The next item is a debate on the local government settlement for the next financial year, and I call on the Minister for Housing and Local Government to move the motion—Julie James. 

Motion NDM7283 Rebecca Evans

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales, in accordance with Section 84H of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, approves the Local Government Finance Report (No. 1) 2020-21 (Final Settlement—Councils), which was laid in the Table Office on 25 February 2020.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm pleased to present the 2020-21 local government settlement for the 22 unitary authorities in Wales to the Assembly. Before I start today, I'm sure the Senedd will join me in thanking local government for the critical work they undertake. We've seen over these past three weeks the part that local government, alongside the emergency services and communities themselves, have played in the response to the unprecedented flooding across Wales as a result of storms Ciara, Dennis and now Jorge.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the local authority councillors and staff who have worked tirelessly to support affected individuals, businesses and communities. This event has had a huge impact in many communities. Our recovery will take some time. Beyond our current challenges, local authorities' staff also work for their communities throughout the year, from refuse and recycling teams, teachers, social workers, housing officers, and traffic wardens.

This year, I am pleased to be able to propose to this Senedd that, in 2020-21, the increase in the general revenue allocation to Welsh local government will be 4.3 per cent. This is the highest increase on a like-for-like basis in 13 years. I fully appreciate the pressures local government continue to face following a decade of austerity. One good settlement does not reverse the impact of years of austerity. However, this settlement provides local government with the most stable platform I can offer for budget setting for the forthcoming financial year. It responds to the pressures local government have been anticipating for this coming year and offers an opportunity to plan for the future instead of firefighting the present.

We heard in the early debate on the final budget that the Welsh Government's budget in 2020-21 will still be significantly lower in real terms than in 2010-11. Additional funding received from the UK Government does not even return our spending power to the levels of a decade ago. This year, we have striven to further improve our partnership with local government and how we work together to allocate the predetermined resources amount available.

In preparing for this settlement, the Government has ensured that local government has been able to discuss its pressures throughout the budget process through the finance sub-group of the partnership council. Cabinet colleagues and I have considered with local government leaders the position overall, and on key services such as education and social care. We will continue these wide-ranging strategic discussions during the coming year in preparation for a comprehensive spending review.

This coming financial year, local authorities in Wales will receive nearly £4.5 billion in general revenue allocations from core funding and non-domestic rates. Our decisions on the overall level of funding for local government took particular account of the need to support authorities in providing funding for schools, acknowledging the impact of cost increases on teachers' pay and pensions beyond their control. While authorities' use of this funding is unhypothecated, the distribution of the funding for additional costs arising from the UK Government's announced changes to employer pension contributions has been deliberately directed to the education service area of the distribution mechanism.

We've also directed sufficient funding for the additional costs arising from the 2019-20 teachers' pay deal for the remainder of the academic year, similarly through the education element of the settlement formula. And beyond this, we have included funding in recognition of the future impacts of the next academic year teachers' pay award, which will come into effect from September 2020.

We are also continuing to provide funding for our proposals for new eligibility criteria for free school meals, given the continued delayed roll-out of universal credit by the UK Government.

We've extended the high street's rate relief scheme in 2020-21, including an additional £2.4 million allocated to local authorities through the local government settlement to provide discretionary rates relief for local businesses and other ratepayers to respond to specific local issues.

I know that some authorities have commented on the variance between the highest and lowest increases. Through this settlement, every authority will see an increase of at least 3 per cent over 2019-20 on a like-for-like basis. The last time any authority received a 3 per cent increase in its settlement on a like-for-like basis was 10 years ago.

Authorities experience larger or smaller increases than others as a result of the formula, which is designed to respond to relative need through the most current data possible. This means relative changes in population and pupil numbers, for example, will be reflected in differing levels of increase. These changes have been agreed through the distribution and finance sub-groups, including the phasing of the population data change, which helped alleviate some of the larger distributional impacts between authorities.

In this context, I have given careful consideration to the potential of including a funding floor for this settlement. The principle of a funding floor is to ensure that no authority suffers an unmanageable change from one year to the next. I've decided not to include a funding floor in this instance.

The distribution formula is a joint endeavour between the WLGA and Welsh Government, and changes are agreed through established working groups. The distribution formula continues to use the most up to date, appropriate data, and there is an ongoing programme of work to refine it and to explore future development. Local government proposes changes to the distribution formula, or elements of it, through the established joint governance arrangements we have in place. Any formula means winners and losers. If local government wish collectively to more fully review the formula, I am of course open to that. I would say, however, that we should be mindful of how long the fair funding review in England has taken to produce a similar concept to that we currently have in Wales.

I know that Assembly Members in this Chamber will come to this debate prepared to make the case for even more resources for their particular local authorities. I'm sure that all of us here would like to allocate more money to our communities, as we would for the NHS and many other services. Of course I fully understand that, but, unfortunately, we have to spend within our capacity. So, to be able to give more money to local government, we would have to take more funding away from another area. The debate we have just had on the budget as a whole demonstrates how difficult those choices can be.

In addition to the core unhypothecated funding delivered through the settlement, I am grateful that my Cabinet colleagues have provided earlier indicative information on revenue and capital grants planned for 2020-21. These currently amount to over £1 billion of revenue, and £580 million of capital, and have a specific role to play in the delivery of certain services. We continue to work to amalgamate grants where it makes sense and to use outcome frameworks to measure success.

Turning to capital, the general capital funding for 2020-21 is increased by £178 million. On top of this, we will continue to provide £20 million of public highways refurbishment as a specific grant. I hope that authorities will be considering how they can use this funding to respond to the urgent need to decarbonise in light of the climate emergency declared by the Welsh Government and many councils in Wales over the past year.

Having been part of setting a council budget myself, I know the challenges that local authorities will still have had to face in setting their budgets. I'd encourage Members in this Chamber who have not seen this in practice to go to their local councils and see first-hand how those decisions are made, and the very difficult choices that will have to be made in the light of the budget settlements.

The setting of budgets and, in turn, council tax is the responsibility of each local authority, and authorities will be taking account of the full range of sources of funding available to them, as well as the pressures they face in setting their budgets for the coming year. Authorities will be balancing the need to invest in services and service transformation with the financial pressures on local residents. Pay levels are only now at the level they were before the financial crisis, and council tax increases will be carefully considered in that context.

As I have said before, no-one goes into politics to want to cut services, and this is why I am once again grateful to be able to give this settlement the highest increase on a like-for-like basis in 13 years. Of course, we still have the uncertainty of Brexit and the challenges of climate change, but if the UK Government are correct that austerity is over, we look forward to Wales receiving the funding it deserves in the coming years. I ask Assembly Members to support the motion. Diolch, Llywydd.

Under the Welsh Government's local government funding formula, nine out of 22 Welsh local authorities received an increase in the current financial year. The Welsh Government tells us that its formula is heavily influenced by deprivation indicators. Alongside Flintshire, the councils with the largest cuts this year of 0.3 per cent included Conwy and Anglesey—well, they're amongst the five local authorities in Wales where almost a third or 30 per cent or more of workers are paid less than the voluntary living wage. Prosperity levels per head in Anglesey are the lowest in Wales—just under half those in Cardiff—and Conwy has the highest proportion of older people in Wales, yet council tax payers in Anglesey and Conwy face 9.1 per cent increases. Wrexham was also cut, despite having three of the four wards with the highest poverty rates in Wales.

Council tax payers in Flintshire faced an 8.1 per cent increase, despite Flintshire councillors having launched a campaign, #BackTheAsk, which highlighted cross-party frustration about the funding they receive from the Welsh Labour Government. The campaign specifically asked for a fair share of funds from Welsh Government, highlighting that Flintshire was one of the lowest funded councils per head of population. This had been unanimously agreed by all parties on the council—a Labour-led council.

Under the final Welsh local government settlement for 2020-21, four of the five bottom local authorities in terms of funding increases are again the same authorities in north Wales, Conwy, Wrexham, Flintshire and Anglesey, whilst Monmouthshire remains bottom. Whilst the Labour Welsh Government denies that it has any intention to create a north-south divide, it is still perhaps convenient for it that, under its 20-year-old local government funding formula, four of the five authorities to see the largest increases in 2020-21 are again Labour-run councils in south Wales.

Although the local government Minister states that the biggest impact on distribution of the settlement across authorities derives from the relative change of overall population and school-age populations across each local authority area, an analysis of the latest published official statistics for each does not paint a clear picture in this respect for either. The local government Minister also states that the division of the local government settlement between local authorities is done by the democratic processes of the Welsh Local Government Association. However, as senior councillors in north Wales have told me, cross-party, the losers do not want to openly challenge the funding formula on the basis that in order to gain, other councils would have to receive less. Therefore, in a 'turkeys don't vote for Christmas' attitude, they would not receive any external support.

Nonetheless, a letter signed by every council leader in north Wales was sent to the leader of the Welsh Local Government Association, stating that the benefits of this settlement are not shared sufficiently fairly and leave most of the councils in the north with a settlement significantly below the net cost of pressures, inflation and demographic change. They also wrote to this local government Minister, asking her for a funding floor of 4 per cent in the local government finance settlement in light of continued challenges for the 2020-21 financial year. As they said to the Minister, four of the five bottom councils are from north Wales and without a floor, most north Wales councils will be faced with the biggest challenge in terms of seeking cuts to services. They added that a floor would help to protect services and work against the above-inflation council tax rises in the bottom six councils, including Blaenau Gwent.

Despite this clear cross-party statement, the Minister has dismissed their official representation and rejected a funding floor in the final settlement. As one of these leaders told me, 'It's clear to me that there continues to be very little understanding of the pressures and increased demands that local government is faced with, and a conveniently short memory from her Government's 2016 manifesto commitment stating that they would provide funding to put in place a floor for future local government settlements.' They added that it's also disappointing that the Minister has not decided to bridge the north-south divide, as four of the bottom five councils in the funding settlement will be in north Wales.

As a worried Flintshire resident who rang me last week here stated, 'We can't cope if our council tax goes up by around another 5 per cent after 27 per cent over the last four years. This used to be a Labour area, but they aren't listening.' Diolch yn fawr.

The burden of public service cuts has fallen largely on local government since the onset of austerity over 10 years ago. Local government funding received from the Welsh Government as a result of this budget will be 13 per cent lower than it was in 2010, according to the Wales fiscal analysis team at Cardiff University. All of us here are very aware of the toll that these cuts have had on the communities that we represent.

The cuts have been so severe that what are termed non-essential services—although we know that they are nothing like that—have been cut to the bone and funding for really valuable holistic services, like those provided by the Senghenydd Youth Drop In Centre in Caerphilly, are under a huge question mark. Funding cuts have also led to the closure of libraries, which have faced a 38 per cent cut since 2010, not to mention leisure and recreation services, which have received a 45 per cent cut, and housing receiving a 24 per cent cut. Now, those numbers may seem remote, but that's led to the wholesale closure of important centres all around the country, like the leisure centre in Pontllanfraith, at a time when those services that they provide are needed more than ever.

Now, while the uplift of £184 million included in this year's budget is a step in the right direction—no-one on these benches is going to deny that—it does still fall short by £70 million of the £254 million that the WLGA has said local authorities need simply to keep things as they are. Since Plaid Cymru doesn't believe that local government can or should face this shortfall, we'll be voting against the settlement today.

We all know that councils will attempt to fill this gap by increasing council tax. It's something that's already been alluded to. We also know that council tax is one of the most regressive forms of taxation that we have, since the least well-off pay a higher share of their income compared with other taxes, and so this is a burden that will fall on those least able to afford it.

Cuts to local government make little sense when considering the well-being of our economy and the welfare of the people it's supposed to serve. I mentioned earlier that non-essential services, as they're known, are the first to go. So often, they are the glue holding together the complicated realities of people's lives and they prevent problems arising in the first place. For example, all the evidence shows that public services save money when homelessness is either prevented or rapidly relieved, compared with letting it happen, yet many of the services required to prevent homelessness lie with local government and some local authorities have considered reducing their budgets, which will only lead to more money being spent overall on the consequences of homelessness, and that doesn't make sense for anyone.

The audit office report on the planning system noted that major cuts to planning developments were resulting in inadequate section 106 agreements being signed. This means we aren't getting the quantities of affordable housing we should, the communities facilities that we should, or the educational contributions that we should. Likewise, good social care is essential to ensure the smooth running of the NHS and good housing and environmental services are also essential to preventing people having to use the NHS in the first place. It just doesn't make any sense to cut money for preventative services since it simply adds to the financial burden that will have to be shouldered by the NHS eventually. And we all know that problems are much, much cheaper to avoid than they are to treat, when they eventually become so bad as to acquire expensive treatment.

That's a point that is reflected by what the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales has been at pains to emphasise. She said that

'the provision of preventative services', and I'm quoting here,

'education, sports and community facilities, quality public open spaces and community-based support services…play an important in stopping people becoming unwell or developing longer-term social problems.'

Rhun ap Iorwerth has already pointed to the £100 million of the fiscal resource funding that has been unallocated in this budget. Were around three quarters of this given to local government, then it would meet the level that the WLGA said local authorities need to maintain current service provision, which would allow us to consider supporting the funding settlement. 

It is about time we had more long-term strategic approaches to budget setting by a Welsh Government, which is why Plaid Cymru would put well-being at the heart of our budgets, if we are the ones taking these decisions in the future. 

So, to close, Llywydd—

Would you take an intervention?

Yes, certainly.

With that in mind, would she therefore welcome, particularly with what she said about well-being, the nearly £0.5 million that's going to be spent on skate parks in Caerphilly county borough, particularly the one in Bargoed?

Thank you for that intervention. Yes, certainly, I'm not saying, by any means, that there are not provisions that we wouldn't welcome. I just think that, on the whole, there are too many things that we think are missed opportunities. But, of course, there will be some things, like those that you mentioned, that we would welcome.

So, to close, Llywydd, there is an uplift in this year's settlement, but although it's a step in the right direction, it's still insufficient to even maintain current local authority provision, following decades of cuts, which is why we in Plaid Cymru feel we have no choice but to vote against the local government funding settlement today. 

I'm going to be supporting the budget. I believe that local government does need more money, but I believe the whole of the public sector in Wales needs more money. But I want to discuss the reason for the aggregate external finance, what we used to call the Welsh Government budget settlement, and then to discuss this year's settlement. 

The aggregate external finance is a combination of what the rate support grant used to be and the sharing of the national non-domestic rate collected in Wales. The rate support grant is support for the council tax, which used to be rates collected by a local authority, so that each should be funded to its standard spending assessment, after adding the council tax, but not any fees and charges. The greater the ability to collect council tax locally, the less the Welsh Government support for a council needs to be.

The number of properties in each council tax band varies massively between local authorities. Some such as Blaenau Gwent have over half their properties in band A. Monmouthshire, by comparison, has just over 1 per cent of its properties in band A and has almost 6 per cent in the top two bands. In Monmouthshire, there are more properties in the top band than there are in band A. So, adding £1 to band E council tax in Monmouthshire raises substantially more—getting on for almost 100 per cent more—than you get for doing exactly the same in Blaenau Gwent. 

We would thus expect the councils to get the largest Welsh Government support per capita to be those with the least ability to raise council tax revenue, which are Blaenau Gwent, which is independent-controlled, Merthyr, which is independent-controlled, and Rhondda Cynon Taf, which is Labour-controlled. So, it's certainly not a pro-Labour budget. We would then expect the three lowest to be the Vale of Glamorgan, Labour minority-controlled, Monmouth, which is Conservative-controlled, and Cardiff, which is Labour-controlled—due to the scheme being based on making up for the council tax able to be collected. We see from the Welsh local government revenue settlement that the highest support per capita does go to Blaenau Gwent, Merthyr and Rhondda Cynon Taf, and the least to Monmouth, Vale of Glamorgan and Cardiff.

On band I properties, the top band, there are 5,510 in Wales and 3,020 of them are in three authorities: Monmouth, Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan. That tells us about where you've got a greater ability to raise money via the council tax. Year on year population changes are the main driver in terms of additional money year on year. It's not the only driver, the population changes, there's a bit on road length that's relative and some other things, but it's mainly population.

It is unfortunate that, while the Welsh Government shows the amount under each part of the rate support grant calculation, so it shows how much each local authority gets for each portion of it, it doesn't actually publish the calculations that would show how they have reached those figures. I think it would be very helpful if people could actually see the numbers going into the calculations rather than just the end result. 

Of course, the formula can be changed. It could simply be an amount per head of population, and people in Cardiff and Swansea would do very well, but it would be catastrophic for Merthyr, Rhondda Cynon Taf and Blaenau Gwent. Changing the formula can cause big swings in funding with minor changes. There was a change in road funding from 52 per cent population and 48 per cent road length to 50 per cent of each, which didn't seem a very major change and seemed fairly reasonable, but it moved hundreds of thousands of pounds from Cardiff, Swansea and Newport to Powys, Ceredigion and other sparsely populated areas. Small changes in the formula can end up producing changes that perhaps you wouldn't want before you changed the formula.

Looking at this year's budget compared to last year's, it's the best settlement for a decade and it sets local government core revenue funding at £4.474 billion. Adjusting for transfers, the core revenue funding for local government in 2020-21 will increase by 4.3 per cent on a like-for-like basis compared to the current year. If only that had happened for the last 10 years, we would not be having a debate and people saying, 'Local government needs more money.' It would still need more money, because local government can never have enough money, like most other services, but it would be in a position where it would be able to deal with most of its problems.

Every authority has an increase of at least 3 per cent. On the figures published in table 4 of the 'Local Government Finance Report (No.1) 2020-21 (Final Settlement—Councils)' it shows the standard spending assessments for each council per head, and shows Denbighshire with £2,155 as the highest in Wales. Anglesey, Gwynedd and Powys are all above the average, and Conwy is exactly average.

Finally, why not give every council the same percentage rise? Because it would disadvantage those whose population was growing relative to others and it would advantage those with greater capacity to raise money via council tax. The settlement does appear fair. I think we really do need to work out what we're trying to do. We're trying to support local government, but we're trying to do it in such a way that every authority gets the ability to do the same thing. That's what the standard spending assessment is about. 

Finally, just another plea, can the Welsh Government show their calculations? Because just showing the final end result makes people think maybe they're wrong—or maybe they don't like them. If you actually show the numbers that do those calculations, it would allow people to check them themselves.

Caerphilly council were somewhat stressed by the delay caused in the budget by the general election, and nonetheless went ahead with a consultation. Actually, the consultation took place during the general election. I'm still wondering whether that was entirely wise to consult on a budget you didn't know during a general election. But the good news is that, as a result of the Welsh Government's budget, the projected savings that were required have dropped from £8.5 million to £3 million. It shows that a responsible budget is perfectly possible and has had a positive effect on Caerphilly County Borough Council as a result of the Welsh Government's action.

You mentioned austerity, and every time you do Janet Finch-Saunders—not every time, she didn't do it just then—but when you do mention austerity, Janet Finch-Saunders has a tendency to shout and complain, but the fact is that this budget today is still a budget in an austerity era and has its roots in the fact that the worst possible time to cut in the way that they did was in 2010—Cameron and Osborne—when they did it in the depths of a recession. It was the worst possible time to begin an austerity programme, and therefore we will take many years to recover from that, because of the consequences of those choices that were made then. That is why there are difficulties with the budget, because of an economic choice that was made in 2010 and is still being felt today.

But we are seeing small steps back in the journey. I still think we're seeing austerity; I don't think we've seen an end to austerity by any shape or means. But what we are seeing, through the Welsh Government's budget, is small steps forward, and in real terms, Caerphilly council will now be £11.1 million better off in the next financial year compared to this one, because of this good settlement. And some of the things that were advertised as possible cuts had these difficult times continued, and were publicised during the general election campaign, now don't have to go ahead—things like, because of this Welsh Government, Caerphilly council won't be forced to cut school budgets; won't be forced to remove school crossing patrols; won't be forced to reduce CCTV cameras; won't increase school meal prices; and won't have to reduce the highways maintenance budget. And I'm pleased to say that any decision to close recycling centres in my constituency will now not go ahead. Also, in addition to that, Caerphilly council's council tax, compared to the two neighbouring authorities—Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr, both independently controlled—is significantly less. In fact, people in band B in Caerphilly pay £400 less each year than in those neighbouring authorities, and Caerphilly is in the lowest quartile for council tax rates in Wales. That is because of the local government Minister's actions and the finance Minister's actions over the last few months.

However, we have to recognise that the flooding that took place has also imposed an unexpected and intolerable financial burden on Caerphilly County Borough Council, with some of the repairs that will be needed in the future. The extra financial support from the Welsh Government has been very welcome. In addition to the £500 per person that the local authority has given, the Welsh Government has also given £500 per person, plus £500 for those who are not insured. That is everyone who's been affected by flooding will have between £1,000 and £1,500 if their property was affected, as a result, again, of the actions of the Government and of the council.

The impact of the floods, though, on the infrastructure of the county borough is currently calculated at around £4 million, and this is expected to double over the next few weeks as the full storm damage is determined. And further necessary infrastructure improvements that were made increasingly urgent by the floods have been identified at a total cost in Caerphilly of £75 million to £85 million—that's particularly connecting roads in the northern Valleys in Dawn Bowden's constituency. The local authority also requires financial assistance to make safe some of the 234 coal tips that exist in the borough. It can carry out work on the 104 that it owns, but there are also 130 in private ownership that we've got concerns about. So, to that end, I co-signed a letter with Rhianon Passmore, Dawn Bowden and the three Members of Parliament, to the Secretary of State for Wales, the First Minister and the Prime Minister, calling for the maximum level of assistance possible to assist both with those infrastructure repairs and also making the coal tips safe. I'm confident that the Welsh Government will do what it can; we're yet to hear anything meaningful from the UK Government, and that is a concern.

So, on the whole, I think this is the best budget that could possibly have been produced for local government, and it has seen security in local government in Wales that has not been seen in England, and that is because of this Welsh Government and, therefore, I commend this debate today.

Thank you. Can I now call on the Minister for Housing and Local Government to reply to the debate? Julie James.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to thank Members for their contributions to the debate today. I do want to respond to the comments on the sufficiency of the settlement.

This Government has recognised the priorities and pressures that we and local government are facing through the settlement and the wider funding available to local government. I would like to start by reminding Members where we are after this budget round. We still do not have a Welsh Government budget beyond 2020-21. We are still waiting for the UK Government to produce its 2020-21 budget with updated fiscal forecasts and its comprehensive spending review, with a fiscal outlook for the forthcoming years. We still don't know what relationship we will have with the European Union in the next year. The only thing we do know is that the level of uncertainty is very high. I understand the challenge of uncertainty for local authorities. I hope a comprehensive spending review will give us the ability to give them that certainty. We will look at the practicalities of the Welsh Local Government Association's request to introduce a multi-year settlement as part of that challenge.

This final settlement is a significant improvement. The Government and I recognise that the settlement, positive though it is in cash terms overall, does not make up for the real-terms cuts that local authorities have seen in the past decade of Conservative-imposed austerity. I hope that despite the difficult choices councils have had to make, they can now look to the future to identify how to make the best use of this funding; to continue to engage their communities and respond to their needs and ambitions; to transform services, to retain them, and respond to changing needs and expectations; or, where necessary, choosing how to reduce them while carrying the public alongside them. And, as well, what level of council tax they will set to reflect those choices.

We all recognise that there will be challenges in some services, but I believe that these are challenges local government in Wales can deliver together. To hear the comments from Mark Isherwood, opposite, you would think that austerity for local government was a homegrown Welsh policy. The Government's priority is, and always has been, to try and protect councils from the worst of the cuts passed on to us by the UK Government. This is reflected in the settlement for 2020-21 I've presented to you today.

Mike Hedges made the point very plainly, I thought, that most on the opposite benches focus on the marginal change, but nobody looks at the actual distribution. The truth is that north Wales is in the middle, as it should be, because of the way that council tax revenues are able to be raised across Wales, as Mike Hedges pointed out very expertly. So, the bottom three councils are in the south and the top three councils are in the south. So, Cardiff is lower than Wrexham and Flintshire. So, Mark, I've got to say to you: never let the facts get in the way of a good argument, because the facts, as you presented them, simply aren't facts.

Here in the Welsh Government, we will continue to maintain full entitlements under our council tax reduction scheme for 2020-21, and are again providing £244 million in the local government settlement in recognition of this. We remain committed to protecting vulnerable and low-income households, despite the shortfall in the funding transferred by the UK Government following its abolition of council tax benefit. The arrangements for 2021-22 onwards will be determined as part of our wider considerations about how to make council tax fairer.

I and my Cabinet colleagues are committed to continue to work with local government to provide flexibility, where possible. I am committed to considering how local government might be more empowered and better strengthened. This means that there must be a commitment from local authorities to regional working; there must be greater collaboration with health boards and the education consortia to secure improved outcomes and increased resilience. We will continue discussions with local government on our shared recognition of the need to invest in the supply of housing.

Investing in social housing should minimise the pressures on local authority budgets and on homelessness services. Investment in housing can also support the Welsh economy and local economies. Delyth Jewell did point that out; I was disappointed to see that she wasn't, nevertheless, going to support the settlement as, actually, the councils across Wales have been very welcoming of the settlement in that area. I do hope the settlement—capital and revenue can—[Interruption.] Yes, certainly.

I'm just responding to your comment about Wrexham, Cardiff and Flintshire. Just factually, Wrexham is having a 3.5 per cent increase, Flintshire 3.7 per cent, both below the 4 per cent floor they asked for, whereas Cardiff is 4.2 per cent—

Well, that's the marginal change. 

—which is above the floor they asked for.

Yes, but the point I'm making there is, you're concentrating on the marginal change not the overall amount that's given to them, and in the overall amount that's given to councils, Cardiff is below both Flintshire and Wrexham. So, you concentrate on the marginal change, not the overall settlement, which is the point I was making.

As I was saying, investment in housing can also support the Welsh economy and local economies, and I hope that this settlement—capital and revenue—can support authorities to increase the scale and pace of social house building across Wales.

So, in closing, Deputy Presiding Officer, I would like to note the ongoing positive work on the distribution formula with local government. This year, in addition to the information published alongside the provisional settlement, my officials have been working closely with the distribution sub-group to produce a table that seeks to explain the variances in the allocations. This has been published alongside the final settlement so that each authority can see and explain their allocations. I do take Mike Hedges's point, and I will explore whether we can publish the actual calculations as well, as I do think the more the transparency, the better.

The annual changes to the formula are agreed each year between Welsh and local government through the finance sub-group. This means we are confident that we deliver an equitable and objective distribution of the funding available. I want to reassure all areas of Wales that there is no deliberate bias or unfairness in the formula, as was pointed out very ably by Mike Hedges, in pointing out which authorities were the biggest and smallest gainers across the settlement, and to suggest so is unfair to those who engage so positively in the work to deliver it.

I've previously offered Assembly Members to attend technical briefings from my officials to understand how the settlement formula works in practice. Take-up of this offer to date has been very disappointingly low. I am more than happy to re-offer this to Members in the Chamber to ensure we can constructively debate the issue in question rather than misinterpreting the technical details of the settlement and what it does or does not do. I commend this very good settlement to the Assembly.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting under this item until the voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.