English: So, I was surprised by the response of the leader of Plaid Cymru to my response to his debate last week, because I thought that I was very fair and measured in setting out that it is important for the Welsh Government to understand the proper implications of any particular policy before we hitch our horse to that particular cart. And I did say that the constitutional commission is going to be doing important work that looks at the future role that taxes might play in Wales. I also set out that there are some significant negative impacts that we potentially would have to consider as well. The situation in Scotland being that the tax system that they have and the choices that they've made mean that there will be a £100 million negative net impact on the Scottish budget, despite the fact that Scottish taxpayers are making £85 million greater tax effort. So, I think all of those things are important for us to consider. But, in rejecting the proposals last week, I think what I was doing was setting out that we can't take a particular policy choice before we properly understand the implications. And, in response to one of the previous questions this afternoon, I said that we're working alongside HM Revenue & Customs to better understand that longitudinal data, which is coming forth now in respect of Scotland, to understand the behavioural impacts of different choices in respect of rates of income tax. What I was trying to set out last week was that we want to take a considered, evidence-based approach, which I think is the right thing to do. In terms of the devolution of further tax powers, I agree with what I said previously and with what you've quoted today, which is that the system that we have isn't fit for purpose. But, I am seeking a meeting with the new Financial Secretary to the Treasury to discuss the issue further, and I hope to have that meeting shortly, and I'm more than happy to update colleagues following that meeting.
Welsh: Felly, cefais fy synnu gan ymateb arweinydd Plaid Cymru i fy ymateb i'w ddadl yr wythnos diwethaf, gan fy mod yn credu imi fod yn deg ac yn bwyllog iawn wrth nodi ei bod yn bwysig i Lywodraeth Cymru ddeall goblygiadau priodol unrhyw bolisi penodol cyn inni ymrwymo iddo. A dywedais y bydd y comisiwn cyfansoddiadol yn gwneud gwaith pwysig sy'n edrych ar y rôl y gallai trethi ei chwarae yng Nghymru yn y dyfodol. Nodais hefyd fod rhai effeithiau negyddol sylweddol y byddai'n rhaid i ni eu hystyried hefyd, o bosibl. Y sefyllfa yn yr Alban yw bod y system dreth sydd ganddynt a'r dewisiadau y maent wedi'u gwneud yn golygu y bydd effaith negyddol net o £100 miliwn ar gyllideb yr Alban, er gwaethaf y ffaith bod trethdalwyr yr Alban yn talu £85 miliwn yn fwy o drethi. Felly, credaf fod yr holl bethau hynny'n bwysig i ni eu hystyried. Ond drwy wrthod y cynigion yr wythnos diwethaf, credaf mai'r hyn roeddwn yn ei wneud oedd nodi na allwn wneud dewis polisi penodol cyn ein bod yn deall y goblygiadau'n iawn. Ac mewn ymateb i un o'r cwestiynau blaenorol y prynhawn yma, dywedais ein bod yn gweithio ochr yn ochr â Chyllid a Thollau EF i ddeall y data hydredol hwnnw'n well, sy'n dod i'r amlwg nawr mewn perthynas â'r Alban, i ddeall effeithiau ymddygiadol gwahanol ddewisiadau mewn perthynas â chyfraddau treth incwm. Yr hyn roeddwn yn ceisio'i nodi yr wythnos diwethaf oedd ein bod am arfer ymagwedd ystyriol sy'n seiliedig ar dystiolaeth, sef y peth iawn i'w wneud yn fy marn i. O ran datganoli pwerau trethu pellach, cytunaf â'r hyn a ddywedais eisoes a'r hyn rydych wedi'i ddyfynnu heddiw, sef nad yw'r system sydd gennym yn addas i'r diben. Ond rwy'n ceisio cyfarfod ag Ysgrifennydd Ariannol newydd y Trysorlys i drafod y mater ymhellach, a gobeithiaf gael y cyfarfod hwnnw cyn bo hir, ac rwy'n fwy na pharod i roi'r wybodaeth ddiweddaraf i gyd-Aelodau yn dilyn y cyfarfod hwnnw.