English: Thank you for that response, Cabinet Minister, and for your written statement last week. Thank you, Llywydd, also, for allowing the urgent question so that the statement could receive early scrutiny. As Welsh Conservatives, we would have no objection to sponsored bodies or bodies within Government making the most of their opportunities to improve all operational activities, including commercial activities. I remember raising this very point with one of your predecessors in the last Assembly. I'm also encouraged to see that a couple of the options before you recognise that Cadw isn't necessarily best served by being entombed within Government, and that to have access to financial leverage it must operate at least partly at arm's length. Would that the previous Welsh Government had listened to us in the previous Assembly, perhaps Cadw, the museum and the royal commission may already have discovered improvements to their ongoing partnership practices. My questions are essentially about the options to merge, and I think they need answering early on in this process. And they are: what lessons did Welsh Government learn from the aborted attempt to exercise its preference to merge Cadw and the royal commission? How would you overcome the royal charter status of the museum? Would you need to use legislation to effect a merger of any activities of the bodies referred to in the PwC report? If you get an early steer from this Assembly, which is in balance, that the merger of functions would be unacceptable to us, would you make an early statement that that particular option would be taken off the table? And finally, looking at models for improved partnership working, can you tell us who you will be consulting with to ensure that no particular body or partner is dominant? Thank you.
Welsh: Diolch am yr ymateb yna, Weinidog y Cabinet, ac am eich datganiad ysgrifenedig yr wythnos diwethaf. Diolch i chi, Lywydd, hefyd, am ganiatáu'r cwestiwn brys fel y gellid craffu ar y datganiad yn gynnar. Fel Ceidwadwyr Cymreig, ni fyddai gennym unrhyw wrthwynebiad i gyrff a noddir neu gyrff o fewn y Llywodraeth yn manteisio i'r eithaf ar eu cyfleoedd i wella'r holl weithgareddau gweithredol, gan gynnwys gweithgareddau masnachol. Rwy'n cofio codi'r union bwynt hwn gydag un o'ch rhagflaenwyr yn y Cynulliad diwethaf. Mae hefyd yn galonogol gweld bod un neu ddau o'r dewisiadau ger eich bron yn cydnabod nad y dewis gorau i Cadw yw ei fod wedi ei gladdu o fewn y Llywodraeth o reidrwydd, a bod yn rhaid iddo weithredu o leiaf yn rhannol ar hyd braich, er mwyn cael mynediad at gymorth ariannol. Pe byddai'r Llywodraeth Cymru flaenorol wedi gwrando arnom ni yn y Cynulliad blaenorol, efallai y byddai Cadw, yr amgueddfa a'r comisiwn brenhinol eisoes wedi darganfod gwelliannau i'w harferion partneriaeth parhaus. Am y dewisiadau i uno y mae fy nghwestiynau yn eu hanfod, ac rwy'n credu bod angen eu hateb yn gynnar yn y broses hon. A dyma nhw: pa wersi wnaeth Llywodraeth Cymru eu dysgu o'r ymgais a fethodd i arfer ei dymuniad i uno Cadw a'r comisiwn brenhinol? Sut byddech chi'n goresgyn statws siarter frenhinol yr amgueddfa? A fyddai angen i chi ddefnyddio deddfwriaeth i uno unrhyw weithgareddau'r cyrff y cyfeirir atynt yn adroddiad PwC? Os cewch chi arweiniad cynnar gan y Cynulliad hwn, sydd yn y fantol, y byddai uno swyddogaethau yn annerbyniol i ni, a fyddech chi'n gwneud datganiad cynnar y byddai'r dewis penodol hwnnw yn cael ei dynnu yn ôl? Ac yn olaf, gan edrych ar fodelau ar gyfer gwell gweithio mewn partneriaeth, a allwch chi ddweud wrthym pwy y byddwch chi'n ymgynghori â nhw i sicrhau nad oes unrhyw gorff neu bartner penodol yn gryfach na'r lleill? Diolch.