English: Well, it's operating profit. You could regard it as - . I mean, it doesn't actually have a formal definition in that sense. But the point is, if that really is a hard contingency - that this investment plan is completely reliant upon that level of continual operating profit, in a context in which we know - . This is one of the most cyclical industries of all - . Let's remember we've gone from a position where we were told at one point that Port Talbot was losing £1 million a day to a position now where it's making a profit. And yet we have an investment plan that is contingent upon an annualised level of net earnings - call it what you will - it's contingent upon a very, very exacting level of performance. I'm sure the honourable Member wouldn't disagree with that. The investment plan should be based on a concrete commitment, because that's the only long-term basis, actually, on which we can create the kind of framework of trust that is necessary on both sides to achieve the sustainable, successful future that we want to see. Are we saying, for example, that if they don't meet that target, the investment doesn't go in? You're in a vicious circle then, aren't you? Because if the investment goes in, you're not going to make those targets in the second year as well. Let's turn finally to the proposal on the pension. This I find most curious of all. I struggle to understand what really is driving this, because the formal consultation is about moving the remaining members of the British Steel pension scheme among the employees - it's closed to new entrants already, of course - over to a defined contribution scheme. But it isn't about lowering the cost of pension contributions to the current workforce, is it? Because it merely cuts Tata Steel's contribution from 11.5 per cent of salary to 10 per cent, so it has a negligible effect on their costs. It isn't even about closing the current pension deficit, because we're told it's fallen; in the last actuarial valuation, it's down to £50 million. So, it's not about that. So, what is it really about? Well, I think we're forced to come to the conclusion what it's really about is removing the charge that the British Steel pension scheme currently has over the IJmuiden plant, which Tata Steel, globally, have always seen as the jewel in the crown. That is a major impediment to their desire, of course, to move forward with the ThyssenKrupp merger that I have already referred to. That's what, it seems to me, it is all about, to move forward with that plan, which is not necessarily, I would humbly suggest, in the interests of the Welsh and British steel industry. That charge - there's no actuarial valuation that I can find in the British Steel pension fund documentation of that security that they have over the IJmuiden plant, but we've got a clue, I think, from the Government actuarial department analysis that said that if Tata Steel was to delink itself from the pension scheme so that it actually became, effectively, self-sufficient, you'd have to put about £3 billion or £4 billion in, not the couple of hundred million that has been reported in the press that Tata are offering in order to remove the connection with the pension fund. These are very real concerns. They can be addressed. This deal can be strengthened. The employment guarantee can be made a firm guarantee. The investment plan can be made a concrete commitment, and we can have a clear commitment that Tata, the conglomerate, a profitable conglomerate - it makes 12.5 per cent return on capital overall and it makes billions of pounds of profit - actually will not walk away from its liabilities to the pension fund. These are reasonable demands that I hope Tata, as it is currently consulting, will listen to so that we can have the kind of trust and the kind of confidence that is the sure platform that we all need to see for a viable, sustainable and fair future for the steel industry.
Welsh: Wel, elw gweithredu ydyw. Gallech ei ystyried yn - . Hynny yw, nid oes diffiniad ffurfiol iddo mewn gwirionedd yn yr ystyr honno. Ond y pwynt yw, os yw hwnnw'n amodoldeb caled - fod y cynllun buddsoddi hwn yn gwbl ddibynnol ar y lefel honno o elw gweithredu parhaus, mewn cyd-destun lle y gwyddom - . Dyma un o'r diwydiannau mwyaf cylchol o'r cyfan - . Gadewch i ni gofio ein bod wedi mynd o sefyllfa lle y dywedwyd wrthym ar un adeg fod Port Talbot yn colli £1 miliwn y dydd i sefyllfa yn awr pan fo'n gwneud elw. Ac eto mae gennym gynllun buddsoddi sy'n ddibynnol ar lefel flynyddol o enillion net - beth bynnag y dymunwch ei alw - bydd yn amodol ar lefel fanwl tu hwnt o berfformiad. Rwy'n siŵr na fyddai'r Aelod anrhydeddus yn anghytuno â hynny. Dylai'r cynllun buddsoddi fod yn seiliedig ar ymrwymiad cadarn, oherwydd dyna'r unig sail hirdymor, mewn gwirionedd, ar gyfer creu'r math o fframwaith o ymddiriedaeth sy'n angenrheidiol ar y ddwy ochr i sicrhau'r dyfodol cynaliadwy, llwyddiannus yr ydym am ei weld. A ydym yn dweud, er enghraifft, os nad ydynt yn cyrraedd y targed hwnnw, nad yw'r buddsoddiad yn mynd i mewn? Rydych mewn cylch dieflig felly, onid ydych? Oherwydd os bydd y buddsoddiad yn mynd i mewn, nid ydych yn mynd i gyrraedd y targedau hynny yn yr ail flwyddyn hefyd. Gadewch i ni droi yn olaf at y cynnig ar y pensiwn. Dyma'r elfen fwyaf rhyfedd o'r cyfan yn fy marn i. Rwy'n ei chael hi'n anodd deall beth sy'n gyrru hyn mewn gwirionedd, gan fod yr ymgynghoriad ffurfiol yn ymwneud â symud yr aelodau sy'n weddill o gynllun pensiwn Dur Prydain ymysg y gweithwyr - mae wedi cau i ymgeiswyr newydd eisoes, wrth gwrs - i gynllun cyfraniadau diffiniedig. Ond nid yw'n ymwneud â gostwng cost cyfraniadau pensiwn i'r gweithlu presennol, nag ydyw? Gan mai torri cyfraniad Tata Steel o 11.5 y cant o'r cyflog i 10 y cant yn unig a wna, effaith ddibwys y mae'n ei chael ar eu costau. Nid yw'n ymwneud hyd yn oed â chau'r diffyg presennol yn y pensiwn, oherwydd dywedir wrthym ei fod wedi gostwng; yn y prisiad actiwaraidd diwethaf, mae i lawr i £50 miliwn. Felly, nid yw'n ymwneud â hynny. Felly, beth sydd wrth wraidd hyn mewn gwirionedd? Wel, rwy'n credu bod yn rhaid i ni gasglu mai'r hyn y mae'n ceisio ei wneud mewn gwirionedd yw cael gwared ar y rhwymedigaeth sydd gan gynllun pensiwn Dur Prydain ar hyn o bryd dros waith Ijmuiden, gwaith y mae Tata Steel, yn fyd-eang, bob amser wedi ei ystyried yn drysor pennaf. Mae hynny'n rhwystr mawr i'w dymuniad, wrth gwrs, i symud ymlaen gyda'r uno â ThyssenKrupp y cyfeiriais ato eisoes. Dyna sydd wrth wraidd hyn, mae'n ymddangos i mi, awydd i symud ymlaen gyda'r cynllun hwnnw, nad yw o reidrwydd, hoffwn awgrymu'n ostyngedig, er budd y diwydiant dur yng Nghymru a Phrydain. Y rhwymedigaeth honno - nid oes prisiad actiwaraidd y gallaf ddod o hyd iddo yn nogfennaeth cronfa bensiwn Dur Prydain o'r warant sydd ganddynt dros waith Ijmuiden, ond mae yna gliw i ni, rwy'n credu, yn nadansoddiad adran actiwaraidd y Llywodraeth sy'n dweud pe bai Tata Steel yn datgysylltu ei hun oddi wrth y cynllun pensiwn fel ei fod mewn gwirionedd yn dod yn hunangynhaliol i bob pwrpas, buasai'n rhaid i chi roi tua £3 biliwn neu £4 biliwn i mewn, nid yr ychydig gannoedd o filiynau y nododd y wasg fod Tata yn ei gynnig er mwyn cael gwared ar y cysylltiad â'r gronfa bensiwn. Mae'r rhain yn bryderon go iawn. Gellir mynd i'r afael â hwy. Gellir cryfhau'r cynnig hwn. Gellir gwneud y warant o gyflogaeth yn warant gadarn. Gellir gwneud y cynllun buddsoddi yn ymrwymiad cadarn, a gallwn gael ymrwymiad clir na fydd Tata, yr uwchgwmni, uwchgwmni proffidiol - mae'n gwneud 12.5 cant o elw ar gyfalaf yn gyffredinol ac mae'n gwneud biliynau o bunnoedd o elw - yn troi cefn ar ei rwymedigaethau i'r gronfa bensiwn. Mae'r rhain yn ofynion rhesymol y gobeithiaf y bydd Tata yn gwrando arnynt, wrth iddo ymgynghori ar hyn o bryd, er mwyn i ni allu cael y math o ymddiriedaeth a'r math o hyder sy'n darparu platfform sicr y mae pawb ohonom angen ei weld ar gyfer sicrhau dyfodol hyfyw, cynaliadwy a theg ar gyfer y diwydiant dur yn y dyfodol.