We move to group 2, which is on definition of intent. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 50, and I call on Nick Ramsay to move and speak to the amendment. Nick Ramsay.

Amendment 50 (Nick Ramsay) moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m pleased to speak to the lead amendment and to move the lead amendment of group 2 on the definition of intent. We’ve tabled this amendment—section 6, page 3, line 29, if you want the exact details—saying that after ‘waste’ we should insert ‘and the definition of intent’, as it provides for the flexibility to revisit the issue of intent. This was an issue that was raised by both witnesses and the Finance Committee during Stage 1 of the Bill. At Stage 2, I tabled an alternative definition of waste and intent. However, the Cabinet Secretary declined to accept this, stating that he did not want to risk litigation and reiterating his opinion that the existing provisions on intent were ‘carefully balanced’—that was the terminology used by the Cabinet Secretary.

This amendment before us today is therefore a compromise for the Welsh Government and ensures that forthcoming legislation by the UK Government on landfill tax, based on recent case law, does not clash with the Welsh Government’s definitions.

The disposal of material as waste and the intention to discard has been a technical and complex area of the Bill, as well as being a litigious area outside this Assembly, and I’m very grateful to the committee and to its Members for giving this important issue such detailed consideration. I responded to the committee’s recommendation 5 that the Government considers the definition of a disposal of material as waste with a detailed technical note setting out the rationale underlying each component of section 6 of the Bill, which deals with this matter, and the process that went into arriving at that draft, and I also provided the committee with a summary of the relevant UK landfill litigation.

The provisions relating to the definition of a taxable disposal, and in particular the circumstances in which the condition that a disposal of material as waste has been met, have been carefully crafted so as to minimise the risk to the revenue. I was grateful to the Finance Committee and its Members for their recognition of this approach when we were voting on amendments in this area at Stage 2.

I recognise that Nick Ramsay’s amendment 50 is a development of the amendment that he laid at Stage 2. It now, I think, accepts that making changes to the substance of the Bill could pose a risk to the revenue in that it does not now seek to amend any of the provisions setting out what is a taxable disposal, but instead it seems to want to futureproof the Bill by adding to the regulation-making power at section 6(4) of the Bill, so as to allow the Welsh Ministers to modify the meaning of ‘the definition of intent’. The problem with the amendment is that neither section 6 nor the wider Bill introduces a definition of intent. Therefore, an amendment to modify something that is not in the Bill is neither practical nor, I think, desirable.

Members of the Finance Committee will be very well aware that the Bill’s approach to whether or not there has been a disposal of material as waste is made up of a number of components within section 6. The regulation-making power at section 6(4) as currently drafted allows the Welsh Ministers to modify the meaning of a disposal of material as waste, by amending section 6. This power would allow the intention-to-discard test that underpins the definition of a disposal of material as waste to be removed, added to, or otherwise changed, and in so doing changes can already be made to each of the components of section 6.

In other words, the Bill already provides Ministers with a power to achieve what lies behind Nick Ramsay’s amendment, but, I believe, in a more practical and workable way. For those reasons, I hope that Members will accept that the Bill as drafted is already sufficiently futureproofed to allow for changes in this area and agree that amendment 50 is not workable. On that basis, I ask Members not to support this amendment.

Nick Ramsay to reply to the debate.

Diolch. As I said in opening this group, group 2, and moving this amendment, this amendment is actually a compromise on the original amendment tabled at Stage 2, a point recognised by the Cabinet Secretary, and merely seeks to clarify definitions and ensure that Welsh Government legislation does not clash with UK legislation. The issues that the Cabinet Secretary has put forward today are similar to the issues that were put forward at Stage 2, in that there is a concern, I know, about future litigation and about how the amendment then, and this amendment, could actually make things more complex.

I listened to the Cabinet Secretary at Stage 2 carefully, which is why I didn’t proceed with the wording of that amendment at this point. I’ve listened to you again today, Cabinet Secretary. On the basis of what you’ve said, I’m happy not to move this amendment. However, I will do so on the basis that we could continue discussions, because I do feel that there is an issue here that hasn’t been satisfactorily dealt with at either Stage 2 or Stage 3, and I would like to see further work on it. However, I do appreciate that the Welsh Government—or a future Welsh Government—doesn’t want to get into a litigation problem in the future, so if I could suggest that as a way forward, perhaps we can—. Well, I’m happy not to—is it withdrawing or not moving? I always get confused.

You have to withdraw it.

I will withdraw, then.

Okay. I have to ask: does anybody object to the withdrawing of the amendment? No. Thank you.

Amendment 50 withdrawn in accordance with Standing Order 12.27.