English: With respect, I think they are two different points. The first is about our system that we wish to have here within Wales and our strategic oversight, and about the level of resource that we could and should commit to maintaining our current systems. That is, in itself, a significant undertaking in addition to our ability and the resource that we put into reform and innovation. Of course, we'll respond to the PAC report and I expect that to be a regular topic of conversation now and in the future. The point about EMIS is not so much that this is an example of people who have great innovative ideas who have been taken out of the system and that there is a disconnect, but actually what took place with EMIS and GP systems is that there was a tender exercise and they chose to submit a bid that did not comply with the basics of the tender. That decision not then to allow them to nevertheless carry on as a potential supplier was not simply made by the Government; it was actually supported by the general practice committee of the British Medical Association themselves. A representative group of doctors agreed that, given that EMIS had refused to comply with the tender, they should not therefore be rewarded in any event and be allowed to come back into the system. And unusually - because there were questions in the Chamber at the time from people from more than one party - since that time, there has not been a significant amount of complaint about it because we provided the support that we said would be made available, and broadly the GP community have accepted that we made the right choice in not allowing EMIS into the system when they'd refused to comply with the tender details.
Welsh: Gyda phob parch, credaf eu bod yn ddau bwynt gwahanol. Mae'r cyntaf yn ymwneud â'r system yr hoffem ei chael yma yng Nghymru o dan ein goruchwyliaeth strategol ein hunain, ac ynghylch lefel yr adnoddau y gallem ac y dylem eu hymrwymo er mwyn cynnal ein systemau presennol. Mae hynny ynddo'i hun yn her sylweddol yn ogystal â'n gallu a'r adnoddau a roddwn tuag at ddiwygio ac arloesi. Wrth gwrs, byddwn yn ymateb i adroddiad y Pwyllgor Cyfrifon Cyhoeddus ac rwy'n disgwyl y bydd hwnnw'n destun trafod rheolaidd ar hyn o bryd ac yn y dyfodol. Nid yw'r pwynt ynglŷn ag EMIS yn ymwneud yn gymaint â'r ffaith bod hon yn enghraifft o bobl â syniadau arloesol gwych sydd wedi eu tynnu allan o'r system a bod diffyg cysylltiad yn bodoli, ond yn hytrach mai'r hyn a ddigwyddodd gydag EMIS a'r systemau meddygon teulu yw bod ymarfer tendro wedi'i gynnal, ac fe ddewisasant gyflwyno cais nad oedd yn cydymffurfio â gofynion sylfaenol y tendr. Nid oedd y penderfyniad hwnnw wedyn i beidio â chaniatáu iddynt barhau serch hynny i fod yn gyflenwr posibl yn benderfyniad a wnaed gan y Llywodraeth yn unig; mewn gwirionedd, fe'i cefnogwyd gan bwyllgor ymarfer cyffredinol Cymdeithas Feddygol Prydain eu hunain. Cytunodd grŵp cynrychioliadol o feddygon, o gofio bod EMIS wedi gwrthod cydymffurfio â'r tendr, na ddylent felly gael eu gwobrwyo mewn unrhyw fodd a'u caniatáu yn ôl i mewn i'r system. Ac yn anarferol - gan y cafwyd cwestiynau yn y Siambr ar y pryd gan bobl o fwy nag un blaid - ers hynny, nid oes cwynion sylweddol wedi'u gwneud ynglŷn â'r peth gan ein bod wedi darparu'r cymorth y dywedasom y byddai ar gael, ac yn gyffredinol, mae cymuned y meddygon teulu wedi derbyn ein bod wedi gwneud y dewis cywir wrth beidio â chaniatáu EMIS i mewn i'r system wedi iddynt wrthod cydymffurfio â manylion y tendr.