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—