English: Thank you, and I move the amendments. Home ownership is something many people do aspire to and it is something that is increasingly beyond the reach of many people, through a combination of low wages, insecure employment and a refusal by successive Governments to recognise that house price inflation is just as bad as conventional inflation. But, creating wider home ownership must not be done at the expense of social housing and the safety net that a civilised society should offer. Beginning with our final amendment, Plaid Cymru is concerned about the decision of the ONS to reclassify housing association debt as public sector debt. Reclassifying housing associations as public non-financial corporations has the potential to limit their ability to encourage investment from a variety of private sources. If housing associations are considered to be public sector bodies, it opens the door for the UK Treasury to place borrowing limits upon them, as they already do with local authorities. This could jeopardise the ability of Welsh housing associations to build new homes and upgrade the quality of existing homes. So, I hope to hear what the Welsh Government has to say on the steps that they will be taking in this regard. Turning now to the main issue being debated here, it's quite clear that the right to buy has had an adverse effect on the availability of social housing, hence our extensive amendments to the motion. The right to buy has always made little financial sense, it has instead proved to be a subsidy for the better off and those in the right place at the right time, while reducing the overall social housing stock. The large discounts of between 33 per cent and 50 per cent for residents effectively meant a subsidy for home ownership. This means that for every four homes sold, there have only been two or three homes to replace them. Furthermore, as many lenders refuse mortgages above the sixth floor, tenants in the high rises have been unable to buy, meaning that those who took advantage of the policy were generally those residents of small, low-rise council estates located in areas that subsequently boomed. And we know that many of the high-rise flats that people did not buy have now been knocked to the ground - many in my home town, in Merthyr, in the Gurnos, and also in Hirwaun, close by. Even 'The Daily Telegraph' has conceded that the law was exploited, and many homes were bought by elderly people who were lent the money by their sons and daughters, knowing that they would have large inheritances in a few years' time. As a result, those homes that were not sold were generally in less-desirable areas, where long-term unemployment followed Tory deindustrialisation. It meant that people became isolated and concentrated in less-desirable estates that gradually became ghettos, and people felt forgotten. Some of those areas did boom - inner-city areas near universities especially eventually had housing stock bought by buy-to-let landlords who converted many properties into houses in multiple occupation to maximise rent. So, while there have been initial boosts in terms of owner-occupiers self-funding improvements, in the long run, those areas have recreated poor housing conditions through an unregulated sector that has often enabled bad landlords to get rich quick. It also made living in a council house more of a stigma. This is why we have tabled amendment 3, and it's something in this portfolio I hope to do more work on, because I frankly don't think that we can just note it and move on. There are still people who feel the stigma of living in a social housing setting that feel that because they can't afford - [Interruption.] They do. They feel that because they can't afford to get on the housing ladder that they're somehow a second-class citizen compared to those who can actually afford it. I think we need a discussion here in this Chamber about the fact that, yes, people will aspire to home ownership, but it's more for me about the quality of those homes for those people, not specifically about whether they own that house or not. I think, in general terms, that this Chamber is in danger of becoming stuck in a time warp. Two weeks ago, we heard calls for bringing back grammar schools and now we have a defence of the right to buy. What next - bring back Bananarama? We should be looking to the future instead. [Laughter.] Well, some of you might like Bananarama; perhaps it was just before my time. We should be looking at more innovative solutions to our problems, rather than reaching for yesterday's clichéd and outdated policies. If we really want to tackle our housing supply problems, then maybe we should look instead at building new eco-homes with the latest environmental technology for use across all housing tenures, and we should properly implement a programme to upgrade the quality of our existing homes to the latest environmental standards. In looking at other options such as co-operative housing, I know that Canada does this well having been there recently myself, although I wasn't trying to be on a busman's holiday. But there are other countries that are doing things well that we can be learning from. While I take David Melding's point with regard to the importance of empty homes, I think that's a totally separate debate to the right to buy. One of the other things I'm passionate about, and I'll finish on, is that maybe we should be placing limits on the rights of buy-to-let and second-home owners to price our young people out of the housing market, and take most of their wages in artificially high rents. These are issues that I think are more important than bringing back the debate on the right to buy.
Welsh: Diolch i chi, ac rwy'n cynnig y gwelliannau. Mae perchentyaeth yn rhywbeth y mae llawer o bobl yn dyheu amdano ac mae'n rhywbeth sy'n gynyddol y tu hwnt i gyrraedd llawer o bobl, drwy gyfuniad o gyflogau isel, cyflogaeth ansicr a gwrthodiad Llywodraethau olynol i gydnabod bod chwyddiant prisiau tai lawn mor ddrwg â chwyddiant confensiynol. Ond ni ddylid creu perchentyaeth ehangach ar draul tai cymdeithasol a'r rhwyd ddiogelwch y dylai cymdeithas wâr ei chynnig. Gan ddechrau gyda'n gwelliant olaf, mae Plaid Cymru yn pryderu am benderfyniad y Swyddfa Ystadegau Gwladol i ailddosbarthu dyledion cymdeithasau tai fel dyledion sector cyhoeddus. Gallai ailddosbarthu cymdeithasau tai fel corfforaethau anariannol cyhoeddus gyfyngu ar eu gallu i ddenu buddsoddiad o amrywiaeth o ffynonellau preifat. Os ystyrir bod cymdeithasau tai yn gyrff sector cyhoeddus, mae'n agor y drws i Drysorlys y DU osod terfynau benthyca arnynt, fel y maent eisoes yn ei wneud gydag awdurdodau lleol. Gallai hyn beryglu gallu cymdeithasau tai Cymru i adeiladu cartrefi newydd ac uwchraddio ansawdd cartrefi sy'n bodoli'n barod. Felly, rwy'n gobeithio clywed beth sydd gan Lywodraeth Cymru i'w ddweud ar y camau y bydd yn eu cymryd yn hyn o beth. Gan droi yn awr at y prif fater sy'n cael ei drafod yma, mae'n eithaf amlwg fod yr hawl i brynu wedi niweidio argaeledd tai cymdeithasol, a dyna'r rheswm dros ein gwelliannau helaeth i'r cynnig. Ychydig iawn o synnwyr ariannol y mae'r hawl i brynu wedi'i wneud erioed, ac yn lle hynny, mae wedi profi mai cymhorthdal ydyw i'r rhai mwy cefnog a rhai yn y lle iawn ar yr adeg iawn, gan leihau'r stoc tai cymdeithasol yn gyffredinol. Roedd y gostyngiadau mawr o rhwng 33 y cant a 50 y cant i breswylwyr yn gyfystyr â chymhorthdal tuag at berchentyaeth i bob pwrpas. Mae hyn yn golygu, am bob pedwar cartref a werthwyd, mai dau neu dri o dai yn unig sydd wedi cymryd eu lle. Ar ben hynny, gan fod llawer o fenthycwyr yn gwrthod morgeisi uwchben y chweched llawr, mae tenantiaid mewn adeiladau aml-lawr wedi methu prynu, sy'n golygu mai'r rhai a fanteisiodd ar y polisi yn gyffredinol oedd preswylwyr ystadau cyngor isel a bach wedi'u lleoli mewn ardaloedd sydd wedi ffynnu yn sgil hynny. A gwyddom fod llawer o'r blociau fflatiau aml-lawr na chafodd eu prynu gan bobl bellach wedi cael eu dymchwel - mae llawer yn fy nhref enedigol, sef Merthyr, yn y Gurnos, a hefyd yn Hirwaun, gerllaw. Mae hyd yn oed 'The Daily Telegraph' wedi cyfaddef bod camddefnydd wedi'i wneud o'r gyfraith, a bod llawer o gartrefi wedi cael eu prynu gan bobl oedrannus a oedd yn cael benthyg yr arian gan eu meibion a'u merched, gan wybod y byddent yn etifeddu llawer mewn rhai blynyddoedd. O ganlyniad, yn gyffredinol roedd y cartrefi nas gwerthwyd mewn ardaloedd llai dymunol, lle roedd diweithdra hirdymor yn dilyn dad-ddiwydiannu'r Torïaid. Golygai fod pobl yn cael eu hynysu a'u crynhoi mewn ystadau llai dymunol a ddaeth yn raddol yn getos, a theimlai pobl eu bod wedi cael eu hanghofio. Fe ffynnodd rhai o'r ardaloedd hynny - mewn ardaloedd canol dinas ger prifysgolion yn enwedig, prynwyd stoc dai yn y pen draw gan landlordiaid prynu i osod a newidiodd lawer o eiddo yn dai amlfeddiannaeth i gael cymaint â phosibl o rent. Felly, er y gwelwyd ffyniant cychwynnol o ran perchen-feddianwyr yn hunangyllido gwelliannau, yn y tymor hir, mae'r ardaloedd hyn wedi ail-greu tai mewn cyflwr gwael drwy sector heb ei reoleiddio sy'n aml wedi galluogi landlordiaid diegwyddor i ddod yn gyfoethog yn gyflym. Mae hefyd wedi gwneud byw mewn tŷ cyngor yn fwy o stigma. Dyma pam rydym wedi cyflwyno gwelliant 3, ac mae'n rhywbeth yn y portffolio hwn rwy'n gobeithio gwneud mwy o waith arno, oherwydd, a bod yn onest, nid wyf yn meddwl y gallwn ond ei nodi'n unig a symud ymlaen. Mae yna bobl sy'n teimlo stigma o fyw mewn tai cymdeithasol sy'n teimlo, oherwydd na allant fforddio - [Torri ar draws.] Mae'n wir. Oherwydd na allant fforddio cael troed ar yr ysgol dai, maent yn teimlo eu bod yn ddinasyddion eilradd rywsut o gymharu â'r rhai sy'n gallu ei fforddio mewn gwirionedd. Rwy'n credu bod angen trafodaeth yma yn y Siambr am y ffaith y bydd pobl, mae'n wir, yn dyheu am fod yn berchen ar gartref, ond i mi mae'n ymwneud mwy ag ansawdd y cartrefi hynny i'r bobl hyn, ac nid yn benodol ynglŷn ag a ydynt yn berchen ar y tŷ hwnnw ai peidio. Rwy'n meddwl, yn gyffredinol, fod y Siambr hon mewn perygl o fod yn byw yn y gorffennol. Bythefnos yn ôl, clywsom alwadau am ddod ag ysgolion gramadeg yn ôl ac yn awr, dyma amddiffyn yr hawl i brynu. Beth nesaf - dowch â Bananarama yn ôl? Dylem fod yn edrych tua'r dyfodol yn lle hynny. [Chwerthin.] Wel, efallai y bydd rhai ohonoch yn hoffi Bananarama; efallai eu bod ychydig bach cyn fy amser i. Dylem fod yn edrych ar atebion mwy arloesol i'n problemau, yn hytrach nag estyn am bolisïau ystrydebol a hen ffasiwn ddoe. Os ydym o ddifrif am fynd i'r afael â'n problemau o ran y cyflenwad tai, yna efallai y dylem edrych yn hytrach ar adeiladu eco-gartrefi newydd gyda'r dechnoleg amgylcheddol ddiweddaraf i'w defnyddio ar draws pob math o ddeiliadaeth tai, a dylem fynd ati'n iawn i weithredu rhaglen i wella ansawdd ein cartrefi presennol yn ôl y safonau amgylcheddol diweddaraf. Wrth edrych ar opsiynau eraill megis tai cydweithredol, gwn fod Canada yn gwneud hyn yn dda ar ôl bod yno yn ddiweddar fy hun, er nad oeddwn yn bwriadu bod ar wyliau gwaith. Ond mae yna wledydd eraill sy'n gwneud pethau'n dda y gallwn ddysgu oddi wrthynt. Er fy mod yn derbyn pwynt David Melding mewn perthynas â phwysigrwydd cartrefi gwag, rwy'n credu bod honno'n ddadl hollol ar wahân i'r hawl i brynu. Un o'r pethau eraill y mae gennyf ddiddordeb brwd ynddynt, a byddaf yn gorffen ar hyn, yw y dylem efallai fod yn rhoi cyfyngiadau ar hawliau perchnogion eiddo prynu i osod ac ail gartrefi i brisio ein pobl ifanc allan o'r farchnad dai, a chymryd y rhan fwyaf o'u cyflogau mewn rhenti artiffisial o uchel. Mae'r rhain yn faterion rwy'n eu hystyried yn bwysicach nag ailgyflwyno'r ddadl ar yr hawl i brynu.