English: May I thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd? I'm speaking on tax devolution for Wales. I'm not sure if I've drawn the short straw in terms of the last short debate of the term, or whether the Minister has drawn it to reply to me, or perhaps you, Dirprwy Lywydd, in chairing us, but you are well used to that, so I thank you. When we think about tax devolution for Wales, a key issue has to be how far should it go, and I've had two points in particular in mind in thinking about that. The first is the figure that the First Minister identified a while back as our 'fiscal gap', as he described it, of £13 billion, and I understand that as the difference between the tax revenue raised in Wales, whether from devolved or other taxes, and the amount of money spent in Wales. It's a very important figure. There's a very substantial net transfer of resources, basically, from England to Wales. That sum is somewhat different, conceptually, from the £13 billion, to the extent that we expect the deficit to be zero, over time, and that we might sustain a deficit that was a deficit, rather than a zero, but nonetheless the two sums, I think, have a certain convergence. I think the more and more that we devolve tax and the greater the independence of our tax system, the more obvious that fiscal deficit becomes and the harder it becomes to have continuing consent to the level of that transfer. You see, in the debate in England at least, much more about Scotland than about Wales - sort of, complaints about what Scotland is able to do in terms of what's free there but isn't free in England, and I think a greater emphasis on a perceived unfairness in recent years' debate than was there before. I don't detect the same degree of emphasis on that fiscal transfer to Wales, but it is there, and the more and more we take control of our own taxes and raise our own taxes here, the more and more obvious that that transfer becomes, and I think that's an important point to bear in mind, and I think the basis on which devolution didn't happen in Wales in 1979, and the concern of many in the Labour Party, traditionally, about devolution and how equality across the United Kingdom and those transfers were more important and something that should be preserved. The other issue I consider in how far tax devolution should go is a desire for a stable settlement. I don't believe that devolution should forever be a sort of moving feast, let alone always, always in one direction. I would like to have a stable polity where there is broad consensus. Of course, it won't include everyone, but a broad consensus that these are the powers that we have in Wales and these are the powers that are exercised by the UK Government, and, in terms of tax, what taxation is raised here and what there. So, when we have supported tax devolution, it's been on the basis either that it's happened, or there is a settled view that it should happen. We had the Richard and then the Silk commission, and I sat on the Finance Committee both for the land transaction tax and for the landfill disposals tax and, in principle, supported them, because I felt they had been agreed through a sort of consensual approach, and while I'm not sure I would have argued from first principles for their devolution if it wasn't proposed, the fact that there was such agreement around that devolution convinced me to support them. Similarly with air passenger duty, where our group again decided to support the consensus, which we felt that the Minister rightly identified in that area. So, we add those to the devolution of the council tax and the business rate system and, from April this year, the Welsh rates of income tax. We then looked at whether new taxes should be devolved. One concern I have in this area is the idea that somehow we should tax for taxation's sake, or we should tax in order to test the devolution machinery, and I first heard this from Mark Drakeford when he addressed the Finance Committee in Newport. Rather than saying, 'We should tax because we need that tax to fund those particular public services, and this is the best way of getting it,' it seemed almost as if the tax was seen as a good thing in itself. I understand that some taxes have behavioural impacts and, when people talk about a tax on plastic or a tax on vacant land, at least part of the reason for the tax is a desire to change behaviour. But, for me, that is a subsidiary issue to the primary one of needing tax to fund public services.
Welsh: A gaf fi ddiolch i chi, Ddirprwy Lywydd? Rwy'n siarad am ddatganoli trethi i Gymru. Nid wyf yn siŵr a ydw i wedi tynnu'r gwelltyn byr i gael y ddadl fer olaf yn y tymor, neu a yw'r Gweinidog wedi'i dynnu i ymateb i mi, neu efallai mai chi a wnaeth, Ddirprwy Lywydd, drwy orfod ein cadeirio, ond rydych wedi hen arfer â hynny, felly diolch i chi. Pan feddyliwn am ddatganoli trethi i Gymru, mae'n rhaid ystyried pa mor bell y dylai fynd, ac rwyf wedi cadw dau beth yn benodol mewn cof wrth feddwl am hynny. Y cyntaf yw'r ffigur a nodwyd gan y Prif Weinidog ychydig yn ôl fel ein 'bwlch cyllido', fel y'i disgrifiodd, sef £13 biliwn, ac rwy'n deall hynny fel y gwahaniaeth rhwng y refeniw treth a godir yng Nghymru, boed hynny o drethi datganoledig neu rai eraill, a faint o arian a werir yng Nghymru. Mae'n ffigur pwysig iawn. Ceir trosglwyddiad net sylweddol o adnoddau yn y bôn o Loegr i Gymru. Mae'r swm hwnnw ychydig yn wahanol, yn gysyniadol, i'r £13 biliwn, i'r graddau ein bod yn disgwyl i'r diffyg fod yn sero dros amser, ac y gallem gynnal diffyg a oedd yn ddiffyg, yn hytrach na sero, ond serch hynny mae rhywfaint o gydgyfeirio'n perthyn i'r ddau swm, rwy'n credu. Po fwyaf y byddwn yn datganoli trethi a pho fwyaf yw annibyniaeth ein system drethi, y mwyaf amlwg fydd y diffyg ariannol yn fy marn i, a'r anoddaf fydd cael cydsyniad parhaus i lefel y trosglwyddo hwnnw. Yn y ddadl yn Lloegr o leiaf, fe welwch lawer mwy am yr Alban nag am Gymru - cwynion am yr hyn y mae'r Alban yn gallu ei wneud o ran yr hyn sydd ar gael yn rhad ac am ddim yno ond nad yw'n rhad ac am ddim yn Lloegr, a chredaf fod mwy o bwyslais ar annhegwch canfyddedig yn y blynyddoedd diweddar nag a oedd yno o'r blaen. Nid wyf yn synhwyro'r un faint o bwyslais ar y trosglwyddiad cyllidol hwnnw i Gymru, ond mae yno, a pho fwyaf o reolaeth a gawn ar ein trethi ein hunain ac y byddwn yn codi ein trethi ein hunain yma, y mwyaf amlwg y daw'r trosglwyddiad hwnnw, a chredaf fod hwnnw'n bwynt pwysig i'w gofio, ac ar y sail na ddigwyddodd datganoli yng Nghymru yn 1979, a phryder llawer yn y Blaid Lafur, yn draddodiadol, ynglŷn â datganoli a sut yr oedd cydraddoldeb ar draws y Deyrnas Unedig a'r trosglwyddiadau hynny'n bwysicach ac yn rhywbeth y dylid eu cadw. Y mater arall rwy'n ei ystyried o ran pa mor bell y dylai datganoli trethi fynd yw dymuniad am setliad sefydlog. Nid wyf yn credu y dylai datganoli fod yn fath o wledd symudol am byth, heb sôn am bob amser, bob amser i un cyfeiriad. Hoffwn gael polisi sefydlog lle ceir consensws eang. Wrth gwrs, ni fydd yn cynnwys pawb, ond consensws eang mai dyma'r pwerau sydd gennym yng Nghymru a'r rhain yw'r pwerau a arferir gan Lywodraeth y DU, ac o ran treth, pa drethiant a godir yma a beth a godir yno. Felly, pan gefnogwyd datganoli trethi gennym, mae wedi bod ar y sail naill ai ei fod wedi digwydd, neu fod barn sefydlog y dylai ddigwydd. Cawsom gomisiwn Richard a chomisiwn Silk wedyn, ac roeddwn yn aelod o'r Pwyllgor Cyllid ar gyfer y dreth trafodiadau tir a'r dreth gwarediadau tirlenwi ac mewn egwyddor, fe'u cefnogais, oherwydd fy mod yn teimlo eu bod wedi'u cytuno drwy fath o ddull cydsyniol, ac er nad wyf yn siŵr y buaswn wedi dadlau o'r egwyddorion cyntaf dros eu datganoli pe na bai wedi'i gynnig, cefais fy argyhoeddi i'w cefnogi gan y ffaith bod yna gytundeb o'r fath ynghylch y datganoli hwnnw. Yn yr un modd gyda'r doll teithwyr awyr, pan benderfynodd ein grŵp ni eto y byddem yn cefnogi'r consensws, teimlem fod y Gweinidog yn iawn yn ei nodi yn y maes hwnnw. Felly, rydym yn ychwanegu'r rheini at ddatganoli'r dreth gyngor a'r system ardrethi busnes, ac o fis Ebrill eleni, cyfraddau treth incwm Cymreig. Edrychasom wedyn i weld a ddylid datganoli trethi newydd. Un pryder sydd gennyf yn y maes hwn yw'r syniad y dylem rywsut drethu er mwyn trethu, neu y dylem drethu er mwyn profi'r peirianwaith datganoli, a chlywais hyn yn gyntaf gan Mark Drakeford pan anerchodd y Pwyllgor Cyllid yng Nghasnewydd. Yn hytrach na dweud, 'Dylem drethu oherwydd bod arnom angen y dreth honno i ariannu'r gwasanaethau cyhoeddus penodol hynny, a dyma'r ffordd orau o'i chael,' ymddangosai bron fel pe bai'r dreth yn cael ei hystyried yn beth da ynddi ei hun. Rwy'n deall bod rhai trethi'n cael effaith ar ymddygiad a phan fydd pobl yn sôn am dreth ar blastig neu dreth ar dir gwag, mae o leiaf ran o'r rheswm dros y dreth yn ddymuniad i newid ymddygiad. Ond i mi, mae hwnnw'n fater isradd i'r prif un o fod angen treth i ariannu gwasanaethau cyhoeddus.