English: Diolch, Deputy Llywydd, and thank you, Minister. Thank you for the statement and thank you to your officials for their technical briefing yesterday at our joint committee. It was really helpful and really interesting. I do have some sympathy with you; budgetary processes and taxation are very complex things, and this complexity has only increased during recent years. It's right, then, to ensure that Welsh taxpayers are not left at a disadvantage compared to other taxpayers across the UK when changes are made to the predecessor taxes, as well as to close tax loopholes so that funds can be used to support our public services - it's quite right that we do that. However, as part of your consultation around the Bill, I know stakeholders such as the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales stated that their default position is that tax legislation should be in primary legislation, and particularly in the case where legislation relates to the exercise of tax powers, except in very exceptional circumstances. And this is a principle that I agree with, and I'm sure many in the Chamber - the virtual Chamber - would agree with too. I think, to reflect the conclusions of the previous Finance Committee, that we need more of a legislative basis to our budget and taxation-setting processes in Wales to support the democratic scrutiny of public expenditure and taxation. It is in this regard that, by using regulations to make changes to taxation, this Bill could - and I stress 'could' - be used to go further than originally intended. Now, I note that there are some strict limits on the use of the powers within the Bill, but there is still some ambiguity as to when the powers may be used. In the original consultation, the Chartered Institute of Taxation stated that 'the circumstances in which power 1 can be used leaves quite a wide discretion' and that a number of terms used within the section are vague and undefined. However, the Government rejected the idea of a Senedd lock on the use of power 1. Perhaps I could ask you, Minister, why that was the case. Could you also clarify the circumstances - and you've touched on this a bit already - where you envisage needing to use the power to modify Welsh tax Acts? And, ultimately, who in the Welsh Government is responsible for deciding which one of the purpose tests within section 1 has been met when bringing forward regulations through the Bill? Finally, comments were made during the original consultation that multiple changes via regulatory powers risk making the primary legislation difficult to follow because of the amount of cross-referencing required. If a substantial volume of secondary legislation is needed, would there potentially need to be work to consolidate these to ensure that tax law is as accessible as possible? Thank you, Minister.
Welsh: Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, a diolch, Gweinidog. Diolch am y datganiad a diolch i'ch swyddogion am eu briff technegol ddoe yn ein cyd-bwyllgor. Roedd yn ddefnyddiol iawn ac yn ddiddorol iawn. Mae gen i rywfaint o gydymdeimlad â chi; mae prosesau cyllidebol a threthiant yn bethau cymhleth iawn, ac nid yw'r cymhlethdod hwn ond wedi cynyddu yn ystod y blynyddoedd diwethaf. Mae'n iawn, felly, i sicrhau nad yw trethdalwyr Cymru o dan anfantais o'u cymharu â threthdalwyr eraill ledled y DU pan gaiff newidiadau eu gwneud i drethi rhagflaenol, yn ogystal â chau bylchau treth fel bod modd defnyddio arian i gefnogi ein gwasanaethau cyhoeddus - mae'n gwbl iawn ein bod ni'n gwneud hynny. Fodd bynnag, fel rhan o'ch ymgynghoriad ar y Bil, rwy'n gwybod bod rhanddeiliaid fel Sefydliad Siartredig Trethu a Sefydliad y Cyfrifwyr Siartredig yng Nghymru a Lloegr wedi datgan mai eu safbwynt diofyn nhw yw y dylai deddfwriaeth dreth fod mewn deddfwriaeth sylfaenol, ac yn arbennig yn yr achos lle mae deddfwriaeth yn ymwneud ag arfer pwerau trethu, ac eithrio o dan amgylchiadau eithriadol iawn. Ac rwyf i'n cytuno â'r egwyddor hon, ac rwy'n siŵr y byddai llawer yn y Siambr - y Siambr rithwir - yn cytuno â hi hefyd. Rwy'n credu, i adlewyrchu casgliadau'r Pwyllgor Cyllid blaenorol, fod angen mwy o sail ddeddfwriaethol arnom ni i'n prosesau cyllidebu a phennu trethi yng Nghymru i gefnogi'r gwaith democrataidd o graffu ar wariant cyhoeddus a threthiant. Yn hyn o beth, drwy ddefnyddio rheoliadau i wneud newidiadau i drethiant, gallai'r Bil hwn - ac rwy'n pwysleisio 'gallai' - gael ei ddefnyddio i fynd ymhellach na'r bwriad gwreiddiol. Nawr, rwy'n sylweddoli bod terfynau llym ar ddefnyddio'r pwerau o fewn y Bil, ond mae dal rhywfaint o amwysedd ynghylch pryd y mae modd defnyddio'r pwerau. Yn yr ymgynghoriad gwreiddiol, dywedodd y Sefydliad Siartredig Trethu 'mae'r amgylchiadau lle gellid defnyddio pŵer 1 yn gadael disgresiwn eithaf eang' a bod nifer o dermau sydd wedi eu defnyddio yn yr adran yn amwys a heb eu diffinio. Fodd bynnag, gwrthododd y Llywodraeth y syniad o glo y Senedd ar ddefnyddio pŵer 1. A gaf i ofyn i chi, Gweinidog, y rheswm pam mae hynny'n wir? A allwch chi egluro'r amgylchiadau hefyd - ac rydych chi wedi sôn rhywfaint am hyn eisoes - lle rydych chi'n rhagweld y bydd angen defnyddio'r pŵer i addasu Deddfau trethi Cymru? Ac, yn y pen draw, pwy yn Llywodraeth Cymru sy'n gyfrifol am benderfynu pa un o'r profion diben yn adran 1 sydd wedi eu bodloni wrth gyflwyno rheoliadau drwy'r Bil? Yn olaf, cafodd sylwadau eu gwneud yn ystod yr ymgynghoriad gwreiddiol fod perygl wrth wneud newidiadau lluosog drwy bwerau rheoleiddio o wneud y ddeddfwriaeth sylfaenol yn anodd ei dilyn oherwydd cymaint y croesgyfeirio sydd ei angen. Os oes angen llawer iawn o is-ddeddfwriaeth, a fyddai'n bosibl y byddai angen gwaith i atgyfnerthu'r rhain er mwyn sicrhau bod cyfraith treth mor hygyrch â phosibl? Diolch, Gweinidog.