I very much welcome the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government on the land transaction tax. We know, on the land transaction tax, it’s a volatile and cyclical tax. We also know that it fell by £110 million between 2007-08 and 2009-10. We also know that the rate of increasing revenue in the south east, especially London, is greater than in the rest of the United Kingdom. We also know that the increase in London is at least partly due to overseas purchases—London is an international city. With the pound having fallen significantly in value against both the euro and the dollar, property prices in those currencies have also dropped considerably.

Can I just say, the Bill does mark a significant step in tax devolution? I think that’s something we need to really take account of. I very much welcome the introduction of a general anti-avoidance rule. In the last Assembly, some of us who were on the Finance Committee kept on talking about the need for a general anti-avoidance rule and I’m very pleased to see that having happened.

I’ve really got sort of two questions. One is about border properties. It says in the Bill:

‘Accordingly, the Welsh transaction is to be treated as a land transaction within the meaning of this Act (being the acquisition of a chargeable interest relating to the land in Wales).’

If there’s land in Wales and England, if the rate is the same in England and Wales, will the same amount be collected post the bringing in of this Act, and then split between England and Wales as it is now? I.e., will there be an opportunity for people to reduce the amount of tax they pay by having a value in England and a value in Wales that takes them below a threshold, which would reduce the amount of money they had to pay?

The second point is really—or the next two points, really, are following on from Adam Price; I wish I’d spoken before him, really. The first one is the no-detriment rule: is that going to be applied? If we’re going to see London and the south east, especially London, increasing in value—and there are houses in London for £50 million and £60 million; I’ve got streets in my constituency for that—I think you really have got that situation, in terms of the value that exists, that we are going to lose out over a period of time unless no-detriment is brought in. That either means, as Adam Price just said, excluding London and the south east and comparing us with comparable parts of England, or thinking of some other means of doing it so that we don’t end up losing out for the Welsh budget.

The third point—and I’m going to be even naughtier than Adam Price in trying to tempt you, Minister—is: is it now the time to start debating the relevance of a land value tax, as opposed to these property taxes, where people are taxed on the value of their land? I know that we’ve talked about it previously, before you had the current role you’ve got. Is now a time when at least it’s ready to start a debate on that subject?