English: So, I'll just begin with this point about it being a time of economic crisis, which it absolutely is. We're facing a cost-of-living crisis, and let's hope that the Chancellor comes forward with a seriously strong package of support for business when he makes his announcement later this week. We are talking about an overnight levy, but we're not talking about it being introduced overnight. The point here is that what we're launching today is a consultation on the idea, so that people can engage with us and help us shape this proposal. Colleagues will know very well that this will require legislation to be moved through this Assembly - sorry, through this Senedd - and that will require a serious amount of work. It's a four-stage process, so there is lots and lots of time for colleagues to look to scrutinise and to develop the idea with us. So, it absolutely isn't going to be introduced overnight. It takes a number of years in order to bring forward the legislation, to fully develop the ideas and then to move to the implementation phase, which in itself is a significant undertaking. I think that the question about exemptions was an important one. I'm happy to share with colleagues the kinds of areas that we are looking towards in terms of exemptions. One would be Gypsy and Traveller sites. We'd look to exempt Roma and Gypsy primary residence sites from the levy because their lifestyle is inherently transient for cultural reasons. We would also look perhaps - and this is all part of our consultation, so views would be gratefully received - to exempt local authority-arranged emergency stays; for example, people who are experiencing homelessness or who are fleeing domestic violence. Also, exemptions could include Home Office-arranged stays for asylum seekers and refugees and also others who are fleeing domestic abuse, perhaps staying in specialist accommodation for that purpose, and then emergency stays within premises operated by charitable or non-profit organisations - again, stays for respite or refuge purposes. It's our preferred position that visitor accommodation provided by a charity or non-profit organisation for the purposes of respite, refuge or shelter is not included in the scope of the levy. So, the consultation document sets out a range of circumstances where we think that it might be inappropriate to introduce a levy, but of course we're asking for people to share their comments and their conclusions on that to help us, again, shape the levy. And I think I've already spoken to the point about transparency and the importance of the question in the consultation document that refers to annual reporting and other mechanisms. The document also talks about soft hypothecation and looks at different models that have been used in various different places, in order to help us further our ideas as we move forward. The Member talks about places that have been destroyed by tourism levies across the globe, but we don't see that. We have looked at examples of where tourism levies have not been successful - one would be the Balearic islands, which introduced an eco tax in 2001, perhaps before its time, and it did repeal the tax shortly after, because visitor numbers declined, but that was against a backdrop of globally declining visitor numbers anyway across a number of destinations at that time. But they have subsequently reintroduced the tax, many years later. They did it in 2015, and they saw an 11.2 per cent rise in international arrivals the following year. So, I think that, when you do look closely at the examples where this has been introduced elsewhere, you do see positive work that has been able to be undertaken because of the tourism levy, and it's not viewed, in those countries that do operate one, as being one that stifles business; it's viewed as something that creates investment to support those businesses.
Welsh: Felly, fe wnaf i ddechrau gyda'r pwynt yma ynghylch ei fod yn gyfnod o argyfwng economaidd, ac mae hynny'n hollol wir. Rydym yn wynebu argyfwng costau byw, a gadewch i ni obeithio y bydd y Canghellor yn cyflwyno pecyn o gefnogaeth gref iawn i fusnesau pan fydd yn gwneud ei gyhoeddiad yn ddiweddarach yr wythnos hon. Rydym ni'n sôn am ardoll dros nos, ond dydyn ni ddim yn sôn am ei gyflwyno dros nos. Y pwynt yma yw bod yr hyn yr ydym ni'n ei lansio heddiw yn ymgynghoriad ar y syniad, fel y gall pobl ymgysylltu â ni a'n helpu i lunio'r cynnig hwn. Bydd cyd-Aelodau yn gwybod yn iawn y bydd hyn yn ei gwneud hi'n ofynnol i ddeddfwriaeth gael ei symud drwy'r Cynulliad hwn - mae'n ddrwg gennyf, drwy'r Senedd hon - a bydd angen gwaith difrifol ar gyfer hynny. Mae'n broses pedwar cymal, felly mae llawer iawn o amser i gyd-Aelodau geisio craffu ac i ddatblygu'r syniad gyda ni. Felly, ni chaiff ei gyflwyno dros nos. Mae'n cymryd nifer o flynyddoedd er mwyn cyflwyno'r ddeddfwriaeth, i ddatblygu'r syniadau yn llawn ac yna symud i'r cyfnod gweithredu, sydd ynddo'i hun yn ymgymeriad sylweddol. Rwy'n credu bod y cwestiwn am eithriadau yn un pwysig. Rwy'n hapus i rannu gyda chyd-Aelodau y mathau o feysydd yr ydym yn eu hystyried o ran eithriadau. Un fyddai safleoedd Sipsiwn a Theithwyr. Byddem yn ystyried eithrio prif safleoedd preswyl Roma a Sipsi o'r ardoll gan fod eu ffordd o fyw yn gynhenid grwydrol am resymau diwylliannol. Byddem hefyd yn ystyried efallai - ac mae hyn i gyd yn rhan o'n hymgynghoriad, felly byddai safbwyntiau'n cael eu derbyn yn ddiolchgar - eithrio arosiadau brys a drefnir gan awdurdodau lleol; er enghraifft, pobl sy'n dioddef digartrefedd neu sy'n ffoi rhag trais yn y cartref. Hefyd, gallai eithriadau gynnwys arosiadau wedi'u trefnu gan y Swyddfa Gartref ar gyfer ceiswyr lloches a ffoaduriaid a hefyd eraill sy'n ffoi rhag cam-drin domestig, sydd efallai'n aros mewn llety arbenigol at y diben hwnnw, ac yna arosiadau brys mewn safleoedd sy'n cael eu gweithredu gan sefydliadau elusennol neu ddi-elw - eto, yn aros at ddibenion seibiant neu loches. Y sefyllfa rydym ni'n ei ffafrio yw nad yw llety ymwelwyr a ddarperir gan elusen neu sefydliad dielw at ddibenion seibiant, lloches neu gysgod yn cael ei gynnwys yng nghwmpas yr ardoll. Felly, mae'r ddogfen ymgynghori yn nodi ystod o amgylchiadau lle credwn y gallai hi fod yn amhriodol cyflwyno ardoll, ond wrth gwrs rydym yn gofyn i bobl rannu eu sylwadau a'u casgliadau ar hynny i'n helpu, eto, i lunio'r ardoll. Ac rwy'n credu fy mod eisoes wedi sôn am y sylw ynghylch tryloywder a phwysigrwydd y cwestiwn yn y ddogfen ymgynghori sy'n cyfeirio at adrodd blynyddol a mecanweithiau eraill. Mae'r ddogfen hefyd yn sôn am neilltuaeth rannol ac yn edrych ar wahanol fodelau sydd wedi cael eu defnyddio mewn gwahanol fannau, er mwyn ein helpu i ddatblygu ein syniadau wrth i ni symud ymlaen. Mae'r Aelod yn sôn am lefydd sydd wedi cael eu dinistrio gan ardollau twristiaeth ar draws y byd, ond dydym ni ddim yn gweld hynny. Rydym wedi edrych ar enghreifftiau o ble nad yw ardollau twristiaeth wedi bod yn llwyddiannus - un fyddai'r ynysoedd Balearaidd, a gyflwynodd dreth eco yn 2001, efallai cyn ei amser, ac fe ddiddymwyd y dreth yn fuan ar ôl hynny, oherwydd bod nifer yr ymwelwyr wedi gostwng, ond roedd hynny yn erbyn cefndir o niferoedd ymwelwyr yn gostwng yn fyd-eang beth bynnag ar draws nifer o gyrchfannau ar y pryd. Ond maen nhw wedi ailgyflwyno'r dreth wedyn, flynyddoedd lawer yn ddiweddarach. Fe wnaethon nhw hynny yn 2015, ac fe welon nhw gynnydd o 11.2 y cant yn yr ymwelwyr rhyngwladol y flwyddyn ganlynol. Felly, rwy'n credu, pan ydych chi'n edrych yn fanwl ar yr enghreifftiau lle mae hyn wedi'i gyflwyno mewn mannau eraill, rydych chi'n gweld gwaith cadarnhaol y bu modd ei wneud oherwydd yr ardoll twristiaeth, ac nid yw'n cael ei weld, yn y gwledydd hynny sy'n gweithredu'r fath ardoll, fel un sy'n mygu busnes; mae'n cael ei ystyried yn rhywbeth sy'n creu buddsoddiad i gefnogi'r busnesau hynny.