English: Thanks, Suzy Davies. And, of course, I'm always open to debate; I enjoy debates as much as anyone here, but I thought we'd try a different approach on this occasion. I'll take feedback and see whether it is the best way, but it has allowed her to make her points, to be fair. I really can't, I think, do more than reiterate what I said to Mike Hedges, which is, to be quite clear, that I think it's perfectly reasonable for the Commission, in approaching this budgetary process, to take out now the consideration around the remuneration board, because that is completely separate. It can't be used for, as she put it, the baseline, if you like, and if there is any underspend there, it will be returned to the block grant. I think that when we come to consider your budget - . I don't want to completely tie the hands of the Finance Committee when we look at your budget in due course, but I think it would be reasonable, and I hope that you, in your budget presentation, will show to us very clearly how that remuneration money has now been dealt with - how it's been taken out, if you like, from the overall allocation - so that that doesn't confuse anyone looking at the baseline into thinking that there has been an increase above the block grant simply because you are no longer able to use what is up to about £800,000, possibly £1 million. So, I think we will take that into consideration when we consider that. We will then look at the rest of your baseline, I would suggest, and say, 'Has there been an increase there above the block grant level?' And, if there has, 'What's the reason for that?' I think that's where the final comments I made in the statement and earlier comments I made - . It would have to be (a) a very good case, and you'd have to not only persuade the Finance Committee but ultimately, of course, the whole Assembly, and (b) it would have to be in line with the assistant auditor general's comments about the prioritisation of the programmes - the ones that are nice to have, the ones that are absolutely essential. We understand that we're getting some more responsibilities and powers around income tax. There are some things that need to happen within the wider, if you like, empowering of the Parliament here. That does have some finance implications, but also I'm aware that the chief executive has been looking at overall staff numbers, redeployment and using the staff numbers to the best of her ability. I think we'll take a look at it in the round; I think it's only fair to do that. But, to reiterate, let's take out the remuneration board part now because that's no longer part of the deliberations, and look instead at the rest of the budget and how that has been increased or not. Maybe you'll come with a decreasing budget. Who knows? I think that's highly unlikely, but the Finance Committee would certainly welcome it. But more seriously, we will need, I think - it's reasonable as a committee - to set aside the remuneration board determination now; that's a completely separate issue, more in the hands of Members themselves as well. So, Members will also be more directly accountable for the spending of their own. It may lead to more, perhaps, direct accountability of Members and people asking questions about what Members have spent their allowances on, but that's not for me and not for you, that's for the wider accountability of Members here to the Welsh public. Just finally, your question does give me an opportunity to say, as well, and remind Members, that we do have Commissioners and they are ultimately responsible for preparing the budget. The Finance Committee does the job of scrutinising the budget, but in advance of that, there is surely a way of people discussing with Commissioners around their, either concerns or priorities, that they'd like to see in the budget.
Welsh: Diolch, Suzy Davies. Ac wrth gwrs, rwyf bob amser yn agored i gael dadl; rwy'n mwynhau dadleuon lawn cymaint â neb yma, ond roeddwn yn meddwl y byddem yn rhoi cynnig ar ffordd wahanol ar yr achlysur hwn. Fe gymeraf adborth a gweld ai dyna yw'r ffordd orau, ond mae wedi caniatáu iddi wneud ei phwyntiau, a bod yn deg. Ni allaf wneud mwy mewn gwirionedd nag ailadrodd yr hyn a ddywedais wrth Mike Hedges, sef, i fod yn gwbl glir, fy mod yn credu ei bod yn gwbl resymol i'r Comisiwn, wrth droi at y broses gyllidebol hon, dynnu'r ystyriaeth ynghylch y bwrdd taliadau allan yn awr, oherwydd ei fod yn fater cwbl ar wahân. Ni ellir ei ddefnyddio ar gyfer y llinell sylfaen, fel y'i galwodd, ac os oes unrhyw danwariant yno, caiff ei ddychwelyd i'r grant bloc. Pan ddown i ystyried eich cyllideb - . Nid wyf eisiau clymu dwylo'r Pwyllgor Cyllid yn llwyr wrth inni edrych ar eich cyllideb maes o law, ond credaf y byddai'n rhesymol, a gobeithiaf y byddwch chi yn eich cyflwyniad ar y gyllideb yn dangos yn glir iawn inni sut yr ymdriniwyd â'r arian taliadau hwnnw - sut y cafodd ei dynnu allan, os mynnwch, o'r dyraniad cyffredinol - fel nad yw'n drysu neb sy'n edrych ar y llinell sylfaen i feddwl y bu cynnydd uwch na'r grant bloc yn syml oherwydd na allwch ddefnyddio'r hyn sydd hyd at oddeutu £800,000, a £1 filiwn o bosibl. Felly, credaf y byddwn yn ystyried hynny. Yna byddwn yn edrych ar weddill eich llinell sylfaen, buaswn yn awgrymu, ac yn dweud, 'A fu cynnydd yno uwchlaw lefel y grant bloc?' Ac os bu, 'Beth yw'r rheswm am hynny?' Credaf mai dyna lle mae'r sylwadau olaf a wneuthum yn y datganiad a sylwadau cynharach a wneuthum - . Byddai'n rhaid iddo fod yn (a) yn achos da iawn, a byddai'n rhaid i chi berswadio nid yn unig y Pwyllgor Cyllid ond yn y pen draw, wrth gwrs, y Cynulliad cyfan, a (b) byddai'n rhaid iddo fod yn unol â sylwadau'r archwilydd cyffredinol cynorthwyol ynghylch blaenoriaethu'r rhaglenni - y rhai sy'n braf eu cael, y rhai sy'n gwbl hanfodol. Rydym yn deall ein bod yn cael mwy o gyfrifoldebau a phwerau mewn perthynas â threth incwm. Mae yna rai pethau y mae angen iddynt ddigwydd o fewn y broses ehangach, os mynnwch, o rymuso'r Senedd yma. Mae rhai goblygiadau i hynny o ran cyllid, ond hefyd rwy'n ymwybodol fod y prif weithredwr wedi bod yn edrych ar niferoedd cyffredinol y staff, adleoli staff a defnyddio niferoedd staff hyd eithaf ei gallu. Credaf y byddwn yn edrych arno yn ei gyfanrwydd; nid yw ond yn deg inni wneud hynny. Ond i ailadrodd, gadewch i ni dynnu'r rhan am y bwrdd taliadau allan yn awr am nad yw mwyach yn rhan o'r trafodaethau, ac edrych yn lle hynny ar weddill y gyllideb a sut y mae wedi cynyddu ai peidio. Efallai y bydd gennych gyllideb ostyngol. Pwy a ŵyr? Credaf fod hynny'n annhebygol iawn, ond byddai'r Pwyllgor Cyllid yn sicr yn ei groesawu. Ond yn fwy difrifol, rwy'n credu y bydd angen inni - mae'n rhesymol fel pwyllgor - osod penderfyniad y bwrdd taliadau o'r neilltu yn awr; mae hwnnw'n fater cwbl ar wahân, yn fwy yn nwylo'r Aelodau eu hunain yn ogystal. Felly, bydd yr Aelodau hefyd yn fwy uniongyrchol atebol am eu gwariant eu hunain. Efallai y bydd yn arwain at fwy o atebolrwydd uniongyrchol ar ran yr Aelodau a phobl yn gofyn cwestiynau ynglŷn â beth y mae'r Aelodau wedi gwario eu lwfansau arno, ond nid mater i mi nac i chi yw hynny ond atebolrwydd ehangach yr Aelodau yma i'r cyhoedd yng Nghymru. Yn olaf, mae eich cwestiwn yn rhoi cyfle imi ddweud hefyd, ac atgoffa'r Aelodau, fod gennym Gomisiynwyr a hwy sy'n gyfrifol yn y pen draw am baratoi'r gyllideb. Y Pwyllgor Cyllid sy'n gwneud y gwaith o graffu ar y gyllideb, ond cyn hynny, does bosib nad oes ffordd i bobl drafod y materion neu'r blaenoriaethau yr hoffent eu gweld yn y gyllideb gyda'r Comisiynwyr.