English: Diolch, Lywydd. [Interruption.] No jokes from me today, I'm afraid. I do appreciate that a draft budget isn't the place for detailed spending plans. The sort of high-level, top-line figures are more of an opportunity, really, for the Welsh Government to throw a few coloured lights around those areas of generosity that it would like us to notice. As my party's spokesperson on culture and Welsh language, I'm happy to welcome the additional £5 million into these very modest portfolio areas, but I also look forward to following up some of the evidence given to the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee. Because there is a difficulty, isn't there, of examining a draft budget in isolation from the outcomes that the anticipated spending or saving is intended to achieve? It's exactly what Adam Price said, and actually what Mark Reckless alluded to as well. What impact will this year's spending or saving have on medium and longer term plans for improving the lives of people in Wales? I'm very happy to see that extra money for culture and heritage, but I'm also keen to see whether the loss of 25 per cent of Cadw's capital budget will be made up by capitalised income earned at Cadw sites. I'll also be keen to see what that money actually gets us, because I am pretty sure that Neath Abbey, in my region, could easily eat up every penny of that capital budget, even if it's topped up, which doesn't really leave very much for the rest of the Cadw estate, looking forward. An additional £25 million for social services sounds like a decent sum of money to invest, but what will that £25 million actually get? And, Lynne Neagle, I'm sure you'll be interested to know this as well, as you actually mentioned it in your contribution. The Minister, on 9 November, confirmed that the extra £25 million for social services was, quote, 'in respect and in understanding of the severe pressures that the social services sector are under at the moment. Pressures include, for example, the national living wage'. And I agree entirely with her that, thanks to the UK Government, it is great, to further quote the Minister, that low-paid workers will be getting that increase in pay. However, earlier this year, the Association of Directors of Social Services claimed that, without increased funding combined with innovative solutions, the only way councils in Wales will be able to cope with the increased costs from the national living wage is by commissioning fewer services. Now, I would be the first to recommend that all public services look for innovative solutions, but what I'm not sure about is how much of that extra £25 million will be spent on the difference between the old minimum wage and next year's living wage. Will that £25 million see off the threat of a reduction in commissioned services? And we also need to know, if there is any money left over after the wages bill, whether the Government expects any of that £25 million to supplement the £4.5 million being allocated towards - and 'towards' is the word - meeting the costs to local authorities of the new savings threshold for those in care homes. The words suggest that £4.5 million won't meet that total cost. In short, we need to know how much of that £25 million is left over to address the other severe pressures. The reason we need to know that is that this £25 million is not ring-fenced; it is entirely vulnerable to competing demands for money within every single council in Wales, yet the Minister gave evidence to the Finance Committee that she did not want to direct councils' spending other than on ensuring that we have strong, sustainable social services for the future. Well, we all want to see that, but if you have no idea what £25 million could and should pay for above paying better wages, where has the figure of £25 million come from? Why isn't it being used to ease the pressure on children's social services and work on partnership and integration - a core principle of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 as well, as Mark Isherwood mentioned, and indeed the parliamentary review into health and social care - instead of being moved into some other part of the main expenditure group? Why aren't you easing pressure on social services by at least retaining your level of support for the Family Fund? Don't you think that the impact that this will have on the carers of severely disabled and seriously ill children - primarily women, of course, talking of gender impacts - let alone the children themselves, is likely to increase their assessed needs? More work for social services. And what are your grounds for limiting payments from the third sector grant scheme? Have you done an impact assessment on what is likely to happen to social services, which will be required to take on more work directly as a result of such a decision? The transfers within the MEG for communities and children - how are we supposed to follow the money there to ensure that social services won't be having to meet even greater pressures? If we are to be - and this is all of us - positive contributors and critical friends on the Government's health and social care integration agenda, then don't dazzle us with the coloured lights, just make it easier to see what's not actually being illuminated.
Welsh: Diolch, Lywydd. [Torri ar draws.] Dim jôcs gen i heddiw, mae arna i ofn. Rwy'n sylweddoli nad cyllideb ddrafft yw'r lle ar gyfer cynlluniau gwario manwl. Mae'r math o ffigurau lefel uchel, llinell dop yn fwy o gyfle, mewn gwirionedd, i Lywodraeth Cymru daflu ychydig o oleuadau lliw o gwmpas y meysydd hynny o haelioni y byddai'n hoffi i ni sylwi arnynt. Fel llefarydd fy mhlaid ar ddiwylliant Cymru a'r iaith Gymraeg, rwy'n hapus i groesawu'r £5 miliwn ychwanegol i'r meysydd portffolio cymedrol iawn hyn, ond rwyf hefyd yn edrych ymlaen at fynd ar drywydd rhywfaint o'r dystiolaeth a roddwyd i'r Pwyllgor Diwylliant, y Gymraeg a Chyfathrebu. Oherwydd mae anhawster, onid oes, o archwilio cyllideb ddrafft ar wahân i'r canlyniadau y bwriedir i'r gwariant neu'r arbedion a ragwelir eu cyflawni? Dyma'n union yr hyn a ddywedodd Adam Price, ac mewn gwirionedd yr hyn yr oedd Mark Reckless yn cyfeirio ato hefyd. Pa effaith fydd gwariant neu arbediad eleni yn ei chael ar y cynlluniau tymor hir a chanolig ar gyfer gwella bywydau pobl yng Nghymru? Rwy'n hapus iawn o weld yr arian ychwanegol ar gyfer diwylliant a threftadaeth, ond rwyf hefyd yn awyddus i weld a wneir iawn am golli 25 y cant o gyllideb gyfalaf Cadw gan yr incwm cyfalaf a enillwyd ar safleoedd Cadw. Byddaf hefyd yn awyddus i weld beth y mae'r arian hwnnw yn ei gael i ni mewn gwirionedd, oherwydd rwy'n eithaf sicr y gallai Mynachlog Nedd, yn fy rhanbarth i, yn hawdd lyncu pob ceiniog o'r gyllideb gyfalaf honno, hyd yn oed os ychwanegir ati, nad yw' gadael llawer iawn mewn gwirionedd ar gyfer gweddill ystad Cadw, o edrych ymlaen. Mae £25 miliwn ychwanegol ar gyfer gwasanaethau cymdeithasol yn swnio fel swm teilwng o arian i'w fuddsoddi. Ond beth fydd y £25 miliwn hwnnw yn ei gael mewn gwirionedd? Ac rwy'n siŵr, Lynne Neagle, y bydd gennych chi ddiddordeb mewn gwybod hyn hefyd, gan eich bod wedi sôn amdano yn eich cyfraniad. Cadarnhaodd y Gweinidog, ar 9 Tachwedd, bod y £25 miliwn ychwanegol ar gyfer gwasanaethau cymdeithasol, dyfynnaf, ' o ran, ac o ddeall y pwysau difrifol sydd ar y sector gwasanaethau cymdeithasol ar hyn o bryd. Mae'r pwysau yn cynnwys, er enghraifft, y cyflog byw cenedlaethol . Ac rwy'n cytuno'n llwyr â hi, diolch i Lywodraeth y DU, mae'n wych o beth, i ddyfynnu'r Gweinidog ymhellach, y bydd gweithwyr ar gyflog isel yn cael y codiad hwnnw mewn cyflog. Fodd bynnag, yn gynharach eleni, honnodd Cymdeithas Cyfarwyddwyr Gwasanaethau Cymdeithasol, heb gynnydd mewn cyllid wedi'i gyfuno ag atebion arloesol, mai'r unig ffordd y bydd cynghorau yng Nghymru yn gallu ymdopi â'r costau uwch o'r cyflog byw cenedlaethol yw drwy gomisiynu llai o wasanaethau. Nawr, fi fyddai'r cyntaf i argymell bod pob gwasanaeth cyhoeddus yn chwilio am atebion arloesol. Ond yr hyn nad wyf yn siŵr amdano yw faint o'r £25 miliwn ychwanegol sy'n cael ei wario ar y gwahaniaeth rhwng yr hen isafswm cyflog a chyflog byw'r flwyddyn nesaf. A fydd y £25 miliwn yn cael gwared ar y bygythiad o ostyngiad mewn gwasanaethau a gomisiynir? Ac mae angen inni wybod hefyd, os oes unrhyw arian yn weddill ar ôl y bil cyflogau, a yw'r Llywodraeth yn disgwyl i rywfaint o'r £25 miliwn ychwanegu at y £4.5 miliwn sy'n cael ei ddyrannu tuag ata 'tuag at' yw'r gair-dalu'r costau i awdurdodau lleol o'r trothwy cynilo newydd ar gyfer y rhai mewn cartrefi gofal. Mae'r geiriau yn awgrymu na fydd y £4.5 miliwn yn talu cyfanswm y gost. Yn fyr, mae angen inni wybod faint o'r £25 miliwn sydd dros ben i fynd i'r afael â'r pwysau difrifol eraill. Y rheswm y mae angen inni wybod hynny yw nad yw'r £25 miliwn hwn wedi'i glustnodi; mae'n gwbl agored i alwadau am arian sy'n cystadlu o fewn pob cyngor unigol yng Nghymru, ac eto i gyd rhoddodd y Gweinidog dystiolaeth i'r Pwyllgor Cyllid nad oedd hi'n awyddus i gyfeirio gwariant cynghorau ar wahân i sicrhau bod gennym wasanaethau cymdeithasol cryf a chynaliadwy ar gyfer y dyfodol. Wel, rydym i gyd yn dymuno gweld hynny, ond os oes gennych unrhyw syniad beth y gallai ac y dylai'r £25 miliwn dalu amdano ar ben talu cyflogau gwell, o ble daeth y ffigur hwn o £25 miliwn Pam nad yw'n cael ei ddefnyddio i leddfu'r pwysau ar wasanaethau cymdeithasol i blant a gweithio ar bartneriaeth ac integreiddio - egwyddor graidd Ddeddf Llesiant Cenedlaethau'r Dyfodol (Cymru) 2015 a Deddf Llesiant a Gwasanaethau Cymdeithasol (Cymru) 2014 hefyd, fel y crybwyllwyd gan Mark Isherwood, ac yn wir yr adolygiad seneddol o iechyd a gofal cymdeithasol - yn hytrach na chael ei symud i mewn i ryw ran arall o'r prif grŵp gwariant? Pam nad ydych yn ysgafnhau'r pwysau ar wasanaethau cymdeithasol drwy o leiaf gadw eich lefel o gefnogaeth i Gronfa'r Teulu? Onid ydych yn credu y bydd yr effaith a gaiff hyn ar ofalwyr plant ag anabledd difrifol ac sy'n ddifrifol wael - menywod yn bennaf, wrth gwrs, â siarad am effeithiau rhyw - heb sôn am y plant eu hunain, yn debygol o gynyddu eu hanghenion asesedig? Mwy o waith ar gyfer y gwasanaethau cymdeithasol. A beth yw eich rhesymau dros gyfyngu taliadau o gynllun grant y trydydd sector? Ydych chi wedi gwneud asesiad effaith ar yr hyn sy'n debygol o ddigwydd i'r gwasanaethau cymdeithasol, y bydd angen iddynt ymgymryd â mwy o waith yn uniongyrchol o ganlyniad i benderfyniad o'r fath? Y trosglwyddiadau o fewn y MEG ar gyfer cymunedau a phlant - sut ydym i ddilyn yr arian yno i sicrhau na fydd y gwasanaethau cymdeithasol yn gorfod wynebu hyd yn oed mwy o bwysau? Os ydym i fod - ac mae hyn yn golygu pob un ohonom - yn gyfranwyr cadarnhaol ac yn gyfeillion beirniadol ar agenda integreiddio iechyd a gofal cymdeithasol y Llywodraeth, yna peidiwch â'n dallu ni â'r goleuadau lliw, ond gwnewch hi'n haws inni weld beth sydd heb gael ei oleuo mewn gwirionedd.