Firstly, can I declare my interest as a councillor of Monmouthshire County Council, certainly for the time being? And, Mike, can I thank you for your words, but also I'd like to recognise your experience within local government, being a past leader of Swansea. And I thank you for your deep understanding and for speaking up for local government so often as you do, and have done for many years. 

Local authorities are at the heart of our communities, helping families and supporting families, and delivering that vibrant public service we all know, but the pandemic has just further emphasised and underlined just how important they are. And for all they've done and continue to do, we thank them sincerely. But if we value them—we really value them—we need to fund them adequately, but more so, in this debate, fairly. And I know from my own experience as a councillor leader of several years that, for many councils, this hasn't been the case. In part, this is due to the funding formula, and Sam pointed out very clearly some of the shortcomings in it.

Now, the current formula was drawn up—and Mike will know better than me—probably 25 years ago following the move to 22 unitary authorities prior to devolution, and it wasn't a sophisticated process at that time, as we understand. Indeed, there have always been many light-hearted references that it was drawn together on the back of a fag packet to deal with the situation at that time. Clearly, I doubt that was the case, but what we do know is that now it is not fit for purpose. Whilst the formula is calculated on a needs basis and it includes things like population, level of deprivation, the number of school pupils and the length of road networks, plus a lot of 20-year-old other statistics that don't really mean too much any more, I would argue that there isn't enough—or there certainly isn't enough now—recognition of rurality and sparsity, and the unit cost of providing services in a large rural authority compared to that of an urban one. 

For example, the unit cost of running a refuse service or a social care service in Powys has to be an awful lot more than it would be, say, in Torfaen. The anomalies within the formula have led to an inequitable distribution of funding, resulting in a winner-and-loser scenario. To reiterate the point that there is a vast difference between the highest and the lowest funded councils—Mike has already pointed this out and we know the rationale for it—in Monmouthshire, per capita, about £1,176 per person is going to be allocated next time, and it's about £1,881 in Blaenau Gwent. And we know these differences, as Mike has pointed out, are driven by the house banding levels in each authority, requiring councils like Monmouthshire to go and get 40 per cent of its funding from its council tax payers, and probably less than half of that in Blaenau Gwent. In fact, if we were funded, Monmouthshire, at the level of Blaenau Gwent, we'd have £40 million extra. Well, we know that's not going to happen because of that vast difference in banding. But there has to be something wrong with a formula that warrants such a massive change.

Such disparities in funding are also having an impact on the level of reserves held by some councils, where, again, there is a startling gap between winners and losers, with the gaps widening. For example, Conwy was struggling to retain total usuable reserves of around £14 million at the start of 2020, down by over £4 million on the previous year. Contrast this with Caerphilly, with a reserve of £140 million at the start of 2020—a £21 million increase for that same period. Yes, these are different-sized councils, but, clearly, there is something wrong with a formula that sees reserves diminishing in some authorities while increasing significantly in others.

So, acting Llywydd, I must be clear: I'm not arguing here about the quantum. I have seen the amendment, and it is talking about the quantum—'We are giving you more.' Yes, we know that you're giving us more, but this is not about the quantum. It doesn't matter if it was less money. The formula will act in the same way. So, I'm not arguing about the quantum. I'm arguing about how the cake is carved up and shared out.

Now, the stock answer from Ministers—and I suspect that we'll hear it again after—on reviewing the formula, is that they are happy to undertake a review if local leaders ask for it. Now, a quick look across funding levels and reserves in different councils, as well as understanding where the political influence lies—. It's easy to reach the conclusion that it's unlikely that those key leaders would ask for a review. The old adage of turkeys voting for Christmas comes to mind. But the fact is that change is needed. For some rural and north Wales councils, funding pressures, despite the positive settlement this year, are simply becoming unsustainable, and usuable reserves are falling to very low levels because of these pressures.

Acting Llywydd, when discussing council funding, it's also important to look at the role of council tax. The Welsh Government, of course, wants to consult on a review of council tax, as it's seen as regressive and out of date. This is a view generally supported by most of us. But I would argue that, as the funding formula is driven from the council tax base generated from each council, then the two—council tax and the funding formula—