English: Diolch, Llywydd. Well, I applaud the sober and serious work that the finance Secretary is doing on the possibility of a social care levy - a subject to which we'll return in due course. I'm sure that the finance Secretary will agree with me that it's important that dog-whistle politics doesn't intrude upon these potential new taxes and that we don't create unnecessary anxiety amongst groups of people who might potentially be affected by any of them. One of the things that concerned me about the possibility of a vacant land tax, which we discussed in part yesterday, was that a lot of people may not ultimately be affected by it, and may, in the interim period, be worried by such a proposal. So, I wonder if the Cabinet Secretary will do a bit more to allay potential fears in this respect. I referred yesterday to the work the Welsh Government has already done on this in relation to stalled sites and section 106 agreements. They identified just about 400 sites between 2000 and 2014 where land had not been developed for one reason or another. But the number of cases that might be regarded as true land banking, that were capable of economic development and were viable but weren't proceeded with, is actually very small. It's worth, I think, summarising the figures that are in the document. Where the reasons for stalling were related to land ownership or site sale, that is, those that related only to real land banking as opposed to variations in conditions or other planning matters, there were only 17 cases out of this 400 over a period of 14 years. So, the problem of land banking may not be as great as is feared, and I appreciate the point that was made yesterday, that this is a tax that has been proposed in order to test the system, and is not likely to affect a great many people. So, could the finance Secretary just say a little more on that one point?
Welsh: Diolch, Lywydd. Wel, rwy'n cymeradwyo'r gwaith pwyllog a difrifol y mae'r Ysgrifennydd cyllid yn ei wneud ar y posibilrwydd o ardoll gofal cymdeithasol - pwnc y byddwn yn dychwelyd ato maes o law. Rwy'n siŵr y bydd yr Ysgrifennydd cyllid yn cytuno â mi ei bod yn bwysig nad yw gwleidyddiaeth 'chwiban y ci' yn amharu ar y trethi newydd posibl hyn ac nad ydym yn peri pryder diangen ymhlith grwpiau o bobl a allai gael eu heffeithio gan unrhyw un ohonynt. Un o'r pethau a oedd yn fy mhoeni am y posibilrwydd o dreth ar dir gwag, a drafodwyd gennym yn rhannol ddoe, oedd y byddai llawer o bobl na fyddant o bosibl yn cael eu heffeithio ganddi yn y pen draw, ac efallai, yn y cyfamser, eu bod yn bryderus ynglŷn â chynnig o'r fath. Felly, tybed a wnaiff Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet ychydig mwy i leddfu pryderon posibl yn hyn o beth. Cyfeiriais ddoe at y gwaith a wnaed eisoes gan Lywodraeth Cymru ar hyn mewn perthynas â safleoedd segur a chytundebau adran 106. Nodwyd oddeutu 400 o safleoedd ganddynt rhwng 2000 a 2014 lle nad oedd tir wedi'i ddatblygu am ryw reswm neu'i gilydd. Ond mae nifer yr achosion y gellid eu hystyried yn fancio tir go iawn, a allai ddarparu cyfle ar gyfer datblygu economaidd ac a oedd yn hyfyw ond na fwriwyd ati i'w datblygu, yn fach iawn mewn gwirionedd. Credaf ei bod yn werth crynhoi'r ffigurau sydd yn y ddogfen. Lle roedd y rhesymau am oedi yn gysylltiedig â pherchnogaeth tir neu werthu safle, hynny yw, y rhai a oedd yn ymwneud â bancio tir go iawn yn unig yn hytrach nag amrywiadau yn yr amodau neu faterion cynllunio eraill, 17 achos yn unig a gafwyd o'r 400 dros gyfnod o 14 mlynedd. Felly, efallai nad yw problem bancio tir mor fawr ag yr ofnir, ac rwy'n derbyn y pwynt a wnaed ddoe, fod hon yn dreth a gynigiwyd er mwyn profi'r system, ac nad yw'n debygol o effeithio ar nifer fawr o bobl. Felly, a allai'r Ysgrifennydd cyllid ddweud ychydig mwy ar y pwynt hwnnw?