Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Public services of a high quality are central to Welsh life. This is the glue that binds our communities together. Plaid Cymru has always stood for public services, for the people who provide them, and for the communities and homes that rely on them. The public sector is a crucial partner for the private sector, to make Wales a more prosperous, fair and sustainable nation. Public services are also the foundation of the success of the private sector, from education and skills to the provision of public transport, infrastructure and job opportunities in light of strong procurement policies. The success or failure of public services is also crucial in terms of the progress of the Welsh nation, but the future of those services is at great risk at the moment. We cannot over-emphasise the gravity of the challenge posed by austerity at a time of a changing demographic.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies and others have anticipated that the demand for health services will continue to take an increasing percentage of Welsh budgets in the future, which will place a huge strain on the funding available to local authorities specifically. There’s also a specific challenge facing Wales in terms of ensuring that public services are provided at the appropriate level in order to reduce complexity and to ensure improved democracy, scrutiny and collaboration. Our motion today does concentrate on the crucial elements when we look at local government reform in the future, in order to ensure that it will serve and meet the needs of our communities effectively for the future.

I want to look first at reducing the voting age to 16. The younger we can actually attract young people and children to politics, the better. Giving young people the opportunity to vote at 16 can engender the interest of young people in schools and beyond. If young people don’t participate in the electoral process, then there’s a risk that candidates and political parties will concentrate their messages on the needs of older people. And, as we have seen a number of times over the past few years, it’s youth services that are often cut first.

Now, in looking at electoral reform, then it is clear that people have lost confidence in politics. In local elections in 2012, only 39 per cent of people actually got out and voted. And, in the Assembly election in May, only 45 per cent of people voted—that was the highest percentage since 1999, which is a problem in and of itself.

There are a number of reasons for this, of course, but one of them is without doubt the fact that a number of people choose not to vote in certain areas, because it’s the same faces that win time and again. How many times have we heard that? Particularly in those council wards that are unchallenged—there were 99 in the 2012 local elections, which is over 8 per cent of the total seats.

I’ll give you some examples. In Sketty, in Swansea, the Liberal Democrats won all the seats, although they only gained 37.4 per cent of the vote. The Labour Party won 29 per cent, and the Conservatives 20 per cent, but they failed to take any seats. And, under the current system, parties that finish third can go on to win most of the seats. In Cardiff, in 2008, the Liberal Democrats came first according to the number of seats, but third according to the number of votes cast.

A new electoral system is necessary if we are to enhance people’s confidence in politics once again. Our long-established policy in Plaid Cymru is to introduce the STV system—the single transferable vote—in order to ensure fair representation for all political views. When the Sunderland report was published in 2002, it said that STV was the most appropriate way of meeting the needs of local people in terms of the local election system, and that was after the commission actually tested seven alternative methods of voting.

In my view, the introduction of STV to local government elections in Scotland is one of the most positive developments in the age of devolution. In Scotland, local government elections are far more competitive, and the constitution of local government is far more closely aligned to the desires of the population. The Government here has had an opportunity to take action on the recommendations of the Sunderland report in the past, but, unfortunately, that hasn’t happened.

But it is important to note that this isn’t a party political point, because all political parties have benefitted disproportionately from the first-past-the-post system. The question is: do we want to accept the inequality of the process? And, as a nation, if we truly believe that all citizens are equal, then we should also believe, and ensure, that all votes are equal. There is no good reason for not introducing STV for local government elections in Wales. We therefore need to make a positive change for the benefit of the democracy in our nation.

A few words on the regional element in our motion: like any nation, Wales needs regional leadership in order to give strategic direction that reflects a set of priorities that are pan Wales, along with strong local government to ensure local accountability that is co-ordinated at a community level. Our proposal is gradual evolution, using current structures to create new leadership at a regional and community level. And others from the Plaid team will expand upon this point and other issues within the motion.

Now, in terms of the amendments, we will be voting against the Conservative amendments, clearly, because they delete many of our points. We don’t necessarily disagree with your first amendment, and, indeed, this is one of the main factors that needs to be considered when we do look at the way in which local government is funded in future, in order to ensure that rural communities aren’t disproportionately disadvantaged.

With the second amendment, in terms of transparency, although transparency is, of course, extremely important to scrutinise the expenditure of taxpayers’ money, transparency in and of itself isn’t going to actually manage wages or create a national framework.

And, in terms of the Labour amendments, I would like greater clarity on what exactly the Government means, in practical terms, with the wording in point (a), namely to

‘increase accountability of local government through electoral arrangements’.

Now, I don’t know exactly what that means. Do you agree with the need to introduce change to the electoral arrangements or not? Perhaps we will get greater clarity on that this afternoon. Other members of the team will expand on some other elements of the motion. Thank you.