English: It is a pleasure to speak in the final stage of the Childcare (Funding) Wales Bill. However, this is one of a long succession of Welsh Government-led Bills that have simply just not cut the legislative mustard. Following along the food theme, my colleague Suzy Davies has frequently said that this is a Swiss-cheese piece of legislation - that there are too many holes in what is a framework Bill, outlined in entirely permissive, uncertain terms. I have looked back at the contributions made throughout every stage of the Childcare (Funding) Wales Bill, and there are persistent themes that keep cropping up. I would hope that this is the last time that we as Assembly Members, scrutinising as opposition and cross-party groups, come across the same concerns in future legislation going forward. We again see before us a sound policy implemented through swiftly created legislation but without the necessary scrutiny mechanisms, through the continual use of secondary legislation. This Bill was at Stage 3 before we even saw a copy of the report of the first year of early implementer authorities. It was also at Stage 3 before the duty to fund the offer was finally applied by the Ministers. Welsh Conservatives wholeheartedly support the policy of funded childcare in Wales. Indeed, we had it within our own manifesto. But there is too much left to secondary legislation and an administrative scheme that is outside of our input or an appropriate level of scrutiny powers. Furthermore, two key policy areas are left off the face of the Bill, potentially leaving it as an empty vessel. The offer itself, while written all over the explanatory memorandum and promised by the Minister throughout stages 1, 2 and 3, is not here before us. The age of the qualifying child is also absent, again left to promises and the administrative scheme. Essentially, leaving these two important areas off the face of the Bill gives us no clear baseline to start from. We need to start from a point of certainty, even if it is to be amended in years to come. We do not accept the Minister's reasoning that leaving essential elements to secondary legislation would provide more flexibility. Instead, we have argued throughout that there must be a trade-off between flexibility for the Executive and the right for scrutiny by the legislature. Our amendments at Stage 3 would have provided this balance. The Minister has further stated that this is merely a technical Bill, which should not include wider policy areas. It is not. As drafted and amended, it goes beyond that narrow intention. As I have noted during Stage 2 and Stage 3, the primary purposes of the Bill have been clearly outlined within the explanatory memorandum - to support the Welsh economy and to support a number of additional purposes, including increasing employment and improving the social well-being of children. If this Bill was merely a mechanism for HMRC to assess applications, why say all that in the explanatory memorandum? Throughout evidence we have heard that the Bill's primary aims could have been further bolstered through a number of necessary amendments, including provision of wrap-around transportation, extending the offer beyond working parents, and to prevent barriers to taking up the offer, such as additional charges. To place these on the face of the Bill would have given parents and childcare providers a clear signal that Welsh Government would be under a duty to enable more families to access the offer. I would have left it there had the review clause to this Bill been sufficiently drafted to include the powers of the legislature so we could review it at a later date. However, nowhere does it say 'independent' or 'to lay before the National Assembly for Wales'. Now, we know the Minister's commitment to an independent evaluation at Stage 3, but, at the very least, we would have expected that any report should be available for the Assembly, as the legislature, to scrutinise and to approve. It is unclear from the review clause drafted by the Minister whether an independent review would happen under a future Welsh Government in five years' time, as well as the role of our Assembly in designing that review. The Welsh Government needs to answer these questions, not its own, for our constituents to have confidence in its eventual findings. For all of our efforts to ensure that the Bill had a review clause that would have covered the concerns raised by not one committee, but two committees, about the Bill, or at the very least a sunset clause, all of these have been unceremoniously rejected by the Minister. It is, therefore, very disappointing that the National Assembly for Wales - yes, this legislature - has been dismissed yet again. My colleague Angela Burns warned the Welsh Government during the final Stage of the Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Act 2018 that future Assembly Members will view it poorly if credible, consistent and outcome-focused evidence to enable proper scrutiny is not collected. Welsh Conservatives abstained from that Act during Stage 4, purely on the basis that it included a sunset clause. Therefore, we again issue this warning on overuse of skeleton Bills. You have rejected key areas that need to be reviewed, including the operation of the administrative scheme, whether the Act has any effect on increasing employment, in line with its aims, and the capacity of the childcare workforce to deliver this offer. Minister, you are an Assembly Member as well as a - [Interruption.] - as well as being a Minister in this Government. You need to convince your own constituents that you have not just listened to scrutiny as a Minister, but -
Welsh: Mae'n bleser gennyf siarad yng nghyfnod terfynol y Bil Cyllido Gofal Plant (Cymru). Fodd bynnag, nid yw hwn ond yn un Bil ar restr hir o Filiau gan Lywodraeth Cymru nad ydynt wedi bod yn ddigon da yn ddeddfwriaethol. Gan barhau â thema bwyd, mae fy nghyd-Aelod Suzy Davies wedi dweud sawl gwaith mai deddfwriaeth caws Swistir yw hon - fod gormod o dyllau yn yr hyn sy'n Fil fframwaith, wedi'i amlinellu mewn termau hollol ganiataol ac ansicr. Rwyf wedi edrych yn ôl ar y cyfraniadau a wnaed drwy bob cyfnod o'r Bil Cyllido Gofal Plant (Cymru), ac mae themâu cyson yn codi o hyd. Buaswn yn gobeithio mai dyma'r tro olaf y byddwn ni, fel Aelodau Cynulliad, sy'n craffu fel gwrthbleidiau a grwpiau trawsbleidiol, yn dod ar draws yr un pryderon mewn deddfwriaethau yn y dyfodol. Unwaith eto, rydym yn gweld polisi cadarn ger ein bron, wedi'i weithredu drwy ddeddfwriaeth a gafodd ei chreu'n gyflym ond heb y mecanweithiau craffu angenrheidiol, drwy'r defnydd parhaus o is-ddeddfwriaeth. Roedd y Bil hwn yng Nghyfnod 3 cyn i ni hyd yn oed weld copi o'r adroddiad ar flwyddyn gyntaf yr awdurdodau sy'n weithredwyr cynnar. Roedd hefyd yng Nghyfnod 3 cyn i'r Gweinidogion weithredu'r ddyletswydd i gyllido'r cynnig yn derfynol. Mae'r Ceidwadwyr Cymreig yn sicr yn cefnogi'r polisi o gyllido gofal plant yng Nghymru. Yn wir, roedd yn rhan o'n maniffesto ein hunain. Ond mae gormod yn cael ei adael i is-ddeddfwriaeth a chynllun gweinyddol sydd y tu hwnt i'n mewnbwn ni neu lefel briodol o bwerau craffu. At hynny, mae dau faes polisi allweddol heb eu rhoi ar wyneb y Bil, sy'n ei wneud yn llestr gwag o bosibl. Nid yw'r cynnig ei hun yma o'n blaenau, er ei fod wedi cael ei ysgrifennu ar hyd y memorandwm esboniadol a'i addo gan y Gweinidog drwy gydol cyfnodau 1, 2 a 3. Mae oedran y plentyn cymwys hefyd yn absennol, ac unwaith eto'n cael ei adael i addewidion a'r cynllun gweinyddol. Yn y bôn, mae hepgor y ddau faes pwysig hwn o wyneb y Bil yn golygu nad oes gennym unrhyw linell sylfaen glir i ddechrau ohoni. Mae angen inni ddechrau o bwynt o sicrwydd, hyd yn oed os yw'n cael ei ddiwygio mewn blynyddoedd i ddod. Nid ydym yn derbyn rhesymeg y Gweinidog y byddai gadael elfennau hanfodol i is-ddeddfwriaeth yn darparu mwy o hyblygrwydd. Yn hytrach, rydym wedi dadlau drwy gydol y broses fod angen cyfaddawd rhwng hyblygrwydd ar gyfer y Weithrediaeth a hawl i graffu gan y ddeddfwrfa. Byddai ein gwelliannau yng Nghyfnod 3 wedi darparu'r cydbwysedd hwn. Mae'r Gweinidog hefyd wedi dweud mai Bil technegol yn unig yw hwn, ac na ddylai gynnwys meysydd polisi ehangach. Nid yw hynny'n wir. Fel y'i drafftiwyd ac fel y'i diwygiwyd, mae'n mynd y tu hwnt i'r bwriad cul hwnnw. Fel y nodais yn ystod Cyfnod 2 a Chyfnod 3, mae prif ddibenion y Bil wedi'u hamlinellu'n glir yn y memorandwm esboniadol - cefnogi economi Cymru a chefnogi nifer o ddibenion ychwanegol, gan gynnwys cynyddu cyflogaeth a gwella lles cymdeithasol plant. Pe bai'r Bil hwn yn ddim ond mecanwaith i CThEM asesu ceisiadau, pam dweud hynny i gyd yn y memorandwm esboniadol? Drwy gydol y dystiolaeth, clywsom y gallai prif ddibenion y Bil fod wedi cael eu cryfhau ymhellach drwy nifer o welliannau angenrheidiol, gan gynnwys darparu cludiant cofleidiol, ymestyn y cynnig y tu hwnt i rieni sy'n gweithio, ac atal rhwystrau sy'n rhwystro pobl rhag manteisio ar y cynnig, megis taliadau ychwanegol. Byddai cynnwys y rhain ar wyneb y Bil wedi dangos yn glir i rieni a darparwyr gofal plant fod gan Lywodraeth Cymru ddyletswydd i alluogi mwy o deuluoedd i fanteisio ar y cynnig. Buaswn wedi ei gadael hi yn y fan honno pe bai cymal adolygu'r Bil hwn wedi'i ddrafftio'n ddigonol i gynnwys pwerau'r ddeddfwrfa fel y gallem ei adolygu yn ddiweddarach. Fodd bynnag, nid yw'n dweud 'annibynnol' neu 'i'w gyflwyno gerbron Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru' yn unman. Nawr, gwyddom am ymrwymiad y Gweinidog i gynnal gwerthusiad annibynnol yng Nghyfnod 3, ond fan lleiaf, byddem wedi disgwyl i unrhyw adroddiad fod ar gael i'r Cynulliad, fel y ddeddfwrfa, i'w graffu a'i gymeradwyo. Nid yw'n glir o'r cymal adolygu a ddrafftiwyd gan y Gweinidog a fyddai adolygiad annibynnol yn digwydd o dan Lywodraeth Cymru ymhen pum mlynedd, yn ogystal â beth fyddai rôl ein Cynulliad yn y broses o gynllunio'r adolygiad hwnnw. Yn hytrach nag ateb ei chwestiynau ei hun, mae angen i Lywodraeth Cymru ateb y cwestiynau hyn i'n hetholwyr allu cael hyder yn ei ganfyddiadau maes o law. Er gwaethaf ein hymdrechion i sicrhau bod gan y Bil gymal adolygu a fyddai wedi ateb y pryderon a fynegwyd, nid gan un pwyllgor, ond gan ddau bwyllgor, am y Bil, neu gymal machlud, fan lleiaf, mae'r rhain i gyd wedi cael eu gwrthod yn ddisymwth gan y Gweinidog. Felly, mae'n siomedig iawn fod Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru - ie, y ddeddfwrfa hon - wedi cael ei anwybyddu unwaith eto. Rhybuddiwyd Llywodraeth Cymru gan fy nghyd-Aelod, Angela Burns, yn ystod Cyfnod terfynol Deddf Iechyd y Cyhoedd (Isafbris am Alcohol) (Cymru) 2018, na fyddai gan Aelodau Cynulliad y dyfodol fawr o feddwl ohoni os na chesglid tystiolaeth gredadwy a chyson a ganolbwyntiai ar ganlyniadau i alluogi craffu priodol. Ymataliodd y Ceidwadwyr Cymreig ar y Ddeddf honno yn ystod Cyfnod 4 ar y sail ei bod yn cynnwys cymal machlud. Felly, unwaith eto, rydym yn cyhoeddi'r rhybudd hwn ynglŷn â gorddefnyddio Biliau sgerbwd. Rydych wedi gwrthod meysydd allweddol y mae angen eu hadolygu, gan gynnwys gweithrediad y cynllun gweinyddol, pa un a fydd y Ddeddf yn effeithio ar gynyddu cyflogaeth, yn unol â'i nodau, a chapasiti'r gweithlu gofal plant i gyflawni'r cynnig hwn. Weinidog, rydych yn Aelod Cynulliad yn ogystal â - [ Torri ar draws.] - yn ogystal â Gweinidog yn y Llywodraeth hon. Mae angen i chi argyhoeddi eich etholwyr eich hun nad gwrando ar graffu fel Gweinidog yn unig a wnaethoch, ond -