English: Now we turn to Wales. The Chancellor's announcement for England created a consequential for Wales of around about £58 million. However, the Welsh Government has decided, as is its right, to use this consequential funding for other purposes. Replying to my written question of 12 August, the Minister said this: 'The Welsh Government has made a clear commitment to delivering reforms to protect people living in high rise buildings. The reforms are substantial and complex. There are no quick fixes.' Well, I have to say, Minister, when it comes to the fire safety fund for leaseholders, there is certainly no quick fix, because the problem is still massive and unresolved, and you've not made any attempts so far to emulate the system in England. Instead, leaseholders must make do with the Minister's sympathy, and I quote: I have made clear that 'leaseholdersshould not be expected to pay to rectify issues that constitute a failure to build to appropriate quality standards or where matters are in breach of building regulations.' End quote. And I agree with that, but we need to face the fact that whilst these matters are going through courts or being strung out, these leaseholders are facing enforcement orders and have to pay up or try to sell their property, which is near impossible given current market requirements and the situation in terms of getting a mortgage. So, I really do think that you need to look at this issue again. Now, I do accept that £58 million as a consequential may be more than the problem needs in Wales to rectify. I accept that you can use that money as you see fit, and you may not want to construct or open a fund that is to the full value pro rata, as it were, to what is being introduced in England. That I could accept, if you gave evidence, and no doubt you'd be capable of getting the evidence if it is there to demonstrate that the need in Wales, though, is very significant, and as I've just referred to the residents in two developments very close to us, it may not be on the scale that it is in England. But I really do believe that you need to do something. These people have been left, really, to deal with a problem that is a matter of public policy failure, and it's a public policy failure that goes back a long time, at least 20 years, and both the party I represent and the party you represent, unfortunately, have been responsible for this policy failure. I'll just finish on this point: these people did everything right. They applied all due diligence, they sought the advice of solicitors, they had appraisals, inspections, reports of surveys and the like done on the properties they were purchasing, and they could see that the buildings had passed all the regulations, they'd been inspected, and yet they then find out that either the regulations were inadequate or the inspections were inadequate and didn't pick up the improper installation of these systems, which basically makes them null and void and highly dangerous. I do think that we have to come up with a solution. It may be an interim solution to ease the financial pressure on the leaseholders, whilst we do investigate whether there is a legal obligation amongst the builders and developers. But, you know, it's only an organisation as big as Government that can run that course and stay around and deal with legal proceedings. These leaseholders are facing imminent enforcement orders and estimated costs that run from £10,000 to £40,000 in our own neighbourhood here in the Senedd. So, Minister, can I say, I greatly enjoyed when I shadowed you until very recently? I respect you, I think you've been an innovative Minister, you are on top of your brief, and you've shown real leadership. But in this area, we've not been able to get a consensus, and so far I've been very disappointed with your response. I do urge you to bring that imagination, which you are famous for, to this particular, particularly acute problem.
Welsh: Trown at Gymru yn awr. Creodd cyhoeddiad y Canghellor ar gyfer Lloegr tua £58 miliwn o arian canlyniadol i Gymru. Fodd bynnag, mae Llywodraeth Cymru wedi penderfynu, fel y mae ganddi hawl i wneud, defnyddio'r cyllid canlyniadol hwn at ddibenion eraill. Wrth ateb fy nghwestiwn ysgrifenedig ar 12 Awst, dywedodd y Gweinidog: 'Mae Llywodraeth Cymru wedi gwneud ymrwymiad clir i gyflawni diwygiadau er mwyn diogelu pobl sy'n byw mewn adeiladau uchel iawn yng Nghymru. Mae'r diwygiadau, o reidrwydd, yn sylweddol ac yn gymhleth. Nid oes unrhyw atebion cyflym.' Wel, mae'n rhaid i mi ddweud, Weinidog, o ran y gronfa diogelwch tân i lesddeiliaid, yn sicr nid oes ateb cyflym, oherwydd mae'r broblem yn dal yn enfawr a heb ei datrys, ac nid ydych wedi gwneud unrhyw ymdrechion hyd yma i efelychu'r system yn Lloegr. Yn hytrach, rhaid i lesddeiliaid fodloni ar gydymdeimlad y Gweinidog, a dyfynnaf: 'Rwyf wedi cyfleu'n gyson na ddylid disgwyl i lesddeiliaid dalu i unioni problemau sy'n deillio o fethiant i adeiladu i safonau ansawdd priodol nac achosion sy'n torri rheoliadau adeiladu.' Ac rwy'n cytuno â hynny, ond tra bod y materion hyn yn mynd drwy lysoedd neu'n cael eu hymestyn dros amser, rhaid inni wynebu'r ffaith bod y lesddeiliaid hyn yn wynebu gorchmynion gorfodi ac yn gorfod talu neu geisio gwerthu eu heiddo, sydd bron yn amhosibl o ystyried gofynion presennol y farchnad a'r sefyllfa o ran cael morgais. Felly, rwy'n credu o ddifrif fod angen i chi edrych ar y mater hwn eto. Nawr, rwy'n derbyn y gallai £58 miliwn o arian canlyniadol fod yn fwy na sydd ei angen i unioni'r broblem yng Nghymru. Rwy'n derbyn y gallwch ddefnyddio'r arian hwnnw fel y gwelwch yn dda, ac efallai nad ydych am adeiladu nac agor cronfa hyd at werth llawn pro rata, fel petai, yr hyn sy'n cael ei gyflwyno yn Lloegr. Gallwn dderbyn hynny, pe baech yn rhoi tystiolaeth, ac mae'n siŵr y gallech gael y dystiolaeth os yw yno i ddangos bod yr angen yng Nghymru, serch hynny, yn arwyddocaol iawn, a chan fy mod newydd gyfeirio at y preswylwyr mewn dau ddatblygiad yn agos iawn atom, efallai nad yw ar y raddfa a welir yn Lloegr. Ond rwy'n credu o ddifrif fod angen i chi wneud rhywbeth. Mae'r bobl hyn wedi cael eu gadael, mewn gwirionedd, i ymdopi â phroblem sy'n fater o fethiant polisi cyhoeddus, ac mae'n fethiant polisi cyhoeddus sy'n mynd yn ôl dros amser maith, o leiaf 20 mlynedd, ac mae'r blaid rwy'n ei chynrychioli a'r blaid rydych chi'n ei chynrychioli, yn anffodus, wedi bod yn gyfrifol am y methiant polisi hwn. Rwyf am orffen ar y pwynt hwn: gwnaeth y bobl hyn bopeth yn iawn. Gwnaethant arfer yr holl ddiwydrwydd dyladwy, fe wnaethant ofyn am gyngor cyfreithwyr, cawsant werthusiadau, arolygiadau, adroddiadau arolygon a phethau tebyg wedi'i wneud ar yr eiddo roeddent yn ei brynu, a gallent weld bod yr adeiladau wedi pasio'r holl reoliadau, cawsant eu harolygu, ac eto maent wedyn yn darganfod bod naill ai'r rheoliadau'n annigonol neu fod yr arolygiadau'n annigonol ac nad oeddent wedi nodi'r ffaith bod y systemau hyn wedi'u gosod mewn modd amhriodol, sydd yn y bôn yn eu gwneud yn ddiwerth ac yn beryglus iawn. Credaf fod yn rhaid inni gynnig ateb. Efallai mai ateb dros dro i leddfu'r pwysau ariannol ar y lesddeiliaid fydd hwnnw, tra byddwn yn ymchwilio i weld a oes rhwymedigaeth gyfreithiol ymhlith yr adeiladwyr a'r datblygwyr. Ond wyddoch chi, dim ond sefydliad mor fawr â'r Llywodraeth sy'n gallu dilyn y trywydd hwnnw ac aros o gwmpas ac ymdrin â chamau cyfreithiol. Mae'r lesddeiliaid hyn yn wynebu gorchmynion gorfodi sydd ar y ffordd a chostau amcangyfrifedig o rhwng £10,000 a £40,000 yn ein cymdogaeth ein hunain yma yn y Senedd. Felly, Weinidog, a gaf fi ddweud fy mod wedi mwynhau'n fawr y cyfnod pan oeddwn yn eich cysgodi chi tan yn ddiweddar iawn? Rwy'n eich parchu, rwy'n credu eich bod wedi bod yn Weinidog arloesol, rydych chi'n ymdopi â'ch briff, ac rydych wedi dangos arweiniad go iawn. Ond yn y maes hwn, nid ydym wedi gallu cael consensws, a hyd yma rwyf wedi bod yn siomedig iawn gyda'ch ymateb. Rwy'n eich annog i ddefnyddio'r dychymyg rydych yn enwog amdano i ddatrys y broblem eithriadol o ddifrifol hon.