The next group is group 2, which relates to tax rates and bands. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 38. I call on Mark Reckless to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Mark Reckless.

Amendment 38 (Mark Reckless, supported by Nick Ramsay) moved.

Diolch, Llywydd, and I promise to shortly yield the floor to others as I had the lead amendments on the first two groups. I adjusted my previous set of amendments in light of what we heard at the committee stage and a number of other amendments that I pursued them I’m not pursuing here. However, this amendment is in the same form that I put to committee, and I think it’s a key amendment of principle. It received two votes in committee, three against and two abstentions. So, I thought it was something worth putting to the Siambr as a whole.

We have had arguments from the Cabinet Secretary in respect of this, and I think there are a couple of sort of key issues that are important. There is certainty for taxpayers. We all agree that is something that is attractive and we should have to the maximum possible extent. The committee was, I think, pleased that the Cabinet Secretary, if I recall correctly, made an undertaking at Stage 2 that, by October, he was going to publish formally what the rates would be when land transaction tax commenced next April, next year. His intention throughout, as he has communicated, I understand, is to have those rates continue on the same basis that SDLT has been applied on a UK basis, although, of course, it is possible that the Chancellor at the UK level might change those rates in some respect between now and then. It’s good that we will have certainty, at least from October, and that I do appreciate. It’s also right that the rates, when they do come, and changes to those rates will go through a positive resolution procedure. Again, that does give a level of protection in terms of input from Members on whatever view the Government takes as to what those tax rates should be. However, such a resolution will not be susceptible to an amendment; it is coming from a Minister, it is his view, and it is either accept or reject, and not a full, legislative primary instrument of this Assembly.

So, I think those are the points of argument there, but I think there is a greater argument, and that is one of principle. This is the first tax in modern times that is being devolved to this Assembly to administer, to levy, on behalf of the people of Wales, and it seems to me—and, I would have thought, perhaps to a wider number of Members—that it would be right for us, as the legislators elected by the people of Wales, to determine what rates of tax they should pay, particularly in this very significant moment and, for some in this Siambr, a very important achievement, in terms of that moment, to be levying that tax as an elected Assembly. Yet it is proposed instead that we will not take that decision, those rates will not be on the face of the Bill, and we will leave it to ministerial discretion to determine at a later date what those rates should be, and that we should at most have a secondary process where we can only reject or accept and are not ourselves writing and determining and considering what those rates of tax should be. So, I bring forward amendment 38 to give the Assembly a chance to give its view as a whole, and I look particularly to the Party of Wales, as they style themselves, who abstained at committee stage on this, and for whom this is a matter of great significance that perhaps for some is a key step on the road to an independent Wales, yet, when it comes to it, they will not—unless they do something differently than what I expect—assert the rights of this Assembly to speak for the people of Wales for us as elected legislators to determine tax rates, but will instead allow that to Ministers.

I'm more than happy to support the lead amendment in this group, as moved by Mark Reckless. This lead amendment was the subject, as Mark said, of much discussion at Stage 2, and Welsh Conservatives are happy to support it. I believe it is sensible to get the Welsh Government's proposals for tax bands on the face of the Bill. It does happen in other places; there's no reason why we couldn't set that precedent here and provide the type of clarity and certainty for practitioners and for stakeholders that they need in any time when you have a transition from one tax regime to another. We know that the Welsh Government believes in the maxim of consistency; that's been set out by the Cabinet Secretary and, indeed, by his predecessor, the current leader of the house. So, in order to aid that transition from the UK system to the Welsh system, having as much information as possible upfront, on the face of the Bill, or however you want to do it, we do think would be beneficial.

Now, that said, I know that the Welsh Government are uneasy about doing this. Perhaps they feel that it ties their hands at too early a point. So, I do wait to see what the Cabinet Secretary has to say in terms of dealing with this issue, and, if a compromise will be that, at a certain set date before this tax, the LTT tax, comes into force in Wales—if at some date we can have certainty of knowing what the tax rates will be then I think that that will be a compromise. But it will be a compromise in the absence of a better way of doing things, and I think we do, as an Assembly, and as we’ve done with Finance Committee, need to have a discussion about exactly how we do proceed with fiscal policy in this place as the devolution of taxes and fiscal powers happens, and a finance Bill at some point in the future would be a model that I think we should look at as a better way of going forward and giving that certainty that people need. But I'm more than happy to support Mark Reckless's amendment.

The subsequent amendment from myself in this group is linked to it, and moves on further from that, whereby we will—. When I find my page—. The amendment provides a transitional arrangement to provide certainty for the property market, and our amendment specifically is linked to the way that rates by the Scottish Government have been set. So, I’m happy to support this.

I'm not quite sure if Mark Reckless was offering that, if we supported this amendment, he would come across to the issue of independence for Wales. I think UKIP are casting round for a new mission and a new meaning for the word ‘independence’, so—. It seems to mean all kinds of things from Nathan Gill to Douglas Carswell and no doubt something new from Mark Reckless. But we’ll wait and see.

There is no doubt—and there was a cross-party agreement in the committee, it’s true—that, when you’re passing tax legislation, it is better to put the rates of taxation either on the face of legislation or in primary legislation, because we all here should be voting for rates of taxation. We shouldn’t let Ministers decide it. We shouldn’t let them decide over Easter or Christmas, and then suddenly find ourselves in a position where it’s a ‘take it or leave it’ vote on some kind of subordinate legislation.

But we are in a slightly difficult position because we don’t have the full legislative fiscal powers that will come from the 2017 Wales Act. They don’t commence, probably, until April 2018. Now, when they do commence, then I hope—and it’s certainly the intention of the Finance Committee, I hope with the support of all parties in this place—that we then engage and embark upon a proper finance Bill procedure. That’s what happens in the Scottish Parliament. Budgets are taken through by a finance Bill. Tax rates are declared. You see clearly what you’re voting for and the implications of what you vote for. There’s no doubt, as Nick Ramsay, I think, just concluded with his remarks, that that’s the best way forward.

The question we have now, though, is how we treat this Bill without those powers, and without those powers having commenced yet by the Secretary of State. It’s a difficult call, and we certainly put an amendment forward in committee that put rates on the face of the Bill to test what the Government response would be. The Government’s response in effect is to say they promise—and we have a committee undertaking that I think is enforceable in those terms—to bring forward the tax rates and bands by October this year. Now, from Plaid Cymru’s point of view, that gives the sort of assurance that those who are interested in taxation in Wales need. It is a commitment from Welsh Government that we can hold them to account, but it does not mean that we are resiling from the fundamental point that, over the next year or two, we have to work to put tax legislation through this place as a primary, finance Bill approach. That’s something the Finance Committee itself wants to do—take evidence from other legislatures, and see how it’s done other legislatures, and see how it’s done elsewhere through the United Kingdom as well. It’s something we want to work with the Cabinet Secretary on, and, in those circumstances, I think it is appropriate and allowable, if you like, for the Government to proceed with the Bill in the current form, with the undertaking that we’ll hear the full rates of taxation in the autumn. On that basis, Plaid Cymru will not be supporting this amendment.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch, Llywydd. I recognise that taxpayers and businesses will want certainty about the amount of tax they will pay under land transaction tax in advance of April 2018. However, it’s my view that to include rates and bands on the face of this Bill, at this stage, still 12 months before the tax will be devolved to Wales, would, I believe, be to offer a potentially misleading appearance of certainty without the necessary substance.

Mark Reckless believes that the legislature is somehow abandoning its prerogative to the Executive by not placing written rates and bands on the face of the Bill, and I think that’s mistaken for two reasons. Firstly, to require the legislature to set rates and bands at this point would be to invite Members to make such a decision in the absence of the information necessary to take that decision in an informed way. Secondly, his argument implies that future decisions have been surrendered unchecked to the Executive. In fact, what will happen will be a proposal by the Government, which this National Assembly will scrutinise and determine.

Now, Llywydd, I was persuaded by arguments made at Stage 2 to make a commitment to publish the Welsh Government’s proposed rates and bands by 1 October 2017. In the circumstances we are in—and I fully accept the points that Simon Thomas has made about the need to devise a different system for different circumstances in the future, but, in the circumstances we are in in this year, I repeat the commitment this afternoon that Government will bring forward and publish our proposed rates and bands by 1 October 2017. These proposals can then be scrutinised in a manner informed by all the other information that will be part of the budget-making process. Such timing also allows any changes required as a result of the Chancellor’s autumn budget to be reflected in the regulations that will come before this Assembly for this Assembly’s consideration and this Assembly’s determination. This, I believe, provides a certainty that is real and reliable for stakeholders, and ensures the rightful oversight and decision-making responsibility of this National Assembly. I therefore ask Members to reject amendments 30 to 42 in the name of Mark Reckless.

Amendment 33, tabled by Nick Ramsay, has the effect of handing full control over rates and bands to the UK Government until April 2019, without any scope for Welsh Ministers to propose any changes or for the Assembly to approve them during that period.

Now, Llywydd, securing fiscal powers for this National Assembly has been a protracted process, stretching back now through a commission, a St David’s Day process, an Act of Parliament, an Act of the fourth Assembly to establish the Welsh Revenue Authority, the negotiation of a fiscal framework in the autumn, and the Bill before Members this afternoon. That the first decision we should take in 800 years on rates and bands of Welsh taxes would be to hand that decision back to the body from which those responsibilities have just been devolved does not seem to me to be a course of action that would commend itself to many Members here this afternoon. And I have to ask Members—

Are you giving way to the intervention?

[Continues. ]—to vote against amendment 33.

I’m sorry. Of course, yes.

Thank you for taking my intervention. I think the Cabinet Secretary is being a little bit mischievous there, perhaps with some Plaid Cymru collusion that neither the Member of the lead amendment or me were aware of earlier. But, no, that is certainly not the intention. As the Cabinet Secretary has said himself, the intention is for these taxes not to come into force until April 2019. So, our request that tax rates should be available in advance of that and there should be certainty is not about handing powers back to the body from which they came, it's about certainty. But I understand where you're coming from with the compromise of a date, Cabinet Secretary, and I accept that. Will you, at least, in the future consider a finance Bill so that we can discuss these fiscal issues in this Chamber a lot more effectively than we do at the moment?

Well, Chair, I heard the Chair of the Finance Committee in this Chamber last week say that he hoped that the Finance Committee would be doing some work on the idea of a finance Bill, taking evidence from elsewhere, seeing how it might be adapted to the suite of devolved taxes that we have available to us in Wales, and I look forward very much to co-operating constructively with the Finance Committee in that important piece of work.

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

Diolch, Llywydd. Nick Ramsay alleges, in reference to the dissing of his amendments, to collusion between Plaid Cymru and the Government. I'm not quite sure what degree of interaction goes on and whether it's properly called collusion, but I think it does give a difficulty for others in this Assembly who are very clearly on the opposition as to whether we’re scrutinising some degree of collusion between Plaid and the Government or whether we’re simply looking at the Government. I am disappointed with Plaid’s statement that they will not be supporting this amendment. I assume that most likely means that they will abstain. Perhaps that's part of their deal with Labour that they abstain on finance measures, except when we had the second supplementary budget, for some reason, but then they let that go through anyhow.

But I don't think it's fair to take a very binary view like this, and I don't want to be too strong in what I say about the legislature versus the Executive. I think the Cabinet Secretary slightly exaggerated what I was saying as he retold it. If this tax is coming in and, sort of April next year, we’re setting the rates for the first time, all Nick Ramsay's amendment is saying that, for the first year, we should keep it in line with the UK rates. And, as I’ve understood from the Cabinet Secretary through committee, he's been saying exactly the same thing—how important it is to have this through train and to allow the tax to settle down without having changes from SDLT for that early period while the tax is bedding in, and he himself, as far as I can discern, is saying we mustn't put these tax rates on the face of the Bill, because, implicitly, if the UK Government were to change SDLT, we’d then have to change ours, so we’d be giving a false certainty to people by putting them on the face of the Bill if we were later going to change them if they changed at the UK level. But it’s simply a matter of principle. We, as the legislators, we as the people elected, should ultimately determine what the tax rate is. Put it on the face of the Bill, be true to your principles. If this is such a big step towards greater self-government, whether it ends in independence or otherwise, as some Members would wish and others would not, it's not the right way for a key process in building a state for that decision to be delegated to Ministers by the legislature when it is so important as putting those initial tax rates that taxpayers will have to pay. So, for that reason, I will want to move amendment 38.

The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection. ] We therefore proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 17, nine abstentions and 29 against. Therefore, amendment 38 is not agreed.

Amendment 38 not agreed: For 17, Against 29, Abstain 9.

Result of the vote on amendment 38.

Amendment 39, Mark Reckless.

As it’s consequential to the amendment that’s just been defeated, I won’t move 39.

Amendment 39 is not moved.

Amendment 39 (Mark Reckless, supported by Nick Ramsay) not moved.

Amendment 33, Nick Ramsay.

Amendment 33 (Nick Ramsay) moved.

Move.

The question is that amendment 33 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 and 38 against. Therefore, amendment 33 is not agreed.

Amendment 33 not agreed: For 17, Against 38, Abstain 0.

Result of the vote on amendment 33.

Mark Reckless, amendment 40.

Similarly, Llywydd, 40 all the way through to 42 are not amendments I wish to move, given the key decision and principles being taken.

Forty is not moved.

Amendment 40 (Mark Reckless) not moved.