English: Llywydd, thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the Public Accounts Committee inquiry into the Welsh Government's initial funding of the Circuit of Wales project. The proposed Circuit of Wales was a unique and significant project, which appeared to offer the possibility of regenerating an economically deprived area. As a committee, we agreed that the Welsh Government was right to explore possibilities of making this project work, and quite properly it was not the committee's function to comment on the merits of the Cabinet's eventual decision not to provide the requested public finance support. We are deeply concerned, however, at the way this project was approached by the Welsh Government. We want Wales to be a first choice for investment, and to achieve this the decision-making processes followed by those charged with the expenditure of taxpayers' money in this way need to be both coherent and properly documented. The Auditor General for Wales published his report on the initial funding of the Circuit of Wales in April 2017, which highlighted significant shortcomings in the Welsh Government's handling of the project. This report provided a firm foundation for the basis of our inquiry, which expanded beyond the scope of the initial funding into the Welsh Government's decision-making processes for the final proposal. We found the approach from the Welsh Government to this project to be one of two halves: the Welsh Government made some inexplicable decisions during its initial funding of this project, such as authorising payment for the purchase of FTR, a motorcycle company in Buckinghamshire, as part of the property development grant intended to buy land in Ebbw Vale. Then, having made the initial decision not to provide the requested guarantee, the Welsh Government chose to focus its justification for this on a technical accounting matter rather than citing the comprehensive due diligence that it had commissioned. This led to public confusion and did little to promote confidence in the Government's ability to handle public money wisely and well. The general feeling we had, as a committee, was that initially the policy decision had been taken to support the project and this had to be achieved through any means. Our role, as a Public Accounts Committee, is to make sure that the enthusiasm of politicians to achieve whatever policy goal they have doesn't lead to the cutting of corners, because that leads to bad decision making. As we moved into the second half of our inquiry, we examined the processes leading up to the final decision of not agreeing the Welsh Government guarantee, which was essential to making the project happen. Now, we fully appreciate that governments can and sometimes should change their minds on decisions, but it's important that processes are not fixed around the policy. Processes for good governance are there for a reason: to protect public money and the reputation of good government and probity. We have serious concerns that the Welsh Government was not as transparent and comprehensive as they could have been in explaining their decision to perform what appeared to be a u-turn on the Circuit of Wales project. It's important to remember that the Welsh Government maintained its position of positivity about the project and it set its own certain criteria by which it would determine its ultimate decision. It therefore came as a shock when the Cabinet rejected the project at the eleventh hour.
Welsh: Lywydd, diolch ichi am y cyfle i siarad heddiw am ymchwiliad y Pwyllgor Cyfrifon Cyhoeddus i gyllid cychwynnol Llywodraeth Cymru i brosiect Cylchffordd Cymru. Roedd cynllun arfaethedig Cylchffordd Cymru yn brosiect unigryw a sylweddol, a oedd i'w weld fel pe bai'n cynnig posibilrwydd o adfywio ardal ddifreintiedig yn economaidd. Fel pwyllgor, rydym wedi cytuno bod Llywodraeth Cymru'n iawn i archwilio posibiliadau ar gyfer gwneud i'r prosiect hwn weithio, ac yn briodol iawn nid swyddogaeth y pwyllgor oedd gwneud sylwadau ar rinweddau penderfyniad y Cabinet yn y pen draw i beidio â darparu'r cymorth cyllid cyhoeddus y gofynnwyd amdano. Rydym yn bryderus iawn, fodd bynnag, ynglŷn â'r ffordd yr aeth Llywodraeth Cymru ati ar y prosiect hwn. Rydym am i Gymru fod yn ddewis cyntaf ar gyfer buddsoddi, ac er mwyn cyflawni hyn mae angen i'r prosesau penderfynu a ddilynir gan y rhai sy'n gyfrifol am wario arian trethdalwyr yn y modd hwn fod yn gydlynol ac wedi'u dogfennu'n briodol. Cyhoeddodd Archwilydd Cyffredinol Cymru ei adroddiad ar ariannu cychwynnol Cylchffordd Cymru ym mis Ebrill 2017, ac amlygodd ddiffygion sylweddol yn y modd yr ymdriniodd Llywodraeth Cymru â'r prosiect. Darparodd yr adroddiad sylfaen gadarn i'n hymchwiliad, a ymestynnodd y tu hwnt i gwmpas y cyllid cychwynnol i brosesau penderfynu Llywodraeth Cymru ar gyfer y cynnig terfynol. Gwelsom fod dull Llywodraeth Cymru o fynd ati ar y prosiect hwn yn un o ddau hanner: gwnaeth Llywodraeth Cymru rai penderfyniadau anesboniadwy yn ystod proses gyllid cychwynnol y prosiect hwn, fel awdurdodi taliad ar gyfer prynu FTR, cwmni beiciau modur yn swydd Buckingham, fel rhan o'r grant datblygu eiddo a fwriadwyd ar gyfer prynu tir yng Nglyn Ebwy. Yna, ar ôl gwneud y penderfyniad cychwynnol i beidio â darparu'r warant y gofynnwyd amdani, dewisodd Llywodraeth Cymru ganolbwyntio ei chyfiawnhad dros hynny ar fater cyfrifyddu technegol yn hytrach na chrybwyll y diwydrwydd dyladwy cynhwysfawr a gomisiynwyd ganddi. Arweiniodd hyn at ddryswch ymhlith y cyhoedd ac ni wnaeth fawr ddim i hybu hyder yng ngallu'r Llywodraeth i drin arian cyhoeddus yn ddoeth ac yn dda. Y teimlad cyffredinol oedd gennym, fel pwyllgor, oedd bod y penderfyniad polisi wedi'i wneud i gychwyn i gefnogi'r prosiect ac roedd yn rhaid cyflawni hyn doed a ddêl. Ein rôl ni, fel Pwyllgor Cyfrifon Cyhoeddus, yw gwneud yn siŵr nad yw brwdfrydedd gwleidyddion i gyrraedd pa bynnag nod polisi sydd ganddynt yn arwain at dorri corneli, oherwydd mae hynny'n arwain at wneud penderfyniadau gwael. Wrth inni symud i ail hanner ein hymchwiliad, buom yn archwilio'r prosesau a arweiniodd at y penderfyniad terfynol i beidio â chytuno i warant Llywodraeth Cymru, a oedd yn hanfodol i sicrhau bod y prosiect yn digwydd. Nawr, sylweddolwn y gall llywodraethau newid eu meddyliau ar benderfyniadau, ac y dylent wneud hynny weithiau, ond mae'n bwysig nad yw prosesau'n cael eu llunio o gwmpas y polisi. Mae yna reswm pam fod prosesau ar gael ar gyfer llywodraethu da: i ddiogelu arian cyhoeddus ac enw da am lywodraethu da ac uniondeb. Mae gennym bryderon difrifol nad oedd Llywodraeth Cymru mor dryloyw a chynhwysfawr ag y gallai fod yn egluro ei phenderfyniad i gyflawni'r hyn a ymddangosai fel tro pedol ar brosiect Cylchffordd Cymru. Mae'n bwysig cofio bod Llywodraeth Cymru wedi cynnal ei safbwynt cadarnhaol ynglŷn â'r prosiect a'i bod wedi gosod ei meini prawf pendant ei hun ar gyfer gwneud ei phenderfyniad terfynol. Felly roedd hi'n sioc pan wrthododd y Cabinet y prosiect ar yr unfed awr ar ddeg.