Cabinet Secretary, I wanted to speak in this debate primarily because of my concerns regarding the Swansea bay city deal, but I think I would like to start with an observation, if I may. We're quite used now to Welsh Government using framework legislation to cover the fact that it hasn't quite got some of the evidence to support a particular policy objective. There are certain decisions on processes that need to be observed to meet compliance, or particular figures that get referred to regulation, for example. Even though they are not framework pieces of legislation, I think both this Act and the minimum alcohol unit price Bill, actually, are affected by the same problem, and that is that original legislative impetus comes from an academic study that extrapolates results from a UK-wide study base, then they receive a sort of general policy wave-off by the interested parties, but in terms of detail, the views of those with the real-life experience of what might and might not work don't seem to count for an awful lot.

Just to address Simon Thomas's point, I think it's a good example, this one: adjusting rates to benefit buyers at the cheaper end of the residential market, which I'm sure we all supported—I haven't seen that Government has really considered that by creating disadvantage at the job-creating higher end of commercial rates, there will be a drop in new job opportunities for those buyers of the houses who need the work to sustain their mortgages on their new homes.

So, Cabinet Secretary, I think maybe we might have been a little overwhelmed to be swayed by your reassurances at the time we supported this Act, and I think I'd like you to look again at those points—Andrew Davies referred to a lot of them—referred to in the property agents' submission of 16 February. I suppose the cynical would say that they're worried about their own turnovers, to a certain degree, but I think you should be worried about why they're worried about that. Because if, as they say, they've had no consultation with or understanding with the Government, and there's been no understanding of the commercial property industry, then I think that's why the policy aims of this Act are running into trouble pretty quickly.

The direct effects of the 6 per cent rate are calculable. They're not just academically forecastable. They can be looked at as real-time maths, and these companies that Andrew referred to are already seeing reported reductions in capital values on commercial property in Wales. As we heard, investor sentiment is being affected to the advantage of the big regional centres in England and Scotland, but at the very point, that 2015, 2017 mark, when Cardiff in particular was starting to break through the perception that Wales was a less attractive place to invest—. And, of course, you already threw a cowpat onto Wales's path to prosperity by introducing the highest business rate multiplier in Britain at this crucial time. So, I don't really know why you thought this tax hike at the same time would help.

Now, £1 million is not a huge sum of money for commercial purchase. About 80 per cent of commercial land sales, even here in Wales where it tends to be cheaper, are over that, and presumably that's why you thought that this would be a profitable area to levy a super tax, although I understand actually the tax take isn't going to be particularly higher. Of course, I draw attention to Swansea University bay campus. The land there cost over £87 million and I'm sure there would have been some pretty fierce negotiation over that purchase figure had there been, at that point, an exposure to an additional, effectively, 20 per cent hike in the tax that they were paying. So, you can see why I am keen to understand from you what consultation you undertook directly with the Swansea bay city deal shadow board and with any of the industry representatives who have expressed an interest in being one of the necessary private sector partners.

Firstly, there’s that question, which Mark Reckless mentioned, of whether local authorities have the HMRC exemption from this purchase tax that Governments do. The city deal executive board is of course all about local authorities. Then, secondly, there’s a question for me about whether the Tatas and the GSKs of this world, who don’t have to come to Swansea bay, after all, might not just be attracted to invest in other UK city deal areas where they would pay less.

These are big figures we're talking about: the Swansea waterfront digital district is worth £168.2 million, and that's including 100,000 square feet of office space; the homes as power stations project is £517.1 million; and the life science and well-being village is just under £200 million. The £1 million threshold is of very little significance here, but investors will be paying 20 per cent more tax than they would be in England and over 30 per cent more than they would in Scotland, and boy will they notice the difference on figures of that magnitude. The price per hectare or per square foot may be cheaper than central London, but you misunderstand the commercial property sector if you think that’s the only factor it takes into account.

So, just to go back to evidence for a second, did you discuss the effects of the 6 per cent with the city deal interested parties, specifically the economy Secretary, who was interested? And how did you take that into account before throwing this second cowpat onto the path to prosperity in my region? Thank you.