The following amendments have been selected: amendments 1 and 2 in the name of Simon Thomas.

Yr eitem nesaf ar ein hagenda yw dadl y Ceidwadwyr Cymreig ar lywodraeth leol. Galwaf ar Janet Finch-Saunders i gynnig y cynnig.

Motion NDM6032 Paul Davies

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Recognises the role that local government plays in delivering public services to communities across Wales.

2. Notes with concern the uncertainty that the lack of clarity regarding local government reform is having on the delivery of effective services.

3. Acknowledges that more has to be done to address voter apathy in Wales given that, in the 2012 local government elections, overall turnout in Wales was low, at an average of 38.9 per cent, which was a 4 per cent drop from the previous local election turnout in 2008.

4. Calls on the Welsh Government to outline a provisional timetable for its planned reforms of Welsh local authorities, and to engage in a robust consultation process.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and may I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your new role?

I’m very proud and pleased to lead the Welsh Conservatives’ opposition group debate on public service delivery, and in doing so to thank my Assembly group leader, Andrew R.T. Davies AM, for his confidence in reappointing me as the shadow spokesperson for local government. I would also like to congratulate Mark Drakeford AM on his appointment as the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, and I do look forward to shadowing you in a constructive manner as we work together, where we can, to face many of the difficulties and uncertainties now facing local government in Wales.

During the last term of this Assembly, the lack of continuity for ministerial responsibility has left those charged with the delivery of so many of our vital services confused, undervalued and facing much uncertainty. In 2013, and at a cost to the taxpayer of £130,000, we saw the Williams commission report published, advising 62 recommendations, all deemed necessary in order to take future public service delivery in Wales forward. Many of those recommendations now have largely been ignored.

This was a much wider remit than local government, and included many of those charged with the delivery of all of our public services in Wales. It did not single out local government as being the only area in need of urgent reform. As Members, we genuinely believed that this work would be a catalyst for real change, and an improved delivery programme for all of our public services in Wales. The integration of health and social care was considered to be of critical importance, yet look how little progress we’ve seen.

The Welsh Government, having failed at the collaboration agenda, simply took it upon themselves to start a programme of change and reorganisation for local government in Wales, like never seen before—riding roughshod over many, to include the communities who so often rely on these vital services and, at the same time, and in the harshest fashion, alienating our elected members, our front-line workers, our senior officers and, again, our communities. The commission specifically called for local authorities to merge into larger units, by merging existing local authorities, and specified by not the re-drawing of boundaries. Again, ignored. Voluntary mergers were considered as the way forward, and reorganisation options to be decided and implemented urgently, to be agreed by key stakeholders and the Welsh Government by no later than Easter 2014. Didn’t happen.

The commissioners called for the Government to support and incentivise early adopters who wanted to see such an initiative, by beginning a voluntary process of merger with completion by 2017-18. Yet, the Minister at the time conjured up his own new boundaries, to include a map of only eight or nine authorities, and chose instead to reject, out of hand, costed proposals that came in from six local authorities, by the required date, and with the correct criteria—Conwy and Denbighshire, my own authority, included. A wasted opportunity to say the least. And here we are today, still a lack of vision, no direction, and much uncertainty.

Cabinet Secretary, I urge you to get to grips with this situation as an immediate priority. Work with our officers, consult with our communities, work with the WLGA, and most importantly, talk to the Members here. We all have a direct interest in how well our own local authorities perform and are able to deal with the challenges presented. In May 2017, our voters will go to the polls for the local government elections. The year 2012, sadly, saw a 38 per cent turnout, a drop of 4 per cent, with 99 uncontested seats at county council level, and a staggering 3,600—that’s 45 per cent—uncontested seats at town and community level. Twelve to 15 per cent are still left vacant.

As part of my working with you going forward, I would certainly like you to address the issue of our community councils and their workings. This is, of course, the first level of democratic governance in Wales, affecting our citizens, and, yes, it does come with a chargeable precept. Across Wales there are many who feel disenfranchised at this level, often due to a lack of clarity around who does what, and many completely unaware of the functions and governance associated. Often, by some, seen as a closed shop and some not publishing agendas or minutes, and not having a website, despite having had the funding to do this.

Others before you have promised much needed reform and review, without any success. There is now much uncertainty with our town clerks and community councillors, about community-backed council boundaries, as a result of a very low-key boundary review, that sees many of our current seats slashed, but, again, there appears to be nothing definite. Some do not even know how many seats they will be contesting. Some clarity is now required. Now is the time to invigorate our electorate, at all levels of democracy, by re-engaging with them, working with them, and giving them a reason to be confident in a local government system that works efficiently, effectively and with due diligence.

Cabinet Secretary, you are aware of our call on these benches regarding community rights. Community rights by their very nature are another opportunity for big government to engage, empower and energise our communities. Over the past five years we’ve seen so many lost opportunities as community halls, local pubs and libraries have been lost, all in the name of cutting cost, with little regard for the immense value that these facilities provide for our own communities. The Localism Act 2011, implemented over the border, has freed up so many of our communities, devolving power from on high to the very communities they serve. I urge you to bring a fresh pair of eyes to the table and to work to ensure that we do adopt more articles within this Act. The previous top-down approach of the Welsh Government to community engagement through the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the ‘Principles for working with communities’ document, issued to public sector organisations, has sadly been coupled with a reluctance to introduce the localism agenda, contrasting starkly with England and Scotland, where communities enjoy rights through this Act and the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015.

Welsh Conservatives want those rights to be implemented here in Wales. The people of Wales want those rights, too. We all know of hard-working community champions in our own constituencies, willing to take on these local assets, working with others to stop the loss of them. Seventy-eight per cent of respondents actually responded to the Welsh Government’s consultation on protecting community assets readily supporting a right-to-bid initiative, willing to hold out their hand to work with the Welsh Government and their own local authorities in order to protect such assets, but there has been very little recognition of this, and virtually nothing taken forward. Again, I urge you, Minister: work with us, work with our communities. It only takes a little help, support and some guidance to see our rural communities in particular provided with brilliant opportunities like never before. Gwent is now piloting the funding of a community asset transfer officer. I welcome this initiative and ask again for you to work to ensure that all local authorities in Wales document and list every single one of our valuable community assets, allowing for future posterity and the possibility of safeguarding rather than sacrificing these important facilities.

Now, the failed collaboration agenda I’ve referred to earlier was another wasted opportunity, and I do ask you to go back to the drawing board to see where shared services can and will work. In England, £462 million has been saved through shared service agreements across local authorities. A KPMG report here in Wales identified £151 million of back-room savings that can be achieved without any merger process. Now is the time to nurture growth and confidence within our authorities, allowing them to be brave, taking bold steps to deliver other models of delivery, and empowering them to work with neighbouring authorities if the demand calls. Give them the support, give them the guidance and give them the hope that their efforts will not be in vain.

Furthermore, the National Audit Office estimates that the public service transformation agenda in England will have potentially delivered a net annual benefit of savings between £4.2 billion and £7.9 billion by around 2018-19. This is not chicken feed. In Scotland too, shared service delivery is working. The Ayrshire Roads Alliance between East and South Ayrshire councils is expected to save £8 million over the next few years. The idea of shared services and joint-working agreements was put in place in Wales 10 years ago in the Beecham review. However, the Communities, Equality and Local Government Committee’s inquiry into the progress of local government collaboration following the Simpson report identified the strong need for the collaboration agenda to be pushed further, for more clarity, more direction and more leadership from this Welsh Government, placing an emphasis on the very need to take action in the face of a difficult financial future for local government. Regrettably, the select recommendations of the Williams commission and subsequent map of the previous Minister were driven forward unilaterally and unsuccessfully.

With regard to the amendments tabled to the debate, we do of course recognise the Sunderland report, although I have to say it is a very outdated report. We continue to endorse many of its top-line principles, such as promoting public understanding of local government, and initiatives such as active citizenship to boost engagement with the local government process. However, Welsh Conservatives remain opposed to implementing STV as the preferred voting system. We will, therefore, not be voting in support of amendment 2, which calls for this.

We are at the start of the fifth Assembly term. The local government part of your Cabinet responsibility has the second largest budget and is responsible for much of the well-being of our society. Whilst you are new to this role, I do believe that your own local government previous experience will bode well for you to make a difference. Work with your Assembly Members, engage meaningfully with the WLGA, speak to colleagues and backbenchers here and, most of all, work with local authorities. Together, let us all work towards a model of local government that is affordable, sustainable and effective. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. I have selected the two amendments to the motion. I call on Sian Gwenllian to move amendments 1 and 2, tabled in the name of Simon Thomas. Sian.

Gwelliant 1—Simon Thomas

Insert after point 3:

Notes the content of the Sunderland report into local government electoral arrangements in Wales.

Gwelliant 2—Simon Thomas

Insert after point 3:

Calls on the Welsh Government to implement single transferrable vote as the basis for local government elections to ensure fair representation for all political viewpoints.

Amendments 1 and 2 moved.

Thank you. I wish, on behalf of Plaid Cymru, to move our amendments on the reform of local government in Wales. There’s a great deal to be said about the subject, but today I will focus on two specific aspects that were included as part of Plaid Cymru policy during the Assembly election in May. That is, first of all, the need for Welsh Government to act to implement single transferrable votes for future local government elections, and, secondly, the need for any reform in the future to include regional authorities in order to give a strategic direction to local authorities and to share best practice across the various authorities.

Like any other nation, Wales requires regional leadership to give strategic direction that reflects a set of priorities throughout Wales, together with strong local government to secure local accountability and co-ordination at community level. We want to do this in a gradual way, using the current structures to create new leadership at the regional and community levels. Also, as we alluded to in the debate we held in the Chamber earlier, we wish to see much more purposeful and sensible integration between health and social services. One obvious advantage of doing that is to create accountability in the health sector as well as improving the provision for our people.

Plaid Cymru is of the view that we need to create comprehensive regional authorities out of the local authorities that already exist. We need to forget about the map and consult on how this new regional vision would look and what exactly the duties would be on that level.

Our amendments to this debate today focus on the need to introduce a new electoral system, namely a single transferrable vote, STV, in order to secure equitable representation for each political point of view.

The Sunderland report was published in 2002. Yes, that’s quite some time ago, but it was a very thorough report and it concluded that the single transferrable vote is the most appropriate to meet the diverse needs of local people from the point of view of a local electoral system. And, that was after the commission tested seven other electoral systems.

In my view, the introduction of STV into local government elections in Scotland is one of the most positive developments in the age of devolution. In Scotland, the local elections are much more lively and interesting. Many more people are competing for the seats there and local government itself, following on from that, is intertwining itself much more closely to the desires of the population.

The Government here have had an opportunity to implement the recommendations of the Sunderland report in the past. And, as a nation, if we truly believe that every citizen is equal, then we should also believe, and therefore ensure, that every vote is equal. As far as I can see, there is no good reason for not introducing STV for local government elections in Wales. Therefore, we ask you to support the amendments. Thank you.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate today. Public services, and the delivery of public services, are a vital plank of support for many people the length and breadth of Wales, and local government obviously plays a vital role in delivering those public services. I did mean my comments to the First Minister in the first weeks of this Government, when I said to him that we do wish the Government well in its mission—and the Cabinet Secretaries in their mission—to deliver on the aspirations that they have had in their manifesto, because, if Government does fail, then the services that each and every Cabinet Secretary is charged with delivering have failed for the people who need those services to support them in their everyday lives. It is our job, as an opposition, obviously, to hold the Government to account, and to make sure that we do put forward an alternative as well, because it easy to carp from the sidelines, but you need to say what exactly you will do if you are serious about, obviously, one day being in Government.

From these benches, in these early weeks and months of this Assembly, we will certainly be engaging and looking to engage positively with the new Cabinet Secretary around the agenda for local government, because so much energy and so much time was spent in this Assembly in the last session dealing with—as the lead speaker, Janet Finch-Saunders, spoke—maps and lines on maps that actually didn’t mean very much to the very communities that were going to have either a service or a facility withdrawn, and ultimately carried little or no support. It really does come to something when a Conservative leader goes to the annual WLGA meeting and gets more cheers than the Labour Minister did in Swansea—bearing in mind that, I think, 16 of the 22 leaders of local authorities in Wales are Labour leaders. But that was at the height, obviously, of the previous Minister’s map about local government reorganisation. I do hope that the Minister—the Cabinet Secretary, sorry—sticks to the comments that he has made public so far, in that he does want to have that conversation, and he does want to work collaboratively with those at the coalface in local government, rather than going into those meetings over the next weeks and months and actually dictating to them what will happen, because I have yet to find someone who actually does want to destroy local government.

There are many ideas out there about which model we should look at—the combined model that Plaid Cymru have talked about, the county model that others hark to, and, ultimately, the 1974 model that, obviously, the previous Government was supporting. But what is quite clear is that, with the cost pressures that are coming through in the delivery of the service, with the ever-increasing demand on the services that local government has to deliver, the status quo is not an option. What we need to do, as the primary legislature here in Wales with responsibility for local government, is find a solution to getting a sustainable map for local government delivered here in Wales.

It is a fact that, every 20 years or so, previous Governments have come—of all shapes and colours—and redesigned local government in Wales. That cannot be a good model for governance, it cannot be a good model for delivery, and, ultimately, it cannot be a good model for those who work within the service, and those who vitally depend on those services to provide their everyday assistance. I think that what is really important today in this debate is that the Minister does use the opportunity to respond in these early weeks as to how he will take the discussions forward. Importantly, with the elections next May, is it the Government’s intention that, if there was to be a consensus about reorganisation, the mandates that politicians will be seeking from the electorate will be full mandates—i.e. will they serve the full five-year term of local government? Because they will be putting manifestos to the electorate in a little over nine or 10 months’ time, which the electorate will be voting on. So, I do hope that the Minister—the Cabinet Secretary, sorry—will give that clarity over this surety that candidates and incumbents will require when they are having those debates and having those discussions over what local government will look like over the next five years, and, indeed, as I said earlier, about the discussions that he intends to lead with local authorities, and give that genuine commitment that it will be a discussion rather than a lecture, as his predecessor, regrettably, started these discussions in the fourth Assembly.

I do want to just touch on as well, importantly, turnout at local government elections. Regrettably, that was down in 2012 by some 4 or 5 per cent, and many seats, in fact, as Janet Finch-Saunders touched on, went uncontested. It is vital that there is an awareness around the vital role that local councillors and candidates, indeed, can perform in the run-up to the election, and post the election, in supporting villages, towns and communities in any part of Wales. So, I look forward to the Minister’s response and I do hope he uses this debate as an opportunity to flesh out some of the ideas he might be having.

I’m glad the Conservatives have finally recognised the importance of local government. For those who’ve been here for the last five years, we’ve heard them attempt to take money out of local government and give it to health, the equivalent of buying a car, not maintaining it, but spending money on repairs. Spending on sports facilities, environmental health and elderly care helps keep people from needing hospital care.

Local government provides a huge variety and a wide range of services. There’s a booklet called the A to Z of environmental services—for those who haven’t seen it, it’s not a thin booklet, and that’s just one area of local government. Local authority services affect everybody and everyone every day: roads, pavements, refuse collection, litter removal, education and social services daily affect the lives of the people living in an area. Social services departments in Wales are under more financial pressure than any other service area in the public sector, and I include the health service in that. We know that the population is ageing and that people are living longer, often with substantial care needs that have to be provided outside of hospitals. The reason why local government is cutting back on other services is because social services’ need is so great and has to be met.

Can I just quote the Cardiff University Centre for Local and Regional Government Research? It undertook the first comprehensive analysis of the impact of size on the performance of local authorities. The team developed a groundbreaking model that used inspection scores, national performance indicators, public confidence and a value for money index. The results showed local authorities have no ideal size. Larger councils have lower central administrative overheads, but size effects varied between services. Subsequent research found reorganisation-produced larger councils can disrupt performances. We also know that the largest local authority in Europe—Birmingham—has had serious problems with its social services department. So, big is not always better.

They tested the impact of population size and controlled for difference in socio-economic context, including deprivation and diversity of service needs. The result of this analysis showed that population size had little impact on CPA scores, but it did affect about half of the measures of service inspection and a majority of the measures of consumer satisfaction. It also impacted on measures of value for money. But the relationship between size and performance is complex. In some cases, larger authorities performed better, in others, smaller councils performed better, and, in others, medium-sized authorities achieved the best results. In fact, if you look at the Welsh performance indicators across local authorities, it’s actually the medium-sized authorities that do best in terms of getting the most greens.

We know that size is not proportional to performance. Everybody doesn’t look and say, ‘If every council could be like Cardiff and Rhondda Cynon Taf, then we’d have a wonderful set of local authorities in Wales’. Local authorities have lost control of a large number of service areas that they had when I was first elected a councillor in 1989. They’ve lost institutes of higher education and the polytechnics, further education colleges, direct control of schools, a majority on police committees, Cardiff Airport, and, in many council areas, housing. Does anyone actually think these changes have been for the better regarding service delivery?

On turnout, this is a problem across all elections in Wales, including, unfortunately, the Assembly election. Comparisons between council and Assembly elections are difficult, because in areas that traditionally have the highest Assembly turnout, many seats at council level go uncontested. We do know that council election turnout is substantially above the European election turnout, and, when held separately, the police commission elections. An obvious solution to getting higher turnout for local elections would be to give local authorities more control and have less Welsh Government direction. The single transferrable vote, also known as ‘Guess how many seats you’re going to win?’, creating large wards in rural areas, moving local government away from voters—I can think of no better way of reducing turnout in local government elections than introducing STV. I note you don’t ask to have a referendum on it, because I think that people know what the result would be. We had a referendum on changing the voting system, and that was overwhelmingly against making a change. So, obviously we don’t want to have another one—let’s impose it from above.

I urge the Welsh Government to consider the following: give local authorities the power of general competence, something local governments have asked for for as long as I can remember, provide less central control over services—let local decisions be made—promote joint working for education and social services, but on the same footprint. Every Minister who takes over a different portfolio creates their own little footprint for each service; we need to have services covering the same area. Look to local authorities to work together on regional planning for housing and economic development. We have a development plan for each local authority, and we all know, don’t we, that changes that are made in Swansea will have an effect in Neath Port Talbot and Carmarthenshire and the same the other way. So we need to have some sort of regional policy so we all know where we are. We should look to maximise the number of services under direct local government control. I actually believe in local government and I think it really is important that we let local authorities make decisions on behalf of their local people and then, if the people don’t like it, they can kick them out.

Wales’s radical political tradition of empowered local communities has come to be represented in modern times by our local authorities, by elected representatives, who, in some cases, experience so little buy-in from residents they serve that they can sometimes hang onto civic influence for decades. And they can hang onto ideologies for decades too: public services can only effectively be delivered by the public sector, short-term contracts with the third sector are okay as long as councils hold the purse strings and they can be ditched if they’re not liked, and, in some cases, you can’t even mention the private sector. The dominating, monolithic structures of local authorities even today no longer function as a model of community empowerment. Local government reform needs to be more than about mergers; it’s about a new balance between local authorities, society and the citizen.

Now of course we need the public sector to be a central part of the way that our communities are served, but we have to move on from this culture of, ‘Oh, that’s the council’s job’ or ‘Oh, the council won’t let you do that.’ This is not just about localism that’s characterised by the kind of asset transfer we’ve been talking about—obviously that’s part of it. It’s about recognising that local authorities can’t do it all. This is about recognising the potential of co-production. Local authorities are home to committed officers and employees, to expertise, to a range of professional skills, strategic thinkers as well, but, by dumping so many challenges on the steps of county hall, we overlook what we as citizens, individually and collectively, other organisations and other bodies can do to meet the demands of our communities. The increasing demands and shrinking budgets identified by Mike Hedges mean that we all lose out when non-statutory services are threatened by the pressure for councils to meet their statutory obligations first. Public dissatisfaction with ‘the council’ grows, disconnection between service providers and service users grows. The vocabulary we use for this just reinforces that. What on earth happened to ‘people’? Just take adult social services: a fifth of us are already over 65 and it’ll be well over a quarter by 2033. In Conwy, a quarter of the population are already pensioners. The state may have a range of public health messages to help us keep fit and healthy for longer, but it requires personal responsibility to take on those messages and make them work for us and our families and our communities.

Local authorities will come under tremendous pressure to provide support and care through the traditional adult care routes, let alone fulfil their other social services obligations. So, do we really leave it all to them? Labour has lost its fervour for the localism that underpinned the co-operative model of economic development long ago, putting its faith instead in state centralisation. Rather than leading the way in the UK, the co-operative economy in Wales is smaller per head of population than it is in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Even the plans for the not-for-profit body to run our railways have the inky fingerprints of Government all over them.

Dr Dan Boucher is right when he says that the current challenge to public service delivery

‘is not helped by Labour’s failure to embrace the opportunity of injecting a greater measure of mutuality into the organisation of our public services through the development of public service mutuals.’

While England has enjoyed the development of 106 public service mutuals in the last five years, providing over £1 billion-worth of public services, the same period has not witnessed the creation of any public service mutual in Wales. That’s quite strange as the Labour Government’s 2009 social enterprise action plan specifically said that public bodies should consider whether any aspect of their roles could be better carried out by social enterprises. In 2014, its Welsh Co-operative and Mutuals Commission supported the extension of mutuals in the economy and public services. Indeed, the commission said that mutuals were superior to state provision when it came to housing, Mike Hedges, and highlighted opportunities in a number of areas, including social care and health. However, this March, on the eve of the Assembly election, the Welsh Government action plan on alternative delivery models for public service delivery stated plainly:

‘We advocate co-operative and mutual models of delivery and other alternative delivery models only as an alternative to ceasing or privatising services, as a least worst option’.

Now, I think Robert Owen would be ashamed that a Welsh Government has signalled so clearly that its sympathies remain squarely with state centralisation.

Welsh Conservatives believe that one of the keys to success in securing policies is in speaking to our culture. We will continue, ourselves, to promote co-production, including mutuals, where appropriate, not because mutuals are the least worst option, but because they are the best option, both for the specific services in question and also because of the way they resonate with our own culture and national identity.

Local government in Wales is suffering from a lack of community engagement. This lack of engagement has led to voter apathy and poor voter turnout in successive local elections. At the last local election in 2012, average voter turnout was under 39 per cent—a fall of 4 per cent from the previous election in 2008. According to the national survey for Wales, 88 per cent of people had not contacted their councillors in the last 12 months. More worryingly, 59 per cent of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that they could influence a decision affecting their local area. This apathy towards local government is in marked contrast to public campaigns and demonstrations when local authority assets are threatened with closures.

The Welsh Government had a chance of addressing this problem when the UK Government passed the Localism Act 2011. It is disappointing, therefore, that the Welsh Government has failed to implement the community rights agenda in Wales. Community rights are about empowering communities, so that they have a bigger say in the issues that matter to them. By a series of measures, the Localism Act set out to achieve a substantial shift of power to local people. Two of these measures were the community right to challenge and the community right to bid.

First, the community right to challenge, Minister. Local authorities in Wales facing budgetary constraints may attempt to relieve the pressure by letting go of assets such as leisure centres. Without a community right to challenge, allowing communities to take over the running of services, these assets could be lost permanently. The best councils in Wales are constantly on the lookout for new and better ways to design and deliver local services. Many recognise the potential of social enterprises and community groups to provide high-quality services at good value. They should work together to deliver these services.

Secondly, the community right to bid. Every community is a home to buildings or amenities that play a vital role in local life. These include community centres, libraries, swimming pools, village shops, markets and pubs. The closure of these assets can present a local loss to the community. Community groups often need more time to organise a bid and to raise money than the private enterprise that may be bidding against them. The community right to bid provides a six-week opportunity for communities to express an interest in buying an asset. If they do so, a further four-and-a-half-month window of opportunity is open to allow communities the time to raise funds to buy the asset. To assist community groups, we need a list of assets of community value nominated by the local communities themselves. However, councils in Wales do not have to keep a register of assets of community value and they are not obliged to undertake community asset transfers. I believe these rights enjoyed in England should be extended to Wales to enhance the existing community asset transfer and the community facilities and activity programmes.

Deputy Presiding Officer, allowing communities to challenge these local authorities over services they provide or buildings they own will greatly enhance community involvement and engagement. I hope the Cabinet Secretary will embrace the community rights agenda and implement the Localism Act in full in Wales.

And finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, there’s one area that I regularly get a problem with in my office. When people come to get in touch with the council, there’s always a local telephone call. In Newport, it’s 656656 for a call centre. Normally, no less than 10 minutes somebody has to wait and listen to music and then, half of the time, you never get in touch with the right person you have to speak to. I’d like to find out how much money the local council are making from people waiting on the telephone when they ring the councils. I think the councils should realise that poor people ring about their problems—not for the cost of staying to put their problems to the councils. I think this is an area where connectivity between the people and the councils is also lacking in Wales. Thank you.

It’s been an interesting discussion so far, and it’s been good to hear so many people speak and have passionate views on this subject. Here in the UKIP group, we certainly recognise that local government has a major role to play in people’s everyday lives. So, it is important that, if we are going to have yet another major local government shake-up, which, as was pointed out earlier by R.T. Davies, we seem to have every 20 years, pretty punctually, then we need to make sure this time that we do get it right and, also, that we do not systematically take services further and further away from the people they are supposed to serve.

We do support some reorganisation of local government in Wales, but the massive reduction to nine councils proposed by the previous Minister—we believe that that was too big a reduction and would represent a major degradation in council services. In general, we support bottom-up reorganisation, rather than a top-down model, the kind of model that Leighton Andrews wanted to impose on the Welsh councils. We note with dismay that, when Vale of Glamorgan Council did come to a voluntary agreement with their neighbouring authority of Bridgend, the ambitions of those councils were rather casually rejected by the relevant Minister, who has, perhaps thankfully, now departed, although, of course, I’m sure he did good things here as well.

What people in the Vale do not want is to be submerged by Cardiff council and then swamped by huge housing developments on their green fields. This is a problem we already have facing us on the outskirts of Cardiff, as the new Plaid regional Member has repeatedly, and rightly, alluded to. We certainly don’t want that problem extended to the Vale of Glamorgan as well by a forced merger with Cardiff. I can tell you that Cardiff’s Labour-run authority would love to get its hands on those lovely fields in the Vale of Glamorgan.

Similarly, Rhondda Cynon Taf council should not be railroaded into a forced merger with Merthyr. RCT is already one of the biggest councils in Wales in terms of its population, and it’s quite capable, we believe, of standing on its own two feet.

Now, referring to other points that were made during the debate, Janet mentioned the number of uncontested seats, which is an obvious cause for concern. We believe that if you have these forced mergers, leading to super councils, they will be too large. This will lead to increasing lack of interest from the electorate in these elections, and you’ll probably have a lower turnout as a result. The Localism Act is interesting; that’s an interesting point. We tend to agree that we need to think about adopting more articles from that Act here in Wales, and there may be a debate here soon on a portion of that Act.

We also have the issue of the term of the next council, raised by R.T. Davies. I remember, in 1993, we had elections; they took place regardless of a local government reorganisation that was imminent at that time. We had county council elections in 1993; two years later, we had to have the unitary authority elections—really, a considerable waste of expense. In these times of local authority cuts, we need to make sure that we avoid that kind of duplication and that kind of waste of money this time around.

Oscar Asghar raised the issue of the call centres. I heard murmurs from that side that these council numbers cost nothing for the consumer to pay for when he’s ringing up, but I think the problem is, essentially, one of inaccessibility, because it takes a long time for people to get hold of the council. They are put through to a call centre. They’re not on a direct line to any council switchboard—. Well, it is essentially a switchboard. Sometimes also, these call centres serve more than one council; so, you might find that you ring a call centre enquiring about services in Cardiff and you’re speaking to someone in a call centre in Wrexham who knows nothing about what you’re talking about. So, we need to look at that, and we need to look at whether we need to have some statutory provision that we have to have locally-manned call centres, at least, so you don’t have people ringing up these lines and finding that they’re talking to people who have no local knowledge.

On the question of the Plaid Cymru amendment regarding voting reform, this is a very important issue. We believe that to encourage a higher turnout in the elections in Wales we do need to support the introduction of the single transferable vote in Welsh council elections. [Interruption.] Indeed, that may be the case, but we certainly do support that, and we are willing to collaborate with whoever else supports it. So, Sian, if you want to have a chat, then by all means do so, but of course it would mean collaborating with us here in UKIP, which may be an awful prospect for you. Thank you.

We have to recognise that Wales has yet to suffer from the extent of the cuts that have been experienced in England. In England, council budgets were cut by 10 per cent in cash terms in the last five years whereas in Wales overall they went up by 2.5 per cent. That is because schools and social services were ring-fenced, avoiding the cuts that occurred in other services, but obviously there have been huge challenges in trying to deliver the other services that weren’t ring-fenced. It isn’t going to get any easier. It can’t be sustainable in the long term, because of the shrinking budgets coming from the Tory UK Government.

By 2020 the Welsh budget will be nearly £1.5 billion lower in real terms than it was in 2010. So, fundamental reform of how public services are delivered and organised across Wales has to be addressed and addressed now. The salami-slicing and the withdrawal of non-essential activities has already been done. The low-hanging fruit have been eliminated. So, continuing to do less is unlikely to meet anything other than public dismay. Local authorities are going to have to do things differently.

The Welsh Government has set out a range of ideas in the draft local government Bill to improve openness, transparency and public accountability of local government. That is long overdue. In the last five years we had no less than three councils where the chief executive and some senior officers were writing their own remuneration plans, and the elected members were found wanting absolutely in their failure to prevent such a massive level of maladministration. It took the intervention of the Wales Audit Office to expose these governance failings.

Such scandals undermine staff and the public’s confidence and trust in public services, and we need to let in some light if we’re going to attract more people who want to serve in local government. I think that public service boards and their obligations under the future generations Act provide a breath of fresh air and necessary collaboration if they’re going to meet their obligations. In addition to that, the bitter referendum contest that we have all suffered over the last few months has thrown up some challenging issues, which will not go away whatever the result is tomorrow. People have got used to clicking their preferences online rather than getting their jackets off and helping solve problems. Is it really the case that it’s always somebody else’s responsibility? To blame whichever level of government is not hard to do, but instead we need to get people to reflect on what they can do to help resolve problems.

I can agree with Suzy Davies that the status quo is not an option. Some of the things that local authorities can do to grasp the nettle of doing things differently were illustrated in the smarter energy for Wales report, which set out the opportunities that are available to local authorities to harness our natural resources for the well-being of local communities. Sadly, few local authorities at any level have seized the opportunity and the money. Indeed, in many areas, local authorities actively block community-led energy schemes, rather than embracing these initiatives to enhance the well-being and income of their populations.

Suzy Davies recognises there has to be co-production, and that requires us to trust people but also to expect that they will play their part, rather than simply demand. It is not local authorities who throw litter, it is people; it’s not local authorities that churn up the roads and create potholes, it’s vehicles, particularly heavy goods vehicles, which are reluctant to pay the cost in their licences that should reflect the damage they do. It is no use Mohammad Asghar simply decrying the loss of services; we have to think what we’re going to do about it. It is undoubtedly the case that poorer neighbourhoods have lower reserves to fall back on when changes are proposed. For example, Rhydypennau library in Cyncoed, which is a relatively well-off area, threatened with closure, has not just been kept open, the local community has massively enhanced the service, with a huge range of concerts, fundraisers and readings, ably supported by the exemplary librarian, who goes the extra mile to deliver for the public. As it’s Public Service Day tomorrow, I think we should recognise that.

I think virtual mergers and voluntary mergers have to be the way forward, to make people from different organisations feel comfortable with each other, and I wait with interest, for example, to hear about the increased collaboration between health and local authorities in Powys, to find out whether that might be a forward model for other local authorities as well.

First of all, I’d like to welcome the Cabinet Secretary to his post and welcome very much his approach and his commitment in the co-production process, moving forward. Yes, I think, in terms of reinforcing the points that have just been made, there is no shadow of a doubt that Wales has not borne the brunt of the cuts that local authorities have borne in England. We’ve mentioned already the 10 per cent slashing of local authorities’ budgets and the fact that one of the Conservative Members opposite has tried to talk about the love of mutuals; I think mutuals have an absolute place in Wales, but what I would say is that, in England, the reality is that it’s for-profit private companies that are taking over the running of public services and not at all doing a good job in some parts.

The Welsh budget has been slashed by £1.5 billion, so there is a need to look at this with fresh eyes and move forward in a way that is constructive. I welcome very much the Cabinet Secretary’s approach in already meeting with council leaders and local authorities so very early on in his post. Yes, it’s going to be an interesting way forward, but I know very much that we have the approach, the willingness, the co-production process in place that will deliver for the people of Wales.

Thank you very much. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Ddirprwy Lywydd. Can I begin by thanking the Conservative group at the Assembly for using their time this afternoon to bring forward this debate? I’ve listened very carefully to each contribution, and I’m very glad to have this opportunity to discuss the future of local government in Wales and to set out some of my own early thinking.

My starting point, Dirprwy Lywydd, is this: that good local government plays a vitally important part in the lives of almost every citizen in Wales, from the earliest years of nursery education and the foundation phase to the social care provided to our oldest and most vulnerable. As Mike Hedges suggested, each one of us has a direct interest in the way in which our rubbish is collected, our streets kept clean, how our roads are maintained and our children are educated, and each one of those services is provided by our local authorities.

Now, Dirprwy Lywydd, I am fortunate that, partly as a result of the very close attention provided by my predecessors, I take on this portfolio at a time when, despite the very real challenges, local government in Wales has been improving. Most previous local government Ministers will have inherited a position where more than one council in Wales has been in need of intervention for its education or social services, or for its own corporate governance. Today, no council in Wales is in that position, and I am very keen to reflect that pattern of improvement in our discussion of local government.

When I met the leader of Ynys Môn council, he asked me that the first time I mentioned his authority on the floor of this Assembly, I should not describe it as a failing authority, but instead I should focus on the considerable success that his council has achieved over the last three years. That authority is in a very different position today than it was at the start of the last Assembly term, and I’m very pleased to be able to do just that—to say something about the efforts, all those efforts, here at the National Assembly, through the intervention of regulators and councils themselves, which have helped to bring about this improved picture.

Now, none of this is to suggest that real challenges do not remain, nor could we possibly believe that the provision of local authority services in Wales is uniformly as we would wish it to be simply because no local authority is currently performing below the minimum standard required of it. All Members here will be familiar with the basic position. Each and every local authority in Wales is good at something. Most are good at many things. None are good at everything. The challenge, then, will be to go on securing improvement in a future that will be very testing indeed. Local authorities face rising demand for many of their services, and they and we know that the money to meet those needs is diminishing, and, on current central Government plans, as Jenny Rathbone pointed out, will go on diminishing in each year of this Assembly term.

No-one that I have met in my meetings with local authorities so far argues that the status quo can be sustained. The nature of the problem is widely understood and shared; crafting solutions to it has been less easy. The last Welsh Government attempted to take a lead, to shape an agenda, to set out a way forward and to persuade others to follow. We would not have had the uniform commitment to change, I believe, had that work not been undertaken.

Now, one aspect of the proposed solution, the map, did not create consensus. Many other aspects of the draft Bill published by my predecessor were widely welcomed, both in this Chamber and beyond. Mike Hedges mentioned the general power of competence for local authorities, but the Bill also included greater clarity of relationships between executive and political leadership, the strengthening of the community leadership role of individual councillors, and measures to improve the responsiveness of local councils, answering the issues that Mohammad Asghar identified.

The Presiding Officer took the Chair.

All of these remain important ingredients in securing effective local government for the future. As far as the map is concerned, I have been clear in my discussions with local authorities and others that my intention is to spend these early weeks talking, listening and learning. My aim will be to seek a consensus, if that is at all possible, on a way forward. It is my strong preference for that consensus to include other political parties in this Assembly where common ground can be found. I was very grateful to meet the Member for Arfon last week and for a first and early discussion of these issues. [Interruption.] Yes, of course.

Thank you for giving way, Secretary. I’m pleased to hear that you’re trying to seek a consensus on this. That wasn’t always the approach of your predecessor. Would you agree with me that councils such as Monmouthshire have put forward interesting ideas in terms of providing a combined authority where you would not have the expense of reorganisation, but you would be making sure that those authorities worked together?

Llywydd, I was very glad to meet the leader and chief executive of Monmouthshire County Council 10 days ago. It was a very constructive meeting. They have a series of interesting ideas, which they’ve promised to provide further information to me about. I was very pleased to accept their invitation to visit Monmouthshire again to see some of the practical work they’re doing around community hubs. I am keen to take ideas wherever they are to be found and to see how much we can make of them. I was particularly interested in my meeting with the Member for Arfon to learn more about the proposals set out in the Plaid Cymru manifesto around the regional approach that he has discussed here this afternoon, and the issues of accountability that are implicit in any democratic arrangement. In the same spirit, I look forward to meeting Janet Finch-Saunders over the next few weeks, and was grateful for her offer of co-operation where common ground can be found, for example in considering the future of community councils. Where there is a constructive contribution to be made, I will certainly want to respond in the same spirit. [Interruption.] Of course.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for giving way. We’re coming to the end of the Minister’s contribution. I would be grateful if you could confirm for the electorate next year that the mandate that will be given to elected members will be a full five-year mandate and there is, in your view, no need to curtail that mandate—so that people know who they’re voting for when they go to the polls next May.

Llywydd, I’m very alert to the corrosive effect that uncertainty produces for those who work in local authorities and those who put themselves forward for election. I will publish a written statement tomorrow. I wanted to wait until I’d heard what people had said today before finalising that statement, but I’m happy to confirm, in direct answer to Andrew Davies’s question, that that written statement will say that elections will go ahead for local councils in Wales in May of next year and that those elected can expect to serve a full five-year term.

Llywydd, there are details in the motion before the Assembly this afternoon that the Government might have phrased differently. There are, for example, better explanations for the genuinely concerning low participation rates in local authorities than describing voters as apathetic. One of the things that I look forward to most in my new responsibilities will be to use the powers, which we hope will be devolved to the National Assembly through the Wales Bill, to put before you a genuinely radical set of proposals for the reform of the way in which elections are conducted in Wales—moving from the nineteenth to the twenty-first century and re-energising democratic engagement as we do so. But, in the broader spirit of wishing to create consensus, to participate in dialogue, and to pursue a way forward that is both positive and constructive, the Government side will support this motion this afternoon.

I call on Mark Isherwood to reply to the debate.

Thanks, everybody, for your contributions, and I very much welcome the Minister’s closing comments.

Janet Finch-Saunders began by reminding us that the Williams commission’s recommendations to take public service delivery forward have largely been ignored, there has been little progress on the integration of health and social care, that roughshod has been ridden over our community councillors and local government officers, that early adopters of voluntary mergers have been rejected, and that with low voter turnout at local government elections and town and community council seats uncontested, it’s time to re-engage with the electorate, Welsh Local Government Association and local authorities in order to regenerate local government. She also pointed out the Welsh Government’s failure to implement powers under the UK Localism Act 2011, which could have empowered communities in Wales as they have in England and Scotland.

Sian Gwenllian put the case for a single transferrable vote in local government elections. Andrew R.T. Davies reminded us that lines on the map mean little to communities and we must engage instead of dictating what will happen. Mike Hedges told us that sports facilities are good for health. Thanks for that, Mike. Of course, the auditor general has recommended, in his report on leisure services, that councils do things differently. He says that councils have no ideal size and big is not always better. It is a shame that colleagues in the last Welsh Government failed to recognise that.

Suzy Davies talked about reform needing to be about a balance between Government, local authorities and citizens, recognising that local authorities can’t do it all and the potential of co-production. She said, ‘Whatever happened to people?’, that Labour put state centralisation before mutuality in public service delivery as the best option and that Robert Owen would be ashamed. Mohammad Asghar talked about the need to shift power to the people, giving communities a right to challenge and deliver high-quality services of good value.

Gareth Bennett talked about a need not to take services systematically away from the people they’re supposed to serve and the need to support bottom-up reorganisation. Jenny Rathbone talked about the need for fundamental reform of how we provide services in Wales and the need for that to be delivered now; Rhianon Passmore, the need for a co-productive approach; and the Cabinet Secretary, the need to celebrate local government success—of course, we must—but that real challenges remain, and his intention to spend his early weeks in his new role talking, listening, learning and seeking consensus.

At the final stage of the draft Local Government (Wales) Bill evidence sessions of the previous Communities, Equality and Local Government Committee, the leader of Gwynedd—one of the people representing the WLGA—told us, rightly, that surely the questions to ask are: what do we want to achieve through public services; what do we want to achieve through our local authorities; and then, which structure is required? There is a tendency for the horse and cart to be in the wrong order in this discussion. As the Williams commission report, which we heard referred to, on public service governance and delivery said:

‘the only viable way to meet the needs and aspirations of people is to shift the emphasis of public service towards co-production and prevention.’

As the newly established co-production network for Wales, which the Welsh Government must engage with, has said: this is about the total transformation of public services, delivering them in equal and reciprocal relationships between professionals, people using services, their families and their neighbours, enabling both services and neighbourhoods to become far more effective agents of change. After all, as Marcel Proust suggested,

‘The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes.’

Let us hope that the Welsh Government and all parties will have new eyes on this matter.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? I will defer voting on this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.