English: Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move the amendments in the name of Paul Davies. May I thank the Minister for opening the debate today and Plaid for their amendments? We support a number of them. Now, the first thing I'd want to say is that the Welsh Conservatives support the three core objectives of this legislation: value for money, reducing bureaucracy in the standards system, and improving the balance between regulation and promotion and empowerment. Now, linking empowerment and promotion is an interesting decision, and it separates the issue of promotion and regulation, and this, to me, gives an impression of the role of the commissioner that is very narrow and is steered by a particular time in the story of the commissioner and doesn't reflect the duties of the commissioner as they are noted in the 2010 Measure. Those duties, before there was any talk of regulation and enforcement, include promotion and facilitating the use of the language, and it isn't restricted to the context of standards. So, at the moment, I find it difficult to see where the difference lies between the objectives of your proposed commission and the original objectives of the commissioner as they were anticipated by the Welsh language Measure. I agree with you that we should take the bureaucracy out of the processes that are contained in the current Measure. We do have some thinking to do here still in terms of how exactly the appeals process could develop, and I'm just thinking of shifting complaints to the organisation that has perhaps made the error in the first place, because I'm not quite sure whether the ombudsman would provide remedies for people in those circumstances. So, that deserves further consideration. I also agree in terms of changing the nature of standards that don't protect meaningful rights, and that's why I have difficulty in supporting amendment 4, because there is a risk of seeing any change, particularly in terms of process, as weakening those rights as a whole. I'm sure that's not what you mean in Plaid, but, for that reason, I will be abstaining on that amendment. But, in future, perhaps we may return to the issue. There's also a separate question, namely: if there are some standards - keeping records for many years, for example - where no-one is interested in those rights, is that standard still proportionate? There is a question to be answered during this process there. We do need to get rid of those that aren't effective in order to improve focus on rights that are important and to focus on promotion and facilitating the use of the language. In saying that, we are deferring our views on this until we see the detailed proposals by the Government, as I've said. We are also deferring our view on amendment 4. Now, I don't accept the suggestion made by officials during our committee meeting of last week, namely that there is no role for two separate bodies here. The existence of the Welsh for adults centres undermines that proposal already. My argument is that there is mixed evidence in the responses to the Welsh Government's consultation, and there's no clear, definitive support for the options favoured by the Minister and by Plaid. Now, the purpose of my amendment is to try and prevent the Minister from jumping in a particular direction when there are credible options available that need to be worked through. And, for the same reason, I will be supporting amendment 8. The main consideration for us, as the White Paper proceeds, is the level of independence given to whoever regulates and promotes the language. Despite the Measure underlining the independence of the commissioner in terms of her activities, Leighton Andrews ignored that statutory defence, took the promotion role of the commissioner and brought it back within Government. This left the commissioner with the work on standards and facilitation, and, according to responses to the consultation, there is a warm welcome to her in doing that. Helping bodies conform to standards is better than the heavy-handed enforcement that is required by current legislation - and the commissioner does more of that now, and has done recently. So, we don't know what the commissioner could do in terms of promotion and facilitation on a wider level, because of Government intervention. In supporting amendment 8, we agree that the Government hasn't won the argument that a commission is an improvement on a reformed role for the commissioner, and I think that there's been a false start, which has actually pushed the Government to push for a new structure and relationship with Government that is far from being clear. That's why we have included our second amendment. This legislation could create a new role for the commissioner that is more arm's-length and accountable to this Assembly rather than to Government, as we have argued for a long time.
Welsh: Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Rwy'n symud y gwelliannau yn enw Paul Davies. A allaf ddiolch i'r Gweinidog am gyflwyno'r ddadl heddiw ac i Plaid hefyd am eu gwelliannau? Rydym yn cefnogi nifer ohonynt. Y peth cyntaf yr hoffwn i ddweud yw bod y Ceidwadwyr Cymreig yn cefnogi tri amcan craidd y ddeddfwriaeth hon: gwerth am arian, lleihau biwrocratiaeth yn y gyfundrefn safonau a gwella'r cydbwysedd rhwng rheoleiddio a hyrwyddo a hwyluso. Mae cyplysiad hyrwyddo a hwyluso yn benderfyniad diddorol rwy'n credu, ac mae'n gwahanu hwyluso a rheoleiddio a chydymffurfio, ac mae hyn yn cynnig i mi argraff o rôl comisiynydd yr iaith Gymraeg sy'n gul iawn ac sy'n cael ei lywio gan gyfnod penodol yn ystod stori'r comisiynydd sydd ddim yn adlewyrchu dyletswyddau'r comisiynydd fel y nodir ym Mesur 2010. Mae'r dyletswyddau hynny, cyn gwneud unrhyw sôn am reoleiddio a gorfodi, yn cynnwys hyrwyddo a hwyluso defnyddio'r iaith, ac nid yw wedi'i gyfyngu i gyd-destun y safonau. Felly, ar hyn o bryd, rwy'n ei chael hi'n anodd gweld ble mae'r gwahaniaeth rhwng amcanion eich comisiwn ffafriedig ac amcanion gwreiddiol y comisiynydd fel y rhagwelwyd gan Fesur 2010. Rwy'n cytuno â chi o ran cael gwared ar fiwrocratiaeth ormesol o'r prosesau a gynhwysir yn y Mesur presennol. Mae rhywfaint o feddwl i'w wneud o hyd ar hyn; sut, er enghraifft, y gallai'r broses apelio ymddangos. Rwyf i jest yn meddwl am symud cwynion yn y lle cyntaf i'r corff sydd wedi, o bosib, gwneud camgymeriad, achos nid wyf yn siŵr os byddai'r ombwdsmon yn rhoi atebion - 'remedies' - i bobl yn y sefyllfa yna. Felly, mae'n werth tipyn bach mwy o ystyriaeth. Rwy'n cytuno hefyd am newid natur y safonau sydd ddim yn amddiffyn hawliau ystyrlon. Dyna pam fod gen i anhawster yn cefnogi gwelliant 4, oherwydd mae yna risg o weld unrhyw newid, yn enwedig colli prosesau, yn gwanhau'r hawliau yn eu cyfanrwydd. Nid wyf yn siŵr os ydych chi, Plaid, yn meddwl hynny, wir, ond jest oherwydd hynny, rwy'n mynd i ymatal heddiw. Ond, yn y dyfodol, efallai y byddwn yn newid ein meddyliau ar hynny. Mae yna gwestiwn hefyd, ar wahân, sef: os oes rhai safonau - cadw cofnodion am flynyddoedd, er enghraifft - lle nad oes gan neb ddiddordeb mewn arfer yr hawl, a ydy'r safon yn dal i fod yn gymesur? Mae yna gwestiwn i'w ateb yn ystod broses yma. Mae angen cael gwared ar y rheini sydd ddim yn effeithiol i wella'r ffocws ar hawliau sy'n bwysig, ac, wrth gwrs, i ffocysu ar hyrwyddo a hwyluso. Gan ddweud hynny, rydym yn gohirio dedfryd ar hyn hyd nes y byddwn yn gweld rhai cynigion manwl gan y Llywodraeth, fel y dywedais i. Rydym hefyd yn gohirio dedfryd ar welliant 4. Nawr, nid wyf yn derbyn yr awgrym a wnaed gan swyddogion yn ystod ein cyfarfod pwyllgor yr wythnos ddiwethaf, sef nad oes lle i ddau gorff Cymraeg yn y tirwedd hwn. Mae bodolaeth y canolfannau addysg oedolion yn tanseilio'r ddadl yna yn barod. Fy nadl i yw bod yna dystiolaeth gymysg iawn yn yr ymatebion i ymgynghoriad y Llywodraeth, ac nid oes unrhyw gefnogaeth glir a phendant ar gyfer yr opsiynau a ffafriwyd gan y Gweinidog a Plaid. Pwrpas y gwelliant yw ceisio atal y Gweinidog rhag neidio i unrhyw gyfeiriad nawr pan fo dewisiadau credadwy eraill y mae'n rhaid gweithio trwyddynt. Ac, am yr un rheswm, byddwn yn cefnogi gwelliant 8. Y prif ystyriaeth i ni, wrth i'r Papur Gwyn fynd yn ei flaen, yw'r lefel o annibyniaeth a roddir i bwy bynnag sy'n hyrwyddo a rheoleiddio'r iaith. Er gwaethaf y Mesur yn tanlinellu annibyniaeth y comisiynydd - cyfyngu cyn lleied â phosib ar ei gweithgareddau, ac yn y blaen - anwybyddodd Leighton Andrews yr amddiffyniad statudol hwnnw ac fe wnaeth e ddwyn dyletswyddau hyrwyddo'r comisiynydd yn ôl i mewn i'r Llywodraeth. Gadawodd hyn y comisiynydd gyda'r gwaith ar safonau a'r rôl hwyluso, ac, yn ôl ymatebion yr ymgynghoriad, mae croeso mawr iddi. Mae helpu cyrff i gydymffurfio â safonau yn well na'r rhwymedigaeth i orfodaeth drom sydd ei hangen ar y ddeddfwriaeth bresennol, ac mae'r comisiynydd yn gwneud mwy o hynny nawr yn ddiweddar. Felly, nid ydym yn gwybod beth allai'r comisiynydd ei wneud ynglŷn â hyrwyddo a hwyluso ehangach oherwydd ymyrraeth y Llywodraeth. Wrth gefnogi gwelliant 8, rydym yn cytuno nad yw'r Llywodraeth wedi ennill y ddadl bod comisiwn yn well na rôl ddiwygiedig i'r comisiynydd, ac rwy'n credu bod y cychwyn ffug wedi ysgogi dewis y Llywodraeth i bwyso am strwythur newydd, gyda pherthynas â'r Llywodraeth sy'n bell o fod yn glir. A dyna pam rydym wedi cynnwys ein hail welliant, sef y gallai'r deddfwriaeth hon greu rôl newydd i'r comisiynydd sy'n fwy hyd braich ac yn atebol i'r Cynulliad hwn yn hytrach na'r Llywodraeth, fel rydym wedi dadlau ers tro.