Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. Rwy’n croesawu’n fawr gywair yr hyn y mae'r Gweinidog wedi'i ddweud wrth ymateb i argymhellion y Pwyllgor Cyllid ar y Bil hwn. Rwy'n credu ei bod yn bwysig nodi yn y lle cyntaf bod hyn yn cael ei drafod yn eang fel y darn cyntaf o ddeddfwriaeth treth yng Nghymru ers 800 mlynedd. Mae'n anodd iawn deall pa ddeddfwriaeth dreth a fodolai yng Nghymru 800 mlynedd yn ôl—roedd un peth yn sicr, roedd tywysogion Cymru yn hoff iawn o symud eu llysoedd o gwmpas, gan gyrraedd ardal a dweud, ‘Iawn, rwyt ti nawr yn talu amdanom ni, boi.’ Mae’n debyg mai dyna pam y mae gennym ni gymaint o enwau lleoedd Cymraeg o'r enw ‘llys’ yng Nghymru. Ac roedd hynny hefyd yn ffordd ganoloesol iawn o wneud pethau.

Gwyddom hefyd fod Edward I, yn fuan ar ôl concro Cymru, wedi ceisio codi cymhorthdal ar y Cymry er mwyn talu am ei ryfel yn Gasgwyn. Roedd yn amhoblogaidd iawn gyda phobl Cymru oherwydd, ar yr adeg honno, nid oeddem yn anfon unrhyw un i'r Senedd, wrth gwrs, i benderfynu ar ddeddfwriaeth dreth. Roedd hefyd yn amhoblogaidd gydag Arglwyddi'r Mers am resymau eraill. A gwyddom hefyd, ar ôl y goncwest, fod brenhinoedd Lloegr yn aml yn ceisio codi trethi ar y Cymry, a bod ‘seneddwyr’ lleol yn cael eu hymgynull i benderfynu pa un a fyddai'r ardoll yn cael ei thalu ai peidio. Roedd honno'n ffordd anffurfiol iawn o geisio adlewyrchu'r broses seneddol, efallai, a defnyddio'r gair seneddwr o bryd i'w gilydd. Yr hyn y gallwn ei ddweud gyda sicrwydd yw mai hon yw'r dreth gyntaf yng Nghymru i gael ei chyflwyno gerbron Senedd i Gymru, sydd wedi cael ei derbyn, yn rhannol o leiaf, mewn egwyddor gan y Cymry, drwy’r refferendwm yn 2011, ac felly, hwn yw’r dull democrataidd cyntaf go iawn o drethu yr ydym wedi cael y cyfle i’w ystyried yng Nghymru. Ac yn y cyd-destun hwnnw, rwy’n meddwl y byddaf yn symud ymlaen i drafod rhywfaint o fanylion yr hyn sydd gan y Pwyllgor Cyllid i'w ddweud erbyn hyn.

So, turning to the committee’s recommendations, in the first instance, of course, the Finance Committee does approve the fact that the Assembly should approve this Bill. We accept that on two bases. First of all, because of the democratic decision to disapply the SDLT in Wales, there will be a consequent loss to the Welsh budget unless we create our own taxation system, and that turns around the agreement on the fiscal framework that was mentioned by the Cabinet Secretary that was announced prior to Christmas. We’ll be discussing that tomorrow morning with the Cabinet Secretary and, of course, the Assembly will have an opportunity to look at the wider framework next week. But, in the committee’s view, it’s entirely appropriate that the Government should legislate in this area and should introduce a Bill on taxation in this area, and it’s appropriate that they do that in the way that they have done.

The tax will be administered not by the Government, but by the Wales Revenue Authority, which is a body that hasn’t yet been fully established. It will be vital, in the committee’s view, that arrangements are put in place to ensure a seamless transition between the current and new tax systems so that the change in regimes does not cause problems for taxpayers, advisers or practitioners in this field. The WRA will need to be ready to collect taxes from day one and will need to ensure that suitable resources and an IT infrastructure are in place to operate effectively. I’m very grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for responding positively to one of the committee’s recommendations this afternoon by saying that more detail about the cost of establishing the office of the WRA will be published before we consider Part 2 of the Bill fully.

Now, as a new organisation, in the committee’s opinion it will be important for the WRA to have access to the same knowledge and expertise as is currently available to HMRC staff. We believe that the most effective way of ensuring this is through establishing a formal memoranda of understanding between the WRA and HMRC and the Land Registry, which is an important element in this jigsaw.

Guidance on the implementation of the provisions in the Bill is an important issue that was raised throughout the committee’s report, and we’ve recommended that the WRA should engage with relevant professionals in this area on the preparation of guidance so that their knowledge can be harnessed to shape future arrangements and to provide effective leadership. As the Cabinet Secretary has said, there’s been a great deal of correspondence between us as committee and him about the way that this guidance and advice will be prepared.

An area of concern to several witnesses and committee members was how tax payable on the purchase of a property straddling the border between Wales and England would be calculated. We started to scrutinise the Bill thinking that there were about 400 possible properties in this context, but, towards the end of the scrutiny process, that number grew to around 1,000 or over 1,000. One of the surprising things for me personally, I have to say, in understanding this process, was that the Land Registry doesn’t have a digital boundary highlighting the difference between Wales and England. It didn’t need it, to be fair, but, certainly, such a boundary will be needed now, because it’s important that we know where the border is. We know where it is politically and where it is democratically, but in terms of buying property, the Land Registry must be able to say, without a shadow of a doubt, to professionals in the area, to lawyers, to buyers and to prospective buyers and so on where the border is.

It’s also a matter of concern to the committee that, even though it’s clear in the legal context how tax is raised on both sides, it’s perhaps not as clear to taxpayers how the tax will be applied in a fair way between Wales and England. The fact of the matter is that if a property straddles the border, then the part of the property in Wales will pay—if it’s on the English side, I apologise, it will pay SDLT in England and the part of the property in Wales will pay the LTT, as we have in Wales. So, there are two taxes payable on one property, and that’s a fact stemming from the constitutional and legal system at present, but it doesn’t make taxation the easiest process in the world, it has to be said. In the light of confusion around cross-border arrangements, the committee was particularly concerned to learn that there we need a digital map, and we should commission the Land Registry to provide such a digital map to facilitate the process.

During the course of the committee’s work, as we scrutinised the Bill, the Cabinet Secretary, as we’ve just heard, stated his intention of introducing higher rate of LTT on the purchase of additional properties—for example, buy-to-let properties, additional homes, summer houses, and so on. The committee was persuaded by the Cabinet Secretary’s rationale for amending the Bill—this is the taxation system in England and it will be lost to Wales unless we see these amendments. However, we look forward now to seeing amendments from the Government in order to learn how this tax will be implemented in Wales.

We were disappointed as a committee—and we’ve just heard this again from the Cabinet Secretary—that the Government does not intend to undertake a full consultation on this matter. The Government is of the opinion that one of its key functions is to set tax rates and bands, and, as the Minister has just said, this doesn’t happen in other parts of the UK. However, as we’ve just discussed in relation to the budget, we are looking at a more parliamentary process, which will be able to move the committee and the entire Parliament together towards further scrutiny of the rate-setting process. This is a subject that we’ll be returning to on a wider basis, I’m sure, and not just in the context of this tax.

To conclude, therefore, on the two rules related to tax avoidance in the Bill, there is a targeted anti-avoidance rule and a general anti-avoidance rule in the Bill. The committee was convinced that we needed both, but we sought guidance to ensure that these rules are clear in the way that they relate to non-devolved taxes. So, we recommend very strongly to the Assembly that the Bill should proceed to the next stages.