English: Yes, I don't disagree, really, David, with anything that you've set out there. We are quite frustrated by the position. The UK Government is currently investigating whether to bring into force something called section 38 of the Building Act 1984, which is a part of the Building Act that addresses the civil liability and who is responsible for breaches of regulatory duty and so on. So, that consultation is live. We don't have the power to do it here, as I understand it, although if that's incorrect I'll write to say, but my understanding is we don't. If they do bring that into force, it gives individuals the right to legal recourse where they suffer damage, which includes personal injury, death and so on, as a result of a breach of the duty imposed by building regulations. But, at the moment - . I've got pages and pages here of the complexity of the law relating to who is responsible if buildings had passed a regulatory regime at one point then fail it subsequently, and it's immensely complex. Andrew R.T. Davies asked a question in the business statement earlier about this, and I'm afraid the answer is that it's immensely complicated. It depends at what point they were inspected, by whom, what the relationship was, what your insurance position is and whether you're a leaseholder. It's really complicated and very individualised. What is clear, though, is that the current regime does not place the onus on the building inspector. All they're doing is a spot check, so something could have gone wrong the day before that's now covered up or go wrong the day afterwards, so it's a system based on spot checking - it is not a guarantee that your building is compliant. Indeed, as you've rightly pointed out, we are now aware that many buildings that did pass those tests on a spot-check basis are not compliant, so it is a real problem. We are in conversation - in particular, you mentioned Celestia. Officials are engaged in conversations with the fire authorities - the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service. Welsh Government officials have been meeting with Celestia's managing agents and Cardiff council, as well as fire and rescue, to understand the complex issues that are problematic there. I agree with you that leaseholders should not be expected to pay these, but, at the moment, it is not clear, unless they have a valid claim, who would pay unless the UK Government stumps up some cash, which I join you in calling for them to do. In terms of the ACM cladding issues, those are slightly more complex. So, we had 111 high-rise buildings identified in Wales and 12 high-rise private residential buildings with ACM cladding that failed the initial screening tests, all of which were in Cardiff. All 12 buildings have either removed the cladding or have a remediation system in place. So, that particular problem is not a problem in Wales, although it continues to be a problem elsewhere. For social homes, we provided the funding to remedy the situation. So, in Wales that specific problem doesn't exist, although we continue to test other types of cladding. Sometimes it's not the cladding, it's the way it was put on, as you say, and the workmanship and so on, so these are very complex things. In terms of the timing, I totally accept what you're saying. It would be lovely to get it done, but the other thing to do is to get it right. And so, these are really complex, and the more we go into them, the more differing professional views there are. So, I want to get it right. I hope the White Paper will enable us to make those policy choices, and then assuming they're not controversial, maybe we will be able to get that legislation through. I share your wish to do that, but we'll have to see what the White Paper produces.
Welsh: Dydw i ddim yn anghytuno, mewn gwirionedd, David, ag unrhyw beth yr ydych chi wedi'i nodi yno. Rydym ni'n teimlo'n rhwystredig iawn ynghylch y sefyllfa. Ar hyn o bryd, mae Llywodraeth y DU yn ymchwilio i weld a ddylid dod â rhywbeth a elwir yn adran 38 o Ddeddf Adeiladu 1984 i rym, sef rhan o'r Ddeddf Adeiladu sy'n mynd i'r afael â'r atebolrwydd sifil a phwy sy'n gyfrifol am dorri'r ddyletswydd reoleiddio ac ati. Felly, mae'r ymgynghoriad hwnnw'n fyw. Nid oes gennym ni'r pŵer i'w wneud yma, fel rwyf i'n ei ddeall, er, os yw hynny'n anghywir, byddaf i'n ysgrifennu i ddweud, ond yn ôl yr hyn yr wyf i'n ei ddeall, nid oes gennym ni. Os ydyn nhw'n dod â hynny i rym, mae'n rhoi hawl cyfreithiol i unigolion droi atyn nhw os ydyn nhw'n dioddef difrod, sy'n cynnwys anaf personol, marwolaeth ac yn y blaen, o ganlyniad i dorri'r ddyletswydd a osodir gan reoliadau adeiladu. Ond, ar hyn o bryd - . Mae gen i dudalennau a thudalennau yma o gymhlethdodau'r gyfraith sy'n ymwneud â phwy sy'n gyfrifol os oedd adeiladau wedi pasio trefn reoleiddio ar un adeg yna wedi'i fethu ar ôl hynny, ac mae'n hynod o gymhleth. Gofynnodd Andrew R.T. Davies gwestiwn yn y datganiad busnes yn gynharach am hyn, ac mae arnaf i ofn mai'r ateb yw ei fod yn hynod o gymhleth. Mae'n dibynnu pa bryd y cawson nhw eu harolygu, gan bwy, beth oedd y berthynas, beth yw eich sefyllfa o ran yswiriant ac a ydych yn lesddeiliad. Mae'n hynod o gymhleth ac yn unigol iawn. Yr hyn sy'n amlwg, serch hynny, yw nad yw'r drefn bresennol yn rhoi'r cyfrifoldeb ar yr arolygydd adeiladu. Y cyfan maen nhw'n ei wneud yw hapwiriadau, felly gallai rhywbeth fod wedi mynd o'i le y diwrnod cyn hynny sydd nawr wedi'i guddio neu'n mynd o'i le y diwrnod wedyn, felly mae'n system sy'n seiliedig ar hapwiriadau - nid oes gwarant y bydd eich adeilad yn cydymffurfio. Yn wir, fel yr ydych chi wedi'i nodi'n briodol, rydym ni bellach yn ymwybodol nad yw llawer o adeiladau a lwyddodd i basio'r profion hynny ar sail hapwiriadau yn cydymffurfio, felly mae wir yn broblem. Rydym ni'n sgwrsio - yn benodol, fe wnaethoch chi sôn am Celestia. Mae swyddogion wrthi'n sgwrsio â'r awdurdodau tân - Gwasanaeth Tân ac Achub De Cymru. Mae swyddogion Llywodraeth Cymru wedi bod yn cwrdd ag asiantau rheoli Celestia a Chyngor Caerdydd, yn ogystal â thân ac achub, i ddeall y materion cymhleth sy'n achosi problemau yno. Cytunaf â chi na ddylid disgwyl i lesddeiliaid dalu'r rhain, ond, ar hyn o bryd, nid yw'n glir, oni bai fod ganddyn nhw hawliad dilys, pwy fyddai'n talu oni bai fod Llywodraeth y DU yn darparu rhywfaint o arian, ac ymunaf â chi i alw arnyn nhw i wneud hynny. O ran y materion cladin ACM, mae'r rheini ychydig yn fwy cymhleth. Felly, cafodd 111 adeilad uchel eu nodi yng Nghymru a 12 o adeiladau preswyl preifat uchel gyda chladin ACM a fethodd y profion sgrinio cychwynnol, ac yr oedd pob un ohonyn nhw yng Nghaerdydd. Mae pob un o'r 12 adeilad naill ai wedi cael gwared ar y cladin neu wedi sefydlu system adfer. Felly, nid yw'r broblem benodol honno'n broblem yng Nghymru, er ei bod yn dal yn broblem mewn mannau eraill. O ran cartrefi cymdeithasol, fe wnaethom ni ddarparu'r arian i unioni'r sefyllfa. Felly, yng Nghymru nid yw'r broblem benodol honno'n bodoli, er ein bod yn parhau i brofi mathau eraill o gladin. Weithiau, nid y cladin ei hun yw hyn, ond y ffordd y cafodd ei osod, fel y dywedwch chi, a'r crefftwaith ac yn y blaen, felly mae'r rhain yn bethau cymhleth iawn. O ran yr amseru, rwy'n derbyn yn llwyr yr hyn yr ydych chi'n ei ddweud. Byddai'n hyfryd ei gyflawni, ond y peth arall i'w wneud yw ei gyflawni'n gywir. Ac felly, mae'r rhain yn wirioneddol gymhleth, a po fwyaf y byddwn ni'n mynd i mewn iddyn nhw, y mwyaf o farnau proffesiynol sydd ar gael. Felly, rwyf i am wneud pethau'n iawn. Rwy'n gobeithio y bydd y Papur Gwyn yn ein galluogi i wneud y dewisiadau polisi hynny, ac wedyn gan dybio nad ydyn nhw'n ddadleuol, efallai y byddwn ni'n gallu sicrhau bod y ddeddfwriaeth honno'n cael ei chyflwyno. Rwy'n rhannu eich dymuniad i wneud hynny, ond bydd yn rhaid inni weld beth fydd y Papur Gwyn yn ei gynhyrchu.