English: I'm very pleased that Plaid Cymru co-submitted this debate this afternoon and that this is a joint motion from the opposition parties, which does show how strongly feelings run on this issue. But from my perspective, of course, this is a motion laid in a positive sense and it begins a process of compromise. That's what the motion does. The Welsh Government, if I may say so, has responded constructively with their amendment, and I am surprised at the aggressive contributions we've heard so far. References to Cardiff Airport and trade deals with Australia miss the point. We don't need to pick a fight today; we need to start the process of finding a better solution to the problems of the NVZs. Prior to the election, when myself and Plaid Cymru presented the motion to annul the new regulations, I said that I and my party would be willing to work with Government to look at alternative solutions to the problem of river pollution, if the Government were willing to step back. Now, the Government rejected that option at that time, and although it does appear that the Government is willing to refer this issue to the relevant committee of the Senedd, everyone needs to understand that supporting this motion or the amendment today wouldn't prevent the regulations from being implemented. We would all welcome the opportunity for a cross-party committee to evaluate the regulations in a way that hasn't happened so far, and to bring regulations forward so that the Government can consider those, but, of course, there would be no requirement on the Government to act on those recommendations. But as the Government amendment does allow referring this issue to a committee, I do assume from that that the Government would be open to changing the regulations or even to scrap them, if the case becomes clear in the work of the committee. So, I want to hear three things from the Minister in her response to the debate this afternoon. I want the Minister to confirm that she and her officials would initially look seriously at any recommendations made by a committee; secondly, that she commits to do everything that she can to amend the regulations in light of those recommendations; and third, that she confirms that annulling the regulations is a possible option, following the work of the committee. Clearly, a strong case would need to be made for that, and I would assume that we would need to identify an alternative approach to tackling water pollution, but I want to hear from the Minister this afternoon that the option of scrapping these regulations is on the table, because that's the only thing that can prove to me that the Government is truly willing to consider this issue and that it is worth referring it to a committee of the Senedd. You'll all recall that Plaid Cymru never argued for not taking action to protect water quality, and we would have supported the Government regulations had we believed that they would have worked. But there are so many weaknesses and unanswered questions that we now need to take a step back. You only need to look, as we've heard from others, at the results of the NVZ approach across Britain and other areas to see that it's not a silver bullet that will resolve all problems overnight. We also know, of course, that there will be negative environmental impacts by losing much of the cattle grazing, and we will probably see more sheep introduced to our uplands, which will lead to further environmental decline. Dairy processors in Wales have been in touch with me to express their concerns about the viability of the sector. One has suggested that they have an analysis demonstrating that up to a third of all dairy farms will cease production, and one company is already planning to move its operations elsewhere because they anticipate the detrimental impact that these regulations will have on the viability of the dairy sector. The capital cost is something we've already heard about: up to £360 million, and that is more than the total income of agriculture in Wales in a year. That's how disproportionate these requirements are. And the Government, in introducing these regulations, has placed a bill of tens of millions of pounds on our local authorities, which will have to invest around £36 million on the 1,000 council-held holdings we have in Wales. So, yes, introduce regulations, by all means, but target them where Natural Resources Wales says they are needed, and build on the voluntary plans, such as the blue flag and, as we heard from Cefin Campbell, Taclo'r Tywi in Golden Grove, and develop a risk matrix, as has happened in England, where we can communicate daily with farmers as to how appropriate it would be to spread slurry, enabling us to use new technology and using real-time communication in a far more dynamic and sophisticated way than these primal regulations that just follow a calendar and will ultimately lead to more problems than they will solve.
Welsh: Dwi'n falch iawn bod Plaid Cymru wedi cydgyflwyno'r ddadl yma y prynhawn yma, ac mai cynnig ar y cyd gan y gwrthbleidiau yw hyn, sy'n dangos, wrth gwrs, pa mor gryf yw teimladau ar y mater yma. Ond o'm safbwynt i, wrth gwrs, mae hwn yn gynnig sy'n cael ei osod mewn ysbryd positif, mai cychwyn proses o gyfaddawdu yw'r cynnig yma. Mae Llywodraeth Cymru, os caf i ddweud, wedi ymateb yn adeiladol gyda'u gwelliant nhw, a dwi yn synnu at natur ymosodol a chwbl negyddol rhai o'r cyfraniadau rŷm ni wedi'u clywed hyd yn hyn. Mae cyfeirio at Faes Awyr Caerdydd a trade deals gydag Awstralia yn methu'r pwynt. Nid pigo ffeit sydd angen ei wneud fan hyn heddiw, ond cychwyn y broses o ffeindio ateb gwell i broblem yr NVZs. Cyn yr etholiad, pan gyflwynais i a Phlaid Cymru y cynnig i ddiddymu'r rheoliadau NVZ newydd, mi ddywedais i'n glir y byddwn i a fy mhlaid yn barod i weithio gyda'r Llywodraeth i edrych ar ddatrysiadau amgen i'r broblem o lygredd yn ein hafonydd ni, petai'r Llywodraeth yn barod i gymryd cam yn ôl. Fe wnaeth y Llywodraeth wrthod yr opsiwn bryd hynny, ac er ei bod hi bellach yn ymddangos bod y Llywodraeth yn barod i gyfeirio'r mater i bwyllgor perthnasol o'r Senedd, mae'n rhaid i bawb ddeall na fyddai cefnogi'r cynnig na'r gwelliant yma heddiw yn atal y rheoliadau. Wrth gwrs, mi fyddem ni i gyd yn croesawu'r cyfle i bwyllgor trawsbleidiol bwyso a mesur y rheoliadau mewn ffordd sydd ddim wedi digwydd hyd yma ac i ddod ag argymhellion ger bron er mwyn i'r Llywodraeth eu hystyried nhw, ond wrth gwrs byddai dim rheidrwydd wedyn ar y Llywodraeth i weithredu ar yr argymhellion hynny. Ond gan fod gwelliant y Llywodraeth yn caniatáu cyfeirio'r mater i bwyllgor, dwi'n cymryd o hynny y byddai'r Llywodraeth yn agored ei meddwl i newid y rheoliadau, neu hyd yn oed i ddiddymu'r rheoliadau, os yw'r achos dros hynny yn dod yn glir yng ngwaith y pwyllgor. Felly, dwi eisiau clywed tri pheth gan y Gweinidog yn ei hymateb hi i'r ddadl y prynhawn yma. Dwi eisiau i'r Gweinidog gadarnhau y byddai hi a'i swyddogion yn y lle cyntaf yn edrych yn gwbl o ddifri ar unrhyw argymhellion fydd yn dod o waith y pwyllgor; yn ail, y bydd hi'n ymrwymo i wneud popeth y gall hi i ddiwygio'r rheoliadau yng ngoleuni'r argymhellion hynny; ac yn drydydd, iddi gadarnhau bod diddymu'r rheoliadau yn opsiwn posib, yn dilyn gwaith y pwyllgor. Yn amlwg, byddai angen gwneud achos cryf dros hynny, ac mi fuaswn i'n tybio bod angen adnabod llwybr amgen i gwrdd â'r nod o ran taclo llygredd dŵr, ond dwi eisiau clywed gan y Gweinidog y prynhawn yma fod yr opsiwn o ddiddymu ar y bwrdd, oherwydd dyna'r unig beth all brofi i fi fod y Llywodraeth yn wirioneddol barod i ystyried y mater yma, ac felly ei bod hi'n werth cyfeirio'r mater at bwyllgor o'r Senedd. Fe fyddwch chi i gyd yn cofio na wnaeth Plaid Cymru erioed ddadlau dros beidio gweithredu i warchod ansawdd dŵr, ac mi fuasem ni wedi cefnogi rheoliadau'r Llywodraeth petaen ni'n credu eu bod nhw am weithio. Ond mae yna gymaint o wendidau a chwestiynau sydd dal heb eu hateb fel mai cymryd cam yn ôl sydd ei angen nawr. Does ond rhaid edrych, fel rŷn ni wedi clywed gan eraill, ar ganlyniadau'r approach NVZ ar draws Prydain a thu hwnt i weld nad yw e'n ryw fath o fwled arian sydd yn mynd i ddatrys y broblem dros nos. Rŷn ni hefyd yn gwybod, wrth gwrs, fod goblygiadau amgylcheddol negyddol yn mynd i godi drwy golli llawer o'r pori gwartheg, ac yn y blaen, sydd wedi cyfrannu'n allweddol at gadwraeth, a chyflwyno mwy o ddefaid, mae'n debyg, i'n hucheldiroedd ni, sydd yn mynd i olygu dirywiad amgylcheddol posib pellach. Mae proseswyr llaeth allweddol yng Nghymru wedi bod mewn cysylltiad â fi i fynegi pryderon am yr effaith ar hyfywedd y sector. Mae un wedi awgrymu bod ganddyn nhw ddadansoddiad yn dangos y bydd efallai hyd at draean o'r holl ffermydd llaeth yn rhoi'r gorau i gynhyrchu, ac un cwmni eisoes yn cynllunio i symud ei weithrediadau a dod o hyd i laeth o rywle arall, am eu bod nhw'n rhagweld yr effaith niweidiol bydd y rheoliadau hyn yn cael ar hyfywedd y sector llaeth. Mae'r gost cyfalaf yn rywbeth rŷn ni wedi clywed amdani hi yn barod: hyd at £360 miliwn, ac mae hynny'n fwy na'r incwm cyfan o amaeth yng Nghymru mewn blwyddyn. Dyna pa mor anghymesur yw'r gofyniadau. Ac mae'r Llywodraeth, drwy gyflwyno'r rheoliadau yma, wrth gwrs, wedi slapio bil o ddegau o filiynau o bunnoedd ar ein hawdurdodau lleol ni, a fydd angen buddsoddi tua £36 miliwn ar y 1,000 o ffermydd cyngor sydd gennym ni yng Nghymru. Felly, ie, cyflwynwch reoliadau, ond targedwch nhw lle mae Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru yn dweud bod angen nhw. Adeiladwch ar y cynlluniau gwirfoddol, fel y faner las ac, fel y clywom ni gan Cefin Campbell yn gynharach, Taclo'r Tywi yng Ngelli Aur, a datblygu risk matrix fel sy'n digwydd yn Lloegr, lle bydd cyfathrebu dyddiol gyda ffermwyr ar ba mor addas yw eu chwalu slyri, a'n galluogi ni i ddefnyddio technoleg newydd a chyfathrebu amser real, neu real time, sy'n approach llawer mwy deinamig a llawer mwy soffistigedig na rheoliadau cyntefig fel hyn sydd jest yn dilyn dyddiadau'r calendr ac a fydd, yn y diwedd, yn creu mwy o broblemau nag y byddan nhw'n eu datrys.