English: Can I just start by offering my heartfelt thanks to the Public Accounts Committee for accepting the invitation from the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee to pursue further inquiries into Welsh Government's relationship with Pinewood? It's an excellent report. I don't even know where I want to start on it, but I think I'll start with the point that you were talking about, Bethan, which is about transparency, because I think that's pertinent to Government as a whole. After, like everybody else, welcoming the Government's initial announcement about the new arrangement with Pinewood, and after about a year or so, I asked some fairly anodyne questions about progress and key performance indicators, by way of routine scrutiny really. Edwina Hart's responses were short and as uninformative as we'd come to expect at that point, but even then commercial confidentiality was making an appearance. We were hearing nothing about these arrangements for bringing £90 million into the economy. By March 2017, which is some years later, the then leader of the house, in response to my requests, said that a statement would be forthcoming. Nothing happened. I'm not going to rehearse all this, but I then went on to ask a range of questions, not even clear at this stage about the difference between the media investment budget and the Screen Wales budget - so little information was there available on the various websites - and what I got were incomplete or very delayed responses, again peppered with references to commercial confidentiality. And by now, I was sharing my disquiet with other Members. I'd even contacted the Information Commissioner when freedom of information requests were refused. Long story short, the Chair - Bethan - of the culture committee was in agreement that this needed further investigation, and I'm very grateful to you for taking that opportunity. Because it now emerges that by 2016, when I'd started to ask these questions, a huge amount of worrying and expensive change had been taking place in that relationship. The smouldering conflict of interest had ignited and the financial forecasts were way off and nobody knew about it. Despite further questions from myself and Adam Price, it was only, as we know, when the auditor general became involved last year that this was exposed in any way at all. I want the Welsh Government to know that we do understand and respect commercial confidentiality. But Ministers need to respect their duty to be candid when scrutinised by this Assembly, and they may also want to remember that some of us might be familiar with the concept of commercial confidentiality from our previous lives. I know exactly what it means. The Welsh Government is not Harry Potter. It does not have an invisibility cloak and it must stop treating commercial confidentiality as if it is one. At no point, until committee scrutiny, did a Minister or Deputy Minister offer the explanation that Pinewood had vetoed answers to questions, because if they had, I and others could have considered redacted answers, for example. And while there is no recommendation on commercial confidentiality in this report, I look forward to the committee's findings after its forthcoming inquiry into Government support for business. Talking of previous lives, I was very pleased that the committee looked further at the lack of a building survey of the studio building and the lack of a schedule of works covering tenants' improvements. Where is the Government's evidence that spending £1 million on this roof would have added equivalent value to this holding? How did it not hear alarm bells that having the cottage on site was a liability when the seller insisted on it being part of the sales package? I am pretty sure that had I advised clients in this way, when I was in private practice, with an acquisition of this nature, with what we know of the contract, there would have been a claim against my firm by the buyer, possibly the lender, and I'm pretty sure that I would have been sacked. And I am curious to know who was carrying the can in this instance. Because what confidence can we now have, on hearing that Welsh Government has just bought a warehouse to store medication in case we have a 'no deal' Brexit? How can we be sure that they've even made sure the place is watertight? And, again, why can we not be told the terms on which Welsh Government has acquired that warehouse? I think I can feel Ministers reaching for that invisibility cloak again. As it happens, I agree with the Government's rejection of recommendation 8. A building survey needs to be sought on buildings of values lower than £1 million, even if they are due to be demolished, because that's how you identify issues that will be material to estimating the costs of demolition. So, I'm hoping perhaps the Welsh Government would accept that recommendation. I think what we've all learned from this sorry tale is that it's not just Jeremy Corbyn that presents donkeys and unicorns as thoroughbreds. When you present your next money-making race winner, Ministers, you'd better prove its pedigree upfront. And when you engage in bespoke arrangements - and let's remember that the Bad Wolf deal is a bespoke arrangement - please make sure that you have procured the necessary negotiating expertise. A director of Bad Wolf, herself a former Government insider, said that capacity was lacking in that department. And Jenny, you're quite right, if you're dealing with Darth Vader, you don't send Bambi in to negotiate the deal. So, finally, you have been held firmly to account here, Welsh Government. I want to hear today that you will accept responsibility for this, and then demonstrate your accountability. Thank you.
Welsh: A gaf fi ddechrau drwy ddiolch yn ddidwyll i'r Pwyllgor Cyfrifon Cyhoeddus am dderbyn y gwahoddiad gan y Pwyllgor Diwylliant, y Gymraeg a Chyfathrebu i fynd ar drywydd ymchwiliadau pellach i berthynas Llywodraeth Cymru â Pinewood? Mae'n adroddiad ardderchog. Nid wyf hyd yn oed yn gwybod lle rwyf am ddechrau arno, ond rwy'n meddwl y dechreuaf gyda'r pwynt yr oeddech chi'n sôn amdano, Bethan, sy'n ymwneud â thryloywder, oherwydd fy mod yn credu bod hynny'n berthnasol i'r Llywodraeth yn ei chyfanrwydd. Fel pawb arall, ar ôl croesawu cyhoeddiad cychwynnol y Llywodraeth am y trefniant newydd gyda Pinewood, ac ar ôl tua blwyddyn, gofynnais gwestiynau gweddol ddiddrwg-ddidda am gynnydd a dangosyddion perfformiad allweddol, yn sgil craffu rheolaidd mewn gwirionedd. Roedd ymatebion Edwina Hart yn fyr a heb fawr o wybodaeth fel roeddem wedi dod i'w ddisgwyl ar y pwynt hwnnw, ond hyd yn oed bryd hynny roedd cyfrinachedd masnachol yn dod i'r amlwg. Nid oeddem yn clywed dim am y trefniadau i ddod â £90 miliwn i mewn i'r economi. Erbyn mis Mawrth 2017, rai blynyddoedd yn ddiweddarach, dywedodd arweinydd y tŷ ar y pryd, mewn ymateb i fy ngheisiadau, fod datganiad ar y ffordd. Ni ddigwyddodd dim byd. Nid wyf am fynd drwy hyn i gyd, ond euthum ymlaen wedyn i ofyn amryw o gwestiynau, ac nid oedd yn glir ar y pryd beth oedd y gwahaniaeth rhwng cyllideb buddsoddi yn y cyfryngau a chyllideb Sgrîn Cymru - gan nad oedd fawr o wybodaeth ar gael ar y gwefannau amrywiol - ac roedd yr hyn a gefais yn anghyflawn neu roedd oedi mawr cyn cael ymateb, eto'n frith o gyfeiriadau at gyfrinachedd masnachol. Ac erbyn hyn, roeddwn yn rhannu fy anesmwythyd gydag Aelodau eraill. Roeddwn hyd yn oed wedi cysylltu â'r Comisiynydd Gwybodaeth pan wrthodwyd ceisiadau rhyddid gwybodaeth. I dorri stori hir yn fyr, roedd Cadeirydd y pwyllgor diwylliant - Bethan - yn cytuno bod angen archwilio hyn ymhellach, ac rwy'n ddiolchgar iawn i chi am fanteisio ar y cyfle hwnnw. Oherwydd daw'n amlwg bellach erbyn 2016, pan ddechreuais i ofyn y cwestiynau hyn, fod llawer iawn o newidiadau costus wedi digwydd yn y berthynas honno. Roedd y gwrthdaro buddiannau a oedd yn mudlosgi wedi tanio ac roedd y rhagolygon ariannol ymhell i ffwrdd ac nid oedd neb yn gwybod amdano. Er gwaethaf cwestiynau pellach gennyf fi ac Adam Price, ni chafodd hyn ei amlygu mewn unrhyw ffordd o gwbl tan i'r Archwilydd Cyffredinol, fel y gwyddom, ymwneud â'r mater y llynedd. Rwyf am i Lywodraeth Cymru wybod ein bod yn deall ac yn parchu cyfrinachedd masnachol. Ond mae angen i Weinidogion barchu eu dyletswydd i fod yn agored pan fydd y Cynulliad hwn yn craffu arnynt, ac efallai y dylent gofio hefyd y gallai rhai ohonom fod yn gyfarwydd â'r cysyniad o gyfrinachedd masnachol o'n bywydau blaenorol. Gwn yn union beth y mae'n ei olygu. Nid Harry Potter yw Llywodraeth Cymru. Nid oes ganddi glogyn anweledigrwydd a rhaid iddi roi'r gorau i drin cyfrinachedd masnachol fel pe bai'n glogyn o'r fath. Hyd nes y cafwyd craffu gan y pwyllgor, ni chynigiodd Gweinidog na Dirprwy Weinidog yr esboniad ar unrhyw bwynt fod Pinewood wedi rhoi feto ar atebion i gwestiynau, oherwydd pe baent wedi gwneud hynny, gallwn i ac eraill fod wedi ystyried rhoi atebion wedi'u golygu, er enghraifft. Ac er nad oes argymhelliad ar gyfrinachedd masnachol yn yr adroddiad hwn, edrychaf ymlaen at ganfyddiadau'r pwyllgor ar ôl yr ymchwiliad sydd ar y gorwel i gymorth Llywodraeth i fusnesau. A sôn am fywydau blaenorol, roeddwn yn falch iawn fod y pwyllgor wedi edrych ymhellach ar y ffaith na chafwyd arolwg adeiladau ar gyfer adeilad y stiwdio nac amserlen waith ar gyfer gwelliannau i denantiaid. Ble mae tystiolaeth y Llywodraeth y byddai gwario £1 filiwn ar y to wedi ychwanegu gwerth cyfatebol i'r daliad hwn? Sut na chlywodd rybuddion fod cael y bwthyn ar y safle yn rhwymedigaeth pan fynnodd y gwerthwr ei fod yn rhan o'r pecyn gwerthu? Pe bawn wedi cynghori cleientiaid yn y modd hwn pan oeddwn mewn practis preifat, gyda chaffaeliad o'r math hwn, a'r hyn a wyddom am y contract, rwy'n eithaf sicr y byddai hawliad wedi'i wneud yn erbyn fy nghwmni gan y prynwr, a'r benthyciwr o bosibl, ac rwy'n weddol sicr y buaswn wedi cael fy niswyddo. Ac rwy'n chwilfrydig i wybod pwy oedd â chyfrifoldeb yn yr achos hwn. Oherwydd pa hyder y gallwn ei gael yn awr, ar ôl clywed bod Llywodraeth Cymru newydd brynu warws i storio meddyginiaeth rhag ofn y cawn Brexit 'dim bargen'? Sut y gallwn fod yn siŵr eu bod hyd yn oed wedi sicrhau bod y lle yn sych? Ac unwaith eto, pam na allwn gael gwybod ar ba delerau y cafodd Llywodraeth Cymru y warws honno? Rwy'n credu y gallaf deimlo Gweinidogion yn estyn am y clogyn anweledigrwydd eto. Fel y mae'n digwydd, rwy'n cytuno gyda'r ffaith bod y Llywodraeth wedi gwrthod argymhelliad 8. Mae angen cynnal arolwg adeiladau ar adeiladau sy'n werth llai nag £1 filiwn, hyd yn oed os ydynt i gael eu dymchwel, oherwydd dyna sut rydych yn nodi problemau sy'n berthnasol i amcangyfrif costau dymchwel. Felly, rwy'n gobeithio efallai y bydd Llywodraeth Cymru yn derbyn yr argymhelliad hwnnw. Rwy'n meddwl mai'r hyn y mae pawb ohonom wedi'i ddysgu o'r stori druenus hon yw nad Jeremy Corbyn yn unig sy'n cyflwyno asynnod ac ungyrn fel ceffylau pedigri. Pan fyddwch yn cyflwyno eich enillydd rasys nesaf i wneud arian, Weinidogion, byddai'n well i chi brofi ei bedigri ymlaen llaw. A phan fyddwch yn cymryd rhan mewn trefniadau pwrpasol - a chofiwch fod cytundeb Bad Wolf yn drefniant pwrpasol - gwnewch yn siŵr eich bod wedi caffael yr arbenigedd negodi angenrheidiol. Dywedodd un o gyfarwyddwr Bad Wolf, rhywun a arferai weithio i'r Llywodraeth, fod diffyg capasiti yn yr adran honno. A Jenny, rydych chi'n llygad eich lle, os ydych chi'n ymdrin â Darth Vader, nid ydych yn anfon Bambi i mewn i drafod y cytundeb. Felly, yn olaf, rydych wedi cael eich dwyn i gyfrif yn gadarn yma, Lywodraeth Cymru. Rwyf am glywed heddiw eich bod yn mynd i dderbyn cyfrifoldeb am hyn, a dangos eich atebolrwydd wedyn. Diolch yn fawr.