English: It is right that questions are asked of NRW and I raised this very issue yesterday in the Senedd, but I am concerned by the tone of the comments made today. At the end of the day, I think we need to remember that Natural Resources Wales are a Welsh Government sponsored body. In their own review and report into the floods, they stated that they have been underfunded and this has been on record for a number of years, and, as Janet Finch-Saunders referenced, they need an additional 60 to 70 members of staff, which they still don't have. So, therefore, can I ask that we don't make a scapegoat of Natural Resources Wales solely on this, but that it is time now that we have that full independent inquiry into the floods? Because as the rest of the section 19 report will be published, the fault won't just lie with Natural Resources Wales - questions will be asked of Welsh Government; questions will be asked of local authorities; questions will be asked of Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water. There are a number of organisations with responsibility for flooding and it's a very complex picture, and there are different reasons. Even in the section 19 report, there is some fault directed towards RCT council in terms of the drains in Pentre as well, so not solely focused on NRW. Can we please, given this public fallout and given all of these concerns raised, have that independent inquiry into the floods, so that people get justice and the answers they deserve, and we tackle flooding for the future once and for all, rather than commissioning review after review and rather than tackling the root cause and getting to grips with this issue as a matter of urgency?
Welsh: Mae'n iawn inni ofyn cwestiynau i Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru a chodais yr union fater hwn ddoe yn y Senedd, ond rwy'n bryderus ynghylch cywair y sylwadau a wnaethpwyd heddiw. Yn y pen draw, rwy'n credu bod angen inni gofio bod Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru yn gorff a noddir gan Lywodraeth Cymru. Yn eu hadolygiad a'u hadroddiad eu hunain ar y llifogydd, dywedasant eu bod wedi eu tangyllido a bod hynny wedi'i gofnodi ers nifer o flynyddoedd, ac fel y dywedodd Janet Finch-Saunders, mae angen 60 i 70 aelod ychwanegol o staff arnynt, ac maent yn dal i fod heb eu cael. Felly, a gaf fi ofyn am beidio â gwneud Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru yn fwch dihangol ar hyn yn unig, ond ei bod yn bryd inni gael ymchwiliad annibynnol llawn i'r llifogydd? Oherwydd, wrth i weddill adroddiad adran 19 gael ei gyhoeddi, nid Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru yn unig fydd ar fai - bydd cwestiynau yn cael eu gofyn i Lywodraeth Cymru; bydd cwestiynau'n cael eu gofyn i awdurdodau lleol; bydd cwestiynau'n cael eu gofyn i Dŵr Cymru. Mae gan nifer o sefydliadau gyfrifoldeb am lifogydd ac mae'n ddarlun cymhleth iawn, a cheir rhesymau gwahanol. Hyd yn oed yn yr adroddiad adran 19, dywedir bod rhywfaint o fai ar gyngor Rhondda Cynon Taf mewn perthynas â'r draeniau ym Mhentre hefyd, felly nid oedd yn canolbwyntio ar Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru yn unig. Os gwelwch yn dda, o gofio'r anghydfod cyhoeddus hwn ac o ystyried yr holl bryderon a godwyd, a allwn ni gael yr ymchwiliad annibynnol hwnnw i'r llifogydd, er mwyn i bobl gael cyfiawnder a'r atebion y maent yn eu haeddu, ac a gawn ni fynd i'r afael â llifogydd unwaith ac am byth ar gyfer y dyfodol, yn hytrach na chomisiynu adolygiad ar ôl adolygiad, a mynd i'r afael â'r achos sylfaenol a datrys y mater hwn ar frys?