English: The Cabinet Secretary has twice said that the Circuit of Wales now accept his 50/50 split in terms of the guarantee. Can I invite him to say a little more explicitly if they have agreed to a 50/50 split immediately, or whether they have agreed to work towards reducing the exposure of the public sector to that 50 per cent level over time? Can I ask him this as well? He's said, of course, that Wales and the Welsh Government are open for business, and yet this proposal has been on his desk for many weeks. The company has repeatedly been seeking to engage with him, and yet it was only this morning, with minutes to go to this statement, and a statement, actually, that changed from the written statement because those words that they have agreed to the 50/50 split were added because, of course, the negotiation was conducted with the clock ticking. Now, surely, that is no way to conduct a proper negotiation on such a large and complex project as this. Could he also say, as has already been raised, what basis is this new policy of the 50/50 split, which has landed like tablets of stone out of nowhere? What basis is that? Is it based on some UK Government green book policy, et cetera? We have the use of contingent liability, which is a standard procedure used by the UK Government, so where does this 50/50 split come from? And why prevent the local authorities? If the Welsh Government is prepared to accept a 50 per cent guarantee and the local authorities, because of the economic impact, particularly in some of the deprived communities, said, 'We're happy, on behalf of our residents, to actually take a little bit of this risk as well', why prevent them from doing that? Why be so dogmatic in this case? He refers to risk. Risk in this context constitutes two elements of course: there's the quantum of the guarantee, but also it's the likelihood of the guarantee ever arising; i.e. will the project fail? And I put it to the Cabinet Secretary, if he believes -
Welsh: Mae Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet wedi dweud ddwywaith fod Cylchffordd Cymru bellach yn derbyn ei raniad 50/50 o ran y warant. A gaf fi ei wahodd i ddweud ychydig yn fwy penodol pa un a ydynt wedi cytuno i raniad o 50/50 ar unwaith, neu a ydynt wedi cytuno i weithio tuag at leihau'r risg y mae'r sector cyhoeddus yn ei wynebu i'r lefel honno o 50 y cant dros gyfnod o amser? A gaf fi ofyn hyn iddo hefyd? Mae wedi dweud, wrth gwrs, fod Cymru a Llywodraeth Cymru ar agor ar gyfer busnes, ac eto mae'r cynnig hwn wedi bod ar ei ddesg ers nifer o wythnosau. Dro ar ôl tro, mae'r cwmni wedi ceisio ymgysylltu ag ef, ac eto y bore yma yn unig, gyda munudau i fynd tan y datganiad hwn, a datganiad, mewn gwirionedd, a newidiodd o'r datganiad ysgrifenedig am fod y geiriau hynny eu bod wedi cytuno i'r rhaniad 50/50 wedi eu hychwanegu oherwydd, wrth gwrs, cynhaliwyd y drafodaeth gyda'r cloc yn tician. Nawr, yn sicr nid dyma'r ffordd i gynnal trafodaeth briodol ar brosiect mor fawr a chymhleth â hwn. A wnaiff ddweud hefyd, fel y crybwyllwyd eisoes, pa sail sydd i'r polisi newydd hwn o'r rhaniad 50/50, sydd wedi glanio fel llechi carreg o unman? Pa sail sydd i hynny? A yw'n seiliedig ar ryw bolisi llyfr gwyrdd gan Lywodraeth y DU, ac ati? Mae gennym y defnydd o atebolrwydd amodol, sy'n weithdrefn safonol a ddefnyddir gan Lywodraeth y DU, felly o ble y daw'r rhaniad hwn o 50/50? A pham atal awdurdodau lleol? Os yw Llywodraeth Cymru yn barod i dderbyn gwarant o 50 y cant a bod yr awdurdodau lleol, oherwydd yr effaith economaidd, yn enwedig yn rhai o'r cymunedau difreintiedig, wedi dweud, 'Rydym yn hapus, ar ran ein trigolion, i ysgwyddo ychydig bach o'r risg hefyd mewn gwirionedd', pam eu hatal rhag gwneud hynny? Pam bod mor ddogmatig yn yr achos hwn? Mae'n cyfeirio at risg. Mae dwy elfen i risg yn y cyd-destun hwn, wrth gwrs: maint y warant, ond hefyd y tebygolrwydd y bydd y warant yn codi byth; h.y. a fydd y prosiect yn methu? Ac rwy'n awgrymu wrth Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet, os yw'n credu -