English: He referred, also, to the non-COVID health impact and the risk that that was going to lead to further loss of life than any lives that would be saved by continuing lockdown. I think that's a very strong point, and when the Minister and others urge caution, I would respond that caution cuts both ways and, as I think some Members recognise, there's no avoidance of risk in the decisions that we make. Darren also, I think, rightly made the point that Wales was not just a comparison with England, but we were lagging behind Scotland and Northern Ireland and the UK generally in a four-nations approach, or the lack of one. I mean, he was perhaps a little less strong, I thought, with the emphasis towards the end on the cruel five-mile rule that we've heard so much about from the Conservatives. We heard about it at First Minister's questions as a slightly puzzling exchange, because the First Minister took great exception to Paul Davies describing it as a rule, but then told us that he'd be keeping the rule for another two weeks. We then had Caroline Jones from the Brexit Party group give us all an excellent contribution. And, yes, at the beginning, when we didn't have an opportunity to vote on the regulations until much later, it did make sense to put the whole country in quarantine in order to protect the vulnerable, because the country was so woefully unprepared that either test or trace, or what was then described as 'cocooning' the vulnerable, were unlikely to work. But the purpose of what we did was to flatten the curve, and we were successful within that, yet the restrictions have continued. Social distancing can quickly become social isolation, she told us, and that has a particular impact on people's mental health. I think the best we can do now is to stop an exponential, substantial increase rather than expect the virus to be eradicated, although, of course, that would be very good and could happen for reasons that are totally unconnected to any intervention we may make. We then heard from Rhun ap Iorwerth. I was slightly puzzled by his initial comments about whether there were links between smoking and cancer. I mean, that's been clear since at least the Doll studies in the early 1950s. He emphasised safety, but again, that applies both ways. Again, I was puzzled by his final sort of attack on the Brexit Party for not including reference to proper robust test and trace in our motion. Indeed, that's why we'd have been happy to vote for Neil McEvoy's amendment. If Rhun was so keen to have it in the motion, all he needed to do was to move that motion from Neil McEvoy. But I know, because of the challenge the Welsh National Party may be making to Plaid Cymru, that was not something that he wanted to do. We then heard from Mandy Jones, who spoke, again, about the need to flatten the curve, as we were told this was for, and when did it change? We've had no answer to that. And without an answer to that, what this lockdown does, it may postpone COVID deaths, but it may not eliminate them, or not to any significant degree, while creating greatly more non-COVID deaths as well as destroying the economy and people's well-being. So, that's why we say it's time to lift these restrictions. Gareth Bennett then referred to differences between UK and Wales and how the First Minister and Welsh Government were seemingly creating differences for the sake of it rather than reflecting the science. He then said, very similar, again, to a First Minister's question I put earlier: who's going to pay for this in the end? They'll try and blame the UK Government, but when we've got things differently in Wales because we insist on it, why is the UK Government going to step in and pay for the consequences to that? So, ultimately, Welsh rates of income tax are going to go up. Yet, as Gareth may have seen earlier, if you raise that with the First Minister, you're accused of wanting to live in another country, as if people aren't able to object to what the Senedd does, to what the Welsh Government does, without people questioning their presence in the Welsh polity. And in that conclusion Gareth came to, he ended, I think, by saying more and more people concluding, 'Abolish the Assembly', which I assume was a reference to his exciting announcement that he had earlier today, although he didn't refer to it expressly. We then had Neil Hamilton, who said the wrong remedy was the lockdown and, actually, we should be protecting the vulnerable. And, again, the burden of proof on this should be for the proponents of people who are taking away people's liberty and trying to keep people in lockdown. When these measures are lifted in different countries, there has not been a terribly clear link between the degree of lockdown and the prevalence of this disease. I'd then like to thank the Minister for her comments. She refers to being personally cautious, but, actually, the inverse of that is the contrary for the economy, and also for people's health, potentially, from a non-COVID perspective. I'm slightly perplexed that she then said it was all a problem with the UK Government pulling away and not having meetings or co-operating with the Welsh Government. I recall it was, I think, the First Minister who boycotted a meeting with Michael Gove, and he'd been pre-empted on Brexit or similar. But, we're clearly going to disagree with the Government on this. We're pleased to have the Conservative support, even if they did vote to put the 2m social distancing into law, and that's one of the things holding back the economy. But we need to get going, we need to sort this out, we need to get the economy back functioning again and the balance of risk on this lockdown is now the other way, such that we need to lift it as soon as possible not just to get the economy going, but also to protect our health generally.
Welsh: Cyfeiriodd, hefyd, at yr effaith nad yw'n effaith COVID ar iechyd a'r risg y byddai hynny'n arwain at golli rhagor o fywydau nag unrhyw fywydau a fyddai'n cael eu hachub drwy barhau'r cyfyngiadau. Rwy'n credu bod hwnnw'n bwynt cryf iawn, a phan fydd y Gweinidog ac eraill yn annog pwyll, byddwn yn ymateb bod pwyll yn gweithio'r ddwy ffordd ac fel y credaf fod rhai o'r Aelodau'n cydnabod, nid oes modd osgoi risg yn y penderfyniadau a wnawn. Rwy'n credu bod Darren wedi gwneud y pwynt hefyd, rwy'n credu, yn gwbl briodol, nad cymhariaeth â Lloegr yn unig oedd Cymru, ond ein bod yn llusgo ar ôl yr Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon a'r DU yn gyffredinol mewn dull pedair gwlad o weithredu, neu ddiffyg un. Hynny yw, efallai ei fod ychydig yn llai cadarn, gyda'r pwyslais ar roi diwedd ar y rheol bum milltir greulon y clywsom gymaint amdani gan y Ceidwadwyr. Clywsom amdani yn y cwestiynau i'r Prif Weinidog fel dadl ychydig yn ddryslyd, oherwydd roedd y Prif Weinidog yn gwrthwynebu'n hallt fod Paul Davies wedi ei disgrifio fel rheol, ond dywedodd wrthym wedyn y byddai'n cadw'r rheol am bythefnos arall. Wedyn cawsom Caroline Jones o grŵp Plaid Brexit yn rhoi cyfraniad ardderchog i ni. Ac ar y dechrau, pan na chawsom gyfle i bleidleisio ar y rheoliadau tan yn llawer diweddarach, roedd yn gwneud synnwyr i roi'r wlad i gyd mewn cwarantin er mwyn amddiffyn y rhai sy'n agored i niwed, am fod y wlad mor druenus o amharod fel nad oedd profi nac olrhain, na'r hyn a ddisgrifiwyd ar y pryd fel 'lapio'r rhai agored i niwed mewn cocŵn', yn debygol o weithio. Ond pwrpas yr hyn a wnaethom oedd gwastatáu'r gromlin, a buom yn llwyddiannus o fewn hynny, ac eto mae'r cyfyngiadau wedi parhau. Gall cadw pellter cymdeithasol droi'n arwahanrwydd cymdeithasol yn gyflym, meddai wrthym, ac mae hynny'n cael effaith benodol ar iechyd meddwl pobl. Rwy'n credu mai'r gorau y gallwn ei wneud yn awr yw rhoi diwedd ar gynnydd digyfyngiad y feirws yn hytrach na disgwyl i'r feirws gael ei ddileu, er, wrth gwrs, byddai hynny'n dda iawn, a gallai ddigwydd am resymau heb gysylltiad o gwbl ag unrhyw ymyrraeth y gallem ni ei rhoi ar waith. Clywsom wedyn gan Rhun ap Iorwerth. Cefais fy nrysu braidd gan ei sylwadau cychwynnol ynglŷn ag a oedd cysylltiadau rhwng smygu a chanser. Hynny yw, mae hynny wedi bod yn glir ers astudiaethau Doll ar ddechrau'r 1950au fan lleiaf. Roedd yn pwysleisio diogelwch, ond eto, mae hynny'n gweithio'r ddwy ffordd. Unwaith eto, roedd ei ymosodiad olaf ar Blaid Brexit am beidio â chynnwys cyfeiriad at brofi ac olrhain cadarn yn ein cynnig yn peri penbleth i mi. Yn wir, dyna pam y byddem wedi bod yn hapus i bleidleisio dros welliant Neil McEvoy. Os oedd Rhun mor awyddus i'w gael yn y cynnig, y cyfan oedd angen iddo ei wneud oedd cyflwyno'r cynnig gan Neil McEvoy. Ond oherwydd yr her y gallai'r Welsh National Party fod yn ei chreu i Blaid Cymru, gwn nad oedd hynny'n rhywbeth y dymunai ei wneud. Clywsom wedyn gan Mandy Jones, a siaradodd, unwaith eto, am yr angen i wastatáu'r gromlin, fel y dywedwyd wrthym y byddai hyn yn ei wneud, a pha bryd y newidiwyd hynny? Nid ydym wedi cael ateb i hynny. A heb ateb i hynny, bydd y cyfyngiadau'n gohirio marwolaethau COVID o bosibl, ond ni fydd yn eu dileu, neu ddim yn sylweddol, a bydd yn creu llawer mwy o farwolaethau nad ydynt yn rhai COVID yn ogystal â dinistrio'r economi a lles pobl. Felly, dyna pam ein bod yn dweud ei bod hi'n bryd codi'r cyfyngiadau hyn. Yna cyfeiriodd Gareth Bennett at wahaniaethau rhwng y DU a Chymru a sut roedd y Prif Weinidog a Llywodraeth Cymru i'w gweld fel pe baent yn creu gwahaniaethau er eu mwyn eu hunain yn hytrach nag adlewyrchu'r wyddoniaeth. Dywedodd wedyn, yn debyg iawn, unwaith eto, i gwestiwn a ofynnais i'r Prif Weinidog yn gynharach: pwy sy'n mynd i dalu am hyn yn y pen draw? Byddant yn ceisio beio Llywodraeth y DU, ond pan fo gennym bethau'n wahanol yng Nghymru am ein bod yn mynnu hynny, pam y byddai Llywodraeth y DU yn camu i mewn a thalu am ganlyniadau hynny? Felly, yn y pen draw, mae cyfraddau treth incwm Cymru'n mynd i godi. Ac eto, fel y mae Gareth efallai wedi'i weld yn gynharach, os codwch chi hynny gyda'r Prif Weinidog, fe'ch cyhuddir o fod eisiau byw mewn gwlad arall, fel pe na bai pobl yn gallu gwrthwynebu'r hyn y mae'r Senedd yn ei wneud, yr hyn y mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn ei wneud, heb i bobl gwestiynu eu presenoldeb yn y wladwriaeth Gymreig. Ac yn y casgliad y daeth Gareth iddo, fe ddaeth i ben, rwy'n meddwl, drwy ddweud bod mwy a mwy o bobl yn dod i'r casgliad, 'Diddymwch y Cynulliad', ac rwy'n cymryd mai cyfeiriad oedd hwnnw at ei gyhoeddiad cyffrous yn gynharach heddiw, er na chyfeiriodd ato'n benodol. Yna cawsom Neil Hamilton, a ddywedodd mai cyfyngiadau oedd yr ateb anghywir ac mewn gwirionedd, dylem fod yn diogelu'r rhai sy'n agored i niwed. Ac unwaith eto, dylai'r baich prawf ar hyn fod ar gyfer y rhai sy'n cefnogi cyfyngu ar ryddid pobl a cheisio cadw pobl dan gyfyngiadau symud. Pan gaiff y mesurau hyn eu codi mewn gwahanol wledydd, ni fu cysylltiad clir iawn rhwng graddau'r cyfyngiadau a nifer yr achosion o'r clefyd. Hoffwn ddiolch i'r Gweinidog am ei sylwadau. Mae hi'n cyfeirio at y ffaith ei bod hi'n ochelgar, ond mewn gwirionedd, ochr arall y geiniog i hynny yw'r gwrthwyneb i'r economi, a hefyd i iechyd pobl, o bosibl, o safbwynt ffactorau heblaw COVID. Rwyf mewn penbleth braidd ei bod wedi dweud wedyn fod hyn i gyd yn broblem gyda Llywodraeth y DU yn tynnu'n ôl a ddim yn cynnal cyfarfodydd nac yn cydweithredu â Llywodraeth Cymru. Rwy'n cofio mai'r Prif Weinidog a wnaeth foicotio cyfarfod â Michael Gove, rwy'n credu, a'u bod wedi achub y blaen arno ar Brexit neu rywbeth tebyg. Ond mae'n amlwg ein bod yn mynd i anghytuno â'r Llywodraeth ar hyn. Rydym yn falch o gael cefnogaeth y Ceidwadwyr, er eu bod wedi pleidleisio dros roi pellter cymdeithasol o 2m mewn cyfraith, a dyna un o'r pethau sy'n dal yr economi yn ôl. Ond mae angen inni ddechrau arni, mae angen inni ddatrys hyn, mae angen inni sicrhau bod yr economi yn ailddechrau ac mae'r cydbwysedd risg y ffordd arall bellach mewn perthynas â'r cyfyngiadau hyn, fel bod angen inni eu codi cyn gynted ag sy'n bosibl nid yn unig i gael yr economi i symud, ond hefyd i ddiogelu ein hiechyd yn gyffredinol.