Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Gan mai dyma fy nghyfraniad cyntaf i’r trafodaethau heddiw, hoffwn i wneud rhai sylwadau cyffredinol, ac, wrth gwrs, rydw i’n croesawu’r cyfle i ystyried gwelliannau i’r Bil heddiw. Rydw i am ddiolch yn swyddogol i holl Aelodau’r Cynulliad, yn arbennig aelodau’r Pwyllgor Cyllid, am eu gwaith yn craffu ar y Bil. Mae hyn wedi bod yn werthfawr iawn wrth helpu i lunio’r ddeddfwriaeth dreth yma.

Bydd yr Aelodau’n cofio fy mod i wedi rhoi ymateb manwl i argymhellion y pwyllgor yn ystod Cyfnod 1, ychydig ar ôl y Nadolig, ac fy mod i wedi cyflwyno amrywiol welliannau mewn ymateb i argymhellion y pwyllgor yn ystod Cyfnod 2 ym mis Ionawr. Hefyd, rydw i am ddiolch i’r Aelodau sydd wedi cyflwyno’r gwelliannau y byddwn yn eu trafod heddiw. Fe allaf i sicrhau Aelodau fy mod i wedi astudio pob set o welliannau’n ofalus. Hefyd, fe wnes i gyfarfod Aelodau yn dilyn trafodion Cyfnod 2 er mwyn trafod ymhellach ac edrych ar ddulliau gweithredu rhannau penodol o’r Bil.

Llywydd, nawr byddaf yn siarad am bob gwelliant yng ngrŵp 1.

Well, Llywydd, as you’ve heard, the issue of cross-border and cross-title properties has been of particular interest during the passage of this Bill. The Government’s aim throughout has been to achieve a just and reasonable apportionment of costs when land lies on both sides of the border, based on advice from stakeholders that this test will need to be applied practically in each case. Now, I accept that all of the amendments in this group are put forward with the constructive intent of addressing issues raised in scrutiny, but, in practical terms, amendment 29 seems to me to be of the most material and effective use in applying the test, and I will ask Government supporters to support amendment 29 in this group.

As Members have heard, that amendment will place a very clear obligation on the Welsh Revenue Authority to publish guidance to assist taxpayers when land is bought that lies on both sides of the Welsh and English border. That guidance will help to clarify what is meant by ‘just and reasonable’ apportionment. This guidance may include links to the Valuation Office Agency’s website, which itself contains considerable guidance on apportionment.

I’m very pleased to be able to confirm again to Members this afternoon that the Land Registry is able to provide digital maps that identify the border between Wales and England. This will assist the taxpayer or their agent to establish, on a just and reasonable basis, the part of the consideration that was given for the land in Wales and that part of the consideration given for the land in England. This means that the guidance provided by amendment 29 will be firmly and reliably based.

Amendment 32 in the name of Nick Ramsay and amendment 36 in the name of Mark Reckless take a different approach. Rather than requiring guidance to help arrive at a just and reasonable apportionment in each case, they propose a formula, which, as you’ve heard, is justified as bringing clarity and certainty. Unfortunately, Llywydd, the one outcome of which we can be absolutely certain is that this formulaic approach would produce unfair and unjust apportionment in many cases. Very few cases would, in reality, lie in exactly 50/50 proportions on either side of the border, and even where proportions were exact, the value of the land is not simply a reflection of its size. Once that is understood, that the value of land is determined, for example, by the use which can be made of it or the buildings which have been constructed on it, and not exclusively by its size, then the apparent clarity of a second test in amendment 36 also falls away. It is far better, I believe, to allow those skilled professional workers, who deal routinely with such matters as just and reasonable apportionment, to apply that judgment in the facts of each transaction—assisted now by the guidance created by amendment 29, and by the safeguards already provided by the Bill.

Llywydd, even if amendments 32 and 36 were not defective for the reasons just provided, it is important to recognise that the arrangements set out in them would not apply to stamp duty land tax, which would continue to operate on the English side of the border. The taxpayer would still have to comply with the SDLT rules on just and reasonable apportionment. It’s for these reasons that I’m unable to support those amendments. Amendments 35 and 37, tabled by Mark Reckless, are linked. The amendments seek to ensure that a cross-border transaction is to be treated by the buyer as a single transaction and a nil return may therefore be made to HMRC in relation to SDLT, with the Welsh Revenue Authority paying to HMRC what is due to them from the taxpayer. This would mean that the WRA would apportion the consideration and hand over the relevant share to HMRC. The amendment would effectively require WRA to collect and manage SDLT on behalf of HMRC for cross-border transactions. That, in itself, would change the tax from a self-assessed tax to one in which the WRA establishes a taxpayer’s liability, both for LTT and SDLT.

Now, I cannot support these amendments, which in my view would fall outside the Assembly’s competence, as the provisions intend to change how SDLT will apply to a land transaction in England. And by providing for nil tax returns to be made to the HMRC, they appear to impose a function on HMRC without the Treasury’s consent. Furthermore, the amendments do not remove the current obligation in UK legislation for the buyer to submit a return to HMRC. Its impact, therefore, is that the buyer would actually need to submit two returns to HMRC—the nil return required under this amendment, and the return on a just and reasonable basis, which would still go on being required by SDLT legislation. I ask Members to vote for amendment 29, and to oppose the other four amendments in this group.