English: Diolch Llywydd. I understood what you meant - I got it. One of the benefits of doing a piloted roll-out, where we've moved from seven to 14 and we'll move upwards in terms of local authorities, is that we learn as we go and we evolve and we modify the scheme. But the question here is what is put on the face of primary legislation. I understand, because it's a running challenge with this, but this is a narrow technical Bill to allow HMRC to deliver the childcare offer, and the rest will be described in regulations or in the operational scheme and so on and the administrative scheme. The administrative scheme, as I've said, I've made clear I will bring in front of the committee and I will be happy to have it reviewed and to discuss and analyse it. But, look, we've been very, very clear from the start about who can provide childcare under the terms of this offer. Only registered providers can deliver this childcare offer. These providers are regulated and they're inspected - that, for us, is important as a measure of quality and standards. It provides us with the assurance that the funding used for the childcare offer is being spent on childcare that meets a number of requirements. Now, providers who sign up to things such as voluntary approval schemes, which are very, very welcome, such as the one run for nannies by Care Inspectorate Wales - they're very useful schemes, they really are, but they're not registered, they're not inspected, and therefore they cannot deliver this offer. We have, however - to clarify - already flexed the rules, learnt from the first year of early implementer, to ensure that childminders can be funded through the offer to care for children who are also relatives. We heard from the committee, we had direct face-to-face conversations with grandparents out there who were saying, 'Well, I am actually a registered childminder, I'd like to do this.' We talked about this internally, we came in front of the committee and discussed it, and we changed what we're doing on the basis of learning live on the ground. But we do realise that the existing legislation has some prohibitions around this arrangement in the wider context, and it's for this reason that I've already committed to reviewing that aspect of existing legislation, so that we can look at who can provide. But the benefit of pilots is that I will keep coming back to the Assembly and saying, 'We've now learnt this - do you think it's a good idea that we flex it again before the full roll-out?' Now, it's important to keep that in mind. Childminding and day care are already defined in other pieces of legislation. Replicating this within this context is unnecessary - I've said that already. It raises the risk that those definitions could actually fall out of sync in the future, resulting in confusion or having to revisit primary legislation. Just to be clear, as well, we really do appreciate as a Government - I do, crikey, as a parent as well who has had three children - the contribution that many grandparents make in caring for their grandchildren. But my nonno and nonna would not have been able to access this childcare offer as providers, because they weren't registered with CIW; they were not inspected. I love them dearly, and they provided brilliant childcare, but they wouldn't have been able to access the scheme and it's the right thing. So, that's where the clarity lies. Now, I can't see what would be gained from these regulation-making powers in amendments 24 and 25, which would only, in effect, be stating and defining categories of providers already stated and defined in other legislation. So, on that basis, whilst I understand where you're coming from on this, we can't support these amendments.
Welsh: Diolch Lywydd. Roeddwn yn deall beth oeddech chi'n ei feddwl - roeddwn yn deall. Un o'r manteision o dreialu'r cynnig, lle rydym wedi symud o saith i 14, a byddwn yn symud i fyny o ran nifer yr awdurdodau lleol, yw ein bod yn dysgu wrth inni fynd ac rydym yn datblygu ac yn addasu'r cynllun. Ond y cwestiwn yma yw beth i'w roi ar wyneb y ddeddfwriaeth sylfaenol. Rwy'n deall, oherwydd mae'n her barhaol gyda hyn, ond mae hwn yn Fil technegol cul i ganiatáu i CThEM gyflawni'r cynnig gofal plant, a bydd y gweddill yn cael ei ddisgrifio yn y rheoliadau neu yn y cynllun gweithredol ac yn y blaen a'r cynllun gweinyddol. Rwyf wedi dweud yn glir y byddaf yn dod â'r cynllun gweinyddol gerbron y pwyllgor a byddaf yn hapus i'w gael wedi'i adolygu a'i drafod a'i ddadansoddi. Ond edrychwch, rydym wedi bod yn glir iawn o'r cychwyn ynglŷn â phwy all ddarparu gofal plant o dan delerau'r cynnig hwn. Darparwyr cofrestredig yn unig a gaiff ddarparu'r cynnig gofal plant hwn. Rheoleiddir y darparwyr hyn a chânt eu harolygu - i ni, mae hynny'n bwysig fel mesur o ansawdd a safonau. Mae'n rhoi sicrwydd i ni fod yr arian a ddefnyddir ar gyfer y cynnig gofal plant yn cael ei wario ar ofal plant sy'n bodloni nifer o ofynion. Nawr, bydd darparwyr sy'n ymrwymo i bethau fel cynlluniau cymeradwyo gwirfoddol, sydd i'w croesawu'n fawr iawn, fel yr un a weithredir ar gyfer nanis gan Arolygiaeth Gofal Cymru - maent yn gynlluniau defnyddiol iawn wir, ond nid ydynt wedi'u cofrestru, ni chânt eu harolygu, ac felly ni chânt ddarparu'r cynnig hwn. Fodd bynnag - i egluro - rydym wedi ystwytho'r rheolau, wedi dysgu o flwyddyn gyntaf y cynllun gweithredydd cynnar, er mwyn sicrhau y gellir ariannu gwarchodwyr plant drwy'r cynnig i ofalu am blant sydd hefyd yn berthnasau. Clywsom gan y pwyllgor, cawsom sgyrsiau uniongyrchol wyneb yn wyneb â neiniau a theidiau a oedd yn dweud, 'Wel, rwy'n warchodwr plant cofrestredig mewn gwirionedd, hoffwn wneud hyn.' Rydym wedi siarad am hyn yn fewnol, daethom gerbron y pwyllgor a'i drafod, ac rydym wedi newid yr hyn rydym yn ei wneud ar sail dysgu'n fyw ar lawr gwlad. Ond rydym yn sylweddoli bod y ddeddfwriaeth bresennol yn cynnwys rhai gwaharddiadau mewn perthynas â'r trefniant hwn yn y cyd-destun ehangach, ac am y rheswm hwn rwyf eisoes wedi ymrwymo i adolygu'r agwedd honno ar y ddeddfwriaeth bresennol, fel y gallwn edrych ar bwy a all ddarparu. Ond mantais y cynlluniau peilot yw y byddaf yn parhau i ddychwelyd at y Cynulliad a dweud, 'Rydym wedi dysgu hyn bellach - a ydych yn credu ei bod hi'n syniad da i ni ei addasu eto cyn ei gyflwyno'n llawn?' Nawr, mae'n bwysig cadw hynny mewn cof. Diffiniwyd gwarchod plant a gofal dydd eisoes mewn darnau eraill o ddeddfwriaeth. Nid oes angen ei ailadrodd yn y cyd-destun hwn - rwyf wedi dweud hynny eisoes. Mae'n creu risg y gallai'r diffiniadau hynny dyfu'n fwyfwy anghyson yn y dyfodol, gan arwain at ddryswch neu orfod ailedrych ar ddeddfwriaeth sylfaenol. I fod yn glir hefyd, fel Llywodraeth rydym yn gwerthfawrogi'n fawr - mawredd, fel rhiant sydd wedi cael tri o blant, rwy'n sicr yn gwerthfawrogi cyfraniad llawer o neiniau a theidiau drwy ofalu am eu hwyrion a'u hwyresau. Ond ni fyddai fy nonno a fy nonna wedi gallu manteisio ar y cynnig gofal plant hwn fel darparwyr am nad oeddent wedi'u cofrestru gydag Arolygiaeth Gofal Cymru; ni chawsant eu harchwilio. Rwy'n eu caru'n fawr, ac roeddent yn darparu gofal plant gwych, ond ni fyddent wedi gallu manteisio ar y cynllun ac mae hynny'n iawn. Felly, dyna lle mae'r eglurder. Nawr, ni allaf weld beth fyddai i'w ennill o'r pwerau hyn i wneud rheoliadau yng ngwelliannau 24 a 25, ac i bob pwrpas ni fyddent ond yn datgan ac yn diffinio categorïau o ddarparwyr sydd eisoes wedi'u datgan a'u diffinio mewn deddfwriaeth arall. Felly, ar y sail honno, er fy mod yn deall eich rhesymau, ni allwn gefnogi'r gwelliannau hyn.