English: I think it's safe to say that my party doesn't approach the devolution of the first tax in Wales for 800 years with the same enthusiasm or excitement as perhaps some Members, particularly on the Plaid side of the Chamber, but we do respect those who do see and emphasise that significance. On our own journey in this direction, we opposed the measure of devolution that went to a referendum in 2011, but the people of Wales voted for that and we accept that. What we sought to do in our manifesto was to support the process of devolution as it had developed and, in particular, what had been agreed at the St David's Day agreement. We perhaps believed its billing there - perhaps a little naïvely - that this was going to be a clear devolution settlement for Wales that stands the test of time. And as we've seen with the progress and developments of the Wales Bill and some of the discussion about that, I think perhaps our optimism around that has become less. Nonetheless, land transaction tax was one of the two taxes that were part of that consensus that were going to be devolved, and rather than continue the process of constitutional navel gazing or disagreement for the sake of it, we did say that we would respect the decision and support the devolution of this particular tax that had been agreed with others, along with the levy that we're going to see on landfill disposal. That is not our position with respect to income tax without the referendum that was promised, however we wish to be constructive on this land transaction tax. And also, to the extent you're considering what relatively small tax is sensible to devolve, there are good arguments for this one. In the longer term there may be opportunities to consider how stamp duty, or, here, land transaction tax, links with council tax and with business rates, and having all three elements of that revenue raising devolved may, at least in principle, allow good consideration of ways in which they may be better combined if there are arguments in that direction. I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for how he has engaged with the Finance Committee as the first stage of this process has taken place. At an initial stage I was concerned that there were some elements of the Bill that seemed to be slightly changing the rules around avoidance in a way to send a message as to how against tax avoidance we were, and we just had some concerns about using legislation for that - sending a message and slight changes in definition that could lead to great complexity and arguments within courts and uncertainty as to what the legislation did. I think it's fair to say that the Cabinet Secretary largely mitigated those concerns and particularly some points I raised, as he I think gained confidence in explaining the legislation and taking us through some really quite technical detail as the process continued. I think I now understand why the targeted anti-avoidance rule has to include non-devolved taxes, whereas the general anti-avoidance rule does not, but I reserve my right to reconsider that as we go into Stage 2. I think it's right that we haven't spent time looking at a disclosure of tax avoidance schemes specifically for Wales, which would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. And even those who, in principle, prefer having Wales separate legislation arrangements haven't pressed the point on that, and I think we've been able to take a pragmatic approach on many of these issues. I am concerned about the communication of the measures in this Bill to the legal profession in England, and whether one of the consequences of this may be that, in future, people, for instance, who might be moving from England to Wales, where they're using a solicitor who only rarely would undertake one or more transactions in Wales - would that solicitor feel that they were able to undertake that, or would they have to hand that process to a Welsh firm of solicitors, which might support the legal profession in Wales but might also inconvenience people in such circumstance? I think the important thing is that if a solicitor who perhaps hasn't genned up on the specific Welsh context as much as they might seeks to pay the land transaction tax in what was previously the normal way to HMRC - it's important they get a clear communication quickly that that's not required, and be directed to appropriate guidance as to how to make the appropriate payment to the Welsh Revenue Authority, which we are setting up. Finally, in respect of some of the points addressed by Mike Hedges, I don't think there's any serious prospect of building of houses along the border because of the great tax advantage of doing so. I think any tax advantage is at the margin and certainly isn't going to lead to such a building boom. I think we do need extra housing provision. But I think there are issues, and, overall, if someone has a property that straddles the border, it will be the case that sometimes the tax paid will be less. That is the nature of our progressive system, where, as the price of the house rises, you at the margin pay a somewhat higher rate above certain thresholds. If the overall cost is divided and you pay tax on each element, then the overall tax will either be the same, or it may be less, but it won't be more. What I'm concerned about is that we don't spend an awful lot of time trying to apportion and get into a lot of detail about precisely how you measure which part's in England and which part's in Wales when, actually, overall, the revenue consequences of that are likely to balance out. So, earlier on, we heard from the Cabinet Secretary that you apportion taxes according to how much of the property is in either place, being Wales or England, but I think, on further reflection and study, I hope you'll accept that the requirement is a just and reasonable apportionment. I look forward to making the argument that what is just and reasonable would potentially be an equal split, simply because the costs of investigating in each case what the precise proportion of the overall land area, or the precise proportion of the built-up area, is in Wales and England is going to lead to considerable bureaucracy and cost for no overall benefit when, actually, the flows of finance are likely to even out. Thank you.
Welsh: Rwy'n credu ei bod yn wir dweud nad oes gan fy mhlaid i yr un frwdfrydedd a chyffro tuag at ddatganoli'r dreth gyntaf yng Nghymru ers 800 mlynedd ag Aelodau eraill efallai, yn enwedig ar ochr Plaid Cymru y Siambr, ond rydym yn parchu'r rhai sy'n gweld ac yn pwysleisio arwyddocâd hynny. Ar ein taith ein hunain tua'r cyfeiriad hwn, gwnaethom wrthwynebu y mesur o ddatganoli a aeth i refferendwm yn 2011, ond pleidleisiodd pobl Cymru drosto ac rydym yn derbyn hynny. Yr hyn y gwnaethom ni geisio ei wneud yn ein maniffesto oedd cefnogi'r broses o ddatganoli fel yr oedd wedi datblygu ac, yn benodol, yr hyn a oedd wedi ei gytuno yng nghytundeb Dydd Gŵyl Dewi. Roeddem efallai yn credu bod ei gynnwys yno - ac efallai bod y gred honno ychydig yn ddiniwed - ei fod yn mynd i fod yn setliad datganoli clir ar gyfer Cymru sy'n sefyll prawf amser. Ac fel yr ydym ni wedi'i weld gyda chynnydd a datblygiadau Bil Cymru a rhai o'r trafodaethau am hynny, rwy'n meddwl efallai bod ein brwdfrydedd dros hynny wedi lleihau. Serch hynny, y dreth trafodiadau tir oedd un o'r ddwy dreth a oedd yn rhan o'r consensws eu bod am gael eu datganoli, ac yn hytrach na pharhau â'r broses o fogailsyllu cyfansoddiaol neu anghytuno er mwyn gwneud hynny, fe wnaethom ddweud y byddem yn parchu'r penderfyniad a chefnogi datganoliad y dreth benodol hon a gytunwyd ag eraill, ynghyd â'r ardoll y byddwn yn ei gweld ar waredu safleoedd tirlenwi. Nid dyna ein safbwynt ar dreth incwm heb y refferendwm a addawyd, fodd bynnag, rydym yn dymuno bod yn adeiladol o ran y dreth trafodiadau tir. A hefyd, i'r graddau yr ydych chi'n ystyried pa dreth gymharol fach sy'n synhwyrol i'w datganoli, mae yna ddadleuon da dros ddewis hon. Yn y tymor hwy, mae'n bosibl y bydd yna gyfleoedd i ystyried sut y mae'r dreth stamp, neu, yma, y dreth trafodiadau tir, yn cysylltu â'r dreth gyngor ac ardrethi busnes, ac fe allai datganoli'r tair elfen hynny a all godi refeniw, o leiaf mewn egwyddor, ganiatáu ystyriaeth dda o'r ffyrdd y gellir eu cyfuno'n well os oes yna ddadleuon am hynny. Rwy'n ddiolchgar i Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet am y ffordd y mae wedi ymgysylltu â'r Pwyllgor Cyllid wrth i gyfnod cyntaf y broses hon fynd rhagddo. Yn gynnar yn ystod y broses, roeddwn yn poeni ei bod yn ymddangos bod rhai elfennau o'r Bil yn newid ychydig ar y rheolau sy'n ymwneud ag osgoi mewn ffordd er mwyn cyfleu neges ynglŷn â pha mor wrthwynebus yr ydym i osgoi trethi, ac roedd gennym ni rai pryderon ynghylch defnyddio deddfwriaeth at y diben hwnnw - cyfleu neges a mân newidiadau yn y diffiniad a allai arwain at gymhlethdod mawr a dadleuon mewn llysoedd ac ansicrwydd ynghylch diben y ddeddfwriaeth. Rwy'n credu ei bod yn deg dweud bod Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet wedi lleddfu'r pryderon hynny i raddau helaeth, ac wedi ymdrin â rhai o'r pwyntiau a godais i yn enwedig, wrth iddo fagu hyder wrth egluro'r ddeddfwriaeth a'n tywys ni drwy rai manylion eithaf technegol mewn gwirionedd wrth i'r broses barhau. Rwy'n credu fy mod i nawr yn deall pam y mae'n rhaid i'r rheol atal osgoi sydd wedi'i thargedu gynnwys trethi nad ydynt wedi'u datganoli, ond nad oes yn rhaid i'r rheol atal osgoi gyffredinol wneud hynny, ond yr wyf yn cadw fy hawl i ailystyried hynny wrth i ni fynd i mewn i Gyfnod 2. Rwy'n credu ei bod yn iawn nad ydym wedi treulio amser yn edrych ar ddatgelu cynlluniau osgoi treth arbennig ar gyfer Cymru, a fyddai'n mynd dros ben llestri. Ac nid yw hyd yn oed y rhai y mae'n well ganddynt, mewn egwyddor, i Gymru fod â threfniadau deddfwriaethol ar wahân wedi pwyso ar y pwynt hwnnw, ac rwy'n credu ein bod ni wedi llwyddo i weithio mewn ffordd ymarferol ar lawer o'r materion hyn. Rwy'n bryderus ynghylch y ffordd y caiff y mesurau yn y Bil hwn eu cyfathrebu i'r proffesiwn cyfreithiol yn Lloegr, a pha un a fyddai hyn yn arwain yn y dyfodol, er enghraifft, at fod pobl a allai fod yn symud o Loegr i Gymru, gan ddefnyddio cyfreithiwr yn Lloegr na fyddai'n delio â thrafodion yng Nghymru yn aml iawn - a fyddai'r cyfreithiwr hwnnw yn teimlo bod modd iddo ymgymryd â hynny, neu a fyddai'n rhaid iddo drosglwyddo'r broses honno i gwmni o gyfreithwyr yng Nghymru, a allai gefnogi'r proffesiwn cyfreithiol yng Nghymru ond a allai hefyd beri anghyfleustra i bobl mewn amgylchiadau o'r fath? Rwy'n meddwl mai'r peth pwysig yw bod cyfreithiwr, mewn sefyllfa pan nad yw o bosibl wedi astudio'r cyd-destun Cymreig penodol gymaint ag y dylai, sy'n ceisio talu'r dreth trafodiadau tir yn yr un ffordd ag arfer i CThEM - ei bod yn bwysig iddo gael neges glir a chyflym nad dyna sydd ei angen, a'i fod yn cael ei gyfeirio at ganllawiau priodol ynghylch sut i wneud y taliad priodol i Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru, sydd wrthi'n cael ei sefydlu. Yn olaf, o ran rhai o'r pwyntiau yr aeth Mike Hedges i'r afael â hwy, nid wyf yn credu bod yna unrhyw obaith difrifol o adeiladu tai ar hyd y ffin oherwydd y fantais dreth fawr o wneud hynny. Rwy'n credu mai ymylol yw unrhyw fantais o ran treth ac yn sicr nid yw'n mynd i esgor ar gynnydd mawr mewn adeiladu. Rwy'n credu bod angen darpariaeth tai ychwanegol arnom ni. Ond rwy'n credu bod yna faterion, ac, ar y cyfan, os oes gan rywun eiddo sy'n sefyll ar draws y ffin, bydd yn wir weithiau bod swm y dreth a delir yn llai. Dyna yw natur ein system gynyddol, sy'n golygu, wrth i bris y tŷ godi, bydd y rhai ar yr ymylon yn talu cyfradd ychydig yn uwch uwchlaw trothwyon penodol. Os bydd y gost gyffredinol wedi ei rhannu, a'ch bod chi'n talu treth ar bob elfen, yna bydd y dreth gyfan naill ai yr un faint neu'n llai, ond ni fydd yn fwy. Yr hyn yr wyf i'n poeni amdano yw ein bod ni'n osgoi treulio llawer iawn o amser yn ceisio dadansoddi'n fanwl iawn sut yr ydych chi'n mesur pa ran sydd yn Lloegr a pha ran sydd yng Nghymru pan, mewn gwirionedd, ar y cyfan, mae'r canlyniadau o ran y refeniw yn debygol o ddod yn gyfartal. Felly, yn gynharach, clywsom gan Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet eich bod yn dosrannu trethi yn ôl faint o gyfran o'r eiddo sydd yn y naill le neu'r llall, sef yng Nghymru neu yn Lloegr, ond o'm rhan i, ar ôl mwy o fyfyrio ac astudio, rwy'n gobeithio y byddwch chi'n derbyn mai'r hyn sy'n ofynnol yw dosraniad cyfiawn a rhesymol. Rwy'n edrych ymlaen at ddadlau dros y posibilrwydd mai rhaniad cyfartal fyddai'r dosraniad cyfiawn a rhesymol hwnnw, a hynny'n syml oherwydd y byddai'r costau o ymchwilio i bob achos o ba gyfran o'r ardal gyfan o dir, neu'r union gyfran o'r ardal yr adeiladwyd arni, sydd yng Nghymru a pha gyfran sydd yn Lloegr yn mynd i arwain at lawer o fiwrocratiaeth a chostau heb esgor ar unrhyw fantais gyffredinol pan fo llif yr arian, mewn gwirionedd, yn debygol o fod yn gyfartal yn y pen draw. Diolch.