English: I was wondering if the Cabinet Secretary could just help us in explaining the arc of policy development here, because we had a couple of access to finance reviews - they were both over a period of six months - and many of their key recommendations you haven't followed, and in fact you've done the opposite. You, for example, have allowed Finance Wales currently to operate investment funds in England. That was in direct contravention of the recommendation of the review team, and they specifically said that they didn't feel Finance Wales was the right structure to take the development bank forward as well. A particular area, venture capital, they touched on a lot. By its nature, it's very high risk. Some would say it's almost, in most cases, driven by greed. It doesn't actually sit alongside a culture such as you would expect in a publicly owned development bank, which is necessarily rule-bound and somewhat more risk averse. Someone who has worked in the City described it to me today as having a motorcycle repair shop in a maternity ward. And the suggestion of the access to finance review was that, actually, that element - we have a significant problem in Wales in accessing venture capital - was effectively outsourced, so working with existing and new venture capital funds. It would be interesting to see, Cabinet Secretary, whether we are going down that route. He touched - I think that Russell George asked about borrowing. In your statement, you referred to learning from international examples - the Business Development Bank of Canada, Finnvera in Finland - those development banks do have the ability to borrow on their own account, so could you say a little bit more about whether the development bank will have that ability? I was interested in what he said just at the end of his remarks there in terms of being open to future structures, because there are some interesting suggestions. If it's a self-financing institution that we're talking about, why not actually create, effectively, an independent public-purpose institution, which either through - I hesitate to suggest a guarantee, Cabinet Secretary, at this stage, or, as Gerry Holtham has suggested, possibly endowing the institution, which is then able to have the freedom to go on and work with possibly a greater sense of agility than would be the case currently? Finally, just on the headquarters, I'm a little bit worried, Cabinet Secretary - . I loved the front page of 'The Leader' today, and it's great to see new national institutions being created across the length and breadth of Wales, but it has to be real. You know, didn't RBS pull this trick when they said their headquarters was in Edinburgh but, actually, most of the key decision makers were in London? Can he say more about the number of senior directors who will be based in the headquarters, if it's not to be just a headquarters in name?
Welsh: Rwy'n holi tybed a allai Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet ein helpu ni drwy esbonio hanes y datblygu polisi yma, oherwydd cawsom fynediad at ddau adolygiad cyllid - roedd y ddau dros gyfnod o chwe mis - ac nid ydych wedi dilyn llawer o'u hargymhellion allweddol, ac yn wir, fe wnaethoch yn groes i hynny. Rydych chi, er enghraifft, wedi caniatáu i Gyllid Cymru weithredu cronfeydd buddsoddi yn Lloegr ar hyn o bryd. Roedd hynny yn gwbl groes i argymhelliad y tîm adolygu, ac fe ddywedon nhw'n benodol nad oedden nhw'n teimlo mai Cyllid Cymru oedd y strwythur cywir i fynd â'r banc datblygu yn ei flaen hefyd. Roedden nhw'n trafod maes penodol, sef cyfalaf menter, lawer gwaith. Wrth ei natur, y mae'n golygu risg uchel iawn. Byddai rhai yn dweud ei fod, yn y rhan fwyaf o achosion, bron â bod, yn cael ei yrru gan drachwant. Nid yw'n sefyll ochr yn ochr â diwylliant, fel y byddech yn ei ddisgwyl gyda banc datblygu sy'n eiddo cyhoeddus, sydd o reidrwydd wedi ei rwymo yn y rheolau ac yn tueddu i fod rhywfaint yn llai parod i dderbyn risg. Disgrifiwyd hyn i mi heddiw gan rywun sydd wedi gweithio yn y Ddinas fel cael siop trwsio beiciau modur mewn ward mamolaeth. A'r awgrym o ran mynediad at adolygiad cyllid oedd, mewn gwirionedd, fod yr elfen honno - mae gennym broblem sylweddol yng Nghymru o ran mynediad at gyfalaf menter - yn cael ei chyfeirio yn allanol i bob pwrpas, ac felly'n gweithio gyda chronfeydd cyfalaf menter presennol a rhai newydd. Byddai'n ddiddorol gweld, Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet, a ydym yn mynd ar hyd y llwybr hwnnw. Crybwyllodd - rwy'n credu bod Russell George wedi holi am fenthyca. Yn eich datganiad, roeddech yn cyfeirio at ddysgu o'r enghreifftiau rhyngwladol - Banc Datblygu Busnes Canada, Finnvera yn y Ffindir - mae gan y banciau datblygu hynny y gallu i fenthyca ar eu liwt eu hunain, felly a wnewch chi ddweud ychydig mwy ynghylch a fydd gan y banc datblygu y gallu i wneud hynny? Roedd gen i ddiddordeb yn yr hyn a ddywedodd yn union ar ddiwedd ei sylwadau nawr o ran bod yn agored i strwythurau'r dyfodol, oherwydd mae rhai awgrymiadau diddorol i'w cael. Os mai sefydliad sydd yn ei ariannu ei hunan yr ydym yn ei drafod, pam na chrëwn ni mewn gwirionedd, i bob pwrpas, sefydliad annibynnol cyhoeddus ei ddibenion, a fyddai naill ai drwy - rwy'n ymatal rhag awgrymu gwarant, Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet, ar hyn o bryd, neu, fel y mae Gerry Holtham wedi ei awgrymu waddoli'r sefydliad o bosibl, sydd wedyn yn gallu bod yn rhydd i fynd ymlaen a gweithio gyda mwy o ymdeimlad o ystwythder o bosibl nag a fyddai'n wir ar hyn o bryd? Yn olaf, rwyf ychydig yn bryderus am y pencadlys, Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet - . Roeddwn wrth fy modd â thudalen flaen Y Leader heddiw, ac mae'n ardderchog gweld sefydliadau cenedlaethol newydd yn cael eu creu ar hyd a lled Cymru, ond mae'n rhaid i'r peth fod yn ddilys. Wyddoch chi, oni wnaeth RBS dwyllo wrth ddweud bod eu pencadlys yng Nghaeredin, ond, mewn gwirionedd, roedd y rhan fwyaf o'r rhai oedd yn gwneud y penderfyniadau allweddol yn Llundain? A wnaiff ddweud mwy am nifer yr uwch gyfarwyddwyr a fydd yn cael eu lleoli yn y pencadlys, os nad yw am fod yn bencadlys mewn enw'n unig?