The first group of amendments relates to land partly in Wales and partly in England. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 35. I call on Mark Reckless to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Mark Reckless.

Amendment 35 (Mark Reckless) moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Finance Committee spent quite a significant period of time considering the issue of land partly situated in Wales and partly situated in England. Earlier in proceedings, we understood that there were 40 or so such properties that straddled the border, but as proceedings went on, that number was revised up and up, and we now understand that it is in excess of 1,000. The issue we have before us is that splitting a transaction that straddles the border will, on average, lead to purchasers paying less tax, because with a progressive tax where the rate increases as the amount of land value increases, if you split that land value into two, the average tax rate you pay will be less.

There are also really significant administrative hurdles in this. We’re telling taxpayers to make a just and reasonable apportionment of the consideration for what they must treat as two transactions. The way in which they can do that is open to great argument and potential challenge. So, there’s a risk that the taxpayer may structure in it a way to avoid tax where possible, but also just a large administrative burden on the purchaser of land, and potentially the vendor to the extent that there needs to be any negotiation, and on their professional advisers. It’s not clear what the upside of this is to the extent that properties straddle the border. The law of averages is such that one can expect, on average, the amount of land in England and Wales from all the transactions that might happen in one year to be pretty similar. So, requiring people to split those and pay tax on a just and reasonable basis, and to work it out and justify it, to keep records and be willing to deal with the challenge that might happen later is a lot of work for no obvious gain.

The UK law that we have to deal with and respect in this sense is that the transaction is to be treated as if it were two transactions—one relating to land in Wales, the Welsh transaction, and the other relating to the land in England, the English transaction. And then the consideration for the transaction is to be apportioned between those two transactions on a just and reasonable basis. But there’s nothing to stop this Assembly deeming what a just and reasonable basis might be, and a lot of the reason why taxpayers and their advisers would welcome that happening is because it would reduce the work significantly and scope for legal challenge for them.

I propose two amendments to tackle that: the first is amendment 35, the lead amendment of this group. I happily accept that there are competence arguments around this amendment. What I have sought to do is to make it at least arguable that the legislation we would pass, if the amendment were accepted, is consistent with the UK legislation. The reason for that is that, overall, the apportionment would be done on a just and reasonable basis. If each one of those transactions, the taxpayer processed a nil transaction in respect of stamp duty land tax for land on the English border, and paid the whole price of the transaction in land transaction tax to the Welsh Revenue Authority, (a) that would minimise avoidance of tax through there being a lower average rate, so it would increase the yield and keep the yield where it would otherwise be for the public sector, and the Welsh Revenue Authority could simply transfer half of the cost of the money that’s been raised through the tax to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs so that they would settle up at the end of the year, so that overall it would be done on a just and reasonable basis, which I submit is arguably consistent with the UK legislating, although I admit there are challenges with respect to competence.

My second amendment is amendment 36, and on this we as an Assembly would deem just and reasonable apportionment to constitute either a 50/50 split, so the taxpayer doesn’t have to worry about how much land or building is in one particular place or the other, or, alternatively, we simply deem that the land area of the title, whatever that is according to the map that we’re expecting the Land Registry to develop—whatever proportion is in Wales, whatever proportion is in England of the land area of the title—that should be the just and reasonable apportionment. I think, if we give that option to the taxpayer, it would be a much simpler and easier process for the taxpayer, while protecting the revenues that would accrue to this Assembly from LTT.

Nick Ramsay.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Do you wish me to move my amendment?

Don’t ask me a question. [Laughter. ]

Yes? [Interruption. ] Okay, I’ll speak to it in the group. Sorry. It’s been a while—it’s been a while since I did Stage 3, Presiding Officer.

It’s my first time. [Laughter. ]

I’m just blinded by Mark Reckless’s explanation there for moving his amendments—happy to support that.

Okay, I wish to move my amendment 32, which is pursuant to Mark Reckless’s amendments 35 and 37. As Mark Reckless explained, we believe that this amendment—his amendment—will simplify cross-border land transactions. For those of you who didn’t sit on the Finance Committee during the process of Stage 2 we went through, and I bet you’re heaving a sigh of relief now that you didn’t, there were many issues that arose from cross-border issues, which we believe needed looking at and needed simplification. The Cabinet Secretary did put many good reasons forward against why our amendments at that point should be pursued, but nonetheless, we believe that simplicity in dealing with the cross-border issues is very important. This is a completely new area for the Welsh Government—a new area, indeed, for practitioners across the border in England as well—so it’s important that we get this legislation right.

My amendment 32 reflects the Cabinet Secretary’s points to the Finance Committee at Stage 2, when he noted that digital maps were available from the Land Registry and offered an opportunity for the committee to see the information the Welsh Government has had from the Land Registry. We believe that this will—following on from Mark Reckless’s points—provide a more specific apportionment for cross-border properties, which would fairly divide the tax revenue between the WRA and the HMRC. And that’s what we believe these amendments in this group are about. It’s about providing simplicity, it’s about providing certainty—we’re looking for a smooth transition from the UK stamp duty tax to our land transaction tax, and these amendments are aimed at doing that.

If I can just briefly mention amendment 29—we will also be supporting that, as we believe it helps the WRA to apply best practice in relation to land partly in Wales and partly in England.

I’d like to formally move amendment 29. The amendment introduces a new sub-section to section 9 of the Bill, which would mean that the WRA must publish guidance about transactions to which the sub-section applies and that are partly in Wales and partly in England. The nature of the process in dealing with cross-border transactions, as well as the exact location of the border between England and Wales, has engendered a great deal of interest and debate within the committee. We did realise that the amount of property that may be affected was greater than we first thought, but we also realised that Wales isn’t the only nation on earth that shares a border with another country and that, therefore, we could find a solution to this.

There are concerns about the implementation of the tax, and they’re understandable. I would say that it’s a reasonable expectation from owners of properties and taxation professionals that clear information would be available on how this new tax would be implemented in terms of cross-border property. This amendment would tackle those two concerns by placing expectations on the WRA to publish guidance about cross-border transactions as well as guidance on the location of the border between England and Wales. The amendment, therefore, develops a similar amendment introduced at Stage 2, which focused on the designation of the border only, and, likewise, goes further than amendment 32, tabled in the name of Nick Ramsay.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. As this is my first contribution to today’s debate, I would like to make some general opening remarks. Of course, I welcome the opportunity to consider amendments to the Bill today. I wish to formally thank all Assembly Members, particularly members of the Finance Committee, for their work in scrutinising the Bill. This has been very valuable in assisting us to draw up this tax legislation.

Members will recall that I gave a detailed response to the committee’s recommendations at Stage 1, shortly after Christmas, and that I introduced a variety of amendments in response to the committee’s recommendations at Stage 2 in January. I also want to thank Members who have tabled the amendments that we are to discuss this afternoon. I can assure Members that I have considered all sets of amendments carefully. I also met with Members following Stage 2 proceedings in order to further discuss issues and to look at means of implementing certain sections of the Bill.

I will now to turn to each amendment in group 1.

Wel, Llywydd, fel yr ydych wedi clywed, mae’r mater o eiddo trawsffiniol a chroes-deitl wedi bod o ddiddordeb arbennig yn ystod hynt y Bil hwn. Nod y Llywodraeth drwy gydol hyn fu sicrhau dosraniad cyfiawn a rhesymol o gostau pan fydd tir yn gorwedd ar ddwy ochr y ffin, yn seiliedig ar gyngor gan randdeiliaid y bydd angen i’r prawf hwn gael ei ddefnyddio yn ymarferol ym mhob achos.  Nawr, rwy’n derbyn bod yr holl welliannau yn y grŵp hwn yn cael eu rhoi gerbron gyda'r bwriad adeiladol o fynd i'r afael â materion a godwyd wrth graffu, ond, yn ymarferol, mae gwelliant 29 yn ymddangos i mi i fod y defnydd mwyaf materol ac effeithiol wrth ddefnyddio'r prawf, a byddaf yn gofyn i gefnogwyr y Llywodraeth gefnogi gwelliant 29 yn y grŵp hwn.

Fel y mae Aelodau wedi clywed, bydd y gwelliant yn gosod rhwymedigaeth glir iawn ar Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru i gyhoeddi canllawiau i gynorthwyo trethdalwyr pan fydd tir yn cael ei brynu sy'n gorwedd ar ddwy ochr y ffin rhwng Cymru a Lloegr.  Bydd y canllawiau yn helpu i egluro'r hyn a olygir wrth ddosrannu 'cyfiawn a rhesymol'.  Gall y canllawiau hyn gynnwys dolenni i wefan Asiantaeth y Swyddfa Brisio, sydd ei hun yn cynnwys arweiniad sylweddol ar ddosraniad.

Rwy'n falch iawn o allu cadarnhau eto i Aelodau'r prynhawn yma fod y Gofrestrfa Tir yn gallu darparu mapiau digidol sy'n nodi'r ffin rhwng Cymru a Lloegr. Bydd hyn yn cynorthwyo'r trethdalwr neu eu hasiant i sefydlu, ar sail gyfiawn a rhesymol, y rhan o'r ystyriaeth a roddwyd ar gyfer y tir yng Nghymru a’r rhan hwnnw o'r ystyriaeth a roddwyd ar gyfer y tir yn Lloegr. Mae hyn yn golygu y bydd y canllawiau a ddarperir gan welliant 29 yn cael eu seilio'n gadarn ac yn ddibynadwy.

Mae gwelliant 32 yn enw Nick Ramsay a gwelliant 36 yn enw Mark Reckless yn cymryd agwedd wahanol. Yn hytrach na gofyn am ganllawiau i helpu cyrraedd dosraniad cyfiawn a rhesymol ym mhob achos, maent yn cynnig fformiwla, sydd, fel yr ydych wedi clywed, yn cael ei chyfiawnhau fel un sy’n dod ag eglurder a sicrwydd. Yn anffodus, Llywydd, yr un canlyniad y gallwn fod yn hollol sicr ohono yw y byddai'r ymagwedd fformwläig hon yn cynhyrchu dosraniad annheg ac anghyfiawn mewn llawer o achosion. Ychydig iawn o achosion, mewn gwirionedd, fyddai’n gorwedd yn union mewn cyfrannau 50/50 ar y naill ochr a'r llall i'r ffin, a hyd yn oed lle’r oedd y cyfrannau yn union, nid yw gwerth y tir, yn syml, yn adlewyrchiad o'i faint. Unwaith y caiff hynny ei ddeall, bod gwerth y tir yn cael ei bennu, er enghraifft, drwy’r defnydd y gellir ei wneud ohono neu adeiladau sydd wedi'u hadeiladu arno, ac nid yn unig gan ei faint, yna mae eglurder ymddangosiadol ail brawf yng ngwelliant 36 hefyd yn disgyn. Mae'n llawer gwell, yn fy marn i, i ganiatáu i’r gweithwyr proffesiynol medrus hynny, sy'n ymdrin fel mater o drefn â materion fel dosrannu cyfiawn a rhesymol, ddefnyddio’r dyfarniad hwnnw yn ffeithiau pob trafodiad—bellach yn cael cymorth gan y canllawiau a grëwyd gan welliant 29, a thrwy’r dulliau diogelu a ddarperir eisoes gan y Bil.

Llywydd, hyd yn oed pe na fyddai gwelliannau 32 a 36 yn ddiffygiol am y rhesymau a ddarparwyd yn awr, mae'n bwysig cydnabod na fyddai'r trefniadau a nodir ynddynt yn berthnasol i dreth dir y dreth stamp, a fyddai'n parhau i weithredu ar ochr Lloegr y ffin. Byddai'n dal i fod yn rhaid i'r trethdalwr gydymffurfio â'r rheolau treth dir y dreth stamp ar ddosraniad cyfiawn a rhesymol. Am y rhesymau hyn nid wyf yn gallu cefnogi'r gwelliannau hynny. Mae gwelliannau 35 a 37, a gyflwynwyd gan Mark Reckless, yn gysylltiedig. Mae'r gwelliannau yn ceisio sicrhau bod trafodiad trawsffiniol i gael ei drin gan y prynwr fel trafodiad sengl ac efallai wedyn y gellid dychwelyd ffurflen dim treth, felly, i Gyllid a Thollau EM mewn perthynas â threth dir y dreth stamp, gydag Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru yn talu i Gyllid a Thollau EM beth sy'n ddyledus iddynt gan y trethdalwr. Byddai hyn yn golygu y byddai Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru yn dosrannu’r ystyriaeth ac yn rhoi’r gyfran berthnasol i Gyllid a Thollau EM. Byddai'r gwelliant i bob pwrpas yn gofyn i Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru gasglu a rheoli treth dir y dreth stamp ar ran Cyllid a Thollau EM ar gyfer trafodion trawsffiniol. Mae hynny, ynddo'i hun, yn newid y dreth o dreth hunanasesiad i un lle mae Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru yn sefydlu atebolrwydd trethdalwr ar gyfer Treth Trafodiadau tir a threth dir y dreth stamp. .

Nawr, ni allaf gefnogi'r gwelliannau hyn, a fyddai yn fy marn i yn disgyn y tu allan i gymhwysedd y Cynulliad, gan fod y darpariaethau yn bwriadu newid sut y bydd treth dir y dreth stamp yn berthnasol i drafodiad tir yn Lloegr.  A thrwy ddarparu ar gyfer dychwelyd dim ffurflen dreth i Gyllid a Thollau EM, maent yn ymddangos i osod swyddogaeth ar HMRC heb ganiatâd y Trysorlys.  Ymhellach, nid yw'r gwelliannau’n cael gwared ar y rhwymedigaeth bresennol yn neddfwriaeth y DU i’r prynwr gyflwyno ffurflen i Gyllid a Thollau EM. Ei effaith, felly, yw y byddai mewn gwirionedd yn rhaid i'r prynwr gyflwyno dwy ffurflen i Gyllid a Thollau EM—y ffurflen dim treth a’r ffurflen ar sail gyfiawn a rhesymol, a fyddai'n dal i fod yn ofynnol gan ddeddfwriaeth treth dir y dreth stamp. Gofynnaf i'r Aelodau bleidleisio dros welliant 29, ac i wrthwynebu'r pedwar gwelliant arall yn y grŵp hwn.

I call on Mark Reckless to reply to the debate. Mark Reckless.

Diolch, Llywydd. I thank all Members who have contributed comments, and recognise, with Nick Ramsay, we’re trying to do a pretty similar ambition with our amendments 36 and 32. I note the strength of the Cabinet Secretary for finance’s reply in terms of competence issues around 35, and I had only sought to put in an amendment that I considered might be arguable. I accept his view that that is a stretch, and far be it from me to challenge competence issues and make some great assertion of the Assembly’s power over UK legislation in this respect. I just thought it would be rather easier for taxpayers all round. However, I do think that the idea of either a 50/50 split or simply apportioning the tax on the basis of the land area and deeming that to be just and reasonable is sensible, and that would be achieved either by my own or by Nick Ramsay’s amendments. And, frankly, it would make things a lot easier for everyone concerned, while protecting the tax base. So, I note the Cabinet Secretary’s points, but I’m not sure what merit or use is served by those arguments, when we can actually raise the money and ease everyone’s administrative burden if we accepted either Nick Ramsay’s amendment or my own. My intention, Llywydd, if this is in order, would not be to push 35 to a vote, but to look to vote on amendment 36 from my group.

Amendment 35 has been moved. If everybody’s happy with the fact that it’s not voted on, I’ll accept that that amendment does not need to be voted on.

Amendment 35 withdrawn in accordance with Standing Order 12. 27.

That being the case, we will move to amendment 37.

Y cwestiwn yw: a ddylid derbyn—

You need to formally move amendment 37. Are you doing so, Mark Reckless?

I think amendment 37, Llywydd, would be consequential to amendment 35, so, I also seek permission to withdraw or not vote on 37, but seek a vote on 36.

It’s not moved; therefore, it does not require a vote.

Amendment 37 (Mark Reckless) not moved.

Nick Ramsay, now you can move amendment 32 formally.

I think I did move it, but that might have been a mistake earlier. That was following your advice, which is why I asked the initial question.

Yes, I think you were wrong to follow my advice and move the amendment. [Laughter. ]

Forgive me for following your advice.

Now you can follow my advice and move it now.

Amendment 32 (Nick Ramsay) moved.

I’m not going to say any more other than I move amendment 32.

The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection. ] We proceed, therefore, to an electronic vote on amendment 32. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 17, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 32 not agreed: For 17, Against 38, Abstain 0.

Result of the vote on amendment 32.

Amendment 36—Mark Reckless.

Amendment 36 (Mark Reckless) moved.

I move formally.

The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection. ] We therefore proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 17, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 36 not agreed: For 17, Against 38, Abstain 0.

Result of the vote on amendment 36.

Amendment 29—Steffan Lewis.

Amendment 29 (Steffan Lewis) moved.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 29 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 12. 36.

Amendment 29 agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12. 36.