English: So, the Welsh Government's focus is primarily, I believe, on the working parent, but I have to say a lot of the evidence suggests that maybe the impact of this kind of programme is limited in their respect, because I'm sure you'll be aware the Public Policy Institute for Wales's report, commissioned by the First Minister two years ago to look at the childcare policy options for Wales, concluded that, and I quote: 'The impact on work participation and work hours for mothers in families with a child of target age is extremely small.' They conclude that it's unlikely 'to achieve either objective to any notable, possibly even discernible, degree.' So, I'm just looking for reassurance that you are convinced that £100 million-plus investment from the Government will generate that necessary return in terms of the impact on working families, because the PPIW report suggests that maybe that isn't necessarily the case to the extent that we'd be hoping it would be. In the paper that you've presented to the Children, Young People and Education Committee - and no doubt we'll go over some of this territory again tomorrow morning when you're joining us in committee - you referred to an OECD report from last year, which talks of benefits for women in the labour market, but of course the focus of that report was on children aged between nought and three years old, not three and four years old, as this policy does, of course. That report references provision in Québec, where an analysis of the policy there has found that it clearly favours upper income families. So, I think you can hear what I'm saying, and I'd be interested just to hear your response to that. The second point I'd like to make is that Plaid Cymru support for this policy, as was reflected in the compact agreement and as has been already touched upon previously, was predicated on the belief, at least, or the hope, that this was the start of a journey that would take us to a point where there is universal provision. Now, you were very reluctant to commit to that or to suggest that you had that kind of ambition in committee a few months ago. I was just wondering whether you'd had an opportunity to consider where we would potentially go next, because certainly we've seen it as a first step towards the introduction of a universal service. If the Government doesn't intend to show that same ambition then we'd certainly be very, very disappointed to say the least. And it isn't just us that needs clarity on that; I think the sector would benefit from knowing that that's where we're heading ultimately as well. Now, yes, it's a technical Bill and there is little detail on the face of the Bill, I have to say, and some very important detail as well is being left to regulation in terms of what would a qualifying child be, circumstances in which a person is or isn't to be regarded as another person's partner, circumstances in which a person is or isn't to be treated as carrying out paid work, and I'm just wondering: has this been tabled a bit too early? Do we not know the answers to some of these questions? Because we know that Arad Research is carrying out an evaluation. Should we not wait for that to be published in the autumn? And whilst I welcome the fact that any regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, of course we all know, with an affirmative procedure, it's a take it or leave it process; we cannot amend. So, I have some concerns that, whilst appreciating it's a technical Bill, maybe the level of - . I would have expected maybe a bit more detail, so I'm just wondering why now and why not maybe in a few months' time, when you'll be better positioned to present some more detail. The explanatory memorandum states that, because of the technical nature of the Bill, and its limited appeal to the wider public, you didn't feel it appropriate to undertake an open consultation, but it would be good to hear what elements of consultation have happened, not just in terms of parents but particularly in terms of children as well. I would welcome your comments on that. And the £100,000 upper limit for eligibility - what's the rationale for that? I haven't got an issue with that; it just sounds a little bit like a figure that's been plucked out of the air. I'm sure it isn't. Maybe you could explain to us why it's been pitched at that level. Finally, your statement talks of eligibility checks and the associated bureaucracy that comes with that, making it, I quote, 'a burdensome approach'. Well, of course, a universal approach would do away with a lot of that but, as I say, we look forward to scrutinising the Bill and, clearly, we'll be coming back to some of these issues over the next weeks and months.
Welsh: Felly, mae pwyslais Llywodraeth Cymru yn bennaf, rwy'n credu, ar y rhiant sy'n gweithio, ond rhaid imi ddweud bod llawer o'r dystiolaeth yn awgrymu bod effaith y math hwn o raglen efallai yn gyfyngedig o'u rhan nhw, oherwydd rwy'n siŵr y byddwch yn ymwybodol y daeth adroddiad Sefydliad Polisi Cyhoeddus i Gymru, a gomisiynwyd gan y Prif Weinidog ddwy flynedd yn ôl i edrych ar y dewisiadau polisi gofal plant ar gyfer Cymru, i'r casgliad: 'Mae'r effaith ar allu gweithio ac oriau gwaith i famau mewn teuluoedd sydd â phlentyn o oedran targed yn eithriadol o fach.' Maent yn dod i'r casgliad ei bod yn annhebygol 'o gyflawni'r naill amcan neu'r llall i unrhyw raddau nodedig, o bosibl i'r graddau y byddai rhywun hyd yn oed yn sylwi arnynt.' Felly, dim ond edrych am sicrwydd wyf i eich bod yn argyhoeddedig y bydd buddsoddiad o £100 miliwn a mwy gan y Llywodraeth yn esgor ar y canlyniadau angenrheidiol hynny o ran yr effaith ar deuluoedd, yn gweithio oherwydd awgryma adroddiad y Sefydliad Polisi Cyhoeddus i Gymru nad dyna efallai o reidrwydd yr achos i'r graddau y byddem yn gobeithio. Yn y papur yr ydych chi wedi'i gyflwyno i'r Pwyllgor Addysg, Plant a Phobl ifanc - ac yn sicr byddwn yn trafod agweddau ar hyn eto bore yfory pan rydych chi'n ymuno â ni yn y Pwyllgor - gwnaethoch chi gyfeirio at adroddiad a gyhoeddwyd gan Y Sefydliad ar gyfer Cydweithrediad a Datblygiad Economaidd y llynedd, sy'n sôn am fanteision i fenywod yn y farchnad lafur, ond wrth gwrs roedd yr adroddiad hwnnw'n canolbwyntio ar blant rhwng dim a thair blwydd oed, nid tair a phedair oed, fel y gwna'r polisi hwn, wrth gwrs. Mae'r adroddiad hwnnw yn cyfeirio at ddarpariaeth yn Québec, lle mae dadansoddiad o'r polisi yn y fan honno wedi canfod ei fod yn amlwg yn ffafrio teuluoedd sydd â'r incwm mwyaf. Felly, credaf y gallwch ddeall yr hyn yr wyf i'n ei ddweud, a byddai gennyf ddiddordeb clywed eich ymateb i hynny. Yr ail bwynt yr hoffwn ei wneud yw bod cefnogaeth Plaid Cymru i'r polisi hwn, fel yr adlewyrchwyd yn y cytundeb compact ac fel y crybwyllwyd eisoes, yn seiliedig ar y gred, o leiaf, neu'r gobaith, fod hyn yn ddechrau taith y byddai'n ein harwain at sefyllfa lle ceir darpariaeth gynhwysol. Nawr, roeddech chi'n amharod iawn i ymrwymo i hynny nac i awgrymu bod gennych chi'r math hwnnw o uchelgais yn y Pwyllgor ychydig fisoedd yn ôl. Dim ond meddwl oeddwn i, tybed ydych wedi cael cyfle i ystyried ble fyddem ni o bosib yn mynd nesaf, oherwydd yn sicr rydym ni wedi gweld hynny fel cam cyntaf tuag at gyflwyno gwasanaeth cynhwysol. Os nad yw'r Llywodraeth yn bwriadu dangos yr un uchelgais honno yna byddem yn sicr yn siomedig iawn, iawn i ddweud y lleiaf. Ac nid dim ond ni sydd angen eglurder ynglŷn â hynny; rwy'n credu y byddai'r sector yn elwa gan wybod mai dyna'r sefyllfa yr ydym ni'n mynd tuag ati yn y pen draw yn ogystal. Nawr, ydy, mae'n Fil technegol ac ychydig o fanylion sydd ar wyneb y Bil, mae'n rhaid imi ddweud, ac mae rhai manylion pwysig iawn hefyd yn cael eu gadael i'w rheoleiddio o ran beth fyddai'n cymhwyso plentyn, amgylchiadau y mae person i'w ystyried ai peidio yn gymar person, amgylchiadau y mae person i'w drin fel petai yn gwneud gwaith cyflogedig ai peidio, a dim ond meddwl wyf i: tybed a gyflwynwyd hyn braidd yn rhy gynnar? Onid ydym ni'n gwybod yr atebion i rai o'r cwestiynau hyn? Oherwydd gwyddom fod Ymchwil Arad yn cynnal gwerthusiad. Oni ddylem ni aros i hynny gael ei gyhoeddi yn yr hydref? Ac er fy mod i yn croesawu'r ffaith y bydd unrhyw reoliadau yn ddarostyngedig i'r weithdrefn gadarnhaol, wrth gwrs, gŵyr pob un ohonom ni, gyda gweithdrefn gadarnhaol, bod yn rhaid derbyn neu wrthod y broses; ni allwn ni ei diwygio. Felly, mae gennyf rai pryderon, er fy mod yn sylweddoli ei fod yn fesur technegol, efallai bod y lefel o - . Byddwn wedi disgwyl efallai ychydig mwy o fanylder, felly dim ond meddwl wyf i tybed pam nawr a pham nad efallai ymhen ychydig fisoedd, pan fyddwch chi mewn sefyllfa well i gyflwyno mwy o fanylder. Mae'r Memorandwm Esboniadol yn nodi, oherwydd natur dechnegol y Bil, a'i apêl gyfyngedig i'r cyhoedd ehangach, nad oeddech yn teimlo ei bod hi'n briodol cynnal ymgynghoriad agored, ond byddai'n dda clywed pa elfennau o ymgynghori a fu, nid yn unig o ran rhieni ond yn enwedig o ran plant hefyd. Byddwn yn croesawu eich sylwadau ynglŷn â hynny. A'r terfyn uchaf o £100,000 ar gyfer cymhwysedd - beth yw'r sail resymegol dros hynny? Nid oes gennyf broblem â hynny; mae'n swnio braidd fel ffigur mympwyol. Rwy'n siŵr nad yw. Efallai y gallech chi egluro i ni pam ei fod wedi'i bennu ar y lefel honno. Yn olaf, mae eich datganiad yn sôn am wiriadau cymhwysedd a'r fiwrocratiaeth gysylltiedig a ddaw yn sgîl hynny, sy'n ei wneud, ac rwy'n dyfynnu, yn 'ddull beichus'. Wel, wrth gwrs, byddai dull cynhwysol yn dileu'r angen am lawer o hynny ond, fel y dywedaf, rydym ni'n edrych ymlaen at graffu ar y Bil ac, yn amlwg, byddwn yn dychwelyd at rai o'r materion hyn dros yr wythnosau a'r misoedd nesaf.