English: I thank the Llywydd and the Cabinet Secretary for his statement this afternoon, and I would also like to thank the Chair of the Finance Committee for the opportunity to see the transcript of the recent meeting that they held. There is a great deal to be welcomed in this new framework, but in the time available to me, I want to focus on three specific issues, namely: the operation of the Barnett formula; the approach to revising the Welsh block grant in relation to new taxation; and the process of dealing with any conflict or dispute. Now, as has already been said, there is a new mechanism in the framework - a Barnett floor of 115 per cent in terms of changes to the block grant. I wonder whether the Cabinet Secretary could tell us a little more as to why that particular figure was chosen. We will recall in Gerry Holtham's report that there was a range proposed in terms of calculating the needs of Wales from 114 per cent to 117 per cent, and this figure is closer to the bottom of that range. Bearing in mind, of course, that we are talking here about a framework that will remain in place for decades, could he perhaps tell us a little about the process of review if Wales's position in terms of its needs should change? Of course, Gerry Holtham, in coming to that figure, had set out the various different factors, and it's possible - or, it is likely, in fact - that that situation will change over time. So, what process is anticipated for a review, should a review be required? Now, in terms of the situation with changes to the block grant, the Wales Governance Centre has pointed to the negative impact in terms of the situation with SDLT, and that is reflected within the agreement between the two Governments on the very low comparative level of 25 per cent. There was a suggestion in the governance centre report as to how the situation could be more equitable by exempting the property market in London and the south-east, which actually skews these figures. Why didn't the Government insist that that suggestion, or other suggestions to deal with these kinds of factors, should have been included in the agreement? The Government was successful in gaining other concessions, so why leave ourselves open to negative fiscal impacts as a result of the failure to do that?
Welsh: Diolch i'r Llywydd ac i'r Ysgrifennydd Cabinet am ei ddatganiad heddiw, ac i Gadeirydd y Pwyllgor Cyllid hefyd am y cyfle i weld y trawsgrifiad o'r cyfarfod diweddar a gawsant. Mae yna lawer i'w groesawu yn y fframwaith newydd yma, ond, yn yr amser sydd gen i, rydw i am ffocysu ar dri pheth yn benodol, sef: gweithrediad fformiwla Barnett; y dull i addasu grant bloc Cymru yn unol â datganoli trethi newydd; a'r broses o ddelio gydag unrhyw anghydfod. Nawr, fel sydd wedi cael ei ddweud, mae yna fecanwaith newydd yn y fframwaith - llawr Barnett o 115 y cant ar gyfer addasiadau i'r grant bloc. Tybed a fyddai'r Ysgrifennydd Cabinet yn gallu sôn ychydig bach mwy - pam dewis y ffigwr yma? Wrth gwrs, fe fyddwn ni'n cofio, yn adroddiad Gerry Holtham, roedd yna amrediad wedi cael ei gynnig o ran gweithio mas anghenion Cymru o 114 y cant i 117 y cant; mae'r ffigwr yma'n nes at waelod yr amrediad yna. Ac, o ystyried, wrth gwrs, ein bod ni'n sôn am fframwaith a fydd yn para am ddegawdau, a all sôn tamaid bach ynglŷn â'r broses o'i adolygu, os ydy sefyllfa Cymru, o ran ein hanghenion ni, yn newid? Wrth gwrs, roedd Gerry Holtham, wrth ddod i'r ffigwr yma, wedi gosod mas y gwahanol ffactorau. Mae'n bosibl - neu mae'n debyg - y bydd y sefyllfa yna'n newid dros amser, felly beth yw'r broses sy'n cael ei rhagweld ar gyfer adolygu, os oes rhaid? O ran y sefyllfa gyda'r dull o addasu'r grant bloc, mae Canolfan Llywodraethiant Cymru wedi pwyntio mas yr effaith negyddol o ran y sefyllfa gydag SDLT, ac mae hynny'n cael ei adlewyrchu yn y cytundeb rhwng y ddwy Lywodraeth ynglŷn â'r lefel cymaroldeb isel iawn - 25 y cant, os rwy'n cofio'n iawn. Mi oedd yna awgrym yn adroddiad y ganolfan llywodraethiant ynglŷn â sut i wella tegwch y sefyllfa yna drwy eithrio, wrth gwrs, y farchnad eiddo yn Llundain a de-ddwyrain Lloegr, sydd yn gwyro'r ffigurau yma. Pam nad oedd y Llywodraeth wedi mynnu bod yr awgrym hwnnw, neu awgrymiadau eraill i ddelio gyda'r math yma o ffactor, wedi'u cynnwys yn y cytundeb? Mi oedd y Llywodraeth wedi bod yn llwyddiannus yn cael consesiynau eraill, felly pam agor ein hunain i bosibiliadau cyllidol negyddol yn sgil y methiant i wneud hynny?