English: I thank Rhun ap Iorwerth for raising those issues. The first was to recognise that the UK Government had announced a further £2 billion in 2021 to respond to the likely effects of leaving the EU, but I think it's really important to recognise there that, based on what the Chancellor has said, it's likely that Wales won't see - or certainly Welsh Government won't see - much of that funding, because it very much focused on reserved areas of policy. So, we don't have any expectation that that will reach Wales, and obviously that's of deep concern to us. I completely share the concerns that with fewer than 60 days to go until exit day, the Chancellor was completely silent on the issue of replacement funding to support our communities and businesses in Wales. We still have nothing in terms of a future shared prosperity fund. We understand that there is a paper, but I'm starting to wonder if that paper even exists and if the work has been done on it, because it has been promised so many times and hasn't been forthcoming. So, additional funding will be necessary, and as Rhun ap Iorwerth recognises, it is quite hard to quantify how much funding will be needed, because there are so many things to take into consideration and so many different forms that Brexit might yet take, although we understand what the most likely scenarios will be. So, we are pressing the UK Government to provide further funding to mitigate the impacts of 'no deal', and, again, this is something that we pressed with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the finance quadrilateral at the end of August. I think that it's important also to recognise that, alongside additional funding, we're also seeking new flexibilities to respond to a 'no deal' Brexit and to help us manage that transition through the period of the HMT guarantee. So, for example, that might include increasing the annual and aggregate limits on drawing on the Welsh reserve and so on. So, there are different considerations and different conversations that we are trying to have with UK Government there. Rhun also pointed out that we've been given a one-year settlement rather than a three-year settlement. And as well as making it difficult for us to plan ahead, there are some quite practical considerations as well. So, when the UK Government is determining the allocation for Welsh Government, there would normally, in the cycle of a comprehensive spending review, be a full review of the comparability factors in the Barnett formula prior to that spending review, and that would set out the proportion of each UK Government departmental budget that is spent on programmes that are not devolved. Recent budgetary information is then used to ensure that those proportions are up to date and reflect the latest UK departmental arrangements. But, unfortunately, in this case, there hasn't been the time or the work gone in to develop those and to refine those comparability factors, and so there's only been a really partial review of those, which means that the Barnett formula is not using the most up-to-date information to apportion spending to devolved administrations. So, that's another reason why a one-year review is completely unsatisfactory, as compared to a more comprehensive three-year statement. The question was also asked about what consideration will be given to the Welsh reserve. Well, this will be part of the overall discussions that we have in Government. And I share Rhun ap Iorwerth's admiration for local government. I think they've made heroic efforts to keep local services going in very, very difficult times, and we appreciate the huge pressure that local government is under. So, in our early discussions, and as I said in my statement, we've been keen that health remains a priority, but, at the same time, giving local government the best possible settlement is very much at the heart of our considerations.
Welsh: Diolch i Rhun ap Iorwerth am godi'r materion hynny. Y cyntaf oedd cydnabod bod Llywodraeth y DU wedi cyhoeddi £2 biliwn arall yn 2021 i ymateb i effeithiau tebygol ymadael â'r UE. Ond rwy'n credu ei bod hi'n bwysig iawn cydnabod, ar sail yr hyn a ddywedodd y Canghellor, ei bod hi'n debyg na fydd Cymru yn gweld - neu yn sicr ni fydd Llywodraeth Cymru yn gweld - llawer o'r arian hwnnw, oherwydd ei fod yn canolbwyntio'n fawr ar feysydd polisi neilltuol. Felly, nid oes gennym unrhyw ddisgwyliad y bydd hynny'n cyrraedd Cymru, ac yn amlwg mae hynny'n destun pryder mawr inni. Cytunaf yn llwyr â'r pryderon bod y Canghellor, gyda llai na 60 diwrnod eto cyn diwrnod yr ymadael, yn gwbl dawedog ynglŷn â'r mater o gyllid newydd i gefnogi ein cymunedau a'n busnesau ni yng Nghymru. Nid oes gennym ddim hyd yma o ran cronfa ffyniant a rennir i'r dyfodol. Rydym ni'n deall fod yna bapur, ond rwy'n dechrau amau a yw'r papur hwnnw'n bodoli hyd yn oed ac a oes gwaith wedi cael ei wneud arno, oherwydd fe addawyd hwn lawer gwaith ond ni ddaeth i'r golwg eto. Felly, bydd angen cyllid ychwanegol, ac fel y mae Rhun ap Iorwerth yn sylweddoli, mae'n anodd iawn inni fesur faint o arian a fydd ei angen, oherwydd mae cymaint o bethau i'w hystyried a chymaint o wahanol ffurfiau y gallai Brexit ei gymryd eto, er ein bod ni'n deall beth fydd y senarios mwyaf tebygol. Felly, rydym ni'n pwyso ar Lywodraeth y DU i roi rhagor o gyllid i liniaru effeithiau Brexit 'dim cytundeb' ac, unwaith eto, mae hyn yn rhywbeth yr oeddem ni'n ei bwysleisio gyda Phrif Ysgrifennydd y Trysorlys yn y cyfarfod pedair ochrog ynglŷn â chyllid ddiwedd mis Awst. Rwy'n credu ei bod hi'n bwysig cydnabod ein bod ni hefyd, ynghyd â chyllid ychwanegol, yn chwilio am hyblygrwydd newydd i ymateb i Brexit 'dim cytundeb' a'n helpu i reoli'r newid hwnnw drwy gyfnod gwarant Trysorlys ei Mawrhydi. Felly, er enghraifft, gallai hynny gynnwys cynyddu'r terfynau blynyddol ac agregedig ar gyfer defnyddio cronfa wrth gefn Cymru ac yn y blaen. Felly, ceir gwahanol ystyriaethau a gwahanol sgyrsiau yr ydym yn ceisio eu cael â Llywodraeth y DU yn hyn o beth. Fe dynnodd Rhun sylw hefyd at y ffaith ein bod ni wedi cael setliad blwyddyn yn hytrach na setliad tair blynedd. Yn ogystal â'i gwneud hi'n anodd inni gynllunio ymlaen llaw, mae yna rai ystyriaethau ymarferol iawn hefyd. Felly, pan fydd Llywodraeth y DU yn pennu'r dyraniad ar gyfer Llywodraeth Cymru, fel rheol, yng nghylch yr adolygiad cynhwysfawr o wariant, byddai adolygiad llawn o'r ffactorau cymharedd yn fformiwla Barnett cyn yr adolygiad hwnnw o wariant, ac fe fyddai hynny'n pennu'r gyfran o bob cyllideb adrannol Llywodraeth y DU sydd i'w gwario ar raglenni nad ydyn nhw wedi eu datganoli. Yna fe ddefnyddir gwybodaeth gyllidebol ddiweddar i sicrhau bod y cyfrannau hynny'n gyfredol ac yn adlewyrchu trefniadau adrannol diweddaraf y DU. Ond, yn anffodus, yn yr achos hwn, nid oes amser wedi bod na gwaith wedi digwydd ar ddatblygu'r rhain a mireinio'r ffactorau cymharedd hynny. Felly dim ond arolwg rhannol iawn a gafwyd o'r rhain, sy'n golygu nad yw fformiwla Barnett yn defnyddio'r wybodaeth ddiweddaraf ar gyfer dosrannu gwariant i weinyddiaethau datganoledig. Felly, dyna reswm arall pam mae adolygiad un flwyddyn yn gwbl anfoddhaol, o'i gymharu â datganiad mwy cynhwysfawr o dair blynedd. Gofynnwyd y cwestiwn hefyd ynghylch pa ystyriaeth fydd yn cael ei rhoi i gronfa wrth gefn Cymru. Wel, bydd hyn yn rhan o'r trafodaethau cyffredinol sydd gennym ni yn y Llywodraeth. Ac rwy'n rhannu edmygedd Rhun ap Iorwerth o lywodraeth leol. Rwy'n credu eu bod nhw wedi gwneud ymdrechion arwrol i sicrhau bod gwasanaethau lleol yn parhau mewn cyfnod anodd iawn, ac rydym ni'n gwerthfawrogi pa mor enfawr yw'r pwysau sydd ar Lywodraeth Leol. Felly, yn ein trafodaethau cynnar, ac fel y dywedais yn fy natganiad, rydym wedi bod yn awyddus iawn bod iechyd yn parhau i fod yn flaenoriaeth, ond, ar yr un pryd, mae rhoi'r setliad gorau posibl i lywodraeth leol yn ganolog i'n hystyriaethau ni.