English: I'd like to start by drawing attention to a letter I've received from the town clerk of Barry Town Council. At an extraordinary meeting on 4 October, the council resolved to call upon the Welsh Government - and I quote - to publish more detailed evidence in response to concerns regarding risks to public health and the environment, including allowing for further testing in order to provide greater transparency; secondly, to instruct NRW to suspend the marine licence that enables disposal activity, carry out a full environmental impact assessment on the effect on the Welsh coast and Welsh marine environment of the dumping of sediment from Hinkley Point in the Cardiff Grounds, and to undertake a wide-ranging programme of engagement and consultation with local communities and stakeholders across south Wales. There was cross-party support, of course, at that Barry Town Council meeting. They were reflecting deep concerns about health safety and monitoring of the dumping of mud from Hinkley Point, and I'm pleased to have fulfilled their request to raise the council's strong objections to the proposed dumping of mud near the Vale coastline. I've raised my concerns about Hinkley Point on a number of occasions in this Chamber, and I want to refer to the points that I made most recently. I asked a question on the business statement regarding the nature of the environmental impact assessment on Hinkley Point, in terms of mud concerns. And I understand that the main environmental impact assessment, of course, was undertaken by the UK Government to build the plant. But I did follow this up with a request for clarification on the Welsh Government's involvement and subsequent consideration of the EIA process, and the Cabinet Secretary responded to those points. I also raised, in the Petitions Committee's debate, concerns about what is considered to be an adequate sampling of deeper layers of mud. So, clearly, there is a great deal of public concern, and I'm aware that Richard Bramhall of the Low Level Radiation Campaign, and former member of the UK Government's committee examining radiation risks for internal emitters, voiced worries about the tests. So, this is an opportunity today to put those questions again on the record for the Government's response. So, I do hold to these points that I've made and many have made in the Chamber, and I welcome this debate today. I'm concerned on behalf of the large numbers of constituents who've raised issues with me, and I know with colleagues, which have intensified over the past week. I think the point is that people aren't convinced by the statements made by NRW. They're not reassured by the evidence so far, and I do believe that a call for more than one source of evidence and further testing is understandable. I believe that the Government amendment would only be meaningful, in terms of a recognition of these widespread public concerns, if we can have clarity about what would actually happen as result of instruction by the Welsh Government to NRW for further public engagement to explain the process. So, I would ask the Cabinet Secretary to agree to make a statement on the commitment that she would make instructing NRW to carry out further public engagement on the evidence that's been provided thus far, and this should include NRW committing to meet the public and to present scientific evidence. Will she confirm that she will report back to the Assembly on the actions taken by NRW as a result of this instruction by the Welsh Government and the outcome of the public engagement? I recall the engagement I had as local councillor in the building of the Cardiff Bay barrage. As a result of widespread concerns and campaigns, we secured new safeguards with statutory commitments resulting in - just one example - groundwater surveys before and after the barrage was built. It is the assurance of a safeguard that we need here. There must be respect and recognition of our constituents and their concerns, and I trust the Cabinet Secretary will respect these points in the Government's response to the debate today.
Welsh: Hoffwn ddechrau drwy dynnu sylw at lythyr a gefais gan glerc tref Cyngor Tref y Barri. Mewn cyfarfod eithriadol ar 4 Hydref, penderfynodd y cyngor alw ar Lywodraeth Cymru - a dyfynnaf - i gyhoeddi tystiolaeth fanylach mewn ymateb i bryderon ynglŷn â risgiau i iechyd y cyhoedd a'r amgylchedd, gan gynnwys caniatáu i brofion pellach gael eu cynnal er mwyn darparu mwy o dryloywder; yn ail, i gyfarwyddo Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru i atal y drwydded forol sy'n galluogi gweithgarwch gwaredu, i gynnal asesiad llawn o effaith amgylcheddol dympio gwaddod o Hinkley Point yn Cardiff Grounds ar arfordir Cymru ac amgylchedd morol Cymru, ac i roi rhaglen ymgysylltu ac ymgynghori eang ar waith gyda chymunedau lleol a rhanddeiliaid ar draws de Cymru. Cafwyd cefnogaeth drawsbleidiol, wrth gwrs, yng nghyfarfod Cyngor Tref y Barri. Roeddent yn mynegi pryderon dwys ynglŷn â diogelwch iechyd a monitro dympio mwd o Hinkley Point, ac rwy'n falch o fod wedi cyflawni eu cais i leisio gwrthwynebiadau cryf y cyngor i'r cynlluniau i waredu mwd ger arfordir y Fro. Rwyf wedi mynegi fy mhryderon ynglŷn â Hinkley Point ar sawl achlysur yn y Siambr hon, ac rwyf am gyfeirio at y pwyntiau a wneuthum yn fwyaf diweddar. Gofynnais gwestiwn ar y datganiad busnes ynglŷn â natur yr asesiad o'r effaith amgylcheddol ar Hinkley Point, o safbwynt pryderon ynglŷn â'r mwd. Ac rwy'n deall fod y prif asesiad o'r effaith amgylcheddol wedi'i gynnal, wrth gwrs, gan Lywodraeth y DU ar gyfer adeiladu'r orsaf. Ond dilynais hyn gyda chais am eglurhad ar ymwneud Llywodraeth Cymru ac ystyriaeth ddilynol o broses yr asesiad o'r effaith amgylcheddol, ac ymatebodd Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet i'r pwyntiau hynny. Hefyd, yn ystod dadl y Pwyllgor Deisebau, nodais bryderon ynglŷn â'r hyn a ystyrir yn samplu digonol ar haenau dyfnach o fwd. Felly, yn amlwg, ceir llawer iawn o bryder cyhoeddus, ac rwy'n ymwybodol fod Richard Bramhall o'r Ymgyrch Ymbelydredd Lefel Isel, a chyn aelod o bwyllgor Llywodraeth y DU sy'n archwilio risgiau ymbelydredd allyrwyr mewnol, wedi mynegi pryderon ynglŷn â'r profion. Felly, mae hwn yn gyfle heddiw i gofnodi'r cwestiynau hynny unwaith eto er mwyn i'r Llywodraeth ymateb iddynt. Felly, rwy'n cadw at y pwyntiau a wnaed gennyf fi ac eraill yn y Siambr, ac rwy'n croesawu'r ddadl hon heddiw. Rwy'n bryderus ar ran nifer fawr o etholwyr sydd wedi dwyn materion i fy sylw, ac i sylw cyd-Aelodau, rwy'n gwybod, materion sydd wedi dwysáu dros yr wythnos ddiwethaf. Credaf mai'r pwynt yw nad yw pobl wedi'u hargyhoeddi gan y datganiadau a wnaed gan Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru. Nid yw'r dystiolaeth hyd yn hyn yn tawelu eu meddyliau, a chredaf fod galwad am fwy nag un ffynhonnell o dystiolaeth a phrofion pellach yn ddealladwy. Credaf na fyddai gwelliant y Llywodraeth yn ystyrlon, o ran cydnabod y pryderon cyhoeddus eang hyn, oni bai ein bod yn eglur beth fyddai'n digwydd mewn gwirionedd o ganlyniad i gyfarwyddyd gan Lywodraeth Cymru i Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru ymgysylltu rhagor â'r cyhoedd er mwyn egluro'r broses. Felly, hoffwn ofyn i Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet gytuno i wneud datganiad yn ymrwymo i roi cyfarwyddyd i Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru ymgysylltu rhagor â'r cyhoedd ynglŷn â'r dystiolaeth a ddarparwyd hyd yn hyn, a dylai hyn gynnwys Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru yn ymrwymo i gyfarfod â'r cyhoedd a chyflwyno tystiolaeth wyddonol. A wnaiff hi gadarnhau y bydd hi'n adrodd yn ôl i'r Cynulliad ar y camau a gymerwyd gan Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru o ganlyniad i'r cyfarwyddyd hwn gan Lywodraeth Cymru a chanlyniad ymgysylltu â'r cyhoedd? Rwy'n cofio'r ymgysylltiad a gefais fel cynghorydd lleol ag adeiladu morglawdd Bae Caerdydd. O ganlyniad i'r pryderon a'r ymgyrchoedd eang, sicrhawyd mesurau diogelwch newydd gydag ymrwymiadau statudol yn arwain - un enghraifft yn unig - at gynnal arolygon dŵr daear cyn ac ar ôl adeiladu'r morglawdd. Sicrwydd ynglŷn â mesur diogelwch sydd ei angen arnom yma. Rhaid parchu a chydnabod ein hetholwyr a'u pryderon, a hyderaf y bydd Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet yn parchu'r pwyntiau hyn yn ystod ymateb y Llywodraeth i'r ddadl heddiw.