English: First Minister, thank you for your statement, and, like you, I give a cautious welcome to the Bill, because my party is a devolutionist party. That's what our contribution to the debate on the EU is all about: devolution of powers back from Brussels to Westminster or to Cardiff. But, in the context of this particular Bill, as you'll be aware, clause 16 is about the introduction of tax-varying powers, but removing the requirement that is in the current legislation for a referendum to be held before those powers are activated. Your statement says that you object to these powers being devolved without the consent of the Assembly or Welsh Ministers and, hence, being imposed by Treasury Ministers. Well, I agree with that to this extent: that if there was to be no referendum then I certainly think that the Welsh Assembly ought to be allowed to make that decision. But I see no reason why the provision, which is in the current law, to consult the Welsh people should not be activated. That was the promise that was given before the last Wales Act was given the Royal Assent. This is now a breach of faith with the Welsh people. It's a big decision because not only could there be tax-varying powers, but of course there could be tax-raising powers. Nothing would be worse, I think, for the health of the Welsh economy, than to do what many Labour Governments have done in the course of my lifetime - to impose penal rates of taxes, which utterly destroy the wealth-creating potential of the Welsh economy. The impact assessment that accompanies the Wales Bill blandly says that the debate has now moved on and therefore we don't need to have this referendum. There's no justification provided in the impact assessment for this change, and I'm asking the First Minister, supposedly a democrat, to consult the Welsh people before he consents to the activation of tax-varying powers in the hands of this Assembly.
Welsh: Brif Weinidog, diolch i chi am eich datganiad, ac fel chithau, rwy'n rhoi croeso gofalus i'r Bil, am fod fy mhlaid yn blaid sy'n credu mewn datganoli. Ymwneud â hynny y mae ein cyfraniad i'r ddadl ar yr UE: datganoli pwerau yn ôl o Frwsel i San Steffan neu i Gaerdydd. Ond yng nghyd-destun y Bil penodol hwn, fel y byddwch yn gwybod, mae cymal 16 yn ymwneud â chyflwyno pwerau i amrywio trethi, ond yn dileu'r gofyniad sydd yn y ddeddfwriaeth gyfredol i gynnal refferendwm cyn rhoi'r pwerau hynny mewn grym. Mae eich datganiad yn dweud eich bod yn gwrthwynebu datganoli'r pwerau hyn heb ganiatâd y Cynulliad neu Weinidogion Cymru a fyddai'n golygu felly eu bod yn cael eu gosod gan Weinidogion y Trysorlys. Wel, rwy'n cytuno â hynny i'r graddau hyn: os nad oes refferendwm i fod yna rwy'n sicr yn credu y dylai Cynulliad Cymru gael yr hawl i wneud y penderfyniad hwnnw. Ond ni welaf unrhyw reswm pam na ddylid gweithredu'r ddarpariaeth, sydd yn y gyfraith bresennol, i ymgynghori â phobl Cymru. Dyna oedd yr addewid a roddwyd cyn i'r Ddeddf Cymru ddiwethaf gael Cydsyniad Brenhinol. Mae hyn bellach yn fater o dorri gair i bobl Cymru. Mae'n benderfyniad mawr oherwydd nid yn unig gallai fod pwerau i amrywio trethi, ond wrth gwrs, gallai fod pwerau i godi trethi. Ni fyddai dim yn waeth i iechyd economi Cymru, yn fy marn i, na gwneud yr hyn y mae llawer o Lywodraethau Llafur wedi'i wneud yn ystod fy oes i - gosod cyfraddau trethi cosbedigaethol, sy'n dinistrio potensial creu cyfoeth economi Cymru. Mae'r asesiad effaith sy'n dod gyda Bil Cymru yn dweud yn ddigyffro fod y ddadl bellach wedi symud yn ei blaen ac felly nad oes angen i ni gael y refferendwm hwn. Ni roddir unrhyw gyfiawnhad yn yr asesiad effaith dros y newid hwn, ac rwy'n gofyn i'r Prif Weinidog, sy'n ddemocrat honedig, i ymgynghori â phobl Cymru cyn iddo gydsynio i roi pwerau i amrywio trethi yn nwylo'r Cynulliad hwn.