May I thank everyone who's contributed to the debate so far? I think it's a valuable debate, and I'm sure Mike must feel it's Christmas come early. He has a debate on PR and the funding of local government; you’d only need a debate on Swansea City AFC, and you'd be living the dream. [Laughter.]

But, on a more serious note, I want to echo the thanks that we've all paid to council workers and councillors for going the extra mile over recent years, and they will continue to do so, of course, as we try and restore services.

The Welsh Government, of course, is looking at how council funding is collected by looking at council tax, so I do think that it's just as valid for us to be asking how that money is distributed too. Year on year, concerns are expressed, some lose out, some feel that they are underfunded, and you look at the global figures in the funding league, but the per capita figure, of course, tells another story altogether in terms of how striking some of those differences are.

But I am pragmatic enough and practical enough to understand that any formula would produce winners and losers. No formula would please everybody. But I also understand the argument that it doesn't matter how you cut the cake, the cake isn't large enough and it never will be, in all likelihood. But what we need to do is to ensure that it’s cut as fairly as possible, whatever its size, and that's the point of this debate. There is a strong feeling among the council leaders and councillors I've spoken to that the formula is dated and we do need to look at it again. Perhaps people could argue that the formula is good, but that's not to say that it can't be better.

And it's not just looking at the formula in isolation either; we need to look at the bigger picture of council funding, because a point that's raised with me by councillors is that there are new responsibilities conferred on councils that are supposed to be cost neutral, but aren't really cost neutral. There are additional costs falling on our councils, and those should be taken into account.

And what of the Luke Sibieta report on school funding, commissioned by the Government in 2020? That shows substantial differences in expenditure per learner across schools in Wales, and that partly reflects the different funding formulas used. Those formulas can be very complex, including a number of different factors, creating complexity. And the suggestion in the report there is that you need more consistency across different areas, something that would also enhance transparency and reduce funding disparities across schools.

So, it would be timely, I think, to look more broadly at these issues, and, as we heard at the beginning of this debate, to use more contemporary data. We're about to see the latest census data. Why not consider coming to a point where there is a review every 10 years, let's say? That, every time we have new census data, there should be a process of review so that we can be confident that it's not dated and that it is still fit for purpose. 

There's also a debate to be had on the role of a funding floor. I know that can be contentious, but that would be the opportunity to have a real debate about that. And one could argue that that would need to be put in place whilst the review is being conducted in order to reduce the burden on some of the councils that don't receive as much as they were perhaps hoping.

In terms of the Government's amendment, well, everyone does recognise that the increase of 9.4 per cent in the settlement is better than expected, but the point that it's not the size of the cake, but how that cake is shared, is today's debate. And whilst we also know that it looks good for year 1 in the funding cycle, years 2 and 3 are going to be exceptionally challenging. And when the purse strings are pulled tight, then that's when the most fierce debate on the formula will take pace. So, we need to get ahead of that and seek to ensure that what we have is fit for purpose.

So, to conclude, the Conservatives are right—and, again, I don't say that too often. But this is a funding formula that is dated. It is not fit for purpose. It was created in an ad-hoc manner decades ago with no intention that it should last this long. We could also say that about the Barnett formula too, and I'm sure that will be the debate you bring forward next week.