Well, Llywydd, I thank Janet Finch-Saunders for a comprehensive set of questions. Thank you for what she said at the beginning. I look forward to continuing to have opportunities to discuss the detail of these ideas as the consultation period goes on. I understand her party has a different view of electoral reform, but there’s absolutely no suggestion of gerrymandering. These are choices that we will be able to debate here, and we’ve already heard different views of them in the Chamber.

I want to deal as best as I can with the series of very specific questions that the Member has raised. I’m glad she took the trouble to mention voluntary mergers. They do come back onto the table in this White Paper. I have had the opportunity to hear from a number of those councils that previously put forward voluntary merger proposals. I know that some background work will be going on to look at those ideas again. I think what they would say to the Member, as they said to me, is that this point in the electoral cycle isn’t helpful to them and that, before they are able to enter such discussions in any determined way, they would wish to have a refreshed mandate from their local populations.

Tax harmonisation is not a factor in the regional arrangements. The proposal that the White Paper sets out is that money should continue to flow through the 22 local authorities, and then be pooled upwards by them to discharge the new mandatory regional responsibilities. Local authorities have regularly pointed out to me that they do this successfully now. For example, in the education consortia, they agree amongst themselves how much each is to put into that collective pot. And I want a relationship that regards local authorities as mature organisations, capable of grappling with serious challenges, and with a democratic franchise of their own. The role of Government is to provide for a backstop when things don’t work out in the way that we would expect. So, as far as budgets are concerned, the White Paper says the default position would be for local authorities to agree this themselves. We will set out in any legislation a fall-back formula that they would have to apply in circumstances where they were unable to come to agreement.

As far as scrutiny is concerned, the White Paper suggests a menu approach, consistent with the way I’ve already described—the overall methodology behind it. It says that local authorities will be able to choose from a range of different ways of organising scrutiny, deciding which method best suits their local circumstances. Janet asked a very important question about portfolio holders. The joint committee model that we endorse in the White Paper would see portfolio holders from participating local authorities coming together to make those regional decisions. I am determined, despite wanting to be as consensual as possible and wanting to discuss as many things as possible, on these two things, I feel strongly myself: one, that in the end, decisions must rest on the desk of elected members. And one of the dangers of regional committees is that they can provide too much power to officers rather than elected members. I think decisions must be made by people whom other people can get rid of if they decide that that’s what they want to do. And I also wanted to design these regional structures in a way that makes it clear that regional decisions will be made by those portfolio holders coming together. They will go back to their component local authorities to be scrutinised, to answer questions, to be held accountable, but they will not be going back to ask for permission. The law will make it clear that those regional decisions must be regionally discharged, and with the best interest of the whole region at the forefront of the minds of those people making those decisions.

The Member has taken a very close interest, and a very well-informed interest too, in community councils, and I look forward to further discussions with her about the root-and-branch review of community councils that this White Paper signals. The frustration of the auditor general’s report today is that he says that the errors he sees are common errors. They’re the same mistakes being made everywhere, and that they’re very easy to put right. So, the frustration is that we are yet to make the progress we want to in getting community councils to attend to those basic issues that the Member highlighted in her contribution. The White Paper sets out a series of immediate steps we can take to improve the performance of community councils in the here and now, but the purpose of the fundamental review is to take the best of what they do, and there are good examples of them doing very important work in Wales, and to make that characteristic of the system as a whole.