English: Thank you for the series of comments and questions. I don't want to be overly unkind, but there are a number of factual challenges in the statements that were made by the Conservative spokesperson. It is, of course, the case that Jeremy Corbyn is not the Prime Minister. Labour didn't win the last election. We got a real shoeing at the last election; there's now a Conservative UK Government. The idea that we are therefore going to be held to the last UK election manifesto when we can't possibly influence it is beyond parody. It's a bit of an embarrassing statement for Janet Finch-Saunders to start off with. It's also worth pointing out that I can see the Chair of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee in here and we recently had a debate on district and community nursing, which considered the Buurtzorg model and the work that the Government is already doing. There was an agreement within this Assembly term on further investment in district nursing, looking at principles from the Buurtzorg model and how they might be applied within Wales. So, we're deliberately increasing our investment in district and community nursing. So, far from this being a new issue, it's actually something that, through the whole of this term, you'll have heard in this Chamber and in the committee and in the report. To be fair, you may not have been in the Chamber at the time, but we've talked about it on several occasions and I'm glad to help to bring you up to date on that. In terms of the cost pressures, the cost pressures range that I outlined, Deputy Presiding Officer, when you look at what 5.5 per cent over the last seven years or so that is going - the amount that, across local authorities, they are putting into social care, well that's actually nearer the top end of the £30-odd to £300-odd million range. There's a really big cost pressure that, despite austerity, political leadership of every shade is responding to. Independent-led councils, Welsh Conservative-led councils - so, your colleagues Sam Rowlands and Peter Fox, they are making those choices as well - together with Plaid Cymru and Welsh Labour-led councils, they're all responding to the reality of the increase in pressures. We could do broadly what you say and say, 'Just make it more efficient, try to develop some new models and carry on.' And that's a choice. It's a choice that we could make as a country. If we do that though, we have to accept, if we want an honest and mature debate, that that means that there'll be extra pressures on other budgets and it almost certainly means cuts in other areas of expenditure. Now, that's an honest choice that we could all make, but that would be the choice that we would be making. If we really want to see an improvement, we've got to consider the amount of funding that goes into it. At the last UK election, the Conservatives pledged to put £1 billion extra into social care, but that was actually money that they'd already announced. So, actually, there isn't new money that's going to come, arriving from May onwards; we've apparently already had it. It's been passed on in local government budgets through the RSG to local government. And that is only just about keeping pace with where we are. In fact, the NHS Confederation in England said that that funding pledge was well short of what was required - not Labour politicians, but people who are providing health and social care across our border. We do want to see more efficiency in services, so we do want to see a transformation, we want to see reform and prevention going into how we look at the future of social care, but we also have to address the issue of funding. If we want to improve the quality and the reach and safeguard the dignity of social care, then we've got to have this serious and honest conversation about funding. And that's what we're prepared to do. I don't want to leave unaddressed issues about the integrated care fund. Part of the reason why some ICF projects don't proceed is that they're piloting and trying new ways of working. And when we often have these debates here, your colleague, Angela Burns, regularly says to me, 'You have to be prepared to go and run projects that may not always succeed. If you're refusing to take any risk, you're not really trying something new.' And you can't then say on the other hand that it's outrageous that not all of those projects have gone ahead. There will be different reasons why partners on the ground have looked and decided to proceed or not proceed. And actually, across local government, there's widespread support for the ICF and the way that it's worked, the way it's brought different partnerships together, including health together with different parts of local government, the third sector, and other providers. And you can't have it both ways on funding when it comes to health consequentials. Your party have regularly said, 'All the health consequentials should go directly into the health service - don't direct them or transfer them anywhere else at all.' We've actually gone well beyond that, and this Government, over the whole of this term, has put a lot more into the health service then direct consequantials that we've had from UK settlements. If you then say you want us to take more money into social care, well, we know we'll have a different debate about money that hasn't gone into the health service. And you can't have it both ways. We - I - have made a choice to put £30 million last year, from the health budget, into social care. This year, I made the choice to put it up from £30 million to £40 million from the health budget into social care, because we recognise the pressures. So, we're doing the responsible and the right thing already, but the debate about the future should really be an honest and a grown-up one, and that's what I desperately want to see; not to try and have it both ways, but to be honest about what is available. And when we go out to further consultation with more models, we'll be open about that and about the basis of the funding questions for them, so people in this Chamber and beyond can look honestly at what's possible. We don't have a fixed view in the Government about what the exact future models of social care should be, or indeed how they should be funded, but I do hope that, over the coming months, we'll have a deal more maturity than we've heard thus far in the Chamber today, and I look forward to hearing what other parties have to say.
Welsh: Diolch am y gyfres yna o sylwadau a chwestiynau. Nid wyf i'n dymuno bod yn rhy angharedig, ond mae nifer o ffeithiau y gellir eu herio yn y datganiadau a wnaed gan lefarydd y Ceidwadwyr. Mae'n wir, wrth gwrs, nad Jeremy Corbyn yw'r Prif Weinidog. Ni enillodd Llafur yr etholiad diwethaf. Fe gawsom ni grasfa yn yr etholiad diwethaf; Llywodraeth Geidwadol sydd gennym ni bellach yn y DU. Mae'r syniad ein bod ni'n mynd i orfod cadw at faniffesto'r etholiad diwethaf yn y DU, pan na allwn ddylanwadu arno o gwbl, y tu hwnt i bob rheswm. Mae datganiad dechreuol Janet Finch-Saunders yn codi cywilydd. Mae'n werth nodi hefyd y gallaf i weld Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor Iechyd, Gofal Cymdeithasol a Chwaraeon yn y fan hon, ac yn ddiweddar fe gawsom ni ddadl am nyrsio ardal a chymunedol, a roddodd ystyriaeth i fodel Buurtzorg a'r gwaith y mae'r Llywodraeth yn ei wneud eisoes. Roedd cytundeb yn ystod tymor y Cynulliad hwn ar fuddsoddiad pellach mewn nyrsio ardal, gan edrych ar egwyddorion o fodel Buurtzorg a sut y gellid eu defnyddio yng Nghymru. Felly, rydym ni'n cynyddu ein buddsoddiad ni'n fwriadol mewn nyrsio rhanbarthol a chymunedol. Felly, ymhell o fod yn fater newydd, mae hwn mewn gwirionedd yn rhywbeth y byddwch chi, drwy gydol y tymor hwn, wedi ei glywed yn y Siambr hon ac yn y pwyllgor ac yn yr adroddiad. A bod yn deg, efallai nad oeddech chi yn y Siambr ar y pryd, ond rydym wedi siarad droeon am hynny ac rwy'n falch o helpu i ddod â'r newyddion diweddaraf ichi am hynny. O ran y pwysau o ran cost, mae'r ystod o bwysau cost a amlinellais i, Dirprwy Lywydd, pan edrychwch chi ar yr hyn y mae'r 5.5 y cant dros y saith mlynedd diwethaf neu fwy sy'n mynd - y swm y maen nhw'n ei roi i ofal cymdeithasol ar draws awdurdodau lleol, wel mae hynny mewn gwirionedd yn nes at ben uchaf yr ystod o tua £30 i £300 miliwn. Fe geir pwysau mawr iawn o ran cost ac, er gwaethaf cyni, mae arweinyddiaeth wleidyddol o bob lliw yn ymateb iddo. Y cynghorau dan arweinyddiaeth annibynnol, y cynghorau dan arweiniad y Ceidwadwyr Cymreig - felly, eich cyd-Aelodau chi, Sam Rowlands a Peter Fox, maen nhw'n gwneud y dewisiadau hynny hefyd - ynghyd â chynghorau Plaid Cymru a'r cynghorau dan arweiniad Llafur Cymru, maen nhw i gyd yn ymateb i realiti'r cynnydd o ran pwysau. Fe allem ni wneud yn fras yr hyn a ddywedwch chi a dweud, 'Gwnewch hyn yn fwy effeithlon, ceisiwch ddatblygu modelau newydd a pharhau i wneud hynny.' Ac mae hwnnw yn ddewis. Mae'n ddewis y gallem ni ei wneud fel cenedl. Ond os gwnawn ni hynny, fodd bynnag, mae'n rhaid inni dderbyn, os ydym ni'n dymuno cael dadl onest ac aeddfed, fod hynny'n golygu y bydd pwysau ychwanegol ar gyllidebau eraill ac fe fyddai bron yn sicr o arwain at doriadau mewn meysydd eraill o wariant. Nawr, mae hwnnw'n ddewis gonest y gallai pob un ohonom ni ei wneud, ond dyna'r dewis y byddem ni'n ei wneud. Os ydym ni'n dymuno gweld gwelliant gwirioneddol, mae'n rhaid inni ystyried faint o arian sy'n mynd i mewn i hynny. Yn etholiad diwethaf y DU, roedd y Ceidwadwyr yn addo rhoi £1 biliwn yn ychwanegol i ofal cymdeithasol, ond mewn gwirionedd, dyna'r arian yr oedden nhw wedi ei gyhoeddi eisoes. Felly, nid oes arian newydd i ddod, yn cyrraedd o fis Mai ymlaen; mae'n debyg ein bod eisoes wedi ei gael. Fe gafodd ei drosglwyddo i gyllidebau llywodraeth leol drwy'r grant cynnal refeniw i lywodraeth leol. Ac nid yw hynny ond prin yn ein cadw ni lle'r ydym ni. A dweud y gwir, fe ddywedodd Cydffederasiwn y GIG yn Lloegr fod yr addewid honno o gyllid yn brin o'r hyn a oedd yn ofynnol - nid gwleidyddion Llafur, ond pobl sy'n darparu iechyd a gofal cymdeithasol dros y ffin. Rydym ni'n awyddus i weld mwy o effeithlonrwydd mewn gwasanaethau, ac felly rydym ni'n awyddus i weld trawsnewid, rydym ni'n awyddus i weld diwygio ac atal yn dylanwadu ar y modd y byddwn ni'n edrych ar ddyfodol gofal cymdeithasol, ond mae'n rhaid i ni fynd i'r afael â mater cyllid hefyd. Os ydym ni'n dymuno gwella ansawdd a chyrhaeddiad a diogelu urddas gofal cymdeithasol, yna mae'n rhaid inni gael y sgwrs ddifrifol ac onest hon ynglŷn â chyllid. Ac rydym yn barod i wneud hynny. Nid wyf i'n dymuno gadael materion am y gronfa gofal integredig heb eu hateb. Rhan o'r rheswm pam nad yw rhai prosiectau o'r gronfa gofal integredig yn mynd rhagddyn nhw yw eu bod nhw'n treialu ac yn cynnig ffyrdd newydd o weithio. A phan fyddwn ni'n cael y dadleuon hyn yn aml yn y fan hon, mae eich cyd-Aelod, Angela Burns, yn dweud wrthyf i'n rheolaidd, 'Mae'n rhaid ichi fod yn barod i gynnal prosiectau nad ydyn nhw'n llwyddo bob amser. Os gwrthodwch gymryd unrhyw risg, nid ydych yn rhoi cynnig ar unrhyw beth newydd.' Ac ni allwch chi wedyn ddweud ar y llaw arall ei bod hi'n warthus nad yw pob un o'r prosiectau hynny wedi parhau. Fe fydd yna wahanol resymau pam mae partneriaid ar lawr gwlad wedi ystyried a phenderfynu bwrw ymlaen neu beidio. Ac mewn gwirionedd, ar draws llywodraeth leol, mae cefnogaeth eang i'r gronfa gofal integredig a'r ffordd y mae hi wedi gweithio, y ffordd y mae hi wedi dod â gwahanol bartneriaethau at ei gilydd, gan gynnwys iechyd, ynghyd â gwahanol rannau o lywodraeth leol, y trydydd sector, a darparwyr. Ac ni allwch chi ei chael hi bob ffordd o ran cyllid pan ddaw'n fater o gyllid canlyniadol iechyd. Mae eich plaid chi wedi dweud yn rheolaidd, 'Fe ddylai holl gyllid canlyniadol iechyd fynd yn uniongyrchol i'r gwasanaeth iechyd - peidiwch â'u cyfeirio na'u trosglwyddo nhw i unman arall o gwbl.' Mewn gwirionedd, rydym ni wedi mynd ymhell y tu hwnt i hynny, ac mae'r Llywodraeth hon, gydol y tymor hwn, wedi rhoi llawer mwy i mewn i'r gwasanaeth iechyd na'r cyllid canlyniadol uniongyrchol a gawsom ni o setliadau'r DU. Os ydych chi'n dweud wedyn eich bod chi'n dymuno inni roi mwy o arian i mewn i ofal cymdeithasol, wel, gwyddom y byddwn yn cael dadl wahanol am yr arian nad aeth i'r gwasanaeth iechyd. Ac ni allwch chi ei chael hi bob ffordd. Rydym ni - rwyf i - wedi gwneud y dewis i roi £30 miliwn, o'r gyllideb iechyd y llynedd, i ofal cymdeithasol. Eleni, fe wneuthum i'r dewis i'w godi o £30 miliwn i £40 miliwn o'r gyllideb iechyd i ofal cymdeithasol, oherwydd rydym ni'n cydnabod y pwysau. Felly, rydym ni'n gwneud y peth cyfrifol a'r peth priodol eisoes, ond fe ddylai'r ddadl am y dyfodol fod yn un onest ac aeddfed, a dyna'r hyn yr wyf i'n awyddus iawn i'w weld; nid ceisio ei chael hi bob ffordd, ond bod yn onest o ran yr hyn sydd ar gael. A phan fyddwn ni'n mynd ati i ymgynghori ymhellach gyda mwy o fodelau, fe fyddwn ni'n agored i hynny a sail y cwestiynau cyllido ar eu cyfer nhw, ac felly fe all pobl yn y Siambr hon a thu hwnt edrych yn onest ar yr hyn sy'n bosibl. Nid oes gennym ni farn bendant yn y Llywodraeth ynghylch beth yn hollol y dylai modelau gofal cymdeithasol fod yn y dyfodol, nac yn wir sut y dylid eu hariannu nhw, ond rwy'n gobeithio, dros y misoedd nesaf, y cawn ni lawer mwy o aeddfedrwydd na'r hyn a glywsom yn y Siambr heddiw hyd yma, ac rwy'n edrych ymlaen at glywed yr hyn sydd gan y pleidiau eraill i'w ddweud.