English: That is probably the case in some instances. I don't accept it's the case in all instances, though, I have to say. And I don't think that businesses should be rewarded for failure to prepare or to comply with legal obligations. However, I do appreciate that the rising costs and global circumstances that were mentioned have added additional pressures. Although, actually, these regulations were well known well ahead of that. So, I'd like to know about the £20 million - and I welcome it - to help achieve compliance, but to be reassured that people aren't being double paid - that people who've already been paid to comply aren't getting more money or the same money twice. The committee recommends this derogation that we've heard about - the 250 kg per hectare of nitrogen. While that was not accepted, the implementation date for the 170 kg per hectare limit has been put back. I find that extremely disappointing. The Minister has announced a consultation on the 250 kg per hectare licensing scheme until 2050. We should, of course, assess the economic and the environmental impact of the reduced limit, but in my view, 170 should remain the default limit. I support Wales Environment Link's view that alternative ways of managing animal waste should be found, as opposed to reintroducing that higher limit. So, there are other ways. If we don't look at other ways, we're back to exactly where we started again, and agricultural pollution is the most frequent cause of contamination in our waterways. If we fail to deal with that, we fail our farming community and the wider environment. With that in mind, we should all support whatever is available and whatever works for the protection of our environment, which, ultimately, is protecting the future sustainability of all our land and our waterways.
Welsh: Mae'n debyg fod hynny'n wir mewn rhai achosion. Nid wyf yn derbyn ei fod yn wir ym mhob achos, serch hynny, mae'n rhaid imi ddweud. Ac ni chredaf y dylai busnesau gael eu gwobrwyo am fethu paratoi neu gydymffurfio â rhwymedigaethau cyfreithiol. Fodd bynnag, rwy'n sylweddoli bod y costau cynyddol a'r amgylchiadau byd-eang y cyfeiriwyd atynt wedi ychwanegu pwysau ychwanegol. Er, mewn gwirionedd, roedd y rheoliadau hyn yn hysbys iawn ymhell cyn hynny. Felly, hoffwn wybod am yr £20 miliwn - ac rwy'n ei groesawu - i helpu i sicrhau cydymffurfiaeth, ond hoffwn sicrwydd nad yw pobl yn cael eu talu ddwywaith - nad yw pobl sydd eisoes wedi cael eu talu i gydymffurfio yn cael mwy o arian neu'r un arian ddwywaith. Mae'r pwyllgor yn argymell y rhanddirymiad hwn y clywsom amdano - y 250 kg yr hectar o nitrogen. Er na chafodd hynny ei dderbyn, mae'r dyddiad gweithredu ar gyfer y terfyn 170 kg yr hectar wedi'i ohirio. Credaf fod hynny'n hynod o siomedig. Mae'r Gweinidog wedi cyhoeddi ymgynghoriad ar y cynllun trwyddedu 250 kg yr hectar tan 2050. Dylem asesu effaith economaidd ac amgylcheddol y terfyn is wrth gwrs, ond yn fy marn i, dylid cadw 170 fel y terfyn diofyn. Rwy'n cefnogi barn Cyswllt Amgylchedd Cymru y dylid dod o hyd i ffyrdd amgen o reoli gwastraff anifeiliaid, yn hytrach nag ailgyflwyno'r terfyn uwch. Felly, mae ffyrdd eraill i'w cael. Os nad edrychwn ar ffyrdd eraill, rydym yn ôl lle dechreuasom, a llygredd amaethyddol yw'r rheswm mwyaf cyffredin dros halogiad yn ein dyfrffyrdd. Os nad ydym yn llwyddo i fynd i'r afael â hynny, rydym yn methu ar ran ein cymuned ffermio a'r amgylchedd ehangach. Gyda hynny mewn golwg, dylem oll gefnogi beth bynnag sydd ar gael a beth bynnag sy'n gweithio i ddiogelu ein hamgylchedd, sydd, yn y pen draw, yn golygu diogelu cynaliadwyedd ein holl dir a'n dyfrffyrdd ar gyfer y dyfodol.