English: Well, can I thank Russell George for the various questions that he's raised today? I do appreciate that Members may be disappointed that a statement was not able to be made to the Senedd Chamber on the Wednesday of the week when the announcement was made. Let me outline to Members the reasons why, and they are many. First of all, sensitive commercial negotiations have been taking place during the summer and into the autumn with KeolisAmey on the future of rail services, but, of course, the heads of terms that were agreed were only agreed and then signed off at 6 p.m. on the Tuesday evening, which meant it was simply not possible to then table this for debate or for a statement on Wednesday ahead of the recent recess. Also, given the uncertainty that this date would be achieved and that slightly more time would be required for briefings, obviously, for staff, the 2,500 staff, we therefore determined that scheduling it for Thursday was prudent. Thursday of that week was also the last date to ensure that all staff could be briefed and that the 90-day Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 consultation period could be instigated, and therefore it was not possible, then, to make the statement this week. Now, given our desire to ensure that not just customers but staff are at the heart of everything that we decide with regard to the Wales and borders rail services, I think it was only right and proper that workers heard first about the future of their employment and the services that they deliver. And I can add a further final but important reason why the timings were such, and it's because Keolis and Amey are two very significant international private companies, they have shareholders, and there are requirements on market-sensitive announcements and how these need to be communicated with shareholders, and therefore we were unable to say anything before those shareholders were informed. Now, I would agree with Russell George that people care less about the brand that is carried on the side of a train than they do about how a train operates - whether it's on time, whether it's clean, whether toilets are available, what sort of catering services are available on board - but I disagree with Russell George on his assertion that the public sector is less able to deliver regular, reliable services than the private sector. We need only look at the likes of Northern to appreciate that the UK Government would agree with me on this point. The UK Government intervened with Northern Rail, took it over, brought into public ownership. So, what we are doing is, to a degree, consistent with what other Governments are doing. And I think Members would also recognise that in other areas of public transport delivery - buses, for example - the public sector plays an excellent role in some parts of Wales, and we would wish councils to play a greater role across all local authority areas in delivering bus services. And in terms of comparing the decision that we've made with regard to rail services to our management of Cardiff Airport, I would just remind Members that, prior to this global pandemic, I don't think there is any Member in the Chamber that was questioning the success of Cardiff international airport in recent years - passenger numbers had increased to record levels since our taking over of that particular asset; we were delivering on a hugely ambitious vision for the airport. But, of course, regional airports the length of breadth of the UK, and further afield, are suffering terribly as a result of coronavirus, and it must be said that many more regional airports are in more vulnerable positions than Cardiff international airport, and that's because Cardiff international airport has a Government sitting behind it, able to protect it. Now, in terms of costs associated with the decision that we have made, costs for the negotiations and the outcome of the negotiations will be available before the transfer takes place in February. But there are many other costs that we need to consider - one the cost of actually maintaining services at the levels that they are operating against the reduced fare box, and, regardless of the ownership model, there would still be a need to intervene with additional public money in order to keep trains operating. In terms of set-up costs, what I can say to Members is that TfW have already identified that it'll be necessary to ascertain certain assets from KeolisAmey to ensure the smooth transition and ongoing provision of services, but the important point is that these are assets and, therefore, they have a value, rather than just a cost. Once the value of these assets has been fully resolved, I will ask TfW to provide Members with a comprehensive update. There will, obviously, be one-off administrative costs in respect of managing the TUPE process and - [ Inaudible.] - of any required contracts. This will be significantly less, it must be said, than the ongoing management and performance fee being paid under the emergency arrangements. And then the costs of this will be less, on the whole, than the performance and management fee being paid by the Department for Transport to train operators under their emergency recovery management agreement, which takes me to the next important point that Russell George was asking about, and that was what other methods of taking forward the management of and delivery of rail services were considered by Welsh Government. Well, every option was considered, and, at a UK Government level, through DfT, there is no single option or model that has been taken forward for all franchise agreements. Some train operators have had the original emergency management agreement extended, others have been put into a new agreement for up to 18 months, and those agreements are known as emergency recovery management agreements. Some, of course, as Members are aware, have been given direct awards, while some are under the operator-of-last-resort model. Many are not giving certainty to passengers in England. What we have done is offered a clear time frame for a smooth transition, a certainty for passengers and for staff. The key difference with our franchise agreement, which we signed in 2018, was that it incorporated not just rail services, but also the transformation of the asset, the core Valleys lines. That made it distinctly different. So, whilst we were able to consider all of those models that are being adopted in various franchise agreements in England, we determined that the model that we decided on was the most suitable for Wales. In terms of the question asked about how long can this last, well, we await a UK position in regard to the Railways Act 2005 and whether that will have to be amended in some way. But our position is that we will be taking forward this new operating model for as long as we can, and we wish to make sure that we use the agreements that we have in place, the heads of terms that we're going to be negotiating the details of, to ensure that we have a transition in terms of rail services, but that we also deliver on the ambitious metro programme and, furthermore, that we use the joint venture with Keolis and Amey to guarantee that we can deliver integrated ticketing and other improvements in the way that rail services operate in the Wales and borders areas. And then, finally, Llywydd, Russell George asked the really important question about our commitment to rolling stock, that £800 million commitment to rolling stock. We remain committed to delivering that £800 million upgrade programme, new trains - excellent new trains - operating on our railways. We are committed to that, and, of course, future Governments will wish to look at spending priorities in the longer term with regard to station upgrades, but, right now, I remain committed to investing wherever we can in those station upgrades. But I have to say the UK Government needs to make good on its historic underinvestment in rail infrastructure and also invest in rail lines and in stations.
Welsh: Wel, a gaf i ddiolch i Russell George am y gwahanol gwestiynau y mae wedi'u codi heddiw? Rwy'n sylweddoli y gallai Aelodau fod yn siomedig na ellid gwneud datganiad i Siambr y Senedd ar ddydd Mercher yr wythnos pan wnaethpwyd y cyhoeddiad. Gadewch imi amlinellu i'r Aelodau y rhesymau pam, ac maen nhw'n niferus. Yn gyntaf oll, bu trafodaethau masnachol sensitif yn ystod yr haf ac i mewn i'r hydref gyda KeolisAmey ynglŷn â dyfodol gwasanaethau rheilffyrdd, ond, wrth gwrs, dim ond am 6 p.m. ar y nos Fawrth y cafodd penawdau'r telerau eu cytuno a'u cymeradwyo, a oedd yn golygu nad oedd hi'n bosibl wedyn i gyflwyno hyn i'w drafod neu ar gyfer datganiad ar y dydd Mercher cyn y toriad diweddaraf. Hefyd, o ystyried yr ansicrwydd ynghylch a fyddai'r dyddiad hwn yn cael ei gyflawni ac y byddai angen ychydig mwy o amser ar gyfer sesiynau briffio, yn amlwg, i staff, y 2,500 o staff, fe wnaethom ni benderfynu felly fod ei amserlennu ar gyfer dydd Iau yn ddoeth. Dydd Iau'r wythnos honno hefyd oedd y dyddiad olaf i sicrhau y gellid briffio'r holl staff ac y gellid cychwyn cyfnod ymgynghori 90 diwrnod ar Reoliadau Trosglwyddo Ymgymeriadau (Diogelu Cyflogaeth) 1981, ac felly nid oedd hi'n bosibl i wneud y datganiad yr wythnos hon. Nawr, o ystyried ein hawydd i sicrhau nid yn unig bod cwsmeriaid ond staff wrth wraidd popeth a fyddwn ni'n penderfynu arno o ran gwasanaethau rheilffyrdd Cymru a'r gororau, credaf nad yw hi ond yn briodol i weithwyr glywed yn gyntaf am ddyfodol eu swyddi a'r gwasanaethau y maen nhw'n eu darparu. A gallaf ychwanegu, yn olaf, reswm pwysig arall pam roedd yr amseru fel ag yr oedd, a'r rheswm yw bod Keolis ac Amey yn ddau gwmni preifat rhyngwladol arwyddocaol iawn, mae ganddyn nhw gyfranddalwyr, ac mae gofynion ynghylch cyhoeddiadau sy'n sensitif i'r farchnad a sut mae angen cyfleu'r rhain i gyfranddalwyr, ac felly nid oeddem yn gallu dweud dim cyn i'r cyfranddalwyr hynny gael eu hysbysu. Nawr, byddwn yn cytuno â Russell George fod pobl yn poeni llai am y brand sydd ar ochr trên nag y maen nhw am y ffordd y mae trên yn gweithredu - a yw'n brydlon, a yw'n lân, pa un a oes toiledau ar gael, pa fath o wasanaethau arlwyo sydd ar gael - ond rwy'n anghytuno â Russell George a'i honiad bod y sector cyhoeddus yn llai abl na'r sector preifat i ddarparu gwasanaethau dibynadwy rheolaidd. Does dim eisiau inni edrych yn bellach na chwmnïau fel Northern i weld y byddai Llywodraeth y DU yn cytuno â mi ar y pwynt hwn. Ymyrrodd Llywodraeth y DU â Northern Rail, ei gymryd o dan ei reolaeth, a'i roi o dan berchnogaeth gyhoeddus. Felly, mae'r hyn yr ydym ni yn ei wneud, i raddau, yn gyson â'r hyn y mae Llywodraethau eraill yn ei wneud. A chredaf y byddai'r Aelodau hefyd yn cydnabod, mewn meysydd eraill o ddarparu trafnidiaeth gyhoeddus - bysiau, er enghraifft - fod y sector cyhoeddus yn chwarae rhan ragorol mewn rhai rhannau o Gymru, a byddem ni'n dymuno i gynghorau chwarae mwy o ran ym mhob un o'n hawdurdodau lleol wrth ddarparu gwasanaethau bysiau. Ac o ran cymharu'r penderfyniad yr ydym ni wedi'i wneud ynglŷn â gwasanaethau rheilffyrdd â'n rheolaeth dros Faes Awyr Caerdydd, hoffwn atgoffa'r Aelodau, cyn y pandemig byd-eang hwn, nad wyf yn credu bod unrhyw Aelod yn y Siambr a oedd yn cwestiynu llwyddiant maes awyr rhyngwladol Caerdydd yn ystod y blynyddoedd diwethaf - roedd nifer y teithwyr wedi cynyddu i'r niferoedd mwyaf erioed ers inni gymryd yr ased penodol hwnnw drosodd; roeddem yn gwireddu gweledigaeth uchelgeisiol iawn ar gyfer y maes awyr. Ond, wrth gwrs, mae meysydd awyr rhanbarthol ar hyd y DU, ac ymhellach draw, yn dioddef yn ofnadwy o ganlyniad i'r coronafeirws, a rhaid dweud bod llawer mwy o feysydd awyr rhanbarthol o dan fwy o fygythiad na maes awyr rhyngwladol caerdydd, a hynny oherwydd bod gan faes awyr rhyngwladol Caerdydd gefnogaeth Llywodraeth, sy'n gallu ei ddiogelu. Nawr, o ran costau sy'n gysylltiedig â'n penderfyniad, bydd costau ar gyfer y trafodaethau a chanlyniad y trafodaethau ar gael cyn y trosglwyddo ym mis Chwefror. Ond mae llawer o gostau eraill y mae angen inni eu hystyried - un yw cost cynnal gwasanaethau ar y lefelau y maen nhw'n gweithredu er gwaethaf y gostyngiad mewn arian tocynnau, a beth bynnag fo'r model perchnogaeth, byddai angen ymyrryd o hyd ag arian cyhoeddus ychwanegol er mwyn cadw trenau i redeg. O ran costau sefydlu, yr hyn y gallaf ei ddweud wrth yr Aelodau yw bod Trafnidiaeth Cymru eisoes wedi nodi y bydd angen cael gwybod am rai asedau gan KeolisAmey er mwyn sicrhau pontio llyfn a darpariaeth barhaus o wasanaethau, ond y pwynt pwysig yw mai asedau yw'r rhain ac, felly, mae ganddyn nhw werth, yn hytrach na chost yn unig. Ar ôl canfod beth yw union werth yr asedau hyn, gofynnaf i Trafnidiaeth Cymru roi diweddariad cynhwysfawr i'r Aelodau. Mae'n amlwg y bydd costau gweinyddol untro o ran rheoli'r broses TUPE a - [ Anghlywadwy.] - o unrhyw gontractau gofynnol. Bydd hyn yn sylweddol is, rhaid dweud, na'r ffi reoli a pherfformiad parhaus sy'n cael ei thalu o dan y trefniadau argyfwng. Ac yna bydd costau hyn yn llai, ar y cyfan, na'r ffi perfformiad a rheoli sy'n cael ei thalu gan yr Adran Drafnidiaeth i weithredwyr trenau o dan eu cytundeb rheoli adferiad brys, sy'n dod â fi at y pwynt pwysig nesaf yr oedd Russell George yn gofyn amdano, a dyna'r dulliau eraill o fwrw ymlaen â rheoli a darparu gwasanaethau rheilffyrdd a ystyriwyd gan Lywodraeth Cymru. Wel, ystyriwyd pob dewis, ac, ar lefel Llywodraeth y DU, drwy'r Adran Drafnidiaeth, nid oes un dewis na model sydd wedi'i ddatblygu ar gyfer pob cytundeb masnachfraint. Mae rhai gweithredwyr trenau wedi cael y cytundeb rheoli brys gwreiddiol wedi'i ymestyn, ac mae eraill wedi cael cytundeb newydd am hyd at 18 mis, a gelwir y cytundebau hynny'n gytundebau rheoli adferiad brys. Mae rhai, wrth gwrs, fel y gŵyr Aelodau, wedi cael dyfarniadau uniongyrchol, tra bo rhai yn gweithio ar fodel y gweithredwr pan fetha popeth arall. Nid yw llawer ohonyn nhw yn rhoi sicrwydd i deithwyr yn Lloegr. Yr hyn yr ydym ni wedi'i wneud yw cynnig amserlen glir ar gyfer pontio llyfn, sicrwydd i deithwyr ac i staff. Y gwahaniaeth allweddol yn ein cytundeb masnachfraint ni, a lofnodwyd gennym ni yn 2018, oedd ei fod yn ymgorffori nid yn unig gwasanaethau rheilffyrdd, ond hefyd trawsnewid yr ased, rheilffyrdd craidd y Cymoedd. Roedd hynny'n ei wneud yn wahanol iawn. Felly, er inni allu ystyried yr holl fodelau hynny sy'n cael eu mabwysiadu mewn gwahanol gytundebau masnachfraint yn Lloegr, fe wnaethom ni benderfynu mai'r model a wnaethom ni ei ddewis oedd yr un mwyaf addas i Gymru. O ran y cwestiwn a ofynnwyd am ba hyd y gall hyn barhau, wel, rydym yn aros am safbwynt y DU o ran Deddf Rheilffyrdd 2005 a pha un a fydd angen diwygio honno mewn unrhyw ffordd. Ond ein safbwynt ni yw y byddwn yn bwrw ymlaen â'r model gweithredu newydd hwn cyhyd ag y gallwn ni, a hoffem sicrhau ein bod yn defnyddio'r cytundebau sydd gennym ni ar waith, y penawdau telerau y byddwn yn trafod eu manylion, er mwyn sicrhau bod gennym ni delerau pontio gwasanaethau rheilffyrdd, ond ein bod hefyd yn cyflawni'r rhaglen metro uchelgeisiol a hefyd ein bod yn defnyddio'r fenter ar y cyd â Keolis ac Amey i warantu y gallwn ni ddarparu tocynnau integredig a gwelliannau eraill yn y ffordd y mae gwasanaethau rheilffyrdd yn gweithredu yn ardaloedd Cymru a'r gororau. Ac yna, yn olaf, Llywydd, gofynnodd Russell George y cwestiwn gwirioneddol bwysig am ein hymrwymiad i gerbydau, yr ymrwymiad hwnnw o £800 miliwn i gerbydau. Rydym yn parhau i ymrwymo i ddarparu'r rhaglen uwchraddio honno gwerth £800 miliwn, trenau newydd - trenau newydd rhagorol - sy'n gweithredu ar ein rheilffyrdd. Rydym ni wedi ymrwymo i hynny, ac, wrth gwrs, bydd Llywodraethau'r dyfodol yn dymuno edrych ar flaenoriaethau gwario yn y tymor hwy o ran uwchraddio gorsafoedd, ond, ar hyn o bryd, rwy'n dal yn ymrwymo i fuddsoddi lle bynnag y gallwn ni yn y gwaith o uwchraddio'r gorsafoedd hynny. Ond mae'n rhaid i mi ddweud bod angen i Lywodraeth y DU unioni'r cam o danfuddsoddi hanesyddol yn seilwaith y rheilffyrdd a hefyd buddsoddi mewn rheilffyrdd ac mewn gorsafoedd.