English: Thank you very much, acting Presiding Officer. I was surprised to hear both Nick Ramsay and Mark Reckless refer to my advocacy of a legislative process. My own notes here read that I came to this from the point of view of having no preconceived ideas and no principled approach to start with but to listen to the evidence. Perhaps I listened a little more, how shall I say it, actively than I'd thought myself. In many ways, I enjoyed the investigation, I enjoyed the report, I enjoyed the debate and the conversations that we had as a committee between ourselves and our witnesses. And, in many ways, I felt that this report and this debate goes to the heart of our role as a legislature and as a Parliament. It is right and proper, of course, that the Government has a right to its business and its budget. The Government enjoys the confidence of the Parliament and it has a right to its business, and that includes its budget. But we also have a right as parliamentarians to scrutinise that budget and to scrutinise and challenge the spending and taxation decisions of Ministers. I recognise the force of the point that Mark Reckless made about the range of those powers, but I would say very, very clearly that, if a Government wishes to tax me, whether it's a penny or a pound, I would anticipate and expect my elected representatives to challenge that Minister and to challenge that Government as to what that funding is necessary for and how it is expended. And I would certainly anticipate any Parliament fulfilling that role. But, really, this debate goes to the heart of the two imperatives: the right of Government to its business and the right of the legislature to its scrutiny. I did become convinced, during the conversations and during the inquiry, that we have not got that balance in the right place today. In many ways, the way in which we debate and discuss our budget remains a hangover, if you like, from the old days of administrative devolution and the old days of a body corporate. It does not reflect today's reality of a parliamentary democracy, and this is probably the final element, if you like, of that particular jigsaw that we need to put in place. I did read the Minister's response and I recognised what was being said - 'we have no principled objection but perhaps not yet' - and I get that, I understand that, but if not now, when? I do believe that we can't constantly have these debates without coming to a conclusion and to ensure that we are able to move forward. I share with Mark Reckless the concerns about the Westminster process, and I agree with him that they are not adequate, that we should not seek to replicate those here, but I do believe that we've got something to learn from our Scottish friends, and I do believe that there are other international examples where we can also learn those lessons. I do believe that a legislative process provides both the scrutiny for the Senedd, but also the necessary stretch for Ministers. And I believe that we do need to test Ministers in a way that is more profound than we're doing at the moment, and I believe that the legislative process provides for that sufficient test and that scrutiny that doesn't exist at present. But I'll conclude, acting Presiding Officer, with this: there is a need to reform our systems, but I recognise that, within our systems, we are - [ Inaudible.] - within a UK system that is itself broken. The way in which decisions are taken by the Treasury, the way in which decisions are taken by the Westminster system, mean that we are constantly running and chasing decisions taken elsewhere, and that needs to stop and that needs reform. I hope that the Minister, in responding to this debate today, is able to look hard at our processes here within our own democracy, but that she also able to have a more profound conversation about the wider financial structures of the United Kingdom, because they equally need reform. And I hope that we will be able to form some sort of agreement between this place and the Government - if not today, then over the coming months - and that those Members who are elected next May will be able to take that forward and complete this much-needed reform.
Welsh: Diolch yn fawr iawn, Lywydd dros dro. Synnais wrth glywed Nick Ramsay a Mark Reckless yn cyfeirio at fy eiriolaeth i broses ddeddfwriaethol. Mae fy nodiadau fy hun yma'n dweud fy mod wedi dod at hyn heb fod ag unrhyw ragdybiaethau nac ymagwedd egwyddorol ar y cychwyn, dim ond gwrando ar y dystiolaeth. Efallai i mi wrando, sut y gallaf ddweud, ychydig yn fwy gweithredol nag y tybiwn. Mewn sawl ffordd, mwynheais yr ymchwiliad, mwynheais yr adroddiad, mwynheais y ddadl a'r sgyrsiau a gawsom fel pwyllgor rhyngom ein gilydd a'r rhai a roddodd dystiolaeth. Ac mewn sawl ffordd, teimlwn fod yr adroddiad hwn a'r ddadl hon yn mynd at wraidd ein rôl fel deddfwrfa ac fel Senedd. Mae'n iawn ac yn briodol, wrth gwrs, fod gan y Llywodraeth hawl i'w busnes a'i chyllideb. Mae gan y Llywodraeth hyder y Senedd ac mae ganddi hawl i'w busnes, ac mae hynny'n cynnwys ei chyllideb. Ond mae gennym hawl hefyd fel seneddwyr i graffu ar y gyllideb honno ac i graffu ar benderfyniadau gwario a threthiant Gweinidogion a'u herio. Rwy'n cydnabod grym y pwynt a wnaeth Mark Reckless am ystod y pwerau hynny, ond os yw Llywodraeth yn dymuno fy nhrethu, boed yn geiniog neu'n bunt, byddwn yn dweud yn glir iawn y byddwn yn rhagweld ac yn disgwyl y byddai fy nghynrychiolwyr etholedig yn herio'r Gweinidog hwnnw a herio'r Llywodraeth honno ynglŷn â beth y mae angen y cyllid hwnnw ar ei gyfer a sut y caiff ei wario. A byddwn yn sicr yn rhagweld y bydd unrhyw Senedd yn cyflawni'r rôl honno. Ond mewn gwirionedd, mae'r ddadl hon yn mynd at wraidd y ddau hanfod: hawl Llywodraeth i'w busnes a hawl y ddeddfwrfa i graffu arni. Cefais fy argyhoeddi, yn ystod y sgyrsiau ac yn ystod yr ymchwiliad, nad ydym wedi cael y cydbwysedd hwnnw yn y lle iawn heddiw. Mewn sawl ffordd, mae'r ffordd rydym yn trafod ac yn dadlau am ein cyllideb yn rhywbeth a adawyd ar ôl o hen ddyddiau datganoli gweinyddol a hen ddyddiau corff corfforaethol. Nid yw'n adlewyrchu realiti democratiaeth seneddol heddiw, ac mae'n debyg mai dyma'r elfen olaf yn y jig-so penodol hwnnw sydd angen inni ei rhoi ar waith. Darllenais ymateb y Gweinidog a chydnabod yr hyn a oedd yn cael ei ddweud - 'nid oes gennym wrthwynebiad egwyddorol ond efallai ddim eto' - ac rwy'n derbyn hynny, rwy'n deall hynny, ond os nad yn awr, pryd? Rwy'n credu na allwn gael y dadleuon hyn yn barhaus heb ddod i gasgliad a sicrhau ein bod yn gallu symud ymlaen. Fel Mark Reckless, rwy'n pryderu am brosesau San Steffan, a chytunaf ag ef nad ydynt yn ddigonol, na ddylem geisio efelychu'r rheini yma, ond credaf fod gennym rywbeth i'w ddysgu gan ein cyfeillion yn yr Alban, a chredaf fod enghreifftiau rhyngwladol eraill i'w cael lle gallwn ddysgu'r gwersi hynny hefyd. Credaf fod proses ddeddfwriaethol yn darparu'r gwaith craffu ar gyfer y Senedd, ond hefyd yr estyniad angenrheidiol i Weinidogion. A chredaf fod angen inni brofi Gweinidogion mewn ffordd sy'n fwy trylwyr nag a wnawn ar hyn o bryd, a chredaf fod y broses ddeddfwriaethol yn darparu ar gyfer y prawf digonol hwnnw a'r craffu hwnnw nad yw'n bodoli ar hyn o bryd. Ond rwy'n cloi, Lywydd dros dro, gyda hyn: mae angen diwygio ein systemau, ond rwy'n cydnabod ein bod ni, o fewn ein systemau - [ Anghlywadwy. ] - o fewn system yn y DU sydd ei hun wedi torri. Mae'r ffordd y gwneir penderfyniadau gan y Trysorlys, y ffordd y gwneir penderfyniadau gan system San Steffan, yn golygu ein bod yn barhaus yn rhedeg ac yn mynd ar drywydd penderfyniadau a wneir mewn mannau eraill, ac mae angen i hynny ddod i ben ac mae angen diwygio hynny. Rwy'n gobeithio y gall y Gweinidog, wrth ymateb i'r ddadl hon heddiw, edrych yn galed ar ein prosesau yma yn ein democratiaeth ein hunain, ond ei bod hefyd yn gallu cael sgwrs fwy dwys am strwythurau ariannol ehangach y Deyrnas Unedig, oherwydd mae angen eu diwygio yn yr un modd. Ac rwy'n gobeithio y byddwn yn gallu ffurfio rhyw fath o gytundeb rhwng y lle hwn a'r Llywodraeth - os nad heddiw, yna dros y misoedd nesaf - ac y bydd yr Aelodau hynny a etholir fis Mai nesaf yn gallu bwrw ymlaen â hynny a chwblhau'r diwygio mawr ei angen.