English: Can I say, first of all, I don't oppose the idea of an inquiry? I think it's inevitable. There will be questions that will need to be asked, some questions that will need to be answered. I think that's true of all the Governments within the UK. So, I've no objection to the thrust of the motion, but I do question very much that this is not the way to do it. First of all, as far as I'm aware, this Parliament has no power to instigate an Inquiries Act 2005 inquiry, which is what I think Members have suggested they wanted. Nor do I believe that the fact that it's in the hands of this Parliament makes it less, or more independent, rather, than if it was in the hands of the Government. The independence of the inquiry is ensured by the judge or the person who leads the inquiry, not who sets it up in the first place. There would need to be a vote on the terms and conditions, there would need to be a vote on the way the inquiry is set up, and there'd be a vote on who is the chair of the inquiry. So, I don't think it's actually realistic or sensible for it to be formally in the hands of this Parliament, although I take the point that there may well need to be discussion in the future between parties as to how it might work. Can I say, first of all, let's face it, this debate is not about having an inquiry? This debate is about making and scoring political points today. I could equally sit here and say, 'Well, yes we want to know why it is that the UK Government was so slow in preventing people from coming into the country? Why introduce the 14-day quarantine rule that's now falling apart? Why it is that travelling 260 miles if you're a special adviser is fine and another 60 miles to test your eyesight if you're driving? Why is it, for example, that across the UK, or in England rather, there was a 100,000 tests a day target that was dropped, because it wasn't reached? And even then it included tests, of course, that had been sent out and not actually carried out.' All manner of questions that might be answered there. That is for the future. But let me focus, having made those points, on the legal aspects here and perhaps some practical ones. This is not the time to start preparing for an inquiry. We're in the middle of a crisis. You don't want officials looking at setting up an inquiry at the same time as we're dealing with the worst crisis that any of us has ever faced. Now is just not the time to start looking at setting up an inquiry into something that hasn't even finished. You have to bear in mind that it is possible - we hope not, but it is possible - that we may see a second spike in October. We may well still be dealing with this at Christmas time. There is no way that an inquiry can be set up to report by March on this issue, even if it started today because - . Adam Price mentioned the Grenfell inquiry. Well, that began it's work on 4 June 2018. It took it 16 months just to produce preliminary findings for phase one. It took several months to set up. These things don't happen overnight; they take a long, long time to set up and a long, long time to put the process in place and a long time to hear all the evidence. There is no prospect at all of a public inquiry reporting before March. Something slipshod might, but a public inquiry won't do it. No inquiry that would do the work that Members have asked for could possibly report by that time. So, I think it's worth making that point. As far as the Conservative motion is concerned, well, unless you're prepared to postpone the elections to some unspecified date, then there is no way of guaranteeing that there would be findings in place by March. No rational judge will take on board an inquiry like this when they're being told, 'You must submit your evidence and produce a report in, effectively, two months.' It's just not going to happen. So, let's be realistic: this is not the way. Although there will be an inquiry at some point - I don't dispute that - there is no way that this will be done or could be done before March. I'd urge the Conservatives in the Assembly not to play politics with this. We've seen their MPs doing it - another letter yesterday. Believe me that went down badly. Time and time again, I've heard people say, 'What's it got to do with them?' and 'Why are they focusing on that and not on dealing with the virus?' If they want to write again, that's up to them. But, believe me, it's doing them no good at all. The second issue is - I look at time, Llywydd - if there's going to be an inquiries Act inquiry alone in Wales, it has to be at least concurrent with one running in the UK. Bear in mind that I don't think there's the power, even on the part of the Welsh Government, to compel witnesses who are outside of the devolved sphere: the police, the Border Agency, all those people that any Welsh inquiry would want to hear from, but who may decide, on instruction from London, not to give evidence, and there's nothing that we could do about it. It's inevitable, to my mind, for there to be the fullest possible picture, that there at least has to be concurrence between an inquiry in England or the UK and in Wales at the same time in order to get the kind of answers that people would want. So, for me, I have to say, there is no prospect of getting any kind of findings by March, even if such an inquiry could begin, miraculously, tomorrow. What is important is that, of course, there's transparency. What is important is that there is at some point an inquiry - I don't dispute that - but it has to be a full, proper inquiry and not some kind of rushed kangaroo court, because the people of Wales deserve no less.
Welsh: A gaf i ddweud, yn gyntaf oll, nad oes gennyf i wrthwynebiad i'r syniad o ymchwiliad? Rwy'n credu na ellir osgoi hynny. Fe fydd yna gwestiynau y mae'n rhaid eu gofyn, a rhai cwestiynau y bydd angen ateb arnyn nhw. Rwyf i o'r farn fod hynny'n wir am bob un o lywodraethau'r DU. Felly, nid oes gennyf i unrhyw wrthwynebiad i gyfeiriad y cynnig, ond rwy'n amau'n gryf iawn nad hon yw'r ffordd iawn o wneud hynny. Yn gyntaf, hyd y gwn i, nid oes gan y Senedd hon mo'r gallu i gychwyn ymchwiliad o dan Ddeddf Ymchwiliadau 2005, sef yr hyn yr wyf i'n credu i'r Aelodau awgrymu eu bod yn ei ddymuno. Ac nid wyf i'n credu ychwaith fod y ffaith ei fod yn nwylo'r Senedd hon yn ei gwneud yn llai, nac yn fwy annibynnol, nag y byddai pe bai yn nwylo'r Llywodraeth. Diogelir annibyniaeth yr ymchwiliad gan y barnwr neu'r sawl sy'n arwain yr ymchwiliad, nid y sawl sy'n ei sefydlu yn y lle cyntaf. Fe fyddai angen pleidlais ar y telerau a'r amodau, fe fyddai angen pleidlais ar y ffordd y byddai'r ymchwiliad yn cael ei sefydlu, ac fe fyddai yna bleidlais ar bwy fyddai cadeirydd yr ymchwiliad. Felly, nid wyf i'n credu ei bod hi'n realistig nac yn synhwyrol i hyn fod yn ffurfiol yn nwylo'r Senedd hon, er fy mod i'n derbyn y pwynt ei bod hi'n bosibl iawn y bydd angen trafodaeth yn y dyfodol rhwng y pleidiau o ran sut y gallai hyn weithio. A gaf i ddweud, yn gyntaf oll, rhaid wynebu hyn, nad dadl mo hon am gael ymchwiliad? Dadl yw hon heddiw ar gyfer gwneud a sgorio pwyntiau gwleidyddol. Fe allwn innau hefyd eistedd yn y fan hon a dweud, 'Wel, ydym, rydym yn awyddus i wybod pam oedd Llywodraeth y DU mor gyndyn i atal pobl rhag dod i mewn i'r wlad? Pam cyflwyno'r rheol cwarantin o 14 diwrnod sy'n ymddatod ar hyn o bryd? Pam mae'n iawn teithio 260 milltir os ydych chi'n gynghorydd arbennig a 60 milltir arall i roi prawf ar eich llygaid os ydych chi'n gyrru? Pam, er enghraifft, ledled y DU, neu yn Lloegr yn hytrach, y cafwyd targed dyddiol o 100,000 o brofion a gafodd ei ollwng, oherwydd na chafodd y targed hwnnw ei gyrraedd? A hyd yn oed wedyn roedd hwnnw'n cynnwys profion, wrth gwrs, a oedd wedi cael eu hanfon allan ond na chafodd eu cwblhau mewn gwirionedd.' Mae pob math o gwestiynau sy'n gofyn am atebion. Ar gyfer y dyfodol y mae hynny. Ond gadewch imi ganolbwyntio, ar ôl gwneud y pwyntiau hynny, ar yr agweddau cyfreithiol yn y cyswllt hwn a rhai ymarferol efallai. Nid dyma'r amser i ddechrau paratoi ar gyfer ymchwiliad. Rydym ynghanol argyfwng. Nid yw'n syniad da i swyddogion fod yn ystyried sefydlu ymchwiliad ar yr un pryd ag ymdrin â'r argyfwng gwaethaf a wynebodd unrhyw un ohonom erioed. Nid dyma'r amser i ddechrau ystyried sefydlu ymchwiliad i rywbeth nad yw wedi dod i ben hyd yn oed. Mae'n rhaid ichi gadw mewn cof ei bod yn bosibl - rydym ni'n gobeithio nad felly, ond mae'n bosibl - y gwelwn ni ail benllanw ym mis Hydref. Mae'n ddigon posibl y byddwn ni'n dal i ymdrin â hyn adeg y Nadolig. Ni ellir sefydlu ymchwiliad i adrodd erbyn mis Mawrth ar y mater hwn, hyd yn oed pe byddai hwnnw'n dechrau heddiw oherwydd - . Fe soniodd Adam Price am ymchwiliad Grenfell. Wel, fe ddechreuodd hwnnw ar ei waith ar 4 Mehefin 2018. Fe gymerodd 16 mis i lunio dim ond canfyddiadau rhagarweiniol i gam un. Fe gymerodd sawl mis i'w sefydlu. Nid yw'r pethau hyn yn digwydd dros nos; maen nhw'n cymryd amser maith iawn i'w sefydlu ac amser maith iawn i roi'r broses yn ei lle ac amser maith i glywed yr holl dystiolaeth. Nid oes gobaith o gwbl y bydd ymchwiliad cyhoeddus yn adrodd yn ôl cyn mis Mawrth. Gellid cael rhywbeth ffwrdd â hi, ond nid ymchwiliad cyhoeddus. Ni allai unrhyw ymchwiliad a fyddai'n cyflawni'r hyn y gofynnodd yr Aelodau amdano gyflwyno adroddiad erbyn hynny. Felly, rwy'n credu ei bod hi'n werth gwneud y pwynt hwnnw. O ran cynnig y Ceidwadwyr, wel, oni bai eich bod yn barod i ohirio'r etholiadau tan ddyddiad amhenodol, yna nid oes modd gwarantu y byddai'r canfyddiadau gyda ni erbyn mis Mawrth. Ni fyddai'r un barnwr rhesymol yn ystyried llywio ymchwiliad fel hwn pan fyddai rhywun y dweud wrtho, 'Bydd yn rhaid ichi gyflwyno eich tystiolaeth a llunio adroddiad mewn dau fis, i bob pwrpas.' Ni wnaiff hynny ddigwydd. Gadewch inni fod yn realistig: nid hon yw'r ffordd iawn. Er y cynhelir ymchwiliad rywbryd - nid wyf i'n amau hynny - nid oes unrhyw ffordd o allu gwneud hynny cyn mis Mawrth. Fe fyddwn i'n annog y Ceidwadwyr yn y Cynulliad i beidio â chwarae gwleidyddiaeth yn hyn o beth. Rydym wedi gweld eu ASau nhw'n gwneud hynny - llythyr arall ddoe. Fe aeth hynny i lawr yn wael, credwch chi fi. Dro ar ôl tro, rwyf wedi clywed pobl yn dweud, 'Beth sydd a wnelo hyn â nhw?' a 'Pam maen nhw'n canolbwyntio ar hynny ac nid ar ymdrin â'r feirws?' Os ydyn nhw'n dymuno ysgrifennu eto, wel eu busnes nhw yw hynny. Ond, credwch chi fi, ni wna hynny unrhyw les o gwbl iddyn nhw. Yr ail fater yw - rwy'n edrych ar y cloc, Llywydd - os bydd ymchwiliad o dan y Ddeddf Ymchwiliadau yng Nghymru yn unig, yna bydd yn rhaid iddo fod yn cydredeg ag ymchwiliad sy'n digwydd yn y DU. Cofiwch, nid wyf yn credu bod y pŵer yn bodoli, hyd yn oed ar ran Llywodraeth Cymru, i orfodi tystion o'r tu allan i'r meysydd datganoledig: yr heddlu, yr Asiantaeth Ffiniau, yr holl bobl hynny y byddai unrhyw ymchwiliad yng Nghymru yn awyddus i glywed ganddyn nhw, ond a fyddai'n gallu penderfynu, ar gyfarwyddyd o Lundain, i beidio â rhoi tystiolaeth, ac ni fyddai dim y gallem ni ei wneud yn ei gylch. Mae'n anochel, yn fy marn i, er mwyn cael y darlun llawnaf posibl, fod yn rhaid cael ymchwiliadau yn cydredeg yn Lloegr neu'r DU ac yng Nghymru ar yr un pryd er mwyn cael y math o atebion y byddai pobl yn awyddus i'w clywed. Felly, i mi, mae'n rhaid dweud, nid oes gobaith cael unrhyw fath o ganfyddiadau erbyn mis Mawrth, hyd yn oed pe gallai ymchwiliad o'r fath ddechrau yfory nesaf, trwy ryw ryfedd wyrth. Yr hyn sy'n bwysig, wrth gwrs, yw tryloywder. Yr hyn sy'n bwysig yw bod ymchwiliad yn cael ei gynnal ar ryw adeg - nid wyf i'n amau hynny - ond mae'n rhaid iddo fod yn ymchwiliad llawn a phriodol ac nid yn rhyw fath o lys cangarŵ ar ras, oherwydd nid yw pobl Cymru yn haeddu dim llai na hyn.