English: I think that, as the Chair has highlighted, while it is welcome to see the Government's positive response to some of the recommendations, there is some disagreement about the role and the remit of the national infrastructure commission, and some of that disagreement is fundamental. It goes to the very heart of what problem the commission is trying to solve. You wouldn't necessarily know this level of disagreement from the figures that the Government has published in relation to its own consultation exercise. The percentages that disagree: it's 1 per cent and 0 per cent in many of them. I would have to say - and I am not trying to be deliberately provocative here - that some of them are almost questions that it is impossible to disagree with: 'Do you agree that NICfW should work collaboratively with the UK National Infrastructure Commission?' Who could possibly disagree with that? Nobody does. Similarly, 'Do you agree there should be an open public appointments process for the commission?' So, I think maybe, if we want to learn something from consultations, let's actually frame the questions about those areas where there is genuine, sincere disagreement. Even on the first question, which is the fundamental one about the role and remit, it says that 87 per cent agree - but in brackets, it says 'in whole or in part'. It is the second bit - 'in part' - where of course we find there is disagreement. So, on the question of the statutory basis, some of the key industry bodies - the Civil Engineering Contractors Association - clearly argue, as they indeed have done in terms of the UK Commission, that for this commission to do the job of work that it is tasked with on behalf of the people of Wales, it needs to be set on a statutory basis. Indeed, Lord Kinnock, of course, in response to the u-turn following the commitment in the Queen's speech in Westminster - which now, of course, means that the UK Commission is also not being put on a statutory basis - went as far as to say that that actually wrecked the whole impact of the body to create the kind of independence and authority that actually is needed to have a long-term approach to our infrastructure needs, which go beyond the political cycle and go beyond the vagaries of the change of administration from one term to another. So, I have to say that that is a great source of disappointment, not least to my party, but indeed, clearly, as evidenced by the committee's report, across the Chamber and among key bodies and sectors that base it upon their own expertise. In terms of social infrastructure, again, part of the problem that we have and that we are trying to solve is the imbalance of our infrastructure investment: the fact that there isn't a long-term approach but there isn't a comprehensive or holistic approach either. That's why, though I couldn't convince all of my fellow committee Members on this - . Why actually keep social infrastructure out? As we heard powerfully this morning, I think, in evidence from Karel Williams, it is an arbitrary divide - the difference between social and economic or productive infrastructure. So, bring it in. There are tentative moves, possibly, hidden within the Government's response, but actually, let's make that part of the core remit. I'm glad to see that the Government has said that it will explore alternatives in relation to this key question of how we fund infrastructure investment, but can I ask the Cabinet Secretary a very direct question? Does that mean that infrastructure investment will be part of the other remit letter that he'll be writing soon to the development bank for Wales? Finally, on this question of the other imbalance, which is an imbalance of investment across Wales, it's something of a personal and indeed a party obsession of ours at the moment. There's reference to having the voice of the different regions of Wales heard within the context of the infrastructure commission, but could we have, in that remit letter to this body, a commitment to equalise investment - indeed, in the region in which his constituency lies as well, in north Wales, but across Wales - so that that is clearly there on the face of the remit? And for us to get a sense - if it's not going to be put on a statutory basis, could the Cabinet Secretary at least tell us, if he has a figure, what the size of the budget for the new body will be, so that we get a sense of its capacity to do the work of overcoming the decades of underinvestment to which I referred earlier?
Welsh: Fel y nododd y Cadeirydd, er bod ymateb cadarnhaol y Llywodraeth i rai o'r argymhellion i'w groesawu, credaf fod peth anghytuno ynghylch rôl a chylch gwaith y comisiwn seilwaith cenedlaethol, ac mae peth ohono'n anghytundeb sylfaenol. Mae'n mynd i wraidd y cwestiwn ynglŷn â pha broblem y mae'r comisiwn yn ceisio'i datrys. Ni fyddech o reidrwydd yn ymwybodol o'r lefel hon o anghytuno o edrych ar y ffigurau a gyhoeddwyd gan y Llywodraeth mewn perthynas â'i hymgynghoriad ei hun. Y canrannau sy'n anghytuno: 1 y cant a 0 y cant yn unig mewn llawer ohonynt. Mae'n rhaid i mi ddweud - ac nid wyf yn ceisio bod yn fwriadol bryfoclyd yma - fod rhai ohonynt bron yn gwestiynau y mae'n amhosibl anghytuno â hwy: 'Ydych chi'n cytuno y dylai'r Comisiwn gydweithio â Chomisiwn Seilwaith y DU?' Pwy'n wir a allai anghytuno â hynny? Nid oes unrhyw un yn anghytuno â hynny. Yn yr un modd, 'Ydych chi'n cytuno y dylai pob penodiad i'r Comisiwn gael ei wneud drwy ymarfer penodi cyhoeddus agored?' Felly, os ydym am ddysgu rhywbeth o ymgynghoriadau, credaf efallai y dylem fframio'r cwestiynau am y meysydd lle y ceir anghytuno dilys a diffuant yn eu cylch. Hyd yn oed yn y cwestiwn cyntaf, sef yr un sylfaenol am y rôl a'r cylch gwaith, mae'n dweud bod 87 y cant yn cytuno - ond mewn cromfachau, mae'n dweud 'yn llwyr neu'n rhannol'. Yn yr ail ran - 'yn rhannol' - y gwelwn, wrth gwrs, fod yna anghytuno. Felly, o ran y cwestiwn ynglŷn â'r sail statudol, mae rhai o gyrff allweddol y diwydiant - Cymdeithas Contractwyr Peirianneg Sifil - yn amlwg yn dadlau, fel y gwnaethant mewn perthynas â Chomisiwn y DU, fod angen i'r comisiwn hwn, er mwyn iddo gyflawni ei waith ar ran pobl Cymru, gael ei sefydlu ar sail statudol. Yn wir, aeth yr Arglwydd Kinnock, mewn ymateb i'r tro pedol yn dilyn yr ymrwymiad yn araith y Frenhines yn San Steffan - sy'n golygu bellach, wrth gwrs, na fydd sail statudol i Gomisiwn y DU ychwaith - mor bell â dweud bod hynny'n dinistrio holl effaith y corff o ran creu'r math o annibyniaeth ac awdurdod sydd ei angen er mwyn sicrhau ymagwedd hirdymor tuag at ein hanghenion seilwaith, sy'n mynd y tu hwnt i'r cylch gwleidyddol ac yn mynd y tu hwnt i fympwyon newid yn y weinyddiaeth o un tymor i'r llall. Felly, mae'n rhaid i mi ddweud bod hynny'n siom enfawr, nid yn unig i fy mhlaid, ond yn amlwg, fel y gwelir yn adroddiad y pwyllgor, ar draws y Siambr ac ymhlith cyrff a sectorau allweddol sy'n ei seilio ar eu harbenigedd eu hunain. O ran seilwaith cymdeithasol, unwaith eto, rhan o'r broblem sydd gennym ac rydym yn ceisio'i datrys yw anghydbwysedd ein buddsoddiad mewn seilwaith: y ffaith nad oes ymagwedd hirdymor, ond hefyd nad oes ymagwedd gynhwysfawr neu gyfannol ychwaith. Dyna pam, er na allwn argyhoeddi pob un o fy nghyd-aelodau o'r pwyllgor ynglŷn â hyn - . Pam hepgor seilwaith cymdeithasol? Fel y clywsom yn rymus y bore yma, yn fy marn i, mewn tystiolaeth gan Karel Williams, mae'n rhaniad mympwyol - y gwahaniaeth rhwng seilwaith cymdeithasol a seilwaith economaidd neu gynhyrchiol. Felly, dewch inni ei gynnwys. Ceir ymdrechion petrus, o bosibl, yn cuddio o fewn ymateb y Llywodraeth, ond mewn gwirionedd, gadewch i ni sicrhau ei fod yn rhan o'r cylch gwaith craidd. Rwy'n falch o weld bod y Llywodraeth wedi dweud y bydd yn archwilio dewisiadau eraill mewn perthynas â'r cwestiwn allweddol ynglŷn â sut yr awn ati i ariannu buddsoddiad mewn seilwaith, ond a gaf fi ofyn cwestiwn uniongyrchol iawn i Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet? A yw hynny'n golygu y bydd buddsoddi mewn seilwaith yn rhan o'r llythyr cylch gwaith arall y bydd yn ei ysgrifennu cyn bo hir at fanc datblygu Cymru? Yn olaf, ynglŷn â'r cwestiwn o ran yr anghydbwysedd arall, sef anghydbwysedd mewn buddsoddi ledled Cymru, mae'n obsesiwn personol, ac yn wir, yn obsesiwn gan ein plaid ar hyn o bryd. Ceir cyfeiriad at gael lleisiau gwahanol ranbarthau Cymru wedi'u clywed yng nghyd-destun y comisiwn seilwaith, ond a allwn gael ymrwymiad yn y llythyr cylch gwaith i'r corff hwn i gydraddoli buddsoddiad - yn wir, yn rhanbarth ei etholaeth hefyd, yng ngogledd Cymru, ond ledled Cymru - er mwyn iddo fod yno'n rhan amlwg o'r cylch gwaith? Ac i ni gael syniad - os na chaiff ei osod ar sail statudol, a all Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet ddweud wrthym, o leiaf, os oes ganddo ffigur, beth fydd maint y gyllideb ar gyfer y corff newydd, er mwyn inni gael rhyw fath o syniad o'i allu i gwblhau'r gwaith o oresgyn y degawdau o danfuddsoddi y cyfeiriais atynt yn gynharach?