English: Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I agree with most of what the proposer of the motion has just said, but it's what she didn't say that I want to focus on in this debate. First of all, I want to focus upon our constituents in Penally, who don't share the enthusiasm in both the Labour Party and Plaid Cymru for unrestricted immigration to this country. And I think their views certainly are worthy of expression in this Chamber. The idea that my amendment should in any way be regarded as shameful is actually an insult to the huge number of people, both in Pembrokeshire and more widely in Wales, who take the same view of this problem as I do. The second point I want to make is that there are two Governments responsible for this debacle in Penally. First of all, of course, and principally, the Conservative Government at Westminster that's responsible for dumping these people in a wholly unsuitable location. I fully agree with Joyce on that. But, of course, this is just one reflection of the total collapse of the Government's immigration policy and the fiasco of our border control system. But the second Government - the one in Cardiff: the Welsh Government - is also partly responsible because they've been virtue-signalling about Wales as a nation of sanctuary - that we're open to all-comers - while there are hundreds of millions of people around the world who'd like to come to Britain, no doubt, in order to better their lives and who can blame them? But we just cannot responsibly have an immigration system that allows everybody and anybody to come into this country. Now, it is important that the United Kingdom should be able to provide refuge for those in genuine need whilst deterring false claimants and removing those whose claims have been rejected. Britain has an honourable history of fulfilling its obligations under the various refugee and asylum conventions that have been in existence for 100 years. The UN convention of 1951, which is currently in force, says that we are obliged to protect anybody arriving in this country, who, if he were returned to country of origin, had some well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political belief or membership of a particular social group. There is absolutely no disagreement between us on this point - it's basic humanitarian obligation. But, of course, we're not dealing here with asylum seekers in the normal sense. They haven't arrived immediately from some war-torn country. Most of them, as I understand it, if not all of them, have actually arrived from France, across the channel in small boats. France is not a country where they were persecuted. France is a safe country. So, they're not seeking asylum in Britain for the reasons that are permitted under the UN 1951 convention. Now, the asylum system in this country is now under vast strain, because of these armies of people who are trying to enter this country illegally. Just over half of all asylum cases are eventually successful and 38 per cent have their applications granted at the initial stage, and 17 per cent are granted after appeal. But well over 40 per cent are refused asylum, or have been in the years between 2004 and 2018. And of those, 40 per cent, even after their appeals have been refused, still remain in this country; they're not deported and sent back to the country from which they have come. That's about 120,000 people, over that 14-year period, who've arrived in this country illegally and are still here illegally. Asylum-related accommodation is now costing us £400 million a year, and the total costs of our asylum system are now approaching £1 billion a year. That is money that could be much more profitably applied to things like the health service than the purposes to which it is applied. What we're dealing with in the case of the residents of this camp in Penally is economic migrants. You know, they are abusing the immigration system in order to try to better their lives. I've no objection to them trying to better their lives, but they should do it within the law. The Dublin regulation of the EU says that asylum seekers should be dealt with in the first member state where their fingerprints are stored or their asylum claim is lodged, so that country would be responsible for their asylum claim. Because of the Schengen agreement, of course, those who are arriving on the shores of Greece can immediately set off on a journey to the coast of the English channel on the French side, and I'm afraid that is the EU's problem, because they have utterly failed to deal with the asylum difficulties in recent years. Indeed, this is recognised: Frans Timmermans, who was the first Vice-President of the European Commission in 2015, said that of 120,000 migrants who had arrived in the EU by December 2015, 60 per cent were from countries where you can assume they have no reason whatsoever to ask for refugee status. We see in the figures of those crossing the channel in small boats the same problem, but to a much lesser degree, on our doorstep. In 2018, there were 299 illegal migrants who had crossed the channel in small boats. In 2019, a year later, the figure was up by eight times, to 1,835, and in 2020, there are 8,220 who've arrived by those means so far.
Welsh: Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd, ac rwy'n cytuno â'r rhan fwyaf o'r hyn y mae'r sawl sy'n cyflwyno'r cynnig newydd ei ddweud, ond rwyf am ganolbwyntio ar yr hyn na ddywedodd yn y ddadl hon. Yn gyntaf oll, rwyf am ganolbwyntio ar ein hetholwyr ym Mhenalun, nad ydynt yn rhannu'r brwdfrydedd yn y Blaid Lafur a Phlaid Cymru dros fewnfudo anghyfyngedig i'r wlad hon. A chredaf fod eu barn yn sicr yn haeddu mynegiant yn y Siambr hon. Mae'r syniad y dylid ystyried fy ngwelliant yn gywilyddus mewn unrhyw ffordd yn sarhad mewn gwirionedd ar y nifer enfawr o bobl, yn sir Benfro ac yn fwy eang yng Nghymru, sy'n rhannu fy marn i ar y broblem hon. Yr ail bwynt rwyf am ei wneud yw bod dwy Lywodraeth yn gyfrifol am y llanast hwn ym Mhenalun. Yn gyntaf oll, wrth gwrs, ac yn bennaf, y Llywodraeth Geidwadol yn San Steffan sy'n gyfrifol am ddympio'r bobl hyn mewn lleoliad cwbl anaddas. Rwy'n cytuno'n llwyr â Joyce ar hynny. Ond wrth gwrs, dim ond un enghraifft yw hon o fethiant llwyr polisi mewnfudo'r Llywodraeth a ffiasgo ein system reoli ffiniau. Ond mae'r ail Lywodraeth - yr un yng Nghaerdydd: Llywodraeth Cymru - hefyd yn rhannol gyfrifol am eu bod wedi bod ymffrostio mewn rhinweddau am Gymru fel cenedl noddfa - ein bod yn agored i bawb sydd am ddod - tra bo cannoedd o filiynau o bobl ledled y byd a hoffai ddod i Brydain, mae'n siŵr, er mwyn gwella eu bywydau a phwy all eu beio? Ond ni allwn yn gyfrifol gael system fewnfudo sy'n caniatáu i bawb ac unrhyw un ddod i mewn i'r wlad hon. Nawr, mae'n bwysig fod y Deyrnas Unedig yn gallu darparu lloches i'r rhai sydd mewn gwir angen gan atal ceiswyr lloches ffug a chael gwared ar y rhai y gwrthodwyd eu ceisiadau. Mae gan Brydain hanes anrhydeddus o gyflawni ei rhwymedigaethau o dan y confensiynau amrywiol ar ffoaduriaid a cheiswyr lloches sydd wedi bodoli ers 100 mlynedd. Dywed confensiwn y Cenhedloedd Unedig 1951, sy'n weithredol ar hyn o bryd, fod yn rhaid inni amddiffyn unrhyw un sy'n cyrraedd y wlad hon a fyddai, pe byddent yn cael eu hanfon yn ôl i'r wlad yr hanent ohoni, yn ofni erledigaeth ar sail hil, crefydd, cenedligrwydd, cred wleidyddol neu aelodaeth o grŵp cymdeithasol penodol, a bod sail i'w hofnau. Nid oes anghytundeb o gwbl rhyngom ar y pwynt hwn - rhwymedigaeth ddyngarol sylfaenol ydyw. Ond wrth gwrs, nid ymdrin â cheiswyr lloches yn yr ystyr arferol a wnawn yma. Nid ydynt wedi cyrraedd yn syth o wlad wedi'i darnio gan ryfel. Mae'r rhan fwyaf ohonynt, yn ôl yr hyn a ddeallaf, os nad pob un ohonynt, wedi cyrraedd o Ffrainc, ar draws y sianel mewn cychod bach. Nid yn Ffrainc y cawsant eu herlyn. Mae Ffrainc yn wlad ddiogel. Felly, nid ydynt yn ceisio lloches ym Mhrydain am y rhesymau a ganiateir o dan gonfensiwn y Cenhedloedd Unedig 1951. Nawr, mae'r system geisio lloches yn y wlad hon bellach dan straen enfawr, oherwydd y byddinoedd hyn o bobl sy'n ceisio dod i mewn i'r wlad hon yn anghyfreithlon. Mae ychydig dros hanner yr holl geiswyr lloches yn llwyddiannus yn y pen draw ac mae ceisiadau 38 y cant yn cael eu caniatáu yn ystod y cam cychwynnol, ac 17 y cant yn cael eu caniatáu ar ôl apêl. Ond gwrthodir lloches i ymhell dros 40 y cant, neu dyna a ddigwyddodd yn y blynyddoedd rhwng 2004 a 2018. Ac o'r rheini, mae 40 y cant, hyd yn oed ar ôl i'w hapêlau gael eu gwrthod, yn dal i aros yn y wlad hon; ni chânt eu halltudio a'u hanfon yn ôl i'r wlad y daethant ohoni. Dyna oddeutu 120,000 o bobl dros y cyfnod hwnnw o 14 mlynedd sydd wedi cyrraedd y wlad hon yn anghyfreithlon ac sy'n dal yma'n anghyfreithlon. Mae llety sy'n gysylltiedig â lloches bellach yn costio £400 miliwn y flwyddyn i ni, ac mae cyfanswm costau ein system lloches bellach yn agosáu at £1 biliwn y flwyddyn. Mae hwnnw'n arian y gellid ei ddefnyddio'n llawer mwy proffidiol ar bethau fel y gwasanaeth iechyd yn hytrach na'r dibenion y caiff ei ddefnyddio ar eu cyfer. Ymdrin ag ymfudwyr economaidd a wnawn yn achos trigolion y gwersyll ym Mhenalun. Wyddoch chi, maent yn camddefnyddio'r system fewnfudo er mwyn ceisio gwella eu bywydau. Nid oes gennyf wrthwynebiad iddynt geisio gwella eu bywydau, ond dylent wneud hynny o fewn y gyfraith. Dywed rheoliad Dulyn yr UE y dylid ymdrin â cheiswyr lloches yn yr aelod-wladwriaeth gyntaf lle caiff eu holion bysedd eu storio neu pan fydd eu cais am loches yn cael ei gyflwyno, fel mai'r wlad honno fyddai'n gyfrifol am eu cais am loches. Oherwydd cytundeb Schengen, wrth gwrs, gall y rhai sy'n cyrraedd glannau Gwlad Groeg gychwyn ar daith ar unwaith i arfordir y sianel ar ochr Ffrainc, ac mae arnaf ofn mai problem yr UE yw honno, oherwydd maent wedi methu'n llwyr ag ymdrin â'r anawsterau lloches yn ystod y blynyddoedd diwethaf. Caiff hyn ei gydnabod yn wir: dywedodd Frans Timmermans, Is-lywydd cyntaf y Comisiwn Ewropeaidd yn 2015, fod 60 y cant o 120,000 o ymfudwyr a oedd wedi cyrraedd yr UE erbyn mis Rhagfyr 2015 yn dod o wledydd lle gallwch dybio nad oes ganddynt reswm o gwbl dros ofyn am statws ffoadur. Gwelwn yr un broblem ar garreg ein drws yn ffigurau'r rheini sy'n croesi'r sianel mewn cychod bach, ond i raddau llawer llai. Yn 2018, roedd 299 o ymfudwyr anghyfreithlon wedi croesi'r sianel mewn cychod bach. Yn 2019, flwyddyn yn ddiweddarach, roedd y ffigur wedi cynyddu wyth gwaith, i 1,835, ac yn 2020, mae 8,220 wedi cyrraedd drwy'r dulliau hynny hyd yma.