English: Can I thank, first of all, the climate change and rural affairs committee for their work on the NDF? I have some observations of my own to make, and I'm also going to reference the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee, which also scrutinised relevant aspects of the NDF that were relevant to that committee. But, I should add that I'm not speaking in my capacity as Chair of that committee today. There have been a number of rounds of consultations, and I broadly welcome a number of very significant changes and improvements that have been made up to this point. There is a big 'however' coming later in my contribution. In regard to the EIS committee, we did feel strongly that, for the purpose of the NDF, Wales should be best broken down into four regions, not three. So, I was very pleased that the Government took note of that and introduced a four-region model. That was very positive indeed. I note that in the Government's consultation process response, they strongly refuted the committee's view that the NDF lacked ambition. I think this is disheartening. I think a key national planning document like this needs to set an agenda, and it needs to make clear the route that we can take to tackle national challenges like economic an social inequality. I'm pleased as well to see that the updated NDF included a reference to the foundational economy. Earlier drafts did not include any reference to the foundational economy, and later documents did, so another positive change as well. I'm coming on now to the bit that I mentioned - the 'however' bit. I, like many people across mid Wales, am deeply, deeply disappointed that the representations from across rural mid Wales seem to have been ignored, and that the renewable energy section has only been strengthened in what seems to be a drive to increase onshore wind. I will remind the Minister of the June 2011 protests that took place outside this Senedd a month after I was elected. Thousands of people came to protest, in dozens of buses that came from mid Wales. This is a signal that, yet again, the Welsh Government considers the huge damage to our landscapes to be acceptable, but it is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to me and it's not acceptable to the people of mid Wales, and it's clear that the Welsh Government give far more credence to the lobbying from onshore windfarm developers than the population of rural mid Wales, who they are supposed to represent. I listened very carefully to the comments of Jenny Rathbone when she talked about the Welsh Government's scrapping of the M4 relief road due to environmental factors. Isn't it interesting that that's important to the First Minister when it comes to that particular project, but when it comes to mid Wales, it's a different story? In the NDF, no evidence or objective or rationale in regard to the designated area is outlined, and landscape is not an expendable commodity, and once spoiled, it is lost for future generations. Once again, the Welsh Government has opted to place far too much emphasis on onshore wind. I know that the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales made strong representations in this regard. I'm just going to highlight a few of them in the time I've got left, but tourism is critical to the rural economy. In Powys, it is the second highest producer of GDP, at around 11 per cent. Rural Wales's unique selling point as a fabulous landscape cannot be ignored, and this isn't just a case of being about national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty, but the whole wonderful variety of tranquility and extensive unspoilt panoramic views. Rural Wales attracts tourism all year around. And there are, of course, negative opinions regarding turbines and transmission lines, which are all very well documented. Then there is the flood risk, which CPRW point out in more detail as well, and the scale of what is proposed, how that would change water flows and have wider damage. Then there is the transport of turbines, also to remote rural areas, and that creates huge logistical issues in terms of narrow roads and steep winding roads and low bridges. Then, of course, there is the issue of remote locations that require extensive transmission infrastructure across considerable areas of beautiful countryside. The landscape implications of this are simply ignored within the NDF. So, I would urge you, Minister, to consider very carefully again what I've outlined today and the views of CPRW. We need to have greater emphasis on a much wider basket of renewables, including offshore wind in that. Ten years ago, the people of my constituency called for 'Technical Advice Note (Wales) 8: Planning for Renewable Energy' to be scrapped, and the Welsh Government said 'no'. Now they are scrapping TAN 8, but they're effectively putting in place something that is worse in regard to this particular section of the NDF.
Welsh: A gaf fi ddiolch, yn gyntaf oll, i'r pwyllgor newid hinsawdd a materion gwledig am eu gwaith ar y fframwaith datblygu cenedlaethol? Mae gennyf rai sylwadau fy hun i'w gwneud, ac rwyf hefyd yn mynd i gyfeirio at Bwyllgor yr Economi, Seilwaith a Sgiliau, a fu'n craffu ar agweddau perthnasol ar y fframwaith datblygu cenedlaethol a oedd yn berthnasol i'r pwyllgor hwnnw. Ond dylwn ychwanegu nad wyf yn siarad yn rhinwedd fy swydd fel Cadeirydd y pwyllgor hwnnw heddiw. Cafwyd nifer o rowndiau o ymgynghoriadau, ac yn gyffredinol rwy'n croesawu nifer o newidiadau a gwelliannau sylweddol iawn a wnaed hyd at y pwynt hwn. Mae 'fodd bynnag' mawr yn dod yn ddiweddarach yn fy nghyfraniad. O ran Pwyllgor yr Economi, Seilwaith a Sgiliau, at ddibenion y fframwaith datblygu cenedlaethol, teimlem yn gryf mai'r ffordd orau o rannu Cymru yw'n bedwar rhanbarth, nid tri. Felly, roeddwn yn falch iawn fod y Llywodraeth wedi nodi hynny ac wedi cyflwyno model pedwar rhanbarth. Roedd hynny'n wirioneddol gadarnhaol. Yn ymateb y Llywodraeth i'r broses ymgynghori, sylwaf eu bod wedi gwrthod yn gryf farn y pwyllgor nad oedd uchelgais i'w weld yn y fframwaith datblygu cenedlaethol. Rwy'n credu bod hyn yn ddigalon. Credaf fod angen i ddogfen gynllunio genedlaethol allweddol fel hon osod agenda, ac mae angen iddi egluro'r llwybr y gallwn ei ddilyn i fynd i'r afael â heriau cenedlaethol fel anghydraddoldeb cymdeithasol ac economaidd. Rwy'n falch hefyd o weld bod y fframwaith datblygu cenedlaethol a ddiweddarwyd yn cynnwys cyfeiriad at yr economi sylfaenol. Nid oedd drafftiau cynharach yn cynnwys unrhyw gyfeiriad at yr economi sylfaenol, ac fe wnaeth dogfennau diweddarach hynny, felly newid cadarnhaol arall. Rwy'n dod nawr at y rhan a grybwyllais - y darn 'fodd bynnag'. Rwyf fi, fel llawer o bobl ledled canolbarth Cymru, yn siomedig tu hwnt ei bod yn ymddangos bod y sylwadau o bob rhan o gefn gwlad canolbarth Cymru wedi'u hanwybyddu, ac mai mewn ymgyrch ymddangosiadol i gynyddu gwynt ar y tir yn unig y cryfhawyd yr adran ynni adnewyddadwy. Rwy'n atgoffa'r Gweinidog am y protestiadau ym mis Mehefin 2011 a gynhaliwyd y tu allan i'r Senedd hon fis ar ôl i mi gael fy ethol. Daeth miloedd o bobl i brotestio, mewn dwsinau o fysiau a deithiodd o ganolbarth Cymru. Mae hyn yn arwydd fod Llywodraeth Cymru, unwaith eto, o'r farn fod y niwed enfawr i'n tirweddau yn dderbyniol, ond nid yw'n dderbyniol. Nid yw'n dderbyniol i mi ac nid yw'n dderbyniol i bobl canolbarth Cymru, ac mae'n amlwg fod Llywodraeth Cymru yn rhoi llawer mwy o goel ar lobïo gan ddatblygwyr ffermydd gwynt ar y tir na phoblogaeth cefn gwlad canolbarth Cymru, y bobl y maent i fod i'w cynrychioli. Gwrandewais yn astud iawn ar sylwadau Jenny Rathbone pan soniodd am y ffordd y mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn cael gwared ar ffordd liniaru'r M4 oherwydd ffactorau amgylcheddol. Onid yw'n ddiddorol fod hynny'n bwysig i'r Prif Weinidog mewn perthynas â'r prosiect penodol hwnnw, ond mae canolbarth Cymru'n stori wahanol? Yn y fframwaith datblygu cenedlaethol, ni chaiff unrhyw dystiolaeth nac amcan na rhesymeg ei hamlinellu ynglŷn â'r ardal ddynodedig, ac nid yw tirwedd yn nwydd y gellir ei wario, a phan gaiff ei difetha, caiff ei golli ar gyfer cenedlaethau'r dyfodol. Unwaith eto, mae Llywodraeth Cymru wedi dewis rhoi llawer gormod o bwyslais ar wynt ar y tir. Gwn fod Ymgyrch Diogelu Cymru Wledig wedi cyflwyno sylwadau cryf yn hyn o beth. Rwy'n mynd i dynnu sylw at rai ohonynt yn yr amser sydd gennyf ar ôl, ond mae twristiaeth yn hanfodol i'r economi wledig. Ym Mhowys, dyma'r cynhyrchydd cynnyrch domestig gros uchaf ond un, ar tua 11 y cant. Ni ellir anwybyddu pwynt gwerthu unigryw'r Gymru wledig fel tirwedd wych, ac nid mater o barciau cenedlaethol neu ardaloedd o harddwch naturiol eithriadol yn unig yw hyn, ond yr amrywiaeth wych o dawelwch a golygfeydd panoramig helaeth heb eu difetha. Mae'r Gymru wledig yn denu twristiaeth drwy'r flwyddyn. Ac wrth gwrs, ceir barn negyddol am dyrbinau a llinellau trosglwyddo, sydd wedi'i dogfennu'n dda iawn. Yna ceir perygl llifogydd, sydd hefyd wedi'i nodi'n fanylach gan Ymgyrch Diogelu Cymru Wledig, a maint yr hyn a gynigir, sut y byddai hynny'n newid llif dŵr ac yn arwain at ddifrod ehangach. Yna ceir cludiant tyrbinau, hefyd i ardaloedd gwledig anghysbell, ac mae hynny'n creu problemau logistaidd enfawr gyda ffyrdd cul a ffyrdd troellog serth a phontydd isel. Wedyn, wrth gwrs, ceir mater lleoliadau anghysbell sy'n galw am seilwaith trosglwyddo helaeth ar draws ardaloedd sylweddol o gefn gwlad hardd. Anwybyddir goblygiadau hyn i'r dirwedd yn y fframwaith datblygu cenedlaethol. Felly, rwy'n eich annog, Weinidog, i ystyried yn ofalus iawn eto yr hyn rwyf wedi'i amlinellu heddiw a safbwyntiau Ymgyrch Diogelu Cymru Wledig. Mae angen inni gael mwy o bwyslais ar amrywiaeth lawer ehangach o ynni adnewyddadwy, gan gynnwys gwynt ar y môr yn hynny. Ddeng mlynedd yn ôl, galwodd pobl fy etholaeth am ddileu 'Nodyn Cyngor Technegol (Cymru) 8: Cynllunio ar gyfer Ynni Adnewyddadwy', a dywedodd Llywodraeth Cymru 'na'. Nawr maent yn cael gwared ar TAN 8, ond maent i bob pwrpas yn mabwysiadu rhywbeth sy'n waeth mewn perthynas â'r adran benodol hon o'r fframwaith datblygu cenedlaethol.