English: I was very pleased to take the opportunity to co-sign this when Luke asked me to. In fact, he had it back by return of e-mail because I believe this is incredibly important. I want to make two points - firstly the importance of EMA and secondly the importance of increasing it in line with inflation. Of course, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats opposed it when it was introduced by the Labour Westminster Government. The Liberal Democrat education spokesperson, Phil Willis, said: 'There are significantly more important things to do with £20m than give young people a Christmas bonus.' Conservative spokesperson Chris Grayling said: 'This is another blatant example of the government trying to fiddle the figures. Bribing young people to sign up for courses they may not complete, might make ministers' targets look achievable - but they do absolutely nothing to help solve this country'sskills shortage.' I think that tells you what the Conservatives at Westminster and the Liberal Democrats at Westminster think of our young people, and think of people who are less well off. I won't use the word 'poverty' because that's a relative term, but people who are less well off. I rarely talk about it myself - I always feel it's slightly insulting to my parents to do so - but many of us come from backgrounds that were less well off. Not many in this Chamber, but many of us in my constituency and many of my friends. The Westminster Government and the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition took very little time - it only took them until 20 October 2010 - to end the education maintenance allowance scheme in England, because they don't believe in it. They don't believe in helping young people. They don't believe in helping young people whose parents can't afford to send them to public school. This is why we need a more representative Parliament, so that we have people with different life experiences, who understand from their life experience the benefit of EMA-type support. I really want to congratulate the Welsh Government for keeping the EMA when it had been cancelled in England. It would have been so easy to cancel it. There you had a simple saving. It would generate very little noise because the people who get these sorts of payments are not the people who write letters to the Western Mail. They're not the people who go out complaining; they're the people who suffer and have problems. I would like to go through some details from my experience as a college lecturer. Without EMA, many students would not have been able to undertake their studies; many more driven by their family's economic circumstances would, at some stage, have had to drop out. Many of my former students ended up in well-paid ICT jobs, helping both them and the economy. EMA was the difference between unemployment followed by low-skilled and low-paid employment and becoming skilled and well paid. EMA was and is life-changing for many people. It also benefits our economy, increasing the amount of skilled workers. This is investing in young people, investing in our economy and, perhaps, it's one of the best forms of investment in economic development. Bribing companies to bring their branch factories here has failed for as long as I can remember - I'll just mention LG. Was it initially abused? Yes - by students turning up and doing nothing. This was resolved by continuing payments after satisfactory progress had been made. And to reply to Heledd Fychan, from my experience as a college lecturer, any student who attended regularly who had a good reason for not being there who was making good progress was not going to be stopped getting their EMA. I'm speaking on behalf University and College Union members - we would not have done that. According to the Bevan Foundation, increasing the EMA by 10 per cent would add £3 a week for everyone receiving it. Clearly, £3 a week is not much. There is an acknowledgment that learners in further education face just as significant a financial pressure as higher education students, who recently had a 9.4 per cent increase, which, I'd better add, is very much needed and very much supported. To many in this Chamber, £3 is less than a cup of coffee. To EMA students, it can be two or three meals. That's two or three meals out of 14 meals a week. This idea that people have three or four meals a day doesn't run for people who are poor. Crucially, it would establish an important principle of annual uplift, matching the UK Government's uprating of most social security benefits. The Bevan Foundation estimate the cost of an inflation-linked increase will be around £1.7 million. Raising the eligibility to include another 1,000 students would cost £1.1 million. This is obviously affordable from the Welsh Government budget. The Finance Committee discussed this and were in favour of such an uplift unanimously, including the Conservative Member. If anyone doubts its affordability, just check every month how much additional money is released by the Welsh Government to good and deserving recipients: £1 million here, £5 million there, £300,000 - you get them every week or so. My argument is that giving money to EMA students is giving it to good and deserving recipients. Finally, thank you to the Labour Government, which kept the EMA; now is the time to start annual uplifts.
Welsh: Roeddwn yn falch iawn o fanteisio ar y cyfle i gyd-gyflwyno'r cynnig pan ofynnodd Luke i mi wneud. Yn wir, fe atebais ar unwaith oherwydd rwy'n credu bod hyn yn hynod o bwysig. Rwyf am wneud dau bwynt - yn gyntaf am bwysigrwydd y lwfans cynhaliaeth addysg ac yn ail, am bwysigrwydd ei gynyddu yn unol â chwyddiant. Wrth gwrs, roedd y Ceidwadwyr a'r Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol yn gwrthwynebu hynny pan gafodd ei gyflwyno gan Lywodraeth Lafur San Steffan. Dywedodd llefarydd addysg y Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol, Phil Willis: 'Mae pethau cryn dipyn pwysicach i'w wneud ag £20m na rhoi bonws Nadolig i bobl ifanc.' Dywedodd llefarydd y Ceidwadwyr, Chris Grayling: 'Dyma enghraifft amlwg arall o'r llywodraeth yn ceisio ffidlo'r ffigurau. Gallai llwgrwobrwyo pobl ifanc i gofrestru ar gyfer cyrsiau nad ydynt yn eu cwblhau o bosibl, wneud i dargedau gweinidogion edrych yn gyraeddadwy - ond nid ydynt yn gwneud dim o gwbl i helpu i ddatrys prinder sgiliau yn y wlad hon.' Rwy'n credu bod hynny'n dweud wrthych beth mae'r Ceidwadwyr yn San Steffan a'r Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol yn San Steffan yn ei feddwl o'n pobl ifanc ni, ac am bobl sy'n llai cefnog. Ni wnaf ddefnyddio'r gair 'tlodi' oherwydd mae hwnnw'n derm cymharol, ond pobl sy'n llai cefnog. Anaml iawn y byddaf yn siarad amdano fy hun - rwyf bob amser yn teimlo ei fod ychydig yn sarhaus i fy rhieni os gwnaf hynny - ond mae llawer ohonom yn dod o gefndiroedd a oedd yn llai cefnog. Dim llawer yn y Siambr hon, ond llawer ohonom yn fy etholaeth a llawer o fy ffrindiau. Ychydig iawn o amser a gymerodd Llywodraeth San Steffan a chlymblaid y Ceidwadwyr a'r Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol - dim ond tan 20 Hydref 2010 y cymerodd hi - i ddod â'r cynllun lwfans cynhaliaeth addysg i ben yn Lloegr, oherwydd nad ydynt yn credu ynddo. Nid ydynt yn credu mewn helpu pobl ifanc. Nid ydynt yn credu mewn helpu pobl ifanc nad yw eu rhieni'n gallu fforddio eu hanfon i ysgol fonedd. Dyma pam fod angen Senedd fwy cynrychioliadol, fel bod gennym bobl sydd â phrofiadau bywyd gwahanol, sy'n deall o'u profiad bywyd beth yw budd cymorth megis y lwfans cynhaliaeth addysg. Rwyf am longyfarch Llywodraeth Cymru am gadw'r lwfans cynhaliaeth addysg pan gafodd ei ddileu yn Lloegr. Byddai wedi bod mor hawdd ei ddileu. Roedd yn ffordd syml o arbed arian. Ychydig iawn o sŵn y byddai wedi ei greu gan nad y bobl sy'n cael y math yma o daliadau yw'r bobl sy'n ysgrifennu llythyrau at y Western Mail. Nid hwy yw'r bobl sy'n mynd allan i gwyno; hwy yw'r bobl sy'n dioddef ac yn cael problemau. Hoffwn fynd drwy rai manylion am fy mhrofiad fel darlithydd coleg. Heb lwfans cynhaliaeth addysg, byddai llawer o fyfyrwyr wedi methu ymgymryd â'u hastudiaethau; byddai llawer mwy, oherwydd amgylchiadau economaidd eu teuluoedd, wedi gorfod rhoi'r gorau iddi ar ryw adeg. Cafodd llawer o fy nghyn-fyfyrwyr swyddi TGCh sy'n talu'n dda, gan eu helpu hwy a'r economi. Lwfans cynhaliaeth addysg oedd y gwahaniaeth rhwng diweithdra wedi'i ddilyn gan gyflogaeth sgiliau isel ar gyflogau isel a dod yn fedrus a chael cyflogau da. Roedd, ac mae'r lwfans cynhaliaeth addysg yn newid bywyd i lawer o bobl. Mae hefyd o fudd i'n heconomi, drwy gynyddu nifer y gweithwyr medrus. Buddsoddi mewn pobl ifanc yw hyn, buddsoddi yn ein heconomi ac efallai ei fod yn un o'r mathau gorau o fuddsoddiad mewn datblygu economaidd. Mae llwgrwobrwyo cwmnïau i ddod â'u ffatrïoedd cangen yma wedi methu ers cyhyd ag y gallaf gofio - nid oes ond raid sôn am LG. A gâi ei gamddefnyddio ar y dechrau? Câi - gan fyfyrwyr yn dod ac yn gwneud dim. Cafodd hyn ei ddatrys drwy barhau â thaliadau ar ôl i gynnydd boddhaol gael ei wneud. Ac i ymateb i Heledd Fychan, o fy mhrofiad i fel darlithydd coleg, nid oedd unrhyw fyfyriwr a oedd yn mynychu'n rheolaidd a chanddynt reswm da dros beidio â bod yno ac a oedd yn gwneud cynnydd da yn mynd i gael eu rhwystro rhag cael eu lwfans cynhaliaeth addysg. Rwy'n siarad ar ran aelodau'r Brifysgol ac Undeb y Coleg - ni fyddem wedi gwneud hynny. Yn ôl Sefydliad Bevan, byddai cynyddu'r lwfans cynhaliaeth addysg 10 y cant yn ychwanegu £3 yr wythnos i bawb sy'n ei gael. Yn amlwg, nid yw £3 yr wythnos yn llawer. Ceir cydnabyddiaeth fod dysgwyr mewn addysg bellach yn wynebu pwysau ariannol lawn mor sylweddol â myfyrwyr addysg uwch, a gafodd gynnydd o 9.4 y cant yn ddiweddar, sydd, byddai'n well imi ychwanegu, yn fawr ei angen ac yn cael ei gefnogi'n frwd. I lawer yn y Siambr hon, mae £3 yn llai na phaned o goffi. I fyfyrwyr y lwfans cynhaliaeth addysg, gall fod yn ddau neu dri phryd o fwyd. Dyna ddau neu dri phryd allan o 14 pryd yr wythnos. Nid yw'r syniad fod pobl yn cael tri neu bedwar pryd y dydd yn wir i bobl sy'n dlawd. Yn allweddol, byddai'n sefydlu egwyddor bwysig o gynnydd blynyddol, gan gyfateb i gynnydd Llywodraeth y DU i'r rhan fwyaf o fudd-daliadau nawdd cymdeithasol. Mae Sefydliad Bevan yn amcangyfrif y bydd cost cynnydd sy'n gysylltiedig â chwyddiant oddeutu £1.7 miliwn. Byddai codi'r cymhwysedd i gynnwys 1,000 o fyfyrwyr eraill yn costio £1.1 miliwn. Mae hyn yn amlwg yn fforddiadwy o gyllideb Llywodraeth Cymru. Bu'r Pwyllgor Cyllid yn trafod hyn ac roeddent yn unfrydol o blaid cynnydd o'r fath, yn cynnwys yr Aelod Ceidwadol. Os oes unrhyw un yn amau ei fforddiadwyedd, edrychwch bob mis ar faint o arian ychwanegol sy'n cael ei ryddhau gan Lywodraeth Cymru i dderbynwyr da a haeddiannol: £1 miliwn yn y fan hon, £5 miliwn yn y fan acw, £300,000 - rydych yn eu cael yn wythnosol bron. Fy nadl i yw bod myfyrwyr lwfans cynhaliaeth addysg yn dderbynwyr da a haeddiannol. Yn olaf, diolch i'r Llywodraeth Lafur, a gadwodd y lwfans cynhaliaeth addysg; nawr yw'r amser i ddechrau ei gynyddu'n flynyddol.