadael i reoliadau, ac oherwydd ehangder y pwerau sy'n cael eu ceisio yn y rheoliadau gan Weinidogion, mae angen - fel y mae'r Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol a Deddfwriaethol wedi ei amlygu yn eu hadroddiad nhw ar y Bil - gwrthbwyso hynny. Casgliad y pwyllgor yw mai'r weithdrefn uwchgadarnhaol yw'r ffordd addas i wneud hynny, ac rydw i eisiau nodi fy mod i'n fodlon â'r weithdrefn gadarnhaol o safbwynt adran 2 i'r Bil, ond nid adran 1 yn benodol. Mi fyddai'r weithdrefn uwchgadarnhaol yn golygu proses graffu fanylach, ac mae'n un o'r pethau creiddiol, rydw i'n meddwl, y mae aelodau'r pwyllgor yma wedi bod ymbalfalu ynddo: yr anghyswllt yma, neu'r pellter yma rhwng y Bil ei hun a pholisi'r Llywodraeth. Ac rydw i'n meddwl bod gofyn, felly, am y broses uwchgadarnhaol yma wrth i'r Llywodraeth roi'r polisi ar waith drwy'r rheoliadau. Mi fyddai e'n golygu, wrth gwrs, ymgynghori â rhanddeiliaid, mi fyddai e'n golygu gosod drafft o'r rheoliadau o flaen y Cynulliad a datganiad gan y Gweinidog, ond mi fyddai'n broses glir a thryloyw, a fyddai'n help i sicrhau bod y rheoliadau nid yn unig yn addas i bwrpas ond eu bod nhw wedi cael eu craffu yn y modd mwyaf trylwyr cyn eu bod nhw'n cael eu rhoi ar waith.