English: I thank Mark Reckless for his comments. He never enjoys my statements, so I'm not surprised that, today, there was no change in that. But I will say on the matter of land transaction tax, because I know we had the opportunity to rehearse these points in Minister's questions just a couple of weeks ago, it's essentially our understanding, and I think that we are correct in this, that the level of change that we would expect to see to the block grant as a result of the housing market being closed, if you like, for longer here in Wales will just be marginal, and we don't expect to see any major change to the Welsh Government budget as a result of that. Because, of course, the fiscal framework does protect us from overall economic shocks, and this situation has been as difficult in England as it has been in Wales, and we would expect the Office for Budget Responsibility to provide us with updated forecasts, which we will publish alongside our draft budget later on this year. So, we'll have a much clearer picture then. But I don't think the impact for either land transaction tax or landfill disposals tax will be significant in terms of our overall budget. And then Mark Reckless also went on to talk about Welsh rates of income tax and exploring why the Welsh Government isn't raising income tax at this time. We made a commitment at the start of this Senedd that we wouldn't raise Welsh rates of income tax over the course of this Senedd term and, given the fact that we're in such a difficult economic situation, I don't think now would be the right time to do so. We have to recognise, I think, the scale of the funding that could be brought to the Welsh Treasury as a result of changes, and a 1p increase on the basic 10p would only bring in £200 million. So, in normal years, £200 million would be a significant amount of money, but we're talking this afternoon about being at the top end of our £4 billion additional guarantee from the UK Government. So, I think that we do need to put things in perspective as well. The policies of fiscal austerity implemented by the UK coalition Government in 2010 and continued by the subsequent Conservative Governments have delayed and damaged economic recovery, which was the weakest on record. And, obviously, it left public services with insufficient resources to deal with normal demand for routine services, let alone cope with the outbreak of the coronavirus. And, of course, the economy is now in one of the deepest recessions in memory, so it's entirely reasonable, I think, to protect the incomes of households and businesses in these circumstances. And it's our view that the UK Government should continue to borrow while interest rates are lower than they were before the crisis, and are actually lower than the rate of inflation at the moment. It's the only way to really protect the economy's capacity to produce the goods and services that we will need to emerge out of the crisis. So, clearly, introducing further austerity now would be extremely problematic, and the Prime Minister has said that there would be no return to austerity, so, clearly, we would want to be holding him to that. And then in terms of repurposing the budget, the £500 million I referred to earlier in my response to Nick Ramsay in terms of the funding we've been able to provide to support businesses - that was funding that was repurposed across Government and the EU funding that was repurposed, but that's not to say that individual Ministers aren't making decisions almost every day in relation to the funding that goes through their department, which is very much focused on our response to the pandemic. I think the repurposed funding only provides I think part of the picture and, of course, the additional funding that has been announced today is over and above all of the other funding that has been announced in these areas.
Welsh: Diolch i Mark Reckless am ei sylwadau. Nid yw byth yn mwynhau fy natganiadau, felly nid wyf yn synnu, heddiw, nad oedd unrhyw newid yn hynny o beth. Ond dywedaf ar fater treth trafodiadau tir, oherwydd gwn inni gael cyfle i ailadrodd y pwyntiau hyn adeg cwestiynau'r Gweinidog ychydig wythnosau'n ôl, ein dealltwriaeth ni yn y bôn, a chredaf ein bod yn gywir yn hyn o beth, yw y bydd lefel y newid y byddem yn disgwyl ei weld i'r grant bloc o ganlyniad i gau'r farchnad dai, os hoffech chi, am fwy o amser yma yng Nghymru yn un ymylol, ac nid ydym yn disgwyl gweld unrhyw newid mawr yng nghyllideb Llywodraeth Cymru o ganlyniad i hynny. Oherwydd, wrth gwrs, mae'r fframwaith cyllidol yn ein diogelu rhag ergydion economaidd cyffredinol, ac mae'r sefyllfa hon wedi bod mor anodd yn Lloegr ag y bu yng Nghymru, a byddem yn disgwyl i'r Swyddfa Cyfrifoldeb Cyllidebol roi rhagolygon wedi'u diweddaru inni, y byddwn yn eu cyhoeddi ochr yn ochr â'n cyllideb ddrafft yn ddiweddarach eleni. Felly, bydd gennym ddarlun llawer cliriach bryd hynny. Ond nid wyf yn credu y bydd yr effaith ar dreth trafodion tir neu dreth gwarediadau tirlenwi yn sylweddol o ran ein cyllideb gyffredinol. Ac yna aeth Mark Reckless ymlaen hefyd i siarad am gyfraddau treth incwm Cymru ac archwilio pam nad yw Llywodraeth Cymru yn codi treth incwm ar hyn o bryd. Gwnaethom ymrwymiad ar ddechrau'r Senedd hon na fyddem yn codi cyfraddau treth incwm Cymru yn ystod tymor y Senedd hon ac, o ystyried ein bod mewn sefyllfa economaidd mor anodd, nid wyf yn credu mai nawr fyddai'r adeg priodol i wneud hynny. Rhaid inni gydnabod, rwy'n credu, faint y cyllid y gellid ei ddwyn i Drysorlys Cymru o ganlyniad i newidiadau, a dim ond £200 miliwn y byddai cynnydd o 1c ar y 10c sylfaenol yn ei gyflwyno. Felly, yn y blynyddoedd arferol, byddai £200 miliwn yn swm sylweddol o arian, ond rydym yn sôn y prynhawn yma am fod ar ben uchaf ein gwarant ychwanegol o £4 biliwn gan Lywodraeth y DU. Felly, credaf fod angen inni roi pethau yn eu cyd-destun hefyd. Mae polisïau cyni cyllidol a weithredwyd gan Lywodraeth glymblaid y DU yn 2010 a'u parhau gan y Llywodraethau Ceidwadol dilynol wedi gohirio a niweidio adferiad economaidd, sef yr un gwannaf erioed. Ac, yn amlwg, gadawodd hynny wasanaethau cyhoeddus heb ddigon o adnoddau i ymdrin â'r galw arferol am wasanaethau arferol, heb sôn am ymdopi â'r achosion o'r coronafeirws. Ac, wrth gwrs, mae'r economi bellach yn dioddef un o'r dirwasgiadau llymaf o fewn cof, felly mae'n gwbl resymol, rwy'n credu, i ddiogelu incwm aelwydydd a busnesau o dan yr amgylchiadau hyn. A'n barn ni yw y dylai Llywodraeth y DU barhau i fenthyca tra bod cyfraddau llog yn is nag yr oeddent cyn yr argyfwng, a'u bod mewn gwirionedd yn is na chyfradd chwyddiant ar hyn o bryd. Dyma'r unig ffordd o ddiogelu gallu'r economi i gynhyrchu'r nwyddau a'r gwasanaethau y bydd eu hangen arnom i ddod allan o'r argyfwng. Felly, yn amlwg, byddai cyflwyno rhagor o gyni nawr yn broblem fawr, ac mae Prif Weinidog Prydain wedi dweud na fyddai'n dychwelyd at gyni, felly, yn amlwg, byddem eisiau ei ddal at ei air. Ac yna o ran ail-lunio'r gyllideb, y £500 miliwn y cyfeiriais ato'n gynharach yn fy ymateb i Nick Ramsay o ran y cyllid yr ydym wedi gallu ei ddarparu i gefnogi busnesau - roedd hwnnw'n gyllid a gafodd ei addasu at ddibenion gwahanol ar draws y Llywodraeth a chyllid yr UE a gafodd ei addasu at ddibenion gwahanol, ond nid yw hynny'n golygu nad yw Gweinidogion unigol yn gwneud penderfyniadau bron bob dydd mewn cysylltiad â'r cyllid sy'n mynd drwy eu hadran, sy'n canolbwyntio'n fanwl ar ein hymateb i'r pandemig. Credaf mai dim ond rhan o'r darlun y mae'r cyllid sydd wedi ei addasu at ddibenion gwahanol yn ei ddarparu ac, wrth gwrs, mae'r arian ychwanegol sydd wedi'i gyhoeddi heddiw yn ychwanegol at yr holl gyllid arall sydd wedi'i gyhoeddi yn y meysydd hyn.