There is now a debate on the devolution of new tax powers, and I call on the Minister for Finance and Local Government to move the motion. Rebecca Evans.

Motion NDM7786 Lesley Griffiths

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Recognises the potential for a vacant land tax in Wales to contribute to increasing housing supply and bringing idle land into productive use.

2. Regrets the failure of the UK Government to take forward this proposal in line with the provisions of the Wales Act 2014.

3. Calls on the UK Government to work with Welsh Government to ensure there is an effective process for enabling the devolution of legislative competence over new areas of taxation to the Senedd.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. We first debated the case for new taxes in 2017, beginning a national discussion about how new tax powers could provide opportunities to help us realise our ambitions for Wales. More than four years later, those opportunities are still not available to us.

The Wales Act 2014 allows for the devolution of new and existing UK taxes, but gives scant detail on how that process would work. The Welsh and UK Governments worked together to carefully design a process that would enable the introduction of new devolved taxes, respecting the interests of both Governments. There are two distinct phases of the process. The first phase is to devolve the powers. This requires a proposal to be developed, and consulted upon, before being presented to both the UK Parliament and this Senedd for the agreement to devolve and receive the powers. The second phase is for the Welsh Government to bring forward the detailed policy and legislative proposals to this Senedd to introduce the new tax.

We identified a vacant land tax as the first new tax we would seek competence for using the agreed inter-governmental process. We chose a vacant land tax because it can play a key role in helping deliver on our commitments to provide more housing, and support the regeneration of our towns and communities. We also chose a vacant land tax because we believe the case for devolution was clear and straightforward, and that this would allow us to test and refine the process for devolving further taxes.

High-quality, safe and affordable housing is the cornerstone to better health, better educational outcomes and better well-being. We know from housing need estimates that we will need an additional 7,400 homes per year for the next five years, and we are doing everything in our power to deliver the housing Wales needs. But, with new tax powers to incentivise developers to progress stalled developments, we could do more. A vacant tax alone is not the solution to the housing crisis, of course, but it is an intervention we can make to bring forward timely development. As it stands, land owners benefit from an uplift in the value of their land when it's identified in the planning process for development. Where the land is then developed, providing much-needed homes, this system works. But, where the landowner holds on to that land and it's not developed, there is a private gain, but at a public cost. By increasing the cost of holding on to land that has been identified for development, a vacant land tax could help to encourage development and rebalance who bears the cost when development doesn't take place. A vacant land tax could also help contribute to regeneration, tackling the blight of idle sites and their impact on the well-being of those who live nearby.

To begin to properly explore the opportunities of the vacant land tax for Wales, we first need the powers. We have always been clear that in seeking new powers for the first time, we will be testing the Wales Act 2014 mechanism, and we have never underestimated the challenge of navigating this process. Two years of work went into ensuring that the UK Government had the information it needed to consider the case for devolution, before we made a formal request for the transfer of powers. I had a constructive discussion with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at a Joint Exchequer Committee meeting. We agreed it was for the Welsh Government to make policy decisions about how any new devolved tax would operate, and for this Senedd to decide whether to pass any new tax into law. The role of the UK Government and Parliament is in deciding to devolve new tax powers. However, when I made the formal request in March 2020, their response was to ask for yet more information on the operation of the tax. We have worked with the UK Government in good faith to determine and to provide the information that they will need, but it is not appropriate for the UK Government to get involved in matters that are, rightly, for the Welsh Government and this Senedd. 

The Conservatives' amendment calls on us to acknowledge that there are a number of reasons why developments may stall. Well, this is something that we've always acknowledged. We commissioned research into the reasons and their prevalence across Wales. We have also always been very clear that we're not looking to penalise those who are actively developing within the timescales of a normal process, nor those who are prevented from development by reasons that are outside their control.

We know that to achieve our policy aims, we will need to carefully consider how such a tax would be set and structured, and we will work with stakeholders to design and approach that disincentivises the behaviours that we don't want, without creating unintended consequences. But, the powers must come before the detailed policy design can be undertaken. The continuing lack of progress in devolving new powers not only denies us a potentially significant lever in meeting housing need and supporting regeneration, it suggests that the process is unworkable. Yet, in the meantime, the UK Government is pressing ahead with its plans to introduce a UK-wide residential property development tax, which will include, within its scope, taxing the profits arising from holding on to land identified for development. 

A vacant land tax is a narrow and targeted tax. It is closely aligned to devolved responsibilities, and would have little interaction with non-devolved areas. It would apply only to land in Wales, and wouldn't reasonably be expected to have a material impact outside of Wales. If we cannot secure powers for such a tax, it is difficult to believe we could secure powers for any new tax under the current process. If the UK Government were so minded to progress our request in the spirit of what we have agreed, we could today be debating whether to accept the transfer of powers, rather than continuing to regret the lack of progress. Instead, in a process where UK Government can potentially endlessly request further information, we must question whether that process is fit for purpose. Diolch.

I have selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on Peter Fox to move the amendment tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Peter Fox.

Amendment 1—Darren Millar

Delete all and replace with:

1. Recognises that the UK Government has been engaging with the Welsh Government over proposals to introduce a vacant land tax in Wales.

2. Acknowledges that there are a number of reasons as to why new developments may stall, and notes concerns that a vacant land tax may result in unintended consequences on the availability and affordability of land for development.

3. Calls on the Welsh Government to publish its proposals for a vacant land tax, including a full impact assessment on the housing sector.

4. Further calls on the Welsh Government to work collaboratively with house builders, and to use all of the levers that it currently has available to build the affordable, quality homes that Wales needs to tackle the housing crisis.

Amendment 1 moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the amendment tabled in the name of Darren Millar. I would like to thank you, Minister, for the statement, although I do question why the Government has used its parliamentary time to bring forward a debate on further devolution of taxation and to drive yet another wedge, it seems, between Wales and the UK Government. Once again, it seems like we're banging on about devolution, rather than talking about the big issues facing the people of Wales, looking inwards at ourselves, obsessing over process, rather than the policy outcomes that will deliver real change for families across the country.

We are at a delicate time in Wales's recovery from the pandemic, and I firmly believe that Welsh Government resources should be solely focused on delivering on the people's priorities: jobs and levelling up the economy, the NHS and helping young people to catch up with their education. You acknowledged today, Minister, that the UK Government—that you've been in conversations with them. I'm pleased you've acknowledge that. As we know, your own tax policy report in 2021-22, published earlier this year, acknowledges an agreement, as you referenced just now, at the Joint Exchequer Committee in 2021 that proposals for the vacant land tax could be moved forward onto the next stage. And I know that the UK Government has since requested more information and that has delayed this process, and I acknowledge your frustration at this delay today, Minister.

What I'd say in response is that it is absolutely correct that these plans are fully scrutinised by all parties to ensure that they deliver on their aims and do not have a negative impact on the UK internal market as well as the house building and wider construction sector. To use a house building analogy, Llywydd, you wouldn't move into a new home without checking that it's been properly built first and that the structure is safe; you ask a surveyor to check for issues, you ask tradesmen to make sure the fixtures and fittings are as they should be. This is what the UK Government are doing, and the additional layers of scrutiny should be welcomed and not seen as a hindrance. This is the thing, Minister: you are asking the Welsh Parliament to support the eventual devolution of a vacant land tax without actually really saying what the Welsh Government's plans are. Members, the Minister is trying to sell us a house without allowing us to look at the plans first.

So, Minister, what would a vacant land tax look like in Wales, and do you know what impact this would have on house builders and the wider construction industry? Llywydd, I do broadly understand what the Welsh Government is aiming to achieve through the introduction of a vacant land tax, however, it's important to recognise that there are a number of reasons, as the Minister has referenced, as to why new developments may stall. Research found that of all stalled developments in Wales, 13 per cent have a stall due to site-specific issues, such as ground conditions, ecological and flooding matters and suitability of the land itself, 6 per cent have stalled due to planning negotiations, a further 6 per cent have stalled due to lack of finance. The report also notes that 47 per cent of non-residential stalled sites have come to a halt because of planning negotiations, and these are issues that would not be solved by a vacant land tax.

There have been some positive developments to tackle these issues in Wales, for example, the previous Welsh Government introduced the stalled sites fund, and it would be useful if the Minister could outline how successful this fund has been and whether such initiatives will be extended. Also, the Cardiff capital region, meanwhile, has announced a £45 million fund to kick start house building in the area after it found that 55 per cent of stalled sites were being held up by things like the cost of remediation and the removal of pollutants from the land. There is a wide range of issues that need to be tackled here, Minister, and so I would welcome more detail about how you are working in collaboration with house builders to help them overcome challenges experienced during the development process, rather than further hindering them by imposing a new tax on development. Also, how is the Welsh Government reforming the planning process so that it is more flexible and responsive to local needs?

And finally, turning to the overarching theme of today's debate, tax devolution, I would like to reaffirm the Welsh Conservative manifesto position of no new taxes. I believe that the Welsh Government already has the powers to level up across the country and to finally tackle long-standing issues in Wales. Yet, when it comes to delivery, successive Welsh Labour Governments have often had very little to show for their efforts. Proposals for a vacant land tax ignore the fact that the Welsh Government already has many of the tools that it needs to deliver the housing that Welsh families need. Minister, why should the people of Wales believe that this is a Government that will be one of action and not one of inaction? I remain unconvinced about the need for a vacant land tax in Wales, particularly given the wide range of issues that hinder house building that quite simply a vacant land tax would not solve. With this in mind, Llywydd, I ask Members to reject the Government motion and support our amendment. Diolch yn fawr. 

There are two parts to this motion before us today: first of all, the potential of a vacant land tax, and then, secondly, the deficiencies of the protocol. On the first element, I think there are strong arguments in favour of considering the introduction of a vacant land tax. It would, of course, help to tackle scenarios where large developers abuse the system in order to inflate profits at the expense of communities. Peter Fox said that we need to focus on improving people's lives and not obsess with process. Well, if so, give the Welsh Government the powers to proceed with that work, because this practice of land banking is immoral and wrong, and it's quite right that this Senedd should seek powers to address that issue effectively. There's a similar tax already in place in the Republic of Ireland, which is a levy on vacant plots, and we need similar powers in this place in order to help to tackle the housing crisis in Wales. 

Having said that, there are questions remaining of course that need to be answered before such a tax could be introduced. We'd need to ensure that the tax targets developments that have been deliberately delayed and doesn't impact on those that have failed to make progress for entirely valid reasons. There are pros and there are cons, but it's a matter for this Senedd to discuss and refine those arguments, because they are operational considerations—considerations that come after the high level inter-governmental debate on the principle of devolving or not devolving. And this brings us to the second part of the motion. 

The failure of the current protocol is plain for all to see. It's been compared a number of times, hasn't it, to the old legislative competence Orders, which plagued the Senedd back in the late 2000s. They were very rapidly replaced because of concerns over the complexity of the negotiations involved in those, and this arrangement should also be dealt with in a similar way. The protocols have fallen at the first hurdle, as far as I'm concerned. It's the first time these have been tested, and they've been shown to be flawed and failing. And, frankly, the Treasury is trying to get too deep into operational issues instead of the higher-level principles of where these powers should lie. Of course, they're intentionally making the process unnecessarily complicated and drawn out, because we all know what this current Westminster Government thinks about devolving any further powers or responsibilities to Wales. 

In my time as Chair of the Finance Committee in the last Senedd, I saw how the Welsh Government went to significant lengths to set out the rationale for the vacant land tax, but it's just another case of Wales fulfilling its end of the bargain and Westminster failing to meet theirs. And the Minister's right; this process isn't fit for purpose, and the crux of the problem, of course, is that the UK Government is the final arbiter of its own decisions. Professor Gerry Holtham gave evidence to the Finance Committee in the last Senedd, and he said that

'the judge and the jury and the witnesses are all the same person, and so it's a little unclear how to proceed. If the British Government says "no", what do you do then, even if your request is perfectly reasonable? So, I think it is something, like a lot of things in the British constitution, that would benefit from a little more clarity and perhaps a little more codification'.

The Minister has said that there's a case for some kind of third-party assessment of the information, some sort of independent view and oversight of it. Well, if we are to stick to this protocol, then that is something that we have to insist on, because it's very lopsided towards the UK Government as things stand. Now, it's a bit like my local grocer telling me that he won't sell me eggs unless I tell him whether I'm boiling them, scrambling them or poaching them. It's quite perverse, isn't it, really?

Fundamentally, this is a competency issue, not a policy issue. We saw in the last Senedd how the Chief Secretary to the Treasury just wouldn't engage with the Finance Committee, refusing to appear before it and I know that those sentiments are still there. If truth be told, Westminster Government has absolutely no intention of devolving any further powers on this or any other area to Wales. In fact, the UK Government's mission is pretty clear, isn't it? They're taking back everything through legislation, the internal market Act, we've had references to the raft of LCMs that are now coming before us at an unprecedented rate. There is an irony here, of course: it's Labour putting forward this motion, when of course, it was the Labour Minister, Mark Drakeford, the finance Minister at the time, who agreed this protocol with the UK Government. So, I hope now that you realise that Westminster just doesn't want this protocol to work. It's a fudge; it's a mechanism not to facilitate progress, but to block progress, and of course it's working. So, the sooner we're freed from those Westminster shackles that are holding Wales back, the better.

Taxation exists to pay for public services. Too many people believe that we can have the same quality of public services as Scandinavia when our taxation system is more akin to that of the USA. The Conservatives oppose increasing any taxes or bringing in new taxes. We need a debate on what public services we have and how to pay for them. When you look at the cost of private education and private healthcare, it puts into perspective the value for money we get from our taxation system. It is not by random chance or serendipity that those countries with the highest tax levels have the best public services and those with the lowest tax levels the poorest. It's because taxation is necessary to raise the money to pay for the public services we all need, services like the roads we travel on, the safety of people at work, the safety of food, education and the health service—which we all depend on—policing our streets; they're all paid for out of taxation. If people want quality public services, then taxes are needed to pay for them.

Whilst nobody likes to pay taxes, some rich individuals and multinational companies are experts at reducing their tax payments. For a multinational company, corporation tax is an optional payment that's value can be reduced by things such as intra-company charges, paying for intellectual property rights, transferring charges for goods and services, or making the point of sale outside Britain. Each ensures business profit occurs in a low-tax or no-tax country. Providing quality public services means that if some people do not pay tax or their fair share of tax, then either public services suffer, or others like us have to pay more.

Every time tax cuts are made, they're shown as beneficial—they appear to be to those who are paying less tax and have more money in their pocket. The effect that the introduction of the Government income tax cuts has on public expenditure, on services such as health, local government and education is completely ignored until the cuts start affecting people. The more difficult the tax is to avoid, the more unpopular it is with the rich and powerful. By far the most difficult taxes to avoid are the property taxes, non-domestic rates and council tax. Land value tax is a tax like those. There are no tricks such as internal company transactions or having non-domiciled status to avoid paying the tax; the land is not movable, and the tax becomes liable and must be paid.

There are various ways of raising taxes, and whilst with an expenditure tax such as VAT what I pay on an item is the same as anyone else living in Great Britain, it's not true of tax on income, for example. Take somebody earning £30,000 a year, then if they're under retirement age, they pay income tax and national insurance. When that person reaches retirement age, they cease to pay national insurance. A graduate on the same income pays back a student loan as well as income tax and national insurance. Someone who receives their income via dividend will pay a 7.5 per cent tax rate on income over £2,000. This to me appears very unfair.

What tax needs to be is fair and difficult to avoid. Vacant land tax meets this requirement. I also think the Government recognises the potential for a vacant land tax in Wales to contribute to increasing housing supply and bringing idle land back into productive use. There's too much land that could be being used being banked for the future. Vacant land tax will apply to land that's been granted all necessary planning permission, and other consents for development, but where there's been no development. Tax will apply to all landowners of both commercial and residential property development, private developers, but also local authorities, housing associations and yes, the Welsh Government itself. If there are genuine reasons for the lack of development that are outside of the landowner's control, the tax wouldn't apply. Land value tax has been described as the perfect tax, and the economic efficiency of a land value tax has been known since the eighteenth century. One of the major Conservatives, Jacob Rees-Mogg, who thinks we are still in the eighteenth century, may well actually accept that as something from then that is useful. A land value tax is a progressive tax in that the tax burden falls on the title holder in proportion to the value of the location, the ownership of which is highly correlated with overall wealth and income.

This would not be unique to Wales. I think sometimes we have the Welsh Government often saying, 'This is Wales leading the way', and the Conservatives say, 'It's experimental'. Both would be untrue. A land—[Interruption.]. Sorry. I'll give way, Peter.

Thank you. You're quite right. This isn't just something that Wales has considered. The New Zealand Treasury looked at this and concluded that the tax was unreasonably complicated to design, and they said that the commission previously suggested that a vacant land tax could reduce housing supply in the longer term, and that the tax incentivises landowners to construct dwellings earlier in time than they otherwise would. It's just demonstrated that the land tax isn't working in some countries and we don't want to replicate that here, Mike.

Thank you, Peter Fox. You've raised one country—can I just throw some others back at you? Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Russia, Singapore and Taiwan, some regions of Australia, Mexico, individual states of the United States of America. Land value tax removes the financial incentive to hold unused land solely for price appreciation. The selling price of a good when it's fixed in supply, such as land, does not change if it is taxed. It costs nothing to store land, it isn't going anywhere, and it will almost certainly be increasing in value with time. I fully support the introduction of a land value tax in Wales. It's a good way of raising money for the benefit of the people of Wales.

Another week in the Senedd and once again the same old Welsh Labour—more debates about powers and wanting more devolution to raise taxes, which will eventually hurt the hard-working people of Wales. One thing I've learnt since becoming a Senedd Member is that the Government of Wales don't really want to tackle the issues facing our country, and they want to use this precious time to debate constitutional matters. The people of Wales are no fools. They see that you're struggling to fix the huge problems Wales faces, but they just want you to be honest and step up to the plate and deal with them. The Welsh economy—Wales has consistently had the lowest GDP of all the GB nations. The Welsh NHS—one in five people on a waiting list. And do you know, you're currently failing to meet housing targets, and a vacant land tax will not work, as my colleague Peter Fox has mentioned. It is very complicated and very difficult to introduce.

These are just a few examples of how this Labour administration is failing, but what we want to see you do is just get on with things. All this constitutional chit-chatter is not helping this country. What is clear is the Government is just running out of ideas. You're running away from the big issues, and if you can't show the leadership the country needs, I suggest you step aside and let others have a go. We need more houses in Wales, but instead of calling for more tax-raising powers from Westminster, build more homes with the powers you currently have available to you. You're struggling to deal with the problems we currently face. We have had over 15 Government debates and statements on constitutional matters. You're dodging the real issues facing Wales. The thought of this Government having any more say over taxes sends a shiver down my spine and out of my shoes. You cannot run Wales with the powers you currently have, and you're currently not building the houses we need to meet demand. All the while, things aren't getting better, they're getting worse, and if you can't take the real steps needed to get our country back onside, I suggest Labour step aside and let the Welsh Conservatives have a go at running our country.

The Chair of the Finance Committee is next, Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Thank you, Llywydd. I'm very pleased to speak in this debate today on behalf of the Finance Committee.

Tax-raising powers, including the ability to create new taxes, are essential tools for governments to use as a means of raising revenue to support spending for public services and to influence behavioural change. The Wales Act 2014 devolved fiscal powers to the Senedd for the first time, including conferring tax powers to replace stamp duty land tax, landfill tax, as well as the ability to vary the Welsh rates of income tax. These additional fiscal powers mean that approximately 20 per cent of the Welsh Government’s budget is now funded from tax revenues. This in turn has increased the accountability of the Welsh Government to the people of Wales—clearly, a welcome development.

Last week, the Welsh Minister told the committee that she was continuing to work with the UK Government to secure devolution of a vacant land tax, but that the process has been both time-consuming and frustrating, with discussions already having taken over two years. The Minister has highlighted the challenges from HM Treasury continually requesting further information and has previously said that the UK Government is the final arbiter on whether enough information has been provided to support a proposal.

The Minister has mentioned pursuing an independent dispute resolution on whether or not the Welsh Government has provided the necessary information in relation to the vacant land tax, as set out in the Wales Act 2014. This is the first attempt at seeking competence for a new tax and, as a result, it is reasonable to expect teething problems as the process is ironed out. However, it is unlikely that the intention in the Wales Act was that this process would take so long, and casts doubt on whether the mechanism for devolving taxes is fit for purpose. As I’m sure Members from the third Senedd will remember, it has unfortunate echoes of the tortuous LCO system of devolving legislative competence on a piecemeal basis, which added an additional level of complexity and bureaucracy to an already protracted process. I don’t imagine anybody would like to return to those days.

In the previous Senedd, there was a reluctance from the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury to give evidence to the Finance Committee on its inquiry into the implementation of the Wales Act 2014. However, Simon Hart, Secretary of State for Wales, did attend and when asked about the mechanism for devolving new taxes he said

'if there is a legitimate concern that is raised about maybe the speed of progress or the manner of engagement' he’d be very happy to discuss the issue with the Treasury. We very much welcome the approach, and hope that the new Chief Secretary will be more willing than his predecessor to progress the devolution of this tax with the Minister. We also hope he will be more willing to engage with us as a committee, and participate in the scrutiny of powers that fall within the remit of both the UK Government and the Welsh Government on the devolution of tax powers and other fiscal matters.

The committee supports the Minister in working with the UK Government to ensure that there is an effective process for devolving new tax areas to this Senedd. What everybody wants is a smooth and transparent process, and that can only be achieved if the structures to support it are clear, robust and resilient. Diolch.

Over the last 10 years, I have seen developers landbanking and abandoning brownfield sites that have previous industrial uses for easier-to-develop green land. The brownfield sites cause issues then for the local community. Some have dangerous buildings, unkept trees and fencing adjacent to the highways and private properties. Run-off of water and contamination to highway drains make a community seem uncared for. They are ideal sites for development of houses, which would improve the viability, sustainability and well-being of communities. 

If a brownfield site or greenfield site is included in a development plan, it increases in value. Once it has planning permission, it can then increase by four or five times the original cost of that land. Introducing a vacant land tax for those that have allocated sites and/or planning permission, and have stalled, would help stimulate development of them, and make them more of a priority. The tax could then be used to pay for the administration and training within overly-stretched planning authorities. It could be part of a package of other measures, such as decreasing or waiving 106 contributions, if it is a brownfield site. 

And it's now time, I think, that we move forward with this and start using up all the brownfield sites allocated. Thank you. 

I now call on the Minister for Finance and Local Government to reply to the debate. Rebecca Evans.

I'd like to thank all colleagues for what I think has been a really interesting debate, and I'll just begin by saying that I do fully recognise the importance of HM Treasury's role in the assessment and scrutiny of our request, in order to ensure that any proposal for new devolved taxes does not have unintended or unpalatable impacts on the cohesion of the UK tax system as a whole. 

And that's why Welsh Government has been fully and openly engaged with HM Treasury officials over the last two years, providing the UK Government with a number of documents addressing the criteria set out in the command paper, including the scenarios in which a tax is likely to apply and not apply, who would be the intended target of any tax, potential interactions with devolved and reserved taxes, tax bases and tax revenues, and impacts on the UK tax system for devolving this power. This work culminated in a joint paper by Welsh Government and HMT officials, recommending the material provided to date serves as the basis for the Welsh Government writing that formal request to the UK Government.

So, when I met with the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, back in February, it was on the understanding that sufficient information had been provided by the Welsh Government and that HMT were content for our proposal to proceed to the next stage of the process, which would have been agreed between our two Governments for the devolution of the new powers. And at no point in that meeting did the then FST indicate that he felt proposals weren’t sufficiently developed to progress, and I’m still not clear what specific concerns have arisen between February and now that will require the Welsh Government to return to the start of the process. A draft Order in Council had been prepared, as well as an explanatory memorandum, which illustrated how the information provided would support the passage of the draft Order through both the UK Parliament and the Senedd. And it's very much my hope that the new Financial Secretary to the Treasury will draw comfort from the level of the detail that we've already provided, and recognise that throughout this process we have been more than willing to provide as much detail as we were able.

And, at this stage, no decisions have been taken by Welsh Government on how any future tax on land identified as suitable for development would apply in Wales. And, as we've outlined on numerous occasions, this detailed policy work will occur after the tax has been devolved to Wales and will follow an appropriately rigorous process here in Wales. And lots of the contributions from the Conservative benches today have been about the appropriateness of the tax, and the desirability of the tax, and it’s absolutely right that those discussions are had here and the scrutiny is done here in this place, and that, I think, is the crux of the point of this debate today. In the event that we are able to proceed to the next stage of the process and a UK consultation highlights any key scenarios or issues not addressed in the information that we've already provided, then of course my officials and I are committed to working with HMT to ensure that the UK Government has enough detail to inform a considered assessment. But, really, without any urgent movement, there really does have to be a review of the process.

So, speaking more generally, I think that this Welsh Labour Government has proven that it can be trusted on tax. Our decisions are founded on a strong set of tax principles, and they are that our taxes here in Wales should raise revenue to fund public services as fairly as possible, deliver the Welsh Government’s policy objectives, and in particular supporting jobs and growth, be clear, stable and simple, be developed through collaboration and involvement, and of course to contribute directly to the well-being of future generations Act goal of creating a more equal Wales. And those principles are surrounded by our tax policy framework, which is developed in collaboration with stakeholders, and lots of work goes on to develop that throughout the year through various forms of engagement with people with an interest. And also, we've got 20 years of experience here in terms of making local taxation. We've worked to make council tax fairer and we've made really good progress on that—removing young care leavers from the burden of council tax for example, and ensuring that we removed the sanction of imprisonment for people who don't pay, who are not able to pay, their council tax, because of course struggling shouldn't be seen as a crime. On Welsh rates of income tax, we kept our promise throughout the last Senedd. We didn't raise Welsh rates of income tax. And we've promised in this Senedd not to increase the burden of Welsh rates of income tax on families and people here in Wales for as long as the economic impacts of the pandemic are felt, and we will keep that promise. Compare and contrast that to the approach across the border, of course, with the recent national insurance contribution hike, which was done without any real understanding of the diverse impact that it would have, so I can't take any lessons from the Conservatives on that issue this afternoon.

On land transaction tax, we've taken different decisions here in Wales and we've taken the decisions that are right for Wales. So, in Wales, we removed the first-time buyers' relief and instead provided relief for all main residence properties up to £180,000, and that's actually close to the average house price here in Wales, meaning that we have a much more appropriate system here for our housing market and also one that is more progressive. And in December, you'll remember that we announced a 1 percentage point reduction in the non-residential LTT rates to help businesses through the pandemic and, also, an additional 1 percentage point was added onto the higher rates of LTT. And, of course, we didn't include buy-to-let landlords or second home purchases in our tax holiday during the pandemic and we were the only part of the UK to take that decision.

And then, on landfill disposal tax, we've seen particular opportunities for us in Wales and we were the first to introduce the unauthorised waste band and, of course, other parts of the UK are now following on that. And then, I just would reflect that I'm really, really proud of the Welsh Revenue Authority and the work that they do in terms of collecting our Welsh taxes. Again, this is a particular source of pride for us in terms of the quality of service that they deliver and the different relationship that we're establishing here in Wales with taxpayers.

So, to conclude, Llywydd, we have the principles, we have the framework, we have the stakeholder engagement, we have the experience and we have a proven tax record, which shows that this Welsh Labour Government can be trusted on tax.

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.]

Yes, I gave you a bit of time there [Laughter.]

I will therefore defer voting on this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

We will now take a break as we prepare for voting time.

Plenary was suspended at 18:07.

The Senedd reconvened at 18:19, with the Llywydd in the Chair.