English: Well, there are a number of matters, I expect, in that, Llywydd. I'll try and address some of them. I don't agree with what the Member says about this being such a pivotal issue in relation to all the other things that can be done to support the Welsh economy and that continue to do that today. If there is detailed work that can be made available, then of course we will be prepared to look at that and to make sure that it is properly considered. I don't think there's much I can say to the Member on the matter of manifestos. At least my party had a manifesto. And, as I recall - I'm not an avid reader of his work in this area but I seem to remember that the UKIP manifesto, which was one of the things on which he has stood, was against the black route. So, I don't think there are many lessons for us to learn from him on that basis. Llywydd, I should have said earlier, so I apologise that I didn't - I'd intended to say it in answer to the question from Jayne Bryant, but of course I wanted to pay tribute to the work of the inspector and his team. Some Members around the Chamber will know that, in the period since the publication of the report, the inspector has passed away. So, I particularly wanted to make sure that I had taken the opportunity to set out my appreciation of the very detailed work that he and his team carried out and which led to the report. So, thank you for the opportunity of putting that on the record. The inspector proceeded on the basis that the scheme would be affordable. He says it's not a matter for him to deal with that. He takes it as read that the scheme is affordable. Of course that's what he should have done and I've got no quarrel at all with him deciding that that wasn't a matter for him to resolve. Matters of funding are a matter for the Welsh Government, however, and, as I said in setting out my statement, the decision was mine and, in law, is mine alone. I am informed by the Cabinet's view on this matter but I make the decision. That's the way in which this proceeded. As to the Gwent levels, the inspector makes it clear in his report - 'There is no question', he says at paragraph 8.490, 'that the scheme would have a significant detrimental impact on the historic landscape of the Gwent Levels and whilst there can be some archaeological investigation and interpretation works, that impact cannot be mitigated. This must weigh against the scheme' - the inspector says - 'and I concur with the consensus that the local impact would be severe'. The inspector, Llywydd, takes nowhere near the cavalier attitude that the Member takes to the impact of the scheme on the Gwent levels. He weighs it up very carefully. He points to the cumulative environmental impacts of the scheme. He explores its impact on biodiversity and on ecosystem resilience. He comes - in the balance that he comes to - to a conclusion that the road should go ahead. But nobody here should believe that the inspector simply dismisses the environmental impact in the way that the Member did. His report is of a very different calibre to the argument we heard a moment ago.
Welsh: Wel, codwyd nifer o faterion, rwy'n amau, yma, Llywydd. Rwyf i am roi cynnig ar ateb rhai ohonyn nhw. Nid wyf i'n cytuno â'r hyn y mae'r Aelod yn ei ddweud ynglŷn â bod hwn yn fater mor ganolog o ran yr holl bethau eraill y gellir eu gwneud i gefnogi economi Cymru ac sy'n parhau i wneud hynny heddiw. Os oes gwaith manwl y gellir ei roi gerbron, yna wrth gwrs fe fydden ni'n barod i feddwl am hynny a gwneud yn siŵr ei fod yn cael ystyriaeth briodol. Nid wyf i'n credu y gallaf ddweud dim wrth yr Aelod ar fater maniffestos. O leiaf roedd gan fy mhlaid i faniffesto. Ac yn ôl yr hyn a gofiaf - nid wyf i'n ddarllenwr brwd o'i waith ef yn y maes hwn ond mae rhyw gof gennyf i fod maniffesto UKIP, a oedd yn un o'r sawl peth y mae ef wedi sefyll arno, yn hollol yn erbyn y llwybr du. Felly, nid wyf i'n credu bod gennym ni lawer i'w ddysgu ganddo ef ar sail hynny. Llywydd, fe ddylwn i fod wedi dweud yn gynharach, felly rwy'n ymddiheuro na wnes i ddim - roeddwn i wedi bwriadu dweud hyn wrth ateb y cwestiwn gan Jayne Bryant, ond wrth gwrs roeddwn i'n awyddus i roi teyrnged i waith yr arolygydd a'i dîm. Bydd rhai aelodau yn y Siambr yn gwybod bod yr arolygydd, yn y cyfnod ers cyhoeddi'r adroddiad, wedi ymadael â'r byd hwn. Felly, roeddwn i'n arbennig o awyddus i wneud yn siŵr fy mod i'n achub ar y cyfle i nodi fy ngwerthfawrogiad o'r gwaith manwl iawn a wnaeth ef a'i dîm ac a arweiniodd at yr adroddiad. Felly, diolch am y cyfle i roi hynny ar gofnod. Aeth yr arolygydd yn ei flaen ar y sail y byddai'r cynllun yn fforddiadwy. Fe ddywed nad mater iddo ef yw ymdrin â hynny. Fe gymerodd yn ganiataol bod y cynllun yn fforddiadwy. Dyna'r hyn y dylai ef fod wedi ei wneud ac nid oes gennyf i unrhyw wrthwynebiad o gwbl ei fod wedi penderfynu nad mater iddo ef ei ddatrys oedd hynny. Mater i Lywodraeth Cymru, fodd bynnag, yw materion sy'n ymwneud ag ariannu, ac fel y dywedais wrth wneud fy natganiad, fy mhenderfyniad i oedd hynny ac, yn ôl y gyfraith, fi yn unig. Cefais fy nghyfarwyddo gan farn y Cabinet ar y mater hwn ond fy mhenderfyniad i oedd yr un terfynol. Dyna sut y digwyddodd hyn. O ran gwastadeddau Gwent, mae'r arolygydd yn nodi'n glir yn ei adroddiad - 'Nid oes unrhyw amheuaeth', meddai ym mharagraff 8.490, 'y byddai'r cynllun yn cael effaith niweidiol sylweddol ar dirwedd hanesyddol Gwastadeddau Gwent ac, er y gellir cynnal rhywfaint o archwilio a gwaith dehongli archaeolegol, ni ellir lliniaru'r effaith honno. Mae'n rhaid i hyn bwyso yn erbyn y cynllun' - meddai'r arolygydd - 'ac rwy'n cytuno â'r consensws y byddai'r effaith leol yn ddifrifol'. Llywydd, nid yw agwedd yr arolygydd ddim byd tebyg i agwedd ddi-hid yr Aelod tuag at effaith y cynllun ar wastadeddau Gwent. Mae ef yn cloriannu hyn yn ofalus iawn. Mae'n cyfeirio at effeithiau amgylcheddol cronnol y cynllun. Mae'n edrych ar ei effaith ar fioamrywiaeth ac ar gydnerthedd ecosystemau. Wedi pwyso a mesur, fe ddaw ef i'r casgliad y dylai'r ffordd fynd yn ei blaen. Ond ni ddylai neb gredu yn y fan hon bod yr arolygydd, yn syml, yn wfftio'r effaith amgylcheddol fel y gwnaeth yr Aelod. Mae ei adroddiad ef o safon wahanol iawn i'r ddadl a glywsom ni funud yn ôl.