English: You only need to read the explanatory notes with this third supplementary budget and you will see what an unprecedented year this has been. I'm sure we can all agree to that. Huge allocations like this within financial years isn't something that we've traditionally seen as part of the usual budgetary processes over the years. May I praise the comments made by Llyr Gruffydd as Chair of the Finance Committee and make some further comments of my own? I understand the temptation for the Conservatives to say, as soon as any funding becomes available, 'Well, spend it immediately', but I do believe, generally speaking, that caution and holding some funds in reserve has been important, particularly when, on the one hand, you consider that the landscape has been evolving from month to month over the past year, but also that there is a symptom here of the fact that the Welsh fiscal system isn't one that works for us, particularly at such a challenging time. I'll refer to two issues. First of all, the Barnett formula has proved to be a very ineffective tool - far too simplistic in how it distributes funding from Whitehall to the devolved Governments. I can take you back to one of the earliest papers written by Wales Fiscal Analysis at Cardiff University at the beginning of the pandemic, which suggested that allocating funds on a population basis wouldn't reflect the specific challenges posed by COVID for public services in Wales. And they were quite right; Wales has a higher proportion of older people and people with health complaints than is the case in England, something that isn't taken into account by what's described as the 'needs-based factor'. The paper also suggested that although the Welsh Government made a commitment to provide the same support for businesses through business rate relief and so on as is provided in England, the cost of providing that support wouldn't necessarily be provided for sufficiently by Barnett consequentials. I'll quote from the paper:
Welsh: Does dim ond eisiau ichi ddarllen y nodiadau esboniadol efo'r drydedd gyllideb atodol yma ac rydych chi'n gweld blwyddyn mor ddigynsail mae hon wedi bod. Dwi'n siŵr y gallwn ni i gyd gytuno ar hynny. Dydy dyraniadau enfawr fel hyn o fewn blynyddoedd ariannol ddim yn rhywbeth yr ydym wedi'i weld fel rhan o brosesau cyllidebol arferol dros y blynyddoedd. Gaf i gymeradwyo sylwadau Llyr Gruffydd fel Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor Cyllid a gwneud ychydig o sylwadau pellach fy hun? Dwi'n deall y demtasiwn i'r Ceidwadwyr ddweud, cyn gynted ag y mae unrhyw arian yn dod ar gael, 'Gwariwch o yn syth', ond dwi yn credu, yn gyffredinol, bod pwyll a dal rhywfaint yn ôl wedi bod yn bwysig, yn enwedig pan rydych chi, ar un llaw, yn ystyried bod y tirwedd wedi bod yn esblygu lot o fis i fis dros y flwyddyn diwethaf, ond hefyd bod yna symptom fan hyn o'r ffaith nad yw system ffisgal Cymru ddim yn un sy'n gweithio i ni, yn enwedig ar amser mor heriol â hyn. Mi wnaf i gyfeirio at ddau fater. Yn gyntaf, mae'r fformiwla Barnett wedi profi i fod yn arf hynod aneffeithiol - ffordd llawer rhy simplistig o ddosbarthu cyllid o Whitehall i Lywodraethau datganoledig. Gallaf fynd â chi'n ôl at un o'r papurau cyntaf a gafodd ei ysgrifennu gan y tîm Dadansoddi Cyllid Cymru ym Mhrifysgol Caerdydd ar ddechrau'r pandemig, a oedd yn awgrymu efallai na fyddai dyrannu arian ar sail poblogaeth yn adlewyrchu'r heriau penodol y mae COVID wedi golygu i wasanaethau cyhoeddus yng Nghymru. Ac roeddent yn iawn; mae gan Gymru gyfran uwch o bobl hŷn a phobl sydd â phroblemau iechyd nag sydd gan Loegr, rhywbeth sydd ddim yn cael ei ystyried gan beth sy'n cael ei alw'n ' needs-based factor '. Mi awgrymodd y papur hefyd, er i Lywodraeth Cymru roi ymrwymiad i roi'r un gefnogaeth i fusnesau drwy ryddhad ardrethi busnes ac ati ag sydd yn cael ei roi yn Lloegr, na fyddai'r gost o ddarparu'r gefnogaeth honno ddim yn angenrheidiol yn rhywbeth mae arian canlyniadol Barnett yn ddigon i dalu amdano fo. Dwi'n dyfynnu o'r papur: