English: We've asked for more evidence as to the hardship that having the biggest uplift in any local government settlement that they've ever had would bring. And you can hear from the way I've answered your question that I'm a little sceptical about that. The purpose of a floor is obviously to prevent people from having to make enormous cuts in services that they would otherwise have had to make because of population projection changes, or some other issue in the distribution formula that disproportionately affects a particular council, and where an unexpected drop of million of pounds in terms of support would mean swift changes to services. In this case, what we're looking at is that no council in Wales will have less than a 3 per cent uplift. Most of the councils that you're talking about are somewhere in between 3 and 4 per cent. And what we're talking about is asking for a floor to bring them up to 4.7, I think they said - it might be 6 or 8; I can't remember - per cent. I don't think that's the same point, and, whilst I understand their argument that there's an average, and that some should come down in order for others to go up, they're not facing the kinds of service cuts that they were facing during the previous nine years of imposed austerity. So, it's very difficult to understand quite what the reasoning for that is. This is above the settlement that any of them could have been expected to be predicting, and it's very hard to see how they would have unplanned service cuts as a result. But, having said all of that, if they want to present some evidence of what that might look like, I'm very happy to look at it. But, again, I will emphasise that, when we are looking at putting more money into that sort of settlement, we are looking at where to take it from. So, we would also have to consider how much such a floor would cost, and where that money would come from.
Welsh: Rydym wedi gofyn am fwy o dystiolaeth ynglŷn â'r caledi a fyddai'n dod yn sgil y cynnydd mwyaf mewn unrhyw setliad llywodraeth leol a gawsant erioed. A gallwch glywed o'r ffordd rwyf wedi ateb eich cwestiwn fy mod ychydig yn amheus ynglŷn â hynny. Diben cyllid gwaelodol, yn amlwg, yw atal pobl rhag gorfod gwneud toriadau enfawr mewn gwasanaethau y byddent wedi gorfod eu gwneud fel arall oherwydd newidiadau mewn amcanestyniadau poblogaeth, neu ryw broblem arall yn ymwneud â'r fformiwla ddosbarthu sy'n effeithio'n anghymesur ar gyngor penodol, a lle byddai gostyngiad annisgwyl o filiynau o bunnoedd o ran cymorth yn golygu newidiadau sydyn i wasanaethau. Yn yr achos hwn, ni fydd yr un cyngor yng Nghymru'n cael llai na 3 y cant o gynnydd. Mae'r rhan fwyaf o'r cynghorau rydych yn sôn amdanynt rywle rhwng 3 a 4 y cant. A'r hyn rydym yn sôn amdano yw gofyn am gyllid gwaelodol i'w codi i 4.7, rwy'n credu mai dyna a ddywedasant - gallai fod yn 6 neu 8; ni allaf gofio - y cant. Nid wyf yn credu bod y pwynt hwnnw yr un fath, ac er fy mod yn deall eu dadl fod yna gyfartaledd, ac y dylai rhai ddod i lawr er mwyn i eraill fynd i fyny, nid ydynt yn wynebu'r math o doriadau i wasanaethau roeddent yn eu hwynebu yn ystod y naw mlynedd flaenorol o gyni gorfodol. Felly, mae'n anodd iawn deall yn iawn beth yw'r rhesymeg dros hynny. Mae'r setliad hwn yn uwch nag y gallai unrhyw un ohonynt fod wedi'i ragweld, ac mae'n anodd iawn gweld sut y byddent yn wynebu toriadau heb eu cynllunio i wasanaethau o ganlyniad i hynny. Ond wedi dweud hynny i gyd, os ydynt eisiau cyflwyno tystiolaeth ynglŷn â hynny, rwy'n hapus iawn i edrych arno. Ond unwaith eto, rwyf am bwysleisio, pan fyddwn yn ystyried rhoi mwy o arian tuag at y math hwnnw o setliad, rydym yn ystyried o ble i'w gymryd. Felly, byddai'n rhaid inni hefyd ystyried faint y byddai cyllid gwaelodol o'r fath yn ei gostio, ac o ble y dôi'r arian hwnnw.