English: We need to know much more about the Government's priorities and how they conform to the spending plans that they've announced. In this context, I would like to thank the Chairman of the Finance Committee - who speaks for me in this respect if in no other - for the exemplary way in which he's chaired the committee, and indeed the unfailing courtesy of the finance Secretary in his appearances before us towards all Members. There is a certain air of unreality about these budget debates, as I pointed out in my speech on the draft budget, in as much as the finance Secretary is constrained by the expenditure that is inevitable. The scale of discretionary spending is actually quite small, although that should increase in years to come, when we start exercising our power over devolved taxes and also have a relatively limited but nevertheless important power to borrow for spending on capital projects. But what has happened in this budget, by and large, is that the health budget has been increased at the expense of everything else. That, I suppose, in a way, is inevitable as well because, as we know, health inflation is greater than the rate of inflation generally. We have an ageing population and, with advances in medical science, more conditions become treatable, people live longer, so there is inevitably going to be a huge increase in the health budget at UK level and in the Welsh budget. So, I have enormous sympathy with the finance Secretary in his difficult task of having to reconcile all the claims upon him. But it is interesting that some budgets have been cut by much more than others. The environment budget has taken a particularly big hit of something like 15 per cent in real terms, whilst the health budget has gone up only by a small amount in percentage terms, but nevertheless, as it's part of a very large budget, by a significant sum - an extra £166 million. All that is very welcome, but what is troubling about the health service in Wales is not so much the amount of money that we're spending on it, but the laxity of some of the health boards in what they do with the money that they're given. We know the problems of the deficits that are in existence at the minute, particularly in Hywel Dda and Betsi Cadwaladr. Betsi Cadwaladr bumps along; two years ago it had a significant deficit, that came down, and this year it looks as though it's going up again. So, we don't seem to be making a great deal of progress in that respect, and until we get the problems of the heath boards that are in special measures or targeted intervention properly under control, this is going to be an intractable problem for the finance Secretary. There are other issues that I think we should turn our attention to. I've been particularly interested to look at the amount of money that is spent on enterprise zones. I think enterprise zones are a very good idea, and they do have a capacity to kick-start the economy in areas that have got otherwise very long-term problems. But when you look at how many jobs have actually been created or safeguarded relative to the amount of money that has been spent on them, we have to ask ourselves whether this is value for money. That's not to say I want to cut off these sums, but what I would like to see is that we get more bang for our buck, as it were. To take the Ebbw Vale enterprise zone, for example, ignoring the vast costs of the Heads of the Valleys road development, which would be included in the expenditure in that area, if you look back to the pre-2016 position, we had about 400 jobs in total that were created or safeguarded in Ebbw Vale at a cost of nearly £20 million. Now, I don't think that's terribly good value for money. If you go through the rest of the enterprise zones as well, some are doing a lot better than others, and job-creation costs are much better in some than others. So, I think we really need to look in greater detail at whether we are getting value for money out of these projects, because although the idea behind them is certainly laudable, we need to ask ourselves whether they are actually performing for us. One other element of the budget, which Nick Ramsay referred to a moment ago, actually, was about prevention, and of course there is tremendous pressure to spend upon current needs, but if we are to cut costs or to improve performance in the longer term, we have to take the longer-term view. We discussed this with the future generations commissioner in the Finance Committee, and I know it's difficult for the finance Secretary - I'm not unaware of the conundrum that he has to solve - but we do need to spend more upon looking ahead to future problems and anticipating them, hence reducing the future costs that are going to press in upon us. We've had the usual complaints about so-called austerity, of course, and I've many times responded to this in the Chamber. With the national debt now approaching £2 trillion compared with the £1 trillion that it was only five years ago, nobody can credibly say that the Westminster Government has been doing anything other than spraying money at the economy. The problem is that, very often, it's been spent on the wrong things. Again, I've gone through that in the past and I don't intend to repeat myself today. But, the borrowing requirement this year is nearly £50 billion compared with £83 billion last year. The national debt is 85.6 per cent of GDP this year - that's 3 per cent higher than it was in 2015-16. The national debt is still rising, and it is rising as a proportion of GDP, and that means, looking ahead to future generations, that this is a millstone around the neck of children and grandchildren and beyond. Of course, borrowing goes up and down over the cycle, but we're now in the tenth year after the financial crisis of 2008 and we should really have made much more progress in cutting borrowing than we have done, because you can't just borrow forever. Venezuela is now discovering this, as Zimbabwe and many other countries around the world have, and indeed Britain discovered in the 1970s. Indeed, after every Labour Government, there is usually to be found a significant economic problem that has to be solved. I don't absolve the Conservative Government from some of the blame here, but the truth of the matter is, as Nick Ramsay pointed out in response to Mick Antoniw earlier on, that after 13 years of Labour Government to 2010, they'd squandered the legacy that was left by Kenneth Clarke; after the first Blair administration, they took off the brakes on spending, and the result was, instead of mending the roof when the sun was shining, we found we had great gaping holes in it at a time when the rain was coming down in torrents after - [ Interruption.] I will, certainly.
Welsh: Mae angen inni wybod llawer mwy am flaenoriaethau'r Llywodraeth a sut maen nhw'n cydymffurfio â'r cynlluniau gwariant a gyhoeddwyd ganddynt. Yn y cyd-destun hwn, hoffwn ddiolch i Gadeirydd y Pwyllgor Cyllid - sy'n siarad drosof yn hyn o beth os nad mewn unrhyw beth arall - am y ffordd ardderchog y mae wedi cadeirio'r Pwyllgor, ac yn wir am gwrteisi di-ball yr Ysgrifennydd Cyllid tuag at bob Aelod wrth iddo ymddangos ger ein bron. Mae awyrgylch penodol o ddiffyg realiti am y dadleuon hyn ynglŷn â'r gyllideb, fel y dywedais yn fy araith ar y gyllideb ddrafft, oherwydd mae'n anorfod bod yr Ysgrifennydd Cyllid wedi ei gyfyngu gan y gwariant. Mae maint y gwariant dewisol mewn gwirionedd yn eithaf bach, er y dylai hynny gynyddu yn y blynyddoedd i ddod, wrth inni ddechrau arfer ein pŵer dros drethi datganoledig a hefyd ein pŵer cymharol gyfyngedig ond pwysig serch hynny i fenthyca ar gyfer gwariant ar gyfalaf prosiectau. Ond yr hyn sydd wedi digwydd yn y gyllideb hon, ar y cyfan, yw bod y gyllideb iechyd wedi'i chynyddu ar draul popeth arall. Mae hynny, mae'n debyg, mewn ffordd, yn anochel hefyd oherwydd, fel y gwyddom, chwyddiant iechyd yn fwy na'r gyfradd chwyddiant yn gyffredinol. Mae gennym boblogaeth sy'n heneiddio ac, oherwydd datblygiadau mewn meddygaeth, mae modd trin mwy o gyflyrau, ac mae pobl yn byw'n hirach, felly mae'n anochel y bydd cynnydd anferth yn y gyllideb iechyd ar lefel y DU ac yng nghyllideb Cymru. Felly, mae gennyf gydymdeimlad mawr â'r Ysgrifennydd Cyllid yn ei swyddogaeth anodd o orfod cydbwyso'r holl hawliadau. Ond mae'n ddiddorol bod rhai cyllidebau wedi'u torri'n fwy o lawer nag eraill. Mae cyllideb yr Amgylchedd wedi cael ergyd arbennig o drom, tua 15 y cant mewn termau real, tra bod y gyllideb iechyd wedi gweld cynnydd o swm bach yn unig o safbwynt canran, ond serch hynny, fel rhan o gyllideb fawr iawn, o swm sylweddol - £166 miliwn ychwanegol. Mae hynny i gyd i'w groesawu'n fawr, ond yr hyn sy'n peri gofid am y gwasanaeth iechyd yng Nghymru yw nid cymaint faint o arian yr ydym ni'n ei wario arno, ond afradlonedd rhai o'r byrddau iechyd o ran yr hyn y maen nhw'n ei wneud gyda'r arian a gânt. Rydym yn gwybod am y problemau o ran y diffygion ariannol sy'n bodoli ar y funud, yn enwedig ym Myrddau Iechyd Hywel Dda a Betsi Cadwaladr. Mae Betsi Cadwaladr yn hercian yn ei blaen; ddwy flynedd yn ôl roedd diffyg sylweddol, gwelwyd gostyngiad, ac eleni mae'n edrych fel petai'n codi eto. Felly, ymddengys nad ydym yn gwneud rhyw lawer o gynnydd yn hynny o beth, a hyd nes y cawn ni reolaeth briodol dros broblemau'r byrddau iechyd sydd mewn mesurau arbennig neu'n derbyn ymyrraeth wedi'i thargedu, mae hyn yn mynd i fod yn broblem anhydrin i'r Ysgrifennydd Cyllid. Mae materion eraill y credaf y dylem ni droi ein sylw atynt. Roedd edrych ar faint o arian sy'n cael ei wario ar ardaloedd menter o ddiddordeb arbennig imi. Rwy'n credu bod ardaloedd menter yn syniad da iawn, ac mae ganddyn nhw'r gallu i roi hwb i'r economi mewn ardaloedd sydd â phroblemau hirdymor sylweddol fel arall. Ond pan rydych chi'n edrych ar faint o swyddi sydd wedi eu creu neu eu diogelu mewn gwirionedd o'i gymharu â faint o arian sydd wedi'i wario arnynt, mae'n rhaid inni ofyn inni ein hunain a yw hynny yn werth am arian. Nid yw hynny'n golygu fy mod eisiau gweld y symiau hyn y cael eu diddymu, ond hoffwn i weld ein bod yn cael mwy o werth am ein harian. Os edrychwn ni ar ardal fenter Glynebwy, er enghraifft, gan anwybyddu costau anferthol datblygiad ffordd Blaenau'r Cymoedd, a fyddai wedi ei gynnwys yn y gwariant yn y maes hwnnw. Os edrychwch yn ôl i'r sefyllfa cyn 2016, cafodd cyfanswm o tua 400 o swyddi eu creu neu eu diogelu yng Nglyn Ebwy ar gost o bron £20 miliwn. Nawr, nid wyf i'n credu bod hynny'n werth da iawn am arian. Os ewch chi drwy weddill y parthau menter hefyd, mae rhai yn gwneud yn llawer gwell nag eraill, ac mae costau creu swyddi yn well o lawer mewn rhai nag eraill. Felly, credaf fod gwir angen inni edrych yn fanylach ar a ydym ni'n cael gwerth am arian o'r prosiectau hyn, oherwydd er bod y syniad y tu ôl iddyn nhw yn sicr yn ganmoladwy, mae angen inni ofyn i ni ein hunain a ydyn nhw mewn gwirionedd yn perfformio i ni. Roedd un elfen arall yn y gyllideb, y cyfeiriodd Nick Ramsay ati funud yn ôl, mewn gwirionedd, yn ymwneud ag atal, ac wrth gwrs mae pwysau aruthrol i wario ar anghenion presennol. Ond os ydym yn mynd i dorri costau neu wella perfformiad yn y tymor hirach, rhaid inni ystyried pethau'n fwy hirdymor. Buom yn trafod hyn gyda chomisiynydd cenedlaethau'r dyfodol yn y Pwyllgor Cyllid, ac rwy'n gwybod ei bod hi'n anodd i'r Ysgrifennydd Cyllid - rwyf yn ymwybodol o'r anawsterau sydd ganddo i'w datrys - ond mae angen inni wario mwy ar edrych ymlaen at broblemau'r dyfodol a'u rhagweld, a thrwy hynny leihau'r costau sy'n mynd i ddod ar ein gwarthaf yn y dyfodol. Rydym ni wedi clywed y cwynion arferol am y cynni honedig, wrth gwrs, ac rwyf wedi ymateb i hyn yn y Siambr lawer gwaith. Gyda'r ddyled genedlaethol bellach yn agosáu at £2 triliwn o'i gymharu ag £1 triliwn fel yr oedd hi bum mlynedd yn ôl, gall neb ddweud gydag unrhyw hygrededd fod Llywodraeth San Steffan wedi gwneud unrhyw beth heblaw am chwistrellu arian at yr economi. Y broblem yw, yn aml iawn, ei fod yn cael ei wario ar y pethau anghywir. Unwaith eto, rwyf wedi traethu ynghylch hynny yn y gorffennol ac nid wyf yn bwriadu ailadrodd fy hun heddiw. Ond, mae'r gofyniad benthyca eleni bron yn £50 biliwn o'i gymharu â £83 biliwn y llynedd. Mae'r ddyled genedlaethol yn 85.6 y cant o'r cynnyrch domestig gros eleni - sef 3 y cant yn fwy nag ydoedd yn 2015-16. Mae'r ddyled genedlaethol yn dal i godi, ac yn codi fel cyfran o'r cynnyrch domestig gros, ac mae hynny'n golygu, wrth edrych ymlaen at genedlaethau'r dyfodol, bod hyn yn faen melin am wddf ein plant a'n hwyrion a thu hwnt. Wrth gwrs, mae benthyca yn mynd i fyny ac i lawr wrth i'r rhod droi, ond rydym bellach yn y ddegfed flwyddyn ers argyfwng ariannol 2008 ac fe ddylen ni mewn gwirionedd fod wedi gwneud llawer iawn mwy o gynnydd yn torri benthyca nag yr ydym ni wedi'i wneud, oherwydd ni allwch chi fenthyca am byth. Mae Venezuela yn awr yn darganfod hyn, fel y mae Zimbabwe a llawer o wledydd eraill ledled y byd, ac yn wir roedd Prydain wedi darganfod hynny yn y 1970au. Yn wir, ar ôl pob Llywodraeth Lafur, gwelir fel arfer bod problem economaidd sylweddol y mae'n rhaid ei datrys. Nid wyf yn esgusodi'r Llywodraeth Geidwadol o rywfaint o'r bai yma, ond y gwir amdani yw, fel y nododd Nick Ramsay wrth ymateb i Mick Antoniw yn gynharach, ar ôl 13 blynedd o Lywodraeth Lafur hyd at 2010, roedden nhw wedi gwastraffu'r gwaddol a adawyd gan Kenneth Clarke; ar ôl gweinyddiaeth gyntaf Blair, fe wnaethon nhw ryddhau'r ffrwyn ar wariant, a'r canlyniad oedd, yn hytrach na thrwsio'r to pan oedd yr haul yn tywynnu, canfuwyd fod tyllau mawr ynddo ar adeg pan oedd y glaw yn arllwys yn ddidrugaredd ar ôl - [ torri ar draws.] Gwnaf, yn sicr.