English: Thanks to the Minister for today's statement. There are a few sensible points in that statement that we would broadly support, and some more contentious ones. To start off with the good stuff: the role of the council chief executive as the returning officer in local government elections. We would agree with you that it should now be a statutory role for the council chief executive, and the excessive remuneration for that role of returning officer should be ended, particularly in these times of cash-strapped local councils. So, we fully agree with you on that. We spent a little time talking about STV. I think that's an interesting issue - interesting because we now have a Minister who has publicly supported that system, which is a good development. The question is: will your presence as the Minister be able to have any meaningful effect on local council elections and the way in which they are held? Now, David Melding is sat over there, and he will probably, with his memory of things that have been enacted in this Chamber, or not enacted, remember that this was an issue in the first Assembly term, when Rhodri Morgan was broadly in favour of changing the voting system but nothing happened. And here we are, 15 or 16 years later. Now, we have moved to a position where you are going to say that councils will be allowed to move to a system of STV, but it's not going to be mandatory. Okay, you could make the point that you need to consult and you can't force councils into doing something, and you need to uphold the principle of localism. You could come up with various arguments, but the problem is that you are going to end up, probably, with many Labour-run councils, which are simply going to stick with first-past-the-post. I mean, that's blindingly obvious. So, we will look with interest as to what happens as a result of you enabling local councils to move to the new system, but I do share Siân Gwenllian's scepticism as to what will actually ensue. Now, the other points - many were raised by Janet Finch-Saunders in her rather comprehensive look at what you were doing. I tend to agree with lots of the points she made. I won't rehash them, of course, but just to reiterate the points she was making about potential voter fraud. I agree, e-voting - it's interesting. You could enhance the engagement of more voters - that's a laudable aim. You cite the fact that in Scotland, where there's been a pilot, there hasn't been much evidence of fraud. Well, please keep an eye on this, because we don't want to hear in four or five years' time that there is lots of fraud going on. We've already had the issue of the massive increase in postal voting, which has led to instances of electoral fraud - as Janet cited, the example of Tower Hamlets. So, I would also ask if you could include in your review a review of this massive increase of postal voting. And do you agree that postal votes should only be available to those that genuinely need them? So, that would be one question. Another question is: what particular safeguards are you going to bring in regarding e-voting? The issue of 16- and 17-year-olds - well, you had a little pop at Janet when she talked about the education system, but it's actually many of the young campaigners who want votes at 16 and 17 that have raised the issue of what they call 'unbiased political education'. So, they do seem to feel that that is lacking in the system. So, I would ask again, as others have asked today: is some change to the education curriculum required? But, of course, there's also the problem of how on earth you actually provide unbiased political education. So, it is rather a double-edged sword, that issue. So, that is going to be difficult as you proceed. Lastly, prisoner votes - this does seem rather a perverse move, as it seems to be completely unsupported by the general population. The most recent opinion polls seem to indicate that 70 per cent of the population are against giving votes to prisoners. If you are going to try to give prisoners the vote, will any effort be made to increase the vote among serving armed forces personnel? Thank you.
Welsh: Diolch i'r Gweinidog am y datganiad heddiw. Mae yna rai pwyntiau synhwyrol yn y datganiad hwnnw y byddem ni ar y cyfan yn eu cefnogi, a rhai mwy dadleuol. I ddechrau gyda'r pethau da: swyddogaeth prif weithredwr y Cyngor fel y swyddog canlyniadau mewn etholiadau llywodraeth leol. Byddem yn cytuno â chi y dylai hon bellach fod yn swyddogaeth statudol ar gyfer prif weithredwr y cyngor, ac y dylid diddymu'r tâl mawr am y swyddogaeth honno y mae'r swyddog canlyniadau yn ei chyflawni, yn enwedig yn yr amseroedd hyn pan mae cynghorau lleol yn brin o arian. Felly, cytunwn yn llwyr â chi ar hynny. Fe wnaethom ni dreulio ychydig o amser yn sôn am bleidlais sengl drosglwyddadwy. Credaf fod hynny'n fater diddorol - ddiddorol oherwydd erbyn hyn mae gennym ni Weinidog sydd wedi cefnogi'r system honno yn gyhoeddus, sy'n ddatblygiad da. Y cwestiwn yw hyn: a fydd eich presenoldeb chi, y Gweinidog, yn gallu cael unrhyw effaith ystyrlon ar etholiadau cynghorau lleol a'r ffordd y maent yn cael eu cynnal? Nawr, mae David Melding yn eistedd draw yn y fan yna, a bydd yn debyg, gyda'i atgofion o'r pethau y deddfwyd o'u plaid neu na ddeddfwyd o'u plaid yn y Siambr hon, yn cofio bod hyn yn destun trafodaeth yn nhymor cyntaf y Cynulliad, pan oedd Rhodri Morgan yn fras o blaid newid y system bleidleisio ond ni ddigwyddodd hynny. A dyma ni, 15 neu 16 mlynedd yn ddiweddarach. Nawr, rydym bellach mewn sefyllfa lle rydych chi'n mynd i ddweud y bydd cynghorau yn cael symud i system y bleidlais sengl drosglwyddadwy, ond na fydd hi'n orfodol. Iawn, fe allech chi wneud y pwynt bod angen ichi ymgynghori ac na allwch chi orfodi cynghorau i wneud rhywbeth, ac mae angen ichi gynnal yr egwyddor o wneud pethau'n lleol. Gallech chi gyflwyno dadleuon amrywiol, ond y broblem yw mai'r hyn a gewch chi yn y pen draw, mae'n debyg, yw llawer o gynghorau Llafur, sy'n mynd i gadw, yn syml, at y system cyntaf i'r felin. Wrth gwrs, mae hynny mor amlwg â'r dydd. Felly, byddwn yn edrych â diddordeb i weld beth sy'n digwydd o ganlyniad i alluogi cynghorau lleol i symud at system newydd. Ond rwyf yn rhannu amheuon Siân Gwenllian ynglŷn â beth fydd yn dilyn mewn gwirionedd. Nawr, y pwyntiau eraill - codwyd nifer gan Janet Finch-Saunders yn ei darlun cynhwysfawr braidd o'r hyn yr oeddech yn ei wneud. Tueddaf i gytuno â llawer o'i phwyntiau hi. Ni wnaf eu hailadrodd, wrth gwrs, ond dim ond cyfeirio eto at y pwyntiau yr oedd hi'n eu gwneud ynghylch twyll posib gan bleidleiswyr. Cytunaf, e-bleidleisio - mae'n ddiddorol. Gallech chi ennyn diddordeb mwy o bleidleiswyr - mae hwnnw'n nod canmoladwy. Rydych chi'n cyfeirio at yr Alban, lle bu cynllun arbrofol, ac ni chafwyd llawer o dystiolaeth o dwyll. Wel, cadwch lygad ar hyn, da chi, oherwydd nid ydym eisiau clywed mewn pedair neu bum mlynedd bod llawer o dwyll yn digwydd. Rydym eisoes wedi clywed am y cynnydd enfawr mewn pleidleisio drwy'r post, sydd wedi arwain at achosion o dwyll etholiadol - fel y nododd Janet, enghraifft Tower Hamlets. Felly, rwyf hefyd yn gofyn a allech chi gynnwys adolygiad o'r cynnydd enfawr hwn mewn pleidleisio drwy'r post yn eich adolygiad. Ac a ydych chi'n cytuno y dylai pleidleisiau post fod ar gael dim ond i'r rhai sydd wirioneddol eu hangen? Felly, dyna un cwestiwn. Cwestiwn arall yw hyn: pa fesurau diogelu penodol yr ydych chi'n dymuno eu cyflwyno o ran e-bleidleisio? Y mater o bobl 16 a 17-oed - wel, roeddech chi'n annifyr braidd gyda Janet pan soniodd hi am y system addysg, ond mewn gwirionedd nifer o'r ymgyrchwyr ifanc sydd eisiau pleidlais yn 16 a 17 oed sydd wedi crybwyll yr hyn y maen nhw'n ei alw yn 'addysg wleidyddol ddiduedd'. Felly, ymddengys eu bod nhw'n teimlo bod hynny'n ddiffyg yn y system. Felly, hoffwn i ofyn eto, fel y mae eraill yn gofyn heddiw: a oes angen rhywfaint o newid ar y cwricwlwm addysg? Ond, wrth gwrs, ceir hefyd y broblem o sut ar y ddaear mewn gwirionedd mae darparu addysg wleidyddol ddiduedd. Felly, mae'n gleddyf daufiniog braidd, y mater hwnnw. Bydd hynny'n anodd wrth ichi fwrw ymlaen. Yn olaf, pleidleisiau c archarorion - ymddengys fod hyn yn gynnig gwrthnysig braidd, oherwydd ymddengys nad oes unrhyw fath o gefnogaeth iddo ymysg y boblogaeth yn gyffredinol. Ymddengys fod y polau piniwn diweddaraf yn dangos bod 70 y cant o'r boblogaeth yn erbyn rhoi'r bleidlais i garcharorion. Os ydych chi'n mynd i geisio rhoi'r bleidlais i garcharorion, a gaiff unrhyw ymdrech ei wneud i gynyddu'r bleidlais ymysg gweithwyr y lluoedd arfog? Diolch.