English: This one is for the purists. All I can say is that I've taken detailed advice from our advisers in terms of the legal requirements. It's often the case that the Government will say, 'Ah, if you emphasise this by putting it on the face of the Bill, it will cause ambiguity elsewhere where you've not done the same', and you'll have this massive Bill, all of a sudden, because you want to make doubly sure. This is about ensuring that the new regulatory frameworks are going to be effective. The weight, as I said, on them is going to be much, much heavier than it was previously. We accept that we're doing this not from our own free will, but because the Office for National Statistics requires it because of - and in fairness to them - international accounting standards, and that has an effect on international organisations and how they determine the level of public expenditure in Britain and other such matters. But it's really important that we give this area of the Bill the importance that it deserves, and we can do that by making it very clear in terms of its status as an enactment. I have to say, in terms of UK Finance, I think their original advice stands: what do you do about those more distant finance sources and investors that may be put off if they feel there's a level of ambiguity and the nature of the regulatory framework will not be strong enough to ensure proper good governance? And that could have an effect on all our housing targets in the social housing sector. Now, in fairness, the Minister has shared with me the exchange of e-mails with UK Finance and I welcome that; it's open government, but it is fairly cursory, I have to say. FootnoteLink This happened in late March. It's an e-mail detailing why UK Finance needn't be worried, and that runs to a little over half a page of A4 not closely typed, and then they get, a week later, a one-liner back from UK Finance. Well, I have to say, that doesn't quite satisfy the obligations of scrutiny that I think fall upon this Assembly. And frankly, if you're relying on that, it should've been perhaps made available to the Assembly more widely -
Welsh: Mae hyn ar gyfer y puryddion. Y cwbl y gallaf ei ddweud yw fy mod wedi cael cyngor manwl gan ein cynghorwyr o ran y gofynion cyfreithiol. Mae'n aml yn wir y bydd y Llywodraeth yn dweud, 'Ah, os ydych chi'n pwysleisio hyn drwy ei roi ar wyneb y Bil, bydd yn achosi amwysedd mewn mannau eraill, lle nad ydych chi wedi gwneud yr un fath', a bydd gennych chi Fil enfawr, cyn pen dim, oherwydd bod arnoch chi eisiau bod yn hollol siŵr. Mae a wnelo hyn â sicrhau bod y fframweithiau rheoleiddio newydd yn mynd i fod yn effeithiol. Byddant, fel y dywedais, yn llawer, llawer mwy grymus nag yr oeddynt o'r blaen. Rydym ni'n derbyn nad ydym ni'n gwneud hyn o'n gwirfodd, ond oherwydd bod y Swyddfa Ystadegau Gwladol yn gofyn amdano oherwydd - a bod yn deg â nhw - safonau cyfrifyddu rhyngwladol, ac mae hynny wedi cael effaith ar sefydliadau rhyngwladol a sut maen nhw'n pennu lefel gwariant cyhoeddus ym Mhrydain a materion eraill o'r fath. Ond mae'n bwysig iawn inni roi i'r maes hwn o'r Bil y pwysigrwydd y mae'n ei haeddu, a gallwn wneud hynny drwy ei wneud yn glir iawn o ran ei statws fel deddfiad. Mae'n rhaid imi ddweud, o ran Cyllid y DU, rwy'n credu bod eu cyngor gwreiddiol yn dal yn berthnasol: beth ydych chi'n ei wneud ynghylch ffynonellau cyllid a buddsoddwyr o ymhellach draw a allai wangaloni os teimlant fod elfen o amwysedd ac na fydd natur y fframwaith rheoleiddio yn ddigon cryf i sicrhau llywodraethu da priodol? Ac fe allai hynny gael effaith ar ein holl dargedau tai yn y sector tai cymdeithasol. Nawr, er tegwch, mae'r Gweinidog wedi rhannu gyda mi yr ohebiaeth e-bost a fu gyda Cyllid y DU ac rwy'n croesawu hynny; mae'n llywodraeth agored, ond mae'n eithaf arwynebol, mae'n rhaid imi ddweud. FootnoteLink Digwyddodd hyn yn niwedd mis Mawrth. E-bost ydyw sy'n rhoi manylion pam nad oes angen i UK Finance bryderu, ac mae hynny'n cymryd ychydig dros hanner tudalen o bapur A4 heb fod y llinellau'n rhy agos, ac wedyn fe gawn nhw, wythnos yn ddiweddarach, ateb un llinell gan Cyllid y DU. Wel, mae'n rhaid imi ddweud, nad yw hynny i ddweud y gwir yn bodloni'r rhwymedigaethau craffu sydd, rwy'n credu, ar y Cynulliad hwn. Ac a dweud y gwir, os ydych chi'n dibynnu ar hynny, dylai hynny efallai fod wedi bod ar gael i'r Cynulliad yn ehangach -