Mae ambell i berson wedi’i gynhyrfu ynghylch y Bil Cymru (drafft) presennol a gyhoeddwyd ar 20 Hydref 2015.
Mae’r Bil i fod i drosglwyddo pwerau dros feysydd a amlinellwyd yng Nghytundeb Dydd Gŵyl Dewi, oedd ei hun wedi seilio ar gytundeb trawsbleidiol y Comisiwn Silk.
Mae’r Bil yn bwriadu datganoli’r pwerau
for energy generation projects up to, and including, 350 megawatts to Wales
Mae hefyd yn datganoli’r pwer dros
all onshore wind powered generating stations
er, i raddau helaeth, mae’r ychwanegiad hwn yn academaidd; fferm wynt fwyaf Cymru yw Pen-y-Cymoedd, sydd ‘ond’ yn 228 MW.
Ond pam nad ydy’r Bil yn trosglwyddo holl bwerau ynni i Gymru? Wedi’r cwbl, yn yr Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon, nhwthau sy’n gwneud yr holl benderfyniadau ynghylch pwerdai cynhyrchu trydan. Hyd yn oed ar ôl i’r Bil Cymru yma gyrraedd y llyfrau statud, mi fydd pob pwerdy mawr yn dod o dan reolaeth (a mympwy) Gweinidogion San Steffan.
Mae’n werth i ni balu yn ôl yng ngwraidd y cytundeb a luniwyd yn enw Dewi Sant. A fel canlyniad, i argymhellion Silk.
Dyma un dadansoddiad o resymeg – neu ddiffyg rhesymeg – Comisiwn Silk:
“We have concluded that the balance between accountability, clarity, coherence, subsidiarity and effectiveness would be best achieved by increases to the current threshold of 50MW onshore and 1MW offshore. We have also concluded that consenting responsibility for all energy generation projects below 350MW should be devolved to Wales” [8.2.19].
[This conclusion] follows a muddled bit of reasoning, in which the only arguments against devolving full energy consenting powers were:
- Full devolution would be contrary to the principle of ‘effectiveness’ and would raise problems in terms of security of supply [8.2.13].
- It would be inefficient for the Welsh Government to take on responsibility for infrequent, complex applications – notably nuclear
The Silk Commission noted that “Current arrangements on energy consents appear to have no rational or principled basis” [8.2.11].
However, Silk’s proposed limit on competence for the National Assembly for Wales has no rational or principled basis.
In fact, the Silk Commission recognises both the arbitrariness of its own recommendation, and the desirability of its remedy: “In changing the threshold, we appreciate that the larger the generation capacity, the greater its contribution to United Kingdom security of supply. Deciding where the cutoff threshold ought to be is not simple, and risks appearing arbitrary – a criticism of the current arrangements that we would want to remedy” [8.2.18].
Thus, Silk is substituting one irrational and unprincipled regime for another. It makes unavoidable the prospect of re-assessing the issue of energy consenting yet again in the near future – which undermines the principle of stability that the Commission was concerned to address.
The Silk Commission’s recommendations on energy:
- Have no logical or rational basis
- Are not based on any defined principle and appear to contradict every defined principle the Commission uses to justify its recommendations
- Appear to be unsupported by any political party in Wales based on previous manifesto commitments and Welsh Government statements
Mae’n werth darllen yr adroddiad cyfan gan Gyfeillion y Ddaear Cymru i ddeall mor llipa a gwael oedd argymhellion Silk yn eu holl ogoniant.
Ond dyma un peth sydd angen ei bwysleisio. Mae fersiwn iaith Saesneg adroddiad Silk yn wahanol i’r fersiwn iaith Gymraeg. Dwi’n tybio bod hwnnw’n deillio o fân newidiadau a ddigwyddodd cyn cyhoeddi’r papur, efallai gan Paul Silk ei hun, er mwyn sicrhau bod pob dim fel ag y dymunodd i fod. Ond cyfieithwyd mo’r cywiriadau munud olaf.
Dyma’r fersiwn Saesneg.
A dyma’r fersiwn Cymraeg.
Bu cymhellion Silk erioed am fuddiannau Cymru. Anghenion Lloegr yn benodol oedd y flaenoriaeth.
A Lloegr yn benodol felly yw blaenoriaeth Bil Cymru.
Gadael Ymateb