English: I'm not entirely sure what you've announced today, to be honest with you. Maybe you can give us a bit more information about this conversation that you're keen to start today and what form that conversation might take. There are references in your statement to all sorts of international models for paying for care. I read it that you want to have some sort of conversation, as I say, about raising a tax or perhaps a levy to fund social care, but given the long lead-in time for UK Government to agree to the devolution of any new taxes, I think, perhaps, you're happy enough to just keep on kicking that particular can down the road for a while longer. You're quite right to say, of course, that there is concern about the sustainability of care as a whole - the care that we'll need to provide for our ageing population in future. And you know what? Given the narrative around concern about the cost of providing social care in particular, I can understand why it would appear to make sense to think of some sort of fund, perhaps, to build up to pay for that in future, but I think there are some real flaws in that. We can have a conversation about it, as you say. But we think that the question isn't about finding money for social care; the question is about paying for health and care services in the context of an increasingly older population in future. That means funding for the NHS and funding for social care and funding for good housing and tackling poverty and so on, amongst a whole host of other public services that are needed. The clear gap, I think, in funding, isn't social care, per se, or the NHS, or the other services separately; it's that lack of investment in services that prevents people from becoming ill in the first place and requiring NHS and social care. If we are to build funds - and I think we do need to think differently about models for the future - I think perhaps we should be thinking in terms of building up a transformation fund to get us to that care service that is fit for the twenty-first century and beyond, indeed. In response, actually, to some comments made by the Conservatives' spokesman, I think we can't just build the future of Welsh health funding on what we hope a UK Government might decide to spend on health in England in years to come. I think, based on the track record of successive Conservative Governments, their willingness to cut services deeply makes me nervous about hanging in there with a begging bowl for decisions on the NHS in England to be made. I'll come on to just a couple of questions. I have sympathy with the Minister's view that we need an honest conversation about the level of taxation paid. I believe it's a matter of principle that the best way is to fund care, both NHS and social, from general taxation, but I would strongly argue also that, if the Government does intend to raise taxes to fund health and care services, you'll only find support for that if, in exchange, there aren't going to be charges still for people who need those services. For example, that they would not have to sell their homes as well. A couple of claims were made in your statement. The statement claims that free personal care and care home accommodation could cost £700 million a year, but the accounts for local authorities - recent accounts - show that they've raised only £163 million from charges for social care for over-65s. Of course, you would also have to account for behaviour change, with self-funders moving into the funding, but the gap is still rather considerable. The Barker commission estimated the cost of providing free social care for those with moderate and critical needs for England would be £5 billion, which would translate to Wales as being around £250 million. In fact, LE Wales's own research in 2014 estimated this cost, which included under-65s as well, to be around £350 million. So could you explain why the figure you use is so considerably different to other estimates? A cynic would suggest that you're trying to undermine the case for social care free at the point of need whilst in the same breath claiming to aspire to that. Linked to this, you've stated that the research conducted by LE Wales on the additional funding needs required to maintain existing services by 2022-23, which is not far away, range from between £35 million and £327 million. That seems to me to be an extraordinarily wide range, so perhaps you could explain to me that wide gap in more detail.
Welsh: Nid wyf i'n hollol siŵr beth yr ydych chi wedi ei gyhoeddi heddiw, a dweud y gwir. Efallai y gwnewch chi roi ychydig mwy o wybodaeth inni am y drafodaeth hon yr ydych chi'n awyddus i'w dechrau heddiw ac ar ba ffurf y gallai'r drafodaeth honno fod. Mae cyfeiriadau yn eich datganiad chi at bob math o fodelau rhyngwladol ar gyfer talu am ofal. Fe ddarllenais i eich bod chi'n awyddus i gael rhyw fath o drafodaeth, fel y dywedais i, am godi treth neu ardoll efallai i dalu am ofal cymdeithasol, ond o ystyried y cyfnod arweiniol hir cyn i Lywodraeth y DU gytuno i ddatganoli unrhyw drethi newydd, yn fy marn i, efallai, rydych chi'n ddigon hapus i ohirio'r mater penodol hwn am gyfnod hwy eto. Rydych chi yn llygad eich lle wrth ddweud, wrth gwrs, fod yna bryder am gynaliadwyedd gofal yn ei gyfanrwydd - y gofal y bydd angen inni ei ddarparu yn y dyfodol ar gyfer y boblogaeth sy'n heneiddio. A wyddoch chi beth? O ystyried y naratif sy'n ymwneud â'r pryder am gost darparu gofal cymdeithasol yn benodol, gallaf ddeall pam y byddai'n ymddangos ei bod hi'n gwneud synnwyr i feddwl am ryw fath o gronfa, efallai, i'w sefydlu i dalu am hynny yn y dyfodol, ond credaf fod rhai diffygion gwirioneddol yn hynny o beth. Fe allwn ni gael trafodaeth am hyn, fel yr ydych chi'n dweud. Ond rydym ni o'r farn nad yw'r cwestiwn hwn yn ymwneud â dod o hyd i arian ar gyfer gofal cymdeithasol; mae'r cwestiwn hwn yn ymwneud â thalu am wasanaethau iechyd a gofal yng nghyd-destun poblogaeth sy'n gynyddol hŷn yn y dyfodol. Mae hynny'n golygu cyllid i'r GIG ac arian ar gyfer gofal cymdeithasol ac ariannu ar gyfer tai da a goresgyn tlodi ac yn y blaen, ymhlith llu o wasanaethau cyhoeddus eraill y mae eu hangen nhw. Yn fy marn i, nid y bwlch amlwg o ran ariannu yw gofal cymdeithasol, ynddo'i hun, na'r GIG, na'r gwasanaethau eraill ar wahân; y diffyg buddsoddiad mewn gwasanaethau sy'n atal pobl rhag afiechyd yn y lle cyntaf, a bod ag angen am y GIG a gofal cymdeithasol. Os ydym yn dymuno crynhoi cyllid - ac rwy'n credu bod angen meddwl mewn ffordd wahanol am fodelau i'r dyfodol - rwy'n credu efallai y dylem fod yn meddwl am ddatblygu cronfa weddnewid i'n harwain ni at y gwasanaeth gofal hwnnw sy'n addas ar gyfer yr unfed ganrif ar hugain a thu hwnt, yn wir. Mewn ymateb i rai o'r sylwadau a wnaeth llefarydd y Ceidwadwyr, nid wyf yn credu y gallwn adeiladu dyfodol cyllid iechyd Cymru ar sail yr hyn y gobeithiwn y bydd Llywodraeth y DU yn penderfynu ei wario ar iechyd yn Lloegr mewn blynyddoedd i ddod. Rwyf i o'r farn, yn seiliedig ar hanes y Llywodraethau Ceidwadol olynol, fod eu parodrwydd nhw i dorri gwasanaethau yn fy ngwneud i'n anesmwyth iawn o ran aros yno yn ymbilio wrth iddyn nhw wneud penderfyniadau ynglŷn â'r GIG yn Lloegr. Fe af i yn fy mlaen at ychydig o gwestiynau. Rwy'n cydymdeimlo â barn y Gweinidog fod angen trafodaeth onest arnom ynglŷn â lefel y trethi a delir. Rwy'n credu ei bod hi'n fater o egwyddor mai'r ffordd orau o ariannu gofal, yn y GIG ac yn gymdeithasol, yw o drethiant cyffredinol. Ond fe fyddwn i'n dadlau'n gryf hefyd, os yw'r Llywodraeth yn bwriadu codi trethi i ariannu gwasanaethau iechyd a gofal, na chewch chi gefnogaeth i hynny oni bai, yn gyfnewid, na chodir costau eraill ar bobl sydd angen y gwasanaethau hynny. Er enghraifft, na fyddai'n rhaid iddyn nhw werthu eu cartrefi hefyd. Roedd yna un neu ddau o honiadau yn eich datganiad chi. Mae'r datganiad yn honni y gallai gofal personol a llety mewn cartrefi gofal yn rhad ac am ddim gostio £700 miliwn y flwyddyn. Ond mae'r cyfrifon ar gyfer awdurdodau lleol - cyfrifon diweddar - yn dangos mai dim ond £163 miliwn y maen nhw wedi ei godi o ffioedd am ofal cymdeithasol i rai dros 65 oed. Wrth gwrs, fe fyddai'n rhaid ichi roi cyfrif hefyd o newid ymddygiad, gyda hunan-arianwyr yn symud i mewn i'r cyllid, ond mae'r bwlch yn parhau i fod yn eithaf sylweddol. Amcangyfrifodd comisiwn Barker mai cost darparu gofal cymdeithasol yn rhad ac am ddim i'r rhai ag anghenion cymedrol a chritigol ar gyfer Lloegr fyddai £5 biliwn. Byddai hynny'n trosi i tua £250 miliwn yng Nghymru. Mewn gwirionedd, fe amcangyfrifodd ymchwil LE Wales ei hun y gost hon yn 2014, a oedd yn cynnwys pobl dan 65 oed hefyd, i fod tua £350 miliwn. Felly, a wnewch chi egluro pam mae'r ffigur a ddefnyddiwch chi mor sylweddol wahanol i amcangyfrifon eraill? Fe fyddai sinig yn awgrymu eich bod chi'n ceisio tanseilio'r achos dros ofal cymdeithasol rhad ac am ddim pan fyddai angen hynny, ac ar yr un gwynt yn honni eich bod chi'n ymgyrraedd at hynny. Yn gysylltiedig â hyn, rydych chi wedi nodi bod yr ymchwil a wnaeth LE Wales ar yr anghenion ariannu ychwanegol sy'n ofynnol i gynnal y gwasanaethau presennol erbyn 2022-23, buan y daw hynny, yn amrywio o rhwng £35 miliwn a £327 miliwn. Mae honno'n ymddangos yn ystod eithriadol o eang i mi, ac felly efallai y gallech chi egluro'r bwlch eang hwnnw'n fanylach.