techiaith/cofnodycynulliad_en-cy huggingface dataset:
English: Well, it's interesting to see that the independent adviser sometimes feels that we've overestimated the costs. Clearly, that's one of the things that we can look at now that we have the report, and if there is evidence then we can change the figures, of course. That was the best estimate that we had at the time. That's all I would say.
Welsh: Wel, mae'n ddiddorol i weld bod yr arbenigwr cyllidol weithiau yn meddwl ein bod wedi goramcangyfrif faint o arian sydd. Mae'n amlwg dyna un o'r pethau y byddwn ni'n gallu edrych arno nawr bod gyda ni yr adroddiad, ac os oes yna dystiolaeth yno, gallwn ni newid y ffigurau. Hwnnw oedd yr amcangyfrif gorau yr oeddem ni'n gallu'i wneud ar y pryd. Dyna i gyd y dywedaf i.
English: Just to return to the evidence from the WLGA, and their suggestion that the element of avoiding costs of £2.6 million that is in the RIA is ambitious, how do you respond to that? What they and everyone else would want to know is what part of the public sector would contribute to reducing the case load for the ombudsman. Should an analysis of that type be included in the RIA?
Welsh: Jest i ddod yn ôl at dystiolaeth Cymdeithas Llywodraeth Leol Cymru a'u hawgrym nhw bod yr elfen osgoi costau o £2.6 miliwn sydd yn yr asesiad effaith rheoleiddiol yn uchelgeisiol, beth yw eich ymateb chi i hynny? Beth fyddan nhw eisiau gwybod, a phawb eisiau gwybod, ydy pa rannau o'r sector cyhoeddus fyddai'n cyfrannu at leihau'r baich achosion i'r ombwdsmon. A ddylid cynnwys dadansoddiad o'r math yna yn yr asesiad effaith?
English: First of all, I think it's important to highlight that these would be savings to the ombudsman's office in the long term, and not savings - and I admit this, and we haven't set this out because it is impossible to estimate - to the public services themselves. So, they're not savings for the public bodies subject to the Bill, but savings for the ombudsman himself. If the Bill works, and the new powers around own-initiative investigations and complaints procedures are effective and efficient and work properly, then they should reduce, ultimately, the number of full complaints dealt with by the ombudsman, and we have set out on the basis of the ombudsman's evidence some of the estimates in terms of those savings. That's what's included within the financial assessment. Just to emphasise again: these are not savings for public services, but savings for the ombudsman's office.
Welsh: Yn gyntaf oll, rydw i'n meddwl ei fod yn bwysig tanlinellu mai arbedion i swyddfa ombwdsmon ydy'r arbedion hyn yn y tymor hir, ac nid arbedion, rydw i'n cyfaddef - ac nid ydym ni wedi gosod allan hynny, achos mae'n amhosibl i amcangyfrif - i'r gwasanaethau cyhoeddus eu hunain. Felly, nid ar gyfer y cyrff cyhoeddus sydd yn ddarostyngedig i'r Bil ydy'r arbedion hyn, ond i swyddfa'r ombwdsmon ei hunan. Felly, maen nhw'n troi o gwmpas: os yw'r Bil yn gweithio, os yw'r pwerau newydd o gwmpas mentrau ar eu liwt eu hunain a gweithdrefnau trin cwynion yn effeithlon ac yn gweithio at y pwrpas, mi ddylen nhw, yn y pen draw, leihau nifer yr achosion a chwynion llawn sy'n cael eu delio â nhw gan yr ombwdsmon. Rydym ni wedi gosod allan, ar sail tystiolaeth yr ombwdsmon, rai o'r amcangyfrifon ynglŷn â'r arbedion hynny. Dyna beth sydd yn yr asesiad ariannol, yn hytrach na - . Jest i bwysleisio, nid arbedion i gyrff gwasanaethau cyhoeddus ydyn nhw, ond swyddfa'r ombwdsmon ei hunan.
English: Yes, but from what part of the public sector would you see those savings emerging?
Welsh: Ie, ond o ba rannau o'r sector cyhoeddus y byddech chi'n gweld yr arbedion yna yn dod?
English: Well, they are savings within the ombudsman's office. I think that if you look, for example, at the RIA, we mentioned savings of 5 per cent, or 40 cases per annum. Now, whether those 40 cases all come from different sectors, no, we haven't carried out that assessment. That's a global figure.
Welsh: Wel, maen nhw yn swyddfa'r ombwdsmon. Rydw i'n credu, os ydych chi'n edrych, er enghraifft, yn y dystiolaeth yn y RIA, rydym ni'n sôn am arbedion o 5 y cant; 40 achos y flwyddyn, dywedwch. Os ydych chi'n gofyn a ydym ni wedi edrych ar a ydy'r 40 achos yn dod o wahanol rannau, nid ydym ni wedi gwneud yr asesiad yna, na. Mae hwn yn ffigur global yn hytrach na fesul sector.
English: Yes, but what they're looking for is some sort of assessment according to each sector, just to understand more about where those savings will take place.
Welsh: Ie, ond beth maen nhw'n gofyn amdano ydy rhyw fath o ddadansoddiad fesul sector i ddeall o ble mae'r arbedion yna yn digwydd.
English: We would have to look at that. We would have to be convinced that we aren't chasing details that wouldn't necessarily enhance the information that's in the RIA. But I'm happy to consider that. But we do need to be sure that that can be done in an appropriate manner. We've looked at some of the evidence from Northern Ireland in this regard, too.
Welsh: Bydd yn rhaid i ni edrych ar hynny. Bydd yn rhaid i ni fod yn siŵr nad ydym ni yn siaso manylion na fydd yn cyfoethogi'r wybodaeth sydd yn yr RIA, i fod yn onest â chi. Rydw i'n hapus i ystyried hynny, ond mae'n rhaid i ni fod yn siŵr bod modd gwneud hynny mewn ffordd briodol. Rydym ni wedi edrych ar beth tystiolaeth yn deillio o Ogledd Iwerddon yn y cyd-destun yma, hefyd.
English: Also, the Wales Audit Office has stated that the 10 per cent case load reduction as a result of the introduction of the complaints-handling procedures is subject to uncertainty, and that they would be wary of using precise figures. Once again, would you be prepared to undertake some sort of sensitivity analysis in order to deal with those concerns?
Welsh: Ac yn yr un modd, mae Swyddfa Archwilio Cymru yn dweud bod y gostyngiad o 10 y cant mewn llwyth achosion o ganlyniad i gyflwyno gweithdrefnau ymdrin â chwynion yn ansicr, ac y byddan nhw'n peidio â defnyddio ffigurau manwl. Unwaith eto, a ydych chi'n fodlon gwneud rhyw fath o ddadansoddiad sensitifrwydd er mwyn mynd i'r afael â'r pryderon yna?
English: We're in something of a quandary here because Standing Orders say that we have to use detailed figures. But I do accept the comments made by the Wales Audit Office, and of course when we responded to the committee in the letter, which I think is part of your papers - 10 January - that does set out some of the other scenarios not included in the RIA. But we said in that letter that we have set out a 5 per cent scenario, for example, so that you can get a better idea of the range that would apply in that context.
Welsh: Rydym ni mewn bach o gyfyng-gyngor yn fan hyn, achos mae'r Rheolau Sefydlog sydd gyda ni yn dweud bod yn rhaid i ni ddefnyddio ffigurau manwl. Ond rydw i'n derbyn beth mae swyddfa'r archwilydd cyffredinol yn ei ddweud, ac wrth gwrs, pan wnaethom ni ymateb i'r pwyllgor yma mewn llythyr sydd gyda chi heddiw, rydw i'n meddwl, yn y papurau - 10 Ionawr - mae hynny yn gosod allan rhai o'r senarios eraill. Nid ydyn nhw yn yr RIA, ond fe ddywedom yn y llythyr yna - rŷm ni wedi gosod allan y senario 5 y cant, er enghraifft. So, gallech chi weld a chael gwell syniad o'r rhychwant sydd ar gael yn y cyd-destun hwnnw.
English: Thank you for the question. As you're aware, the Bill as it stands sets out the guidance and the conditions for the ombudsman to be able to undertake own-initiative investigations. The question that then arises, I believe is: are you of the view that we need to make it possible to change those conditions as we move forwards? Do you feel that there needs to be a way of changing that? And if you do agree with that, how do we do so? Practically speaking - and I speak from experience here, coming before you as a Member in charge of a Bill - it's much easier for a Government Member to propose legislation and regulations than an ordinary Member, as it were - practically speaking. The safeguard that is in place is that that process has to be in the affirmative, and it has to come before the whole Assembly. That is the balance that we've struck in the Bill. I have seen, and of course we have considered as a Finance Committee, that that may, not undermine, but perhaps cast a shadow over the full independence of the ombudsman. The other option, of course, would be to give the Finance Committee the right, through a Member, to change this part of the Bill, but practically speaking, as I said, that is difficult to ensure at all times. So, that's the balance that we've struck in the Bill as it stands. The committee was eager that the conditions should be on the face of the Bill; we've changed the draft Bill in the previous Assembly in order to include that. If you want to move further ahead, I look forward to seeing your recommendations and the evidence of other people, to be frank.
Welsh: Diolch am y cwestiwn. Fel rŷch chi'n ymwybodol, mae'r Bil drafft, fel y mae e, yn gosod allan y canllawiau a'r amodau ar gyfer yr ombwdsmon i gynnal mentrau ymchwiliadau ar ei liwt ei hunan. Y cwestiwn, rwy'n credu, wedyn yw: a ydych chi o'r farn bod angen ei gwneud yn bosib i newid yr amodau hynny wrth fynd ymlaen? A ydych chi'n teimlo bod angen modd o newid hynny? Ac os ydych chi'n teimlo bod angen modd o newid hynny, sut mae gwneud hynny? Yn ymarferol - ac rwy'n siarad o brofiad fan hyn, yn dod ger eich bron chi fel Aelod yn gyfrifol am Fil - mae'n llawer mwy hwylus i Aelod o'r Llywodraeth i gynnig deddfwriaeth a rheoliadau yn hytrach nag Aelod cyffredin, fel petai. Mae'n ymarferol. Y diogelwch sydd yno yw bod yn rhaid i'r broses yna fod yn gadarnhaol gerbron y Cynulliad cyfan. Dyna'r cydbwysedd rŷm ni wedi'i daro yn y Bil. Rwyf wedi gweld, ac wrth gwrs rŷm ni wedi ystyried fel Pwyllgor Cyllid, o bosib fod hynny, nid yn tanseilio, ond yn taflu cysgod ar annibyniaeth lwyr yr ombwdsman. Yr opsiwn arall, wrth gwrs, fyddai rhoi hawl i'r Pwyllgor Cyllid, drwy Aelod, i newid y rhan yma o'r Bil, ond, wrth gwrs, yn ymarferol, fel y dywedais, mae hynny'n anodd ei sicrhau bob tro. Dyna'r cydbwysedd rŷm ni wedi'i daro yn y Bil drafft. Roedd y Pwyllgor Cyllid yn awyddus bod amodau ar wyneb y Bil; rŷm ni wedi newid y Bil drafft yn y Cynulliad blaenorol er mwyn cynnwys hyn. Os ydym ni am fynd ymhellach, rwy'n edrych ymlaen at eich argymhellion chi a thystiolaeth gan bobl eraill, a bod yn onest.
English: Just on that point about the independence of the ombudsman's role, in the same section that we're talking about now, we talk about the public interest, and you talked about two criteria, and then that Welsh Ministers, through regulations, could amend those criteria, in subsection 2, by adding, deleting or amending them in some way. Now, should it be the role of Welsh Ministers to do that, or the Assembly, this committee, in order to safeguard the independence of that role?
Welsh: Jest ar y pwynt yna ynglŷn ag annibyniaeth rôl yr ombwdsmon, yn yr un darn rydym ni'n sôn amdano fe rŵan, rydym ni'n sôn am fudd y cyhoedd, a dau faen prawf rydych chi'n eu rhoi, ac wedyn bod Gweinidogion Cymru, trwy reoliadau, yn gallu diwygio'r meini prawf yn is-adran 2 drwy ychwanegu, dileu, neu newid y meini prawf. Rŵan, ai Gweinidogion Cymru ddylai fod yn gwneud hynny, ynteu'r Cynulliad, y pwyllgor yma, er mwyn diogelu annibyniaeth y rôl?
English: Well, Welsh Ministers can't do that without using the affirmative procedure and taking a vote through the Assembly. And, any motion to do that would be open to scrutiny from this committee. The question of providing that power to the committee or a Member - in practical terms, it means the Member in charge - is one of convenience, if truth be told, because the Government is in a better position to introduce legislation. So, it's a balance, I recognise that, it's not perfect, and we think that there is sufficient safeguarding around that as the Assembly would have to affirmatively approve that, and could reject it if the Government were attempting to restrict the ombudsman in those criteria.
Welsh: Wel, nid yw Gweinidogion Cymru yn gallu gwneud hynny heb bleidlais gadarnhaol - rwy'n pwysleisio hynny - yn y Cynulliad. Ac, wrth gwrs, byddai unrhyw gynnig i wneud hynny'n agored i graffu gan y pwyllgor yma. Mae'r cwestiwn o roi'r grym hynny i bwyllgor neu Aelod - yn ymarferol, mae'n golygu Aelod yng ngofal - yn un o ba mor hwylus yw hynny, a dweud y gwir, achos mae'r Llywodraeth a Gweinidogion mewn sefyllfa fwy hwylus i gyflwyno deddfwriaeth, mae'n rhaid bod yn onest. So, mae'n gydbwysedd, rwy'n cydnabod hynny, nid yw'n berffaith, ac rydym ni o'r farn bod yna ddigon o ddiogelwch o gwmpas hynny gan fod rhaid i'r Cynulliad gymeradwyo hynny, yn bositif, ac, wrth gwrs, yn gallu gwrthod, pe bai'r Llywodraeth yn ceisio cyfyngu yn y ffordd y maen nhw'n gosod meini prawf.
English: I was just going to ask questions about the procedures in relation to listed authorities. The Cabinet Secretary has said that the onus should be on the listed authorities to assess the specific responsibilities, and says, and I quote: 'As currently drafted the Bill puts the onus on the listed authority to ensure it does not act incompatibly with any other enactmentOur view is that it would be more appropriate for the onus to be on the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales to ensure guidance given by that Office doesn't conflict either with the legislation setting out the parameters of statutory schemes'. Do you therefore think that there is a need to amend section 41 of the Bill in order to place a specific responsibility on the ombudsman to ensure that they do not conflict with what is in other enactments?
Welsh: Roeddwn i jest yn mynd i ofyn cwestiynau ynglŷn â'r gweithdrefnau - awdurdodau rhestredig. Mae'r Gweinidog wedi dweud bod yr onus ar yr awdurdodau rhestredig i asesu'r dyletswyddau penodol, ac mae'n dweud, ac rwy'n dyfynnu: 'Mae'r Bil fel y mae wedi'i ddrafftio ar hyn o bryd yn gosod y cyfrifoldeb ar yr awdurdod rhestredig i sicrhau nad yw'n gweithredu'n anghydnaws ag unrhyw ddeddfiad arallYn ein barn ni, byddai'n fwy priodol i'r cyfrifoldeb fod ar yr Ombwdsmon i sicrhau nad yw'r canllawiau sy'n cael eu rhoi gan y Swyddfa honno'n gwrthdaro â'r ddeddfwriaeth sy'n gosod paramedrau cynlluniau statudol'. A ydych chi'n credu, felly, fod angen diwygio adran 41 y Bil er mwyn rhoi dyletswydd benodol ar yr ombwdsmon i sicrhau nad ydyn nhw'n anghydfynd â'r hyn sydd mewn deddfiadau eraill?
English: Our interpretation of that section of the Bill is, as we state clearly that it is impossible for the ombudsman to operate in a way that is not in keeping with other legislation, that, in turn, includes any statutory guidance that emanates from that legislation. But I'd be more than happy, if this committee were to suggest that greater clarity is required surrounding that or if improvements need to be made - . I can assure you that the purpose of this section of the Bill is to ensure that the ombudsman doesn't do what been raised as a concern with you. Therefore, if amendments to the Bill are needed to reflect that, then we're open to that. But our legal interpretation of the Bill is: as we say clearly that the ombudsman can't conflict with other legislation, that includes the statutory guidance. But if we need to place that on the face of the Bill, so that it includes the statutory guidance, then we are open to doing so.
Welsh: Ein dehongliad ni o'r rhan yna o'r Bil, gan ein bod ni'n dweud yn glir nad oes modd i'r ombwdsmon weithredu mewn ffordd sy'n anghydnaws â'r ddeddfwriaeth arall, yw bod hynny, yn ei dro, yn cynnwys unrhyw ganllawiau statudol sy'n deillio o'r ddeddfwriaeth yna. Ond rwy'n hapus iawn, pe bai'r pwyllgor yma'n awgrymu bod angen mwy o eglurder o gwmpas hynny neu fod angen gwella hynny - . A gaf i eich sicrhau chi mai pwrpas y rhan yma o'r Bil yw sicrhau nad yw'r ombwdsmon yn gwneud yr hyn sydd wedi cael ei godi fel pryder gyda chi? Felly, os oes angen gwella'r Bil mewn unrhyw ffordd i adlewyrchu hynny, rydym ni'n agored iawn i hynny. Ond ein dehongliad ni o'r Bil, yn gyfreithlon, yw: gan ein bod ni'n dweud yn glir nad oes dim modd i'r ombwdsmon weithredu yn erbyn deddfwriaeth arall, mae hynny'n cynnwys y canllawiau statudol. Ond os oes angen rhoi hynny'n benodol ar wyneb y Bil - ei fod e'n cynnwys y canllawiau statudol hefyd - rydym ni'n agored i'ch -
English: That's fine up to a point, but the additional point to that is, for example, that 'Putting Things Right' is not defined within the category of enactments, as referred to in section 41 (1) (b). It was done by NHS regulation, but, as far as I understand it, legally speaking, that wouldn't fall within the definition in the Bill as it stands. So, that's one of the tensions that I think exist. There may be regulations that exist, but if they aren't statutory, then the ombudsman may not, perhaps, take them into consideration in terms of undertaking an investigation or not.
Welsh: Mae hynny'n iawn hyd at bwynt, ond y pwynt ychwanegol at hynny yw, er enghraifft, nid yw 'unioni pethau' yn cael ei ddiffinio o fewn categori deddfiadau, fel y cyfeirir atynt yn adran 41 (1) (b). Mae wedi cael ei wneud drwy reoliadau'r gwasanaeth iechyd gwladol, ond yn ôl beth rydw i'n ei ddeall, yn gyfreithlon, ni fyddai hwnnw'n dod o dan y diffiniad yn y Bil fel mae'n sefyll. Felly, dyna un o'r tensiynau, rwy'n credu. Efallai bod yna reoliadau'n bodoli, ond os nad ydyn nhw'n dod o fewn y statud, wedyn efallai na fydd yr ombwdsmon yn eu cymryd i mewn i ystyriaeth o ran a yw'n mynd i wneud ymchwiliad ai peidio.
English: I believe sections 40 and 41 are broad enough to include all sorts of other legislation, but I don't know if Gareth has anything to add to that. That's my interpretation there -
Welsh: Rydw i'n gweld bod sections 40 a 41 yn ddigon eang i gynnwys pob math o ddeddfwriaeth arall, ond nid wyf i'n gwybod a yw Gareth eisiau ychwanegu at hynny. Dyna beth rwyf i'n gweld yn fanna -
English: No, I would include anything within legislation within the definition of 'enactment' in this context. But, of course, there are certain things, such as 'Putting Things Right', perhaps, that some would argue are not enactments. As Simon said, perhaps we can include something on the face of the Bill to explain that there couldn't a conflict with anything that is done below the legislative level too.
Welsh: Na, unrhyw beth mewn deddfwriaeth - byddem ni'n ei gynnwys o fewn enactment yn y cyd-destun hwn. Ond, wrth gwrs, nid yw rhai pethau fel ' Putting Things Right ', efallai, byddai rhai'n dadlau, yn ddeddfwriaeth, ddim yn enactments. Fel y dywedodd Simon, efallai gallwn ni gynnwys rhywbeth yn y Bil i egluro bod dim modd gwrthdaro gydag unrhyw beth sy'n cael ei wneud o dan ddeddfwriaeth hefyd.
English: Okay. Well, perhaps we can have confirmation in private on that as well. Thank you. Those were my questions.
Welsh: Ocê. Wel, efallai gallem ni gael cadarnhad yn breifat ar hynny hefyd. Diolch. Dyna'r cwestiynau sydd gyda fi.
English: Under Part 5, I just wanted to ask about the complaints relating to other persons - social care and palliative care. Hospices UK and also the Cabinet Secretary for Finance have said that there is a missed opportunity here by not creating a seamless, integrated system. What is your view on that?
Welsh: O ran Rhan 5, roeddwn i jest isio holi am y cwynion sy'n ymwneud â phersonau eraill - gofal cymdeithasol a gofal lliniarol. Mae Hospices UK a hefyd yr Ysgrifennydd Cabinet dros Gyllid wedi dweud bod yna golli cyfle yn fan hyn drwy beidio â chreu system integredig. Beth ydy eich barn chi am hynny?
English: Thank you. You've explained the complexity, certainly, and perhaps there is a general point there about the 2014 well-being Act.
Welsh: Diolch. Rydych chi wedi egluro'r cymhlethdod, yn sicr, ac efallai bod yna bwynt cyffredinol yn fanna ynglŷn â'r Ddeddf llesiant.
English: Well, it's a very complex Act in and of itself, as I remember.
Welsh: Wel, mae'r Ddeddf yna yn un astrus iawn ynddi ei hun, rwy'n cofio.
English: But will create problems down the line with other pieces of legislation, for example.
Welsh: Ond yn mynd i greu problemau lawr y lein efo Biliau eraill, er enghraifft.
English: Well, I hope I won't be responsible for those other Bills. [ Laughter.]
Welsh: Wel, rwy'n gobeithio na fyddaf i'n gyfrifol am Filiau eraill. [ Chwerthin.]
English: This is a new provision, isn't it? We do appreciate that it has been included, but is it robust enough? It lists that a strategy has to be carried out and also an assessment and so on, but who will ensure that this takes place and that it does meet the type of need in this area?
Welsh: Mae hwn yn ddarn newydd, onid ydy? Rwy'n gwerthfawrogi fod hynny wedi cael ei gynnwys, ond a ydy o'n ddigon cadarn? Mae o'n rhestru bod rhaid gwneud strategaeth ac asesiad ac yn y blaen, ond pwy fydd yn gwneud yn siŵr fod hyn yn digwydd a'i fod o'n ffitio'r math o angen sydd yn y maes yma?
English: Okay, and I would ask you to look at the monitoring side as well in terms of who is going to ensure that this takes place - perhaps not the commissioner, but someone else -
Welsh: Ocê, a buaswn i'n gofyn i chi edrych ar yr ochr fonitro hefyd: pwy sydd yn mynd i wneud yn siŵr bod hyn yn digwydd - ddim y comisiynydd efallai, ond rhywun arall - ?
English: This committee - I suspected that. But I'm pleased that the other issues surrounding the ombudsman and the commissioner have now been resolved and that we don't have to argue those particular issues any longer.
Welsh: Y pwyllgor yma - roeddwn i'n amau hynny. Ond rwy'n falch bod y materion eraill ynghylch yr ombwdsmon a'r comisiynydd wedi cael eu datrys rŵan ac nad oes rhaid inni ddadlau ar y pwnc yna ddim mwy.
English: What if the ombudsman decided that there was no need to review the strategy at any point? Then, it won't be reviewed, according to how it's drafted here. So, I would like to see something stronger saying that it must be reviewed, and, as Siân mentioned, monitored, or even a supplementary report as part of the ombudsman's annual report when it comes to us as a committee. I'd just like to see something there, perhaps, to strengthen it. That would be ideal.
Welsh: Beth os ydy e'n penderfynu nad yw e eisiau adolygu'r strategaeth ar unrhyw amser? Wedyn, nid yw e byth yn mynd i gael ei adolygu, yn ôl sut mae wedi cael ei ysgrifennu fan hyn. Byddwn i eisiau gweld rhywbeth mwy cryf yn dweud ' must be reviewed ', ac fel roedd Siân wedi ei ddweud, ' monitoroed ', neu hyd yn oed adroddiad atodol yn rhan o adroddiad blynyddol yr archwilydd - yr ombwdsmon; sori, rwy'n cymysgu enwau nawr - yr ombwdsmon cenedlaethol pan mae'n dod atom ni wedyn fel pwyllgor. Jest rhywbeth yna i'w gryfhau e, rwy'n credu, fyddai'n ddelfrydol.
English: As I said in response to Siân Gwenllian, I'm more than happy to review that to ensure that there is some guidance on the face of the Bill in terms of following good practice and to keep that under review. I don't want to require review where no review is necessary. That's what I want to avoid.
Welsh: Fel y dywedais i wrth Siân Gwenllian, rydw i'n hapus iawn i ailedrych i wneud yn siŵr ein bod ni'n dilyn - bod yna rhyw fath o ganllaw ar wyneb y Bil ynglŷn â dilyn arfer gorau a chadw hynny o dan adolygiaeth. Nid ydw i eisiau gorfodi adolygiad pan nad oes eisiau adolygiad. Dyna beth rydw i eisiau ei osgoi.
English: No, but it's quite ambiguous. I would read that as being somewhat ambiguous as to whether there'd be any review at all.
Welsh: Na, ond mae'n eithaf amwys. Byddwn i'n darllen hynny yn eithaf amwys - a oes angen gwneud unrhyw fath o adolygiad o gwbl wedyn?