English: Thank you very much for the introductory contribution there, Minister. I've a lot of questions on this. I wasn't actually involved with the two Acts that are referred to in this when they came through, so you'll forgive me if I say that I think that some of these regulations have been used as an opportunity to develop policy rather than to implement it - and why it is so important that we get the opportunity in this place through the affirmative procedure to scrutinise regulations. One of the things I wanted to say upfront, actually, is that it's really, really pleasing to see that some of the regulations here make it clear for people who are subject to those regulations how they are to comply with the regulations, in terms of the evidence that they have to provide in order to comply. I think those were omissions in some of the earlier legislation that we brought through in this place, but I think this is a vast improvement on that particular score. In a way, Minister, I just want to treat this a little bit more as a statement rather than a debate, so I hope I can just ask you a few questions. The first is that the document that we've got today, - and it's a fairly chunky one, I have to say - only affects four types of regulated service, as defined in the 2016 regulation and inspection Act. I just wondered if you have any plans to introduce separate regulations for the regulated services that aren't covered in this. They may not actually be necessary, but it would be quite useful to have your take on that. And, in identifying those requirements that I've just mentioned to provide evidence, in this case for good standards of care and support by a service provider, Ministers have to have regard to an individual's well-being, as you might expect, and any particular standards set out in a code issued under Section 9 of 2014 social services and well-being Act - obviously, a different Act. At the moment, I understand that there are no codes under that Act. They haven't been issued. But, as we know with school standards and reorganisation, the existence and interpretation of codes have been material in supporting one party's position or another. So, I suppose my question is whether you are expecting any codes to emerge from the 2014 Act, and if some do, will these regulations that you're looking at today be revisited in order to take anything that might be in those codes into account in the future? On staffing, you mentioned that you'd taken into account information that came to you via the public consultation. You might remember in particular there was some concern - I raised this with your predecessor, actually - about the removal of the requirement for 24-hour nursing care in some homes, despite there being expectations on the part of the people in those homes that that's what they would be getting, and indeed, in some cases, contractual obligations to provide that. Can you tell me how vulnerable to prosecution would the responsible individual be under these regulations in circumstances where nursing care is required unexpectedly for somebody who wasn't actually assessed as needing nursing care as an ongoing requirement - either because of that reason, or because a nurse was identified as necessary but isn't available for some reason, or whether there's a temporary staffing shortage, as opposed to deliberate flouting of the rules? Because we just have to watch out for responsible individuals who might find themselves in this quandary. I'm quite happy to take some written replies to these, because I appreciate some of them are quite detailed. On zero-hours contracts, I'm really pleased to see that there's something in these regulations about this, although, as I say, this actually feels like policy development as well as bringing some clarity to the position. I just wanted to ask you on this: in the case where a zero-hours-contract care worker might choose to go on a contract, if we were looking at the first choice of contract, which is based on the average number of hours worked in the previous few months, have you made an assessment about the risk of care providers reducing artificially the amount of time that's worked by a care worker during the preceding three months in order to artificially deflate the average number of hours that they're working for a new contract? And, in the case of a contract that would be for less than that average, which is also an option open to a care worker, what would be the benefit for the people being cared for in those circumstances Because potentially they could choose to go on a sort of 'Let's have two hours a week' contract, which probably in some cases would even reduce the continuity of care for some of the people being cared for. As I say, you may not have answers for these today, but I'm genuinely curious to know how that's being looked at. Then finally - am I allowed to say 'finally'? The delineation between the travel and caring time - I think this is something that we all recognised needed looking at, and I really welcome what you've done on this. Paragraph 41 (3) (b) does actually attempt to answer some of my questions regarding this, but in a situation where a care provider has assessed the travel time for a particular individual and that turns out to be inadequate, does the care worker then have a right to go back to the service provider and insist that they relook at that particular period of time that's been assessed? I couldn't find it in the regs. I'm hoping there is something. Thank you very much, Llywydd.
Welsh: Diolch yn fawr iawn ichi am y cyfraniad agoriadol yna, Weinidog. Mae gen i lawer o gwestiynau ynghylch hyn. Nid oeddwn i mewn gwirionedd yn ymwneud â'r ddwy Ddeddf y cyfeirir atyn nhw yn hyn pan gawson nhw eu pasio, felly maddeuwch imi am ddweud fy mod i'n credu bod rhai o'r Rheoliadau hyn wedi'u defnyddio fel cyfle i ddatblygu polisi yn hytrach na'i roi ar waith - a dyna pam mae mor bwysig ein bod yn cael y cyfle yn y lle hwn drwy'r weithdrefn gadarnhaol i graffu ar y rheoliadau. Un o'r pethau yr oeddwn i'n dymuno ei ddweud ar y cychwyn, mewn gwirionedd, yw ei bod yn bleser o'r mwyaf i weld bod rhai o'r rheoliadau hyn yn egluro i bobl sy'n ddarostyngedig i'r rheoliadau hynny sut y dylen nhw gydymffurfio â'r rheoliadau, o ran y dystiolaeth y mae'n rhaid iddyn nhw ei darparu er mwyn cydymffurfio. Rwy'n credu bod hynny wedi'i hepgor mewn peth o'r ddeddfwriaeth gynharach y gwnaethom ei llywio drwy'r lle hwn, ond rwy'n credu bod hyn yn welliant enfawr o ran y pwynt penodol hwnnw. Mewn ffordd, Gweinidog, rwyf i'n dymuno trin hyn ychydig yn fwy fel datganiad yn hytrach na dadl, felly rwy'n gobeithio y caf i ofyn dim ond ambell i gwestiwn i chi. Y cyntaf yw bod y ddogfen sydd gennym heddiw, - ac mae'n un eithaf swmpus, mae'n rhaid imi ddweud - dim ond yn effeithio ar bedwar math o wasanaeth rheoleiddiedig, fel y'u diffinnir yn Neddf rheoleiddio ac arolygu 2016. Tybed a oes gennych chi unrhyw fwriad o gyflwyno rheoliadau ar wahân ar gyfer y gwasanaethau rheoleiddiedig nad ydynt wedi'u cynnwys y tro hwn. Efallai nad oes eu hangen mewn gwirionedd, ond byddai'n eithaf defnyddiol cael eich barn ar hynny. Ac, wrth nodi'r gofynion hynny yr wyf i wedi'u crybwyll i ddarparu tystiolaeth, yn yr achos hwn ar gyfer safonau da o ofal a chymorth gan ddarparwr gwasanaeth, mae'n rhaid i Weinidogion roi ystyriaeth i les unigolion, fel y gallech ddisgwyl, ac unrhyw safonau penodol a nodir mewn cod a gyflwynwyd o dan Adran 9 o Ddeddf Gwasanaethau Cymdeithasol a Llesiant 2014 - yn amlwg, Deddf wahanol. Ar hyn o bryd, deallaf nad oes unrhyw godau o dan y Ddeddf honno. Nid ydyn nhw wedi'u cyflwyno. Ond, fel y gwyddom gyda safonau ac ad-drefnu ysgolion, roedd bodolaeth a dehongliad y codau yn hollbwysig i gefnogi safbwynt un blaid neu'r llall. Felly, mae'n debyg mai fy nghwestiwn i yw pa un a ydych chi'n disgwyl y bydd unrhyw godau yn deillio o Ddeddf 2014, ac os bydd, a fydd y rheoliadau hyn yr ydych yn edrych arnyn nhw heddiw yn cael eu hailystyried er mwyn rhoi sylw i unrhyw beth a allai fod yn y codau hynny yn y dyfodol? O ran staffio, fe wnaethoch chi sôn eich bod wedi rhoi ystyriaeth i wybodaeth a ddaeth i chi drwy'r ymgynghoriad cyhoeddus. Efallai y byddwch yn cofio yn arbennig, bod rhywfaint o bryder - codais y mater hwn gyda'ch rhagflaenydd, mewn gwirionedd - ynghylch cael gwared ar y gofyniad am ofal nyrsio 24 awr mewn rhai cartrefi, er gwaethaf y ffaith bod disgwyliadau gan y bobl yn y cartrefi hynny mai dyna beth y bydden nhw'n ei gael, ac yn wir, mewn rhai achosion, rhwymedigaethau cytundebol i ddarparu hynny. A wnewch chi ddweud wrthyf pa mor agored i erlyn fyddai'r unigolyn cyfrifol o dan y Rheoliadau hyn mewn sefyllfa pan fyddai angen annisgwyl am ofal nyrsio ar rywun nad yw mewn gwirionedd wedi'i asesu fel bod angen gofal nyrsio parhaus - naill ai am y rheswm hwnnw, neu oherwydd y nodwyd bod angen nyrs ond nad oes un ar gael am ryw reswm, neu pa un a oes prinder staff dros dro, yn hytrach nag anwybyddu'r rheolau yn fwriadol? Oherwydd mae'n rhaid i gefnogi unigolion cyfrifol a allai ganfod eu hunain yn y sefyllfa hon. Rwy'n ddigon hapus i dderbyn atebion ysgrifenedig i'r rhain, oherwydd fy mod i'n gwerthfawrogi bod rhai ohonyn nhw'n eithaf manwl. O ran contractau dim oriau, rwy'n falch iawn o weld bod sôn am hynny yn y Rheoliadau yma, er, fel y dywedais, mae hyn mewn gwirionedd yn teimlo fel datblygiad polisi yn ogystal â rhoi rhywfaint o eglurder i'r sefyllfa. Rwy'n dymuno gofyn i chi ar y mater hwn: mewn achos pan allai gweithiwr gofal ar gontract dim oriau ddewis mynd ar gontract, pe byddem ni'n edrych ar y dewis cyntaf o gontract, sy'n seiliedig ar y nifer cyfartalog o oriau a weithiwyd yn y misoedd blaenorol, a ydych chi wedi cynnal asesiad o'r perygl y bydd darparwyr gofal yn lleihau yn artiffisial faint o amser y mae gweithiwr gofal wedi ei weithio yn ystod y tri mis blaenorol er mwyn lleihau yn artiffisial y nifer cyfartalog o oriau y mae'n eu gweithio ar gyfer contract newydd? Ac, mewn achos o gontract a fyddai am lai o oriau na'r cyfartaledd hwnnw, sydd hefyd yn ddewis sydd ar gael i weithiwr gofal, beth fyddai'r budd i'r bobl sy'n derbyn gofal yn yr amgylchiadau hynny? Oherwydd mae'n bosibl y gallai ddewis contract ar ffurf 'Rhowch i mi ddwy awr yr wythnos', a fyddai, mwy na thebyg, mewn rhai achosion, hyd yn oed yn lleihau dilyniant y gofal ar gyfer rhai o'r bobl sy'n derbyn gofal. Fel y dywedais, efallai nad oes gennych chi atebion ar gyfer y rhain heddiw, ond rwy'n wirioneddol awyddus i wybod sut y mae hynny'n cael ei ystyried. Yna yn olaf - ydw i'n cael dweud 'yn olaf'? Y tynnu llinell rhwng amser teithio ac amser gofalu - rwy'n credu bod hyn yn rhywbeth yr ydym ni i gyd yn cydnabod bod angen edrych arno, ac rwy'n croesawu, mewn gwirionedd, yr hyn yr ydych chi wedi ei wneud yn hyn o beth. Mae Paragraff 41 (3) (b) mewn gwirionedd yn ceisio ateb rhai o'm cwestiynau ynglŷn â hyn, ond mewn sefyllfa pan fo darparwr gofal wedi asesu'r amser teithio ar gyfer unigolyn penodol a bod hynny yn profi i fod yn annigonol yn y pen draw, a oes hawl gan y gweithiwr gofal hwnnw i fynd yn ôl at y darparwr gwasanaeth a mynnu ei fod yn edrych eto ar y cyfnod hwnnw o amser sydd wedi'i asesu? Nid oeddwn i'n gallu dod o hyd i hynny yn y rheoliadau. Rwy'n gobeithio bod rhywbeth. Diolch yn fawr iawn, Lywydd.