English: And to me, the issue is that of the failure of too many remainers, including and particularly perhaps at Westminster, to accept the result of the referendum. They've spent three years plus growing increasingly confident and going further and further against what they said in the past to try and block the result of that referendum, and I think it's that refusal to implement the result and the refusal of a remain-leaning elite, establishment perhaps, to implement the decision of their voters that has led to the difficulties that we now face. However, I'd like to focus on devolution and the trajectory of it. I had hoped, with what became the 2017 Wales Act, that we would reach a stable settlement. It strikes me that in many countries around the world where there is devolved and in some cases federal government the system is relatively stable. It strikes me that the UK is an exception in there being such constitutional flux that has continued for so long and seems to have no end in sight. I had thought with the reserved-powers models that would work better, and I think some criticism perhaps to the UK Government in terms of a lack of flexibility in engaging with devolved institutions to find a settlement that would perhaps be more stable. And now even I and my party colleagues see areas where it would make sense to have more devolution, and we ourselves question whether that stable system is realistic, given the settlement that we reached in 2017. I'll just highlight two examples here where I've largely been persuaded by speeches made by Government Ministers and by others in this Chamber that there is a strong case for further devolution. One of those is air passenger duty. I was also impacted, I think, on that by the Welsh Affairs Select Committee report from Westminster and David T.C. Davies's leadership of that, and the unanimous, I think, report that they had that this was something that should be devolved from their oversight to our oversight, and that's something we're happy to support. Rail is also an area where I've been persuaded of the case for further devolution, partly on account of the Minister, Ken Skates, who I think makes a very, very good case for the need for further investment in Wales. But it's not just a question of money. It's a question of organisation, and frankly I don't feel that the structure of the railways in the United Kingdom has worked especially well. In particular, I'd be critical of Network Rail in terms of its management, its inflexibility, its bureaucracy, its one-size-fits-all model, and most of all its cost. It just seems so incredibly expensive to deliver rail solutions. I was also struck by Transport for London and its relative success in terms of integration, similarly with Mersey Rail, looking at that more recently. It just strikes me that, given what we've seen from Network Rail and how the system's worked, but also, I think, how well the Welsh Government did in terms of negotiating and agreeing that Wales and borders franchise, I think the case has been made for the devolution of rail. I think we have seen problems since Transport for Wales have taken over, and I think they're running out of time to be blaming them on the previous system and responsibility needs to be taken, but, overall, I think the record is one we would want to support, and we think further devolution in that area would be to the benefit of Wales. I'll move now to point 4 of our motion where we note the position of the A55 and, I think more recently, the M4 as trans-European networks under articles 154 to 156 of the Treaty of Rome, and we've accepted a measure of European Union oversight over those roads because of the impact they have on Ireland and the extent to which they go beyond the borders of the UK. For the same, and I think stronger, reasons, we would see a case for a measure of UK involvement to the extent that what happens with those routes is very important not just to Wales, but to the wider UK. He's not in his seat now, but I was actually quite impressed by a point that Alun Davies made earlier looking at the M4. He looked at the economic case and the costs and benefits, and he made the point about how relatively small the benefits were calculated to be for his constituents in Blaenau Gwent, and he contrasted that with the very significant benefits for people living in Bristol and some places quite significantly beyond that in England. And he went, perhaps fairly, 'Why should he care about benefits for them? Why should we be spending Welsh taxpayers money on that?' And since he's now got this role looking at the structures of the UK that Welsh Government have given him in making proposals, I would say, 'Yes, he is right on that', but if we have a system where the costs are all taken into account, because we bear all the costs in Wales, but there are really significant benefits to other people, for instance in England, that we don't take any notice of because they're not our mandate, doesn't that suggest that we may underinvest? And if actually there is this big benefit for people over the border into England, isn't there a role for UK Government to support those roads and potentially to pay for it? The Counsel General was asked on Sunday night by the chairman of the Welsh select committee that if his good officers and others worked to ensure UK Government came forward and put in the money to pay for this relief road, would he deliver it. I hope he will consider that, because we don't want to constrict the Welsh economy and cut ourselves off from England, and particularly the more prosperous areas. We need to get that road running, and I do think there's a proper role also for the UK Government in this as we seek to take a balanced approach to devolution. It's more justified in some areas, but there are areas where we could benefit from UK Government support.
Welsh: Ac i mi, y broblem yw methiant gormod o'r bobl sydd o blaid aros, gan gynnwys ac yn enwedig efallai yn San Steffan, i dderbyn canlyniad y refferendwm. Maent wedi treulio tair blynedd a mwy yn tyfu'n fwyfwy hyderus ac yn mynd ymhellach ac ymhellach yn erbyn yr hyn a ddywedasant yn y gorffennol i geisio rhwystro canlyniad y refferendwm hwnnw, ac rwy'n credu mai'r gwrthodiad hwnnw i weithredu'r canlyniad a gwrthodiad elît sydd o blaid aros, y sefydliad efallai, i weithredu penderfyniad eu pleidleiswyr sydd wedi arwain at yr anawsterau a wynebwn yn awr. Fodd bynnag, hoffwn ganolbwyntio ar ddatganoli a'i drywydd. Roeddwn wedi gobeithio, gyda'r hyn a ddaeth yn Ddeddf Cymru 2017, y byddem yn cyrraedd setliad sefydlog. Mae'n fy nharo bod y system yn gymharol sefydlog mewn llawer o wledydd ledled y byd lle y ceir llywodraeth ddatganoledig ac mewn rhai achosion, llywodraeth ffederal. Mae'n fy nharo bod y DU yn eithriad yn yr ystyr fod yna newidiadau cyfansoddiadol o'r fath sydd wedi parhau cyhyd ac ymddengys nad oes pen draw i'w weld. Roeddwn wedi meddwl y byddai'n gweithio'n well gyda'r modelau cadw pwerau, ac rwy'n meddwl bod rhywfaint o'r bai ar Lywodraeth y DU efallai o ran diffyg hyblygrwydd wrth ymgysylltu â sefydliadau datganoledig i ddod o hyd i setliad a fyddai'n fwy sefydlog o bosibl. Ac yn awr, rwyf i a chyd-aelodau o'm mhlaid hyd yn oed yn gweld meysydd lle byddai'n gwneud synnwyr i gael mwy o ddatganoli, ac rydym ni ein hunain yn amau a yw'r system sefydlog honno'n realistig ag ystyried y setliad a gyrhaeddwyd gennym yn 2017. Hoffwn dynnu sylw at ddwy enghraifft yma lle rwyf wedi fy mherswadio i raddau helaeth gan areithiau a wnaed gan Weinidogion y Llywodraeth a chan eraill yn y Siambr hon fod yna achos cryf dros ddatganoli pellach. Un o'r rheini yw'r doll teithwyr awyr. Rwy'n credu bod adroddiad y Pwyllgor Dethol ar Faterion Cymreig o San Steffan ac arweiniad David T.C. Davies wedi dylanwadu arnaf o ran hynny, ac mae'r adroddiad unfrydol a gawsant, rwy'n credu, yn dweud bod hyn yn rhywbeth y dylid ei ddatganoli o'u goruchwyliaeth hwy i'n goruchwyliaeth ni, ac mae hynny'n rhywbeth yr ydym yn hapus i'w gefnogi. Mae'r rheilffyrdd hefyd yn faes lle y cefais fy mherswadio o'r achos dros ragor o ddatganoli, yn rhannol oherwydd y Gweinidog, Ken Skates, sydd, yn fy marn i, yn gwneud achos da iawn dros yr angen am fuddsoddi pellach yng Nghymru. Ond nid mater o arian yn unig ydyw. Mae'n fater o drefniadaeth, ac a dweud y gwir, nid wyf yn teimlo bod strwythur y rheilffyrdd yn y Deyrnas Unedig wedi gweithio'n arbennig o dda. Yn fwyaf arbennig, buaswn yn feirniadol o Network Rail o ran ei reolaeth, ei anhyblygrwydd, ei fiwrocratiaeth, ei un model ar gyfer pawb, ac yn bennaf, ei gost. Mae darparu atebion rheilffyrdd i'w weld mor anhygoel o ddrud. Fe'm trawyd hefyd gan Transport for London a'i lwyddiant cymharol o ran integreiddio, a Mersey Rail yn yr un modd, wrth edrych ar hwnnw'n fwy diweddar. Mae'n fy nharo, o ystyried yr hyn a welsom gan Network Rail a sut y mae'r system wedi gweithio, ond hefyd, rwy'n credu, pa mor dda y gwnaeth Llywodraeth Cymru o ran negodi a chytuno ar fasnachfraint Cymru a'r gororau, rwy'n credu bod yr achos wedi'i wneud dros ddatganoli'r rheilffyrdd. Credaf ein bod wedi gweld problemau ers i Trafnidiaeth Cymru gymryd drosodd, a chredaf eu bod yn mynd yn brin o amser i'w beio ar sail y system flaenorol ac mae angen cymryd cyfrifoldeb, ond yn gyffredinol, credaf fod y cyflawniad yn un y byddem am ei gefnogi, a chredwn y byddai rhagor o ddatganoli yn y maes hwnnw o fudd i Gymru. Symudaf yn awr at bwynt 4 yn ein cynnig lle y nodwn sefyllfa'r A55, a'r M4 yn fwy diweddar, rwy'n credu, fel rhwydweithiau traws-Ewropeaidd o dan erthyglau 154 i 156 o Gytuniad Rhufain, ac rydym wedi derbyn mesur o oruchwyliaeth yr Undeb Ewropeaidd dros y ffyrdd hynny oherwydd yr effaith y maent yn ei chael ar Iwerddon a'r graddau y maent yn mynd y tu hwnt i ffiniau'r DU. Am yr un rhesymau, a rhesymau cryfach, rwy'n credu, gallem weld achos dros fesur o ymwneud ar ran y DU i'r graddau fod yr hyn sy'n digwydd gyda'r llwybrau hynny'n bwysig iawn, nid yn unig i Gymru, ond i'r DU yn ehangach. Nid yw yn ei sedd yn awr, ond gwnaeth pwynt a wnaeth Alun Davies yn gynharach wrth edrych ar yr M4 gryn argraff arnaf mewn gwirionedd. Edrychodd ar yr achos economaidd a'r costau a'r manteision, a gwnaeth y pwynt ynghylch pa mor gymharol fach y cyfrifwyd y manteision i'w etholwyr ym Mlaenau Gwent, a gwrthgyferbynnodd hynny â'r manteision sylweddol iawn i bobl sy'n byw ym Mryste a lleoedd gryn dipyn ymhellach na hynny yn Lloegr. Ac fe ddywedodd, yn deg efallai, 'Pam y dylai boeni am y manteision iddynt hwy? Pam y dylem wario arian trethdalwyr Cymru ar hynny?' A chan fod ganddo'r rôl hon bellach yn edrych ar strwythurau'r DU y mae Llywodraeth Cymru wedi ei rhoi iddo i wneud argymhellion, buaswn yn dweud, 'Ydy, mae'n iawn am hynny', ond os oes gennym system lle y caiff y costau i gyd eu hystyried, gan ein bod yn ysgwyddo'r holl gostau yng Nghymru, ond bod manteision sylweddol iawn i bobl eraill, er enghraifft yn Lloegr, nad ydym yn cymryd unrhyw sylw ohonynt am nad dyna yw ein mandad, onid yw hynny'n awgrymu y gallem fethu buddsoddi'n ddigonol? Ac os oes budd mawr i bobl dros y ffin yn Lloegr mewn gwirionedd, onid oes rôl i Lywodraeth y DU gefnogi'r ffyrdd hynny a thalu amdanynt o bosibl? Gofynnwyd i'r Cwnsler Cyffredinol nos Sul gan gadeirydd y pwyllgor dethol Cymreig, pe bai ei swyddogion ac eraill yn gweithio i sicrhau bod Llywodraeth y DU yn rhoi'r arian i dalu am y ffordd liniaru hon, a fyddai'n ei chyflawni. Gobeithio y bydd yn ystyried hynny, oherwydd nid ydym am gyfyngu ar economi Cymru ac ymwahanu oddi wrth Loegr, ac yn enwedig yr ardaloedd mwy ffyniannus. Mae angen inni sicrhau bod y ffordd honno'n weithredol, ac rwy'n credu bod rôl briodol hefyd i Lywodraeth y DU yn hyn o beth wrth inni geisio ymdrin â datganoli mewn modd cytbwys. Mae modd ei gyfiawnhau'n fwy mewn rhai meysydd, ond mae yna feysydd lle y gallem elwa o gymorth Llywodraeth y DU.