English: Well, as you say, we are rightly proud of our fire and rescue services. You state in your opening paragraph that they've worked to help reduce the number of fires and fire casualties. In fact, since 2001-02, a little bit further back than you look, they've reduced by 69 per cent. However, how do you respond to concern that the number of fires attended by Welsh fire and rescue authorities in 2017-18 actually increased by 3 per cent, reversing that trend, with the number of secondary fires rising by 13 per cent, and grassland, woodland and crop fires by 22 per cent, and 15 casualties from fires in Wales, which is actually 50 per cent higher than when 10 fire casualties in Wales were used as an argument in favour of what became the fire sprinkler legislation? You refer to older people being at greater risk of fire in their homes and the lessons of the Grenfell tragedy. What consideration are you giving or have you given to the Building Research Establishment report commissioned by the Deputy Prime Minister in the UK in 2002 and the follow-up report by the Welsh Government itself at the tail end of the fire sprinkler legislation, which recommended fire sprinklers in high-rise towers? It was less enthusiastic about new-build residential properties. But it appeared that no response to that was taken until after the Grenfell tragedy. In a letter to me on 20 June, you said that you don't agree that older people are at particular risk of electrical fires, whether in terms of the source of fire or the cause. I believe you might have since met Electrical Safety First. I think you had a meeting scheduled with them for July. They produced figures showing that, of 1,485 reported domestic fires last year - I presume that's UK - 71 per cent of those were electrical fires and 63 per cent in the kitchen. And, in that context, what is the Welsh Government doing to raise awareness of fires caused by electricity in Wales? My final questions relate to your proposed changes to governance and funding arrangements, which you say are simply not up to the job. You then ironically attribute the failings to 'large committees of backbench councillors, at arm's length from all other local services and without any kind of direct democratic mandate.' That's a model that, as I recall, you defended when the UK Government was proposing police and crime commissioners, using almost identical words at that time. You say that will mean fire and rescue authority membership becoming more streamlined and transparent, and budgets needing proper scrutiny and approval. Well, thankfully, the fire and rescue authorities are transparent with their meeting documentation, which is surely a valid point when considering their current governance and finance arrangements. The report from the chief fire officer in north Wales to their fire authority on 17 September referred to key issues set out in a letter to fire and rescue authority chairs in February by you for the meeting the three chairs had with you at the end of April, to your then engagement of Professor Catherine Farrell of the University of South Wales and Professor Rachel Ashworth at Cardiff University, to speak with representatives of the fire rescue authorities and the WLGA, and that their report was submitted to you. And the report from the deputy chief officer of South Wales Fire and Rescue Authority in September to his or her authority attached a summary feedback drawn from the meetings held with the fire and rescue authority chairs, chiefs and additional personnel and the WLGA. How, therefore, do you respond to the findings in that report that chiefs and chairs are not resistant to change, and provided many examples of how they embraced it, but they raised a series of concerns regarding the suggestion that fire and rescue governance in Wales might be reformed? How do you respond to the statement that several queried the lack of clear evidence and rationale for reform, feeling that perceived problems with the current system had not been clearly identified, making it difficult for them to estimate the added value that might be gained through any change, to the statement in which some of them raised concern about changing a system that operates well and, quote, 'breaking a system which is not broken', giving the example that it was identified that accountability for fire was highly sufficient given the scale and budget for the service, relative to systems of accountability for other public services operating at a much larger scale, and to the statement that interviews emphasised the importance of the electoral link via local authorities and provided examples of how this was currently operationalised to deliver accountability, transparency, consultation and information? And, finally, how do you respond - I won't read them all because there are a lot of them - to the summary of suggestions for improvement in that report, which I'm sure you have engraved on your bedroom wall, but which included the need for consistency around member role specifications, the clarity around the scrutiny and challenge role, an indication of the level of member development and support, and the need for members with expertise from outside the service, from areas such as health and social care, to be co-opted onto the fire and rescue authority, or a new national issues committee scrutiny sub-committee? Thank you.
Welsh: Wel, fel yr ydych chi'n ei ddweud, rydym ni'n falch iawn o'n gwasanaethau tân ac achub, a hynny am resymau da. Rydych chi'n nodi yn eich paragraff agoriadol y buon nhw'n gweithio i helpu i leihau nifer y tanau a phobl sy'n cael eu hanafu gan dannau. Yn wir, ers 2001-02, ychydig ymhellach yn ôl nag yr ydych chi'n edrych, bu gostyngiad o 69 y cant. Fodd bynnag, sut ydych chi'n ymateb i'r pryder bod cynnydd o 3 y cant mewn gwirionedd yn nifer y tanau y galwyd awdurdodau tân ac achub i ymdrin â nhw yn 2017-18, gan wrthdroi'r duedd honno, gyda chynnydd o 13 y cant yn nifer y tanau eilaidd, a chynnydd o 22 y cant yn nifer tannau glaswelltir, coetiroedd a chnydau, a 15 o anafiadau o ganlyniad i danau yng Nghymru, sydd mewn gwirionedd 50 y cant yn uwch na'r ffigur o 10 o bobl a gafodd eu hanafu gan dân a ddefnyddiwyd fel dadl o blaid yr hyn a ddaeth yn ddeddfwriaeth systemau chwistrellu rhag tân? Rydych chi'n cyfeirio at bobl hŷn sydd mewn mwy o berygl o gael tân yn eu cartrefi a'r gwersi o drychineb Grenfell. Pa ystyriaeth ydych chi'n ei rhoi neu a roesoch chi i adroddiad y Sefydliad Ymchwil Adeiladu a gomisiynwyd gan y Dirprwy Brif Weinidog yn y DU yn 2002 a'r adroddiad dilynol gan Lywodraeth Cymru ei hun ar ddiwedd y ddeddfwriaeth systemau chwistrellu tân, a argymhellodd roi systemau chwistrellu rhag tân mewn tyrau uchel? Roedd yn llai brwdfrydig ynglŷn â thai newydd. Ond mae hi'n ymddangos na fu unrhyw ymateb i hynny tan ar ôl trychineb Grenfell. Mewn llythyr ataf ar 20 Mehefin, fe wnaethoch chi ddweud nad ydych chi'n cytuno bod pobl hŷn yn wynebu risg benodol o danau trydanol, p'un ai o ran ffynhonnell y tân neu ei achos. Rwy'n credu o bosib eich bod chi wedi cwrdd ag Electrical Safety First ers hynny. Rwy'n credu yr oedd gennych chi gyfarfod wedi ei drefnu gyda nhw ym mis Gorffennaf. Roedd ganddyn nhw ffigurau yn dangos, o 1,485 o danau domestig y llynedd - rwy'n cymryd bod hynny'n golygu yn y DU - roedd 71 y cant ohonyn nhw yn danau trydanol a 63 y cant yn y gegin. Ac, yn y cyd-destun hwnnw, beth mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn ei wneud i godi ymwybyddiaeth o'r tanau a achosir gan drydan yng Nghymru? Mae fy nghwestiynau olaf yn ymwneud â'ch newidiadau arfaethedig i drefniadau llywodraethu a chyllido, yr ydych chi'n dweud yn syml nad ydyn nhw'n addas at y diben. Yna yn eironig, rydych chi'n priodoli'r methiannau i 'bwyllgorau mawr o gynghorwyr meinciau cefn sydd led braich o'r holl wasanaethau lleol eraill a heb unrhyw fath o fandad democrataidd uniongyrchol.' Mae hwnnw'n fodel, os cofiaf, y buoch chi'n ei amddiffyn pan oedd Llywodraeth y DU yn cynnig sefydlu comisiynwyr heddlu a throseddu, gan ddefnyddio geiriau bron yn union yr un fath bryd hynny. Rydych chi'n dweud y bydd hynny'n golygu y bydd aelodaeth awdurdod tân ac achub yn symlach a mwy tryloyw o ganlyniad, gyda'r angen i gymeradwyo a chraffu ar gyllidebau mewn modd priodol. Wel, diolch byth, mae'r awdurdodau tân ac achub yn dryloyw gyda dogfennau eu cyfarfod, sydd yn bwynt dilys wrth ystyried eu trefniadau cyllid a llywodraethu presennol. Cyfeiriodd adroddiad prif swyddog tân y gogledd i'w awdurdod tân ar 17 Medi at faterion allweddol a nodir mewn llythyr gennych chi at gadeiryddion awdurdodau tân ac achub ym mis Chwefror ar gyfer y cyfarfod a gafodd y tri chadeirydd gyda chi ar ddiwedd Ebrill, at eich penodiad ar y pryd o'r Athro Catherine Farrell o Brifysgol De Cymru a'r Athro Rachel Ashworth, Prifysgol Caerdydd, i siarad â chynrychiolwyr o awdurdodau tân ac achub a Chymdeithas Llywodraeth Leol Cymru, ac fe gyflwynwyd eu hadroddiad i chi. Ac roedd adroddiad dirprwy brif swyddog Awdurdod Tân ac Achub De Cymru ym mis Medi i'w awdurdod ef neu hi yn cynnwys crynodeb o'r adborth a gasglwyd ynghyd o'r cyfarfodydd a gynhaliwyd gyda chadeiryddion, penaethiaid a phersonél ychwanegol yr awdurdod tân ac achub a Chymdeithas Llywodraeth Leol Cymru. Sut, felly, ydych chi'n ymateb i'r canfyddiadau yn yr adroddiad hwnnw nad yw penaethiaid a chadeiryddion yn gwrthsefyll newid, a'u bod wedi rhoi enghreifftiau lu o sut maen nhw wedi cofleidio hynny, ond fe wnaethon nhw sôn am nifer o bryderon ynghylch yr awgrym y gellid diwygio awdurdodau tân ac achub yng Nghymru? Sut ydych chi'n ymateb i'r datganiad bod sawl un ohonyn nhw yn cwestiynu'r diffyg tystiolaeth a'r sail resymegol glir ar gyfer diwygio, a'u bod yn teimlo nad yw'r problemau honedig gyda'r system bresennol wedi'u nodi'n glir, gan ei gwneud hi'n anodd iddyn nhw amcangyfrif y gwerth ychwanegol y gellid ei ennill drwy unrhyw newid, a'r datganiad lle mynegodd rhai ohonyn nhw eu pryder am newid system sy'n gweithio'n dda ac am 'chwalu system nad yw wedi torri', gan roi'r enghraifft y canfuwyd bod atebolrwydd o ran tân yn ddigonol iawn o gofio'r raddfa a'r gyllideb ar gyfer y gwasanaeth, o gymharu â systemau atebolrwydd ar gyfer gwasanaethau cyhoeddus eraill sy'n gweithredu ar raddfa lawer mwy, a'r datganiad y pwysleiswyd yn y cyfweliadau pa mor bwysig yw'r cyswllt etholiadol drwy awdurdodau lleol ac a oedd yn cynnig enghreifftiau o sut y caiff hyn ei weithredu ar hyn o bryd i sicrhau atebolrwydd, tryloywder, ymgynghori a gwybodaeth? Ac, yn olaf, sut ydych chi'n ymateb - ni wnaf ddarllen pob un ohonyn nhw oherwydd bod llawer ohonyn nhw - i'r crynodeb o'r awgrymiadau ar gyfer gwella yn yr adroddiad hwnnw, yr ydych chi rwy'n siŵr, wedi eu cerfio ar wal eich ystafell wely, ond a oedd yn cynnwys yr angen am gysondeb o ran manylebau swyddogaeth aelodau, eglurder ynglŷn â'r swyddogaeth o graffu a herio, arwydd o lefel datblygiad aelodau a'r cymorth y maen nhw yn ei gael, a'r angen i gyfethol aelodau sydd ag arbenigedd o'r tu allan i'r gwasanaeth, o feysydd megis iechyd a gofal cymdeithasol, ar gyfer yr awdurdod tân ac achub, neu is-bwyllgor newydd i graffu ar waith pwyllgor materion cenedlaethol? Diolch.