English: Diolch, Lywydd, and I think I owe you the deepest of apologies of the Members that you have, certainly in my case, very indulgently allowed to contribute to this debate; I apologise to the Cabinet Secretary also for not having caught at least the earlier part of his remarks. The thing I've most noted is that the Cabinet Secretary has listened and he has thought and he has considered constructive criticism and suggestions and he's come to the Siambr today with a revised position. Like the Chair and other Members, I'm grateful that so many recommendations of the Finance Committee have been accepted in full or in part. My party intends to support the general principles of this Bill today. We took a decision prior to the election that the tax devolution that was in the St David's Day agreement we would support with a view to having a stable devolution settlement. I'm not sure we are going to have that, but, nonetheless, we will be supporting the devolution of this particular tax. I note the discussion we've had around, at least in the medium-term, the necessity for a finance Bill. I would think it equally important that that finance Bill, given we'll be moving to new budgetary structures, should allow not just the Siambr to express its views on the level of or the applicability of tax, but there should be a similar possibility to influence the level or priorities within the spending side of the ledger. I think the most disappointing thing we have in this at the moment is not having the initial rates on the face of the Bill. Given that this is an early tax that has been devolved to us in this Assembly or Parliament, it would be appropriate to mark that by this legislature determining what the tax rate is. This idea that it should be left to Ministers and that we should, at most, have a positive resolution that, as has been ably said by others, cannot be amended is simply not satisfactory. There is the issue that we've discussed of certainty for taxpayers, but I think much more fundamentally there is the issue of principle: should it be the elected legislature that is taxing the people of Wales, or should it be Ministers through some secondary process? I'm quite clear where I and my party stand on that, and I'm surprised that we haven't at least had the full-throated support of some others in the Siambr for that proposition. It may be they're making other agreements and having discussions, with which I wish them well, but nonetheless, I think as a principle it would be much better to have the rates initially applicable on the face of the Bill. Can I just highlight one area where I think the Cabinet Secretary has indicated he's prepared to change the legislation, which I thought was particularly important? We as a Finance Committee went to the Lamby Way recycling and disposal plant - although the disposal is shortly coming to an end - and as well as seeing the diversion of the Rhymney river, I was very impressed by the way that the weighing happened, and noted that the process was that the lorry with the waste on it came in, was weighed by the weighbridge as it entered, it disposed of the waste then was weighed on the way out, and the difference between those measurements was the amount of waste that was disposed, and it's that that drives the applicability of the tax. So, we were concerned to see in the Bill, as initially drafted, that there was a requirement to ascertain the weight of the waste being disposed prior to disposal, which would have flown in the face of what was actually done operationally, at least at that site, but potentially at others. So, I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for having taken account of the committee's views on that particular legislative difficulty, and I think, certainly from what I've seen so far, that the way that the Cabinet Secretary has engaged with the committee and the way that this legislative process is working as we take tax legislation into this place is a credit to the institution and to those involved. Thank you.
Welsh: Diolch, Lywydd, ac rwy'n credu y dylwn ymddiheuro'n fawr dros yr Aelodau yr ydych, yn sicr yn fy achos i, yn oddefgar iawn wedi caniatáu iddynt gyfrannu at y ddadl hon; ymddiheuraf i Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet hefyd am beidio â dal o leiaf rhan gyntaf ei sylwadau. Y peth a nodais fwyaf yw bod Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet wedi gwrando ac mae wedi meddwl ac mae wedi ystyried beirniadaeth ac awgrymiadau adeiladol ac mae wedi dod i'r Siambr heddiw gyda safbwynt diwygiedig. Fel y Cadeirydd ac Aelodau eraill, rwy'n ddiolchgar bod cynifer o argymhellion y Pwyllgor Cyllid wedi cael eu derbyn yn llawn neu'n rhannol. Mae fy mhlaid i yn bwriadu cefnogi egwyddorion cyffredinol y Bil hwn heddiw. Penderfynwyd cyn yr etholiad y byddem yn cefnogi'r datganoli trethi a oedd yn y cytundeb Dydd Gŵyl Dewi gyda'r bwriad o gael setliad datganoli sefydlog. Nid wyf yn siŵr ein bod yn mynd i gael hynny, ond, serch hynny, byddwn yn cefnogi datganoli'r dreth benodol hon. Nodaf y drafodaeth a gawsom, o leiaf yn y tymor canolig, am yr angen am Fil cyllid. Byddwn yn credu ei bod yr un mor bwysig y dylai'r Bil cyllid hwnnw, o ystyried y byddwn yn symud at strwythurau cyllidebol newydd, ganiatáu nid yn unig i'r Siambr fynegi ei barn ar y lefel o dreth neu'r cymhwysedd treth, ond dylai fod posibilrwydd tebyg i ddylanwadu ar y lefel neu'r blaenoriaethau o fewn ochr gwariant y cyfriflyfr. Rwy'n credu mai'r peth mwyaf siomedig ar y funud yw peidio â chael y cyfraddau cychwynnol ar wyneb y Bil. O ystyried bod hon yn dreth gynnar a gafodd ei datganoli i ni yn y Cynulliad hwn neu'r Senedd, byddai'n briodol nodi hynny gan y ddeddfwrfa hon sy'n penderfynu beth yw'r gyfradd dreth. Yn syml, nid yw'r syniad hwn yn foddhaol, sef y dylid ei adael i Weinidogion ac y dylem, ar y mwyaf, gael penderfyniad cadarnhaol, fel y dywedwyd yn fedrus gan bobl eraill, na ellir ei newid. Mae'r mater a drafodwyd ynghylch sicrwydd i drethdalwyr, ond rwy'n credu bod y mater o egwyddor yn llawer mwy sylfaenol: ai'r ddeddfwrfa etholedig ddylai fod yn trethu pobl Cymru, neu ai'r Gweinidogion ddylai fod yn gwneud hynny drwy ryw broses eilaidd? Rwy'n eithaf clir ynghylch fy safiad i a fy mhlaid ar hynny, ac rwy'n synnu nad ydym o leiaf wedi cael cefnogaeth lafar gan rai eraill yn y Siambr i'r cynnig. Efallai eu bod yn gwneud cytundebau eraill ac yn cael trafodaethau, a dymunaf yn dda iddynt. Ond serch hynny, rwy'n credu fel egwyddor y byddai'n llawer gwell cael y cyfraddau yn i ddechrau ar wyneb y Bil. A gaf i dynnu sylw at un maes lle rwy'n credu bod Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet wedi nodi ei fod yn barod i newid y ddeddfwriaeth, ac roeddwn yn credu ei fod yn arbennig o bwysig? Aethom ni fel Pwyllgor Cyllid i safle ailgylchu a gwaredu Lamby Way - er bod y gwaredu yn dod i ben cyn bo hir - ac yn ogystal â gweld dargyfeiriad afon Rhymni, roeddwn yn llawn edmygedd o'r ffordd yr oedd y pwyso yn digwydd. Nodais mai'r broses oedd bod y lori yn cario'r gwastraff yn dod i mewn, yn cael ei phwyso gan y bont bwyso wrth iddi ddod i mewn, yna roedd yn cael gwared ar y gwastraff ac yna'n cael ei phwyso ar y ffordd allan, a'r gwahaniaeth rhwng y mesuriadau hynny oedd swm y gwastraff a waredwyd, a dyna beth sy'n sbarduno cymhwysedd y dreth. Felly, roeddem yn pryderu o weld yn y Bil, fel y'i drafftiwyd yn wreiddiol, ei bod yn ofynnol pwyso'r gwastraff oedd yn cael ei waredu cyn ei waredu, a fyddai wedi bod yn gwbl groes i'r hyn a oedd yn cael ei weithredu mewn gwirionedd, o leiaf ar y safle hwnnw, ond o bosibl mewn safleoedd eraill. Felly, rwy'n ddiolchgar i Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet am ystyried barn y pwyllgor ar yr anhawster deddfwriaethol penodol hwnnw, ac rwy'n credu, yn sicr o'r hyn yr wyf wedi ei weld hyd yn hyn, bod y ffordd y mae Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet wedi ymgysylltu â'r pwyllgor a'r ffordd y mae'r broses ddeddfwriaethol hon yn gweithio wrth i ni gymryd deddfwriaeth treth i'r lle hwn yn glod i'r sefydliad ac i'r rhai sydd ynghlwm wrth y gwaith. Diolch.