English: I don't want you to think that because I'm saying we accept the recommendations in principle it's a mealy-mouthed way of saying that we get what they're saying but we're going to do something different. What we mean by that is that we've not yet had sufficient time to work through the detailed road map of implementing the recommendations. Just to be clear, we're not saying that there's some fundamental problem with any of them. It is just about a very complex set of things that we've got to work through in order to do that. As I said, we want to get the system thoroughly, coherently, properly working together. We're doing that across three sets of regulators, and I've got most of those in my portfolio. The Hackitt review in England is recommending, for example, a joint combined regulator across that. We don't think that's the right solution for Wales as that puts another level of bureaucracy into an already very bureaucratic system. So, for example, we're looking to see whether there are any other mechanisms for pulling the regulators together in this regard rather than making another tier of regulation for a specific thing. So, that's just one example of where we're trying to work through the recommendations. So, it's not that we don't accept it, it's just that sometimes it's disproportionate to the level of risk here in Wales. So we're just trying to get the proportionality right. I just use that as one example of what we're trying to work through with that. The fire safety Order - there are quite a few things we can do short of primary legislation, so we will be going at pace to do those things, and that will include statutory instruments to put some of that in place already, and we will consult on the new overarching Order. So, it may be that we can get it through in this Assembly term. I'm just not promising that we can do that, because I'm not in a position to be able to do that. If we can go faster than that because it turns out it's not controversial at all, then fantastic. At the moment there are quite a few varied views across the sector, and whilst everybody wants to get it done, there isn't, it seems to me, wholesale agreement about how to get it done. So we do have to get a consensus arrangement in place, or at least understand where everybody's coming from for that. So, whilst we all agree about the need for doing this at pace, we also, I think, all agree on the need to do it properly and right. As I say, we're in a consensus about needing to do it, but not, unfortunately, in a consensus about what 'it' exactly is. Once you start to go down into the detail, you'll find that there are different views across the various regulators and the various stakeholders that we need to work through in order to get that right. And one of those is around building control issues, so I absolutely take the committee's point of view - it's certainly something we want to look at, but there are real issues around capacity in local government for that. What we would do about the current position where they sell services on the one hand and are the regulator on the other - there are a number of important issues to work through, which we will work through, and we will come to the conclusion necessary to make sure that the regime is robust. I understand entirely what the committee was trying to achieve by that, because quite clearly there is a conflict between being an inspector as the building is built and then being the regulator as well. There's a clear conflict, but how we work through that conflict and what process we put in place is another question entirely, and there are a number of ways of doing that that we need to work through. So, I get the point, but again, I'm not quite in a position to be able to come to that conclusion. I too am disappointed that we're not. It's about seven weeks, I think, since I made the statement. It is taking us longer to get consensus on some of these things than we might have thought, and some of it is more contentious than we might have thought. If you remember the road map - and I stupidly haven't brought a copy with me - there were three or four 'stop points' in it that we need to think about, and as I said, we've established the different workstreams in order to work through some of those conflicts. It's the same for agents. There's still a conversation to be had about conflicts of interest, and how they work, and what the duty holders that I talked about in my statement are, and what the duties on the duty holders are, and how they work through. So, those things are addressed, but we've yet to come to quite the conclusion we need to be in to give the policy instructions to the lawyers to draft the legislation. We need to get to that stage for that. On the retrofitting of sprinklers, again, we are discussing that: how we can do that in a proportionate way, how we can give access to finance for that, what the higher-risk buildings will look like, and what the schedule will look like. Ideally, of course, we would like all buildings to have sprinklers in them. Just to be clear: that's the ideal. It's just a question of how we get there and how we finance that. So, obviously, we will be looking at that for different sectors across Wales. There will be different solutions for social housing than there will be in the private rented sector, for example, and we need to have access to that. And I think we're all in the same place - it's just about trying to get there with the right conclusions, so that we get a robust system in Wales where we don't have an unforeseen consequence yet again, where people lose their lives because we haven't been able to think through the system.
Welsh: Nid wyf eisiau i chi feddwl oherwydd fy mod yn dweud ein bod yn derbyn yr argymhellion mewn egwyddor ei fod yn ffordd wenieithus o ddweud ein bod yn deall yr hyn y maen nhw'n ei ddweud ond rydym ni'n mynd i wneud rhywbeth gwahanol. Yr hyn a olygwn wrth hynny yw nad ydym ni hyd yn hyn wedi cael digon o amser i ystyried yn fanwl y cynllun o weithredu'r argymhellion. I fod yn glir, nid ydym yn dweud bod rhyw broblem sylfaenol ynghylch unrhyw un ohonyn nhw. Mae'n ymwneud â chyfres gymhleth iawn o bethau y mae'n rhaid inni ymdrin â nhw er mwyn gwneud hynny. Fel y dywedais, rydym ni eisiau sicrhau bod y system yn cydweithio'n drwyadl, yn gydlynol ac yn briodol. Rydym ni'n gwneud hynny ar draws tair set o reolyddion, ac mae gennyf i'r rhan fwyaf o'r rheiny yn fy mhortffolio. Mae adolygiad Hackitt yn Lloegr yn argymell, er enghraifft, rheoleiddiwr cyfun ar y cyd. Nid ydym yn credu mai dyna'r ateb cywir i Gymru gan fod hynny'n rhoi haen arall o fiwrocratiaeth mewn system sydd eisoes yn fiwrocrataidd iawn. Felly, er enghraifft, rydym ni'n ceisio canfod a oes unrhyw ddulliau eraill ar gyfer tynnu'r rheolyddion at ei gilydd yn hyn o beth yn hytrach na chreu haen arall o reoleiddio ar gyfer rhywbeth penodol. Felly, dyna un enghraifft yn unig o le'r ydym ni'n ceisio gweithio drwy'r argymhellion. Felly, nid yw'n golygu nad ydym yn ei derbyn, ond weithiau mae'n anghymesur â lefel y risg yma yng Nghymru. Felly, rydym yn ceisio cael y cymesuredd yn iawn. Rwyf dim ond yn defnyddio hynny fel un enghraifft o'r hyn yr ydym yn ceisio'i wneud o safbwynt hynny. Y Gorchymyn diogelwch tân - mae cryn dipyn o bethau y gallwn eu gwneud nad ydyn nhw'n ddeddfwriaeth sylfaenol, felly, byddwn yn mynd ati'n gyflym i wneud y pethau hynny, a bydd hynny'n cynnwys offerynnau statudol i roi rhywfaint o hynny ar waith yn syth, a byddwn yn ymgynghori ar y Gorchymyn cyffredinol newydd. Felly, efallai y gallwn ei phasio yn ystod y tymor Cynulliad hwn. Nid wyf yn addo y gallwn ni wneud hynny, gan nad wyf i mewn sefyllfa i allu gwneud hynny. Os gallwn ni fynd yn gyflymach na hynny oherwydd iddi ymddangos nad yw'n ddadleuol o gwbl, yna gwych. Ar hyn o bryd, mae cryn nifer o wahanol safbwyntiau yn y sector, ac er bod pawb yn awyddus iddi gael ei phasio, nid yw'n ymddangos i mi fod yna gytundeb eang ynghylch sut i gyflawni hyn. Felly mae'n rhaid inni gael cydsyniad, neu o leiaf ddeall beth yw safbwynt pawb. Felly, er ein bod i gyd yn cytuno bod angen gwneud hyn yn gyflym, rydym ni hefyd, fe gredaf, yn cytuno â'r angen i wneud hynny'n iawn. Fel rwyf yn dweud, rydym ni o'r un farn gyffredin ynglŷn â'r angen i wneud hyn, ond nid, yn anffodus, o'r un farn ynghylch beth yn union yw'r hyn sydd angen ei wneud. Wrth ichi ddechrau manylu, fe welwch chi fod safbwyntiau gwahanol gan y gwahanol reoleiddwyr a'r rhanddeiliaid amrywiol y mae angen inni weithio arnyn nhw er mwyn cael hynny'n iawn. Ac mae un o'r rheiny yn ymwneud â materion rheoli adeiladu, felly rwy'n derbyn safbwynt y pwyllgor yn llwyr - mae'n sicr yn rhywbeth yr ydym ni eisiau edrych arno, ond mae problemau gwirioneddol yn ymwneud â chapasiti mewn Llywodraeth Leol ynghylch hynny. Yr hyn y byddem ni yn ei wneud ynglŷn â'r sefyllfa bresennol lle maen nhw'n gwerthu gwasanaethau ar y naill law ac yn rheoleiddio ar y llaw arall - mae nifer o faterion pwysig i ymdrin â nhw, a byddwn yn ymdrin â nhw, a deuwn i'r casgliad sy'n angenrheidiol i wneud yn siŵr y bydd y gyfundrefn yn gadarn. Rwy'n deall yn iawn yr hyn yr oedd y pwyllgor yn ceisio'i gyflawni drwy hynny, oherwydd ei bod yn amlwg bod gwrthdaro rhwng bod yn arolygydd wrth i'r adeilad gael ei adeiladu ac wedyn bod yn rheoleiddiwr hefyd. Mae gwrthdaro amlwg, ond mae'r ffordd y byddwn yn ymdrin â'r gwrthdaro hwnnw a pha broses y byddwn yn ei rhoi ar waith yn gwestiwn arall yn llwyr, ac mae nifer o ffyrdd o wneud hynny y mae angen inni eu gweithredu. Felly, rwy'n deall y pwynt, ond eto, nid wyf mewn sefyllfa i allu dod i'r casgliad hwnnw. Rwyf innau hefyd yn siomedig nad ydym ni. Mae tua saith wythnos, rwy'n credu, ers imi wneud y datganiad. Mae'n cymryd mwy o amser inni gael consensws ar rai o'r pethau hyn nag y byddem ni wedi ei dybio efallai, ac mae rhywfaint ohono'n fwy cynhennus nag y byddem wedi ei dybio efallai. Os ydych yn cofio'r cynllun - ac rwy'n wirion i beidio â dod â chopi gyda mi - roedd tri neu bedwar 'pwynt atal' ynddo y mae angen inni feddwl amdanyn nhw, ac fel y dywedais, rydym ni wedi sefydlu'r gwahanol ffrydiau gwaith er mwyn ymdrin â rhai o'r anghydfodau hynny. Mae'r un peth yn wir am asiantwyr. Mae sgwrs i'w chael o hyd am wrthdaro buddiannau, a sut y maen nhw'n gweithio, a beth yw'r deiliaid dyletswydd y soniais amdanyn nhw yn fy natganiad, a beth yw dyletswyddau'r deiliaid dyletswydd, a sut y maen nhw'n gweithredu. Felly, mae'r pethau hynny'n cael sylw, ond nid ydym ni wedi dod i'r sefyllfa i roi'r cyfarwyddiadau polisi i'r cyfreithwyr ar gyfer drafftio'r ddeddfwriaeth. Mae angen inni gyrraedd y cam hwnnw ar gyfer hynny. O ran ôl-osod chwistrellwyr dŵr, unwaith eto, rydym yn trafod hynny: sut y gallwn ni wneud hynny mewn ffordd gymesur, sut y gallwn ni wneud cyllid ar gael ar gyfer hynny, sut olwg fydd ar adeiladau risg uwch, a sut olwg fydd ar yr amserlen. Yn ddelfrydol, wrth gwrs, byddem yn hoffi i bob adeilad gael chwistrellwyr ynddo. Dim ond i fod yn glir: dyna fyddai'n ddelfrydol. Mae'n fater o sut y gallwn ni gyrraedd y fan honno a sut yr ydym yn ariannu hynny. Felly, yn amlwg, byddwn yn edrych ar hynny ar gyfer gwahanol sectorau ledled Cymru. Bydd atebion gwahanol ar gyfer tai cymdeithasol o gymharu â'r sector rhentu preifat, er enghraifft, ac mae angen inni gael mynediad at hynny. Ac rwy'n credu ein bod ni i gyd yn yr un lle - mae'n ymwneud â cheisio cyrraedd y nod gyda'r casgliadau cywir, fel ein bod yn cael system gadarn yng Nghymru lle na fydd canlyniadau annisgwyl unwaith eto, pan fo pobl yn colli eu bywydau oherwydd nad ydym ni wedi gallu ystyried y system yn fanwl.