English: Can I thank the committee for their report, and the Minister for the recent statement as well related to this? I better declare at the outset my role as the salmon champion. But also, I have to say, for the decade that I've been an elected representative, I've also championed the needs and aspirations of small and medium-scale farmers, particularly those who are strongly sustainable in their farming and are strongly pro-environment and environmental gains as well. And many of them, including award-winning farmers, are within my own constituency, which is often described as a former coalfield constituency. It's far more than that; it's a very rural constituency, and has always had farming embedded deep within it long before industry came there. We are facing really challenging times for farming, but we're also facing real challenges in terms of nature. We're in a nature crisis and a biodiversity crisis. We've seen recent announcements by the Welsh Government, who recognise that. We're running up to COP15 with the biodiversity announcements. We're looking for the targets to come back, to be bolted down by Julie James, the Minister, and to be translated into action here in Wales. So, that forms the backdrop of where we are. It's interesting, the response to this report - the polar response to it. Environmental groups have lined up to say this is really disappointing, this is really sad, this is a delay, and a delay means, once again, we're going to see polluted rivers. Farming Unions - the Farmers Union of Wales, the National Farmers Union, and others - have lined up to say that this is a breathing space. That's an actual quote from one of them - a breathing space, a chance to rethink perhaps, not just with the licensing and so on, but, actually, more fundamentally. That's what they're putting out to their members. So, it leaves me in some confusion, Llywydd, as to actually what we are discussing here, not just on the back of the report, but what the Government has announced. Is this a fundamental rethink? Is it just a temporary pause? Is it some tweaking? Or is it, actually, that in three, four months, five months, we proceed as normal and we do the review, and we're actually going to proceed as has originally been laid out? I don't know. Perhaps the Minister can answer me today, but the challenge and the diversity in those responses has been quite telling. There's clearly been a role for this committee report. There has been a challenge within the courts that was unsuccessful. The committee actually had to wait to see what that was before it brought forward its own consideration and have the Minister in front of them. I see that. There's also been the co-operation agreement as well, and I have no doubt, personally, that the co-operation agreement has played into what we're seeing playing out in front of us right at this moment. But my message is as simple as this: we can't carry on, given the uncertainty out there. The points that Llyr just made about investment decisions by farmers are well made, as is the point that Jayne made about exactly the same: are we going to say to ones who've already invested, 'Well, that was a waste of money' because we're now going to have some super-duper technology solution that means that was wasted money? There may well be technology solutions coming down the line in future. Absolutely. But we cannot discount the investment that some farmers have chosen to make to try and do the right thing, to actually go to their bank managers, and say, 'Can we lever in some funding? I'll need to take out a 20-year loan in order to do it. I'm going to go to some of the Farming Connect support and so on to do this as well, but I'm going to have to take a decision here.' We can't throw them under the bus now; we're going to have to say to them, 'That is money well spent not only for your farm, but for the environment as well'. Farmers will welcome some additional time, there's no doubt, within this, but, I think, we need to be absolutely honest, as this goes forward with the consultation on licencing and so on, what this actually means, whether it's a fundamental rethink of something else. One thing I did want to stress was the importance of these new NRW advisers. For too long, we haven't had the right information, the right people standing on site, who understand farming, but also are willing to give the most modern, the most up-to-date thinking in terms of what the best environmental support is. I've got environmentally award-winning farmers in my patch, they know what they're doing, but it's not true of every farmer. When that farmer also has an agronomist saying, 'Let me advise you on this stuff, and, by the way, I'm selling it as well', that's not the way to proceed. So, these NRW advisers, the quantum of them, and the expertise of them, and getting them in place in time, is going to be critical. Let me just turn to one point that illustrates this classic thing we were saying about uncertainty here. It relates to a few contributions that have already been made. On recommendation 1 - and it is worth just pulling out just a couple of points from here - the Government is unable to accept this recommendation. This is to do with derogation on grassland farms that spread up to 250 kg per hectare and so on. It goes on to say that at no point did derogation in previous regimes enable the application of nutrients above the level of crop need, et cetera. But, then, of course, there's been a statement. I suspect it's come out of the Plaid Cymru co-operation agreement. We need, at some point, to draw a line under all of this. There is a delay; next spring, we need to have absolute certainty, because, frankly, small and medium-scale farmers won't forgive us unless we give real certainty as soon as possible, and neither, frankly, will the environment: the quality of our rivers, the quality of our soil and everything else. We need to decide which way is the way forward, and, then, really get on with it.
Welsh: A gaf fi ddiolch i'r pwyllgor am eu hadroddiad, ac i'r Gweinidog am y datganiad diweddar ar hyn hefyd? Dylwn ddatgan ar y cychwyn fy rôl fel hyrwyddwr yr eog. Ond hefyd, mae'n rhaid imi ddweud, drwy gydol y degawd y bûm yn gynrychiolydd etholedig, rwyf hefyd wedi hyrwyddo anghenion a dyheadau ffermydd bach a chanolig eu maint, yn enwedig y rhai sy'n ffermio'n gynaliadwy iawn ac sy'n gryf o blaid yr amgylchedd ac enillion amgylcheddol hefyd. Ac mae llawer ohonynt, gan gynnwys ffermwyr sydd wedi ennill gwobrau, yn byw yn fy etholaeth i, a ddisgrifir yn aml fel un o etholaethau'r hen feysydd glo. Mae'n llawer mwy na hynny; mae'n etholaeth wledig iawn, ac mae ffermio bob amser wedi bod yn rhan annatod ohoni, ymhell cyn i ddiwydiant ddod yno. Rydym yn wynebu cyfnod heriol iawn i'r byd ffermio, ond rydym hefyd yn wynebu heriau gwirioneddol o ran natur. Rydym mewn argyfwng natur ac argyfwng bioamrywiaeth. Rydym wedi gweld cyhoeddiadau diweddar gan Lywodraeth Cymru, sy'n cydnabod hynny. Rydym yn agosáu at COP15 gyda'r cyhoeddiadau bioamrywiaeth. Rydym am i'r targedau ddod yn ôl, i'w cloi yn eu lle gan Julie James, y Gweinidog, a'u troi'n gamau gweithredu yma yng Nghymru. Felly, mae hynny'n ffurfio cefndir i'n sefyllfa ar hyn o bryd. Mae'n ddiddorol, yr ymateb i'r adroddiad hwn - yr ymateb pegynol iddo. Mae grwpiau amgylcheddol wedi dweud yn unfryd fod hyn yn wirioneddol siomedig, mae hyn yn drist iawn, mae hyn yn ohiriad, ac mae gohirio'n golygu, unwaith eto, ein bod yn mynd i weld afonydd llygredig. Mae undebau'r ffermwyr - Undeb Amaethwyr Cymru, Undeb Cenedlaethol yr Amaethwyr, ac eraill - wedi dweud yn unfryd fod hyn rhoi lle i anadlu. Dyna ddyfyniad gan un ohonynt - lle i anadlu, cyfle i ailfeddwl, efallai, nid yn unig gyda'r trwyddedu ac ati, ond yn fwy sylfaenol. Dyna maent yn ei ddweud wrth eu haelodau. Felly, mae'n peri rhywfaint o ddryswch i mi, Lywydd, ynglŷn â beth yn union yr ydym yn ei drafod yma, nid yn unig yn sgil yr adroddiad, ond yr hyn y mae'r Llywodraeth wedi'i gyhoeddi. A yw'n ailfeddwl sylfaenol? A yw'n ohirio dros dro yn unig? A yw'n rhyw fath o addasu? Neu a yw'n golygu y byddwn, ymhen tri, pedwar mis, pum mis, yn dal ati yn ôl yr arfer ac yn cynnal yr adolygiad, ac yn bwrw ymlaen â'r hyn a nodwyd yn y lle cyntaf? Nid wyf yn gwybod. Efallai y gall y Gweinidog fy ateb heddiw, ond mae'r her a'r amrywiaeth yn yr ymatebion yn dweud llawer wrthym. Mae'n amlwg fod rôl wedi bod i'r adroddiad pwyllgor hwn. Cafwyd her aflwyddiannus yn y llysoedd. Roedd yn rhaid i'r pwyllgor aros i weld beth oedd hynny cyn iddo gyflwyno ei ystyriaeth ei hun a chael y Gweinidog o'u blaenau. Rwy'n gweld hynny. Rydym hefyd wedi cael y cytundeb cydweithio, ac nid oes gennyf unrhyw amheuaeth, yn bersonol, fod y cytundeb cydweithio wedi chwarae rhan yn yr hyn a welwn yn digwydd ar hyn o bryd. Ond mae fy neges mor syml â hyn: ni allwn barhau, o ystyried yr ansicrwydd parhaus. Mae'r pwyntiau y mae Llyr newydd eu gwneud am benderfyniadau buddsoddi gan ffermwyr yn rhai da, yn ogystal â'r pwynt a wnaeth Jayne am yr un peth yn union: a ydym yn mynd i ddweud wrth y rhai sydd eisoes wedi buddsoddi, 'Wel, roedd hynny'n wastraff arian' gan ein bod bellach yn mynd i gael rhyw ateb technolegol hynod sy'n golygu bod yr arian hwnnw wedi'i wastraffu? Mae'n bosibl iawn y bydd atebion technolegol yn dod i'r amlwg yn y dyfodol. Yn sicr. Ond ni allwn ddiystyru'r buddsoddiad y mae rhai ffermwyr wedi dewis ei wneud i geisio gwneud y peth iawn, i fynd at eu rheolwyr banc, a dweud, 'A gawn ni gael rhywfaint o gyllid? Bydd angen imi gael benthyciad 20 mlynedd er mwyn gwneud hyn. Rwy'n mynd i ofyn am gymorth gan Cyswllt Ffermio ac ati i wneud hyn hefyd, ond bydd rhaid imi wneud penderfyniad yma.' Ni allwn eu taflu o dan y bws yn awr; rydym yn mynd i orfod dweud wrthynt, 'Roedd yn werth gwario'r arian hwnnw nid yn unig ar gyfer eich fferm, ond ar gyfer yr amgylchedd hefyd'. Bydd ffermwyr yn croesawu rhywfaint o amser ychwanegol, nid oes amheuaeth, gyda hyn, ond wrth i hyn fynd rhagddo gyda'r ymgynghoriad ar drwyddedu ac ati, credaf fod angen inni fod yn gwbl onest ynglŷn â beth y mae hyn yn ei olygu mewn gwirionedd, p'un a yw'n rhywbeth arall sydd wedi'i ailfeddwl yn llwyr ai peidio. Un peth yr oeddwn am ei bwysleisio oedd pwysigrwydd cynghorwyr newydd CNC. Ers gormod o amser, nid ydym wedi cael y wybodaeth gywir, y bobl gywir yn sefyll ar y safle, sy'n deall ffermio, ond sydd hefyd yn barod i fabwysiadu'r meddylfryd mwyaf modern, mwyaf cyfredol o ran beth yw'r cymorth amgylcheddol gorau. Mae gennyf ffermwyr sydd wedi ennill gwobrau amgylcheddol yn fy ardal i, maent yn gwybod beth y maent yn ei wneud, ond nid yw hynny'n wir am bob ffermwr. Pan fydd gan y ffermwr hwnnw agronomegydd yn dweud hefyd, 'Gadewch i mi eich cynghori ar y pethau hyn, a gyda llaw, rwy'n ei werthu hefyd', nid dyna'r ffordd ymlaen. Felly, bydd y cynghorwyr CNC hyn, gyda'i gilydd, a'u harbenigedd, a'u rhoi ar waith mewn pryd, yn hollbwysig. Gadewch imi droi at un pwynt sy'n dangos y peth nodweddiadol hwn yr oeddem yn ei ddweud am ansicrwydd yma. Mae'n ymwneud ag ychydig o gyfraniadau a wnaed eisoes. Ar argymhelliad 1 - ac mae'n werth tynnu ychydig o bwyntiau allan o hyn - ni all y Llywodraeth dderbyn yr argymhelliad hwn. Mae hyn yn ymwneud â rhanddirymiad ar ffermydd glaswelltir sy'n gwasgaru hyd at 250 kg yr hectar ac ati. Mae'n mynd ymlaen i ddweud nad yw rhanddirymiad dan gyfundrefnau blaenorol erioed wedi galluogi gwasgaru mwy o faethynnau na'r hyn sydd ei angen ar gnydau, ac ati. Ond wedyn, wrth gwrs, cafwyd datganiad. Rwy'n tybio ei fod wedi dod allan o'r cytundeb cydweithio â Phlaid Cymru. Mae angen i ni, rywbryd, dynnu llinell o dan hyn i gyd. Mae yna ohiriad; y gwanwyn nesaf, mae angen inni gael sicrwydd llwyr, oherwydd, a dweud y gwir, ni fydd ffermwyr bach a chanolig yn maddau i ni oni bai ein bod yn rhoi sicrwydd gwirioneddol cyn gynted â phosibl, ac a dweud y gwir, ni fydd yr amgylchedd yn maddau i ni ychwaith: ansawdd ein hafonydd, ansawdd ein pridd a phopeth arall. Mae angen inni benderfynu pa ffordd yw'r ffordd ymlaen, a mynd i'r afael â hyn o ddifrif.