Local authorities have a statutory duty, of course, to provide advocacy services to specific groups of children, and as we heard from the committee Chair, it’s not an optional extra. But, unfortunately, the voices of those children haven’t been heard as they should have been when they have been most vulnerable. We also heard a reference to a series of reports, and an even lengthier series of recommendations that have been made over the years by various reports and children’s commissioners and so on since the Waterhouse report back in the year 2000.

Despite that, of course, although there have been developments over the past few months, we are still waiting for the national approach to be agreed and to be implemented. That is exceptionally disappointing—we should all admit that. In the meantime, of course, as the children’s commissioner has reminded us in the committee, children have been reporting to her office over a number of years that not all of them know what advocacy is, that they don’t know how to access advocacy, and that they are not reminded at the right times that they have a right to an advocate.

Then, of course, during our inquiry, we heard, as a committee, about the recent progress that’s been made in terms of agreeing the national approach that would be fully implemented by June of this year. In his evidence, the Cabinet Secretary told us that it was the ethical thing to do and financially right, and we would agree with that 100 per cent. Both of those points—the moral case of ensuring that children and young people are aware of their rights to advocacy, and the benefit in terms of their well-being, as well as the financial savings in the long term—remind me just how important it will be to ensure the strongest possible duties in terms of advocacy in the Additional Learning Needs and Educational Tribunal (Wales) Bill, and I’m sure we will have that debate as that Bill goes through the various stages in this Parliament.

Now, there are questions about funding, I think, that remain, because evidence to the committee from local authorities, I have to say, wasn’t particularly emphatic. Clearly, the Government is playing its part by contributing half of the anticipated cost of the national approach, but there was an admission that, ultimately, resources will have an impact on what advocacy services will be available and which services will be commissioned. Local authorities said that the current financial climate means that we have to be realistic about the expectations placed on local authorities, without additional funds being provided. Of course, there is a huge divergence in the level of funding across local authorities in Wales when it comes to expenditure on that statutory responsibility. So, the journey for some local authorities to get to where they should be, and where many of us would like to see them getting to, is going to be extremely challenging, I’m sure.

Now, the Cabinet Secretary has said that there will be no ring-fencing for the funding, and I understand the rationale behind that. But, of course, we have done some work in the committee looking at the education improvement grant, and the implications of not being able to identify with any certainty that the funding is reaching its intended point—also in terms of our inquiry into youth services, and notional sums being allocated in the RSG. But, of course, if you look at what actually reaches those services ultimately, it’s nowhere near, in many examples, to what it should be. So, if there is no ring-fencing—and I know that the Cabinet Secretary will be more than aware of this—we will need strong performance frameworks in place to ensure that what we want to see is delivered.

Fe bwysodd Plaid Cymru, wrth gwrs, am gryfhau eiriolaeth annibynnol yn y Ddeddf gwasanaethau cymdeithasol ar gyfer pob oedran. O ganlyniad i hynny, o leiaf yn awr nid yw awdurdodau lleol yn mynd i allu codi tâl am y gwasanaethau hyn. Nid oes gennyf syniad pam y credai unrhyw un yn y Llywodraeth y byddai’n dderbyniol yn y lle cyntaf i ganiatáu codi tâl am eiriolaeth.

Ond mae’n amlwg fod angen gwneud llawer mwy eto, ac mae’r argymhellion hyn gan y pwyllgor yn eithaf cymedrol yn fy marn i, ond maent yn gamau ymarferol iawn sydd angen eu cymryd. Felly, rwy’n siomedig fod Llywodraeth Cymru wedi dewis gwrthod argymhelliad 4, sydd ond yn gofyn i Lywodraeth Cymru fonitro gwariant gan awdurdodau lleol ar wasanaethau eiriolaeth a’i fod yn cael ei ariannu’n unol â dadansoddiad o’r asesiad o anghenion y boblogaeth. Beth sy’n bod ar fonitro lefelau gwario? Pan fyddwn yn sôn am eiriolaeth i blant yr hyn y siaradwn amdano mewn gwirionedd, wrth gwrs, yw darparu cymorth ar gyfer y bobl fwyaf agored i niwed mewn cymdeithas. Mae’n bosibl fod llawer o’r plant, wrth gwrs, yn derbyn gofal ac efallai eu bod eisoes wedi profi esgeulustod ac mae gennym ddyletswydd, fel rhieni corfforaethol, nad ydym yn ei chyflawni fel y dylem ar hyn o bryd. Felly, mae angen i’r Llywodraeth fod yn gryf yma. Mae angen i awdurdodau lleol gamu ymlaen a chyflawni, a bydd y pwyllgor, wrth gwrs, fel y mae’r Cadeirydd wedi ailadrodd, yn parhau i graffu ar y maes hyd nes y darperir y gwasanaeth y mae ein plant mwyaf agored i niwed yn ei haeddu, a’i angen yn wir.