I will be speaking on amendments 5 and 6, tabled in my name, but, before I start, can I thank the Minister for her engagement throughout this process with me personally and other colleagues across the Chamber? It's been really helpful and welcome, and I do thank you for that, and also the many people who have contributed to the journey of this Bill to this point. 

Amendment 5 removes the general anti-avoidance rule, GAAR, as outlined in the Tax Collection and Management (Wales) Act 2016, from the scope of the regulation-making power in section 1. This amendment follows recommendation 6 of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee. During Stage 2, I moved amendments that removed the whole of the TCM Act from the provisions of section 1 of the tax acts Bill. However, the Minister put forward amendments that alleviated some of my concerns, to an extent, about how this Bill could be used to alter existing tax legislation. I also welcomed additional clarity in the Bill's updated explanatory memorandum about some of the issues that we discussed during the committee stage. Yet, I'm still not fully convinced that the Bill as drafted provides sufficient safeguards to prevent the unnecessary amending of the GAAR via secondary legislation.  

The Minister has previously stated that, despite the likelihood being low, the powers within the Bill could technically be used to amend the GAAR, which the WRA has called an important tool to have as and when required, as it's an effective deterrent at present. Meanwhile, the LJC committee argued that the necessary and appropriate test in section 1(1) would not be a barrier to amending the GAAR, as it would simply need the Minister at the time to consider such a course of action to be appropriate for the test to be met. As such, there is a possibility that the legislation under a future Minister could allow for the GAAR to be amended when it would not be desirable or necessary. For example, as Professor Lewis mentioned during the scrutiny stage, the Bill as drafted could be used to amend the existing anti-avoidance provisions in the 2016 TCM Act to reverse things like the burden of proof, or require a taxpayer to demonstrate that avoidance arrangements are not artificial, instead of the WRA, as the law currently requires. 

In evidence, Dr Sara Closs-Davies wrote that, 

'where there is a process in which changes and decisions can be made, therein exists the possibility that wrong changes and decisions can occur.'

And so it is to be questioned whether any future changes to the GAAR risk making it far less effective than it currently is. 

Finally, amendment 6 is a technical, probing amendment. At Stage 2, the Minister submitted an amendment that inserted two subsections, one of which stated that:

'Regulations under section 1 may not alter any procedure of Senedd Cymru relating to the making of a statutory instrument under any provision of those Acts.'

As introduced, there are a number of restrictions on the use of the regulation-making power in section 1, yet these restrictions are all phrased as a prohibition on modification rather than alteration. As such, it would be useful if the Minister could clarify the choice of the word 'alter' in amendment 2 for the benefit of the record, so that the effect of that amendment is clear for future readers of the legislation. Thank you.