English: I'm pretty astonished by the Member's cheap opportunism today, given that the Member knows full well that the Railways Act 1993 prevents public sector bodies from coming forward to bid directly for a franchise. I'm astonished, because his own Members of Parliament, including his own MP, worked with Labour MPs to bring about an amendment in the Wales Bill, but sadly that amendment was voted down. I really am tired of the rather hysterical hyperbole relating to this matter. I reflect back on 16 August last year - a very special day for different reasons - when the Member was predicting that we would never be in this place today of having awarded it and would never be in this place that the process that he and his colleagues on the committee had described as heroically ambitious would not be completed. He said that the responsibility for transport should be taken from me, but I'm pretty confident - I'm pretty sure that had the Member been standing where I am today, announcing what I am today, having delivered what everybody around him described as being heroically ambitious, his parliamentary colleague would be starting a petition for a grand bronze to be commissioned in honour of the prophetic son. I'm equally sure that the Member would sign that petition. I can assure the Member that after the standstill period of 10 days, all details will be released. I have noticed the press release that has been issued by Plaid Cymru today saying that the bidding process has been flawed from start to finish, and yet the same Member who has this quote attributed to him is part of a committee that described the process as being heroically ambitious. There's something of a schism here. I would agree with the latter, given that we are at the point today of having been able to announce the preferred bidder. The press release goes on to say that it's inexcusable that there should only be a one-page written statement. The whole reason why it's a one-page written statement is that we have to have, by law - not by style, by law - a standstill period. So, I ask the Member, in return: given that it's not a matter of style, that it's a matter of law, would he want to break the law? Would he want to jeopardise the future of the franchise? I can only conclude, I'm afraid, deputy Llywydd, that the Member would prefer the current franchise to continue.
Welsh: Rwyf wedi fy synnu braidd gan oportiwnistiaeth rhad yr Aelod heddiw, o ystyried bod yr Aelod yn gwybod yn iawn fod Deddf Rheilffyrdd 1993 yn atal cyrff sector cyhoeddus rhag gwneud cais uniongyrchol am fasnachfraint. Rwyf wedi fy synnu, oherwydd mae ei Aelodau Seneddol ei hun, gan gynnwys ei AS ei hun, wedi gweithio gydag ASau Llafur i gyflwyno gwelliant i Fil Cymru, ond yn anffodus cafodd y gwelliant hwnnw ei wrthod. Rwyf wedi blino'n lân ar yr ormodiaith hysterig braidd sy'n gysylltiedig â'r mater hwn. Rwy'n cofio 16 Awst y llynedd - diwrnod arbennig iawn am resymau gwahanol - pan oedd yr Aelod yn rhagweld na fyddem byth yn y sefyllfa hon heddiw o fod wedi'i ddyfarnu ac na fyddem byth yn y sefyllfa hon gyda'r broses roedd ef a'i gyd-Aelodau ar y pwyllgor wedi'i disgrifio fel arwrol o uchelgeisiol wedi'i chwblhau. Dywedodd y dylid cymryd y cyfrifoldeb am drafnidiaeth oddi wrthyf, ond rwy'n eithaf ffyddiog - rwy'n eithaf sicr pe bai'r Aelod wedi bod yn sefyll lle rwy'n sefyll heddiw, yn cyhoeddi'r hyn rwy'n ei gyhoeddi heddiw, ar ôl cyflawni'r hyn roedd pawb o'i gwmpas yn ei alw'n arwrol o uchelgeisiol, y byddai ei gyd-Aelod seneddol yn cychwyn deiseb ar gyfer comisiynu cerflun efydd er anrhydedd i'r mab darogan. Rwyf yr un mor sicr y byddai'r Aelod yn llofnodi'r ddeiseb honno. Gallaf sicrhau'r Aelod y bydd yr holl fanylion yn cael eu rhyddhau ar ôl y cyfnod segur o 10 diwrnod. Rwyf wedi sylwi bod y datganiad i'r wasg a gyhoeddwyd gan Blaid Cymru heddiw yn dweud bod y broses o wneud cynigion wedi bod yn wallus o'r dechrau i'r diwedd, ac eto mae'r un Aelod y priodolir y dyfyniad hwn iddo'n rhan o bwyllgor a ddisgrifiodd y broses fel un arwrol o uchelgeisiol. Mae rhyw fath o rwyg yma. Buaswn yn cytuno gyda'r olaf, o ystyried ein bod wedi cyrraedd y pwynt heddiw o allu cyhoeddi'r cynigydd a ffafrir. Mae'r datganiad i'r wasg yn mynd rhagddo i ddweud ei bod yn anfaddeuol na chaniateir mwy nag un dudalen o ddatganiad ysgrifenedig. Y prif reswm pam ei fod yn ddatganiad ysgrifenedig un dudalen yw bod yn rhaid i ni, yn ôl y gyfraith - nid yn ôl steil, yn ôl y gyfraith - gael cyfnod segur. Felly, gofynnaf i'r Aelod: o gofio nad yw'n fater o steil, ei fod yn fater o gyfraith, a fyddai ef eisiau torri'r gyfraith? A fyddai ef eisiau peryglu dyfodol y fasnachfraint? Ni allaf ond casglu, mae arnaf ofn, Ddirprwy Lywydd, y byddai'n well gan yr Aelod pe bai'r fasnachfraint gyfredol yn parhau.