English: I will continue. I wonder if I might ask the Cabinet Secretary, in light of that - the £1,000 that was previously described as being given across the board to families that earn even more than £59,200 now, or £80,000 or £81,000 before, is that still within the system proposed? It wasn't mentioned in her statement here. And secondly, can I just clarify that this £1,500 loan write-off she described as well - is that, again, something that goes across the board, irrespective of how high up the earnings spectrum families may be? Could I also just raise the issue of paying students, or giving a maintenance grant equivalent to the national living wage? Of course, the national living wage only applies to people who are aged over 25, and for 18 to 20-year-olds, the largest cohort of students, the minimum wage is £5.55. So, why does she think that students are so much more valuable and deserving that they should get, I think, £7.20, whereas 18 to 20-year-olds, generally, should get £5.55, and people in the first year of an apprenticeship should only get £3.40? Is that really parity of esteem? Finally, she talks about a stable and sustainable system, and, of course, that's a worthy ambition, and then she says 'subject to full Treasury approval'. But she will be as aware as I am that there are some issues there, and, in particular, what is the resource accounting and budgeting that will be agreed? How much of these now much higher loans will the Treasury determine are likely not to be paid off, and therefore be written off from the perspective of the taxpayer, and therefore, as education is devolved, should be a charge against the Welsh Government? Currently, we have a significantly lower RAB than England, because our loans are lower, although Professor Diamond suggested perhaps it was too low and might need to be raised. I just wonder when the Treasury looks at these figures, and I suspect with a much more sceptical eye than Professor Diamond and others from the sector may have looked at it during their review, whether they will query how much will get written off, and whether the RAB she is presuming really will be high enough. They may ask, if you have an area where wages are relatively low, where you're offering maintenance grants that are national living wage only available elsewhere to over-25s, and where perhaps people, given the wages in the local areas, may not expect to pay off much or any of the debt when they're older, whether take-up will actually be significantly higher because people find the opportunity of getting that maintenance grant particularly attractive, and whether that would lead, perhaps, to the Treasury at least taking the view that write-offs, and therefore the RAB, will need to be significantly higher than she allows? And does she recognise the danger, at least, that if she sets up this system, it may all work out rather more expensive than she assumes?
Welsh: Fe wnaf i barhau. Tybed a gaf i ofyn i Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet, o ystyried bod - y £1,000 a ddywedwyd yn flaenorol a fyddai'n cael ei roi i bob teulu sy'n ennill hyd yn oed mwy na £59,200 yn awr, neu £80,000 neu £81,000 fel ag yr oedd o'r blaen, a yw hwnnw'n dal i fod wedi'i gynnwys yn y system arfaethedig? Ni chafodd ei grybwyll yn ei datganiad yma. Ac yn ail, a gaf i ofyn iddi egluro'r hyn y soniodd hi amdano o ran dileu £1,500 o'r benthyciad - ydy hynny, unwaith eto, yn rhywbeth sy'n berthnasol i bawb, ni waeth pa mor uchel i fyny'r sbectrwm enillion y bydd teuluoedd? A gaf i hefyd godi'r mater o dalu myfyrwyr, neu roi grant cynhaliaeth iddynt sy'n cyfateb i'r cyflog byw cenedlaethol? Wrth gwrs, nid yw'r cyflog byw cenedlaethol yn berthnasol ac eithrio i bobl sydd dros 25 oed, ac ar gyfer pobl 18 i 20 mlwydd oed, sef y garfan fwyaf o fyfyrwyr, yr isafswm cyflog yw £5.55. Pam felly y mae hi'n credu bod myfyrwyr cymaint yn fwy gwerthfawr a haeddiannol y dylent gael £7.20, rwy'n credu, tra dylai pobl 18 i 20 mlwydd oed, yn gyffredinol, gael £5.55, ac y dylai pobl yn y flwyddyn gyntaf o brentisiaeth gael dim ond £3.40? Ai parch cydradd yw hynny mewn gwirionedd? Yn olaf, mae'n sôn am system sefydlog a chynaliadwy, ac, wrth gwrs, mae hynny'n uchelgais teilwng, ac yna mae'n dweud 'yn amodol ar gymeradwyaeth lawn y Trysorlys'. Ond fe fydd hi mor ymwybodol â minnau bod rhai materion yno, ac, yn benodol, beth yw'r cyfrifo a chyllidebu adnoddau a fydd yn cael ei gytuno? Faint o'r benthyciadau, sydd erbyn hyn yn llawer uwch, y bydd y Trysorlys yn penderfynu ei bod yn debygol na chânt eu talu'n ôl, ac a fydd felly'n cael eu dileu o safbwynt y trethdalwr, ac felly, wrth i addysg gael ei datganoli, Llywodraeth Cymru ddylai fod yn gyfrifol am ei dalu? Ar hyn o bryd, mae gennym RAB sylweddol is na Lloegr, gan fod ein benthyciadau yn is, ond awgrymodd yr Athro Diamond ei fod efallai'n rhy isel ac efallai y bydd angen ei godi. Tybed pan fydd y Trysorlys yn edrych ar y ffigurau hyn, ac rwy'n amau y bydd hynny gyda llygad llawer mwy amheugar na'r Athro Diamond ac eraill o'r sector a allai fod wedi edrych arno yn ystod eu hadolygiad, a fydd yn cwestiynu faint fydd yn cael ei ddileu, ac a fydd y RAB y mae hi'n ei ragdybio yn ddigon uchel mewn gwirionedd. Efallai y byddant yn gofyn, os oes gennych chi ardal lle mae cyflogau yn gymharol isel, ac rydych chi'n cynnig grantiau cynhaliaeth sy'n gyflog byw cenedlaethol nad ydynt ar gael mewn mannau eraill i bobl dan 25 oed, a lle efallai nad yw pobl, o ystyried y cyflogau yn yr ardaloedd lleol, yn disgwyl gallu talu llawer neu ddim o'r ddyled yn ôl pan fyddant yn hŷn, a fydd nifer y rhai sy'n manteisio mewn gwirionedd yn sylweddol uwch oherwydd y bydd pobl o'r farn bod cael cyfle i gael grant cynhaliaeth yn arbennig o ddeniadol, ac a fyddai hynny'n arwain, o bosibl, i'r Trysorlys ffurfio'r farn o leiaf y bydd angen i'r swm a ddiddymir, ac felly'r RAB, fod yn sylweddol uwch nag y mae hi'n ei ganiatáu? Ac a yw hi'n cydnabod y perygl, o leiaf, os yw hi'n sefydlu'r system hon, y gallai'r cyfan fod dipyn yn fwy drud nag y mae hi'n tybio?