English: Well, there can be no better illustration of the dead hand of Government than this decision today, and the contrast is most instructive between what's going on an hour away from Cardiff along the M4 by James Dyson creating an international technology park, which is going to cost between £2 billion and £3 billion, and our utter failure to be able to be the handmaiden of private finance for what would otherwise have been a transformational project in Ebbw Vale - a place that, goodness knows, needs every helping hand that it can get. [Interruption.] The Member for Blaenau Gwent can make silly party-political points, but I don't think they will impress his constituents, who are going to be the victims of his own Government's failure of imagination today. I notice that the Cabinet Secretary didn't actually give an answer to Adam Price a moment ago about publication of the due diligence, and I think this is absolutely vital. In fact, I think, in the presence of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, it's now clearly incumbent upon us to have the most wide-ranging investigation of the way in which this dismal story has unfolded over the course of the last six years. Are we really expected to believe that the Government accounting conventions about whether something is to be classified as public expenditure or private by the ONS and the Treasury have come as a blinding revelation today or yesterday and the Cabinet was totally unaware of these conventions hitherto? Why have we not heard this point at any stage in the past couple of years since this project has become a viable possibility in political terms? The funding structure of this project, although the numbers have changed, has been, in principle, the same since the start. We know that the Government has never been asked to put any public money in upfront; it's always been asked for a secondary contingent guarantee of private sector senior debt, which would crystallise only in circumstances when the site had been fully developed. So, what the Government liability would have been is an annual figure to refund the senior investors if the Circuit of Wales promoters were unable to pay the interest on their bonds, starting at the earliest in 2024 and ending in 2057. So, we're asked to believe that we have to capitalise the whole of this expenditure today when none of it is going fall due until 2024, and only then on a one thirty third basis - on a 3 per cent per annum basis - which will actually come out of the Government's annual managed expenditure. And so quite why this needs to be capitalised at this stage and then torpedo the entire project is a matter that must be regarded as of the utmost seriousness, because here accounting conventions, rather than the substance of the project, are the dagger that the Cabinet Secretary has plunged into the heart of the project. The reason for that has not been explained, because it is a contingent guarantee that may never be called, because, if the racetrack were to be built and were able to pay the lenders less than half of the cost of construction - what they're due under their current contracts - then the project would not be in danger at all, and nothing would ever come onto the Government's accounts. So, I'm at a total loss to understand why this possibility - which may be called upon at some future date, but only on that limited basis - should now be regarded as one big sum that could fall due immediately, because that will never happen. And, therefore, what I want to know is why this issue has not been addressed hitherto between the Welsh Government and the Treasury or the Office for National Statistics, and why it is that the people of Ebbw Vale, most of all, have been led up the garden path until this side of a general election,
Welsh: Wel, ni ellir cael gwell darlun o law farw'r Llywodraeth na'r penderfyniad hwn heddiw. Mae'r cyferbyniad yn addysgiadol iawn rhwng yr hyn sy'n digwydd awr o daith o Gaerdydd ar hyd yr M4 gan James Dyson yn creu parc technoleg rhyngwladol, sydd yn mynd i gostio rhwng £2 biliwn a £3 biliwn, a'n methiant llwyr ni i allu bod yn llawforwyn i gyllid preifat ar gyfer yr hyn a fyddai fel arall wedi bod yn brosiect trawsnewidiol yng Nglyn Ebwy - sydd angen, dyn a ŵyr, bob help llaw posib. [Torri ar draws.] Gall yr Aelod dros Flaenau Gwent wneud pwyntiau pleidiol gwirion, ond nid wyf i'n credu y byddan nhw yn gwneud argraff dda ar ei etholwyr, sydd yn mynd i fod yn ddioddef yn sgil methiant dychymyg ei Lywodraeth ef ei hun heddiw. Rwy'n sylwi na roddodd Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet ateb mewn gwirionedd i Adam Price funud yn ôl am gyhoeddiad y diwydrwydd dyladwy, ac rwy'n credu bod hyn yn gwbl hanfodol. A dweud y gwir, yn fy marn i, ym mhresenoldeb Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor Cyfrifon Cyhoeddus, mae bellach yn amlwg ei bod yn ddyletswydd arnom i gael yr ymchwiliad ehangaf o'r ffordd y mae'r stori ddigalon hon wedi datblygu yn ystod y chwe blynedd diwethaf. A oes disgwyl inni gredu bod confensiynau cyfrifyddu Llywodraeth ynghylch a yw rhywbeth yn cael ei dosbarthu yn wariant cyhoeddus neu breifat gan y Swyddfa Ystadegau Gwladol a'r Trysorlys wedi dod fel datguddiad llachar heddiw neu ddoe, a bod y Cabinet yn hollol anymwybodol o'r confensiynau hyn cyn hynny? Pam nad ydym ni wedi clywed y pwynt hwn ar unrhyw gam yn y ddwy flynedd ddiwethaf ers i'r prosiect hwn ddod yn bosibilrwydd ymarferol mewn termau gwleidyddol? Mae strwythur ariannu'r prosiect hwn, er bod y niferoedd wedi newid, mewn egwyddor, wedi aros yr un fath o'r cychwyn cyntaf. Rydym yn gwybod nad yw'r Llywodraeth wedi cael cais erioed i roi unrhyw arian cyhoeddus ynddo ymlaen llaw; cais fu hwn bob amser am warant eilaidd wrth gefn o uwch ddyled y sector preifat, a fyddai'n crisialu yn unig mewn amgylchiadau pan fyddai'r safle wedi cael ei ddatblygu yn llawn. Felly, atebolrwydd y Llywodraeth fyddai ffigur blynyddol i ad-dalu'r uwch fuddsoddwyr pe byddai hyrwyddwyr Cylchdaith Cymru yn methu talu'r llog ar eu bondiau, gan ddechrau ar ei gynharaf yn 2024 a dod i ben yn 2057. Felly, mae disgwyl i ni gredu ei bod yn rhaid i ni gyfalafu'r gwariant hwn i gyd heddiw pan na fydd yn ddyledus tan 2024, a dim ond wedyn ar sail un mewn tri deg a thri - ar sail 3 y cant y flwyddyn - a fydd mewn gwirionedd yn dod allan o wariant y Llywodraeth a reolir yn flynyddol. Ac felly mae pam mae angen i hyn gael ei gyfalafu ar hyn o bryd ac yna chwalu'r prosiect cyfan yn fater y mae'n rhaid ei ystyried yn ddifrifol iawn, oherwydd, yn y fan hon, confensiynau cyfrifyddu yn hytrach na sylwedd y prosiect, yw'r gyllell y mae Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet wedi ei phlannu yng nghalon y prosiect. Nid eglurwyd y rheswm am hynny, oherwydd ei fod yn warant wrth gefn na fyddai o bosib byth galw amdano, oherwydd, pe byddai'r trac rasio yn cael ei adeiladu ac yn gallu talu llai na hanner y gost adeiladu i'r benthycwyr - yr hyn sy'n ddyledus iddynt dan eu contractau cyfredol - yna ni fyddai'r prosiect mewn perygl o gwbl, ac ni fyddai unrhyw beth yn dod i gyfrifon y Llywodraeth. Felly, ni allaf ddeall pam y dylai'r posibilrwydd hwn - y bydd galw amdano o bosib rywbryd yn y dyfodol, ond ar y sail gyfyngedig honno'n unig - nawr gael ei ystyried yn un swm mawr a allai fod yn ddyledus ar unwaith, oherwydd ni fydd hynny byth yn digwydd. Felly, yr hyn yr wyf yn dymuno ei wybod yw pam nad yw'r mater hwn wedi cael sylw hyd yma gan Lywodraeth Cymru a'r Trysorlys neu'r Swyddfa Ystadegau Gwladol, a pham mae pobl Glynebwy, yn bennaf oll, wedi cael eu camarwain tan y cyfnod hwn wedi'r etholiad cyffredinol.