English: It was never made clear to us, as a committee, why this decision was taken. Was it because of the technical issue of whether or not the project would be on the balance sheet? Or was it something else? Our probing found there to be several more issues at play and there still remains an air of mystery as to how the Welsh Government, which had spent considerable time and money on the project, ended up pulling the plug on the basis of what appears to be a 20-minute Cabinet discussion. These questions still remain unanswered. So, what can be learnt from all of this? Well, it's essential that the Welsh Government demonstrates effective management of Welsh public money and maximises the opportunities for investment in Wales. In response to successive reports in recent years from the auditor general, and from this committee and its predecessors, the Welsh Government has provided various assurances to us that lessons have been learned. But we remain unconvinced. Our scrutiny is intended to be constructive and our goal is to secure better service delivery that benefits everyone, especially the taxpayer, but the Government must learn and develop from our reports for our scrutiny to be effective. We certainly do not expect to see any recurrence of the basic errors, omissions and poor judgment on the part of officials that have come to light as a result of this report. Unfortunately, the sorry story of the Circuit of Wales highlights the shortcomings of the Welsh Government in terms of large-scale investment projects. This particular project took seven to eight years to develop before being brought to a halt. The Welsh Government needs to be much smarter at making decisions. It needs to be quicker and it needs to be more agile. Otherwise, there is a risk to Wales more widely as an investment location. Our criticism is not directed at individuals, but instead at a wider system failure and the Welsh Government needs to address that. Wales needs investment and we need the internal capacity to be able to make quick decisions on large-scale investment projects. The Public Accounts Committee made 13 recommendations in its report, including that the Welsh Government strengthen their controls to ensure value for public money in relation to understanding relationships between funding recipients and their contractors and suppliers; that the funding of the purchase of FTR Moto Ltd is utilised as a case study for internal training purposes by the Welsh Government, given the highly unorthodox decisions made at official level, the accompanying lack of documentation and the apparent failure of officials to seek and obtain the requisite approvals from their respective Minister; and that all Cabinet Secretaries, Ministers and all Welsh Government senior civil servants are reminded of the requirements within the ministerial and civil service codes to ensure the accuracy of all information that is released. We welcome the Welsh Government's acceptance of the committee's recommendations. However, in places, this acceptance appears to mask the Government's intent and, hidden in accompanying detail, it appears that the recommendations have not been accepted in the spirit in which they were made. This has been a consistent theme with regard to Welsh Government responses to our recommendations, and we've raised these concerns previously and consistently. In relation to the recommendations made in our report on the Circuit of Wales, we believe that the Welsh Government's response falls short in a number of key places. In accepting recommendation 1, the Welsh Government has only accepted that, in specific circumstances, it needs to strengthen its controls to ensure value for money. We feel that more needs to be done to ensure that officials exercise professional judgment, and our recommendation centred on the need for an improved understanding of the relationships between funding recipients and their contractors and suppliers. We wanted to see an end to the Welsh Government's repeated commercial naivety, and this is not addressed in the response to our recommendation, or, indeed, responses to previous Public Accounts Committee reports that have called for lessons to be learned. The committee is also concerned about the Welsh Government's response to recommendation 3 of our report, where we recommend that the Welsh Government confirms to the Public Accounts Committee that it has since recovered the £100,000 from the escrow account. The response does not make it clear as to when action to recover these funds commenced, or, indeed, whether there was any intent by the Welsh Government to recover the funds until prompted by our recommendation. This is a good illustration of the Welsh Government's seeming commercial naivety. Once the decision not to invest had been taken, then retrieving this money should have been a matter of course, and the response to our recommendation should have been simply, 'We have retrieved this money.' Finally, with regard to recommendation 6, the Welsh Government's response expresses that it already has in place robust processes for dealing with concerns about instructions from authorising officers to make payments: they're able and confident to raise those concerns with the senior independent manager. We are not convinced, and would welcome further information from the Welsh Government on how many instances there have been in recent years where concerns such as these have been raised, and some explanation of how these processes have proven to be robust. I look forward to listening to the debate today. Diolch.
Welsh: Ni chafodd erioed ei wneud yn glir i ni, fel pwyllgor, pam y gwnaed y penderfyniad hwn. Ai oherwydd mater technegol yn ymwneud ag a fyddai'r prosiect ar y fantolen ai peidio? Neu rywbeth arall? Canfuom ei fod yn ymwneud â nifer o faterion ac mae'n ddirgelwch o hyd sut y bu i Lywodraeth Cymru, a oedd wedi treulio cryn amser ac wedi gwario arian sylweddol ar y prosiect, ei ddirwyn i ben yn y pen draw ar sail yr hyn a ymddangosai fel trafodaeth 20 munud yn y Cabinet. Mae'r cwestiynau hyn yn dal i fod heb eu hateb. Felly, beth y gallwn ei ddysgu o hyn i gyd? Wel, mae'n hanfodol fod Llywodraeth Cymru yn dangos rheolaeth effeithiol ar arian cyhoeddus Cymru ac yn manteisio i'r eithaf ar y cyfleoedd ar gyfer buddsoddi yng Nghymru. Mewn ymateb i adroddiadau olynol yn y blynyddoedd diweddar gan yr archwilydd cyffredinol, a chan y pwyllgor hwn a a'i ragflaenwyr, mae Llywodraeth Cymru wedi darparu sicrwydd inni ar sawl achlysur fod gwersi wedi'u dysgu. Ond nid ydym wedi ein hargyhoeddi. Bwriedir i'n gwaith craffu fod yn adeiladol a'n nod yw sicrhau bod gwasanaethau yn cael eu darparu'n well er budd pawb, yn enwedig y trethdalwr, ond rhaid i'r Llywodraeth ddysgu a datblygu o'n hadroddiadau er mwyn i'n gwaith craffu fod yn effeithiol. Yn sicr nid ydym yn disgwyl gweld camgymeriadau sylfaenol, hepgoriadau a chrebwyll gwael yn cael eu hailadrodd ar ran swyddogion fel y daeth yn amlwg o ganlyniad i'r adroddiad hwn. Yn anffodus, mae stori drist Cylchffordd Cymru yn amlygu diffygion Llywodraeth Cymru mewn perthynas â phrosiectau buddsoddi ar raddfa fawr. Cymerodd y prosiect penodol hwn saith i wyth mlynedd i ddatblygu cyn cael ei ddirwyn i ben. Mae angen i Lywodraeth Cymru fod yn llawer mwy doeth wrth wneud penderfyniadau. Mae angen iddi fod yn gyflymach ac mae angen iddi fod yn fwy hyblyg. Fel arall, ceir risg i Gymru yn ehangach fel lleoliad ar gyfer buddsoddi. Nid yw ein beirniadaeth wedi'i chyfeirio tuag at unigolion, ond yn hytrach tuag at fethiant yn y system ehangach ac mae angen i Lywodraeth Cymru fynd i'r afael â hynny. Mae angen buddsoddiad ar Gymru ac mae angen gallu mewnol i wneud penderfyniadau cyflym ynglŷn â phrosiectau buddsoddi ar raddfa fawr. Gwnaeth y Pwyllgor Cyfrifon Cyhoeddus 13 o argymhellion yn ei adroddiad, gan gynnwys yr argymhelliad y dylai Llywodraeth Cymru gryfhau ei mesurau rheoli i sicrhau gwerth am arian cyhoeddus mewn perthynas â deall cysylltiadau rhwng y rhai sy'n derbyn cyllid a'u contractwyr a'u cyflenwyr; fod ariannu pryniant FTR Moto Ltd yn cael ei ddefnyddio fel astudiaeth achos at ddibenion hyfforddiant mewnol gan Lywodraeth Cymru, o ystyried y penderfyniadau anghyffredin iawn a wnaed ar lefel swyddogol, y diffyg dogfennau cysylltiedig a methiant ymddangosiadol swyddogion i geisio cael y cymeradwyaethau angenrheidiol gan eu Gweinidog priodol; ac yr atgoffir holl Ysgrifenyddion y Cabinet, Gweinidogion ac uwch-weision sifil Llywodraeth Cymru ynglŷn â'r gofynion yn y codau gweinidogol a chodau'r gwasanaeth sifil ar gyfer sicrhau cywirdeb yr holl wybodaeth a gaiff ei rhyddhau. Rydym yn croesawu'r ffaith bod Llywodraeth Cymru wedi derbyn argymhellion y pwyllgor. Fodd bynnag, mewn mannau, mae'r derbyniad i'w weld yn cuddio bwriad y Llywodraeth ac wedi'i guddio yn y manylion cysylltiedig, mae'n ymddangos nad yw'r argymhellion wedi cael eu derbyn yn yr ysbryd y'u gwnaethpwyd. Mae hon wedi bod yn thema gyson mewn perthynas ag ymateb Llywodraeth Cymru i'n hargymhellion, ac rydym wedi mynegi'r pryderon hyn o'r blaen, a hynny'n gyson. Mewn perthynas â'r argymhellion a wnaed yn ein hadroddiad ar Gylchffordd Cymru, rydym yn credu bod ymateb Llywodraeth Cymru'n ddiffygiol mewn nifer o fannau allweddol. Wrth dderbyn argymhelliad 1, nid yw Llywodraeth Cymru ond wedi derbyn, mewn amgylchiadau penodol, fod angen iddi gryfhau ei mesurau rheoli er mwyn sicrhau gwerth am arian. Rydym yn teimlo bod angen gwneud rhagor i sicrhau bod swyddogion yn arfer crebwyll proffesiynol, ac roedd ein hargymhelliad yn canolbwyntio ar yr angen am well dealltwriaeth o'r berthynas rhwng y rhai sy'n derbyn cyllid a'u contractwyr a'u cyflenwyr. Roeddem am weld diwedd ar naïfrwydd masnachol cyson Llywodraeth Cymru, ac nid ymdrinnir â hyn yn yr ymateb i'n hargymhelliad, nac yn wir yn yr ymatebion i adroddiadau blaenorol gan y Pwyllgor Cyfrifon Cyhoeddus sydd wedi galw am ddysgu gwersi. Mae'r pwyllgor yn pryderu hefyd ynghylch ymateb Llywodraeth Cymru i argymhelliad 3 o'n hadroddiad, lle rydym yn argymell bod Llywodraeth Cymru yn cadarnhau i'r Pwyllgor Cyfrifon Cyhoeddus ei bod wedi adfer y £100,000 o'r cyfrif ysgrow ers hynny. Nid yw'r ymateb yn ei gwneud yn glir pa bryd y dechreuodd camau i adfer y cronfeydd hyn, neu yn wir, a oedd unrhyw fwriad gan Lywodraeth Cymru i adfer yr arian tan iddi gael ei hysgogi i wneud hynny gan ein hargymhelliad. Mae hon yn enghraifft dda o naïfrwydd masnachol ymddangosiadol Llywodraeth Cymru. Pan wnaed y penderfyniad i beidio â buddsoddi, dylai adfer yr arian fod wedi digwydd fel mater o drefn, a dylai'r ymateb i'n hargymhelliad fod wedi dweud yn syml, 'Rydym wedi adfer yr arian hwn.' Yn olaf, mewn perthynas ag argymhelliad 6, mae ymateb Llywodraeth Cymru yn mynegi bod ganddi brosesau cadarn ar waith eisoes ar gyfer ymdrin â phryderon am gyfarwyddiadau gan swyddogion awdurdodi i wneud taliadau: maent yn abl ac yn hyderus i ddwyn y pryderon i sylw'r uwch-reolwr annibynnol. Nid ydym wedi ein hargyhoeddi, a byddem yn croesawu mwy o wybodaeth gan Lywodraeth Cymru ynglŷn â faint o achosion a fu yn ystod y blynyddoedd diwethaf lle y mynegwyd pryderon fel y rhain, a rhyw eglurhad ynglŷn â sut y mae'r prosesau hyn wedi profi'n gadarn. Edrychaf ymlaen at wrando ar y ddadl heddiw. Diolch.