English: Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. This is probably - well, not probably - the most significant area of concern for me over the last, probably, two to three years. The Chamber may not know that I employed a very experienced social worker because of the amount of cases that I was getting in terms of looked-after children especially. Amendment 2 is very straightforward. It says that a well-recognised route out of care is via good quality contact between looked-after children and their parents. It's very straightforward. It says that contact ought not to be reduced or restricted for the convenience of paid care providers and that restricted contact can retain children in care for longer than necessary. Now, I understand that not everybody in the Chamber is going to support this amendment - I find that very surprising. Because what is happening is that contact is being restricted between children who want to see their parents and parents, because of the private - very often - care providers. So, it's not in the best interests of the child; it's in the best interests of a private company. So, I would ask everybody to support amendment 2 there. Amendment 3: it recognises that care leavers who become parents are also at risk of discrimination and that all looked-after children's cases might usefully be revisited - it's a key point - to check if there's any history of discrimination against parents that contributed to the children remaining looked after. I've got a number of people in my mind here - a number of mothers in particular - who I think have been treated disgracefully, to be perfectly frank. What you see here, as well, is basic class discrimination. What this amendment asks is that these cases are looked at in light of recognition of discrimination that could actually be happening. And my view is that it certainly is happening, because I think when you've - [ Interruption.] Yes.
Welsh: Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. Mae'n debyg fod hyn - wel, nid mae'n debyg - hwn yw'r maes rwyf wedi ymwneud fwyaf ag ef dros y ddwy neu dair blynedd ddiwethaf. Efallai nad yw'r Siambr yn gwybod imi gyflogi gweithiwr cymdeithasol profiadol iawn oherwydd nifer yr achosion roeddwn yn eu cael mewn perthynas â phlant sy'n derbyn gofal yn enwedig. Mae gwelliant 2 yn syml iawn. Mae'n dweud mai llwybr cydnabyddedig da allan o ofal yw drwy gysylltiad o safon uchel rhwng plant sy'n derbyn gofal a'u rhieni. Mae'n syml iawn. Mae'n dweud na ddylai cysylltiad gael ei leihau na'i gyfyngu er cyfleuster i ddarparwyr gofal a gaiff eu talu ac y gall cysylltiad cyfyngedig gadw plant mewn gofal yn hirach na sydd ei angen. Nawr, rwy'n deall nad yw pawb yn y Siambr yn mynd i gefnogi'r gwelliant hwn - mae hynny'n peri cryn syndod i mi. Oherwydd yr hyn sy'n digwydd yw bod cysylltiad yn cael ei gyfyngu rhwng plant sydd am weld eu rhieni a'u rhieni, oherwydd y darparwyr gofal, a darparwyr gofal y sector preifat yn aml iawn. Felly, nid yw er budd gorau'r plentyn; mae er budd gorau cwmni preifat. Felly, hoffwn ofyn i bawb gefnogi gwelliant 2. Gwelliant 3: mae'n cydnabod bod y rhai sy'n gadael gofal ac a ddaw'n rhieni hefyd yn wynebu'r risg o wahaniaethu ac y gallai fod yn ddefnyddiol ailedrych ar bob achos plentyn mewn gofal - mae'n bwynt allweddol - i weld a oes unrhyw hanes o wahaniaethu yn erbyn rhieni a oedd yn cyfrannu at gadw eu plentyn mewn gofal. Mae gennyf nifer o bobl yn fy meddwl yma - nifer o famau yn enwedig - sydd, yn fy marn i, wedi cael eu trin yn warthus, yn berffaith onest. Yr hyn a welwch yma hefyd yw gwahaniaethu sylfaenol ar sail dosbarth. Mae'r gwelliant hwn yn gofyn inni edrych ar yr achosion hyn er mwyn nodi'r gwahaniaethu a allai fod yn digwydd. Ac yn fy marn i, mae'n sicr yn digwydd, oherwydd pan fyddwch - [ T orri ar draws.] Iawn.