English: Thank you for those comments and questions. I think it's useful, when we talk of precision medicine, to understand that, in the past, we thought there'd be big, blockbuster drugs or treatments to deliver a wide-scale improvement across the whole population or across whole groups of people. We understand more and more that that's unlikely to be the way in which medicine develops. A range of those apparent blockbuster drugs haven't been as effective as we would have wanted them to be, in addition to us then finding different uses for them as well. This is about understanding how we more precisely have a more individualised approach to diagnostic certainty and then treatment choices as well. I think the data sharing comments - it builds on the questions and comments from Angela Burns. Look, I don't have direct ministerial conversations on this particular topic with other colleagues across the Governments in the UK, but there are Government-to-Government conversations about where we are. There is already an element of collaboration. The fact that we're actively engaged in the 100,000 Genomes Project with colleagues in England is a really important marker, and also those wider research conversations that take place outside the national health service, as well as within the NHS, are a marker of the fact that these are active conversations that take place on how we share data to the best possible effect. But it's also, as I say, going back to Lee Waters's point, about how we make sure that the real competitive advantages that we potentially have here in Wales are properly exploited and taken advantage of, both for our economic benefit but, again, not compromising on the values that we wish to have about the way in which patient data are used and how we want the health service to be run. On your point about the appraisal of new developments, we'll make sure that there is a proper, rigorous appraisal process, both in commissioning terms through WHSCC, but also, as new treatments and new therapies are developed, they'll all need to go through a process to understand whether they offer genuine value in terms of both financially for us as taxpayers, for what we are paying for, but also for the individual citizen and their treatment choices available to them and their healthcare professionals that they will be understanding and making choices with. So, that will still be part of the process. There's no suggestion that, actually, we're running along the track of saying if this comes from precision medicine then all those other indicators about effectiveness and cost effectiveness go out of the window - they won't. It goes back to the points that Rhun ap Iorwerth was making, though. There is a potential for cost saving here, and a potential for real health gains to be made, but we always need to understand, when those indications are available to us that we have a new potential treatment option, how do we properly appraise it to make sure we're not gearing ourselves up and spending lots of money in a way that is neither wise nor prudent. And, on your broader point about big pharma, I think I tried to do this in responding to the points made by Lee Waters. There is an adult conversation to continue to be had that should lead to different investment choices, investing in different parts of Wales, where there's a real advantage to be gained - so, real economic opportunity, real health gains to be made, and an area where I really do think Wales has a good story to tell, and I hope, in the future, we'll be reporting on active and real progress that we'll continue to make with and for citizens and the health service here in Wales.
Welsh: Diolch i chi am y sylwadau a'r cwestiynau yna. Rwy'n credu ei bod yn ddefnyddiol, pan fyddwn ni'n sôn am feddygaeth fanwl, i ddeall, yn y gorffennol, ein bod ni'n meddwl y byddai cyffuriau neu driniaethau mawr nerthol i ddarparu gwelliannau ar raddfa eang ar draws y boblogaeth gyfan neu ar draws grwpiau cyfan o bobl. Rydym ni'n deall yn gynyddol ei bod yn annhebygol mai dyna fydd y ffordd y bydd meddygaeth yn datblygu. Ni fu amrywiaeth o'r cyffuriau nethol tybiedig hynny mor effeithiol ag y byddem ni wedi dymuno iddyn nhw fod, yn ychwanegol i'r ffaith i ni ddod o hyd wedyn i wahanol ddefnydd ar eu cyfer nhw hefyd. Mae hyn yn ymwneud â deall sut y mae gennym ni'n fwy manwl ddull mwy unigoledig o gael sicrwydd diagnostig ac yna dewisiadau triniaeth hefyd. Rwy'n meddwl bod y sylwadau ynglŷn â rhannu data - mae'n adeiladu ar y cwestiynau a'r sylwadau gan Angela Burns. Edrychwch, nid wyf yn cael sgyrsiau gweinidogol uniongyrchol ar y pwnc penodol hwn gyda chydweithwyr eraill ar draws Llywodraethau'r DU, ond mae'r Llywodraethau'n siarad gyda'i gilydd am ein sefyllfa. Ceir elfen o gydweithio eisoes. Mae'r ffaith ein bod ni'n cymryd rhan ymarferol yn y Prosiect 100,000 o Genomau gyda chydweithwyr yn Lloegr yn arwydd pwysig iawn, a hefyd y sgyrsiau ymchwil ehangach hynny sy'n cael eu cynnal y tu allan i'r gwasanaeth iechyd gwladol, yn ogystal ag y tu mewn i'r GIG, yn arwydd o'r ffaith bod y rhain yn sgyrsiau gweithredol sy'n cael eu cynnal ynghylch sut yr ydym ni'n rhannu data yn y ffordd orau bosibl. Ond mae hefyd, fel y dywedais, gan ddychwelyd at bwynt Lee Waters, yn ymwneud â sut yr ydym ni'n sicrhau bod y manteision cystadleuol go iawn sydd gennym ni o bosibl yma yng Nghymru yn cael eu datblygu ac yn cael eu manteisio arnynt, ar gyfer ein budd economaidd, ond, unwaith eto, heb beryglu'r gwerthoedd yr ydym ni'n dymuno eu coleddu ynghylch y ffordd y caiff data cleifion eu defnyddio a sut yr ydym ni eisiau i'r gwasanaeth iechyd gael ei redeg. O ran eich pwynt ynglŷn â gwerthuso datblygiadau newydd, byddwn yn gwneud yn siŵr bod proses werthuso briodol a thrwyadl, o ran comisiynu trwy Bwyllgor Gwasanaethau Iechyd Arbenigol Cymru, ond hefyd, wrth i driniaethau a therapïau newydd gael eu datblygu, bydd angen i bob un ohonyn nhw fynd trwy broses i ddeall p'un a ydynt yn cynnig gwerth gwirioneddol am arian i ni fel trethdalwyr, am yr hyn yr ydym ni'n ei dalu amdano, ond hefyd i'r dinesydd unigol a'u dewisiadau triniaeth sydd ar gael iddyn nhw a'u gweithwyr gofal iechyd proffesiynol y byddant yn deall ac yn gwneud dewisiadau gyda nhw. Felly, bydd hynny'n dal i fod yn rhan o'r broses. Nid oes unrhyw awgrym ein bod ni'n dilyn y trywydd o ddweud os daw hyn o feddygaeth fanwl yna bydd yr holl ddangosyddion eraill hynny ynglŷn ag effeithiolrwydd a chost yn cael eu diystyru - ni fyddant. Ond, mae'n mynd yn ôl at y pwyntiau yr oedd Rhun ap Iorwerth yn eu gwneud. Ceir potensial i arbed arian yma, a photensial i gael enillion iechyd gwirioneddol, ond, mae angen i ni ddeall bob amser, pan fydd yr arwyddion hynny ar gael i ni bod gennym ni opsiwn triniaeth posibl newydd, sut rydym ni'n ei werthuso'n briodol i wneud yn siŵr nad ydym ni'n cynhyrfu ein hunain ac yn gwario llawer o arian mewn ffordd nad yw'n ddoeth nac yn ddarbodus. Ac, ar eich pwynt ehangach am y diwydiant fferyllol, rwy'n credu fy mod i wedi ceisio gwneud hyn mewn ymateb i'r pwyntiau a wnaed gan Lee Waters. Ceir sgwrs aeddfed i barhau i'w chael a ddylai arwain at wahanol ddewisiadau buddsoddi, buddsoddi mewn gwahanol rannau o Gymru, lle mae manteision gwirioneddol i'w cael - felly, cyfle economaidd gwirioneddol, manteision iechyd gwirioneddol, a maes lle rwy'n grediniol iawn fod gan Gymru stori dda i'w hadrodd, ac rwy'n gobeithio, yn y dyfodol, y byddwn ni'n adrodd ar gynnydd gweithredol a gwirioneddol y byddwn yn parhau i'w wneud gyda ac ar ran dinasyddion a'r gwasanaeth iechyd yma yng Nghymru.