English: I think one of the biggest problems around the M4 relief road is how the Welsh Government can possibly square it with its ambition to achieve 43 per cent reduction in vehicle carbon emissions by 2030. If it goes ahead with the M4 relief road it would increase the number of vehicles by something like 42,000 vehicles a day. So, I do not understand how we could possibly achieve our climate change obligations and our targets in that respect if we were to go ahead with the M4 relief road. It might temporarily reduce congestion around Newport once it was built - they'd have to put up with an awful lot of congestion in the meanwhile - but it would massively increase the congestion in both Cardiff and further down the M4. I don't see how anyone can justify increasing congestion in Cardiff when we already have nine schools and several unnamed nurseries with illegal levels of air pollution, and we all know that there are very considerable health indications that are not good, particularly for young lungs. So, I very much feel that the M4 relief road, which was first mooted in 1991, is a twentieth-century solution that simply does not fit with the twenty-first century problems that we now face. It was mooted at a time when we were simply not as aware as we now are of the very serious and rapid change in our climate, and so I think we have to think again on that one. I won't be supporting amendment 2. Nuclear policy is not devolved, so it doesn't hugely matter what the Assembly's position on it is, because this is decided by the UK Government. I, clearly, think that we should be using - . I disagree with David Melding on this, that we should be using nuclear as a back-up for renewables. I feel that gas ought to be playing that role, as a back-up, and I'm somewhat disturbed that gas is being burnt at the levels it is being burnt, because it is, obviously, a finite resource, and we should be using it more judiciously than we are at the moment. I pay a lot of regard to amendment 3. I think that there's a huge amount of attraction in the proposals that have been drafted by David Melding, and David Melding's ambition for our capital city as the first carbon-neutral capital city in the UK. The idea of installing air pollution monitors in all our schools and nurseries is one that I feel that the Welsh Government should be reaching out to and embracing. I, absolutely, am committed to the idea of a 20 per cent urban tree canopy by 2030, because, obviously, that is one of the ways in which we can tackle the dreadful air pollution we've got. And, clearly, we should be incentivising people to put green roofs in any new construction or any new development, or any replacement roof. But, in order not to make the chief whip anxious, I'm afraid I won't be able to support amendment 3. But I, nevertheless, feel that we, collectively, ought to be reaching out to the excellent ideas that David Melding has proposed. I think amendment 4 obviously indicates a lot of potential ideas, but these are ideas we should have been getting on with for some time now. The fact that we still only have the Part L revision of the building regulations in consultation, and people are continuing to build all these homes that are not connected with public transport, do not have active travel paths built into them, do not even have bus routes built into them. The Lisvane development and the old Llanedeyrn development on the edge of my constituency are cases in point, where it's going to massively increase the amount of congestion in my constituency. And, at the same time, we have Cardiff council considering closing alleyways, which are excellent places for people to cycle and walk, away from very busy, congested roads. This seems to be entirely the wrong direction of travel. So, I would like to see some really chunky proposals for dealing with the congestion around Newport through much better public transport, and those are the sorts of things I want to see from our Government.
Welsh: Credaf mai un o'r problemau mwyaf ynglŷn â ffordd liniaru'r M4 yw sut y gall Llywodraeth Cymru ei chysoni gyda'i huchelgais i gyflawni gostyngiad o 43 y cant mewn allyriadau carbon o gerbydau erbyn 2030. Os yw'n bwrw rhagddi ar ffordd liniaru'r M4, byddai'n arwain at gynnydd o rywbeth tebyg i 42,000 o gerbydau'r dydd. Felly, nid wyf yn deall sut yn y byd y gallem gyflawni ein rhwymedigaethau newid hinsawdd a'n targedau yn hynny o beth pe baem yn bwrw ymlaen â ffordd liniaru'r M4. Gallai leihau tagfeydd dros dro o gwmpas Casnewydd wedi iddi gael ei hadeiladu - byddai'n rhaid iddynt ddygymod â llawer iawn o dagfeydd yn y cyfamser - ond byddai'n cynyddu'r tagfeydd yng Nghaerdydd ac ymhellach i lawr yr M4 yn aruthrol. Nid wyf yn gweld sut y gall unrhyw un gyfiawnhau cynyddu tagfeydd yng Nghaerdydd pan fo gennym naw o ysgolion a nifer o feithrinfeydd heb eu henwi gyda lefelau llygredd aer sy'n anghyfreithlon eisoes, ac mae pawb ohonom yn gwybod nad yw'r arwyddion yn dda o ran iechyd, yn enwedig i ysgyfaint ifanc. Felly, rwy'n teimlo'n gryf mai ateb ugeinfed ganrif yw ffordd liniaru'r M4, a grybwyllwyd yn gyntaf yn 1991, ac nid yw'n addas ar gyfer y problemau unfed ganrif ar hugain sy'n ein hwynebu yn awr. Cafodd ei gwyntyllu ar adeg pan nad oeddem mor ymwybodol ag rydym bellach o'r newid cyflym a difrifol yn ein hinsawdd, ac felly credaf fod angen inni feddwl eto am hynny. Ni fyddaf yn cefnogi gwelliant 2. Nid yw'r polisi niwclear wedi'i ddatganoli, felly nid oes ots mawr iawn beth yw safbwynt y Cynulliad ar y mater, gan mai Llywodraeth y DU sy'n penderfynu ar hyn. Yn amlwg, credaf y dylem fod yn defnyddio - . Rwy'n anghytuno â David Melding ar hyn, y dylem fod yn defnyddio ynni niwclear fel ateb wrth gefn ar gyfer ynni adnewyddadwy. Rwy'n teimlo mai nwy ddylai chwarae'r rhan honno, fel darpariaeth wrth gefn, ac mae'n fy mhoeni braidd fod nwy'n cael ei losgi ar y lefel y mae'n cael ei losgi, oherwydd yn amlwg, mae'n adnodd y mae pen draw iddo a dylem fod yn ei ddefnyddio'n fwy darbodus nag a wnawn ar hyn o bryd. Mae gennyf lawer i'w ddweud wrth welliant 3. Credaf fod y cynigion a ddrafftiwyd gan David Melding, ac uchelgais David Melding ar gyfer gwneud ein prifddinas yn brifddinas garbon niwtral gyntaf y DU, yn atyniadol iawn. Mae'r syniad o osod monitorau mesur llygredd aer yn ein holl ysgolion a meithrinfeydd yn un y teimlaf y dylai Llywodraeth Cymru ei groesawu. Yn sicr, rwyf wedi ymrwymo i'r syniad o orchudd canopi coed trefol o 20 y cant erbyn 2030, oherwydd, yn amlwg, dyna un o'r ffyrdd y gallwn fynd i'r afael â'r llygredd aer ofnadwy sydd gennym. Ac yn amlwg, dylem fod yn cymell pobl i roi toeau gwyrdd ar unrhyw adeiladau newydd neu unrhyw ddatblygiad newydd, neu unrhyw do a adnewyddir. Ond er mwyn peidio â gwneud y prif chwip yn bryderus, yn anffodus, ni fyddaf yn gallu cefnogi gwelliant 3. Serch hynny, rwy'n teimlo y dylem estyn allan ar y cyd at y syniadau rhagorol y mae David Melding wedi'u hargymell. Credaf fod gwelliant 4 yn dangos llawer o syniadau posibl, yn amlwg, ond mae'r rhain yn syniadau y dylem fod yn bwrw ymlaen â hwy ers peth amser bellach. Y ffaith nad yw'r adolygiad o Ran L y rheoliadau adeiladu ond wedi cyrraedd y cam ymgynghori, a bod pobl yn parhau i adeiladu'r holl gartrefi hyn nad ydynt wedi'u cysylltu â thrafnidiaeth gyhoeddus, heb lwybrau teithio llesol wedi'u cynnwys, ac nad oes llwybrau bysiau wedi'u cynnwys ynddynt hyd yn oed. Mae datblygiad Llys-faen a hen ddatblygiad Llanedern ar gyrion fy etholaeth yn enghreifftiau o hyn, lle mae'n mynd i gynyddu'r tagfeydd yn fy etholaeth yn aruthrol. Ac ar yr un pryd, mae Cyngor Caerdydd yn ystyried cau llwybrau cefn, sy'n lleoedd gwych i bobl seiclo a cherdded ynddynt, oddi ar ffyrdd prysur iawn. Mae'n ymddangos bod hyn yn mynd i'r cyfeiriad cwbl anghywir. Felly, hoffwn weld cynigion gwirionedd gynhwysfawr ar gyfer ymdrin â thagfeydd o gwmpas Casnewydd trwy drafnidiaeth gyhoeddus lawer gwell, a dyna'r mathau o bethau yr hoffwn eu gweld gan ein Llywodraeth.