English: I'm very happy to clarify that when we announced the roads review, we made a distinction between roads that were within scope and those that were outside of scope. Those that were outside of scope were ones where contracts had been let. The phrase I used was that there were 'diggers in the ground'. Now, I think Mr Kurtz has interpreted 'diggers in the ground' rather literally and made a series of suggestions that there were not diggers in the ground - that work was not taking place. Both he and the local MP made a series of comments in newspapers and in the Senedd that suggested that perhaps we had wrongly categorised this scheme, and perhaps it ought to be within the roads review because work was not advanced. I took that very seriously, as I think I ought to - as to the point the Member had made to us. The roads review panel, when it was set up by Dr Lynn Sloman, was working to terms of reference that said that projects would not be part of the review if the works were too advanced to cease. Given what Mr Kurtz said, we had a discussion with the panel on whether or not this was the case. The panel asked whether or not they would be able to look at the scheme as part of their review, and I have met with officials to understand the state of the scheme. And having looked at it, I'm satisfied that the road is, in fact, too advanced to cease. The cost of the road is around £80 million for a few sections; about £20 million of that has been committed and is not recoverable. Furthermore, if we were to delay the scheme any further, there's a real danger that the European funding would be lost entirely to Wales. So, given that, my original statement stands. I think it was absolutely sincere when it was said, and, as I say, it was only after repeated questioning by Sam Kurtz that perhaps we'd got this wrong that we looked again at it. But having looked again at it, I'm satisfied that the original judgment is correct and that the road should go ahead.
Welsh: Rwy'n hapus iawn i egluro, pan gyhoeddwyd yr adolygiad ffyrdd, ein bod wedi gwahaniaethu rhwng ffyrdd a oedd o fewn y cwmpas a'r rhai a oedd y tu allan i'r cwmpas. Roedd y rhai a oedd y tu allan i'r cwmpas yn rhai lle roedd contractau wedi'u gosod. Yr ymadrodd a ddefnyddiais oedd bod 'cloddwyr yn y ddaear'. Nawr, credaf fod Mr Kurtz wedi dehongli 'cloddio yn y ddaear' braidd yn llythrennol ac wedi gwneud cyfres o awgrymiadau nad oedd cloddwyr yn y ddaear - nad oedd y gwaith yn digwydd. Gwnaeth ef a'r AS lleol gyfres o sylwadau mewn papurau newydd ac yn y Senedd a awgrymai efallai ein bod wedi categoreiddio'r cynllun hwn yn anghywir, ac efallai y dylai fod o fewn yr adolygiad ffyrdd am nad oedd gwaith wedi dechrau. Roeddwn o ddifrif ynglŷn â hynny, fel y credaf y dylwn fod - ynglŷn â'r pwynt yr oedd yr Aelod wedi'i wneud i ni. Roedd y panel adolygu ffyrdd, pan gafodd ei sefydlu gan Dr Lynn Sloman, yn gweithio yn ôl cylch gorchwyl a ddywedai na fyddai prosiectau'n rhan o'r adolygiad os oedd y gwaith yn rhy ddatblygedig i'w ddirwyn i ben. O ystyried yr hyn a ddywedodd Mr Kurtz, cawsom drafodaeth gyda'r panel ynglŷn ag a oedd hyn yn wir ai peidio. Gofynnodd y panel a fyddent yn gallu edrych ar y cynllun fel rhan o'u hadolygiad ai peidio, a chyfarfûm â swyddogion i ddeall cyflwr y cynllun. Ac ar ôl edrych arno, rwy'n fodlon fod y ffordd, mewn gwirionedd, wedi datblygu gormod i ddirwyn y gwaith i ben. Mae cost y ffordd oddeutu £80 miliwn am ychydig o ddarnau; mae oddeutu £20 miliwn o'r arian hwnnw wedi'i ymrwymo ac ni ellir ei adfer. At hynny, pe baem yn gohirio'r cynllun ymhellach, mae perygl gwirioneddol y byddai Cymru'n colli'r arian Ewropeaidd yn gyfan gwbl. Felly, o gofio hynny, mae fy natganiad gwreiddiol yn sefyll. Credaf ei fod yn gwbl ddiffuant pan gafodd ei ddweud, ac fel y dywedais, dim ond ar ôl i Sam Kurtz holi dro ar ôl tro a allem fod wedi cael hyn yn anghywir y gwnaethom edrych arno eto. Ond ar ôl edrych arno eto, rwy'n fodlon fod y dyfarniad gwreiddiol yn gywir ac y dylai'r ffordd fynd yn ei blaen.