English: Thank you for the comments. I'm not surprised that you haven't changed your mind on leaving the European Union, but I would have thought that there would be a dose of reality, again, on what that actually means if we leave with a no deal or a hard Brexit. Look, on the workforce for the health service outside of the European Union, we've had a long and spirited correspondence and conversation between officials, with the United Kingdom Government, and, indeed, every organisation representing health and care staff right across the UK has called on the UK Government, for a long time, to change the environment or to change the rules around people being recruited into our health service. So, I welcome the u-turn announced by Sajid Javid to lift the tier 2 restrictions. That was a positive step forward, and that was always within the gift of the United Kingdom. It was the madness of having the Home Office say to the health service, 'You can't restrict the staff that you need, who you could recruit to meet our health and care needs, because we put an artificial cap on the numbers that can come in.' So, that's nothing to do with the European Union. I just think, in terms of your suggestion that this is about the European Union punishing the United Kingdom, this basically comes down to, if you leave a club and you say, 'I don't want to play by the rules; I want all the benefits, but I'll then decide what else I want to do as well', then that is absolutely where we can't be. We have to have a range of measures that deal with the reality of European Union-wide institutions and rules, and if we want to benefit from those, then we will need to act in a way that is consistent, and have agreement about doing so. On your point at the start of your speech, saying nobody wants medicines and equipment to have any restrictions - of course we want to be free of restrictions, but that requires us to have systems that allow us to do so. So, that is why arrangements around customs and trade do matter: 47 million pharmaceutical products each year go into the European Union, and about 39 million come back the other way. There's huge trade going on here between us and the rest of Europe, so the customs arrangements and trade arrangements really do matter in this area of activity too. They're underpinned by EU-wide systems in terms of how medicines and how equipment come into use within Europe. And there's a common centrepoint here: we either want that to continue, or we're prepared to bear restrictions that will cause real harm to people in our country. My view is we should not countenance that possibility. We should not wish to say it is acceptable to have an average six-month delay for new medicines to become available, as is directly the case now in Switzerland. I do not believe that would be acceptable. The Welsh Government does not believe that would be acceptable either.
Welsh: Diolch ichi am y sylwadau. Dydw i ddim yn synnu nad ydych chi wedi newid eich meddwl o ran gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd, ond byddwn wedi meddwl y byddech chi'n realistig, unwaith eto, ynglŷn â beth y mae hynny'n ei olygu mewn gwirionedd os ydym ni'n gadael gyda dim bargen neu Brexit caled. Ylwch, o ran y gweithlu ar gyfer y gwasanaeth iechyd o'r tu allan i'r Undeb Ewropeaidd, rydym ni wedi cael trafodaethau hir ac angerddol rhwng swyddogion, gyda Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig, ac, yn wir, mae pob sefydliad sy'n cynrychioli staff iechyd a gofal ar draws y DU wedi galw ar Lywodraeth y DU, am amser hir, i newid y sefyllfa neu i newid y rheolau ynghylch pobl yn cael eu recriwtio i'n gwasanaeth iechyd. Felly, croesawaf y tro pedol a gyhoeddwyd gan Sajid Javid i ddiddymu'r cyfyngiadau haen 2. Roedd hynny yn gam cadarnhaol ymlaen, ac roedd bob amser o fewn haelioni'r Deyrnas Unedig. Roedd a wnelo hyn ag ynfydrwydd y Swyddfa Gartref yn dweud wrth y gwasanaeth iechyd, 'allwch chi ddim cyfyngu ar y staff y mae eu hangen arnoch chi, y gallech chi eu recriwtio i ddiwallu ein hanghenion iechyd a gofal, oherwydd rydym ni wedi rhoi terfyn artiffisial ar y niferoedd sy'n gallu dod i mewn.' Felly, nid oes a wnelo hynny â'r Undeb Ewropeaidd o gwbl. Ond rwy'n credu, o ran eich awgrym bod a wnelo hyn â'r Undeb Ewropeaidd yn cosbi'r Deyrnas Unedig, yn y bôn mae a wnelo hyn â, os ydych chi'n gadael clwb, a'ch bod yn dweud, 'does arnaf i ddim eisiau chwarae yn ôl y rheolau; rwyf eisiau'r holl fuddion, ond fe wnaf i benderfynu wedyn beth arall rwyf eisiau ei wneud hefyd', yna dyna'r union sefyllfa na allwn ni fod ynddi. Mae'n rhaid inni gael amrywiaeth o fesurau sy'n ymwneud â realiti sefydliadau a rheolau yr Undeb Ewropeaidd gyfan, ac os ydym ni eisiau elwa ar y rhai hynny, yna bydd angen inni weithredu mewn ffordd sy'n gyson, a chael cytundeb ynglŷn â gwneud hynny. O ran eich sylw ar ddechrau eich araith, pan wnaethoch chi ddweud nad oes neb eisiau unrhyw gyfyngiadau ar feddyginiaethau ac offer - wrth gwrs nad oes arnom ni eisiau cyfyngiadau, ond mae angen inni gael systemau sy'n caniatáu inni wneud hynny. Felly, dyna pam mae trefniadau ynghylch tollau tramor a masnach o bwys: Mae 47 miliwn o gynhyrchion fferyllol bob blwyddyn yn mynd i'r Undeb Ewropeaidd, a daw tua 39 miliwn yn ôl y ffordd arall. Mae masnach enfawr yn digwydd yma rhyngom ni a gweddill Ewrop, felly mae'r trefniadau tollau a'r trefniadau masnach wirioneddol o bwys yn y maes hwn o weithgarwch hefyd. Maen nhw wedi eu hategu gan systemau ledled yr UE o ran sut mae meddyginiaethau a sut mae offer yn cael eu defnyddio yn Ewrop. Ac mae canolbwynt cyffredin yma: naill ai rydym ni eisiau i hynny barhau, neu rydym ni'n fodlon ysgwyddo cyfyngiadau a fydd yn achosi niwed gwirioneddol i bobl yn ein gwlad. Fy marn i yw na ddylem ni oddef y posibilrwydd hwnnw. Ddylem ni ddim fod eisiau dweud ei bod hi'n dderbyniol i orfod disgwyl chwe mis ar gyfartaledd nes fo meddyginiaethau newydd ar gael, fel yw'r achos bellach yn y Swistir. Nid wyf yn credu y byddai hynny'n dderbyniol. Nid yw Llywodraeth Cymru yn credu y byddai hynny'n dderbyniol chwaith.