English: If I can just refer to some of the contributions - firstly, Adam Price. Adam, you identified that there is a poor decision-making process at the heart of the Welsh Government, and that has been evidenced by what we've seen in the Public Accounts Committee looking at the evidence from the Circuit of Wales process and problems. And, yes, you're right: we have to get out of this mess. I think that's been the overriding message coming out of the committee. We are where we are, as is often said, and it's necessary now to look to the future and make sure that the problems that have happened in the past - the mistakes, if you want to call them that, that have happened in the past at many different levels - are put right so that, in the future, if this sort of project does come along again then the same mistakes are not repeated. You used the phrase, 'a landscape of broken dreams', and we mustn't forget at the end of all of this that there is an area of Wales that is very deprived, which is in need of regeneration, where the people look to the Welsh Government for hope for the future, for regeneration, for redevelopment, and they did look to this project as a possible way to lift themselves out of the problems that they are in and that they have been in for a very long time. And you cannot help but understand that those people do feel that an opportunity has been snatched away from them after there was a long build-up with them thinking that that project would go ahead. Neil Hamilton, you described the Circuit of Wales as a visionary project and you spoke of a shocking catalogue of incompetence along the route that has been taken. As you said, potentially the Circuit of Wales was a major game changer and, yes, you're right, the committee couldn't get its head around why the project was eventually kicked into the long grass, why the plug was eventually pulled, as a result of an accounting device that is in the Treasury rule book. And as you said, of course, that accounting device wasn't a new addition to the Treasury rule book. It has been there from day one of this project, from very early on in this project. So, we couldn't understand - and I think at the end of our deliberations the committee couldn't understand - why it was that that accounting device hadn't been cited much earlier on as a reason not to proceed with the project, as a reason to go to the developers and to say, 'Look, this is something that the Welsh Government simply cannot afford.' We could not understand that. Due diligence, which was carried out, didn't then seem to feature at the end in the final decision-making process. So, it raises the question: 'Why did you do the due diligence?' Well, of course, you have to do the due diligence; that is all part of giving permission to a project. So, clearly something had gone wrong in that instance. Mohammad Asghar, you referred to the 'inexplicable' decision-making process - and that is a term that appears throughout the Public Accounts Committee's report - which led to the waste of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money. And, yes, there did seem to be, from our point of view, a lack of ministerial oversight or, at the very least, a lack of a paper trail to determine whether or not there was a ministerial oversight, and that, I think, was one of the most concerning things of all. We couldn't actually work out whether - and it wasn't you, it wasn't the current Minister; it was the previous Minister who'd been involved in this. We couldn't determine whether or not she'd signed off the decision to fund the FTR part of the scheme. There was no paper trail. For a sum of £300,000, that cannot be allowed to persist in the future. Maybe there was a word-of-mouth agreement, but that cannot be enough. We have to be able, as a Public Accounts Committee, to show that, when projects and money are signed off, there is a legitimate reason for doing that. So, that was clearly a poor part of this process. Can I welcome, finally, the Cabinet Secretary's comments? You made a number of very good points, and I'm pleased that you have listened to the issues that I've raised and the issues that other Members have raised and that the report has raised, and that you are looking to put some of these - all of these things - right. And let's be clear, some Members here have been very vocal in support of the Circuit of Wales for a long time and continue to be so. Some Members have not been keen on this project from very early on in its creation. That was not the purpose of the committee. We were not looking at this to say whether this is the right policy decision for the Welsh Government or not. We are there to say that, along the line, when decisions were taken and when funding was made available, that was done for the right reasons. I'm very sorry to say that the Public Accounts Committee could not say that value for money had been gained during the spending of money on this project at different avenues, and we seriously hope that, in future, the Welsh Government will learn the lessons of what's happened here. I know that the Cabinet Secretary said that those lessons had been learnt. We are not entirely convinced that they've been entirely learned yet. We do hope that, in the future, those lessons will be learnt and there won't be a future public accounts chairman standing here in the future, saying about a future project, 'Isn't it a shame that those lessons weren't learned?' We need to do this for the Circuit of Wales. Let's put this right and make sure that, in the future, these mistakes aren't made.
Welsh: Os caf gyfeirio at rai o'r cyfraniadau - yn gyntaf, Adam Price. Adam, fe nodoch fod proses gwneud penderfyniadau Llywodraeth Cymru yn wael, a dangoswyd hynny gan yr hyn a welsom yn y Pwyllgor Cyfrifon Cyhoeddus wrth edrych ar y dystiolaeth o broses Cylchffordd Cymru a'r problemau. Ac rydych yn iawn: rhaid inni ddod allan o'r llanastr hwn. Credaf mai dyna'r brif neges a ddaw gan y pwyllgor. Rydym yn y sefyllfa rydym ynddi, fel sy'n cael ei ddweud yn aml, ac mae angen edrych yn awr i'r dyfodol a gwneud yn siŵr fod y problemau sydd wedi digwydd yn y gorffennol - y camgymeriadau, os ydych am eu galw'n hynny, sydd wedi digwydd yn y gorffennol ar sawl lefel wahanol - yn cael eu hunioni fel na chaiff yr un camgymeriadau eu hailadrodd os ceir prosiect o'r math hwn eto yn y dyfodol. Fe ddefnyddioch chi'r ymadrodd, 'tirwedd o freuddwydion briw', a rhaid inni beidio ag anghofio ar ddiwedd hyn i gyd fod yna ardal o Gymru sy'n ddifreintiedig iawn, ac angen ei hadfywio, lle mae pobl yn disgwyl i Lywodraeth Cymru roi gobaith ar gyfer y dyfodol, ar gyfer adfywio, ar gyfer ailddatblygu, ac roeddent yn disgwyl i'r prosiect hwn fod yn ffordd o godi eu hunain allan o'r problemau y maent ynddynt ac y maent wedi bod ynddynt ers amser hir iawn. Ac ni allwch ond deall bod y bobl hynny'n teimlo bod cyfle wedi'i gipio oddi wrthynt ar ôl y fath ddisgwyl hir pan oeddent yn meddwl y byddai'r prosiect hwnnw'n mynd rhagddo. Neil Hamilton, fe ddisgrifioch chi brosiect Cylchffordd Cymru fel un ysbrydoledig ac fe sonioch chi am anghymhwysedd syfrdanol ar hyd y llwybr a gymerwyd. Fel y dywedoch, gallai Cylchffordd Cymru fod wedi newid pethau'n sylfaenol, ac rydych chi'n iawn, ni allai'r pwyllgor ddirnad pam y rhoddwyd y prosiect o'r neilltu yn y pen draw, pam y cafodd ei ddirwyn i ben yn y pen draw, o ganlyniad i ddyfais gyfrifyddu yn llyfr rheolau'r Trysorlys. Ac fel y dywedoch chi, wrth gwrs, nid oedd y ddyfais gyfrifyddu'n ychwanegiad newydd i lyfr rheolau'r Trysorlys. Roedd wedi bod yno o ddiwrnod cyntaf y prosiect hwn, o gamau cyntaf y prosiect hwn. Felly, ni allem ddeall - a chredaf ar ddiwedd ein trafodaethau na allai'r pwyllgor ddeall - pam na chrybwyllwyd y ddyfais gyfrifyddu yn llawer cynharach fel rheswm dros beidio â bwrw ymlaen gyda'r prosiect, fel rheswm dros fynd at y datblygwyr a dweud, 'Edrychwch, mae hyn yn rhywbeth na all Llywodraeth Cymru ei fforddio.' Ni allem ddeall hynny. Nid oedd diwydrwydd dyladwy, a gafodd ei gyflawni, i'w weld ar y diwedd yn rhan o'r broses benderfynu derfynol. Felly, mae'n peri i ni ofyn: 'Pam y gwnaethoch chi'r diwydrwydd dyladwy?' Wel, wrth gwrs, rhaid ichi wneud y diwydrwydd dyladwy; mae hynny i gyd yn rhan o roi caniatâd i brosiect. Felly, mae'n amlwg fod rhywbeth wedi mynd o'i le yn yr achos hwnnw. Mohammad Asghar, fe gyfeirioch chi at broses wneud penderfyniadau 'anesboniadwy' - a dyna'r term sy'n ymddangos yn adroddiad y Pwyllgor Cyfrifon Cyhoeddus drwyddo draw - a arweiniodd at wastraffu miliynau o bunnoedd o arian trethdalwyr. Ac roedd hi'n ymddangos, o'n safbwynt ni, fod yna ddiffyg goruchwyliaeth weinidogol neu ddiffyg trywydd papur fan lleiaf i benderfynu a oedd goruchwyliaeth weinidogol ai peidio ac yn fy marn i, dyna oedd un o'r pethau a berai fwyaf o bryder o'r cyfan. Ni allem weld a oedd - nid chi, nid y Gweinidog presennol; y Gweinidog blaenorol a oedd ynghlwm wrth hyn. Ni allem benderfynu a oedd hi wedi cymeradwyo'r penderfyniad i ariannu rhan FTR y cynllun ai peidio. Ni chafwyd trywydd papur. Am swm o £300,000, ni ellir caniatáu i hynny ddigwydd yn y dyfodol. Efallai fod yna gytundeb ar lafar, ond ni all hynny fod yn ddigon. Fel Pwyllgor Cyfrifon Cyhoeddus, rhaid inni allu dangos, pan fydd prosiectau ac arian yn cael eu cymeradwyo, fod yna reswm dilys dros wneud hynny. Felly, roedd hynny'n amlwg yn rhan wael o'r broses hon. Yn olaf, a gaf fi groesawu sylwadau Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet? Gwnaethoch nifer o bwyntiau da iawn, ac rwy'n falch eich bod wedi gwrando ar y materion a nodais a'r materion y mae Aelodau eraill wedi'u crybwyll ac a nodwyd gan yr adroddiad, a'ch bod yn bwriadu unioni rhai o'r rhain - yr holl bethau hyn. A gadewch i ni fod yn glir, mae rhai o'r Aelodau yma wedi bod yn llafar iawn eu cefnogaeth i Cylchffordd Cymru ers amser maith ac yn parhau i fod. Nid yw rhai Aelodau wedi bod yn hoff o'r prosiect o gam cynnar iawn. Nid dyna oedd diben y pwyllgor. Nid oeddem yn edrych ar hyn er mwyn dweud a oedd hwn yn benderfyniad polisi cywir gan Lywodraeth Cymru ai peidio. Rydym yno i ddweud, ar hyd y ffordd, wrth wneud penderfyniadau a phan gâi arian ei ryddhau, fod hynny wedi'i wneud am y rhesymau cywir. Mae'n ddrwg iawn gennyf ddweud na allai'r Pwyllgor Cyfrifon Cyhoeddus ddweud bod gwerth am arian wedi'i gyflawni wrth wario arian ar y prosiect hwn mewn ffyrdd gwahanol, ac rydym yn gobeithio o ddifrif, yn y dyfodol, y bydd Llywodraeth Cymru'n dysgu gwersi o'r hyn sydd wedi digwydd yma. Gwn fod Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet wedi dweud bod y gwersi hynny wedi'u dysgu. Nid ydym yn gwbl argyhoeddedig eu bod wedi'u dysgu'n gyfan gwbl eto. Yn y dyfodol, rydym yn gobeithio y bydd y gwersi wedi'u dysgu ac na fydd cadeirydd cyfrifon cyhoeddus yn sefyll yma yn y dyfodol, yn dweud am brosiect yn y dyfodol, 'Onid yw'n drueni na ddysgwyd y gwersi hyn?' Mae angen inni wneud hyn ar gyfer Cylchffordd Cymru. Gadewch i ni unioni hyn a gwneud yn siŵr, yn y dyfodol, nad yw'r camgymeriadau hyn yn cael eu gwneud.