English: I just wanted to come in briefly, to try and analyse some of what's been said today. You will know that, as Chair of the culture committee, I've have had quite a lot of communication from people. You raised a question over the content of some of those letters. I would like to say that, perhaps, they are written as they are because they have, in my view, some level of confusion as to your intentions. I say this because, in your previous statement, you mentioned about merging the commercial functions of the national museum with Cadw, and that seemed to be your focus, and then, today, we have a statement that includes more institutions. So, if you are not in favour of a full merger, can you tell me how a partial merger would be able to then satisfy what you want to happen, in relation to people working closer together, but then also ensuring that the independence of those institutions is respected, in the context of the fact that they will not then have power over the commercial functions, as outlined in previous statements that we have had here today? The other issue I had was that you refer to this report - I'm sorry to be pernickety about this - as the Baroness Randerson report. But my reading is that it is a PricewaterhouseCoopers report, but then there's an advisory panel by Jenny Randerson. So, I'd like to understand whether Jenny Randerson has endorsed the whole of what the PricewaterhouseCoopers report says, and whether you have her full backing in this, because it wasn't my understanding that this was the Randerson report, and I think we need to clear up that confusion. I also want to understand, because you've now said that it's up to the steering group to decide upon, whether the public consultation will be on their preferred option or whether it will be on the various options that they discuss. Because, of course, it'll be at that point when the institutions, when the people who've written to my committee, will be able to engage with the process. So, I think that is part of their fear - that they're going to be engaged after this, as opposed to being engaged prior to some of the announcements that you've made. I'd also like to agree with what Suzy Davies said in relation to the discussion that we've had previously over the royal commission and Cadw. It is not my version of history that there was wide, timely and necessary support for that to happen. In fact, when I talked to your predecessor John Griffiths, he did park the issue of the merger after many of us - and noises from the sector - campaigned against that. So is this your way of coming back to it, but with a different edge? You also mentioned Cadw and marketing. I would just like to understand what that budget was. Did you put this out to an agency? I think it was called Equinox. How much did you pay that agency to do that marketing work? Because they may have additional benefits that potentially the national museum didn't have. Would you not agree with me that the numbers are down at the national museum due to the redevelopment of St Fagans and that that may then pick up when that redevelopment has seen the case through? My final question is: we've had quite a lot of debate recently in the environment committee about the issues surrounding Natural Resources Wales. I would urge you to look at what is happening there and to reassure yourself that any future decision that you make on how national institutions are potentially merged or encouraged to work together in the future are able to do so in a way that they feel comfortable with, so that there aren't the same problems that are in the staffing arrangements at NRW currently. That is the last thing that we need - we need to have a happy and productive workforce, regardless of anything else, to make sure that they then can deliver effectively to the people of Wales. Diolch yn fawr.
Welsh: Roeddwn i eisiau cyfrannu'n fyr, er mwyn ceisio dadansoddi rhywfaint o'r hyn sydd wedi'i ddweud heddiw. Byddwch yn gwybod, fel Cadeirydd y pwyllgor diwylliant, fy mod i wedi cael cryn dipyn o ohebiaeth gan bobl. Codwyd cwestiwn gennych am gynnwys rhai o'r llythyrau hynny. Hoffwn i ddweud, efallai, eu bod wedi eu hysgrifennu fel y maent oherwydd bod yna, yn fy marn i, ryw lefel o ddryswch ynghylch eich bwriadau. Dywedaf hyn oherwydd, yn eich datganiad blaenorol, roeddech yn sôn am uno swyddogaethau masnachol yr amgueddfa genedlaethol â Cadw, a dyna yr oedd yn ymddangos eich bod yn canolbwyntio arno, ac yna, heddiw, mae gennym ddatganiad sy'n cynnwys mwy o sefydliadau. Felly, os nad ydych o blaid uno llawn, a allwch chi ddweud wrthyf sut y byddai uno rhannol wedyn yn gallu bodloni'r hyn yr ydych yn awyddus i'w weld yn digwydd, o ran pobl yn gweithio yn agosach gyda'i gilydd, ond yna hefyd sicrhau bod annibyniaeth y sefydliadau hynny yn cael ei barchu, yng nghyd-destun y ffaith na fydd ganddynt bŵer wedyn dros y swyddogaethau masnachol, fel yr amlinellir mewn datganiadau blaenorol a gawsom yma heddiw? Y broblem arall oedd gennyf oedd eich bod yn cyfeirio at yr adroddiad - mae'n ddrwg gen i fod yn anodd fy mhlesio ynghylch hyn - fel adroddiad y Farwnes Randerson. Ond fy nealltwriaeth i yw mai adroddiad PricewaterhouseCoopers ydi o, ond yna mae gan Jenny Randerson banel ymgynghorol. Felly, hoffwn ddeall a yw Jenny Randerson wedi cymeradwyo popeth y mae adroddiad PricewaterhouseCoopers yn ei ddweud, ac a oes gennych ei chefnogaeth lawn yn hyn, gan mai fy nealltwriaeth i oedd mai hwn oedd adroddiad Randerson, ac rwy'n credu bod angen i ni glirio'r dryswch hwnnw. Rwyf hefyd yn awyddus i ddeall, oherwydd eich bod yn awr wedi dweud mai mater i'r grŵp llywio fydd penderfynu, p'un a fydd yr ymgynghoriad cyhoeddus ar y dewis a ffefrir ganddynt neu a fydd ar y gwahanol ddewisiadau y maent yn eu trafod. Oherwydd, wrth gwrs, dyna'r adeg pryd y bydd y sefydliadau, pryd y bydd y bobl sydd wedi ysgrifennu at fy mhwyllgor, yn gallu ymgysylltu â'r broses. Felly, credaf fod hynny'n rhan o'u hofn - eu bod yn mynd i gael cymryd rhan ar ôl hyn, yn hytrach na chael cymryd rhan cyn rhai o'r cyhoeddiadau a wnaethoch. Hoffwn hefyd gytuno â'r hyn a ddywedodd Suzy Davies mewn cysylltiad â'r drafodaeth yr ydym wedi ei chael o'r blaen ynghylch y comisiwn brenhinol a Cadw. Nid fy fersiwn i o hanes yw dweud y bu cefnogaeth eang, amserol ac angenrheidiol i hynny. Yn wir, pan siaradais â'ch rhagflaenydd, John Griffiths, fe wnaeth roi mater yr uno i'r neilltu ar ôl i lawer ohonom - a'r sector - ymgyrchu yn erbyn hynny. Felly ai dyma eich ffordd o ddod yn ôl ato, ond gydag awch gwahanol? Soniasoch hefyd am Cadw a marchnata. Hoffwn i ddeall beth oedd y gyllideb. A wnaethoch chi roi hyn allan i asiantaeth? Rwy'n credu mai Equinox oedd ei henw. Faint wnaethoch chi dalu i'r asiantaeth honno i wneud y gwaith marchnata hwnnw? Oherwydd efallai fod ganddynt fanteision ychwanegol o bosibl nad oedd gan yr amgueddfa genedlaethol. Oni fyddech yn cytuno â mi bod y niferoedd yn llai yn yr amgueddfa genedlaethol yn sgil ailddatblygu Sain Ffagan, ac y gallai'r niferoedd hynny godi pan fydd y gwaith ailddatblygu wedi'i gwblhau? Fy nghwestiwn olaf yw hwn: cafwyd cryn dipyn o ddadlau yn ddiweddar yn y pwyllgor amgylchedd ynghylch y materion sy'n ymwneud â Chyfoeth Naturiol Cymru. Byddwn yn eich annog i edrych ar yr hyn sy'n digwydd yno ac i roi sicrwydd i chi eich hun y bydd unrhyw benderfyniad yn y dyfodol a wnewch am sut y mae sefydliadau cenedlaethol yn cael eu huno o bosibl neu eu hannog i weithio gyda'i gilydd yn y dyfodol yn gallu gwneud hynny mewn ffordd y maent yn teimlo'n gyfforddus gyda hi, fel nad oes yr un problemau sydd yn y trefniadau staffio yn Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru ar hyn o bryd. Dyna'r peth olaf sydd ei angen arnom - mae angen i ni gael gweithlu hapus a chynhyrchiol, ar wahân i unrhyw beth arall, i wneud yn siŵr eu bod wedyn yn gallu darparu yn effeithiol i bobl Cymru. Diolch yn fawr.