Diolch. Before I get into the technical detail, I'd like to take the opportunity to put on record, Llywydd, how much I've appreciated the very constructive discussions I've had with opposition Members and Labour backbenchers through Stage 2 and ahead of Stage 3 on changes to the Bill. I have at all times tried to understand and reflect on the points made, and consider carefully what the scrutiny committees have said when they've looked at the Bill. The results of those discussions and considerations have tangibly changed the Bill in a positive way. The amendments around the review process, the restrictions on the use of the retrospective legislation and the sunset clause demonstrate that this Bill is now very different to that which was first entered into the Senedd, which in itself was very different to that which we had originally envisaged, as shown clearly by the inclusion of the four purpose tests. I hope that Members will acknowledge the progress and the good faith that I have brought to this process, and I have said that if we can successfully get this Bill through, I want us to work in a similarly close way to develop the architecture that can guide the long-term changes to tax legislation in Wales.

But now to the technical detail. Amendment 1, tabled in my name, is a consequential amendment to section 1(2) to reflect the fact that the power in section 1 is also subject to the additional restrictions inserted at section 2(5) and 2(6) by amendments that were agreed at Stage 2. Section 1(2) of the Bill reads as follows:

'But see section 2(4) (restrictions on the power).'

This should read:

'But see section 2(4), (5) and (6) (restrictions on the power).'

Amendment 5, tabled in the name of Peter Fox, seeks to exclude Part 3A of the Tax Collection and Management (Wales) Act 2016 from the scope of the regulation-making power in section 1. Part 3A provides the Welsh Revenue Authority with a way of counteracting avoidance arrangements in relation to devolved taxes—the general anti-avoidance rule, or the GAAR. Whilst it is likely that Welsh Ministers will need to make changes to the operation of the GAAR only in limited circumstances, it is possible that changes at short notice and, of course, subject to the approval of the Senedd may be necessary. 

Prior to the general principles debate, in my response to the Chair of the Finance Committee, I set out clearly a detailed review of the Parts of the TCM Act and provided examples of future scenarios where amendments may be made by regulations under the Bill. This included examples of the need for change in relation to the GAAR, which is most likely to arise in situations where a court rules on the meaning of different provisions and which reduces or widens the scope of the GAAR in an unanticipated or unexpected way. Such a position may arise, for example, where a court takes a view on the interpretation of 'artificial', a key concept in the GAAR, which is broader or narrower than was previously understood and therefore widens the scope of the GAAR or potentially reduces its effectiveness. In these situations, the ability to use section 1(1)(d) to clarify the law urgently would be extremely beneficial to protect the revenues on the one hand and taxpayers on the other. I believe this demonstrates why the ability to amend the GAAR is important and should remain within the scope of the regulation-making power in the Bill. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 5.

The purpose of amendment 6, also tabled by Peter Fox, is to amend the wording in section 2(6) from 'alter' to 'modify' so that regulations under section 1 may not modify any procedure of the Senedd relating to the making of a statutory instrument under any provision of those Acts. I am unsure as to the intention behind the proposed change. My own view is that it appears to be purely stylistic, attempting to create uniformity of language within the Bill. 'Modify' is used elsewhere in the Bill to describe changes that may be made to legislation, and, as such, it's been given a definition, which includes to 'repeal' and 'revoke'. However, as it would be odd to talk about 'revoking' or 'repealing' a Senedd procedure, I decided that using the word 'alter' would be more appropriate in this context. Using 'modify' does not restrict what can be done under the power in section 1 any more than using 'alter' does. As there are salient reasons why 'alter' has been used rather than 'modify', and also as the amendment doesn't actually have any effect, I am unable to support this amendment.