English: Well, I think the efficient management of elections is something that is always under consideration, and of course has been in the various inter-ministerial discussions. For example, the proposals that are being made by the UK Government, even in respect of just Westminster elections, will have some financial costs, and we've made the case to the UK Government that those costs, obviously, have to be covered. The response has been received, I believe, positively. In respect of the voter ID issue itself, you know that our view and our difference on this is that we see voter ID as essentially two things: (1) it doesn't have an evidential base to justify it, but, secondly, it is more about voter suppression than it is about robustness of elections. And if that were not the case, there would be an evidential base for its introduction. That evidential base has never been produced, or in fact even solidly argued. But I think the point you do make is this: that, in the management of elections, we obviously want to see reform in the future, and, of course, the introduction of an electoral reform Bill. We want to see digitisation of the electoral system, which will make it much easier to manage elections, much more cost-efficient to manage elections, and also much more accessible. But, in circumstances where there might be two elections taking place with different franchises, then I think the systems are alert, as they have already been, to the fact that there are those areas of divergence, and there will be different systems. But it has to be managed. It's unfortunate that it's there, but I think it's in the nature of devolution. We have a particular direction in terms of elections that is about accessibility and openness and maximisation of capacity to vote and votes to be counted. I believe the approach adopted by the UK Government is one that goes in a direction that is different.
Welsh: Wel, credaf fod rheoli etholiadau'n effeithlon yn rhywbeth sydd dan ystyriaeth bob amser, ac wrth gwrs mae wedi codi yn y gwahanol drafodaethau rhyngweinidogol. Er enghraifft, bydd rhai costau ariannol ynghlwm wrth gynigion a wneir gan Lywodraeth y DU, hyd yn oed mewn perthynas ag etholiadau San Steffan yn unig, ac rydym wedi cyflwyno'r achos i Lywodraeth y DU fod yn rhaid talu'r costau hynny, yn amlwg. Rwy'n credu bod yr ymateb wedi cael ei dderbyn yn gadarnhaol. O ran dulliau adnabod pleidleiswyr, fe wyddoch mai ein barn ni a'r gwahaniaeth rhyngom ar hyn yw ein bod ni'n gweld dulliau adnabod pleidleiswyr fel dau beth yn y bôn: (1) nid oes sylfaen dystiolaethol i'w gyfiawnhau, ond yn ail, mae'n ymwneud mwy ag atal pleidleiswyr nag y mae'n ymwneud â chadernid etholiadau. A phe na bai hynny'n wir, byddai sail dystiolaethol dros ei gyflwyno. Nid yw'r sylfaen dystiolaethol honno erioed wedi'i chynhyrchu, ac nid oes dadl gadarn wedi'i chyflwyno drosti hyd yn oed. Ond rwy'n credu mai'r pwynt a wnewch yw hyn: ein bod, wrth reoli etholiadau, yn amlwg eisiau gweld diwygio yn y dyfodol, ac wrth gwrs, rydym eisiau gweld Bil diwygio etholiadol yn cael ei gyflwyno. Rydym eisiau digideiddio'r system etholiadol, a fydd yn ei gwneud yn llawer haws rheoli etholiadau, yn llawer mwy costeffeithlon i reoli etholiadau, a hefyd yn llawer mwy hygyrch. Ond mewn amgylchiadau lle y gallai fod dau etholiad yn digwydd gyda gwahanol etholfreintiau, credaf fod y systemau'n gallu ymdopi, fel y maent wedi gwneud eisoes, â'r ffaith bod yna feysydd lle y ceir ymraniad, ac y bydd systemau gwahanol ar waith. Ond mae'n rhaid ei reoli. Mae'n anffodus, ond rwy'n credu mai dyna yw natur datganoli. Mae gennym ni gyfeiriad penodol mewn perthynas ag etholiadau sy'n gysylltiedig â hygyrchedd a bod yn agored a chynyddu'r gallu i bleidleisio a chyfrif pleidleisiau. Credaf fod y dull a fabwysiadwyd gan Lywodraeth y DU yn un sy'n mynd i gyfeiriad gwahanol.