English: But a lower priority than even the Labour Government - which has breached its manifesto commitment - intends to give to it. I was astonished by Jenny Rathbone's contribution. She said there'd been a 20 per cent spike in traffic - that's a higher number than I've seen from other studies of this - and she describes scrapping the tolls as a deliberate ploy by the Secretary of State for Wales in order to make the Welsh Government build this M4 relief road. I'd like to, as I did before, give some credit to the Secretary of State, because he has been very, very clear on building this relief road. And in this motion today I note that the Conservative group here also says that the recommendation of the independent public inspector should be accepted - 'and build the M4 relief road.' That is a very, very clear statement. Some members of the group have made other comments publicly; I note Nick Ramsay isn't in his seat. We'll see whether he's here for the vote later. But I do appreciate the very clear commitment, both from the Conservative group and from the Secretary of State, to doing that. It's almost as clear as the commitment that Labour gave in their manifesto, but which they have now, I'm very, very afraid to say, broken. The Minister said earlier that it doesn't matter that all the money that's been spent on the wasted costs - or some perhaps he'll manage to make sure aren't wasted, but I doubt they'll all be non-wasted - he says it will not waste as much money as they are on HS2. I'm not quite sure if that's a sufficient recommendation. Can we also just have clarity on these 50 mph limits? I heard from your colleague Lesley Griffiths last week when I asked about this. Why were these 50 mph limits at six sites about air pollution being made permanent? Had the temporary ones been considered, and did the evidence support that? And she told me the evidence was mixed and inconclusive. So, why are these limits being made permanent? It's so important in terms of the Brynglas tunnels, the M4, what's happening with congestion, that people know that the measures being taken are those under best advice to try and limit and mitigate that congestion, when the Government has gone back on its promise to build this relief road. Are they there to do that, or are they instead there for the pollution reasons discussed last week by your colleague? Thank you.
Welsh: Ond mae'n llai o flaenoriaeth nag y mae'r Llywodraeth Lafur hyd yn oed - sydd wedi torri'r ymrwymiad yn ei maniffesto - yn bwriadu ei roi iddi. Fe'm syfrdanwyd gan gyfraniad Jenny Rathbone. Dywedodd y bu cynnydd o 20 y cant mewn traffig - mae hynny'n uwch na'r hyn a welais mewn astudiaethau eraill o hyn - ac mae'n disgrifio cael gwared ar y tollau fel ystryw fwriadol gan Ysgrifennydd Gwladol Cymru er mwyn gwneud i Lywodraeth Cymru adeiladu ffordd liniaru hon ar gyfer yr M4. Hoffwn, fel y gwneuthum o'r blaen, roi rhywfaint o glod i'r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol, oherwydd bu'n glir iawn ynghylch adeiladu'r ffordd liniaru hon. Ac yn y cynnig hwn heddiw sylwaf fod y grŵp Ceidwadol yma hefyd yn dweud y dylid derbyn argymhelliad yr arolygydd cyhoeddus annibynnol: ac adeiladu ffordd liniaru'r M4. Mae hwnnw'n ddatganiad clir iawn. Mae rhai aelodau o'r grŵp wedi gwneud sylwadau eraill yn gyhoeddus; sylwaf nad yw Nick Ramsay yn ei sedd. Gawn ni weld a fydd yma ar gyfer y bleidlais yn nes ymlaen. Ond rwy'n gwerthfawrogi'r ymrwymiad clir iawn, gan y grŵp Ceidwadol a chan yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol, i wneud hynny. Mae bron mor glir â'r ymrwymiad a roddodd y Blaid Lafur yn ei maniffesto, y maen nhw nawr, mae arnaf ofn dweud, wedi ei dorri. Dywedodd y Gweinidog yn gynharach nad oes ots am yr holl arian sydd wedi'i wario ar y costau a wastraffwyd - neu efallai y bydd yn llwyddo i wneud yn siŵr nad yw rhai yn cael eu gwastraffu, ond rwy'n amau y bydd y cyfan yn osgoi cael eu gwastraffu - mae'n dweud na fydd yn gwastraffu cymaint o arian ag y maen nhw ar HS2. Dydw i ddim yn hollol siŵr a yw hynny'n argymhelliad digon da. A allwn ni hefyd gael eglurder ar y terfynau 50 mya hyn? Clywais gan eich cyd-Aelod Lesley Griffiths yr wythnos diwethaf pan ofynnais am hyn. Pam cafodd y terfynau 50 mya hyn mewn chwe safle ynghylch llygredd aer eu gwneud yn rhai parhaol? A gafodd y rhai dros dro eu hystyried, ac a oedd y dystiolaeth yn cefnogi hynny? A dywedodd hi wrthyf fod y dystiolaeth yn gymysg ac yn amhendant. Felly, pam mae'r terfynau hyn yn cael eu gwneud yn barhaol? Mae mor bwysig o ran twneli Bryn-glas, yr M4, a'r hyn sy'n digwydd gyda thagfeydd, bod pobl yn gwybod mai'r mesurau a weithredir yw'r rhai sy'n dilyn y cyngor gorau i geisio cyfyngu a lliniaru'r tagfeydd hynny, pan fo'r Llywodraeth wedi torri ei haddewid i adeiladu'r ffordd liniaru hon. A ydyn nhw yno i wneud hynny, ynteu a ydyn nhw yno am resymau llygru a drafodwyd yr wythnos diwethaf gan eich cyd-Aelod? Diolch.