English: Thank you very much, Llywydd. Well, once again today, there is great interest in what we're discussing here, and I'm very pleased about that. These, like everything we've discussed over the last 20 months, are very difficult decisions that have been taken, and very important issues. I said last week that Plaid Cymru would likely vote in favour of these regulations today. We will do that, and it's important that there is an explanation not just of how we're voting on issues like this, but why. When we discussed the first regulations on COVID passes on 5 October, you'll remember that Plaid Cymru voted against them. We supported the principle, as we made it clear, of insisting on evidence that people are less likely to transmit the virus to other people before having access to some places - not to vital services, but some settings. But we did ask for evidence about the effectiveness of the specific policy that had been presented by the Welsh Government. We were concerned, for example, about the element of self-certification for the results of lateral flow tests. We offered further discussions with the Government on how to strengthen those regulations, but for very well-known reasons at that time the regulations were approved. So, COVID passes based on this model are what we have in Wales, and, even though we voted against those, for the reasons that I've outlined, in the hope of being able to bring another model in, a stronger model, possibly, we do accept that this is better than nothing, of course. The question before us today is whether we should extend the list of settings where you have to show a pass. Again, we asked for evidence. For example, there was one piece of specific research that was drawn to my attention, and it was very important to give that consideration, and I'm very grateful to people who do pass on evidence to me. It was research done by Imperial College, which was published in The Lancet, about how transmissible the virus is in people who have been double vaccinated, compared with those who haven't been vaccinated. And we have to ensure, after all, that there is a benefit to the vaccine in terms of helping to prevent transmission. And one of the findings of the research was that transmission by a vaccinated person was nearly as much as someone who hadn't been vaccinated, but only when they're at their most infectious. And, from discussions with the Minister - and I'm grateful for those discussions - and asking the opinions of the Government's scientists and through further studies, one weighs that against the finding that the viral load of a person who is vaccinated does reduce more quickly than someone who isn't vaccinated, and that does show the value of the vaccine in terms of reducing transmission. That was the evidence that was presented to me. I've read another study by the Dutch health administration, which comes to a similar conclusion. In addition, the Minister notes very correctly that people who have been fully vaccinated are less likely to be infectious in the first place; I'm grateful for a letter explaining that. That is also something that is confirmed in the Imperial study, and I am still convinced, like many of the experts and scientists internationally, that vaccines are the best barrier to being infected. It is voluntary, of course, but I do encourage people to have the vaccine, and measures that can influence people's decisions to have the vaccine or not, in my opinion, can be very valuable. A quick word about the practical support that will be needed by broader groups of organisations, if these regulations are approved today. I do think that it's vital that the Government recognises, whatever the Minister says in terms of how smoothly the passes have gone so far, that this does create concern. Voluntary organisations will be among those included - community theatres and cinemas and so forth - and we have to ensure that every support is available in terms of implementing the passes. And to close, let us remember that trying to avoid further restrictions is what the aim of this is. The Government would agree with me on that, I'm sure. But if the Government does feel, for example, that we need to make the case for extending COVID passes further in the future, something that could offer further challenges in terms of implementation, then we will again insist that the evidence is stronger again. None of these decisions are easy, and while it's important to be able to justify any further restrictions, we have to keep our eyes on the prize, namely keeping people, including very vulnerable people, as safe as possible. And, remember, passes and other things don't work in isolation, and now, like throughout the pandemic, we have to emphasise the importance - and the Government has to enforce it as best it can - of those basic things, such as wearing face masks, social distancing and ventilation and so forth, which are vital in the battle against this virus, and I ask the Government to strengthen its work in that area.
Welsh: Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. Wel, unwaith eto heddiw, mae yna gryn ddiddordeb yn yr hyn rydym ni'n ei drafod, a dwi'n falch iawn o hynny. Mae'r rhain, fel popeth rydym ni wedi ei drafod dros y flwyddyn ac wyth mis diwethaf - y penderfyniadau anodd sydd wedi cael eu cymryd - yn faterion o wirioneddol bwys. Mi ddywedais i yr wythnos diwethaf fod Plaid Cymru yn debyg o fod yn pleidleisio dros y rheoliadau yma heddiw. Mi fyddwn ni yn gwneud hynny, ond mae'n bwysig hefyd bod yna eglurhad nid yn unig sut rydym ni'n pleidleisio ar faterion fel hyn, ond pam. Pan drafodon ni'r rheoliadau cyntaf ar basys COVID ar 5 Hydref, mi gofiwch chi i Blaid Cymru bleidleisio yn erbyn. Mi oeddem ni'n cefnogi'r egwyddor, fel y gwnaethon ni'n glir, o fynnu tystiolaeth bod pobl yn llai tebygol o drosglwyddo'r feirws i eraill cyn cael mynediad i rai lleoliadau - nid i wasanaethau hanfodol, ond i rai lleoliadau. Ond mi oeddem ni wedi gofyn am dystiolaeth am effeithiolrwydd tebygol y polisi penodol oedd wedi cael ei gyflwyno gan Lywodraeth Cymru. Roeddem ni'n bryderus, er enghraifft, am yr elfen o hunanardystio canlyniadau profion llif unffordd. Mi oeddem ni wedi cynnig trafod ymhellach efo'r Llywodraeth sut y gellid cryfhau'r rheoliadau, ond am resymau hysbys iawn bryd hynny mi gymeradwywyd y rheoliadau. Felly pasys COVID ar y model hwn sydd gennym ni yng Nghymru, ac er i ni bleidleisio yn erbyn, am y rhesymau dwi wedi eu hegluro, yn y gobaith o allu dod â model gwahanol a chryfach, o bosib, i mewn, rydym ni'n derbyn, wrth gwrs, fod hyn yn well na pheidio â chael unrhyw beth yn ei le. Y cwestiwn o'n blaenau ni heddiw ydy: a ddylid ymestyn y rhestr o lefydd lle mae angen gorfod dangos pàs? Eto, mynnu tystiolaeth y gwnaethom ni. Er enghraifft, mi oedd yna un darn o ymchwil penodol cafodd ei dynnu i'm sylw i, ac roedd hi yn bwysig rhoi ystyriaeth iddo fo, a dwi'n ddiolchgar i bobl sydd yn pasio tystiolaeth ac yn codi pryderon efo fi. Gwaith ymchwil gan Goleg Imperial oedd hwnnw, wedi'i gyhoeddi yn y Lancet, yn edrych ar ba mor drosglwyddadwy ydy'r feirws mewn pobl sydd â brechiad dwbl o'i gymharu â rhai sydd ddim. Ac mae'n rhaid sicrhau, wedi'r cyfan, fod modd dangos budd i frechiad o ran helpu i atal trosglwyddiad. Un o ganfyddiadau'r ymchwil oedd bod trosglwyddiad gan rywun wedi'i frechu bron cymaint â rhywun sydd heb ei frechu, ond dim ond pan fyddan nhw ar eu mwyaf heintus mae hynny. Ac, o drafod efo'r Gweinidog iechyd - a dwi'n ddiolchgar am y trafodaethau rydym ni wedi'u cael - a gofyn barn gwyddonwyr y Llywodraeth, a thrwy astudiaeth bellach, mae rhywun yn pwyso a mesur hynny efo'r canfyddiad bod llwyth feirysol rhywun sydd wedi'i frechu yn lleihau yn gyflymach na rhywun sydd ddim, ac mae hynny i fi yn dangos gwerth brechu fel mesur atal trosglwyddo. Dyna'r dystiolaeth gafodd ei rhoi o'm blaen i. Dwi wedi darllen astudiaeth arall gan weinyddiaeth iechyd yr Iseldiroedd hefyd, sy'n dod i gasgliad tebyg. Yn ogystal, mae'r Gweinidog yn nodi yn hollol gywir fod pobl sydd wedi'u brechu'n llawn yn llai tebygol o fod yn heintus yn y lle cyntaf; dwi'n ddiolchgar am lythyr yn egluro hynny. Mae hynny hefyd yn rhywbeth sy'n cael ei gadarnhau eto yn astudiaeth Imperial hefyd, a dwi'n dal yn gwbl argyhoeddedig, fel y mae trwch yr arbenigwyr a'r gwyddonwyr yn rhyngwladol, mai brechu ydy'r amddiffyniad gorau yn erbyn cael eich heintio. Mae o'n wirfoddol, wrth gwrs, ond dwi'n annog pobl i gymryd y brechiad, ac mae mesurau sy'n gallu dylanwadu ar benderfyniad pobl i gymryd y brechiad ai peidio, yn fy nhyb i, yn gallu bod yn werthfawr iawn. Gair yn sydyn am y gefnogaeth ymarferol fydd ei hangen ar grwpiau ehangach o sefydliadau rŵan, os caiff y rheoliadau yma eu cymeradwyo heddiw. Dwi'n meddwl ei bod hi'n bwysig iawn bod y Llywodraeth yn cydnabod, waeth pa mor llyfn mae Gweinidogion yn dweud wrthym ni mai pethau wedi mynd o ran y pasys COVID hyd yma, fod hyn yn creu poen meddwl. Mi fydd mudiadau gwirfoddol ymhlith y rhai sy'n cael eu cynnwys - theatrau a sinemâu cymunedol ac ati - ac mae angen sicrhau bod pob cymorth ar gael efo gweithredu'r pasys. Ac i gloi, gadewch inni gofio mai ceisio osgoi cyfyngiadau mwy na sydd rhaid ydy nod hyn. Mi fyddai'r Llywodraeth yn cyd-fynd â fi yn hynny o beth, dwi'n gwybod. Ond os ydy'r Llywodraeth yn teimlo, er enghraifft, fod angen gwneud yr achos dros ehangu pasys COVID ymhellach eto yn y dyfodol, rhywbeth allai gynnig fwy fyth o her o ran ei weithredu o, mi fyddwn ni eto yn mynnu bod y dystiolaeth yn mynd yn gryfach eto. Does yna ddim un o'r penderfyniadau yma yn hawdd, a thra ei bod hi'n bwysig gallu cyfiawnhau cyflwyno unrhyw gyfyngiadau, mae'n rhaid hefyd inni gadw llygaid ar y nod, sef i gadw pobl, yn cynnwys pobl fregus iawn yn aml iawn, mor ddiogel ag y gallwn ni. A chofiwch, dydy pasys na dim byd arall yn gweithio ar eu pennau eu hunain, a rŵan, fel trwy gydol y pandemig yma, mae'n rhaid pwysleisio pwysigrwydd - ac mae'n rhaid i'r Llywodraeth ei orfodi hefyd y gorau gallan nhw - y pethau sylfaenol yna fel gwisgo mwgwd, sicrhau awyr iach, cadw pellter ac ati, sydd yn dal yn gwbl allweddol yn y frwydr yn erbyn y feirws, a dwi'n gofyn i'r Llywodraeth gryfhau ei gwaith yn hynny o beth.