English: A huge amount of work has been done by the committee, for which we're very grateful, to make the case for a more proportionate response to what is a really serious issue. I haven't spoken to any farmer who doesn't recognise that the water quality needs to be better. Everybody wants to work together on this, a team Wales approach. I have written to the First Minister to ask for an economic impact assessment. I did this in August, recognising that increased costs form part of farmers' concerns around the future. I'm concerned that the unintended consequences of these regulations will be felt far beyond the individual farm gate, because not enough attention has been paid to the wider impact on our rural communities, or implications for pre- and post-farm-gate supply chains. I was reminded only today that the proposed 170 kg derogation limit would result in a destocking of dairy cattle at 17 per cent - a loss to us of some 330 million litres of milk production. We really do need to work together to ensure that the four-year review period, included in the regulations, looks not just at the impact of the regulations on reducing agricultural pollution, but at the impact of the regulations on the industry itself. My first question, if I may, Minister, is to understand a little bit more about the proposed licensing scheme and how that sits in relation to recommendation 1 of the report. I have questions, for example, as to how many farm businesses can expect to benefit. Will there be any learning to inform potential changes to the regulations? What are the parameters of that consultation to ensure it's fair, balanced and evidence led, and what are the successful criteria for that consultation? Farmers have repeatedly said that a delay alone is just a sticking plaster, so we do need clarity for farmers around what this licensing scheme actually entails in the long term. I'd like to also focus on recommendation 2, and the costs of introducing these regulations. The funding package to date falls far below what the Government's own figures are for the upfront cost of around £360 million. The FUW have estimated that the cost could actually be in the region of £450 million, which is a huge difference. The additional £20 million last week can't be put into context without being provided with full detail of financial support to date, and, in the face of ever-growing cost pressures on our farmers, it does sound like a drop in the ocean. The new technology, as highlighted by Paul Davies, is really interesting, and I am concerned that the new technology coming forward could actually negate the need for new slurry stores to be built. Some farmers will have forked out huge sums only to find that the expenditure wasn't needed, putting huge additional cost pressures on farms. So, there needs to be some alignment between the proposed licensing scheme, the four-year review period and the introduction of alternative measures. To be provocative, my question would be: why can't we wait until the new technology comes into play and see the effect that that has? We do really need clarity around what additional resources are needed, for example, from NRW, highlighted by the Chair and by others as well. Without that effective regulatory role, these regulations simply punish farmers. Also, I pick up the point from my colleague Mabon ap Gwynfor around the capacity of local authority planning departments. They are massively overstretched. In Ceredigion, I understand that there is one planning officer who is dealing with all of the farmers who are putting in applications for slurry stores at the moment. We need a team Wales approach. In the light of the announcement made by the Government and Plaid Cymru last week, I'd welcome clarity on whether the deadline for alternative proposals will be extended, and whether the Welsh Government will now revisit the alternative proposals put forward by the sector. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Welsh: Mae'r pwyllgor wedi gwneud llawer iawn o waith, ac rydym yn ddiolchgar iawn amdano, gwaith sy'n dadlau'r achos dros ymateb mwy cymesur i fater gwirioneddol ddifrifol. Nid wyf wedi siarad ag unrhyw ffermwr nad yw'n cydnabod bod angen i ansawdd dŵr fod yn well. Mae pawb eisiau cydweithio ar hyn, dull tîm Cymru o weithredu. Rwyf wedi ysgrifennu at Brif Weinidog Cymru i ofyn am asesiad o'r effaith economaidd. Fe wneuthum hynny ym mis Awst, gan gydnabod bod costau uwch yn rhan o bryder ffermwyr ynglŷn â'r dyfodol. Rwy'n pryderu y bydd canlyniadau anfwriadol y rheoliadau hyn i'w teimlo ymhell y tu hwnt i giât y fferm unigol, oherwydd ni roddwyd digon o sylw i'r effaith ehangach ar ein cymunedau gwledig, na goblygiadau i gadwyni cyflenwi cyn ac ar ôl giât y fferm. Cefais fy atgoffa heddiw ddiwethaf y byddai'r terfyn rhanddirymiad 170 kg arfaethedig yn arwain at gyfradd ddadstocio gwartheg llaeth o 17 y cant - colled i ni o oddeutu 330 miliwn litr o gynhyrchiant llaeth. Mae gwir angen inni weithio gyda'n gilydd i sicrhau bod y cyfnod adolygu pedair blynedd, sydd wedi'i gynnwys yn y rheoliadau, yn edrych nid yn unig ar effaith y rheoliadau ar leihau llygredd amaethyddol, ond ar effaith y rheoliadau ar y diwydiant ei hun. Fy nghwestiwn cyntaf, os caf, Weinidog, yw deall ychydig mwy am y cynllun trwyddedu arfaethedig a sut y mae hynny'n cyd-fynd ag argymhelliad 1 yn yr adroddiad. Mae gennyf gwestiynau, er enghraifft, ynglŷn â faint o fusnesau fferm a all ddisgwyl elwa. A fydd unrhyw wersi i'w dysgu i lywio newidiadau posibl i'r rheoliadau? Beth yw paramedrau'r ymgynghoriad i sicrhau ei fod yn deg, yn gytbwys ac yn cael ei arwain gan dystiolaeth, a beth yw'r meini prawf llwyddiant ar gyfer yr ymgynghoriad? Mae ffermwyr wedi dweud dro ar ôl tro mai dim ond ateb dros dro yw gohirio'n unig, felly mae angen eglurder i ffermwyr ynglŷn â beth y mae'r cynllun trwyddedu yn ei olygu'n hirdymor mewn gwirionedd. Hoffwn hefyd ganolbwyntio ar argymhelliad 2, a chostau cyflwyno'r rheoliadau hyn. Mae'r pecyn cyllido hyd yma yn llawer is na'r hyn yw ffigyrau'r Llywodraeth ei hun ar gyfer y gost ymlaen llaw o tua £360 miliwn. Mae'r FUW wedi amcangyfrif y gallai'r gost fod tua £450 miliwn mewn gwirionedd, sy'n wahaniaeth enfawr. Ni ellir rhoi'r £20 miliwn ychwanegol yr wythnos diwethaf yn ei gyd-destun heb gael manylion llawn am gymorth ariannol hyd yma, ac yn wyneb pwysau costau sy'n cynyddu'n barhaus i'n ffermwyr, mae'n swnio fel diferyn bach yn y môr. Fel y nododd Paul Davies, mae'r dechnoleg newydd yn ddiddorol iawn, ac rwy'n pryderu y gallai'r dechnoleg newydd sy'n datblygu negyddu'r angen i adeiladu storfeydd slyri newydd. Bydd rhai ffermwyr wedi gwario symiau enfawr o arian a chanfod wedyn nad oedd angen y gwariant, gan roi pwysau costau ychwanegol enfawr ar ffermydd. Felly, mae angen cysoni rhwng y cynllun trwyddedu arfaethedig, y cyfnod adolygu pedair blynedd a chyflwyno mesurau amgen. I fod yn bryfoclyd, fy nghwestiwn fyddai: pam na chawn ni aros nes bod y dechnoleg newydd yn dod yn weithredol a gweld pa effaith a gaiff? Mae gwir angen eglurder ynghylch pa adnoddau ychwanegol sydd eu hangen, gan CNC er enghraifft, fel y nododd y Cadeirydd a chan eraill hefyd. Heb y rôl reoleiddio effeithiol honno, cosbi ffermwyr yn unig y mae'r rheoliadau hyn. Hefyd, rwy'n nodi'r pwynt gan fy nghyd-Aelod Mabon ap Gwynfor ynghylch capasiti adrannau cynllunio awdurdodau lleol. Maent dan bwysau aruthrol. Yng Ngheredigion, rwy'n deall mai un swyddog cynllunio sy'n ymdrin â'r holl ffermwyr sy'n gwneud ceisiadau ar gyfer storfeydd slyri ar hyn o bryd. Mae angen dull tîm Cymru o weithredu. Yng ngoleuni'r cyhoeddiad a wnaed gan y Llywodraeth a Phlaid Cymru yr wythnos diwethaf, byddwn yn croesawu eglurder ynglŷn ag a fydd y dyddiad cau ar gyfer cynigion amgen yn cael ei ymestyn, ac a fydd Llywodraeth Cymru'n ailedrych yn awr ar y cynigion amgen a gyflwynwyd gan y sector. Diolch yn fawr iawn.