English: Llywydd, once in every generation a specific case comes to light that points to a deeper and more difficult truth about a governing party, often - particularly - when that party has been in power for many years. I'm thinking of the beef tribunal, for example, in Fianna Fáil-led Ireland in the early 1990s, the Scott inquiry in the Conservative Government, and probably too many examples to mention about the Blair Government. But you get the point. I think that the Circuit of Wales is a case in point. Something has gone desperately wrong here. We can't for certain say what that is yet, but we know that it's our responsibility to ask that question and get to the truth, and that is at the heart of amendment 3. I'd just like to speak briefly, though, to begin with, to amendment 2, which is far more straightforward, really, which is simply asking the Government - . Given the fact that probably almost £10 million now has been expended by the Government on this project, surely it would be worth our while, in respect to the taxpayer and the investment in this project, to try and get everyone around the table to see if some of the technical issues that the Cabinet Secretary referred to in his statement on 27 June could be solved. Now, he may say, 'Well, look, we've got the technology park out of it'. I have to say, though, the idea that actually just building industrial estates is the answer to our economic problems - you know, it beggars belief. Because, if that were true, we wouldn't have any economic problems in Wales. In economic development, it's called the field-of-dreams strategy, after the Kevin Costner film about an Iowa farmer trying to create and building a baseball field in an Iowa cornfield - 'Build it, and they will come'. They don't. The whole point about clusters is you have to have a magnet. Read your Michael Porter. The Welsh Government, I think, paid him £250,000 for a cluster strategy in 2002; I got him for free when I studied with him in Harvard Business School. And what he would tell you is, 'Look, clusters cannot be conjured out of thin air'. The whole point about the Circuit of Wales is that it created an open-air laboratory, a test rink, that would be the magnet, potentially. You can take your view on whether that's right or wrong, and some Members are sceptical. But, certainly, without it, it doesn't work. So, surely, the Welsh Government should get around the table to see if these problems can be resolved. Let's turn to the calls for an independent inquiry, which both the Conservative party, UKIP, and my own party, have made. There have been a series of misleading statements by the Government - the full range from obfuscation through to statements that are plain untrue, the Government would have known were untrue, and we have 19 words in 'Roget's Thesaurus' to describe that, most of which are unparliamentary, so I won't test the patience of the Chair. But I'll go through some of the examples. We might have heard one earlier, by the way. We were told that ONS couldn't give a definitive statement in terms of balance sheet. We now know, of course, that the Welsh Government themselves had asked for a provisional ruling in relation to its own project at Velindre, but an answer there came not from the Cabinet Secretary as to whether you'd followed that same process to get a provisional ruling in terms of the Circuit of Wales. The impression was created last week, in terms of the automotive technology park, that TVR and Aston Martin were on board with the technology park without the Circuit of Wales. And yet the record will show, Cabinet Secretary, that they did not know about this until you got up on your feet. That's what I think the record will show. Now, I asked the question because what we've seen throughout this process is the Government shifting the goalposts and then covering the tracks. I asked whose proposal it was to come up with an 80 per cent guarantee - that was the second proposal that was rejected. I was told by the Government that it was the company that suggested this, in a document dated 15 April 2016. I was then sent a letter by Monmouthshire County Council that actually proved it was the Government. Mick McGuire writing to Michael Carrick on 7 April, before that date, suggesting, and I quote, 'I've spoken to the First Minister's private office, and they've confirmed that he's happy for officials to advance with the Circuit of Wales and Aviva on a viable alternative business plan B that achieves a fairer sharing of risk. To achieve these objectives, the areas that you need to consider include the guarantee to Aviva should be 80 per cent or less'. And, most seriously of all, of course, is the statement made by the First Minister during the election campaign, when he gives the reason for the rejection of the first proposal as this: 'What happened originally was we were looking for a guarantee of £30 million. It went to £357 million.' When asked when that occurred, he said 'in the last few days' and he repeated that in an interview with 'The Western Mail' a few days later. And yet we now know, because we have a letter from Aviva, which says this, Llywydd: the manner in which the deal was rejected did not reflect well on Aviva Investors. Especially as it quoted that we requested a 100% underwrite a few days before the rejection, when in fact this deal had been worked up with the Welsh Government (through civil servants) for many months and nothing in our funding structure changed in the run up to this announcement.' Now, if what Aviva is telling us is true, then we have been misled in the most serious manner possible. That is why we need an independent inquiry.
Welsh: Llywydd, unwaith ym mhob cenhedlaeth daw achos penodol i'r golwg sy'n amlygu gwirionedd dyfnach a mwy anodd am blaid lywodraethol, yn aml - yn enwedig - pan fo'r blaid honno wedi bod mewn grym ers blynyddoedd lawer. Rwy'n meddwl am y tribiwnlys cig eidion, er enghraifft, yn Iwerddon o dan arweiniad Fianna Fáil yn y 1990au cynnar, ymchwiliad Scott yn y Llywodraeth Geidwadol, a gormod o enghreifftiau, mae'n debyg, i sôn amdanynt yn Llywodraeth Blair. Ond rydych yn deall y pwynt. Credaf fod Cylchffordd Cymru yn enghraifft o hyn. Mae rhywbeth wedi mynd o'i le'n ofnadwy yma. Ni allwn ddweud i sicrwydd beth yw hwnnw eto, ond rydym yn gwybod mai ein cyfrifoldeb ni yw gofyn y cwestiwn hwnnw a mynd at y gwir, a dyna sydd wrth wraidd gwelliant 3. I ddechrau, fodd bynnag, hoffwn siarad yn fyr am welliant 2, sy'n llawer symlach, mewn gwirionedd, ac sy'n gofyn yn syml i'r Llywodraeth - . O ystyried y ffaith fod bron i £10 miliwn yn ôl pob tebyg wedi'i wario bellach gan y Llywodraeth ar y prosiect hwn, does bosibl na fyddai'n werth inni geisio, er parch i'r trethdalwr a'r buddsoddiad yn y prosiect hwn, cael pawb o gwmpas y bwrdd i weld a fyddai modd datrys rhai o'r problemau technegol y cyfeiriodd Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet atynt yn ei ddatganiad ar 27 Mehefin. Nawr, gallai ddweud, 'Wel, edrychwch, rydym wedi cael y parc technoleg allan ohono'. Rhaid i mi ddweud er hynny fod y syniad mai adeiladu stadau diwydiannol yn unig yw'r ateb i'n problemau economaidd - wyddoch chi, mae'n anhygoel. Oherwydd, pe bai hynny'n wir, ni fyddai gennym unrhyw broblemau economaidd yng Nghymru. Ym maes datblygu economaidd, fe'i gelwir yn strategaeth y cae breuddwydion, ar ôl y ffilm Kevin Costner am ffermwr o Iowa yn ceisio creu ac adeiladu maes pêl fas mewn cae ŷd yn Iowa - 'Adeiladwch ef, ac fe ddônt'. Nid ydynt yn dod. Yr holl bwynt am glystyrau yw bod yn rhaid i chi gael magned. Darllenwch eich Michael Porter. Rwy'n meddwl bod Llywodraeth Cymru wedi talu £250,000 iddo am strategaeth clystyrau yn 2002; fe'i cefais am ddim pan astudiais gydag ef yn Ysgol Fusnes Harvard. A'r hyn y byddai'n ei ddweud wrthych yw, 'Edrychwch, ni ellir creu clystyrau allan o ddim byd'. Yr holl bwynt am Gylchffordd Cymru yw ei fod yn creu labordy awyr agored, man profi a fyddai'n fagned o bosibl. Gallwch ffurfio'ch barn eich hun ar ba mor gywir neu anghywir yw hynny, ac mae rhai Aelodau yn amheus. Ond yn sicr, hebddo, nid yw'n gweithio. Felly, does bosibl na ddylai Llywodraeth Cymru gyfarfod o gwmpas y bwrdd i weld a oes modd datrys y problemau hyn. Gadewch i ni droi at y galwadau am ymchwiliad annibynnol, a wnaed gan y blaid Geidwadol, UKIP, a fy mhlaid fy hun. Cafwyd cyfres o ddatganiadau camarweiniol gan y Llywodraeth - yr ystod lawn o gymylu'r gwir i ddatganiadau sy'n anwir a dim llai, datganiadau y byddai'r Llywodraeth wedi gwybod nad ydynt yn wir, ac mae gennym 19 o eiriau yn Thesawrws Roget i ddisgrifio hynny, y rhan fwyaf ohonynt yn anseneddol, felly nid wyf am brofi amynedd y Cadeirydd. Ond fe af drwy rai o'r enghreifftiau. Efallai ein bod wedi clywed un yn gynharach, gyda llaw. Dywedwyd wrthym na allai'r Swyddfa Ystadegau Gwladol roi datganiad diffiniol o ran mantolen. Rydym bellach yn gwybod, wrth gwrs, fod Llywodraeth Cymru ei hun wedi gofyn am ddyfarniad dros dro mewn perthynas â'i phrosiect ei hun yn Felindre, ond ni chafwyd ateb gan Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet ynglŷn ag a oeddech wedi dilyn yr un broses i gael dyfarniad dros dro ar Gylchffordd Cymru. Yr argraff a grëwyd yr wythnos diwethaf, o ran y parc technoleg fodurol, oedd bod TVR ac Aston Martin wedi ymrwymo i'r parc technoleg heb Gylchffordd Cymru. Ac eto, bydd y cofnod yn dangos, Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet, nad oeddent yn gwybod am hyn nes i chi godi ar eich traed. Rwy'n credu mai dyna a ddengys y cofnod. Nawr, gofynnais y cwestiwn am mai'r hyn a welsom drwy gydol y broses hon yw'r Llywodraeth yn symud y pyst gôl ac yna'n cael gwared ar yr ôl traed. Gofynnais pwy gynigiodd warant o 80 y cant - hwnnw oedd yr ail gynnig a wrthodwyd. Cefais wybod gan y Llywodraeth mai'r cwmni a awgrymodd hyn mewn dogfen ddyddiedig 15 Ebrill 2016. Yna, anfonodd Cyngor Sir Fynwy lythyr ataf a oedd yn profi mewn gwirionedd mai'r Llywodraeth a wnaeth. Ysgrifennodd Mick McGuire at Michael Carrick ar 7 Ebrill, cyn y dyddiad hwnnw, yn awgrymu, ac rwy'n dyfynnu, 'Rwyf wedi siarad â swyddfa breifat y Prif Weinidog, ac maent wedi cadarnhau ei fod yn fodlon i swyddogion fwrw ymlaen gyda Chylchffordd Cymru ac Aviva ar gynllun busnes B, cynllun amgen ymarferol sy'n sicrhau bod y risg yn cael ei rhannu'n decach. Er mwyn cyflawni'r amcanion hyn, mae'r meysydd sydd angen i chi eu hystyried yn cynnwys y dylai'r warant i Aviva fod yn 80 y cant neu lai'. A'r mater mwyaf difrifol, wrth gwrs, yw'r datganiad a wnaeth y Prif Weinidog yn ystod yr ymgyrch etholiadol, pan fo'n rhoi'r rheswm dros wrthod y cynnig cyntaf fel hyn: 'Yr hyn a ddigwyddodd yn wreiddiol oedd ein bod yn chwilio am warant o £30 miliwn. Aeth yn £357 miliwn.' Pan ofynnwyd iddo pa bryd y digwyddodd hynny, dywedodd 'yn ystod y dyddiau diwethaf' ac ailadroddodd hynny mewn cyfweliad gyda 'The Western Mail' ychydig ddyddiau'n ddiweddarach. Ac eto rydym bellach yn gwybod, gan fod gennym lythyr oddi wrth Aviva, sy'n dweud hyn, Llywydd: nid yw'r modd y cafodd y cytundeb ei wrthod yn adlewyrchu'n dda ar Aviva Investors. Yn enwedig gan iddynt ddweud ein bod wedi gofyn am ddigollediad o 100% ychydig ddyddiau cyn i'r cynnig gael ei wrthod, er bod y cytundeb wedi'i lunio gyda Llywodraeth Cymru (drwy weision sifil) ers misoedd lawer ac ni newidiodd dim yn ein strwythur cyllido yn ystod y cyfnod cyn y cyhoeddiad hwn. Nawr, os yw'r hyn y mae Aviva yn ei ddweud wrthym yn wir, rydym wedi cael ein camarwain yn y modd mwyaf difrifol posibl. Dyna pam y mae arnom angen ymchwiliad annibynnol.