English: If they proposed that there was a more transparent way to do the assessments, then we should have capitalised on that opportunity, I think, to move ahead in the most transparent way possible. NRW said on 30 January that they had asked the licence holders to consider doing more sampling at depth on a voluntary basis. On 27 March, despite that, NRW let us know as a committee that the licence holders had rejected that idea. Now, I do appreciate and I hear what David Melding has said, that the licence holders are arguing, and have argued consistently, that there isn't a scientific argument for doing more tests, and that they have confidence in the science. But, with such a contentious issue, one would imagine that the licence holders would have welcomed the opportunity to operate as openly as possible. There was a window for doing more testing and I think they should have taken advantage of that. Two final points: I also regretted the fact that Cardiff Council had chosen not to push for more tests. There is genuine concern among many people about this and if it had been possible to respond to those concerns in any way then we should have looked for an opportunity to do that. I think that several key partners would need to collaborate to push for further testing, and I think the decision by Cardiff council did weaken those hopes. Finally, there is nothing that comes to Wales from this agreement to put 200,000 cubic metres of mud from Hinkley in our waters. That raises fundamental questions for me. My fellow Member, Simon Thomas, can go into more detail on that in due course, hopefully.
Welsh: Os oedden nhw'n cynnig bod yna ffordd mwy tryloyw i wneud yr asesiadau, mi ddylid bod wedi manteisio ar y cyfle yna, rydw i'n meddwl, i chwilio am ffordd i symud ymlaen yn y ffordd mwyaf tryloyw posib. Mi wnaeth Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru ddweud ar 30 Ionawr eu bod nhw wedi gofyn i ddeiliad y drwydded ystyried cynnal rhagor o waith samplo dwfn gwirfoddol. Ar 27 Mawrth, serch hynny, mi wnaeth Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru roi gwybod i ni fel pwyllgor bod deiliad y drwydded wedi gwrthod y syniad. Rŵan, rydw i'n gwerthfawrogi ac yn clywed yr hyn a ddywedodd David Melding, bod deiliad y drwydded yn dadlau, ac wedi dadlau'n gyson, nad oes yna ddadl wyddonol dros wneud rhagor o brofion - eu bod nhw â hyder yn y wyddoniaeth. Ond, efo mater mor ddadleuol, mi fuasai rhywun yn dychmygu y byddai deiliad y drwydded wedi croesawu y cyfle i weithredu mor agored â phosib. Mi oedd yna ffenest yn agored ar gyfer gwneud gwaith profi pellach; mi ddylid, rydw i'n meddwl, bod wedi manteisio ar hynny. Dau bwynt terfynol: mi oeddwn i hefyd yn gresynu at y ffaith bod Cyngor Caerdydd, rydw i'n meddwl, wedi dewis peidio â gwthio am brofion ychwanegol. Mae yna bryder gwirioneddol gan lawer o bobl ynglŷn â hyn ac os oedd yna fodd i ymateb i'r pryderon hynny mewn unrhyw ffordd mi ddylid bod wedi chwilio am gyfle i wneud. Rydw i'n meddwl y byddai angen i sawl partner allweddol weithio ar y cyd i wthio am brofion ychwanegol ac mi oedd penderfyniad Cyngor Caerdydd o bosib yn gwanhau y gobeithion yna. Yn olaf un te, nid oes yna ddim byd yn dod i Gymru o'r cytundeb yma i roi 200,000 metr ciwbig o fwd Hinkley yn ein dyfroedd ni. Mae hynny, i fi, yn codi cwestiynau sylfaenol. Mi gaiff fy nghyd-Aelod Simon Thomas fanylu rhagor ar hynny mewn ychydig funudau gobeithio.