English: Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'd like thank everyone who's participated in the debate this afternoon, and, in particular, the way it set out why we are debating these issues, because of the tragedy that was Grenfell, and the innocence of people who live within many of these properties that are affected by the subsequent fall-out from Grenfell - it's a tragedy for those individuals. And Joel James touched very powerfully on the mental health issues, the abuse of alcohol and other social implications that have befallen these individuals through no fault of their own, but through the trauma of going from having what they believe was their dream home to a liability around their necks and, ultimately, something that had little or no value whatsoever, but, above all, a potential death trap if a fire ensued in any of those buildings, and, obviously, the continuing fear of what might happen. And that's why I'm a bit mystified by the Minister's response today. Why wouldn't the Welsh Government want to use law to give rights to those individuals so that if they felt able to, under the law, they could seek redress? I do welcome the initiatives that the Minister and the Government have taken to date in working alongside colleagues across the sector to bring the developers to the table, but there are very many certain areas that do need the law to give protection to the individuals affected, such as the special-purpose vehicles that were put in place to build many of these developments but, once the developments were built, those particular companies folded and the liability almost ceased for those developers. If we were to adopt some of these measures in a Welsh Act that would come forward -
Welsh: Diolch, Lywydd. Hoffwn ddiolch i bawb sydd wedi cymryd rhan yn y ddadl y prynhawn yma, ac yn arbennig, am y ffordd y nododd pam ein bod yn trafod y materion hyn, oherwydd trasiedi Grenfell, a diniweidrwydd pobl sy'n byw mewn llawer o'r adeiladau yr effeithiwyd arnynt yn sgil Grenfell - mae'n drasiedi i'r unigolion hynny. Ac fe gyffyrddodd Joel James yn bwerus iawn ar y materion iechyd meddwl, cam-drin alcohol a goblygiadau cymdeithasol eraill sydd wedi taro'r unigolion hyn heb unrhyw fai arnynt hwy, ond drwy'r trawma o fynd o gael yr hyn y credant sy'n gartref eu breuddwydion i fod yn faen melin o amgylch eu gyddfau ac yn y pen draw, yn rhywbeth heb iddo fawr o werth o gwbl, ond fel trap marwol posibl pe bai tân yn digwydd yn unrhyw un o'r adeiladau hynny, ac yn amlwg, yr ofn parhaus ynglŷn â'r hyn a allai ddigwydd. A dyna pam y mae ymateb y Gweinidog yn fy nrysu braidd heddiw. Pam na fyddai Llywodraeth Cymru eisiau defnyddio'r gyfraith i roi hawliau i'r unigolion hyn fel y gallent fynnu iawn o dan y gyfraith, pe baent yn teimlo y gallent wneud hynny? Rwy'n croesawu'r cynlluniau y mae'r Gweinidog a'r Llywodraeth wedi'u rhoi ar waith hyd yma i weithio ochr yn ochr â chydweithwyr ar draws y sector i ddod â'r datblygwyr at y bwrdd, ond mae yna lawer iawn o feysydd penodol sydd angen i'r gyfraith roi amddiffyniad i'r unigolion yr effeithir arnynt, megis y cyfryngau at ddibenion arbennig a gafodd eu rhoi ar waith i adeiladu llawer o'r datblygiadau hyn ond ar ôl i'r datblygiadau gael eu hadeiladu, daeth y cwmnïau hynny i ben a daeth atebolrwydd y datblygwyr hynny i ben bron â bod. Pe baem yn mabwysiadu rhai o'r mesurau hyn mewn Deddf Gymreig a fyddai'n cael ei chyflwyno -