English: Well, I just mentioned in terms of PaCE, we've gone actually beyond where we might be reasonably expected to go, because we're actually looking at extending now beyond 2020, beyond the current tranche of funding, and we're actively engaged in that. But that, of course, is not the only one. We also have Flying Start, for example, that provides quality childcare to parents of eligible two and three-year-olds for two and a half hours a day, five days a week for 39 weeks. And there is work ongoing within Government to look at, beyond the 10 per cent that we actually modified this year to extend on the flexibility with Flying Start, what we can do beyond that as well. So, those discussions are ongoing. The financial contingency fund provides help to students in further education who need help with childcare costs. In 2016-17, 901 awards were made to student parents in FE to help with childcare costs, amounting to £2.7 million, and there are others that I laid out in the letter as well. But we will need to keep this provision firmly in our sights to make sure that it is in place alongside this offer, not as part of this offer. So, whilst I'm very sympathetic to all the challenges that all parents, whatever their circumstances, face in accessing affordable childcare when they need it, I have said all along that this offer - this offer - is specifically targeted at the working parents of three and four-year-old children. Now, the purpose of amendment 9 is to ensure the inclusion of the upper earnings cap within the regulations, detailing the conditions parents must meet to be considered eligible for the offer. I shall not be supporting this amendment, because this amendment makes no difference in terms of practical effect from what we have in the Bill already, and I don't, therefore, consider it necessary. The upper earnings threshold is a fundamental part of the eligibility criteria and, as such, details of the cap will have to be specified in regulations under section 1 - this is rehearsing the same debate we had before - in order for the eligibility checks to be made. And in response to the actual cap, we can in future, Siân, actually amend the cap if we wanted to, but there are genuine questions here on the commitment to roll this offer out by 2020 in full across Wales, and the demand that there is to do that, I have to say, as well. Aligning this with the current HMRC offer that is currently there makes us able to deliver it with less risk on time, in cost, and to get it up and running. In future, we can indeed, based on the evaluation findings, come back and look at this again, and if we decide as Assembly Members that we want to drop it to 80 or 60 - and by the way, we've done some of this initial analysis and scoping and there are issues of cost-benefit analysis, how much it would cost to do that, and how much you save by doing it - let me just remind you, as I've said before in committee, over 60 per cent of those who are receiving this childcare in its early implementer phases are below the median wage. This is not leading to the sort of abuse that we've heard talked about of the system, where people are living in their swimming pool mansions and so on and are using this. It is people who are on low earnings who are accessing this, and it's helping them actually extend their hours in work and so on. Now, the purpose of amendment 17 is to ensure the inclusion of details regarding temporary exemption periods within the regulations under section 1 (2). A temporary exemption period is that period of time a person would continue to benefit from the offer despite falling out of eligibility. Now, I provided a note and I've spoken with the committee on this before as well. I provided a note to the responsible committee during Stage 1. I've had further discussions with Suzy and Janet on this, and I'm disappointed I haven't been able to assure them, despite the fact that we have that period already in place with the offer that deals with that very issue. I still think that the administrative scheme is the best place for administrative matters such as this. That isn't to say I don't want Assembly Members to have any say on these issues, and I've actually offered to bring the scheme forward to the CYPE committee in the spring so we can discuss it further. So, on this basis, we will not be supporting amendment 17. Amendment 22 seeks to define what's meant by 'care' in regulations. We've just touched on this. We debated this at Stage 2, and, as I said at the time, I don't see what's to be gained by defining under regulations under this Bill what's meant by 'care'. Subordinate legislation under section 1 will detail very clearly the conditions a parent or a partner of a parent will need to meet in order to qualify for funding under this offer - and this covers parents and guardians who are acting in loco parentis such as kinship carers or foster carers. I would urge Assembly Members not to support amendments 6, 11, 8, 19 and 10, which are around widening the scope of this Bill to include parents in training and education. It's absolutely right that we have that in place, but it's outwith this offer. In addition to writing to the responsible committee about the range of schemes I've described already in place to support different categories of parents, I have also asked my officials to look at how best we can draw all of this together and improve the communication around it so that it is clearer to people, whatever their circumstances, what help they can access to support their childcare needs. So, I won't be supporting amendment 9, as it is, we deem, unnecessary. I think that concludes, Llywydd. Diolch yn fawr.
Welsh: Wel, soniais mewn perthynas â PaCE ein bod wedi mynd y tu hwnt i lle y gellid disgwyl yn rhesymol inni fynd mewn gwirionedd gan ein bod yn edrych ar ymestyn y tu hwnt i 2020 bellach, y tu hwnt i'r gyfran bresennol o arian, ac rydym wrthi'n gweithio ar hynny. Ond nid dyna'r unig un wrth gwrs. Mae gennym Dechrau'n Deg hefyd, er enghraifft, sy'n darparu gofal plant o ansawdd i rieni plant cymwys dwy a thair oed am ddwy awr a hanner y dydd, bum niwrnod yr wythnos am 39 wythnos. Ac mae gwaith yn mynd rhagddo yn y Llywodraeth ar ystyried beth y gallwn ei wneud ymhellach na hynny hefyd, y tu hwnt i'r 10 y cant a addaswyd gennym eleni er mwyn ymestyn hyblygrwydd Dechrau'n Deg. Felly, mae'r trafodaethau hynny'n parhau. Mae'r gronfa ariannol wrth gefn yn darparu cymorth i fyfyrwyr mewn addysg bellach sydd angen help gyda chostau gofal plant. Yn 2016-17, dyfarnwyd cyfanswm o £2.7 miliwn i 901 o fyfyrwyr addysg bellach sy'n rhieni i helpu gyda chostau gofal plant, a cheir eraill a nodais yn y llythyr yn ogystal. Ond bydd angen inni gadw'r ddarpariaeth hon yn gadarn yn ein golygon er mwyn gwneud yn siŵr ei bod ar waith ochr yn ochr â'r cynnig hwn, nid yn rhan o'r cynnig hwn. Felly, er fy mod yn cydymdeimlo'n fawr â'r holl heriau y mae pob rhiant, beth bynnag fo'u hamgylchiadau, yn eu hwynebu wrth ddod o hyd i ofal plant fforddiadwy pan fo'i angen arnynt, rwyf wedi dweud o'r cychwyn fod y cynnig - y cynnig hwn - wedi'i dargedu'n benodol ar gyfer plant tair a phedair oed rhieni sy'n gweithio. Nawr, pwrpas gwelliant 9 yw sicrhau bod yr uchafswm enillion wedi'i gynnwys yn y rheoliadau, gan fanylu ar yr amodau sy'n rhaid i rieni eu bodloni er mwyn cael eu hystyried yn gymwys ar gyfer y cynnig. Ni fyddaf yn cefnogi'r gwelliant hwn, am nad yw'r gwelliant yn wahanol o ran ei effaith ymarferol i'r hyn sydd yn y Bil eisoes, ac felly, nid wyf yn ystyried bod ei angen. Mae'r uchafswm enillion yn rhan sylfaenol o'r meini prawf cymhwysedd ac fel y cyfryw, bydd yn rhaid pennu manylion y cap mewn rheoliadau o dan adran 1 - mae hyn yn ailadrodd yr un drafodaeth a gawsom o'r blaen - er mwyn gallu gwneud y gwiriadau cymhwysedd. Ac mewn ymateb i'r cap ei hun, yn y dyfodol, Siân, gallwn newid y cap pe baem yn dymuno gwneud hynny, ond ceir cwestiynau dilys yma ynglŷn â'r ymrwymiad i gyflwyno'r cynnig hwn yn llawn ledled Cymru erbyn 2020, a'r galw sydd am wneud hynny hefyd. Mae cysoni hyn â'r cynnig presennol CThEM sydd yno ar hyn o bryd yn ein galluogi i'w gyflawni gyda llai o risg o ran amser, y gost, ac i'w gael yn weithredol. Yn y dyfodol, gallwn ddychwelyd yn wir, ar sail canfyddiadau'r gwerthusiad, i edrych ar hyn eto, ac os penderfynwn fel Aelodau Cynulliad ein bod am ei ostwng i 80 neu 60 - a gyda llaw, rydym wedi gwneud rhywfaint o'r dadansoddi a'r cwmpasu cychwynnol ac mae materion yn codi o ran dadansoddiad cost a budd, faint y byddai'n ei gostio i wneud hynny, a faint y byddech yn ei arbed drwy wneud hynny - gadewch i mi eich atgoffa, fel y dywedais o'r blaen yn y pwyllgor, mae dros 60 y cant o'r rhai sydd yn derbyn y gofal plant hwn yn ei gyfnodau gweithredu cynnar yn cael llai na'r cyflog canolrifol. Nid yw hyn yn arwain at y math o gamddefnydd y clywsom sôn amdano mewn perthynas â'r system, lle mae pobl yn byw yn eu plastai gyda'u pyllau nofio ac ati ac yn defnyddio hwn. Pobl sy'n ennill cyflogau bach sy'n gwneud defnydd ohono, ac mae'n eu helpu i gynyddu eu horiau gwaith ac ati. Nawr, pwrpas gwelliant 17, yw sicrhau bod manylion ynghylch cyfnodau esemptio dros dro yn cael eu cynnwys yn y rheoliadau o dan adran 1 (2). Cyfnod esemptio dros dro yw'r cyfnod o amser y byddai person yn parhau i elwa ar y cynnig er ei fod wedi peidio â bod yn gymwys. Nawr, rwyf wedi darparu nodyn ac rwyf wedi siarad gyda'r pwyllgor ynglŷn â hyn o'r blaen hefyd. Rwyf wedi darparu nodyn i'r pwyllgor cyfrifol yn ystod Cyfnod 1. Cefais drafodaethau pellach gyda Suzy a Janet ar hyn, ac rwy'n siomedig nad fu modd i mi dawelu eu meddyliau, er bod y cyfnod hwnnw gennym ar waith eisoes gyda'r cynnig sy'n ymdrin â'r union fater hwnnw. Rwy'n dal i gredu mai'r cynllun gweinyddol yw'r lle gorau ar gyfer materion gweinyddol fel hwn. Nid yw hynny'n golygu nad wyf am i Aelodau'r Cynulliad gael unrhyw lais yn y materion hyn, ac rwyf wedi cynnig dod â'r cynllun gerbron y Pwyllgor Plant, Pobl Ifanc ac Addysg yn y gwanwyn er mwyn inni allu ei drafod ymhellach mewn gwirionedd. Felly, ar y sail hon, ni fyddwn yn cefnogi gwelliant 17. Mae gwelliant 22 yn ceisio diffinio beth a olygir wrth 'ofal' yn y rheoliadau. Rydym newydd grybwyll hyn. Cafodd ei drafod yng Nghyfnod 2, ac fel y dywedais ar y pryd, nid wyf yn gweld beth sydd i'w ennill drwy ddiffinio beth yw ystyr 'gofal' o dan reoliadau o dan y Bil hwn. Bydd is-ddeddfwriaeth o dan adran 1 yn manylu'n glir iawn ar yr amodau y bydd yn rhaid i riant neu bartner rhiant eu bodloni er mwyn bod yn gymwys i gael cyllid o dan y cynnig hwn - ac mae'n cynnwys rhieni a gwarcheidwaid sy'n gweithredu in loco parentis megis gofalwyr sy'n berthnasau neu ofalwyr maeth. Buaswn yn annog Aelodau'r Cynulliad i beidio â chefnogi gwelliannau 6, 11, 8, 19 a 10, sy'n ymwneud ag ehangu cwmpas y Bil i gynnwys rhieni mewn addysg a hyfforddiant. Mae'n hollol iawn fod gennym hynny ar waith, ond mae tu allan i gwmpas y cynnig hwn. Yn ogystal ag ysgrifennu at y pwyllgor cyfrifol am yr ystod o gynlluniau a ddisgrifiais sydd eisoes ar waith i gefnogi categorïau gwahanol o rieni, rwyf wedi gofyn i fy swyddogion edrych hefyd ar y ffordd orau o dynnu hyn i gyd at ei gilydd a gwella cyfathrebu yn ei gylch er mwyn iddi fod yn gliriach i bobl, beth bynnag fo'u hamgylchiadau, pa gymorth y gallant fanteisio arno i gynorthwyo gyda'u hanghenion gofal plant. Felly, ni fyddaf yn cefnogi gwelliant 9, gan ei fod yn ddiangen yn ein barn ni. Rwy'n credu mai dyna'r cyfan, Lywydd. Diolch yn fawr.