English: On the regulations this afternoon, from the Conservative point of view, we will be abstaining on the first set of regulations that are covered in agenda item 10, and we will be supporting agenda item 11 with the travel restrictions when it comes to Denmark. If I could trouble the Minister, maybe, to give us an update on the Denmark situation. As the Chair of the constitution and legal affairs committee highlighted, the troubling news coming from Denmark some two weeks ago that gave rise to these restrictions was that there was potential for a new strain of COVID-19 to be developing in Denmark. Since these restrictions have come in, I can't recall much mention of how progress is going on to contain the new strain, and I think it would be a matter of public interest if the Minister did have information, so that he could update us on that situation in respect of the restrictions that have been put in place for Denmark. In respect of agenda item 10, which is the undoing of the lockdown, firebreak - call it what you will - obviously, we did not support the original restrictions that were put in place, but we do have concerns in relation to the lifting of those restrictions, namely the travel restrictions that are contained and which do not allow extended households to stay with each other if they go on holiday, for example, yet they can stay in each other's homes if they're part of the extended household. This seems to be contradictory advice, and I'd be grateful to understand why the Minister has sought to keep this regulation given the damage that it is continuing to do to the Welsh tourism sector, when we talk about the economic damage that has been done by some of these restrictions that have been brought forward earlier by the Welsh Government. Secondly, our concern that leads us to abstain on these regulations is in relation to the national travel guidance that is now available - that people can move from high infection rates to low infection rates - when, at least since the end of August, the beginning of September, all Government advice has been supposedly led by the science, which has brought localised measures in to restrict travel movements. This seems to fly contrary to all the advice that the Government has been giving out since the start of the pandemic, and I'd be grateful again to understand what scientific advice the First Minister, or indeed the health Minister, has when introducing these national guidelines around travel, considering now it is appropriate for people, with infection rates in the hundreds per 100,000, to travel anywhere within Wales to lower infection rates. This does seem to be contrary to everything that's gone on prior to these new regulations being laid, and so I'd be grateful, in his response, if the Minister could come forward with the scientific advice that supports these regulations. Thank you.
Welsh: O ran y rheoliadau y prynhawn yma, o safbwynt y Ceidwadwyr, byddwn ni'n ymatal ar y gyfres gyntaf o reoliadau a gwmpesir yn eitem 10 ar yr agenda, a byddwn ni'n cefnogi eitem 11 ar yr agenda sef y cyfyngiadau teithio o ran Denmarc. Os gaf i ofyn yn garedig i'r Gweinidog, efallai, i roi'r wybodaeth ddiweddaraf i ni am sefyllfa Denmarc. Fel y nododd Cadeirydd y pwyllgor cyfansoddiad a materion cyfreithiol, y newyddion gofidus a oedd yn dod o Ddenmarc tua phythefnos yn ôl a arweiniodd at y cyfyngiadau hyn oedd bod potensial fod straen newydd o COVID-19 yn datblygu yn Nenmarc. Ers i'r cyfyngiadau hyn ddod i rym, ni allaf gofio llawer o sôn am y cynnydd o ran cyfyngu ar y straen newydd, ac rwy'n credu y byddai'n fater o ddiddordeb i'r cyhoedd pe byddai gan y Gweinidog wybodaeth, er mwyn iddo allu rhoi'r wybodaeth ddiweddaraf i ni am y sefyllfa honno o ran y cyfyngiadau sydd wedi eu rhoi ar waith ar gyfer Denmarc. O ran eitem 10 ar yr agenda, sef dadwneud y cyfyngiadau symud, y cyfnod atal byr - galwch ef beth bynnag y dymunwch - yn amlwg, nid oeddem yn cefnogi'r cyfyngiadau gwreiddiol a roddwyd ar waith, ond mae gennym ni bryderon ynglŷn â chodi'r cyfyngiadau hynny, sef y cyfyngiadau teithio sydd wedi'u cynnwys ac nad ydyn nhw'n caniatáu i aelwydydd estynedig aros gyda'i gilydd os byddan nhw'n mynd ar wyliau, er enghraifft, ond eto cawn nhw aros yng nghartrefi ei gilydd os ydyn nhw'n rhan o'r aelwyd estynedig. Mae'n ymddangos bod hwn yn gyngor anghyson, a byddwn i'n ddiolchgar o gael deall pam mae'r Gweinidog wedi ceisio cadw'r rheoliad hwn o gofio'r niwed y mae'n parhau i'w wneud i sector twristiaeth Cymru, pan fyddwn ni'n sôn am y niwed economaidd a wnaed gan rai o'r cyfyngiadau hyn a gyflwynwyd yn gynharach gan Lywodraeth Cymru. Yn ail, mae ein pryder sy'n ein harwain i ymatal ar y rheoliadau hyn yn ymwneud â'r canllawiau teithio cenedlaethol sydd ar gael yn awr - y caiff pobl symud o ardaloedd â chyfraddau heintio uchel i ardaloedd â chyfraddau heintio isel - pan, o leiaf ers diwedd mis Awst, dechrau mis Medi, mae'r holl gyngor gan y Llywodraeth wedi ei arwain gan y wyddoniaeth, yn ôl pob sôn, sydd wedi cyflwyno mesurau lleol i gyfyngu ar symudiadau teithio. Mae'n ymddangos bod hyn yn groes i'r holl gyngor y mae'r Llywodraeth wedi bod yn ei roi ers dechrau'r pandemig, a byddwn i'n ddiolchgar eto i ddeall pa gyngor gwyddonol sydd gan y Prif Weinidog, neu'r Gweinidog iechyd yn wir, wrth gyflwyno'r canllawiau cenedlaethol hyn ynghylch teithio, gan ystyried ei bod yn awr yn briodol i bobl, â chyfraddau heintio yn y cannoedd fesul 100,000, i deithio i unrhyw le yng Nghymru i gyfraddau heintio is. Mae'n ymddangos bod hyn yn groes i bopeth sydd wedi digwydd cyn i'r rheoliadau newydd hyn gael eu gosod, ac felly byddwn i'n ddiolchgar pe gallai'r Gweinidog, yn ei ymateb, gyflwyno'r cyngor gwyddonol sy'n ategu'r rheoliadau hyn. Diolch.