English: Thank you very much, Chair. Amendment 4 and amendments 6 and 8, which are consequential amendments, emerge from recommendation 7 of this committee's report as we scrutinised the Bill at Stage 1, namely of course that the Bill should be amended to extend its provisions beyond working parents to include parents who are seeking employment by undertaking education and training with the purpose of securing employment. That is, why should people who work receive free childcare while others who are trying to find work through education and improving their skills not have the same opportunity? It's an easily understood principle. I know that the Minister will try and give us an assurance as a committee that the parents, childcare and employment programme is in existence, but we as a committee have also heard that there are major questions about the future of that programme from 2020 onwards, as it does of course rely on European funding. I won't be supporting amendment 4A or amendment 24, which is consequential. I am happy to leave the definition of what education and training is to the Minister. Amendment 7 in this group - . I do have a fundamental problem with a couple earning £200,000, as the Minister knows, being able to access free childcare whilst the poorest in our communities - be they out of work or in education and training, as the other amendment highlights - do have to pay for that same opportunity for their children. This amendment is an attempt to get the Government to think again about that level of earnings. I do think we need to review that. It should be lower. If there are to be savings as a result of that then one would hope that that could be used to alleviate some of the additional costs a little or to expand the offer to other groups. The committee has supported this demand, because recommendation 31 of the committee's report was supported, which was to review the cap of £100,000 per parent. I am therefore confident that Members will support that specific amendment. I'm happy to support amendments 22 - or amendment 22, rather - by Janet Finch-Saunders, because the need for temporary exemptions is entirely reasonable in my view.
Welsh: Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. Mae gwelliant 4 a gwelliannau 6 ac 8, sydd yn welliannau canlyniadol, yn deillio o argymhelliad 7 o adroddiad y pwyllgor yma wrth graffu'r Bil yng Nghyfnod 1, sef, wrth gwrs, fod y Bil yn cael ei ddiwygio i ymestyn ei ddarpariaethau y tu hwnt i rieni sy'n gweithio ac i gynnwys rhieni sy'n ceisio gwaith drwy ymgymryd ag addysg a hyfforddiant sy'n gysylltiedig â sicrhau cyflogaeth. Hynny yw, pam ddylai pobl sy'n gweithio cael gofal plant am ddim tra bod pobl eraill sy'n trio dod o hyd i waith drwy hyfforddiant a gwella eu sgiliau ddim yn cael yr un cyfle? Mae'n egwyddor digon hawdd i'w deall. Rwy'n gwybod y bydd y Gweinidog yn trio rhoi sicrwydd i ni fel pwyllgor bod y rhaglen PaCE yn bodoli, ond rŷm ni hefyd fel pwyllgor wrth gwrs wedi clywed bod yna gwestiynau mawr ynglŷn â dyfodol y rhaglen yna o 2020 ymlaen, gan ei bod hi wrth gwrs yn ddibynnol ar ariannu o'r Undeb Ewropeaidd. Ni fyddaf yn cefnogi gwelliant 4A na gwelliant 24, sydd yn welliant canlyniadol. Rydw i'n hapus i adael y diffiniad o beth yw addysg a hyfforddiant i'r Gweinidog. Mae gwelliant 7 yn y grŵp yma - . Mae gen i broblem sylfaenol gyda chwpl sy'n ennill £200,000, fel y mae'r Gweinidog yn ei wybod, yn cael cynnig gofal am ddim tra bod y rhai tlotaf yn y gymdeithas - hynny yw, boed eu bod nhw allan o waith neu mewn addysg a hyfforddiant wrth gwrs, fel y mae'r gwelliant arall yn ei danlinellu - yn gorfod talu am yr un cyfle i'w plant. Ymgais yw'r gwelliant yma i gael y Llywodraeth i feddwl eto am y lefel yna o enillion. Rydw i'n meddwl bod angen adolygu hynny. Mi ddylai fe fod yn is, ac, os oes yna arbedion yn dod yn sgil hynny, yna byddai rhywun yn gobeithio y byddai modd defnyddio hynny i leddfu, efallai, ar y costau ychwanegol ychydig, neu i ehangu'r cynnig i grwpiau eraill. Mae'r pwyllgor wedi cefnogi'r alwad yma, wrth gwrs, oherwydd fe gefnogwyd argymhelliad 31 yn adroddiad y pwyllgor, i adolygu'r cap incwm o £100,000 fesul rhiant. Rwy'n hyderus felly y bydd Aelodau yn cefnogi'r gwelliant penodol hwnnw. Rydw i'n hapus i gefnogi gwelliannau 22 - gwelliant 22, mae'n ddrwg gen i - gan Janet Finch-Saunders, am fod yr angen am gyfnodau esemptio dros dro yn gwbl resymol yn fy marn i.