English: Thank you for the three distinct points of questioning. On the first of understanding whether there's been a different approach to the technology assessment undertaken by NICE on both the clinical effectiveness but also the cost-effectiveness in terms of improved life outcomes, I couldn't honestly tell you about the detail of that, although I'll happily have a conversation with officials and people in the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group to understand whether there was any difference, but I'm certainly not qualified to give you an answer on whether there was a different approach. I'll happily have a look at the process and the manner in which that's been undertaken and come back to you. On the second point, about whether we have the same deal in Wales, yes, we do. We have the same terms applying in Wales at the same time. That's been a part of that negotiation. I was actually in the audience at the NHS Confederation conference in England when Simon Stevens announced the deal from the stage, which set a few hares running about whether it was an England-only deal or not. So, I'm really happy to have been able to confirm it's an England and Wales deal, with no differential in terms of the availability of the treatment here in Wales. Then, for the future, I think this really does tell us something about not just campaigning, but actually about the grown-up relationship we need to have, both with the public and decision makers, but also with the people in the pharmaceutical industry. Because it's easy to run a campaign based on the emotions of people potentially having a life-extending or a life-saving drug, but as you rightly recognise, there has to be a balance for the public purse and for all of us together about how much we are collectively prepared to pay for individual treatments and to understand the genuine efficacy of those treatments. We've seen in the cancer drugs fund, the independent review, that it recognised that of the £1.27 billion, about £1 billion couldn't really have been said to have been spent on improving outcomes. That's a poor way to go about this, and I don't think it's a great use of public money. So, we do have to understand that a process that is genuine, that is expert and evidence led provides proper reassurance about the value and the efficacy of treatments, and equally that more grown-up conversation throughout the pharmaceutical industries about what they can expect and what the public purse can and will deliver, and that evidence we require on that efficacy and the cost and value of it.
Welsh: Diolch am y tri chwestiwn gwahanol. Ar y cwestiwn cyntaf ynglŷn â deall a oes dull gwahanol wedi'i weithredu ar gyfer yr asesiad technoleg a gyflawnwyd gan NICE ar effeithiolrwydd clinigol a hefyd ar gosteffeithiolrwydd mewn perthynas â chanlyniadau bywyd gwell, ni allwn ddweud dim wrthych am y manylion hynny a bod yn onest, er y byddwn yn hapus i gael sgwrs gyda swyddogion a phobl yng Ngrŵp Strategaeth Feddyginiaethau Cymru i ddeall a oedd unrhyw wahaniaeth, ond yn sicr nid wyf yn gymwys i roi ateb i chi ynglŷn ag a oedd yna ddull gwahanol. Rwy'n hapus i gael golwg ar y broses a'r modd y cyflawnwyd hynny a dod yn ôl atoch. Ar yr ail bwynt, yn gofyn ai'r un cytundeb sydd gennym yng Nghymru, ie, yr un cytundeb ydyw. Mae gennym yr un telerau yng Nghymru, ar yr un pryd. Roedd hynny'n rhan o'r negodi. Mewn gwirionedd, roeddwn yn y gynulleidfa yng nghynhadledd Cydffederasiwn y GIG yn Lloegr pan gyhoeddodd Simon Stevens y cytundeb o'r llwyfan, a llwyddo i godi sawl sgwarnog ynglŷn ag ai cytundeb ar gyfer Lloegr yn unig ydoedd ai peidio. Felly, rwy'n hapus iawn o fod wedi gallu cadarnhau ei fod yn gytundeb ar gyfer Cymru a Lloegr, heb unrhyw wahaniaeth o ran argaeledd y driniaeth yma yng Nghymru. Yna, ar gyfer y dyfodol, rwy'n credu bod hyn yn sicr yn dweud rhywbeth wrthym nid yn unig am ymgyrchu ond am y berthynas aeddfed y mae angen i ni ei chael mewn gwirionedd gyda'r cyhoedd a'r rhai sy'n gwneud penderfyniadau, ond hefyd gyda phobl yn y diwydiant fferyllol. Oherwydd mae'n hawdd cynnal ymgyrch sy'n seiliedig ar emosiynau pobl a allai gael cyffur sy'n ymestyn eu bywydau neu'n achub eu bywydau, ond fel rydych yn ei gydnabod yn gywir, mae'n rhaid cael cydbwysedd i bwrs y wlad ac i bawb ohonom gyda'n gilydd o ran faint rydym yn barod i'w dalu ar y cyd am driniaethau unigol ac i ddeall effeithiolrwydd gwirioneddol y triniaethau hynny. Rydym wedi gweld yn y gronfa cyffuriau canser, yr adolygiad annibynnol, ei fod yn cydnabod nad oedd yn bosibl dweud go iawn fod tua £1 biliwn, o'r £1.27 biliwn, wedi cael ei wario ar wella canlyniadau. Mae honno'n ffordd wael o wneud hyn, ac nid wyf yn credu ei fod yn ddefnydd da iawn o arian cyhoeddus. Felly, mae'n rhaid i ni ddeall bod proses sy'n ddilys, sy'n arbenigol ac sy'n cael ei harwain gan dystiolaeth yn darparu sicrwydd priodol am werth ac effeithiolrwydd triniaethau, ac yn yr un modd y sgwrs fwy aeddfed honno drwy'r diwydiannau fferyllol ynglŷn â'r hyn y gallant ei ddisgwyl a'r hyn y gall ac y bydd pwrs y wlad yn ei gyflawni, a'r dystiolaeth honno rydym ei hangen ar yr effeithiolrwydd hwnnw ynghyd â'i gost a'i werth.