English: Thanks to the committee Chairman for bring today's debate. A lot of issues have been raised. Bethan has a lot more knowledge than me on the actual opencast practices. I'd like to address something that Lynne Neagle raised, which was the issue of why it has taken so long to get from a petition in 2013 to actually debating it here in the Chamber. I don't have all the answers. I was a member of the Petitions Committee for the first year of this term and I think that a problem we found on the Petitions Committee, which the Chairman, who was Mike Hedges at the time, attempted to address pretty swiftly, was that we inherited an awful lot of petitions. There are a lot of petitions, and some of them are pursued more seriously than others, and it appeared to us that the problem was that too many of them hadn't been closed down when they were beyond the stage where we could actually meaningfully do anything with them. So, we had so many different petitions that we couldn't see the wood for the trees, and I think that Mike tried to move more swiftly through the petitions, closed down the ones that we couldn't do anything with, and then we could look at the ones where we could actually do something with them. I think you're right that the process needs to be much swifter if the Petitions Committee is to work meaningfully. I think that it does work better now. Obviously, I'm not on it anymore, but I'm sure that it's working in a more streamlined way than it was before. So, hopefully that will address the problem, with petitions actually getting here a lot quicker, because as you say, it's ridiculous that it's taken so long for this issue to be debated. Onto to the actual opencast issues, yes, clearly there are lots of problems. Bethan, Dawn Bowden and others have raised them. Opencast mining in many ways is worse than underground mining, because it's taking place above ground, so that the dirt and dust spreads into the local atmosphere, and it's also less labour intensive than underground mining, so fewer people are actually reaping any commercial benefits from it. Certainly we have a whole series of Valleys communities in Wales that were built on underground coal mining, but we don't have any communities in Wales that have been built on opencast mining. What we have had over the past 25 years is a lot of communities complaining about opencast mining, protesting about opencast mining and campaigning against opencast mining. Sometimes, those communities haven't had their voices properly heard, and they have been let down by the planning process, both in terms of the actual plans that have been allowed and also issues that have been raised today over restoration of the sites after they've finished working them. Now, going on to these actual petitions, the two petitions we're looking at, the first one was instigated by Dr Cox, who wants to make the MTAN mandatory in law - so, when planning decisions are being made, it can't just be guidance; it needs to be mandatory. One of the points he's raising is that opencast applications are not supposed to be allowed unless the mine is at least 500m away from the nearest houses. Clearly, in the case of Varteg Hill, that was not the case, and the guideline was not applied. Now, Dr Cox claims that the adjudicating planning inspector at that hearing said that he wasn't minded to go along with MTAN 2 as it was only guidance. We do appear to have a problem with this. If the planning inspectors are not going along with Government guidance, who are they accountable to? Are they giving enough regard to local concerns? In UKIP we have argued throughout this fifth Assembly that the planning system is not very democratic. It is a technocracy in which planning inspectors who are simply unelected bureaucrats are able to ride roughshod over democratic decisions taken by elected councillors. Then we have the councillors being frightened of ruling against controversial planning applications on the advice of their own planning officers, who tell them that the application will surely win on appeal to the planning inspectorate. We must bring these planning inspectors under some kind of democratic control. We have to try to democratise the planning process and in UKIP we say that the way to do that is to introduce a provision for legally binding local referenda where planning applications are of major local importance and cause a major local anxiety. We continue to make that call. So far we are the only party in Wales calling for that measure. Until we get democratisation of the planning system, we do agree that MTAN 2 should be made mandatory, as Dr Cox suggests, and as his petitioners agree. We also agree with the second petition that all opencast mining applications of a certain size and of a certain age should all be automatically called in by the Welsh planning Minister. The planning system is all wrong and needs to be urgently reformed. We are the only party saying that, but in the meantime we do happily support today's motion. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Welsh: Diolch i Gadeirydd y pwyllgor am gyflwyno'r ddadl heddiw. Rhoddwyd sylw i lawer o faterion. Mae gan Bethan lawer mwy o wybodaeth na mi am yr arferion cloddio glo brig eu hunain. Hoffwn fynd i'r afael â rhywbeth a gododd Lynne Neagle, sef pam y mae wedi cymryd cymaint o amser rhwng cael deiseb yn 2013 i'w thrafod yma yn y Siambr. Nid yw'r holl atebion gennyf. Roeddwn yn aelod o'r Pwyllgor Deisebau am flwyddyn gyntaf y tymor hwn a chredaf mai un broblem a gawsom ar y Pwyllgor Deisebau, y ceisiodd y Cadeirydd, sef Mike Hedges ar y pryd, ymdrin â hi'n go gyflym, oedd ein bod wedi etifeddu llawer iawn o ddeisebau. Ceir llawer o ddeisebau, ac eir ar drywydd rhai ohonynt yn fwy egnïol nag eraill, ac roedd yn ymddangos i ni mai'r broblem oedd bod gormod ohonynt heb eu cau pan oeddent y tu hwnt i'r cam lle y gallem wneud unrhyw beth ystyrlon â hwy mewn gwirionedd. Felly, roedd gennym gymaint o wahanol ddeisebau fel na allem weld beth oedd beth yn iawn, a chredaf fod Mike wedi ceisio symud yn gyflymach drwy'r deisebau, gan gau'r rhai na allem wneud unrhyw beth â hwy, ac yna gallem edrych ar y rhai lle y gallem wneud rhywbeth â hwy. Credaf eich bod yn iawn fod angen i'r broses fod yn llawer cyflymach os yw'r Pwyllgor Deisebau yn mynd i weithio mewn ffordd ystyrlon. Credaf ei fod yn gweithio'n well erbyn hyn. Yn amlwg, nid wyf yn aelod ohono mwyach, ond rwy'n siŵr ei fod yn gweithio mewn ffordd symlach nag o'r blaen. Felly, gobeithio y bydd hynny'n ateb y broblem, gyda deisebau'n cyrraedd yma yn llawer cyflymach, oherwydd fel y dywedwch, mae'n hurt ei bod wedi cymryd cyhyd i drafod y mater hwn. Ar y materion sy'n ymwneud â glo brig, mae'n amlwg fod yna lawer o broblemau. Mae Bethan, Dawn Bowden ac eraill wedi rhoi sylw iddynt. Mewn llawer o ffyrdd, mae cloddio glo brig yn waeth na chloddio tanddaearol, am ei fod yn digwydd uwchben y ddaear, fel bod y baw a'r llwch yn lledaenu i'r atmosffer lleol, ac mae'n llai llafurddwys na chloddio tanddaearol hefyd, felly mae llai o bobl yn cael budd masnachol ohono. Yn sicr mae gennym gyfres gyfan o gymunedau'r Cymoedd yng Nghymru a adeiladwyd ar gloddio glo tanddaearol, ond nid oes gennym unrhyw gymunedau yng Nghymru a adeiladwyd ar gloddio glo brig. Yr hyn a gawsom dros y 25 mlynedd diwethaf yw llawer o gymunedau'n cwyno ynglŷn â chloddio glo brig, yn protestio ynghylch cloddio glo brig ac yn ymgyrchu yn erbyn cloddio glo brig. Weithiau, ni wrandawyd ar leisiau'r cymunedau hynny'n iawn, ac maent wedi cael cam gan y broses cynllunio, o ran y cynlluniau a ganiatawyd a hefyd y problemau a nodwyd heddiw ynglŷn ag adfer y safleoedd ar ôl iddynt orffen eu gweithio. Nawr, gan droi at y deisebau eu hunain, y ddwy ddeiseb rydym yn edrych arnynt, cafodd y gyntaf ei chychwyn gan Dr Cox, sy'n awyddus i wneud y MTAN yn orfodol yn y gyfraith - felly, pan wneir penderfyniadau cynllunio, ni all fod yn ganllaw yn unig; mae angen iddo fod yn orfodol. Un o'r pwyntiau y mae'n ei godi yw nad yw ceisiadau glo brig i fod i gael caniatâd oni bai bod o leiaf 500m rhwng y gwaith a'r tai agosaf. Yn amlwg, yn achos y Farteg, nid oedd hynny'n wir, ac ni chymhwyswyd y canllaw. Nawr, mae Dr Cox yn honni bod yr arolygydd cynllunio a oedd yn dyfarnu yn y gwrandawiad hwnnw wedi dweud nad oedd yn bwriadu dilyn MTAN 2 gan mai arweiniad yn unig ydoedd. Mae'n ymddangos bod gennym broblem gyda hyn. Os nad yw'r arolygwyr cynllunio yn dilyn canllawiau'r Llywodraeth, i bwy y maent yn atebol? A ydynt yn rhoi digon o sylw i bryderon lleol? Yn UKIP rydym wedi dadlau drwy gydol y pumed Cynulliad nad yw'r system gynllunio'n ddemocrataidd iawn. Technocratiaeth ydyw lle y gall arolygwyr cynllunio sy'n fiwrocratiaid anetholedig sathru ar benderfyniadau democrataidd a wnaed gan gynghorwyr etholedig. Yna mae gennym y cynghorwyr yn ofni dyfarnu yn erbyn ceisiadau cynllunio dadleuol ar gyngor eu swyddogion cynllunio eu hunain, sy'n dweud wrthynt y bydd y cais yn sicr o ennill ar apêl i'r arolygiaeth gynllunio. Rhaid inni ddod â'r arolygwyr cynllunio hyn o dan ryw fath o reolaeth ddemocrataidd. Rhaid inni geisio democrateiddio'r broses gynllunio ac yn UKIP rydym yn dweud mai'r ffordd o wneud hynny yw cyflwyno darpariaeth ar gyfer refferenda lleol wedi'u rhwymo mewn cyfraith pan geir ceisiadau cynllunio sydd o bwys mawr yn lleol ac yn achosi pryder mawr yn lleol. Rydym yn parhau i wneud yr alwad honno. Hyd yn hyn, ni yw'r unig blaid yng Nghymru sy'n galw am y mesur hwnnw. Hyd nes y caiff y system gynllunio ei democrateiddio, rydym yn cytuno y dylid gwneud MTAN 2 yn orfodol, fel yr awgryma Dr Cox, ac fel y mae ei ddeisebwyr yn cytuno. Rydym hefyd yn cytuno gyda'r ail ddeiseb y dylai Gweinidog cynllunio Cymru alw i mewn yr holl geisiadau cloddio glo brig o faint penodol ac o oedran penodol yn awtomatig. Mae'r system gynllunio yn gwbl anghywir ac mae angen ei diwygio ar frys. Ni yw'r unig blaid sy'n dweud hynny, ond yn y cyfamser rydym yn hapus i gefnogi'r cynnig heddiw. Diolch yn fawr iawn.