English: I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, as the issue of the M4 and the solution to the traffic issues around the Newport and Brynglas areas is something that I have been involved with from day one, since I've been in this Assembly. In fact, I was part of the environment committee's consideration of these proposals that resulted in a report back in July 2014, which was published. I think this very much confirms - and, I think, endorses - the conclusion that has ultimately been reached by the First Minister. I agree with that, and I also agree very much with some of the comments that were made by my colleague John Griffiths in terms of a number of alternatives, so I don't want to go into those again. One of the conclusions in that report from 2014 - . I'll read it, and it has to be read in the context - . Then, we were talking about the possibility that it might be costing £500 million to £750 million, whereas now, the reality is that we are talking about a £2 billion project, if that were to have gone ahead. It said: 'The total cost of the scheme including all ancillary measures remains unclear and the source for funding this total cost uncertain' and 'Given the lack of clarity on the assessment of alternative options, wider public transport measures, the Metro proposals and the potential impacts of electrification it is difficult to conclude on the basis of current information that a convincing case for the long-term value for money of this potential investment has yet been made'. Now, Russell George will remember this report because you were a member of that committee and were in agreement with the report and, in fact, the conclusions that came out at that time. It's very clear that there needs to be action taken in respect of the situation around Newport and to the infrastructure. But, what I do want to do is to broaden out the debate a little bit on it because this is not just a Brynglas problem. Traffic doesn't magically appear at 7 o'clock in the morning in the Brynglas area and then reappear again by some sort of instance of magic at 4, 5 or 6 o'clock in that particular area. The traffic problem stems far further back, and any solution has to look at the broader traffic infrastructure issues - down from the Valleys, down from Bridgend, down from Swansea, down from the Gwent valleys. Any solution to it has to also take into account the need to actually provide an alternative mechanism of transport in these areas. And these are areas also where there is massive housing expansion because housing is cheaper. In fact, in the Taff-Ely area, part of which is in my constituency, there are plans over the next decade for 20,000 houses. So, among the options that we have to look at are the broader metro options, and that has got to include the reopening of railway lines, many of which are still predominantly there. The former railway line from Cardiff through Cardiff West, through Efail Isaf, Creigiau, all the way through to Llantrisant, Beddau and connecting to Pontyclun, is still predominantly there. If we are building 20,000 houses in these areas, many of these people without an alternative transport system will be on the M4, will be driving down to Brynglas and down to other areas. So, what we do need is a very broad and comprehensive transport infrastructure plan that encompasses the Valleys area of south Wales, that looks at where the traffic is coming from, and is there to provide a real solution. I'm absolutely clear that, if we were to have proceeded with the black route, it may have provided some temporary relief for a couple of years, but then in five years' time, we would be exactly back where we started from. The only real alternative is to allow people the opportunity I think most people want, and that is not to have to take their cars on these journeys, but to use an alternative public transport system. We have to ensure that we provide that alternative public transport solution.
Welsh: Rwy'n ddiolchgar am y cyfle i siarad yn y ddadl hon, gan fod mater yr M4 a'r ateb i'r problemau traffig o amgylch ardaloedd Casnewydd a Bryn-glas yn rhywbeth rwyf wedi bod yn ymwneud ag ef o'r diwrnod cyntaf, ers i mi fod yn y Cynulliad hwn. A dweud y gwir, roeddwn yn aelod o'r pwyllgor amgylchedd a ystyriodd y cynigion hyn ac a arweiniodd at adroddiad yn ôl ym mis Gorffennaf 2014, adroddiad a gafodd ei gyhoeddi. Rwy'n credu ei fod yn cadarnhau'n bendant - ac yn cefnogi, rwy'n credu - y casgliad y daeth y Prif Weinidog iddo yn y pen draw. Cytunaf â'r penderfyniad hwnnw, ac rwyf hefyd yn cytuno'n fawr iawn â rhai o'r sylwadau a wnaethpwyd gan fy nghyd-Aelod John Griffiths ynglŷn â nifer o ddewisiadau eraill, felly nid wyf am drafod y rheini eto. Un o'r casgliadau yn yr adroddiad yn 2014 - . Fe'i darllenaf, a rhaid ei ddarllen yn y cyd-destun - . Ar y pryd, roeddem yn sôn am y posibilrwydd y gallai gostio rhwng £500 miliwn a £750 miliwn, ond yn awr y realiti yw ein bod yn sôn am brosiect £2 biliwn, pe bai wedi mynd rhagddo. Dywedai hyn: Mae cyfanswm cost y cynllun gan gynnwys yr holl fesurau ategol yn parhau i fod yn aneglur ac mae'r ffynhonnell ar gyfer ariannu cyfanswm y gost yn ansicr ac O ystyried y diffyg eglurder ar yr asesiad o opsiynau amgen, mesurau trafnidiaeth gyhoeddus ehangach, cynigion y Metro ac effeithiau posibl trydaneiddio, mae'n anodd dod i gasgliad ar sail y wybodaeth gyfredol fod achos argyhoeddiadol dros werth am arian hirdymor y buddsoddiad posibl hwn wedi'i wneud eto. Nawr, bydd Russell George yn cofio'r adroddiad hwn oherwydd roeddech yn aelod o'r pwyllgor hwnnw ac roeddech yn cytuno â'r adroddiad ac yn wir, â'r casgliadau a ddaeth allan bryd hynny. Mae'n glir iawn fod angen gweithredu mewn perthynas â'r sefyllfa o amgylch Casnewydd a'r seilwaith. Ond yr hyn rwyf am ei wneud yw ehangu'r ddadl ychydig gan nad problem gyda Bryn-glas yn unig yw hon. Nid yw'r traffig yn ymddangos drwy ryw wyrth am 7 o'r gloch y bore yn ardal Bryn-glas ac yna'n ailymddangos eto drwy ryw fath o hud a lledrith am 4, 5 neu 6 o'r gloch yn yr ardal arbennig honno. Mae problem y traffig yn dechrau'n bell cyn hynny, ac mae'n rhaid i unrhyw ateb edrych ar y problemau seilwaith traffig ehangach - i lawr o'r Cymoedd, i lawr o Ben-y-bont ar Ogwr, i lawr o Abertawe, i lawr o gymoedd Gwent. Rhaid i unrhyw ateb iddo ystyried yr angen hefyd i ddarparu mecanwaith trafnidiaeth amgen yn yr ardaloedd hyn. A cheir ardaloedd hefyd lle gwelir cynnydd enfawr yn nifer y tai am fod tai'n rhatach. Yn wir, yn ardal Taf-Elái, gyda rhan ohoni yn fy etholaeth i, mae cynlluniau dros y degawd nesaf i godi 20,000 o dai. Felly, un o'r opsiynau y mae'n rhaid inni edrych arno yw'r opsiynau ehangach ar gyfer y metro, a rhaid i hynny gynnwys ailagor rheilffyrdd, ac mae llawer ohonynt yn dal i fod yno i raddau helaeth. Mae'r hen reilffordd o Gaerdydd drwy Orllewin Caerdydd, drwy Efail Isaf, Creigiau, yr holl ffordd drwodd i Lantrisant, Beddau ac yn cysylltu â Phont-y-clun, yn dal i fod yno i raddau helaeth. Os ydym yn adeiladu 20,000 o dai yn yr ardaloedd hyn, bydd llawer o'r bobl hyn sydd heb system drafnidiaeth arall ar yr M4, yn gyrru i lawr i Fryn-glas ac i lawr i ardaloedd eraill. Felly, mae angen i ni gael cynllun seilwaith trafnidiaeth eang a chynhwysfawr iawn sy'n cwmpasu ardaloedd y Cymoedd yn ne Cymru, sy'n edrych i weld o ble y daw'r traffig, ac sydd yno i ddarparu ateb go iawn. Rwy'n gwbl sicr, pe baem wedi bwrw ymlaen â'r llwybr du, y gallai fod wedi lliniaru rhywfaint am gyfnod o flwyddyn neu ddwy, ond ymhen pum mlynedd byddem yn ôl yn union lle roeddem ar y dechrau. Yr unig ddewis arall mewn gwirionedd yw caniatáu i bobl gael y cyfle y mae'r rhan fwyaf o bobl ei eisiau yn fy marn i, sef i beidio â gorfod mynd â'u ceir ar y teithiau hyn, ond i ddefnyddio system drafnidiaeth gyhoeddus yn lle hynny. Rhaid inni sicrhau ein bod yn darparu'r ateb amgen hwnnw yn seiliedig ar drafnidiaeth gyhoeddus.