English: I was pleased to see today that there was a letter I think MPs at Westminster organised. Richard Graham, the MP for Gloucester, and 107 MPs signed that, and, I think most usefully, Jesse Norman, who's the junior Minister responsible, has said there won't be any foot dragging from the UK Government in responding to Charles Hendry's report. Last summer, I was asked by Charles Hendry's office whether I could arrange a meeting of AMs to discuss with him the work that he was doing. I was really struck by the number of people who came, the enthusiasm for his work, and then again when that report was published, just the welcome for how strong and unambiguous he was in his recommendation. When I first thought some years ago about this project. it was, I think, an earlier stage, when it had been suggested that the cost of the energy would be £168 per MWh, and compared on the basis it was, which was a relatively short contract for difference, it appeared to be very expensive compared to other options, including nuclear and offshore wind. I've been convinced that it's now been assessed on a fairer and more sensible basis over a longer time frame, and also lower long-term interest rates make the investment relatively more attractive. When you look at where it's being funded from, to the extent that we have a levy control framework at a UK level - £9.8 billion equivalent by 2020 is the fixed envelope for that - it strikes me as sensible to spend more of that money on a diverse range of energy possibilities, some of which may work out and become very successful over the longer term. We've seen the very big decline in solar prices; we haven't seen as large a decline in wind energy prices. I suspect that money could be better spent by at least funding an alternative technology option that may potentially deliver strong results over the longer term, and clearly has a significant option value in it given the uncertainties of all these things. Compared to nuclear and offshore wind, to the extent that it compares well now even on the projections in cost terms, I think it's more attractive because of that greater variety and diversity for what's clearly a non-polluting and reliable energy source. Further, there's just no doubt that this would be great for Wales. That levy control framework is on a UK basis, and I think that Simon Thomas spoke very rightly and I think generously drew attention to the fact that this would be Wales benefiting from the UK framework. I think to an extent this Assembly can come together and, I believe, with unanimity support this motion and this project, as well as the technical and option value descriptions I've given. Clearly, there would be an awful lot of money, whether from the UK taxpayer, or more generally from the UK electricity bill payer, that would be coming and being invested in Wales, and helping us at least potentially to develop this as an industry for the future. So, I'd very much welcome that. Just to follow up on some of Lee Waters's points earlier about Natural Resources Wales, I don't think it's fair for us to criticise NRW too strongly. They are doing what has been set out for them under legislation, and when we pass legislation that delegates authority to arm's-length bodies, then we shouldn't be surprised when they do what they're asked under the statutes as we've set out. Welsh Ministers have delegated their powers under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to NRW, and it's for NRW to take a licence decision when we deposit any substance or object in the sea or on or under the sea bed. It's for them to determine, and we've set out ways in which that should happen - the need to protect the environment, the need to protect human health, and the need to prevent interference with legitimate uses of the seas. It's important they consider the things they've been asked to. I think it's unfortunate we don't have the call-in process in Wales that's available to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and also that it wasn't possible to deem a licence as part of the planning DCA process. So, I would just ask, perhaps not immediately, but following a UK decision, and particularly if the report is approved, whether Welsh Ministers would give consideration to using the power I described earlier to Lee Waters to direct NRW, or perhaps to lay down a time frame in which they have to deal with some of these difficult issues about fish modelling, and actually come to a view in a way that wouldn't delay the overall project. Then, if NRW did, for whatever reasons, or the narrow issues it might be looking at, if it weren't to determine it favourably, then there would be the right of appeal to Welsh Ministers. I understand entirely why Welsh Ministers, in the terms of the motion and what they say to us in the Assembly today, will not want to say anything that could potentially lead to an adverse judicial review in future. But I'd like to add my own support to what I think is a very broad support in the Assembly for the Hendry review and for this as a future energy of great potential benefit to Wales.
Welsh: Roeddwn yn falch o weld heddiw bod llythyr, wedi'i drefnu, rwy'n meddwl, gan ASau yn San Steffan. Cafodd ei lofnodi gan Richard Graham, yr AS dros Gaerloyw, a 107 o ASau, ac, rwy'n meddwl yn fwyaf defnyddiol, mae Jesse Norman, y Gweinidog iau â chyfrifoldeb, wedi dweud na fydd Llywodraeth y DU yn llusgo ei thraed wrth ymateb i adroddiad Charles Hendry. Yr haf diwethaf, gofynnodd swyddfa Charles Hendry imi a allwn i drefnu cyfarfod o Aelodau'r Cynulliad i drafod y gwaith yr oedd yn ei wneud gydag ef. Cefais fy nharo'n sylweddol gan nifer y bobl a ddaeth, gan y brwdfrydedd am ei waith, ac yna eto pan gyhoeddwyd yr adroddiad hwnnw, gan y croeso i ba mor gryf a diamwys oedd ei argymhelliad. Pan feddyliais gyntaf rai blynyddoedd yn ôl am y prosiect hwn, roedd, rwy'n credu, ar gam cynharach, pan awgrymwyd y byddai cost yr ynni yn £168 y MWh, ac wedi'i gymharu ar sail contract gwahaniaeth cymharol fyr, roedd yn ymddangos yn ddrud iawn o'i gymharu â dewisiadau eraill, gan gynnwys niwclear ac ynni gwynt ar y môr. Rwyf wedi fy argyhoeddi ei fod nawr wedi'i asesu ar sail decach a mwy synhwyrol dros gyfnod hwy, a bod cyfraddau llog tymor hir is hefyd yn gwneud y buddsoddiad yn gymharol fwy deniadol. Pan fyddwch yn edrych ar o ble mae'n cael ei ariannu, i'r graddau y mae gennym fframwaith rheoli ardollau ar lefel y DU - cyfwerth â £9.8 biliwn erbyn 2020 yw'r swm a bennwyd ar gyfer hynny - mae'n fy nharo'n synhwyrol i wario mwy o'r arian hwnnw ar amrywiaeth eang o bosibiliadau ynni, y gallai rhai ohonynt ddwyn ffrwyth a dod yn llwyddiannus iawn dros y tymor hwy. Rydym wedi gweld y gostyngiad mawr iawn mewn prisiau solar; nid ydym wedi gweld gostyngiad mor fawr mewn prisiau ynni gwynt. Rwy'n meddwl y gellid gwario'r arian hwnnw'n well drwy o leiaf ariannu dewis technoleg amgen a allai o bosibl sicrhau canlyniadau cryf dros y tymor hwy, ac yn amlwg mae ganddo werth opsiwn sylweddol o gofio ansicrwydd yr holl bethau hyn. O'i gymharu â niwclear ac ynni gwynt ar y môr, i'r graddau y mae'n cymharu'n dda nawr hyd yn oed ar yr amcanestyniadau o ran cost, rwy'n meddwl ei fod yn fwy deniadol oherwydd ei fod yn cynyddu'r amrywiaeth honno ar gyfer ffynhonnell ynni sy'n amlwg yn ddilygredd ac yn ddibynadwy. Hefyd, nid oes amheuaeth y byddai hyn yn wych i Gymru. Mae'r fframwaith rheoli ardollau hwnnw'n seiliedig ar y DU, ac rwy'n meddwl bod Simon Thomas wedi siarad yn gywir iawn ac rwy'n meddwl ei fod wedi tynnu sylw hael at y ffaith y byddai hyn yn golygu bod Cymru yn elwa ar fframwaith y DU. Rwy'n meddwl i raddau y gall y Cynulliad hwn ddod at ei gilydd ac, rwy'n credu, cefnogi'r cynnig hwn a'r prosiect hwn yn unfrydol, yn ogystal â'r disgrifiadau gwerth opsiwn a thechnegol yr wyf wedi eu rhoi. Yn amlwg, byddai llawer iawn o arian, boed gan drethdalwyr y DU, neu'n fwy cyffredinol gan dalwyr biliau trydan y DU, yn dod i gael ei fuddsoddi yng Nghymru, ac yn ein helpu o leiaf o bosibl i ddatblygu hyn fel diwydiant i'r dyfodol. Felly, byddwn yn croesawu hynny'n fawr. Dim ond i ymateb i rai o bwyntiau Lee Waters yn gynharach am Gyfoeth Naturiol Cymru, nid wyf yn meddwl ei bod yn deg inni feirniadu Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru yn rhy gryf. Maent yn gwneud yr hyn sydd wedi'i osod ar eu cyfer o dan ddeddfwriaeth, a phan fyddwn yn pasio deddfwriaeth sy'n dirprwyo awdurdod i gyrff hyd braich, ni ddylem synnu pan fyddant yn gwneud yr hyn y gofynnwyd iddynt ei wneud dan y statudau yr ydym wedi eu gosod. Mae Gweinidogion Cymru wedi dirprwyo eu pwerau o dan Ddeddf y Môr a Mynediad i'r Arfordir 2009 i Gyfoeth Naturiol Cymru, a chyfrifoldeb Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru yw gwneud penderfyniad am drwydded pan fyddwn yn rhoi unrhyw sylwedd neu wrthrych yn y môr neu ar neu o dan wely'r môr. Eu lle nhw yw penderfynu, ac rydym wedi amlinellu sut y dylai hynny ddigwydd - mae angen gwarchod yr amgylchedd, mae angen diogelu iechyd dynol, ac mae angen atal ymyrryd â ffyrdd cyfreithlon o ddefnyddio'r moroedd. Mae'n bwysig eu bod yn ystyried y pethau y gofynnwyd iddynt eu hystyried. Rwy'n meddwl ei bod yn anffodus nad oes gennym y broses galw i mewn yng Nghymru sydd ar gael i Adran yr Amgylchedd, Bwyd a Materion Gwledig, a hefyd nad oedd yn bosibl barnu bod trwydded yn rhan o broses gynllunio'r Adran Materion Cyfansoddiadol. Felly, rwyf am ofyn, efallai nid ar unwaith, ond ar ôl penderfyniad gan y DU, ac yn enwedig os caiff yr adroddiad ei gymeradwyo, a fyddai Gweinidogion Cymru yn ystyried defnyddio'r pŵer a ddisgrifiais yn gynharach i Lee Waters i gyfarwyddo Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru, neu efallai i bennu amserlen iddynt i ymdrin â rhai o'r materion anodd hyn am fodelu pysgod, a ffurfio barn mewn ffordd na fyddai'n gohirio'r prosiect cyfan. Yna, pe byddai Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru, am ba bynnag reswm, neu'r materion cul y gallent fod yn edrych arnynt, pe na byddent yn gwneud penderfyniad ffafriol, byddai hawl i apelio i Weinidogion Cymru. Rwy'n deall yn llwyr pam na fydd Gweinidogion Cymru, o ran y cynnig a'r hyn y maent yn ei ddweud wrthym yn y Cynulliad heddiw, eisiau dweud dim byd a allai o bosibl arwain at adolygiad barnwrol andwyol yn y dyfodol. Ond hoffwn ychwanegu fy nghefnogaeth fy hun at yr hyn yr wyf yn meddwl sy'n gefnogaeth eang iawn yn y Cynulliad i adolygiad Hendry ac i hyn fel ynni'r dyfodol a allai fod o fudd mawr i Gymru.