English: Well, I well remember the discussions with the Treasury over the Olympics. And it's a perfect example of where, in that case, the Treasury was the judge and the jury and the enforcer of the result of it, and no matter how strong the arguments were on the other side, they weren't prepared to take any account of them. This agreement means that that position would not be the case in the future. Mike Hedges asked about behavioural changes, and, Dirprwy Lywydd, maybe I ought to, just for a moment - because I think a number of Members have asked this - explain a rather technical aspect of the agreement, which is how we deal with what are called policy overspills. So, there are three different sorts of policy overspills dealt with in the framework. Where there are direct effects, so if the UK Government was to change income tax allowances, then those effects will be directly taken into account within the framework. If there are behavioural effects, if we were to change the rates of land transaction tax in Wales and that led to people coming to live in Wales, and if that made a difference to the tax taken on either side of the border, then the framework allows for those behavioural effects, exceptionally, to be taken into account where they are both material and demonstrable. So, there are behavioural effects that can be taken into account, but I believe they would be very rare and I believe the hurdle has been set suitably high. As far as second order effects are concerned, when actions, for example, that we might take as a National Assembly would result in a more buoyant Welsh economy and that would result in greater national insurance contributions from Welsh taxpayers flowing to the Treasury, we've agreed that those are simply too complicated to trace, where cause and effect is almost impossible to demonstrate. Those second order effects are not, therefore, encompassed within the framework. Mike Hedges asked about taxpayer identification, and it's quite true that HMRC struggled to identify taxpayers who lived in Scotland. We believe that they've learnt a lot from that experience, and it is part of the devolved taxes project that we have jointly with HMRC to learn the lessons from that Scottish experience and to make sure that the identification of Welsh taxpayers can be effectively carried out. Is there sufficient protection within the agreement that we've arrived at? Well, I said in my statement that we believe that if you take central scenarios on population, public expenditure growth and historical patterns of tax receipts, then this agreement realises £1 billion-worth of extra revenue for the Welsh budget over the next 10 years. If you assume that there is no growth in public expenditure at all, that it remains frozen at current limits for the next 10 years, we would still be £500 million-worth better off. So, I do believe that the protections are sufficient. On the aggregates levy, well, I'm afraid we haven't been able to resolve this as yet. It remains subject to some legal disputes, and leaving the European Union, when that takes place, may be a way of resolving them, but we're not at that point as yet. Finally, capital limits are inevitably arbitrary in one way or another. We have agreed a limit that is commensurate with the limit that Scotland would have had when it had a similar level of fiscal devolution. I agree absolutely with what Mike Hedges said: the capital borrowing is there to be used as necessary. It's not a target to reach, and there are many other ways in which we are able to deploy capital resources, and our ability to fund borrowed money through revenue will be very much under scrutiny in a period when austerity will continue to reduce the amount of revenue available to the Welsh Government.
Welsh: Wel, rwy'n cofio'r trafodaethau â'r Trysorlys am y Gemau Olympaidd. Ac mae'n enghraifft berffaith o adeg, yn yr achos hwnnw, pan oedd y Trysorlys yn farnwr ac yn rheithgor ac yn orfodwr o'r canlyniad, ac ni waeth pa mor gryf oedd y dadleuon ar yr ochr arall, nid oedd yn barod i'w hystyried o gwbl. Mae'r cytundeb hwn yn golygu na fyddai'r sefyllfa honno yn codi yn y dyfodol. Gofynnodd Mike Hedges am newidiadau ymddygiadol, a, Ddirprwy Lywydd, efallai y dylwn i, am eiliad - oherwydd credaf fod nifer o Aelodau wedi gofyn hyn - esbonio agwedd eithaf technegol ar y cytundeb, sef sut yr ydym yn ymdrin â'r hyn a elwir yn gorlifo polisi. Felly, ymdrinnir â thri gwahanol fath o orlifo polisi yn y fframwaith. Pan fo effeithiau uniongyrchol, felly os byddai Llywodraeth y DU yn newid lwfansau treth incwm, yna rhoddir ystyriaeth uniongyrchol i'r effeithiau hynny yn y fframwaith. Os oes effeithiau ymddygiadol, pe byddem yn newid cyfraddau treth trafodiadau tir yng Nghymru a bod hynny'n arwain at bobl yn dod i fyw yng Nghymru, a phe bai hynny'n gwneud gwahaniaeth i'r dreth a gymerir ar y naill ochr i'r ffin neu'r llall, yna bydd y fframwaith yn caniatáu i'r effeithiau ymddygiadol hynny, yn eithriadol, gael ystyriaeth pan fyddan nhw'n faterol ac yn amlwg. Felly, mae yna effeithiau ymddygiadol y gellir rhoi ystyriaeth iddyn nhw, ond rwy'n credu y bydden nhw'n brin iawn ac rwy'n credu y gosodwyd rhwystr addas. Cyn belled ag y bo effeithiau eilaidd yn y cwestiwn, pan allai camau gweithredu, er enghraifft, a gymerwn fel Cynulliad Cenedlaethol arwain at economi Cymru fwy bywiog ac y byddai hynny'n arwain at fwy o gyfraniadau yswiriant gwladol gan drethdalwyr Cymru yn llifo i'r Trysorlys, rydym ni wedi cytuno bod y rheini'n rhy gymhleth i'w holrhain, ac y byddai bron yn amhosibl i ddangos achos ac effaith. Nid yw effeithiau eilaidd hynny, felly, wedi eu cynnwys yn y fframwaith. Gofynnodd Mike Hedges am sut y nodir trethdalwyr, ac mae'n hollol wir bod Cyllid a Thollau EM wedi ei chael hi'n anodd i nodi'r trethdalwyr a oedd yn byw yn yr Alban. Rydym o'r farn eu bod wedi dysgu llawer o'r profiad hwnnw, ac mae'n rhan o'r prosiect trethi datganoledig sydd gennym ar y cyd â CThEM i ddysgu'r gwersi o brofiad yr Alban ac i wneud yn siŵr y gellir nodi trethdalwyr Cymru mewn ffordd effeithiol. A oes digon o ddiogelwch yn y cytundeb yr ydym wedi'i gyrraedd? Wel, dywedais yn fy natganiad ein bod ni o'r farn, o ystyried sefyllfaoedd canolog o ran y boblogaeth, twf gwariant cyhoeddus a phatrymau derbyniadau treth yn y gorffennol, fod y cytundeb hwn yn cyflawni gwerth £1 biliwn o refeniw ychwanegol ar gyfer cyllideb Cymru dros y 10 mlynedd nesaf. Os ydych yn cymryd na fydd twf mewn gwariant cyhoeddus o gwbl, ei fod yn parhau wedi'i rewi ar y lefel bresennol am y 10 mlynedd nesaf, byddem yn dal i fod ar ein hennill o £500 miliwn. Felly, credaf fod y diogelwch yn ddigonol. Ynghylch yr ardoll agregau, wel, yn anffodus nid ydym wedi gallu datrys hyn eto. Mae'n parhau i fod yn destun anghydfodau cyfreithiol, a gallai gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd, pan fydd hynny'n digwydd, fod yn ffordd o'u datrys, ond nid ydym wedi cyrraedd y pwynt hwnnw eto. Yn olaf, mae terfynau cyfalaf yn anochel yn fympwyol mewn un ffordd neu'r llall. Rydym wedi cytuno ar derfyn sy'n gymesur â'r terfyn a fyddai gan yr Alban pan oedd ganddi lefel debyg o ddatganoli cyllidol. Cytunaf yn llwyr â'r hyn a ddywedodd Mike Hedges: mae'r benthyca cyfalaf yno i'w ddefnyddio yn ôl yr angen. Nid targed i'w gyrraedd mohono, ac mae llawer o ffyrdd eraill y gallwn ddefnyddio adnoddau cyfalaf, a bydd craffu manwl ar ein gallu i gyllido arian a fenthycwyd trwy refeniw mewn cyfnod pan fydd y cyni ariannol yn parhau i leihau faint o refeniw sydd ar gael i Lywodraeth Cymru.