English: We supported the legislative consent motion for the UK Coronavirus Act 2020, and we might have taken a different view on these regulations if they had been considered by the Assembly around the time they were brought into force on 26 March. But, at that stage, we faced a very real prospect of our NHS being absolutely overwhelmed, and our critical and intensive care simply not being able to cope in the way that we'd seen in north Italy. It was thought it was necessary to flatten that peak of the pandemic to ensure that the NHS would be able to cope. We've done that, and I'd like to thank everyone involved, particularly the public service NHS staff, but also the Welsh Government for the work that it has done. However, we're now at 29 April and the number of cases, the number of deaths - of course, a lagging indicator - and the number of infections have been declining, at least on a UK and a Wales-wide basis, for some time now, particularly in my region of south-east Wales where we did see some of the highest infection rates early on. Those numbers, I'm pleased to say, are coming down. The restriction on liberty, the damage to the economy and the damage, frankly, to people's well-being that we can justify is less when those cases are on a firmly declining trajectory than when they were on a sharply rising trajectory with the real likelihood of the NHS being overwhelmed. So, for those reasons, we propose to oppose these regulations in a vote today. We have two other key issues about these. First, we are unhappy with Welsh Government legislating differently through regulations from England simply for the sake of it. I was told earlier by the First Minister how dare I suggest that we are acting or should be compared to a template set by England. But that's exactly what we're doing. These coronavirus regulations have largely been copied and pasted from these English versions, and if you look at the first page of it, the only changes as we passed ours a couple of hours later - the Government didn't lay them for the Assembly until the next day - are where it says 'Secretary of State' it's deleted and it says 'Welsh Ministers', and where it says 'England' it has been changed to say 'Wales'. So, for Wales, see England. And when some changes have been made, particular changes we don't agree with. This restriction on exercise, where it's in law that it should only be once a day in Wales, but not in England, we don't see the justification for that, particularly because the virus is harder to get outside than it is in an enclosed, internal space. We're concerned that this pettifogging, this micromanaging of exactly what people do in terms of external exercise brings the rest of the restrictions, or the rest of the exhortations as to what people should do, into doubt. I'm pleased to say the National Police Chiefs Council have given some coronavirus briefing for Wales, and they say: 'Welsh officers and staff can use the briefing for England'. It does then tell them that they should be aware that the exercise once a day is in law in Wales, but it says that they don't need to worry about Government guidance around exercise, all this stuff about not driving to exercise, or only cycling within a reasonable walking distance of your home, because all that is just guidance and isn't in law, so police officers and staff can instead use the regulations that they put for England that don't have this, and don't prevent people driving a reasonable way in order to exercise. We're also very concerned about how Welsh Government says they're going to end these regulations. How they should end them is in law. It states in the regulations that, as soon as they're not necessary to prevent the spread of infection proportionate to that, they should be removed, and the UK Government has set five tests that go to that point. Welsh Government has, instead, published a much longer list of seven areas and then quite a lot of supporting stuff. Supposedly, they'll look at whether they have a high positive equality impact or what they do about an equal or greener Wales, or the future generations Act, or do they widen participation and give a more inclusive society. I'm sorry, if you put these regulations at this degree of strictness, not that far short of house arrest, you need the strongest possible requirement in order to keep them. You can't just have your ideological lodestars and say, 'Oh we're going to keep them longer, possibly for all these reasons', which you don't have any basis in law for saying. So, for those reasons we'll be voting against these regulations.
Welsh: Fe wnaethom ni gefnogi'r cynnig cydsyniad deddfwriaethol ar gyfer Deddf Coronafeirws y DU 2020, ac mae'n bosibl y byddem ni wedi bod â safbwynt gwahanol ar y rheoliadau hyn pe bydden nhw wedi eu hystyried gan y Cynulliad tua'r adeg y cawson nhw eu rhoi ar waith ar 26 Mawrth. Ond, bryd hynny, roeddem ni'n wynebu posibilrwydd gwirioneddol y byddai ein GIG yn cael ei lethu'n llwyr, ac na fyddai ein hadrannau gofal critigol a dwys yn gallu ymdopi yn yr un modd ag yr oeddem ni wedi ei weld yng ngogledd yr Eidal. Credwyd ei bod yn angenrheidiol gwastadu uchafbwynt hwnnw y pandemig er mwyn sicrhau y byddai'r GIG yn gallu ymdopi. Rydym ni wedi gwneud hynny, a hoffwn i ddiolch i bawb sy'n gysylltiedig, yn enwedig staff GIG y gwasanaeth cyhoeddus, ond hefyd i Lywodraeth Cymru am y gwaith y mae wedi ei wneud. Fodd bynnag, mae'n 29 Ebrill erbyn hyn, ac mae nifer yr achosion, nifer y marwolaethau - wrth gwrs, dangosydd oediog - a nifer yr heintiau wedi bod yn gostwng, o leiaf ar lefel y DU a Chymru gyfan, ers peth amser erbyn hyn, yn enwedig yn fy rhanbarth i yn y de-ddwyrain lle gwelsom ni rai o'r cyfraddau heintio uchaf ar y dechrau. Mae'r rhifau hynny, rwy'n falch o ddweud, yn dod i lawr. Mae'r cyfyngiad ar ryddid, y niwed i'r economi a'r niwed, a dweud y gwir, i lesiant pobl y gallwn ei gyfiawnhau yn llai pan fydd yr achosion hynny ar drywydd sy'n sicr yn gostwng o'i gymharu â phan oedden nhw ar drywydd oedd yn cynyddu'n sylweddol gyda'r tebygolrwydd gwirioneddol y byddai'r GIG yn cael ei lethu. Felly, am y rhesymau hynny, rydym ni'n cynnig gwrthwynebu'r rheoliadau hyn mewn pleidlais heddiw. Mae gennym ni ddwy broblem allweddol arall ynglŷn â'r rhain. Yn gyntaf, rydym yn anhapus bod Llywodraeth Cymru yn deddfu'n wahanol drwy reoliadau i Loegr dim ond er mwyn gwneud hynny. Dywedodd y Prif Weinidog wrthyf i yn gynharach sut yr wyf i'n meiddio awgrymu ein bod ni'n gweithredu neu y dylem ni o gymharu â thempled a bennwyd gan Loegr. Ond dyna yn union yr ydym ni'n ei wneud. Mae'r rheoliadau coronafeirws hyn wedi eu copïo a'u gludo i raddau helaeth o'r fersiynau Lloegr hyn, ac os edrychwch chi ar y dudalen gyntaf, yr unig newidiadau ar ôl i ni eu pasio ychydig oriau yn ddiweddarach - ni wnaeth y Llywodraeth eu gosod gerbron y Cynulliad tan y diwrnod wedyn - yw lle mae'n dweud 'Ysgrifennydd Gwladol' y mae wedi ei ddileu ac mae'n dweud 'Gweinidogion Cymru', a lle mae'n dweud 'Lloegr' y mae wedi ei newid i ddweud 'Cymru'. Felly, ar gyfer Cymru, gweler Lloegr. A phan fo rhai newidiadau wedi eu gwneud, newidiadau penodol nad ydym ni'n cytuno â nhw. Mae'r cyfyngiad hwn ar ymarfer corff, lle mae'r gyfraith yn dweud mai dim ond unwaith y dydd y dylai fod yng Nghymru, ond nid yn Lloegr, nid ydym yn gweld cyfiawnhad dros hynny, yn enwedig gan ei bod yn anoddach dal y feirws yn yr awyr agored nag ydyw mewn gofod caeedig dan do. Rydym ni'n pryderu bod y gorfanylder hyn, y microreoli hwn o beth yn union y mae pobl yn ei wneud o ran ymarfer corff awyr agored yn rhoi amheuaeth i weddill y cyfyngiadau, neu weddill yr anogaeth o ran yr hyn y dylai pobl ei wneud. Rwy'n falch o ddweud bod Cyngor Cenedlaethol Penaethiaid yr Heddlu wedi rhoi rhywfaint o gyfarwyddyd coronafeirws i Gymru, ac maen nhw wedi dweud y gall staff a heddweision Cymru ddefnyddio'r briff ar gyfer Lloegr. Mae yn dweud wrthyn nhw wedyn y dylen nhw fod yn ymwybodol bod ymarfer unwaith y dydd yn y gyfraith yng Nghymru, ond mae'n dweud nad oes angen iddyn nhw boeni am arweiniad y Llywodraeth ynghylch ymarfer corff, a'r holl bethau hyn am beidio â gyrru i ymarfer corff, neu feicio o fewn pellter cerdded rhesymol i'ch cartref yn unig, oherwydd dim ond arweiniad yw hynny ac nid yw'n gyfraith, felly gall heddweision a staff ddefnyddio'r rheoliadau a wneir ar gyfer Lloegr lle nad yw hyn wedi ei gynnwys, a pheidio â rhwystro pobl rhag gyrru pelllter rhesymol er mwyn gwneud ymarfer corff. Rydym ni hefyd yn pryderu'n fawr ynghylch y ffordd y mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn dweud y byddan nhw'n rhoi terfyn ar y rheoliadau hyn. Mae'r gyfraith yn nodi sut y dylen nhw roi terfyn arnyn nhw. Mae'n dweud yn y rheoliadau, pan nad ydyn nhw'n angenrheidiol i atal lledaeniad heintiau sy'n gymesur â hynny, y dylid cael gwared arnyn nhw, ac mae Llywodraeth y DU wedi gosod pum prawf sy'n mynd i'r pwynt hwnnw. Yn hytrach, mae Llywodraeth Cymru wedi cyhoeddi rhestr lawer hirach o saith maes ac yna cryn dipyn o bethau ategol. Yn ôl y sôn, byddan nhw'n ystyried a ydyn nhw'n cael effaith gadarnhaol uchel ar gydraddoldeb neu beth maen nhw'n ei wneud am Gymru sy'n gyfartal neu'n wyrddach, neu Ddeddf cenedlaethau'r dyfodol, neu a ydyn nhw'n ehangu cyfranogiad ac yn darparu cymdeithas fwy cynhwysol. Mae'n ddrwg gen i, os byddwch chi'n rhoi'r rheoliadau hyn â'r lefel hon o gyfyngiad, nad yw'n bell iawn o fod dan arestiad tŷ, mae angen y gofyniad cryfaf posibl arnoch er mwyn eu cadw. Ni allwch chi gael eich egwyddorion ideolegol a dweud, 'O rydym ni'n mynd i'w cadw nhw'n hirach, am yr holl resymau hyn o bosib', pan nad oes gennych unrhyw sail mewn cyfraith i ddweud hynny. Felly, am y rhesymau hynny, byddwn ni'n pleidleisio yn erbyn y rheoliadau hyn.