English: I'm going to start by acknowledging and welcoming what was announced by Plaid Cymru and the Government last week - not quite as cynical as some, perhaps. It's not the end of the process, of course, but it does keep the debate alive, and it does mean that there has been a change of attitude. The other choice was that we just let it go and carry on. So, I think we need to acknowledge that great work has been done on these benches to get to this point and to at least provide an opportunity that at least some Welsh farmers will be licensed and that everything will fall into place to ensure that they can spread 250 kg per hectare of nitrates on the land. The £20 million, of course, is in addition to what's already been committed, but nobody's saying that that's going to pay for everything. But surely, it's better than what was there previously, so don't be so negative and don't be so cynical. But we're not blinded by the fact that there's a lot of work still to be done, and one of the things that I want to refer to also is that there is going to be another look at the regulatory impact assessment. Because we're in a different context - there's the cost-of-living crisis, we know that the costs of inputs in the industry have gone through the roof. The cost of construction, and the inflation in construction, to meet the infrastructure requirement is entirely transformed. And I think it's quite right therefore that that assessment should be looked at again so that it does reflect the new context - Ukraine, food security, and all of those things - that we need to bear in mind. But there are still serious questions and real concerns that remain, and the Chair, of course, has referred to one of them, namely this adherence to the closed periods. I've raised this with you in the past, Minister; two years and more ago, I referred to the fact that some of the UK's greatest environmentalists said that farming by calendar was counterproductive. And you agreed that you were struggling with that approach, and with justifying that approach, and you acknowledged at the time that it doesn't, as we heard, take account of the fact that there could be days in the open period that could be totally inappropriate for spreading slurry, and days in the closed periods that would be appropriate. But, of course, that's what you've chosen to incorporate in the regulations. So, in responding to the debate, perhaps you could tell us what persuaded you that that was acceptable. What changed your mind against the views of some of the great UK environmentalists, that looking at a calendar to see whether the circumstances are favourable was better than looking through the window? That's essentially what the regulations say. And your response to that recommendation - it's recommendation 8 if memory serves me - does refer to technology, and that technology is being developed, and that we're approaching a time where we'll be able to adopt a system that is far more real time in nature, and will provide precision. So, the technology is there, and it's almost ready to be rolled out across the country. But in your response, you say that you will consider this during the four-year review. Well, does that mean that you will force the sector to invest in infrastructure, to spend millions upon millions of public money - and their own money - and then perhaps, in two years' time, you'll say 'Well, we have technology now, this won't be necessary'? So, you truly to need to reconsider on that point.
Welsh: Dwi'n mynd i gychwyn drwy gydnabod a chroesawu'r hyn a gyhoeddwyd gan Blaid Cymru a'r Llywodraeth yr wythnos diwethaf - ddim cweit yn taro nodyn mor sinigaidd, efallai, ag un neu ddau. Dyw e ddim, wrth gwrs, yn ddiwedd proses, ond mae e'n cadw'r drafodaeth yn fyw ac mae e'n golygu bod yna newid agwedd wedi bod. Y dewis arall oedd ein bod ni jest yn ei adael e i fynd a chario ymlaen. Felly mae angen cydnabod, dwi'n meddwl, bod yna waith aruthrol wedi digwydd ar y meinciau yma i ddod i'r pwynt yma ac i o leiaf nawr gyflwyno'r cyfle y bydd o leiaf rhai o ffermwyr Cymru yn cael trwydded a bod popeth yn cwympo i'w le er mwyn sicrhau eu bod nhw'n gallu chwalu 250 kg yr hectar o nitradau ar y tir. Mae'r £20 miliwn, wrth gwrs, ar ben beth sydd eisoes wedi ei ymrwymo, ond does neb yn dweud bod hynny'n mynd i dalu am bopeth. Ond 'rargol, mae e'n well na beth oedd yna cyn hynny, felly peidiwch â bod mor negyddol a pheidiwch â bod mor sinigaidd. Ond dŷn ni ddim yn cael ein dallu gan y ffaith bod yna lot rhagor o waith i'w wneud. Un o'r pethau dwi eisiau cyfeirio ato fe hefyd yw bod yna edrych eto ar asesiad effaith rheoleiddiol. Dwi'n meddwl bod hwnna yn arwyddocaol. Oherwydd dŷn ni mewn cyd-destun gwahanol - mae'r creisis costau byw, dŷn ni'n gwybod bod costau mewnbynnau yn y diwydiant wedi mynd trwy'r to. Mae costau adeiladu, inflation adeiladu, i gwrdd â'r isadeiledd sydd ei angen yn fyd cwbl newydd. Ac felly, mae hi'n berffaith iawn, dwi'n meddwl, bod yr asesiad yna yn cael ei edrych arno eto, fel ei fod e yn adlewyrchu'r cyd-destun newydd - Wcráin, a phopeth arall, a diogelwch bwyd - sydd angen ei gadw mewn cof. Ond mae yna gwestiynau difrifol a gofidiau real iawn yn dal i fod, ac mae'r Cadeirydd, wrth gwrs, wedi cyfeirio at un ohonyn nhw, sef yr ymlyniad yma at y cyfnodau caeedig - y closed periods yma. Dwi wedi codi hyn gyda chi yn y gorffennol, Weinidog; ddwy flynedd a mwy yn ôl, fe wnes i gyfeirio at y ffaith bod rhai o amgylcheddwyr mwyaf Prydain yn dweud bod ffermio'n ôl y calendr yn wrthgynhyrchiol, yn counterproductive. Ac fe wnaethoch chi gytuno eich bod chi'n stryglo â'r approach yna a chyda cyfiawnhau'r approach yna, a chydnabod ar y pryd nad yw e, fel y clywsom ni, yn cymryd ystyriaeth o'r ffaith y gallai fod dyddiau yn y cyfnod agored sy'n gwbl anaddas ar gyfer chwalu tail, a dyddiau yn y cyfnod caeedig fyddai yn addas ar gyfer gwneud hynny. Ond, wrth gwrs, dyna rŷch chi wedi ei ddewis i'w ymgorffori yn y rheoliadau. Felly, wrth ymateb i'r ddadl, efallai y gallwch chi ddweud wrthym ni beth wnaeth eich perswadio chi bod hynny yn dderbyniol. Beth newidiodd eich meddwl, yn erbyn, fel dwi'n dweud, rhai o amgylcheddwyr mwyaf Prydain, bod edrych ar galendr i weld os yw'r amgylchiadau'n ffafriol yn well nag edrych drwy'r ffenest? Dyna mae'r rheoliadau yn ei ddweud. Ac mae'ch ymateb chi i'r argymhelliad yna - argymhelliad 8 yw e, os dwi'n cofio'n iawn - yn cyfeirio at dechnoleg, a bod technoleg yn cael ei ddatblygu, a'n bod ni o fewn cyrraedd i fabwysiadu system, fel y clywon ni eto, sy'n llawer mwy amser real - real time - ac yn cyrraedd trachywiredd - precision - o gae i gae. Mae'r dechnoleg yna, ac mae e o fewn dim i fod yn dechnoleg fyddai modd i'w rolio fe allan ar draws y wlad. Ond, wedyn, yn eich ymateb, rŷch chi'n dweud y gwnewch chi ystyried hyn yn ystod yr adolygiad pedair blynedd. Wel, ydy hynny'n golygu eich bod chi'n mynd i orfodi'r sector i fuddsoddi mewn isadeiledd, i wario miliynau ar filiynau o arian cyhoeddus - a'u harian nhw eu hunain - ac wedyn efallai, mewn dwy flynedd, dweud, 'O, mae gyda ni dechnoleg nawr, bydd dim angen lot o hwn'? Mae wir angen i chi ailystyried, dwi'n meddwl, y pwynt yna.