English: I thank the Minister for the update provided in the statement. If the Grenfell fire has revealed anything the most, it's been just how neglected the housing conditions of many people have been for far, far too long. It also should highlight the dangers of lax regulation and planning, of which we're seeing the aftermath of here. I've got a few questions to focus on this particular aspect of the statement. First of all, there is no professional regulation for builders; anyone can set themselves up as a builder and obtain work that could then subsequently go on to become a fire hazard. We are one of the few countries where this is the case. So, will the Minister be prepared to look at establishing professional regulation in order to raise standards? Secondly, your statement mentions the professional reputation of building owners and developers. However, in practice, this reputation appears to mean little to many of them. Part of this problem is that developers who apply for planning can't have their previous reputation taken into account by planning officers, who have to go on their word that promises will be kept. So, what steps will you take to change this, and ensure that the reputation of a developer is something that matters more to them than being able to pay a big bonus to their management? Finally, I'd like to ask you about the last part of your statement that mentions the problems that leaseholders in the same buildings are facing, an issue that has been reported in the media recently, and has been raised with you this afternoon. Now, your statement is suggesting that a low-cost loan scheme be implemented to retrofit sprinklers, but I'm not really sure that that will help. One of the developers has already offered a loan anyway. This is an issue of injustice. Why should the residents who bought those flats in good faith have to pay to rectify those issues that should have been identified by the quality-control process that a responsible developer should have had in place? Instead, wouldn't you agree that developers who have profited from a lacklustre and laissez-faire planning and regulatory regime should be the ones who rectify this? A windfall tax on large developers would be one way of paying for this work to be rectified but, of course, we don't have the ability to do that here. But we do have the ability to create new taxes. So, will you instruct your officials to explore what forms of new taxation could be levied to ensure that those private building companies who've profited from poor safety can no longer do so?
Welsh: Diolch i'r Gweinidog am yr wybodaeth ddiweddaraf a ddarparwyd yn y datganiad. Os yw tân Grenfell wedi dangos un peth yn fwy na dim, y peth hwnnw yw gymaint y mae amodau tai llawer o bobl wedi cael eu hesgeuluso am rhy hir o lawer. Dylai hefyd dynnu sylw at beryglon rheoleiddio a chynllunio llac, yr ydym ni'n gweld eu canlyniadau yn y fan yma. Mae gen i ychydig o gwestiynau i'w gofyn i ganolbwyntio ar agwedd benodol hon y datganiad. Yn gyntaf oll, nid oes unrhyw reoleiddio proffesiynol ar gyfer adeiladwyr; gall unrhyw un sefydlu ei hun fel adeiladwr a chael gwaith a allai, yn y pen draw, fod yn berygl tân. Rydym ni'n un o'r ychydig wledydd lle mae hyn yn wir. Felly, a fydd y Gweinidog yn barod i ystyried sefydlu rheoleiddio proffesiynol er mwyn codi safonau? Yn ail, mae eich datganiad yn sôn am enw da proffesiynol perchnogion a datblygwyr adeiladau. Fodd bynnag, yn ymarferol, mae'n ymddangos nad yw'r enw da hwn yn golygu fawr ddim i lawer ohonyn nhw. Rhan o'r broblem hon yw nad oes modd i ddatblygwyr sy'n gwneud cais am waith cynllunio gael eu henw da wedi'i ystyried gan swyddogion cynllunio, sy'n gorfod derbyn eu gair y caiff addewidion eu cadw. Felly, beth fyddwch chi'n ei wneud i newid hyn, a sicrhau bod enw da datblygwr yn rhywbeth sy'n fwy o bwys iddyn nhw na'r gallu i dalu bonws mawr i'w rheolwyr? Yn olaf, fe hoffwn i eich holi am ran olaf eich datganiad sy'n sôn am y problemau y mae lesddeiliaid yn yr un adeiladau yn eu hwynebu, mater sydd wedi cael sylw yn y cyfryngau'n ddiweddar, ac a grybwyllwyd ichi y prynhawn yma. Nawr, mae eich datganiad yn awgrymu gweithredu cynllun benthyca cost isel i ôl-osod systemau chwistrellu, ond nid wyf yn siŵr iawn y bydd hynny'n helpu. Mae un o'r datblygwyr eisoes wedi cynnig benthyciad fodd bynnag. Mae hyn yn fater o anghyfiawnder. Pam bod angen i drigolion a brynodd y fflatiau hynny'n ddiffuant orfod talu i unioni'r materion hynny y dylid bod wedi'u canfod yn y broses rheoli ansawdd y dylai fod datblygwr cyfrifol yn eu gweithredu? Yn lle hynny, a fyddech chi'n cytuno mai datblygwyr sydd wedi elwa ar gyfundrefn cynllunio a rheoleiddio ddifflach a ffwrdd-â-hi ddylai fod y rhai sy'n unioni hyn? Byddai treth ar hap ar ddatblygwyr mawr yn un ffordd o dalu am gywiro'r gwaith hwn ond, wrth gwrs, nid oes gennym ni'r gallu i wneud hynny yn y fan yma. Ond mae gennym ni'r gallu i greu trethi newydd. Felly, a wnewch chi gyfarwyddo'ch swyddogion i ymchwilio i weld pa fathau o drethi newydd y gellid eu codi i sicrhau na all y cwmnïau adeiladu preifat hynny sydd wedi elwa o ddiogelwch gwael barhau i wneud hynny?