English: Diolch, Llywydd. We will be supporting amendment 11 as we believe the Assembly should be involved in scrutinising any significant changes the ombudsman may make to the statement of principles as far as practicable. Amendment 48 has been submitted where confirmation is needed to ensure that the ombudsman considers resources of town and community councils. Amendment 48 reiterates the concerns that we raised at Stage 2 on the ability of town and community councils as listed authorities under the Bill to carry out their duties. For example, the Bill contains many requirements and time limits for listed authorities, which includes a six-month time limit for listed authorities to submit their own complaints-handling procedure. At Stage 1 I outlined that, while supporting the Bill's application to town and community councils, we can see from both the perspective of the ombudsman and town and community councils how burdensome and onerous the duties could be to undertake when staffing and resources are minimal. Town and community councils currently number over 730 in Wales, with 8,000 councillors. As evidenced by the auditor general in his report on town and community councils, some councils are already struggling to apply existing statutory duties. As I noted at Stage 2, nearly 100 town and community councils had not been able to submit their audits by the cut-off date of 30 November 2018. Well over 340 town and community councils received a qualified audit opinion in the same year - double the amount in 2016-17. Moreover, 24 councils have yet to make proper arrangements for online publication of documents as required by the Local Government (Democracy) (Wales) Act 2013. Auditors also identified issues in the accounting statements of 180 councils; 270 councils did not complete the annual return fully before submission for audit. Concerns, therefore, about the ability of town and community councils to undertake their duties have run throughout the Bill's progress. I refer back to the evidence of Cardiff city council, raised about the Bill's provisions, highlighting the risk of the ombudsman's guidance being 'too prescriptive' and not allowing 'for a degree of flexibility for local authorities to handle and investigate complaints in a manner that suits their size and structures.' Additionally, the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales were concerned about the impact the provisions may have on smaller organisations - views also expressed by Blaenau Gwent council, which stated in evidence that some smaller councils do not have sufficient resources to have complaints officers whose sole task is to take and log complaints. Further, Newtown and Llanllwchaiarn Town Council said in their evidence to the committee that 'any such model or standard policies/procedures should be proportionate to the scale of community and town councils and also recognise that it may require transitional costs.' Finally, and most significantly, One Voice Wales, representing town and community councils in Wales, have written to me stating that they do have concerns about the model complaints procedure. They further noted that most town and community councils in Wales are incredibly small and employ just one clerk, who would likely work on a part-time basis. As such, it is still difficult to see whether smaller town and community councils with relatively limited resources will be able to keep up with the provisions outlined under the Bill without due consideration by the ombudsman. It is welcome, again, that the explanatory memorandum notes that it is up to the ombudsman's discretion in respect of which listed authorities publish model complaints-handling procedures, but it is worthwhile to place on record the expectation that the ombudsman will consider the resources of listed authorities, and at least work with their representative bodies to ensure the complaints procedure is adequately adjusted to take into account the limited resources of town and community councils in Wales. Regarding amendment 47, this deletes the procedure that applies to the publication by the ombudsman of the statement of principles, and replaces this with another procedure. The changes made to the ombudsman's statement of principles outlined by amendment 56 at Stage 2 mean there is little opportunity for the Assembly to properly scrutinise the principles before their introduction. This changes the process from affirmative to negative, and I believe represents a backward step, given the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee's praise for the affirmative nature of the Bill at Stage 1. Although we recognise that this is a statement of principles rather than regulations, we contend that they're integral to the working of the model complaints-handling procedure, and thus should be afforded Assembly scrutiny. At the very least, the first statement of principles should have an affirmative procedure so that the Assembly has a chance to approve them. We therefore ask the Member in charge to explain his rationale for this change in direction. Why negative rather than affirmative?
Welsh: Diolch, Lywydd. Byddwn yn cefnogi gwelliant 11 gan ein bod yn credu y dylai'r Cynulliad gymryd rhan yn y gwaith o graffu ar unrhyw newidiadau sylweddol y gallai'r ombwdsmon eu gwneud i'r datganiad o egwyddorion cyn belled ag y bo'n ymarferol. Cyflwynwyd gwelliant 48, lle mae angen cadarnhad i sicrhau bod yr ombwdsmon yn ystyried adnoddau cynghorau tref a chymuned. Mae gwelliant 48 yn ailadrodd y pryderon a godwyd gennym yng Nghyfnod 2 ynglŷn â gallu cynghorau tref a chymuned fel awdurdodau rhestredig o dan y Bil i gyflawni eu dyletswyddau. Er enghraifft, mae'r Bil yn cynnwys llawer o ofynion a therfynau amser i awdurdodau rhestredig, sy'n cynnwys terfyn amser o chwe mis i awdurdodau rhestredig gyflwyno eu gweithdrefn ymdrin â chwynion eu hunain. Yng Nghyfnod 1 dywedais fy mod yn cefnogi cymhwyso'r Bil i gynghorau tref a chymuned, ond y gallwn weld o safbwynt yr ombwdsmon a chynghorau tref a chymuned fel ei gilydd pa mor feichus y gallai cyflawni'r dyletswyddau fod pan fo niferoedd staff ac adnoddau'n fach iawn. Ceir dros 730 o gynghorau tref a chymuned yng Nghymru ar hyn o bryd, gyda 8,000 o gynghorwyr. Fel y dangosodd yr archwilydd cyffredinol yn ei adroddiad ar y cynghorau tref a chymuned, mae rhai cynghorau eisoes yn cael trafferth i gymhwyso'r dyletswyddau statudol presennol. Fel y nodais yng Nghyfnod 2, ni allodd bron 100 o gynghorau tref a chymuned gyflwyno eu harchwiliadau erbyn y dyddiad cau ar 30 Tachwedd 2018. Derbyniodd ymhell dros 340 o gynghorau tref a chymuned farn archwilio amodol yn yr un flwyddyn - ddwy waith cymaint â'r nifer yn 2016-17. At hynny, mae 24 o gynghorau yn dal i fod heb wneud trefniadau priodol ar gyfer cyhoeddi dogfennau ar-lein fel sy'n ofynnol gan Ddeddf Llywodraeth Leol (Democratiaeth) (Cymru) 2013. Hefyd, nododd yr archwilwyr faterion yn codi yn natganiadau cyfrifyddu 180 o gynghorau; ni chwblhaodd 270 o gynghorau y ffurflen flynyddol yn llawn cyn ei chyflwyno ar gyfer archwiliad. Felly, mae pryderon ynglŷn â gallu cynghorau tref a chymuned i gyflawni eu dyletswyddau wedi rhedeg drwy hynt y Bil. Cyfeiriaf yn ôl at dystiolaeth cyngor dinas Caerdydd ynghylch darpariaethau'r Bil, ac yn tynnu sylw at y risg fod canllawiau'r ombwdsmon 'yn rhy rhagnodol' ac yn methu caniatáu ar gyfer rhywfaint o hyblygrwydd i awdurdodau lleol drin ac ymchwilio i gwynion mewn ffordd sy'n addas ar gyfer eu maint a'u strwythur. Yn ogystal, roedd Comisiwn Ffiniau a Democratiaeth Leol Cymru yn pryderu ynglŷn â'r effaith y gallai darpariaethau ei chael ar sefydliadau llai o faint - safbwyntiau a fynegwyd hefyd gan gyngor Blaenau Gwent, a nododd mewn tystiolaeth nad oes gan rai cynghorau llai o faint ddigon o adnoddau i feddu ar swyddogion cwynion penodol ar gyfer derbyn a chofnodi cwynion. Ymhellach, dywedodd Cyngor Tref y Drenewydd a Llanllwchaearn yn eu tystiolaeth i'r pwyllgor y dylai polisïau/gweithdrefnau enghreifftiol neu safonol o'r fath fod yn gymesur â maint cynghorau cymuned a chynghorau tref a chydnabod hefyd y gallai alw am gostau trosiannol. Yn olaf, ac yn bwysicaf oll, mae Un Llais Cymru, sy'n cynrychioli cynghorau tref a chymuned yng Nghymru, wedi ysgrifennu ataf yn dweud bod ganddynt bryderon am y weithdrefn gwyno enghreifftiol. Nododd ymhellach fod y rhan fwyaf o gynghorau tref a chymuned Cymru yn anhygoel o fach ac yn cyflogi un clerc yn unig, a fyddai'n debygol o fod yn gweithio ar sail ran-amser. Fel y cyfryw, mae'n dal i fod yn anodd gweld a fydd cynghorau tref a chymuned llai o faint gydag adnoddau cymharol gyfyngedig yn cyflawni'r darpariaethau a amlinellir o dan y Bil heb ystyriaeth briodol gan yr ombwdsmon. Unwaith eto, mae'n galonogol fod y memorandwm esboniadol yn nodi mai mater i'r ombwdsmon ei benderfynu yn ôl ei ddisgresiwn yw pa awdurdodau rhestredig sydd i gyhoeddi gweithdrefnau ymdrin â chwynion enghreifftiol, ond mae'n werth cofnodi'r disgwyliad y bydd yr ombwdsmon yn ystyried adnoddau awdurdodau rhestredig, ac o leiaf yn gweithio gyda'u cyrff cynrychioliadol i sicrhau y caiff y weithdrefn gwyno ei haddasu'n ddigonol i ystyried adnoddau cyfyngedig cynghorau tref a chymuned yng Nghymru. Mewn perthynas â gwelliant 47, mae hwn yn dileu'r weithdrefn sy'n ymwneud â chyhoeddi datganiad o egwyddorion gan yr ombwdsmon, ac yn gosod gweithdrefn arall yn ei lle. Mae'r newidiadau a wnaed i ddatganiad o egwyddorion yr ombwdsmon a amlinellwyd yng ngwelliant 56 yng Nghyfnod 2 yn golygu na cheir fawr o gyfle i'r Cynulliad graffu'n briodol ar yr egwyddorion cyn eu cyflwyno. Mae hyn yn newid y broses o fod yn gadarnhaol i fod yn un negyddol, a chredaf fod hynny'n gam yn ôl, o ystyried canmoliaeth y Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol a Deddfwriaethol i natur gadarnhaol y Bil yng Nghyfnod 1. Er ein bod yn cydnabod mai datganiad o egwyddorion yw hwn yn hytrach na rheoliadau, rydym yn dadlau eu bod yn rhan annatod o weithrediad y weithdrefn enghreifftiol ar gyfer ymdrin â chwynion, ac felly dylent fod yn ddarostyngedig i graffu ar ran y Cynulliad. Fan lleiaf, dylai'r datganiad o egwyddorion cyntaf gynnwys gweithdrefn gadarnhaol fel bod cyfle i'r Cynulliad eu cymeradwyo. Rydym yn gofyn felly i'r Aelod cyfrifol egluro ei resymeg dros y newid cyfeiriad hwn. Pam y weithdrefn negyddol yn hytrach na'r weithdrefn gadarnhaol?