I'd firstly like to say it's really pleasing to see so many people sat in this room with very senior local government experience taking part in this debate. I think that can only add to the quality of debate on the local government settlement.

I welcome the settlement. It's good news for local authorities. Adjusting for transfers, the core revenue funding for local government in 2022-23 has increased by 9.4 per cent on a like-for-like basis, no authority will receive less than 8.4 per cent, and there are no smoke and mirrors involved. I think that we've seen in the past increases, and when you start digging into them, they didn't quite turn out to be exactly as much as we were expecting. This is really good news. Of course, it doesn't make up for previous budget cuts that have taken place, but it's certainly a step in the right direction in providing additional money for local authorities. It has been welcomed across local authorities. It's a good settlement for this year.

I can compare what I'm saying about this local government settlement to what I've said in previous years. I've described it as disappointing, leading local government to cut services, putting pressure on key services provided by local authorities, leading to the council being forced to increase council tax to make up some of the shortfall, not providing sufficient resources. This year, whilst not fully addressing previous cuts, it does allow local authorities to set budgets without cuts and without substantially increasing council tax. It's my expectation that, as local authorities set their tax rates, which most of them are doing around about now and in the next few weeks, most will set an increase of less than 2 per cent, and some will set a 0 per cent increase. The local government settlement is the aggregate external finance being provided to local authorities to top up its council tax precept in order for it to spend at the standard spending assessment level. Since business rates were centralised, this has meant that the aggregate external finance, which now includes business rates, makes up a bigger proportion of councils' income. What it is not is a total financial support for each local authority. Local authorities can raise money from council tax. They can raise income from charges and fees and this varies by authority. Some fees and charges, such as the cost of planning applications, are set centrally; others, such as car parking charges, are set fully at the discretion of each local council.

The local government finance settlement determines how much of the funding provided for Wales will be given to each local authority. This funding contains the revenue support grant and the non-domestic rate as stated earlier, and it is issued on the basis of a a needs-based formula. A Welsh Government and local authority working group, called the distribution sub-group, is responsible for ensuring the formula is reviewed regularly. I speak as somebody who once sat on a distribution sub-group and I hold my hand up: we got it wrong. It used to be 52 per cent of road was based on population, and 48 per cent on road lengths. We decided to make it 50:50. It doesn't seem like a big change, does it? Well, it actually moved several hundreds of thousands of pounds out of Swansea, Cardiff and Newport, and put them into Gwynedd, Pembrokeshire and Powys. So, little changes can have huge effects.

The distribution of properties in each band varies enormously. While some authorities have over half their properties in the lowest two bands, others, most notably Monmouth, have over half their properties in band D and above. We would thus expect that those to get the largest Welsh Government support per capita would be Blaenau Gwent, Merthyr and Rhondda Cynon Taf, and the three lowest per capita to be the Vale of Glamorgan, Monmouth and Cardiff, due to the scheme making up for the council tax not being able to be collected. This actually is what happens. I thought the relative annual increase was based mainly upon weighted changes in population. Traditionally, Cardiff is the fastest-growing area in Wales, and has the largest increase, but this year, the largest increase is in Monmouthshire, followed by Cardiff. Cardiff is the third fastest-growing city in Britain; the two that beat it are London and Edinburgh. And what do London and Edinburgh and Cardiff all have in common?

I always ask for two things during this debate, and I was not disappointed this year. Firstly, I'm calling again for business rates to be returned to local authorities. That would reduce the amount being paid centrally. My second request, and I don't understand why it cannot be carried out, is to publish the calculations that produce the aggregate external finance for each authority. This must exist; that is how the funding is calculated. The sums are there: show your workings. I always say that, and I've said that about central Government as well in terms of the money we get from central Government. I'd like people to start showing their workings. Publish the calculations: you've got them, you only have to put them on the website. It would allow academics, local authorities and others to check that the amounts according to the formula are correct. If the Welsh Government does not voluntarily provide them, eventually a freedom of information request will force them to provide it. But I think it's important for everybody to see exactly how the calculations are worked out, and if they are getting the most that they should.