English: I'm grateful to you, Presiding Officer, for that. When I look at these matters I ask myself, 'Is this a proportionate response to the public health challenges we face?' We've all wrestled with these challenges over the last 18 months. We've all asked ourselves, 'Is this right or is this proper that the Government seeks these powers to intervene in the way that we live our lives?' For myself, I agree very much with much of what Russell George said in opening his contribution, because I believe that liberty is something that we should cherish, and I believe that liberty is something that should be taken from us only for the greatest reasons that Government can assemble. The heart of this debate for me is: has the Government made its case in this instance? And I believe it is clear that the Government has made its case here, and I believe it is important. My argument would be very similar to Rhun ap Iorwerth's, actually - I think the Government should go further and propose a vaccine passport that would demonstrate vaccination rather than simply a test; I think the Government should go further on it. But, in terms of where we are now, how does that affect our freedoms and our liberties? It was John Stuart Mill, of course - . And those of us of a certain vintage did spend some time reading On Liberty; I think it was published in the 1850s. And in what he said there he was very, very clear that liberty - an individual's liberty - can only be taken away if it is in the interests of the rights of the majority and to protect harm for the majority. And he was the father of liberalism, and it's something I very much agree with, because we do have a responsibility to prevent harm to others. And we cannot say that our liberty - my freedom to go to a nightclub - is more important than your freedom to live without the fear of harm or ill health, and to protect your well-being. And this isn't unique. Let me say, it's not often I quote Margaret Thatcher, but when she spoke, she said, 'There's no such thing as society', of course, but she went on - many members of the Labour Party wish she hadn't - but she went on and she said, 'But there is responsibility', and we all have responsibility, she said - Margaret Thatcher said - to our families and for the well-being of our neighbours. And we do have that responsibility, and it was Tony Blair, actually, who taught the Labour Party, which spoke enough about rights - and the Labour Party talks constantly about rights - but it was Tony Blair that reminded us that with rights come responsibilities, and I believe that we do have responsibilities to each other, and I believe that we do have responsibilities for the well-being of those others in society: people who are weak, people who are vulnerable, people who have particular health needs. And nobody's liberty - nobody's liberty - is more important than somebody else's health. What sort of society have we become where Margaret Thatcher would be considered a dangerous liberal? What sort of society have we become where we say, 'My right to do what I choose to do is more important than your right to life'? What sort of society are we? If we are to be anything, then we have to be better than that. The Government gets some things right and Governments get some things wrong. Of course they do. All Governments do. And I understand Rhun's desire for a greater evidential base, but I believe it is there. I believe over the last few years, or the last year or so, we've seen enough evidence of the harm that can be done to people if we go about our lives without giving a care for others. And so we do need to introduce these matters. And I actually agree with James Evans; I hope that they will be removed when these regulations are not needed, because we don't want to live in that society. And the point I made to Russell George was that his own Home Secretary told the Conservative conference this morning that people shouldn't have the liberty to go from one part of a country to another to take part in lawful protest. What sort of society is that, that tells us we can't drive down the road in order to protest against something we don't like? That's the heart of liberty. It's the heart of freedom. It's the heart of who we are as a free society. And those liberties are taken from us. An encumbrance is placed upon us in order to protect the greater freedom and the greater good of people in this society. And I believe the Government's case is made - that we have to protect the health and well-being of the most vulnerable people in society, and that is the greatest thing that we can do this afternoon. Thank you.
Welsh: Rwy'n ddiolchgar i chi, Llywydd, am hynny. Pan fyddaf i'n edrych ar y materion hyn rwy'n gofyn i fy hun, 'A yw hyn yn ymateb cymesur i'r heriau iechyd y cyhoedd yr ydym ni'n eu hwynebu?' Rydym ni i gyd wedi ymgodymu â'r heriau hyn yn ystod y 18 mis diwethaf. Rydym ni i gyd wedi gofyn i'n hunain, 'A yw hyn yn iawn neu a yw'n briodol bod y Llywodraeth yn ceisio'r pwerau hyn i ymyrryd yn y ffordd yr ydym ni'n byw ein bywydau?' I mi fy hun, rwy'n cytuno yn fawr iawn â llawer o'r hyn a ddywedodd Russell George wrth agor ei gyfraniad, oherwydd rwy'n credu bod rhyddid yn rhywbeth y dylem ni ei werthfawrogi, ac rwy'n credu na ddylai rhyddid fod yn rhywbeth sy'n cael ei dynnu oddi wrthym ni heblaw am y rhesymau gorau y gall y Llywodraeth eu hel at ei gilydd. Gwraidd y ddadl hon i mi yw: a yw'r Llywodraeth wedi cyflwyno ei hachos yn yr achos hwn? Ac rwy'n credu ei bod yn amlwg bod y Llywodraeth wedi cyflwyno ei hachos yma, ac rwy'n credu ei bod yn bwysig. Byddai fy nadl i'n debyg iawn i un Rhun ap Iorwerth, mewn gwirionedd - rwy'n credu y dylai'r Llywodraeth fynd ymhellach a chynnig pasbort brechlynnau a fyddai'n dangos statws brechu yn hytrach na phrawf yn unig; rwy'n credu y dylai'r Llywodraeth fynd ymhellach arni. Ond, o ran ble'r ydym ni nawr, sut mae hynny'n effeithio ar ein rhyddid a'n hawliau? John Stuart Mill ddywedodd, wrth gwrs - . Ac fe wnaeth y rhai hynny ohonom ni o oes benodol wedi treulio cryn amser yn darllen On Liberty; rwy'n credu iddo gael ei gyhoeddi yn y 1850au. Ac yn yr hyn a ddywedodd ef yno, yr oedd yn glir iawn, iawn mai dim ond os yw er budd hawliau'r mwyafrif ac i ddiogelu'r mwyafrif rhag niwed y mae modd dileu rhyddid - rhyddid unigolyn. Ac ef oedd tad rhyddfrydiaeth, ac mae'n rhywbeth yr wyf i'n cytuno'n fawr iawn ag ef arni, oherwydd bod cyfrifoldeb arnom ni i atal niwed i eraill. Ac ni allwn ni ddweud bod ein rhyddid ni - fy rhyddid i i fynd i glwb nos - yn bwysicach na'ch rhyddid chi i fyw heb fod ofn niwed neu salwch, ac i ddiogelu eich lles. Ac nid yw hyn yn unigryw. Gadewch i mi ddweud, nid yn aml ydw i'n dyfynnu Margaret Thatcher, ond pan siaradodd hi, dywedodd hi, 'Nid oes y fath beth â chymdeithas', wrth gwrs, ond aeth ymlaen - byddai wedi bod yn dda gan lawer o aelodau'r Blaid Lafur pe na bai wedi gwneud hynny - ond aeth ymlaen i ddweud, 'Ond mae cyfrifoldeb', ac mae gan bob un ohonom ni gyfrifoldeb, meddai - meddai Margaret Thatcher - i'n teuluoedd ac am les ein cymdogion. Ac mae gennym ni'r cyfrifoldeb hwnnw, a Tony Blair, mewn gwirionedd, a ddysgodd y Blaid Lafur, a siaradodd ddigon am hawliau - ac mae'r Blaid Lafur yn sôn yn gyson am hawliau - ond Tony Blair a wnaeth ein hatgoffa ni fod cyfrifoldebau yn dod yn sgil hawliau, ac rwy'n credu bod gennym ni gyfrifoldebau i'n gilydd, ac rwy'n credu bod gennym ni gyfrifoldebau am les y rhai eraill mewn cymdeithas: pobl sy'n wan, pobl sy'n agored i niwed, pobl sydd ag anghenion iechyd penodol. Ac nid yw rhyddid neb - rhyddid neb - yn bwysicach nag iechyd rhywun arall. Pa fath o gymdeithas ydym ni erbyn hyn lle byddai Margaret Thatcher yn cael ei hystyried yn rhyddfrydwr peryglus? Pa fath o gymdeithas ydym ni erbyn hyn lle'r ydym ni'n dweud, 'Mae fy hawl i i wneud yr hyn yr wyf i'n dewis ei wneud yn bwysicach na'ch hawl chi i fywyd'? Pa fath o gymdeithas ydym ni? Os ydym ni am fod yn unrhyw beth, mae'n rhaid i ni fod yn well na hynny. Mae'r Llywodraeth yn cael rhai pethau'n iawn ac mae Llywodraethau'n cael rhai pethau'n anghywir. Wrth gwrs eu bod nhw. Mae pob Llywodraeth yn gwneud hynny. Ac rwy'n deall awydd Rhun am sail dystiolaeth gryfach, ond rwy'n credu ei bod ar gael. Rwy'n credu, yn ystod y blynyddoedd diwethaf, neu'r flwyddyn neu ddwy ddiwethaf, ein bod ni wedi gweld digon o dystiolaeth o'r niwed y mae'n bosibl ei wneud i bobl os byddwn ni'n byw ein bywydau heb ystyried eraill. Ac felly mae angen i ni gyflwyno'r materion hyn. Ac rwy'n cytuno â James Evans mewn gwirionedd; rwy'n gobeithio y byddan nhw'n cael eu dileu pan nad oes angen y rheoliadau hyn, oherwydd nid ydym ni eisiau byw yn y gymdeithas honno. A'r pwynt y gwnes i i Russell George oedd bod ei Ysgrifennydd Cartref ei hun wedi dweud wrth gynhadledd y Ceidwadwyr y bore yma na ddylai pobl fod â'r rhyddid i fynd o un rhan o wlad i'r llall i gymryd rhan mewn protest gyfreithlon. Pa fath o gymdeithas yw hynny, sy'n dweud wrthym ni nad ydym ni'n cael gyrru i lawr y ffordd er mwyn protestio yn erbyn rhywbeth nad ydym ni'n ei hoffi? Dyna sydd wrth wraidd rhyddid. Mae wrth wraidd rhyddid. Mae wrth wraidd pwy ydym ni fel cymdeithas rydd. Ac mae'r hawliau hynny yn cael eu tynnu oddi wrthym ni. Mae baich yn cael ei rhoi arnom ni er mwyn diogelu rhyddid mwyaf a lles gorau pobl yn y gymdeithas hon. Ac rwy'n credu bod achos y Llywodraeth wedi ei wneud - bod yn rhaid i ni ddiogelu iechyd a lles y bobl fwyaf agored i niwed mewn cymdeithas, a dyna'r peth gorau y gallwn ni ei wneud y prynhawn yma. Diolch.