English: Well, certainly it has been an illuminating, if somewhat dispiriting debate in its conclusion, with the remarks of the Minister, but I'd like to thank all Members who contributed to it. Peter Fox is a reasonable man - I'm not sure that I can say that more broadly, it has to be said - but I think the central point here, Peter, is this: if we have these powers, there's no point having powers if they're incredibly difficult to use. And, at the moment, with devolving rates but not bands, it means we don't really have the ability to use the powers to the full. And that's, really, the reasonable demand. And you can make your case in terms of your aspirations as to how to use them and we'll make ours, but isn't that how democratic accountability is meant to work? And that's, essentially, the core point that my colleague Luke Fletcher was making, that fiscal policy is critical to being a parliament, isn't it? We need to be accountable to the communities that we're meant to serve and, at the moment, without these full powers, we're not able to do that. I agree with Mike - I should have taken an intervention now, Mike; I apologise. You referred to asymmetric devolution, and let's remember that the policy that we are seeking to get a Labour Government to adopt here was a Labour proposal. Through the Vow, through the Smith commission, this was a Labour policy, a Labour proposal, and yet here in Wales, with the one Government that the Labour Party runs, they're opposing it. I think you're right, Mike, as well, that there's a wider agenda. We've got to look at dividend income, income from savings, et cetera. I think we've got to look at capital gains tax as well to make sure that, when you devolve the powers and use them, there aren't actually loopholes. I'll be kind like you and talk about tax avoidance, rather than anything else. So, let's look at that and let's look at the interrelationship with national insurance as well, as the Scottish Government are calling for. Sioned Williams is right that, in the Basque Country, we see more devolution there of tax powers. In fact, even the provincial councils of Gipuzkoa and Bizkaia arguably have more formal tax powers than we have here. So, certainly we're outside of the mainstream, aren't we? Even now, even after 20 years and more of devolution in this hugely centralised UK state. And that's the core of this motion, to try to liberate ourselves from that. I'd like to say that Delyth Jewell reminded us that we need to break this negative right-wing narrative around tax and public expenditure. The Labour leadership at Westminster and more broadly is falling into a trap here, I think, in the kind of language that it's using, because ultimately, instead of talking just about tax burdens, we need to talk about tax levers, about tax tools and tax instruments, because taxation ultimately, revenue, is the means by which we actually generate the basis for public expenditure, to do everything that we do in this place for the people that we represent, and we should make that positive case. That's why we should have the powers, and that's why I was so disappointed by the response of the Government - a Government that has talked about radical federalism. There is nothing in the policy that the Minister has announced, rejecting this, that you could describe as either 'federalist' or 'radical'. There are two adjectives that I can apply to what I hear from the Minister, which are 'conservative' and 'unionist'. Where is the vision for the future - ? [ Interruption.] Well, you'll be voting with the Conservatives on this motion, won't you, in rejecting our position? Because you do not essentially accept the case that we have set out, that unless we actually have full devolution, we are not going to be able to meet the challenge that we have set ourselves in creating the kind of decent society - . And I don't see it; where is the radicalism in your constitutional vision for Wales, based on what the finance Minister has said to us?
Welsh: Wel, yn sicr mae wedi bod yn ddadl ddadlennol, os braidd yn ddigalon ar ei therfyn, gyda sylwadau'r Gweinidog, ond hoffwn ddiolch i'r holl Aelodau a gyfrannodd ati. Mae Peter Fox yn ddyn rhesymol - nid wyf yn siŵr os gallaf ddweud hynny'n fwy cyffredinol, rhaid dweud - ond rwy'n credu mai'r pwynt canolog yma, Peter, yw hwn: os oes gennym y pwerau hyn, nid oes pwynt cael pwerau os ydynt yn anhygoel o anodd i'w defnyddio. Ac ar hyn o bryd, gyda chyfraddau wedi'u datganoli ond nid bandiau, mae'n golygu nad oes gennym allu mewn gwirionedd i ddefnyddio'r pwerau i'r eithaf. A dyna yw'r galw rhesymol mewn gwirionedd. A gallwch gyflwyno eich achos o ran eich dyheadau ynglŷn â sut i'w defnyddio ac fe wnawn ninnau yr un fath, ond onid dyna sut mae atebolrwydd democrataidd i fod i weithio? A dyna, yn y bôn, yw'r pwynt craidd a wnaeth fy nghyd-Aelod Luke Fletcher, fod polisi cyllidol yn hanfodol i fod yn senedd, onid yw? Mae angen inni fod yn atebol i'r cymunedau rydym i fod i'w gwasanaethu ac ar hyn o bryd, heb y pwerau llawn hyn, ni allwn wneud hynny. Rwy'n cytuno â Mike - dylwn fod wedi cymryd ymyriad nawr, Mike; rwy'n ymddiheuro. Fe gyfeirioch chi at ddatganoli anghymesur, a gadewch inni gofio bod y polisi rydym yn ceisio cael Llywodraeth Lafur i'w fabwysiadu yma yn gynnig Llafur. Drwy'r Addewid, drwy gomisiwn Smith, polisi Llafur oedd hwn, cynnig Llafur, ac eto yma yng Nghymru, gyda'r un Lywodraeth y mae'r Blaid Lafur yn ei rhedeg, maent yn ei wrthwynebu. Rwy'n credu eich bod chi'n iawn hefyd, Mike, fod yna agenda ehangach. Mae'n rhaid inni edrych ar incwm difidend, incwm o gynilion, ac yn y blaen. Rwy'n credu bod yn rhaid inni edrych ar dreth enillion cyfalaf yn ogystal i sicrhau, pan fyddwch chi'n datganoli'r pwerau ac yn eu defnyddio, nad oes bylchau mewn gwirionedd. Fe fyddaf yn garedig fel chi a siarad am osgoi treth yn hytrach nag unrhyw beth arall. Felly, gadewch inni edrych ar hynny a gadewch inni edrych ar y gydberthynas ag yswiriant gwladol hefyd, fel y mae Llywodraeth yr Alban yn galw amdano. Mae Sioned Williams yn iawn ein bod yn gweld mwy o ddatganoli pwerau trethu yng Ngwlad y Basg. Yn wir, gellid dadlau bod gan gynghorau taleithiol Gipuzkoa a Bizkaia hyd yn oed bwerau treth mwy ffurfiol nag sydd gennym ni yma. Felly, yn sicr rydym oddi allan i'r brif ffrwd, onid ydym? Hyd yn oed nawr, hyd yn oed ar ôl 20 mlynedd a mwy o ddatganoli yng ngwladwriaeth hynod ganolog y DU. A dyna graidd y cynnig hwn, ceisio rhyddhau ein hunain o hynny. Carwn ddweud bod Delyth Jewell wedi ein hatgoffa bod angen inni dorri'r naratif asgell dde negyddol ynghylch treth a gwariant cyhoeddus. Mae arweinyddiaeth Llafur yn San Steffan ac yn ehangach yn syrthio i fagl yma yn fy marn i, yn y math o iaith y mae'n ei defnyddio, oherwydd yn y pen draw, yn lle siarad am feichiau treth yn unig, mae angen inni siarad am ysgogiadau treth, am arfau treth ac offerynnau treth, oherwydd trethiant yn y pen draw, refeniw, yw'r modd y cynhyrchwn y sail ar gyfer gwariant cyhoeddus, i wneud popeth a wnawn yn y lle hwn ar gyfer y bobl a gynrychiolwn, a dylem wneud yr achos cadarnhaol hwnnw. Dyna pam y dylem gael y pwerau, a dyna pam y cefais fy siomi gymaint gan ymateb y Llywodraeth - Llywodraeth sydd wedi sôn am ffederaliaeth radical. Nid oes dim yn y polisi y mae'r Gweinidog wedi'i gyhoeddi, yn gwrthod hyn, y gallech ei ddisgrifio fel 'ffederalaidd' na 'radical'. Mae yna ddau ansoddair y gallaf eu cysylltu â'r hyn rwy'n ei glywed gan y Gweinidog, sef 'ceidwadol' ac 'unoliaethol'. Ble mae'r weledigaeth ar gyfer y dyfodol - ? [ Torri ar draws.] Wel, fe fyddwch chi'n pleidleisio gyda'r Ceidwadwyr ar y cynnig hwn, oni fyddwch, drwy wrthod ein safbwynt? Oherwydd yn y bôn nid ydych yn derbyn yr achos rydym wedi'i gyflwyno, sef oni bai ein bod yn datganoli'n llawn mewn gwirionedd, ni fyddwn yn gallu goresgyn yr her rydym wedi'i gosod i ni ein hunain i greu'r math o gymdeithas weddus - . Ac nid wyf yn ei weld; ble mae'r radicaliaeth yn eich gweledigaeth gyfansoddiadol ar gyfer Cymru, yn seiliedig ar beth mae'r Gweinidog cyllid wedi'i ddweud wrthym?