The next item is a Member debate under Standing Order 11.21(iv) on local government elections, and I call on Rhys ab Owen to move the motion.

Motion NDM7881 Rhys ab Owen, Llyr Gruffydd, Jane Dodds

Supported by Cefin Campbell, Heledd Fychan, Luke Fletcher, Mabon ap Gwynfor, Peredur Owen Griffiths, Rhun ap Iorwerth, Siân Gwenllian, Sioned Williams

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Notes:

a) the Local Government and Elections Wales Act 2021 extends the voting franchise to 16 and 17 year olds and foreign citizens legally resident in Wales, ensures a duty to encourage local people to participate in local government, and enables councils to scrap the first-past-the-post system to elect councillors;

b) a more proportional system is used in local elections in Scotland, reducing the number of uncontested seats, and ensuring that all votes count.

2. Calls on the Welsh Government to work closely with new councils elected in May 2022 to ensure that a more representative method and a uniform national system is used to elect councillors across Wales by 2027.

Motion moved.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. As everyone in this Chamber will know, 'democracy' comes from the Greek. It stems from the words 'demos' and 'kratia' that mean 'control by the people'. But the 'winner takes all' mentality dominates in Wales, and particularly in England at the moment—a system where one party takes the spoils, and the others are left empty-handed. This therefore leads to the majority feeling that their vote was a waste of time and that casting that vote had no impact whatsoever.

To prove that I'm not seeking to make a party political point here, let me start with Gwynedd Council back in 2017. In that election, Plaid Cymru won 55 per cent of the seats with just 39 per cent of the vote. In Monmouthshire, our colleague Peter Fox and the Conservatives won 58 per cent of the seats with just 46 per cent of the vote. And here in Cardiff, Labour won 52 per cent of the seats with 39 per cent of the vote. And to ensure that no-one in this Senedd is left out, the three seats in the ward where I was born, in Penylan in Cardiff, went to the Liberal Democrats—each seat taken with just 25 per cent of the vote.

The term 'chwarae teg' is an integral part of Welsh phraseology and ideology. 

You will hear non-Welsh speakers use the word, whilst speaking English—'chwarae teg', fair play. This current system is certainly not fair play. We have in Wales today parties that fall far short of gaining half of the electorate's vote, but gain control of 100 per cent of the executive. I'm confident that each Member of this Senedd are far more of a democrat than any party allegiance. For democracy to flourish in Wales, and to be engaging of the people of Wales, it needs to be far more representative and more reflective of our communities.

Wales is often described as a community of communities, but if democracy is to be strong in our nation, our communities must feel that they are represented and that their voices are listened to and heard.

Yes, I'll take an intervention.

Intervention, Gareth Davies.

Diolch, Rhys. Looking at the details of the motion, it says,

'reducing the number of uncontested seats'.

How would changing the voting system achieve that when it's usually down to the members or the parties to decide who fills which seats?

If you listen for a bit longer, Gareth Davies, you'll find out—I'm about to get to that point.

Wales is a community of communities, but we must ensure that people's voices are heard and listened to.

One more example from the 2017 local elections: in the Whitchurch and Tongwynlais ward in the north of Cardiff, the Conservative Party won all four seats, even though 60 per cent of the voters did not vote Conservative. One hundred per cent of the seats, only 40 per cent of the vote; 4,092 votes in that one ward were wasted. This should not be about party politics, this should not be about gaining power; it should be about fairness. If we call ourselves democrats, we should want the vast majority of ballot papers to really count. A proportional system is the only way of achieving this. It allows for the flourishing of plurality, plurality of choice, plurality of votes and a plurality of outcomes.

I'm pleased that the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 enables a more proportional system to be adopted in local elections from this May onwards. But we need national leadership, or the old cliché of turkeys voting for Christmas comes to mind.

Scotland—and I'm coming to your point shortly, Gareth—Scotland introduced a single transferrable vote system in 2007 across all local authorities, and the change has been dramatic. Consensus has become the rule of the day, with councillors working co-operatively to benefit their constituents. Furthermore, local democracy has been strengthened. In 2003, in Scotland, 61 seats were uncontested, and what is the figure now, Gareth? Sixty-one uncontested in 2003; the answer now, Gareth, is zero. Every seat in Scotland, since proportional representation, has been contested. 

Now, in Wales, in 2017—bear me with me for a second, Sam—nearly 100 councillors stood unchallenged here in Wales, with one councillor in Powys remaining unchallenged for 37 years. That man now has been a councillor for nearly 40 years, and not once has he faced an opponent. [Interruption.] Yes, I'll take an intervention. 

Thank you, Rhys. The points around Scotland and the STV coming in, you rightly pointed out the uncontested seats move. But, also, since STV's been there, electoral turnout has been significantly less. So, in the two years preceding STV, there was a turnout of around 54 per cent; since then, it's around 46 per cent. So, how would you support that in terms of engaging with local democracy, which is so vitally important, and starts with people coming out to vote?

I'm glad you're reading out all your pre-prepared interventions already. Let me answer: this idea that turnouts are lower in PR is absolutely ridiculous. In Australia, it's nearly 100 per cent; Ukraine, it's over 90 per cent; Malta, it's over 90 per cent. Turnouts do not go down after introducing PR. 

First-past-the-post voting leads to tactical voting, which, in itself, is damaging to our democracy. A vote to keep something out rather than casting a positive vote for one's preference. A vote for a larger party very often, rather than a smaller party that they truly want to support, like the Greens for example.

We are limiting people's freedom to choose by keeping this archaic first-past-the-post system, which is now almost 150 years old. There is not only a moral argument to introducing a proportional system, there are strong practical reasons also. In England and Wales, many councils have single parties holding in excess of 75 per cent of the seats. This can give councils and administrations carte blanche on official business. This, in turn, leads to weakened accountability, which has an effect on public procurement, which in turn impacts the way taxpayers' money is spent. 

One-party councils constitute a modern form of fiefdom, where scrutiny committees reviewing millions of pounds in government contracts hardly get scrutinised at all. The Electoral Reform Society, in 2015, found that single-party dominated councils were wasting as much as £2.6 billion a year due to lack of scrutiny. Decisions often in these councils are made pre-emptively, in private meetings with majority groups behind closed doors, and then sprung upon the rest of the council at short notice. Their vote, their opinion, their thoughts don't matter. 

The ERS study further looked into thousands of public sector contracts and found that these one-party dominated councils were about 50 per cent more at risk of corruption than politically competitive councils. Bad for democracy, bad for voters and bad for the public purse. Dozens of countries have made the switch, and not one has made the switch back. Australia, New Zealand, Ukraine: they have shifted from first-past-the-post to a more proportional system.

And I look forward to hearing the contribution of my colleague Heledd Fychan, of her experiences in the Republic of Ireland. Why has no-one shifted back to the first-past-the-post system? Well, because that system isn't fit for a modern democracy. We must move away from the concept that politics is a battle with winners and losers. In the wonderful tributes paid to Aled Roberts yesterday, everyone described him as a consensual politician, a politician ready to collaborate with others, and that is as it should be, because politics is a process, not a battle. A process of sharing ideas, a process of collaboration, a process of consensus building between people and groups to find common ground in order to improve the lives of those living in our communities.

And this Senedd, as I'm pleased to see, has had co-operation at the heart of it from the beginning. There has never been a majority in this Senedd, with coalitions and co-operations being the rules of the game. And I'm glad, I'm glad to see that the Plaid Cymru and Labour co-operation is the latest incarnation of that. I know, during the election in 2021, many commentators and many politicians in England were surprised about this, but really this is a normal process. Co-operation is a normal process across many countries on these islands, across Europe and across the world. It leads to better governments. 

As I previously said, I'm well aware that councils in Wales will have the choice to adopt another system if they so wish after this May's election. But this will create a two-tier system between councils, with certain ones willing to adopt and reform and others saying 'no'. Some of you in this Senedd now are probably old enough to remember when people had to cross county lines to have a pint on a Sunday. People from Hendy used to cross the Loughor bridge to have a pint in Pontarddulais. Well, something similar will happen again now. You'll have one village where the ballot paper really does count, really does make a difference, and a village over there where it doesn't as much.

In this place, we often hear about low voter turnout, and political apathy is all too apparent in Wales. Sam Rowlands often mentions low voter turnout for Senedd elections. But one way to address that is by ensuring that Welsh democracy reflects far better the views of the people in our places of power.

A good democracy reflects the choices of its voters, not just 40 per cent of them, but as many as possible. If we want to combat political apathy, we need to help people to maximise their votes and their voices.

John Stuart Mill said—. 

John Stuart Mill said, back in 1861, that the first principle of democracy is this: representation in proportion to the numbers. Today, let us, in this Senedd, not allow outdated ideas, not allow prejudices, not allow the ambition for power to block this very basic principle of democracy. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you to Rhys ab Owen for submitting today's Member's debate, and also to Llyr Gruffydd and Jane Dodds for co-submitting. I'd better declare an interest as a sitting county councillor in Conwy County Borough Council at this point.

As many Members will know, I'm a keen enthusiast of local government, and I'm delighted that this important area has been raised in the Senedd, here today. I'll be honest, I wasn't quite so keen when I saw the content of the debate in front of us though. As the motion states, the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 ensures a duty to encourage local people to participate in local government. I'm sure we'd all agree how crucial this is—to see many people engage. And I still have yet to hear how a reduction in voter turnout in Scotland since STV has been introduced is a good thing for local democracy. But perhaps the Member will want to explain that a bit later on. 

I'll explain it now, if you want.   

I'll take an intervention, Llywydd, if he's interested.

The fact that STV has been introduced into Scotland has nothing to do with the fact that the number of people who've voted has gone down. It's not connected at all.

It's a very strange coincidence, then, Llywydd; a very strange coincidence that voter turnout has fallen dramatically at that point.

In terms of looking to deal with uncontested seats, which I think is an important part of the motion, and certainly something that I do think needs addressing, I think my biggest concern with the proposal today is that it does seem to be looking to deal with the symptom and not the cause. We have to understand why there are uncontested seats here in Wales. I really don't think it's because we have a first-past-the-post system. Is it really the system that prevents people from standing for election? I'm not sure about that at all. I guess if a survey was done across the people of Wales asking what the role of the council was, I'm sure there would actually be lots of things there where people just don't appreciate what the council does and can do for them and for their communities. It's councils that deliver vital public services. And if we can inspire people to want to stand and represent their community, that is what will stop uncontested seats from being there. So, in my view, rather than looking to a whole new electoral system in Wales, we should be focusing our efforts to encourage people to stand and make a difference for their community—people from all walks of life. We should be talking up the role that locally elected individuals can have in running their schools, in ensuring those who are most vulnerable are supported and ensuring people have great access to fantastic open spaces. Inspiring people to make a difference in their community is what will reduce the number of uncontested seats. 

In addition to this, I'm concerned about some of the contradiction in today's motion, because part of the motion does call for a uniform national system to elect members. That already exists. There's a uniform national system we have for electing councillors, and that's called first-past-the-post. Point 2 of the motion calls on Welsh Government to work closely with new councillors elected in May 2022. That of course is crucial and important to allowing councils to have the right discussions with Welsh Government, and certainly we'll be supporting that continued engagement. However, the motion then talks about ensuring a representative method, which I found a bit confusing, if I'm honest with you. I would like to understand how our electoral method at the moment is not representative. Our electoral system allows people from all walks of life to stand for election in their local ward and local council area. In addition to this, our current first-past-the-post system ensures clear accountability. People know who they're voting for. Electoral change could deter people further from getting involved in local politics. I certainly agree that more action needs to be taken to ensure we see those from all walks of life enter local government. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with our electoral system. Instead, as I've already highlighted, we need to make people aware of the real responsibility and important role that councils play and how rewarding it can be to represent your local community.

To conclude, Llywydd, this motion is simply dealing with the symptoms and not the cause of some of the challenges we see in local democracy. Now is the time to put all our efforts into making people aware of the responsibility and opportunity of councils and the exceptional work that they do and can carry out. So, we need to encourage all parts of society to get involved in local politics and the sheer reward of representing their local communities. In light of this, Llywydd, on these sides of the benches, we'll be voting against today's motion. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

The current system means mainly relatively small wards and increased contact between electors and elected. It means that when you go out to get your newspaper, go shopping, visit a local sports club, or walk down the street, you interact with voters. STV is an electoral system promoted by many in favour of a form of proportional representation. It's used for Scottish council elections and elections to the Irish Parliament, the Dáil. When electing more than one candidate, the STV system becomes complicated, whereas only one candidate is being elected in the alternative vote system. The greatest weakness of STV for political parties is you have to guess how many seats you can win when nominating candidates.

The last choice a voter makes, if all their higher preferences are removed, has the same value as another voter's first choice. Does it work as a proportional system? Well, in the Irish general election of 2020, Sinn Féin, despite receiving the most first-preference votes nationwide, did not win the most seats. Despite beating Fianna Fáil by 535,995 to 484,320, they ended up one seat behind. It took 12,745 votes to elect each Fianna Fáil Member, but 14,476 to elect a Member of Sinn Féin. The Irish journalist John Drennan described it as 11 seats that Sinn Féin left behind because they didn't have enough candidates. They guessed wrong on the number of seats they might win, but if they had guessed wrong the other way, they could have ended up with fewer seats.

So, STV is less a proportional system and more a skilled guessing game, where getting it wrong can mean fewer seats than you should proportionally get. Is it any surprise that Scotland use it for council elections but have decided not to use it for the Scottish Parliament? If you visit Scottish council websites, you can see how large council seats are in area and in population. Of the 21 wards in the Highland Council area, Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh is the example par excellence of the size of council wards needed in rural areas under STV. Not only is this the largest electoral ward in the UK, it is also by itself larger in area than 27 of Scotland's 32 councils. It accounts for almost a fifth of the Highland Council's entire area, and is approximately the same size as Trinidad and Tobago.

For the highlands of Scotland, think Powys, think Ceredigion, think Gwynedd. Just think of some of these areas—and Pembrokeshire—where the population is spread out, then of the population needed for these wards to allow STV to operate effectively. Glasgow ward 1, Linn, has a population of 30,000, which is about two thirds of the population of the Aberconwy Senedd constituency. In Glasgow Govan, four candidates were elected, with Labour topping the poll quite comfortably with 1,520 votes and the SNP coming second and third with 1,110 and 1,096 votes each. The Green candidate edged out the second Labour candidate who had 572 first-preference votes to win the fourth seat. While the SNP efficiently got the first preference for both candidates very close together, Labour did not, and thus, despite easily topping the poll, ended up with only one of the four seats.

The system involves members of the same party fighting against each other, or parties just accepting one seat each in three-member wards. That's not democracy. This is true of council elections across Scotland. 'Where can we win one or two seats?' has to be decided, but if you go for two or three, you may end up with one or none, unless your voters vote efficiently, as happened with the SNP in Govan.

To summarise, STV needs to cover a large geographical area, needs a large population, involves guessing the number of seats you're going to win, voters efficiently voting for the party, and makes it much more difficult for constituents to know the candidates. In terms of small wards, I represented a county ward of just over 4,000 electors and I probably knew a quarter of them. When you end up with wards of 30,000, then no-one is going to get up to that level. You've got a seat in Scotland, which is not the one I mentioned—it's another one—where it takes three hours to get from the furthest polling station to the place where the count takes place, albeit it involves one boat trip as well. I think it's ridiculous. We want a system that works, and works for us. Making it more difficult for constituencies to have no candidates is very important—candidates are important. They're not just the party bag carrier.

Finally, as Ireland has shown, it's not proportional to the vote. Just following on from what Sam Rowlands said, remember when we had a big drop in turnout? It was for the European elections where we went from constituencies to an all-Wales system. In my area, people knew Dai Morris. It reached a stage where, before it ended, I don't think anybody could have named all four of the Welsh representatives unless they were highly politically active.

I think the key question for me in this debate is: is our democracy working now? [Interruption.] I would argue not, because it's not representative of the population. I think we need to ask what the system means in terms of stopping people from standing. Sam, you've mentioned in terms of 'would this make a difference?' Well, actually, when you ask under-represented groups why they don't feel comfortable in standing, it's often because of the aggressive approach to election campaigns, or thinking it's pointless to stand. Because every time we see the kind of first-past-the-post approach, it is about scaring people to try and vote a certain way by saying, 'There's no point voting for that party. Vote this way.' It's a very different style of campaigning if you have to fight for that second, third, fourth preference vote.

Also, to just respond to your point, in terms of the Scottish elections and the turnout, you will know that we can't pick and choose our facts. The 2007 election was held concurrently with the Scottish parliamentary elections, so it was always going to be lower, and that was expected. In fact, the turnout was higher than was anticipated, and we can see from the number of spoiled ballots there that people actually understood the system, because it's far easier to understand that you can put your first preference to the party, even if it's unlikely to win, usually—that you can vote with your heart and your belief, not trying to second guess what the system may result in. 

As Rhys ab Owen explained in opening this debate, I experienced a more proportional system when I was living in Ireland, and I stood in elections for sabbatical officers at my university’s students’ union, as well as Ireland’s national union of students. The STV system was used in those instances, which meant that we had to campaign in a completely different way to how we’re used to campaigning in a first-past-the-post system. One had to work really hard for every single vote, and not just for the first vote, but also the second and third votes, and every other one after that. It's a completely different approach to campaigning and you have to be much more positive because you have to persuade people who aren't even going to give you their first vote that you deserve their second.

In a first-past-the-post system, very often—and every party is guilty of doing this—there is a tendency to try to urge people not to waste the one vote that they have and to encourage them or to frighten them to vote for the party that's most likely to prevent the party they disagree with most from being elected. We've all seen the posters, 'Only the Lib Dems, Labour or Plaid Cymru can win here to keep the Tories out', for example. Every party does this. We've all seen those posters. And this very often does work, unfortunately, or it means—and this is the important point—that people don’t vote because they don't see the point of voting for the party that they feel closest to. They think that it's a done deal and there's no point in voting. Is that democracy? No, it's not. If we are serious about creating a more representative democracy and one that inspires people to want to vote, and that they see the point of voting and want to stand to be candidates, then this would be a huge step forward. And, without a doubt, if it is to work, we need a uniform national system so that there is consistency nationwide.

Consistency is important. After all, we saw a great deal of inconsistency in the numbers of young people who registered to vote in the Senedd elections in May 2021, varying from 68.8 per cent in the Vale of Glamorgan to 31.73 per cent in Swansea, which meant that 54 per cent of young people didn’t vote. I encourage my fellow Members to support today’s motion for these reasons. The current system isn't working. We have an opportunity to forge a better, proportional system that brings more people into our politics and makes people want to vote. Thank you to Rhys for bringing this issue before the Senedd.

We've heard many arguments, but I think we need to take ourselves back. Sixteen and 17-year-olds were allowed to vote in the 2021 Senedd elections for the first time, and this year, of course, it will be the first time that they'll be able to vote in local government elections. If you look at the figures, out of 65,000 16 to 17-year-olds who were eligible to vote in the 2021 Senedd elections, just under half of those registered to vote, and that is hugely disappointing. Of course, we've got to remind ourselves that we are still, and were then, in the middle of a global pandemic, and that would of course have had an impact on the number of young people who registered and subsequently voted. Additionally, there were restrictions, understandably, that made it harder to engage with young people. So, I think it's essential that we do everything that we can to encourage young people to get involved and to vote in this particular election, the first one in which they have an opportunity to do so. 

I think it's also important that we get our messages very clear that it is their future that they are voting on, and their voice is just as important as their parents' or their grandparents'. It has already been said here today that local government manages multi-million pound budgets, and all of that affects young people directly. It's important that they have a say on how those budgets and those issues are prioritised at a local level, and, first and foremost, they can contribute to that by having their say in the ballot box.

I'm going to look at the reasons why people don't vote. So, Nottingham Trent University's 'Making Votes-at-16 Work in Wales' report was written following the 2021 Senedd elections, and suggested a number of recommendations to increase the participation of young people, both in local government and Senedd elections. And one of those was to remove the practical barriers to voting that are specific to newly enfranchised voters, and make it easier for those young people to vote. For example, they said, to trial automatic voter registration, the avoidance of scheduling elections in exam periods, and by locating voting or polling stations in schools or colleges. So, I'm keen to know if the Welsh Government have given any attention to those particular recommendations. 

But I think it's important to mention the UK Government Elections Bill 2021-22 as well, because we're talking about enfranchising people, not disenfranchising them. And if that Bill goes ahead, they are going to ensure that people have to have photo ID in order to vote, and it's going to 'help stamp out voter fraud'. Well, I think that's a little bit disproportionate, given that out of 58 million people who cast their votes—58 million—there were only 33 allegations of impersonation at polling stations in 2019. If you talk about a hammer to crack a nut, I cannot think of a better example. So, that Bill won't apply, of course, in the local government or Senedd elections, but it will apply to Wales at the next general election. 

So, we are talking here today about enfranchising people. We need to look at what is disenfranchising them, and I do agree that we need to look at the voting system. I won't be supporting it today because I want further—[Interruption.] Well, I want further discussion around it, but I do want to make it clear that I'm open to those further discussions, and it isn't always the case that one system will perhaps produce a different outcome. And it is true that certain people feel completely disenfranchised from standing, and women are somewhat absent, as are young people, in local government. And we need to look at the reasons for that.

I, as you will know, was a Pembrokeshire county councillor, and I was the only female for the first two terms—that's nine years—in Preseli Pembrokeshire. And I remember knocking the door and I remember a woman saying to me, 'I was waiting for the man to come round', to which I said, 'Well, you've got me.' [Laughter.] And I got in with a close-run election. So, let's change the debate. 

Thank you to Rhys ab Owen for moving this motion today. It'll surprise nobody that I will speak in favour of this motion today. 

Surely, none of us want an electoral system that guarantees safe seats, guarantees huge majorities for less than 50 per cent of the vote, and a system that breeds political division and a lack of interest in voting. Surely, we all want to make sure that every vote counts. And we are all working hard to get people to stand, and to make sure they are involved in elections and vote. So, I do contest Sam Rowlands's points. We are working our socks off, and we have done for years, to get people more interested.

And as you've heard in terms of the statistics, it really isn't helping. Simply put, first-past-the-post cheats voters of real, meaningful representation, and also disenfranchises them from voting. A more proportional system for all elections, including council elections, can foster greater collaboration, greater accountability and will ensure that everyone's voice is heard. We believe that electoral reform, a move to the single transferrable vote, is an essential part of what's needed to get people more involved in our democracy. And it's not just votes in a ballot box that make a democracy. We can go further. What about citizens' assemblies and juries, and participatory budgeting as well? They can bring people closer to being involved in democracy. 

Let us all ensure that every vote counts.

We all want to see every vote count, and make sure that people are more confident in their democracy. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

The Minister for Finance and Local Government to contribute to the debate—Rebecca Evans.

Diolch, Llywydd. This has been a really excellent debate, and I have really enjoyed listening to the different perspectives. I'm really grateful for this opportunity to talk about the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021. I'm extremely proud of what the Act means for local democracy here in Wales, providing, as it does, for the establishment of a new and reformed legislative framework for local government elections, democracy, performance and governance.

The principles that underpin the Act are based on enabling, encouraging and supporting people to participate in local democracy, and to provide greater flexibility in the way that elections are run. What is being suggested here today would seek to impose a single electoral system on principal councils, regardless of the views of that council or the communities they represent.

So, in this context, it is right and proper that we note the provisions that extend the franchise for local elections both to 16 and 17-year-olds, and foreign citizens legally resident in Wales. These are two of the most important changes the Act has introduced. Sixteen and 17-year-olds can leave home and join the military, and so it is right and just that we give them a voice on the matters that affect their lives. Lowering the voting age to 16 gives us a valuable opportunity to start a young person on the democratic journey with the right tools.

The Welsh Government's view is that people who contribute to the economic and cultural life of our communities should have a say in the future of that community. We believe that the test for whether someone is able to participate in local elections should be whether they are lawfully resident here in Wales, wanting to make a contribution to our society. The accidents of citizenship simply need not be relevant considerations to this test.

Importantly, for the first time, the 2021 Act also introduced a duty on local government to encourage the public to input their views to the making of decisions to their councils, including the policy development process. Democracy is more than elections, and evidence indicates a link between the perceptions of a low ability to influence outcomes and low voter turnout. The Act sets out to address this by placing specific duties on principal councils that will increase public participation in local democracy and will improve transparency.

As I have said, the Act is founded on the principles of facilitating participation and choice in democracy. In line with this, it enables principal councils to change the system of voting that they use. Principal councils, local people and communities are best placed to decide for themselves which voting system better suits the needs of their communities. Introducing a local choice supports the principle of decisions being made at a more local level, and allows councils to reflect the different needs and demographics across parts of Wales.  

After the 2022 local government elections, principal councils will be able to choose which voting system they wish to use—either first-past-the-post, or the single transferable vote system. Each council will continue to use the first-past-the-post system unless they decide to change. Such a change would require a two-thirds majority, which is the same as is required for a change to the Senedd voting system. Any council opting to change would then need to use the new system for the next two rounds of ordinary elections, following which it could decide whether to return to the previous voting system.

The procedures set out in the 2021 Act would also apply if the council were proposing to change back to the previous voting system. It's important to note that a principal council would have to consult the people in their area entitled to vote at the local government election, each community council in the area, and other people it considers appropriate to consult, before it can exercise its power to change voting systems.

We believe in local choice. Having given principal councils, working with their communities, the ability to choose which system of voting works best for them, it would be inappropriate for the Welsh Government to step in and decide which system of voting works best, and to impose that system right across Wales, regardless of local views. 

Will you take an intervention?

Of course.

Thank you. To those points you just raised there in terms of that consultation, Mike Hedges made some really important points around how sparse some of these areas could be, and therefore the risk, with proportional representation, of losing that local touch, because, actually, it's such a big area to cover, and the fundamentals of councils and councillors are actually about being connected to their communities. Would you accept that is a risk with the proposals we've heard today?

Is that a risk with your seat, Sam—in the North Wales region?

Absolutely. An absolute risk, yes.

Allow the Minister to respond to the intervention.

Llywydd, I'm going to resist the temptation to talk in my response about the benefits or disbenefits that I see of either voting system, because I genuinely think that this is a matter for local authorities to decide themselves, but, of course, the issues that Sam Rowlands has described will be amongst the thinking of those local authorities, as will the other issues that have been raised this afternoon.

The motion does make a comment on the electoral system for Scottish local elections, and, of course, the Scottish Parliament made their choice, and, of course, we would respect that, but we have legislated here in Wales to allow every local authority to weigh up those arguments for themselves and to choose whether they prefer the single transferrable vote or the first-past-the-post system, and I do think that that local choice is paramount here. 

So, in conclusion, through the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021, the Welsh Government has provided for greater diversity and choice in local democracy, and this includes extending the franchise for local elections, introducing a duty for local government to encourage participation in decision making, and giving each principal council the choice of which voting system best suits the needs of their communities. Our colleagues in local government and the communities they serve would want to keep that choice, and I think it would be completely out of step with our principles of electoral reform to try and promote or to impose one single system across the whole of Wales. Thank you to colleagues for a really excellent debate.

Llyr Gruffydd now to reply to the debate.

May I first of all thank everyone who has contributed to this debate? I am aware that the clock is against me, but I will try and respond to some of the points that haven't been covered.

It's good to see that Gareth Davies has returned to the Chamber, having left for most of the debate, having made his intervention. It would have been handy for you to be here to hear the fact, of course, that only three seats have been uncontested in Scotland since 2007. Fifteen years—that's just three seats. We almost had 100 in Wales just in the last election. So, you know, it does make a very real difference when it comes to that issue of uncontested seats, and it is disappointing that Sam Rowlands tried to misinterpret, shall we say, the fall in the vote, as was explained by Heledd Fychan. I can share an analysis by the LSE if he chooses—

Sam Rowlands rose—

Do I have time for an intervention, Llywydd?

Yes, I will allow you some additional time for the intervention.

I'm sorry for intervening again, but I just want to be clear: the numbers that I shared were a four-year period. I wasn't picking individual years. So, the difference between the two prior years, or the two prior elections and the two post elections were the numbers I quoted 8 per cent for.

Well, I can quote back to you the LSE, but I'll share the link with you, and it's pretty clear that the first claim often made is that the use of STV led to low turnout, and that's palpably untrue. So, I suppose it's lies, damned lies, and statistics on both of our accounts, then, isn't it?

I hear what people are saying about the sizes of wards, but, do you know what, look at what happened in Anglesey? Now, I know this isn't proportional representation, but because of the situation that Anglesey found itself in years ago, with single-member wards et cetera, and the kind of fiefdoms that were really dragging the council down, it's this Labour Government that intervened. They didn't give them the choice to move or to change. They were taken into, effectively, special measures as a council, and they were forced to introduce multimember wards on a much bigger footprint. And do you know what? The council has been transformed in terms of democracy. It has been transformed. It has slightly improved in terms of representation—it's not where it needs to be. And you have, you know, three-member wards. They are bigger, but Anglesey is a pretty rural area as well, so I don't think that needs to be the sole reason for not moving towards a different kind of footprint, and I think that maybe we need to reflect on some decisions that previous Labour Governments have made when it comes to this debate as well.

Jane Dodds started off asking, 'Surely none of us want a system that guarantees safe seats.' It sounds a little bit like that to me, at times, but—.

The Act that—

Mike Hedges rose—

No, sorry, Mike—I am up against time, I'm afraid. 

The Act that allows the move to PR has been passed, I understand that, but the question I ask, and what I haven't heard from the Minister in her response, is: so, what's going to drive that change? Where is the incentive for councils to really tackle this issue? We heard the term 'turkeys voting for Christmas', and it's true. It's an option, and I fear that it's unlikely to happen and, where it does happen, it'll happen in an isolated way; it'll mean that perhaps one part of some communities use one system and another another.

And one thing we do know, if there is a shift to another system, then there is a process, and work needs to be done in educating people to ensure that people understand the new process. But, if one part is doing one thing and another another, then that makes that process far more difficult, which means that the process is undermined before it has even started, and that'll mean that local authorities are even less ready to make that change.

So, we could have encouraged and even ensured that local authorities moved to that model, but that option wasn't taken, and we do find ourselves in a situation—as many of you have said this afternoon—where a vote in one community counts for more than a vote in another, and people will vote not in favour of candidate A who they want to support, but in favour of candidate B, because that'll mean that candidate C is going to be unsuccessful. So, they are voting against an individual, rather than in favour of an individual. An opportunity was lost with the Act.

And just to conclude, I want to see a few things coming from Governments now, because, clearly, you're not going to support this motion this afternoon. We need to support and create incentives for councils to change their voting systems. The Government needs to drive that conversation, rather than allowing it to drift. We then need a commitment to support the administrative requirements and the costs that'll emerge as a result of the change initially, until they are embedded and part of the broader process, and there's also a job of work to be done to communicate with constituents where changes are made. And at the very least, on the back of this debate, I would hope the Government would commit to that.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object?[Objection.] Yes. I will defer voting on the motion until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.