Well, the reason we're opposing the amendment is that it starts with 'delete all' with reference to our motion. We also have some concerns about how Welsh Government is treated compared to local authorities and potentially some other bodies, and the potential differences between LTT and SDLT and the centralising effects we think that may unhelpfully have on partnerships.

I previously criticised Welsh Government for its lack of joined-up approach to office development and employment growth, particularly in the constituency of the AM who's just spoken, Cardiff Central. One Cabinet Secretary, Ken Skates, promotes an enterprise zone, yet another, Mark Drakeford, subjects it to punitive taxes. Industry leaders say they're already seeing reducing asset valuations and investors who will no longer consider Wales as a direct consequence of this policy decision. How are we to reconcile what Ken Skates describes as his business-friendly approach with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance's new supertax? The property industry tells us that private investor interest will significantly subside with the LTT increase and will result in Welsh property being less competitive than the other UK nations and regions. Investors will be concerned that, having raised tax once, this could happen again. Having the Corbyn-backing Minister who raised the tax move to the top job may not mollify such fears. The BBC reported on 28 March how Welsh Government may sidestep private investors being unwilling to pay its rising tax burden. According to the BBC, for Central Square, the Welsh Government will buy the offices on the site, so punitive taxation then begets nationalisation. Jeremy Corbyn will be delighted.

While Welsh Government has a Crown exemption from both SDLT and LTT, my advice from the Assembly legal team via the Research Service is that local authorities may be less generously treated by LTT. If they jointly purchase property with Welsh Government, LTT may be payable, while some purchases that HMRC may have exempted from SDLT could be liable for LTT. The safer option for local authorities on regeneration may now be to defer to a Welsh Government lead, relying on Welsh Government's Crown exemption to assemble land for what should be locally driven schemes. I've spoken about the Cardiff bus station, but the implications may be wider, as Suzy Davies will address for the Swansea region.

Finally, I'm extremely concerned that the Cabinet Secretary may have made a serious error in January in his Welsh tax policy report at paragraphs 60 to 61. He admits that higher LTT

'will reduce both prices and the number of non-residential transactions', but then says,

'The size of these effects is estimated using the OBR’s behavioural effects', applying SDLT elasticities. Basing his forecast on such UK-wide calculations wholly ignores the likely substitution effect away from the relatively small Welsh economy. While it is hard for UK investors to escape higher SDLT, they can avoid LTT much more easily, simply by investing in Bristol or Birmingham or Reading, instead of in Cardiff or Swansea. I fear the Cabinet Secretary's decision making and budget have failed to take account of that.

Today, we debate LTT and the punitive 6 per cent rate that Welsh Government has set for higher-value commercial property. Cabinet Secretary, is this how it will be with income tax too?