English: Thank you for your statement, Minister. There was initial focus on an advisory group, and, in the media commentary, a lot of that was about Gordon Brown and was he the person to be helping us out of the recovery. But I see from this list you've got a much broader number of people. Can I just clarify that those recovery round-tables are the same thing as the advisory group from outside Wales that was earlier referenced? I know there was involvement from Swansea University and Cardiff University in that list, so has there been - ? Is it outside Wales now, and then Wales for the future ones? Or is it - ? There was a reference from Darren Millar that surely we should have some people from the private sector in it. You said there were at least two. I can't see any who obviously come from a private business background, or are at least currently working in that, from the list that's been given. I note that the New Economics Foundation, Resolution Foundation and the Institute for Public Policy Research are all heavily represented, and I just wonder: is that accepted and intended, as a Government of the left, that you want to have advice externally with at least greater representation from people of a similar outlook? You spoke about the recovery document that was published on 24 April, and that seems to be driving, from what you say, a lot of what you're doing, but you also then repeat this strong desire, which I support, for us to come out on a four nations, common basis. Isn't there, though, a tension between that desire to do things in common with the other three nations and their Governments in this respect, and having a document that you didn't consult on before that sets all these equality tests, emphasises the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, says that lifting restrictions must be rooted in distinctively Welsh values? If you insist on all of those things, doesn't that make it more difficult, at least in some areas, to do the lifting of restrictions at the same time as the other nations? I think you also said that no-one wanted to go back to business as usual. You reference, say, for instance, maintaining environmental changes. Do we really want to maintain the environmental changes that follow from having only 40 per cent of the usual private car use? I think you touched on this a bit, but we can see, in China, a lot of people are going out and buying new cars, and the road use from private vehicles has recovered a lot faster than public transport. But surely a lot of people actually would be quite keen to get back to business as usual and would see business as usual as a lot better than being in the situation we're currently in, and they'll worry that your equality tests and various - what some people might perceive as - ideological requirements for how restrictions should be lifted may slow us getting back to normal and getting the economy going, letting people get out and having their well-being supported by that. So, we're suffering, I think, particularly in Wales - . There's one study that Sky had of analysis that 43 per cent of Welsh towns were in the most affected categories, ex-industrial communities and coastal towns in particular. And, if you're so concerned about equality, given COVID-19 is increasing those inequalities, surely the most important thing is to lift those restrictions as soon as possible. We see there is now capacity in the NHS. The transmission is below one. We were meant to be squashing the curve, keeping it within the capacity of the NHS. We've done that. Why are you maintaining these restrictions and increasing the economic damage and increasing the negative impact on inequality?
Welsh: Diolch ichi am eich datganiad, Weinidog. Roedd ffocws cychwynnol ar grŵp ymgynghorol, ac yn sylwadau'r cyfryngau, roedd a wnelo llawer o hynny â Gordon Brown ac ai ef oedd y person i'n helpu i adfer. Ond rwy'n gweld o'r rhestr hon fod gennych nifer lawer ehangach o bobl. A gaf fi egluro bod y trafodaethau bwrdd crwn hynny ar gyfer adfer yr un peth â'r grŵp ymgynghorol o'r tu allan i Gymru y cyfeiriwyd ato'n gynharach? Gwn fod Prifysgol Abertawe a Phrifysgol Caerdydd wedi cymryd rhan yn y rhestr honno, felly a fu - ? A yw y tu allan i Gymru yn awr, ac yna Cymru ar gyfer y rhai a gynhelir yn y dyfodol? Neu a yw - ? Cyfeiriodd Darren Millar at y ffaith y dylem gael rhai pobl o'r sector preifat ynddo. Fe ddywedoch chi fod o leiaf ddau yno. Ni allaf weld unrhyw rai sy'n amlwg yn dod o gefndir busnes preifat, neu sydd o leiaf yn gweithio mewn cefndir felly o'r rhestr a ddarparwyd. Sylwaf fod y Sefydliad Economeg Newydd, Sefydliad Resolution a'r Sefydliad Ymchwil Polisi Cyhoeddus i gyd wedi'u cynrychioli'n helaeth, ac rwy'n meddwl tybed: a yw hynny wedi'i dderbyn ac yn fwriadol, fel Llywodraeth y chwith, eich bod am gael cyngor allanol gydag o leiaf fwy o gynrychiolaeth o blith pobl gydag agwedd debyg? Fe sonioch chi am y ddogfen adfer a gyhoeddwyd ar 24 Ebrill, ac mae hynny'n ymddangos fel petai'n sbarduno llawer o'r hyn rydych chi'n ei wneud, o'r hyn a ddywedwch, ond wedyn rydych hefyd yn ailadrodd yr awydd cryf, awydd rwy'n ei ategu, i'n gweld yn dod allan ar sail gyffredin rhwng y pedair gwlad. Serch hynny, onid oes tensiwn rhwng yr awydd i wneud pethau gyda'r tair gwlad arall a'u Llywodraethau yn hyn o beth, a chael dogfen nad ydych wedi ymgynghori arni'n flaenorol sy'n gosod yr holl brofion cydraddoldeb hyn, yn pwysleisio Deddf Llesiant Cenedlaethau'r Dyfodol (Cymru) 2015, ac yn dweud bod rhaid i'r broses o godi'r cyfyngiadau fod yn seiliedig ar werthoedd Cymreig penodol? Os mynnwch gael pob un o'r pethau hynny, onid yw'n ei gwneud yn anos, o leiaf mewn rhai ardaloedd, i godi cyfyngiadau ar yr un pryd â'r gwledydd eraill? Rwy'n meddwl eich bod wedi dweud hefyd nad oedd neb am ddychwelyd at fusnes fel arfer. Rydych yn cyfeirio, er enghraifft, at gadw newidiadau amgylcheddol. A ydym am gadw'r newidiadau amgylcheddol sy'n dilyn o gael dim ond 40 y cant o'r defnydd arferol o geir preifat? Rwy'n credu eich bod wedi crybwyll hyn, ond yn Tsieina, gallwn weld bod llawer o bobl yn mynd allan ac yn prynu ceir newydd, ac mae defnydd o ffyrdd gan gerbydau preifat wedi adfer yn llawer cyflymach na thrafnidiaeth gyhoeddus. Ond does bosibl na fyddai llawer o bobl yn eithaf awyddus i fynd yn ôl at fusnes fel arfer ac y byddent yn gweld busnes fel arfer yn llawer gwell na bod yn y sefyllfa rydym ynddi ar hyn o bryd, a byddant yn poeni y gallai eich profion cydraddoldeb a'ch amrywiol ofynion ideolegol - neu'r hyn y gallai rhai pobl eu dirnad fel gofynion ideolegol - ar gyfer sut y dylid codi cyfyngiadau arafu ein gallu i ddychwelyd at fywyd fel arfer a chael yr economi i symud, gadael i bobl fynd allan a chefnogi eu lles drwy wneud hynny. Felly, rydym yn dioddef, rwy'n meddwl, yn enwedig yng Nghymru - . Mae un astudiaeth gan Sky yn cynnwys dadansoddiad fod 43 y cant o drefi Cymru yn y categorïau yr effeithir arnynt fwyaf, hen gymunedau diwydiannol a threfi arfordirol yn arbennig. Ac os ydych chi'n poeni cymaint am gydraddoldeb, o ystyried bod COVID-19 yn cynyddu'r anghydraddoldebau hynny, onid y peth pwysicaf yw codi'r cyfyngiadau hynny cyn gynted ag y bo modd. Gwelwn fod capasiti yn y GIG erbyn hyn. Mae'r gyfradd drosglwyddo'n is nag un. Roeddem i fod i lefelu'r gromlin, gan ei chadw o fewn gallu'r GIG i ymateb. Rydym wedi gwneud hynny. Pam eich bod yn cadw'r cyfyngiadau hyn ac yn cynyddu'r niwed i'r economi a'r effaith negyddol ar anghydraddoldeb?