English: Thanks to the Minister for bringing the debate today. I'm not on any of the committees that scrutinised this Bill, and the issues that are being raised have been raised by my colleague Michelle Brown, who's on the education committee and who can't be here today. In principle, we do support the Bill. Introducing IDPs, providing it's done properly, is a good idea. However, to ensure consistency across local authorities, will the Minister agree to the request from many stakeholders to use a standard template IDP that applies across the local authorities and is therefore portable? I would hope the Minister will take steps to ensure the person writing the IDP has the expertise required to do so, and the knowledge to bring the different service providers together to co-ordinate them. Both local authorities and schools have a duty to prepare and maintain an IDP where they consider a child or young person has additional learning needs, but there is no default position, so local authorities and schools could end up playing ping pong with the IDP. Would the minister consider making either the local authority or the school ultimately responsible for the preparation of the IDP, to prevent any buck-passing of the kind that frustrates the public so often when it comes to dealing with council departments? Unless the person has a disability as defined under the Equality Act 2010, or has a significantly greater difficulty in learning, they won't be considered to have ALNs. This means that children and young people who have medical conditions that take them out of the classroom, or otherwise impact on their education, aren't covered, and this has been a major concern voiced by constituents. So, please could the Minister clarify what provision will be made for those who have medical conditions that fall short of a disability and who don't have a significantly greater difficulty in learning but whose medical conditions affect their learning in some other way? I do understand that there has to be a threshold, and the definition of 'additional learning needs' provides that. However, what support are children and young people going to receive if they're just beneath that threshold? What support is there going to be for children and young people who have greater difficulty in learning than the average child or young person but don't have a significantly greater one - in other words, to those in the middle? Llyr mentioned the apprenticeships issue. The Government says that it is as committed to vocational training as it is to academia, but it therefore seems odd that apprenticeships are not covered by the Bill, which potentially leaves out a big chunk of people with ALNs. Surely the Bill should be extended to cover these, although responsibility for the IDP should be with the local authority rather than the employer, because that would deter the creation of apprenticeships. I am very pleased that there is a presumption in favour of children and young people with ALNs being educated in a mainstream school. This is an excellent move. Special schools should be reserved for children and young persons who can't be educated in a mainstream school for their own interests, not used in part as a dumping ground for children or young persons whose education is thought to be a drain on resources by the mainstream schools. Stipulating that a local authority may arrange for additional learning provision to be given outside a school may be a step forward, but given the fact that exercise of this does not have to be based on whether it's in the best interests of the child - the local authority has complete discretion - the local authority could therefore, arguably, farm out provision on the basis of cost to the detriment of the child or young person. So, how will the Minister address this potential problem? I also welcome the duty on NHS bodies to provide medical treatment. I can understand why a fixed time frame hasn't been stated, but ideally the Bill should state that this and other duties must be complied with and decisions made within a reasonable time to address the excessive waiting times reported by some parents of children and young people with ALNs. Finally, onto the dispute procedures. Although the intention is that the Bill will help to avoid disputes - and clearly, avoidance is better than having disputes in the first place - disputes will nevertheless occur, yet the avenues for resolution remain cumbersome. Now, a couple of people have mentioned the relationship of the Bill to the NHS. The education tribunal has no jurisdiction over NHS bodies - the tribunal has no power to order an NHS body to provide treatment or to consider elements of an appeal relating to the NHS - so, parents and others will have to use the separate NHS process, meaning they have to negotiate two appeal systems instead of one. How is the Minister going to ensure that the people appealing to the tribunal receive the support and advice they need so that they can ensure the tribunal hears all the relevant information? How will the Minister ensure that no element of these appeals can slip into the ether between the education and NHS appeal processes? In summary, we do support this Bill, but we are also concerned that insufficient staff levels and funding may scupper some very good objectives contained within this Bill.
Welsh: Diolch i'r Gweinidog am gyflwyno'r ddadl heddiw. Nid wyf i ar unrhyw un o'r pwyllgorau sy'n craffu ar y Bil hwn, ac mae'r materion sy'n cael eu codi wedi eu codi gan fy nghyd-Aelod Michelle Brown, sydd ar y pwyllgor addysg ac sy'n methu bod yma heddiw. Mewn egwyddor, rydym yn cefnogi'r Bil. Mae cyflwyno CDU, cyn belled â'i fod wedi'i wneud yn iawn, yn syniad da. Fodd bynnag, i sicrhau cysondeb ar draws awdurdodau lleol, a wnaiff y Gweinidog gytuno â'r cais gan lawer o randdeiliaid i ddefnyddio CDU templed safonol sy'n berthnasol ar draws yr awdurdodau lleol ac felly'n gludadwy? Byddwn yn gobeithio y gwnaiff y Gweinidog gymryd camau i sicrhau bod gan yr unigolyn sy'n ysgrifennu'r CDU yr arbenigedd sydd ei angen i wneud hynny, a'r wybodaeth i ddod â'r gwahanol ddarparwyr gwasanaethau at ei gilydd i'w cydlynu. Mae gan awdurdodau lleol ac ysgolion fel ei gilydd ddyletswydd i baratoi a chynnal CDU os ydynt o'r farn bod gan blentyn neu berson ifanc anghenion dysgu ychwanegol, ond does dim sefyllfa ddiofyn, felly yn y pen draw, gallai awdurdodau lleol ac ysgolion fod yn chwarae ping pong gyda'r CDU. A wnaiff y Gweinidog ystyried gwneud naill ai'r awdurdod lleol neu'r ysgol yn bennaf gyfrifol am baratoi'r CDU, er mwyn atal unrhyw daflu baich o'r math sy'n peri cymaint o rwystredigaeth i'r cyhoedd wrth ymdrin ag adrannau cynghorau? Oni bai bod gan yr unigolyn anabledd fel y'i diffinnir o dan Ddeddf Cydraddoldeb 2010, neu bod ganddo lawer mwy o anhawster i ddysgu, ni fydd neb yn ystyried bod ganddo ADY. Mae hyn yn golygu nad yw plant a phobl ifanc sydd â chyflyrau meddygol sy'n mynd â nhw allan o'r ystafell ddosbarth, neu'n effeithio fel arall ar eu haddysg, wedi'u cynnwys, ac mae hyn wedi bod yn bryder mawr a leisiwyd gan etholwyr. Felly, a fyddai'r Gweinidog cystal ag egluro pa ddarpariaeth a wneir ar gyfer y rheini sydd â chyflyrau meddygol nad ydynt yn gyfystyr ag anabledd ac nad ydynt yn cael llawer mwy o anhawster i ddysgu, ond bod eu cyflyrau meddygol yn effeithio ar eu dysgu mewn rhyw ffordd arall? Rwy'n deall bod angen trothwy, ac mae'r diffiniad o 'anghenion dysgu ychwanegol' yn darparu hynny. Fodd bynnag, pa gymorth y bydd plant a phobl ifanc yn ei gael os ydynt ychydig bach o dan y trothwy hwnnw? Pa gefnogaeth a fydd ar gael i blant a phobl ifanc sy'n cael mwy o anhawster i ddysgu na'r plentyn neu'r person ifanc cyfartalog, ond nad oes ganddo anhawster sy'n sylweddol fwy - mewn geiriau eraill, na'r rhai yn y canol? Soniodd Llyr am brentisiaethau. Mae'r Llywodraeth yn dweud ei bod mor ymrwymedig i hyfforddiant galwedigaethol ag y mae i academia, ond felly mae'n ymddangos yn rhyfedd nad yw'r Bil yn cwmpasu prentisiaethau, a allai adael allan nifer fawr o bobl sydd ag ADY. Does bosib na ddylai'r Bil gael ei ymestyn i gwmpasu'r rhain, er y dylai'r cyfrifoldeb am y CDU fod gyda'r awdurdod lleol yn hytrach na'r cyflogwr, oherwydd byddai hynny'n anghymell creu prentisiaethau. Rwy'n falch iawn bod yna ragdybiaeth o blaid addysgu plant a phobl ifanc ag ADY mewn ysgol brif ffrwd. Mae hwn yn gam ardderchog. Dylid cadw ysgolion arbennig ar gyfer plant a phobl ifanc nad ydynt yn gallu cael eu haddysgu mewn ysgol brif ffrwd er eu lles eu hunain, yn hytrach na'u defnyddio'n rhannol fel tir dympio ar gyfer plant neu bobl ifanc y mae'r ysgolion prif ffrwd yn meddwl bod eu haddysg yn dreth ar adnoddau. Efallai fod nodi y caiff awdurdod lleol drefnu ar gyfer rhoi darpariaeth dysgu ychwanegol y tu allan i ysgol yn gam ymlaen, ond o ystyried y ffaith nad oes rhaid i'r arfer hwn fod yn seiliedig ar ba un a yw er pennaf les y plentyn - mae gan yr awdurdod lleol ddisgresiwn llwyr - gallai'r awdurdod lleol, felly, gellid dadlau, ddosbarthu darpariaeth allan ar sail cost, ar draul y plentyn neu'r person ifanc. Felly, sut y bydd y Gweinidog yn ymdrin â'r broblem bosibl hon? Rwyf hefyd yn croesawu'r ddyletswydd ar gyrff y GIG i ddarparu triniaeth feddygol. Gallaf ddeall pam nad oes amserlen benodedig wedi'i datgan, ond yn ddelfrydol dylai'r Bil ddatgan bod yn rhaid cydymffurfio â hon a dyletswyddau eraill a gwneud penderfyniadau o fewn amser rhesymol i ymdrin â'r amseroedd aros gormodol a adroddwyd gan rai rhieni plant a phobl ifanc ag ADY. Yn olaf, ynglŷn â'r gweithdrefnau anghydfod. Er mai'r bwriad yw y bydd y Bil yn helpu i osgoi anghydfodau - ac yn amlwg, mae osgoi'n well na chael anghydfodau yn y lle cyntaf - bydd anghydfodau'n digwydd er hynny, ac eto mae'r llwybrau ar gyfer eu datrys yn dal i fod yn feichus. Nawr, mae un neu ddau o bobl wedi sôn am berthynas y Bil â'r GIG. Nid oes gan y tribiwnlys addysg unrhyw awdurdod dros gyrff y GIG - nid oes gan y tribiwnlys unrhyw rym i orchymyn un o gyrff y GIG i ddarparu triniaeth neu i ystyried elfennau ar apêl sy'n ymwneud â'r GIG - felly, bydd yn rhaid i rieni ac eraill ddefnyddio proses ar wahân y GIG, sy'n golygu bod yn rhaid iddynt ymwneud â dwy system apêl yn hytrach nag un. Sut y mae'r Gweinidog yn mynd i sicrhau bod y bobl sy'n apelio i'r tribiwnlys yn cael y cymorth a'r cyngor sydd eu hangen arnynt er mwyn iddynt allu sicrhau bod y tribiwnlys yn clywed yr holl wybodaeth berthnasol? Sut y bydd y Gweinidog yn sicrhau na all unrhyw elfen ar yr apeliadau hyn lithro i mewn i'r ether rhwng prosesau apelio addysg a'r GIG? I grynhoi, rydym yn cefnogi'r Bil hwn, ond rydym hefyd yn pryderu y gallai diffyg staff a chyllid danseilio rhai amcanion da iawn a geir yn y Bil hwn.