Fel y mae'r Prif Weinidog yn ymwybodol ohono, mae buddsoddiadau ar sail rhwymedigaeth yn defnyddio'r ecwiti mewn cronfeydd pensiwn i fenthyg arian. Yna, defnyddir yr arian hwn a fenthycwyd i brynu giltiau, sydd yn eu tro yn darparu llog cyfradd sefydlog dros gyfnod penodol. Y risg fawr, fodd bynnag, yw hyn, os bydd cyfraddau llog yn codi'n gyflym ar giltiau, fel sydd wedi digwydd nawr, yna mae'n rhaid i gronfeydd pensiwn gaffael symiau mwy o sicrwydd cyfochrog i dalu am yr arian y maen nhw wedi'i fenthyg, sy'n eu harwain i werthu eu hasedau, gan gynnwys giltiau. Mae hyn yn broblematig pan nad oes prynwr, fel yn yr achos diweddar pan gyhoeddodd yr Unol Daleithiau bod $0.25 triliwn ar werth ychydig dros wythnos yn ôl, ac a ddenodd buddsoddwyr a fyddai fel arfer wedi prynu o farchnad y DU. Fel y cofia'r Prif Weinidog, yn ei gyllideb gyntaf yn 1997, ac er gwaethaf rhybuddion gan y diwydiant pensiwn, tynnodd Gordon Brown gredydau treth difidend pensiwn o gronfeydd pensiwn, ac mae'r canlyniadau'n cael eu teimlo hyd heddiw - [ Torri ar draws. ]

As the First Minister is aware, liability-driven investments use the equity in pension funds to borrow money. This borrowed money is then used to buy gilts, which in turn deliver fixed-rate interest over a set period. The major risk, however, is that if interest rates rapidly rise on gilts, as they have now, then pension funds have to acquire larger amounts of collateral to cover the money that they've borrowed, which leads them to sell their assets, including gilts. This is problematic when there is no buyer, as was the recent case when the United States issued an eye-watering $0.25 trillion for sale just over a week ago, which attracted investors who would normally have bought from the UK market. As the First Minister may remember, in his first budget in 1997, and despite warnings from the pension industry, Gordon Brown removed pension dividend tax credits from pension funds, the consequences of which are still felt today - [ Interruption.]

Wrth gwrs, mae rhai pobl eisiau hyblygrwydd y math hwn o gyflogaeth, ond nid yw hynny'n wir i'r mwyafrif. A dweud y gwir, mae'n debyg bod Llafur wedi ymrwymo i roi terfyn ar eu defnydd. Nawr, gyda hyn mewn golwg, hoffwn eich cyfeirio at dudalen 45 o faniffesto etholiad 2017 y blaid Lafur. Ochr yn ochr â brolio am hanes, sy'n amlwg yn ffug, Llywodraeth Cymru o roi terfyn ar y defnydd o gontractau dim oriau, mae'n cynnwys ymrwymiad i ddeddfu yn eu herbyn. Gwyddom o draed moch cap cyflog y GIG bod gan y Llywodraeth hon dueddiad i wadu ei maniffesto ei hun. Felly, beth am y rhaglen lywodraethu? A dyfynnaf o dudalen 13 eich rhaglen lywodraethu, sy'n dweud y byddwch yn, 'cyfyngu ar y defnydd o gontractau dim oriau'. Felly, gadewch i mi ofyn cwestiwn syml i chi, Prif Weinidog: a wnaethoch chi gamarwain pobl, neu ai anfedrusrwydd sydd wedi arwain Cymru i fod yn brifddinas contractau dim oriau y DU?

Of course, some people want the flexibility of this kind of employment, but most people don't. For that matter, Labour has supposedly committed to end their use. Now, with this in mind, I'd like to point you to page 45 of Labour's 2017 election manifesto. Alongside boasting about the Welsh Government's clearly false record in ending the use of zero-hours contracts, it contains a commitment to legislate against them. We know from the NHS pay cap fiasco that this Government has a habit of disowning its own manifesto. So, how about the programme for government? And I'll quote from page 13 of your programme for government, which says that you will, 'limit the use of zero hours contracts'. So, let me put a simple question to you, First Minister: did you mislead people, or was it incompetence that has led Wales to becoming the zero-hours contracts capital of the UK?