English: I just want to reflect on, I think, an important difference between how our budgeting is done in Wales and how it's done at the UK level, particularly in a crisis like this. It strikes me that the UK Government has looked and taken its decisions on what spending it considers necessary - sometimes UK-wide, perhaps more often for England. And then, having made that decision, it then borrows or ensures whatever money is needed is printed. But what that does is it's that the assessment of necessary spending that drives the decision of how much is spent. Whereas, in Wales, I think there has been a degree of reprioritisation, and I do support much of that that has taken place. But much of what we've done has been a reaction to consequentials, so rather than deciding what money we need to spend, and then how to fund it, we wait to see how much money the UK Government decides is needed to be spent in England, we then get a consequential, and we then look to spend that. So, it's the reverse of how the process is done. And I just wonder: is there a danger in that process, particularly when we are allocating so much consequential spending so quickly, relative to what we're used to, that we don't have the same degree of control and focus on value for money as we would. I think it may be that that's understandable in the circumstances, but it may also be that there's something about our process and our scrutiny that isn't as well set up for spending changes of this size than it would be for the usual. And I think on the Finance Committee we have appreciated the pragmatic approach that the Minister has taken and her willingness to engage. And like her, I welcome that debate we're going to be having on 15 July, looking forward in terms of what the spending priorities will be, and I hope talking not just about the things we would like to see, but also about the inevitable trade-offs that are involved in that. I think it's easy for us as individual AMs to come to the Minister and represent particular constituents or particular sectors who come to us and say, 'Well, so and so's got help, but they haven't got as much in this area - shouldn't more be done?' And the culmination of those approaches is in a direction of greatly more spending. And I was really quite reassured by some of what Mark Drakeford said earlier in response to Suzy Davies. The particular example was caravan parks, but it could have been all manner of different areas. And frankly, if the Welsh Government is using VAT registration as a way to ensure at least a degree of financial and audit control over spending, then that's something that I would welcome. It is a challenge to find rough-and-ready but nonetheless useful, from an audit perspective, measures. And it may be that we accept that quite a lot of money is going to be, at least in some sense - when it's still all there, even there, it's supporting people who need that support, even if they're not able to use it to successfully keep their business going, ultimately. But I suspect that, after this, we will look back and find quite significant and large-scale examples, not only of that type of spending, but also of spending that is at least, arguably, fraudulent. And I do think we need to look to Welsh Government still to have some degree of checks and some degree of assurance, and make the best decisions it can in a fast-moving situation about how to do that. Can I ask on the health side - I don't think anyone would criticise the Ministers or the health boards for the spending we saw on the so-called Nightingale hospitals - the largest at the Principality Stadium in Cardiff - and how, in effect, they haven't been significantly used. But looking back at that, are there lessons that can be usefully learned still to apply at this point in the crisis, rather than something for an inquiry down the road? The Minister mentioned I think £57 million for test, trace and protect. There are elements of that that I think have been quite good in Wales - I think the use of the public sector staff, relative to hiring any short-term people, perhaps without the same degree of training, from the private sector, as has happened in England, with the UK Government. It may be that that is working more effectively, although I'd like to study that further. On the other hand, earlier in the process, the amount of money spent on testing, and the focus on Public Health Wales doing that testing - I would question really whether that did get good value for money. We saw a lot less testing than England, and I think we also spent a lot more money, to no great effect, or not the effect we would have liked in terms of testing, because we were trying to produce that all in-house, within the public sector, in Public Health Wales, rather than going to the private and university sectors earlier in the day. Finally, I'd just like to observe that there are some changes in terms of the Welsh rates of income tax and land transaction tax, but I just question whether those are sufficient, given the scale of the lockdown and its continuance in Wales, and in particular on the land transaction tax side. I mentioned in First Minister's questions that while some people said the housing market was reopening in Wales six weeks after England, in terms of viewings at least, it's still only for unoccupied properties. Has the Minister considered even now what further declines we may see in land transaction tax and in the Welsh rates of income tax because of what we're doing? And ultimately, as Nick Ramsay said at the end of his speech, how are we then going to pay for it? The Conservative Government in Westminster has devolved the power, not just to cut income tax by 10 per cent, but to raise it without any limit at all, and I just worry that we're not joining up the implications of our decisions in terms of what the financial consequences are going to be down the road. Thank you.
Welsh: Rwyf am ystyried yr hyn y credaf ei fod yn wahaniaeth pwysig rhwng y ffordd rydym yn cyllidebu yng Nghymru a'r modd y caiff ei wneud ar lefel y DU, yn enwedig mewn argyfwng fel hwn. Mae'n fy nharo i fod Llywodraeth y DU wedi ystyried ac wedi gwneud ei phenderfyniadau ynglŷn â pha wariant y mae'n ei ystyried yn angenrheidiol - weithiau ar draws y DU, ac efallai'n amlach ar gyfer Lloegr. Ac yna, ar ôl gwneud y penderfyniad hwnnw, mae'n benthyca wedyn neu'n sicrhau bod pa arian bynnag sydd ei angen yn cael ei argraffu. Ond yr hyn y mae hynny'n ei wneud yw sicrhau mai'r asesiad o'r gwariant angenrheidiol sy'n llywio'r penderfyniad ynglŷn â faint sy'n cael ei wario. Ond yng Nghymru, rwy'n credu bod rhywfaint o ailflaenoriaethu wedi bod, ac rwy'n cefnogi llawer o'r hyn sydd wedi digwydd. Ond mae llawer o'r hyn rydym wedi'i wneud wedi bod yn adwaith i symiau canlyniadol, felly yn hytrach na phenderfynu pa arian y mae angen inni ei wario, ac yna sut i'w gyllido, rydym yn aros i weld faint o arian y mae Llywodraeth y DU yn penderfynu sydd angen ei wario yn Lloegr, a chawn swm canlyniadol wedyn, a byddwn yn edrych ar wario hwnnw. Felly, mae'n groes i'r ffordd y caiff y broses ei gwneud. A tybed: a oes perygl yn y broses honno, yn enwedig pan fyddwn yn dyrannu cymaint o wariant canlyniadol mor gyflym o'i gymharu â'r hyn rydym wedi arfer ag ef, nad oes gennym yr un graddau o reolaeth a ffocws ar werth am arian ag y byddai gennym fel arall. Rwy'n credu efallai fod hynny'n ddealladwy o dan yr amgylchiadau, ond efallai hefyd fod yna rywbeth am ein proses a'n gwaith craffu nad yw wedi'i sefydlu cystal ar gyfer newidiadau gwariant o'r maint hwn na'r hyn a fyddai gennym fel arfer. Ac ar y Pwyllgor Cyllid, credaf ein bod wedi derbyn yr agwedd bragmatig y mae'r Gweinidog wedi'i mabwysiadu a'i pharodrwydd i ymgysylltu. Ac fel hithau, rwy'n croesawu'r ddadl a gawn ar 15 Gorffennaf, gan edrych ymlaen at weld beth fydd y blaenoriaethau gwario, ac rwy'n gobeithio y bydd siarad nid yn unig am y pethau yr hoffem eu gweld, ond hefyd am y cyfaddawdu anochel sy'n gysylltiedig â hynny. Rwy'n credu ei bod yn hawdd i ni fel ACau unigol fynd at y Gweinidog a chynrychioli etholwyr penodol neu sectorau penodol sy'n dod atom a dweud, 'Wel, mae hyn a'r llall wedi cael help, ond nid oes ganddynt gymaint yn y maes hwn - oni ddylai mwy gael ei wneud?' A phenllanw'r ymagweddau hynny yw llawer mwy o wario. A chefais fy nghalonogi'n fawr gan beth o'r hyn a ddywedodd Mark Drakeford yn gynharach wrth ymateb i Suzy Davies. Yr enghraifft benodol oedd parciau carafannau, ond gallai fod wedi bod yn bob math o wahanol feysydd. Ac yn blwmp ac yn blaen, os yw Llywodraeth Cymru yn defnyddio cofrestru ar gyfer TAW fel ffordd o sicrhau o leiaf rywfaint o reolaeth ariannol a rheolaeth archwilio ar wariant, mae hynny'n rhywbeth y byddwn yn ei groesawu. O safbwynt archwilio, mae'n her i ddod o hyd i fesurau ffwrdd-â-hi ond defnyddiol er hynny. Ac efallai ein bod yn derbyn y bydd cryn dipyn o arian, mewn rhyw ffordd o leiaf - pan fydd y cyfan yno o hyd, hyd yn oed yn y fan honno, mae'n cefnogi pobl sydd angen y cymorth hwnnw, hyd yn oed os nad ydynt yn gallu ei ddefnyddio i gynnal eu busnes yn llwyddiannus yn y pen draw. Ond rwy'n tybio, ar ôl hyn, y byddwn yn edrych yn ôl ac yn dod o hyd i enghreifftiau eithaf sylweddol a mawr, nid yn unig o'r math hwnnw o wariant, ond hefyd o wariant sydd o leiaf, gellir dadlau, yn dwyllodrus. Ac rwy'n credu bod angen inni barhau i ddisgwyl i Lywodraeth Cymru gael rhyw raddau o oruchwyliaeth a rhywfaint o sicrwydd, a gwneud y penderfyniadau gorau y gall eu gwneud ynglŷn â sut i wneud hynny mewn sefyllfa sy'n newid yn gyflym. A gaf fi ofyn ar yr ochr iechyd - nid wyf yn credu y byddai neb yn beirniadu'r Gweinidogion na'r byrddau iechyd am y gwariant a welsom ar yr ysbytai Nightingale fel y'u gelwir - y mwyaf yn Stadiwm Principality yng Nghaerdydd - a'r ffordd, i bob pwrpas, nad ydynt wedi cael eu defnyddio i raddau helaeth. Ond wrth edrych yn ôl ar hynny, a oes gwersi y gellir eu dysgu'n fuddiol o hyd i'w cymhwyso ar yr adeg hon yn yr argyfwng, yn hytrach na rhywbeth ar gyfer ymchwiliad yn nes ymlaen? Soniodd y Gweinidog am £57 miliwn, rwy'n credu, ar gyfer profi, olrhain a diogelu. Credaf fod elfennau o hynny wedi bod yn eithaf da yng Nghymru - defnyddio staff y sector cyhoeddus, rwy'n credu, o gymharu â chyflogi pobl nad ydynt wedi cael cymaint o hyfforddiant o'r sector preifat yn y tymor byr, fel sydd wedi digwydd yn Lloegr gyda Llywodraeth y DU. Efallai fod hynny'n gweithio'n fwy effeithiol, er yr hoffwn astudio hynny ymhellach. Ar y llaw arall, yn gynharach yn y broses, faint o arian a wariwyd ar brofi, a'r ffocws ar Iechyd Cyhoeddus Cymru yn gwneud y profi hwnnw - byddwn yn cwestiynu a oedd hynny'n dangos gwerth da am arian. Gwelsom lawer llai o brofi nag yn Lloegr, ac rwy'n credu ein bod wedi gwario llawer mwy o arian hefyd, heb fawr o effaith, neu heb yr effaith y byddem wedi'i hoffi o ran profi, oherwydd roeddem yn ceisio cynhyrchu hynny i gyd yn fewnol, o fewn y sector cyhoeddus, yn Iechyd Cyhoeddus Cymru, yn hytrach na mynd at y sector preifat a'r sector prifysgolion yn gynharach. Yn olaf, hoffwn nodi bod yna rai newidiadau o ran cyfraddau treth incwm Cymru a threth trafodiadau tir, ond rwy'n amau a yw'r rheini'n ddigonol, o ystyried maint y cyfyngiadau symud a'u parhad yng Nghymru, ac yn arbennig ar ochr y dreth trafodiadau tir. Soniais yn y cwestiynau i'r Prif Weinidog, er bod rhai pobl yn dweud bod y farchnad dai yn ailagor yng Nghymru chwe wythnos ar ôl Lloegr, mewn perthynas â dangos tai o leiaf, mae hynny'n dal i olygu eiddo gwag yn unig. A yw'r Gweinidog wedi ystyried hyd yn oed yn awr pa leihad pellach y gallem eu gweld yn y dreth trafodiadau tir ac yng nghyfraddau treth incwm Cymru oherwydd yr hyn rydym yn ei wneud? Ac yn y pen draw, fel y dywedodd Nick Ramsay ar ddiwedd ei araith, sut rydym yn mynd i dalu amdano wedyn? Mae'r Llywodraeth Geidwadol yn San Steffan wedi datganoli pŵer, nid yn unig i dorri 10 y cant oddi ar y dreth incwm, ond i'w chodi heb unrhyw gyfyngiad o gwbl, ac rwy'n poeni nad ydym yn cysylltu goblygiadau ein penderfyniadau â'r hyn fydd y canlyniadau ariannol yn nes ymlaen. Diolch.