Plenary

The next item, therefore, is questions to the Minister for Health and Social Services, and the first question comes from Vikki Howells.

Diolch yn fawr, Vikki. We have stated our ambition for the NHS in Wales to be a quality-led service, where the right care is provided at the right time and in the right place. This includes access to care closer to home, where possible, and in specialist centres, where appropriate.

Thank you, Minister. 'No place like home', recently published by the Royal College of Physicians, builds an urgent case for increased investment in intermediate care provided in a patient's home. This can improve the quality of care, reduce admissions to hospital, and also get people back out of hospital and home more quickly. I'd welcome your response to this report and information on how the Welsh Government is working to increase access to this care in the face of the coronavirus pandemic.

Diolch yn fawr, Vikki, and I read the report, 'No place like home', with interest, and I agree with very many of the recommendations and I'm very pleased to say that we're already delivering in many of the areas that have been set out there. There's nobody, I don't think, who is more keen to get people back into their homes when they're ready for discharge from hospitals than I am. I'm very keen to get on with the programme of really addressing the backlog. And, obviously, while we have over 1,000 people in our hospitals waiting for discharge who are ready to get home, then clearly we need to take measures to make sure that's possible.

I'm very pleased to say that, as part of the action that we took in this space over the winter months, we have been holding weekly meetings, both the Deputy Minister Julie Morgan and I, with local government and health boards to try and ease that process of getting people out of hospitals. And you'll be aware that recently we announced £144 million of funding for the regional integration fund over five years, and some of the key themes in that really address the issues that you're interested in, which is basically looking at community-based care, home from hospital care, place-based care and, of course, in addition to that, we have the six goals for the urgent and emergency care handbook that were set out last week, and that is looking at safe alternatives to hospital admissions, a home-first approach and an attempt to reduce that risk of readmission. So, we already have, of course, examples of virtual wards, which have been talked about in that report, and the hospital at home service, and I'm very keen to see those models rolled out more extensively across Wales.

The Welsh Government has committed to the World Health Organization target to eliminate hepatitis C as a significant public health threat by 2030 at the latest. However, in other countries of the UK, Governments have set pathways to accelerate the elimination target date ahead of 2030. In England and Northern Ireland it's 2025, and in Scotland, 2024. So, can the Minister confirm that the Welsh Government will review its target date to eliminate hepatitis in Wales by 2030 at the latest and, in so doing, how will she address calls for best practice developed in Wales and other UK nations, such as micro-elimination in Swansea prison and focused peer support programmes, to be harnessed to develop solutions that allow for regional and community variation in approach, with local flexibilities to implement bespoke prevention, test and treatment services in the community—which is what this question is about—and other non-clinical settings, such as drug treatment services, addiction centres and community pharmacies?

Thanks very much, Mark, and certainly, I'm very interested in the issue of hepatitis C, which, of course, is a very long-term condition that many people have to live with. I'm very pleased to agree to take a look at whether there's any possibility of moving that target date. Clearly, the sooner we can eliminate this situation, the better, so I will undertake to have another look to see if there are any means of pulling that date forward.FootnoteLink

Minister, before I ask my question, I saw this morning on Politico that it's your birthday and Peter Hain's birthday as well, so happy birthday to you. What better way to celebrate than answering questions here in the Senedd?

Minister, one of the cornerstones of medical care in our communities is GPs, of course, and I know that you're very aware of the concern in a number of communities such as Pentyrch in the north of the city, that are concerned that they're losing their local surgery. And one of the arguments that are used with these communities is that there will be a new centre, several miles away, that will be able to provide the specialist services that they need. But do you agree with me, Minister, that before any community loses that local health provision we need a full, transparent and detailed consultation, and there needs to be a clear and robust rationale for doing that? Thank you.

Thank you very much. Yes, it is my birthday, as it is Peter Hain's and John Taylor from Duran Duran. [Laughter.] And Amanda Holden too, I understand, so I'm in very good company.

Just in terms of the consultation on the surgery in Pentyrch, I have received a referral on 17 January covering this particular situation, and I've also received a letter from the LHB on this whole issue. Of course, we do have to ensure that the system is transparent. The process will be ongoing until Government Ministers have all of the information so that we can come to a decision that is clear and fair. Of course, community groups in the area have also been informed that they too have an opportunity to make any representations that they would like to make.

Thank you very much. The priority for delivering health services in the Hywel Dda area is planning for the continued provision of essential and key services, alongside caring for patients affected by COVID-19, and also working towards the delivery of wider, more routine, services when it is safe to do so.

Minister, last time I raised the delivery of health services with you, you responded with a political rant, but the people that both you and I represent have genuine concerns about local health services, and so I hope this time you'll choose to respond in a much more measured way.

Now, as you're aware, Hywel Dda University Health Board has recently submitted proposals that include repurposing or rebuilding Withybush General Hospital, whatever that means, and I know that you've also been receiving e-mails recently on this issue from worried residents in Pembrokeshire. People are worried that they will have to travel further afield for life-saving services and, as you know, the golden hour is critical in saving people's lives. Therefore, it's absolutely crucial that Withybush hospital retains its emergency services and that the hospital is not downgraded going forwards. So, Minister, will you work with me, and indeed others, to ensure that emergency services stay in Pembrokeshire for the future?

Llywydd, of course I am more than anxious to listen to the genuine concerns of local people in relation to any developments in the Hywel Dda health board area, and of course, the decision ultimately in terms of configuration is one for Hywel Dda and it will be presented to the Welsh Government.

I would be grateful if you could have a little word with the Secretary of State for Wales to cool down his rhetoric. You talk to me about whipping up political rhetoric; I'm afraid that when he's sending out letters to people, whipping up feelings, telling people that the health Minister has an office in the local area, I don't think that is something for this time and place, when there is a situation where really we're in quite a frenzied atmosphere at the moment. I would be grateful if you could ask him to tone down the political rhetoric on his part.

The reality is that it's the Welsh Labour Government who've been committed to maintaining essential services at Withybush in line with the advice from clinicians and experts. I'd like to make it clear once again that there are no current plans to remove any service from Withybush prior to the opening of any potential new planned or urgent care hospital in west Wales. That decision will not be my decision. I think it's really important that you understand that as well. That will be a decision for somebody else, because, obviously, I represent that area. But I would remind you that the services have changed over the years, because that's been the recommendation of the royal colleges at the time.

Let's not forget also how fragile some of those services in Withybush have been over the years. The recruitment and retention of staff, due to the changing labour markets and the aspirations of clinicians, who choose, very often, to work in larger hospital settings, of course, have impacted on rural hospitals. It's been this Government that's provided millions of pounds of support to accident and emergency in Withybush, when the health board was reliant solely on agency staff to fill those rotas. At one time, it was the most expensive A&E department in the whole of Wales. So, I don't think you can accuse the Labour Government of not standing by the A&E department in Withybush. The Welsh Government didn't turn its back on Withybush then, and, as I've said time and again, Withybush will remain an important asset in the delivery of healthcare for the population of Pembrokeshire. But we must also look to the future. So, repeating the same old fears, repeating tribal arguments and pitting Pembrokeshire against Carmarthenshire is doing a disservice to patients. I'm sure that his constituents, and mine, will expect and deserve the best healthcare that we can provide.

Do you agree with me, Minister, that the future of health services in our region is in need of a genuine discussion, and that politicians should help solve systematic challenges, like how to attract and retain staff and how to deliver as many of the services as possible as close to home and where people live? It would be more useful, rather than simply obstructing change and investment that our constituents deserve, to instead engage in useful, constructive dialogue and engagement with all concerned, including the local health board, the providers and indeed, most of all, the people who rely on sustained and reliable health services. You've already outlined some of the challenges that are faced annually in the local health board area. It's time to get real now and have a genuine discussion about where we are, where we go, and what people need. I really hope, Minister, and I'm sure you will agree with me, that people take part in a measured discussion rather than simply, and I have to agree with you, pointing people towards where your office is, especially in this day and age—it's an absolutely dangerous practice.

Thanks very much, Joyce. I think you're absolutely right; we need a far deeper public conversation about what we want and how the whole range of health services will work, not just for the people of Pembrokeshire, but for Carmarthenshire and for Ceredigion in the years ahead. We haven't had that deeper conversation over the years, because some people have been caught up in the location of buildings rather than focusing our efforts on maximising our resources for the benefit of patients. There's a whole new philosophy that is being developed here. It's about care in the community as far as possible. Of course, Withybush doesn't exist on its own. It is, and will continue to be, part of a network of hospitals that provide health and care for our communities, whether that programme business case goes ahead or not.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. Conservative spokesperson, Gareth Davies, to be answered by the Deputy Minister for Social Services.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. I'd like to start by wishing the health Minister a very happy birthday. I didn't know until the Member for South Wales Central mentioned it earlier. So, I wish you a very happy twenty-first birthday. [Laughter.]

But my questions are directed to the Deputy Minister for Social Services, so I'll start by asking the Deputy Minister: what does the integration of health and social care look like to you?

I thank Gareth Davies for that question. The integration of health and social care is something that we are working very hard to reach. Our regional partnership boards are where we are putting this into practice, where we have the health authorities and the local government authorities working together to come up with proposals that are totally integrated. It's also very important to remember that when we talk about an integrated service, there are other services that are very important as well. For example, on the RPBs, we have housing represented, and we have citizens represented, and unpaid carers represented. My vision of an integrated health and social care service is where you can move seamlessly between the two services, and where there are organisations like the regional partnership boards that are able to plan on an integrated basis.

I'm grateful for that answer, Deputy Minister. I agree to some level that, in an ideal world, that would be the case, but sadly, we've still got a long way to go. Perhaps the prime reason to integrate health and care is to ensure the best health and well-being outcomes for Welsh citizens, because at the moment we are totally failing at that aim. We are all too painfully aware of this crisis in social care and the impact it's having on not just the care sector but right across health and care. DTOCs, or delayed transfers of care, mean that there are fewer beds for new patients, putting strain on an already overburdened system. As evidence to the health committee has highlighted, this is sadly leading to deaths. According to the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, delays over eight hours in A&E could have contributed to as many as 2,000 unnecessary deaths. How do you plan to ensure that an integrated approach to discharge happens on every hospital ward across Wales?

Gareth Davies highlights a crucial point. There is no way that the health service will flourish unless the social care system is operating to its maximum. The reason why over 1,000 people who are medically fit to be discharged are not able to be discharged is, to a large extent, because there is not the domiciliary support in their own homes for them to manage at home, and there aren't enough spaces in care homes, where there aren't enough staff to look after them. Because of that, they're totally interlinked, and that's why we are working so closely together, the Minister for Health and Social Services and myself as the Deputy Minister for social care—because these two elements are totally linked, and what happens in the social care service impacts in the hospitals.

We've been meeting every week in an action committee, with the local health boards and with the local authorities, and we've come up with a huge range of proposals in order to get people home more quickly, to try to ensure that they receive the support in some way or another when they do go home. We've also made, as you know from the announcement I made yesterday, big efforts in order to increase the social care workforce. So, we are working very hard to ensure that there is an improvement, and he makes an important point on how linked these two areas of service are.

Thank you again, Deputy Minister. Of course, if we're truly to get to grips with discharges, we need to get on top of DTOCs. We not only have to get health and housing all pulling in the same direction, we first have to truly understand the scale of the problem, and the data is spotty at best. It was before the pandemic, and has got even worse. Different departments in the same hospital can use different criteria for what constitutes a DTOC. We know from the Minister that NHS Wales believes that around 1,000 patients are medically fit for discharge, yet are confined to an acute hospital bed, but we don't truly know if that's just the tip of the iceberg. Deputy Minister, how do you plan to get health and social care working together to ensure we have up-to-date accurate data on DTOCs and the reasons for delayed discharges?

We are developing our services' data and we are analysing why those over 1,000 people are detained in hospital when they shouldn't be there. In the vast majority, the reason for it is because they haven't got the help from the social care services, but there are other reasons as well. For example, communications is a big issue. There are delays sometimes for things like medication. There are lots of delays, and we are in the process of analysing that data. But, again, I think Gareth Davies makes an important point that we do need that information in order to plan in a productive way.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. I have become disheartened once again looking today at waiting times for health appointments. It was CAMHS appointments that I saw today, showing that only 22 per cent receive an appointment within four weeks, the lowest level ever, when it was 75 per cent a year ago. Tomorrow, we're expecting broader health statistics, including ambulance waiting times, which show more than anything perhaps how patient flow through the health and care system has almost come to a stop. The target for the ambulance service of reaching the most at risk patients within eight minutes in 65 per cent of cases has been missed for a year and a half. When does the Minister expect the ambulance service to reach the target? Because every day, every week, every month of failing to reach a target puts lives at risk.

Thank you very much, Rhun. I hoped you'd be kind to me today on my birthday, but that is a fair question. It is a difficult question to answer, and it's a question I'm very concerned about. The waiting times for ambulances are far too long, and that's why I had a meeting yesterday with the ambulance services trust. I'm having a meeting today with the head of the emergency ambulance services committee, which is responsible for ensuring that the work between the ambulance service and the health board and the care sector is co-ordinated, because we have to understand that this is one system. So, we've allocated a great deal of funding towards the ambulance service. We've provided them with many more resources. They've come forward and they've recruited far more people. It has made a difference. We've seen that around 11 per cent of people now aren't taken to hospital as a result of the better triage that happens.

But it isn't enough, and the waiting times are unforgivable. That is why I have been asking today and yesterday about what more we can do. Because if we just allocate more funding to the ambulance service what we we will see perhaps is more ambulances outside our hospitals. It might help us to reach people in our communities, but it doesn't help up with the flow of patients. So, we have to get the health boards to take their responsibility seriously. They have said that they want to see people coming out of ambulances within four hours. That isn't happening, so we need to put a greater pressure on them. What we're trying to see now is what more exactly we can do to provide that incentive or something so that we don't continue with this situation, because the waiting times are far too long.

Certainly, they are, and there are people behind every statistic. I, and others on these benches, have been gathering evidence about the impact of the ambulance crisis.

The stories that we hear are frightening: an 89-year-old woman collapsed and lying on the floor for six hours; a farming accident with no ambulance being available at all, so the patient is taken by car with a broken back; a wheelchair-dependent patient suffering a fracture being told to wait three days because it's non-urgent; a woman whose symptoms were deemed to require an emergency response waiting nine hours and an ambulance arriving as her heart stopped. Now, as the Minister says, this is not perhaps an ambulance crisis; it's a whole-system crisis, it's a system that is clogged up, and nobody is angrier about the situation that paramedics and ambulance staff, and our thanks to them is immeasurable. But, let me tell you what I was told by a senior GP recently. They said, 'If I had a family member who required urgent care, I wouldn't even think of calling 999, they'd be straight in the car. If we wanted an ambulance in Wales tonight, there probably wouldn't be one. This doesn't seem like a developed country'. What kind of country are we and when will the penny drop about the need to sort it out if even GPs are saying that we can't help those in most serious need of help?

I accept that there is a problem. The demand on the service has been enormous. The increase in demand on the service is more than anything we've seen before, so obviously there is a demand aspect to this that also needs to be looked at. I think also we've got to understand that actually over half of people are seen within the time frame, so it's not all bad, but of course we're not reaching anything like the targets that we should be reaching. One of the things that's happened this week is that there was a national risk summit to look at what harms are happening as a consequence of this, so that people start to understand this is not something where there are no consequences; there are serious consequences and therefore people need to understand that they need to step up and take more responsibility. So, that happened this week, as well. There will be outcomes as a result of that summit, so I'm just waiting to hear exactly what's happening. So, of course the situation needs some focus, which is why I'm giving it that focus. We've invested £5 million. An extra 127 front-line ambulance staff will become available in the coming months. They're all being trained up now, they'll be going on the front line and, of course, there are more people helping with that triaging in the call centres as well.

Thanks very much. We expect health boards, as commissioners of ambulance services, to plan and secure safe and timely services that respond in order of clinical need. That means a whole-system approach, ensuring ambulance crews are available to respond when needed.

Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I think rural areas sometimes see the worst ambulance response times by the fact that they are often further away and harder to reach. This is the situation for residents in my region, on the Gower peninsula. Many of them came together a few years ago and raised £65,000 towards a first responder vehicle to be based in Reynoldston, which meant serious incidents could be attended to much quicker than waiting for ambulances to come from elsewhere. In 2017, the crew in Reynoldston were called out 207 times, but by 2018 this had fallen to 61, and that drop has continued in the year since. There have been times that people have literally waited hours and hours for ambulances to be called from Port Talbot when the first responder is literally within two minutes of the call. People are waiting significant lengths of time for paramedics or ambulances from miles away when there are trained people on their doorstep, who could even come and give interim care until the full-time professionals arrive. This is a situation that needs to be urgently addressed and would appear to be one that could be easily rectified by better communications within the Welsh ambulance service and 999 call-handling centres, especially those call handlers located in north Wales who may be unfamiliar with the geography of south Wales and the Gower peninsula in particular. Can I ask whether the Minister would agree to meet with me and local groups involved in the Reynoldston first response unit to discuss this further, to better promote this service within Gower and within the wider ambulance service?

Thanks very much, Tom. I spent a very nice weekend in the Gower, actually. I very rarely go to the Gower and it was very impressive to see actually how many of the local community are actually taking an interest in the health area—good to see that that kind of community spirit extends to this. But, of course, we have a responsibility as a Government to make sure that we are providing the service that we should be in those areas. I have been concerned about the situation in relation to ambulances in rural areas, because there was that roster review that was undertaken—that happened as a result of the demand and capacity review of 2018. What they were saying is that, actually, if we reconfigured the way that we organised ambulance services, we could get more bang for our buck, effectively. So, that roster review started happening, and then COVID hit. So, that's coming back on board. But, I have made it clear to the ambulance service that what we don't want to see is any denigration in terms of the provision to rural areas. So, that is something that I hope will happen as a result of that intervention that I have made.

Question 4 now, to be answered by the Deputy Minister for Social Services. Peter Fox.

Thank you. Discharge service guidance is in place to manage the flow of patients, particularly during the pandemic. We recently updated this guidance, taking on board the latest and more positive position with regard to COVID, in order to continue to provide a safe mechanism for discharging people from hospitals following their treatment.

Thank you, Deputy Minister, for your statement. Llywydd, recently, my office has been told of an incident at the Grange hospital, where a constituent who is 92 years old was discharged from A&E in the early hours of the morning. They arrived home at 4 a.m. Prior to their discharge, the constituent's partner, also 92, received a phone call from the hospital at around 3 a.m., causing them to get out of bed in a hurry, despite being susceptible to falling themselves. While I acknowledge and appreciate the response from the chief executive of the health board, explaining the situation as they saw it, this doesn't detract from my concerns about the discharge procedures at that hospital. My constituent and their partner stated that they did not receive sufficient support, and that their partner had to push them, using a rollator, to get them into bed.

Minister, you will be aware of the recent report of Age Alliance Wales, which highlighted inadequacies in the procedures, and it's just not acceptable. I understand that hospitals are still under significant pressure and that the COVID-19 pandemic has meant that discharge procedures have been altered to free up beds and reduce the risk of infection. But, what has happened to the basic principles, like kindness and compassion? The NHS shouldn't be moving towards being a factory. Minister, how is the Welsh Government working with partners in the Welsh NHS to ensure that such unacceptable incidents don't happen and that discharge procedures better acknowledge the vulnerability of people like my constituent?

Yes, I thank Peter Fox for that question, and I am concerned to hear about what happened to his constituent and the constituent's husband. It is, really, a lot of what we have been talking about this afternoon—how we get better co-ordination and better working together between the health and social services systems. Obviously, this family were in need of help—in need of social care help when they got home—and they needed that to be identified in the hospital. So, it is this link that is so important. Obviously, what happened with his constituent is something that we wouldn't want to happen to anybody. But, we are planning and working to improve the links between health and social care. In addition, the six goals for urgent and emergency care include goal 5, which is optimal hospital care and discharge practice, from the point of admission, and goal 6, which is a home-first approach and reducing the risk of readmission. These goals—five and six—seek to deliver the national discharge guidance. We have given £25 million in recurring national funding to support this—although, obviously, I accept it didn't happen in his constituent's case. This is something that we've got to work very hard on. So, we are doing that, and we are investing that money.

In addition to that, we are putting £2.6 million into non-urgent patient transport, and that's in an effort to ease pressure on the ambulance service—and we have just had a number of questions about the ambulance service. We are giving £40 million to support the recovery of social care services, and £9.8 million is allocated to regional partnership boards to support delivery of their plans to ease winter pressures, along with £32.92 million for social care pressures. So, I think you can see that we are putting a great deal of investment into the service and we are working very hard to get the partnership right between the hospital and the social care system, but I would once again like to express my sympathy for what happened to his constituents.

Would you agree with me that one of the keys to this is ensuring that we have the quality social care in the community to enable people to be discharged quickly?

Yes, it's absolutely essential that we have that quality social care, and, as we all know, social care has been under huge pressure, and we are doing all we possibly can to boost the social care service. I announced yesterday ways we were working towards attracting more social care workers to the service, because we're very short of staff, by bringing in the real living wage, along with an additional payment. We're working hard to look at terms and conditions, because I think the key to this is getting the staff—the right, quality staff—in the community, who will be there to work with vulnerable people to help stop them going into hospital, and, when they do come out of hospital, to be there to prevent them going back in. So, yes, I certainly do agree with what Jenny Rathbone has said.

Powys Teaching Health Board is responsible for providing services to its population. We are working with the health board on business cases for both the north Powys well-being development, and refurbishment works at Llandrindod Wells hospital.

Thank you, Minister, for your reply. I appreciate it's your birthday today and usually people give you presents, but I'm hoping that you'll give my constituents a present through your answer today. Minister, there is strong community support and cross-party support for proposals brought forward by Powys County Council and the Powys health board for a new community hospital and health and well-being centre in Newtown, and, as you know, the plan would see a cutting-edge facility to serve north Powys and improve health outcomes. It would mean, of course, people wouldn't have to travel out of county for appointments; they could receive healthcare and appointments and consultations locally rather than going beyond the border of Powys. Now, I've raised this previously with you and the First Minister as well. The First Minister gave me a very positive reply last July and told me that the Welsh Government was absolutely committed to this project. However, it has been sat on the desk of Welsh Government for some months now. I appreciate this cuts across various Ministers—education, local authority, finance—so, can I ask you to liaise with your colleagues and Ministers across Government in order to get the green light for this project as soon as possible, because I'm sure, as well as me, you're aware that if we give the green light to this project it will help reduce that health backlog that you and I both want to see reduced?

Thanks very much, Russell. Certainly, I've been to the site where the proposed new north Powys well-being development is, and it certainly does look like an exciting development. The programme business case for that development is currently working through final scrutiny, but I will see if I can get a better sense of when exactly a decision will be made. What I will, I'm afraid, have to warn you about is that there are considerable pressures on the NHS capital programme and that there will be difficult decisions that will need to be made, going forward, and so we certainly will be looking to work with the council and other areas to see what we can do to progress programmes like this and others.

Good afternoon, Minister, and happy birthday. Thank you to Russell for raising this point. I'm very pleased to hear that these plans are moving forward, and I would like to thank Russell, who has worked so hard on this project—and some collaboration, I hope, across north Powys. Following on from your response to Russell, can I just ask what kind of process will be in place to continue to keep in touch with people in relation to this project? Thank you.

Thank you very much. We're not in that position as of yet where we've got the green light. We had hoped that there may be more capital available within the NHS programme, so, at the moment, we are considering where we can make progress with the developments that we're eager to see, and we would certainly be eager to see this develop if it all possible. So, I'm sure that funding will be the factor that limits any progress in this area, and that's why we do need to go through that final scrutiny, and hopefully I can return with a response to you on this issue before too long.

Question 6, Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Thank you, Llywydd. May I also take this opportunity to wish the Minister a happy birthday through you, Llywydd? Thank you.

Well, thank you very much. Clearly, I was very disappointed to see the report from the Royal College of Surgeons with regard to vascular services in north Wales. There was a long list of issues that had been noted in that report, and Betsi teaching board is responsible for the provision of services to its population.

I thank the Minister for that response. Well, after three years of establishing improvement groups, task and finish groups, a change of leadership personnel, and, ultimately, commissioning an independent report, at last there is recognition that substantial mistakes have been made with this service. Is someone going to be held to account for this, Minister? Can you confirm whether anyone who was directly responsible for these mistakes remains in an operational leadership role in this area? And do you think that it's right that the people who pushed this through remain in positions of responsibility in the health service, and will you now place the vascular service back into special measures in order to regain the confidence of the people of north Wales?

Thank you very much, Mabon. I believe the First Minister gave an explanation with regard to the situation quite thoroughly this week. Clearly, we're in a position where we were following the guidance. The Royal of College of Surgeons, of course, had recommended that things were centralised in the first instance, so I do think it's important that we look at the guidance that they're eager to give too.

I have given a warning now to the board in the Betsi area. If the recommendations in the report haven't been progressed over the coming three months, there will be consequences as a result of that. I've made it clear, if we don't see improvement in the next three months, I will be asking the tripartite group to hold an additional meeting to give me additional information with regard to further escalation.

The people of Wales deserve the highest quality health services and the best outcomes. Striving for excellence should be at the heart of all health boards' plans, and embedded in all levels of the NHS. We're committed to strengthening this through our collaborative transformation and quality improvement approaches.

I completely agree with the aspirations that you've just espoused, Minister, but I'm very, very concerned to see your statement today in relation to the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board being given just three months before it could possibly be put back into special measures. Those of us who represent constituencies in north Wales feel let down. We feel let down, yes, by the Welsh Government for failing to turn the situation around in over five years when the organisation was in special measures, which causes me to question how effective they might be if they're reintroduced unless they seriously change, but, secondly, we feel let down by the leadership of that health board in the past. One of the proposals that we have put forward and discussed in this Chamber—and I hope we can attract you to it—is to establish a register of Welsh NHS leaders, so that when people fail in their jobs, when people cause harm in their jobs because of decisions that they take as managers within the health service, not clinicians that can be struck off registers, if they're nurses or doctors, but I'm talking about managers, they should be held to account for those actions and never be allowed to put people at risk again by being thrown off a register in the future. Is that something that you will consider, and how can you demonstrate that things will be different in the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board in the future, further to your ministerial statement today?

Thanks very much, Darren. Well, certainly, we are concerned about the situation in relation to vascular in north Wales. I have been comforted by the fact that it was Betsi itself that called in the Royal College of Physicians to look at the situation. That was the right thing for them to do. I am hoping that they're going to respond quickly to that review. They have undertaken to put forward those actions. We'll be monitoring those actions as a Government on a monthly basis. I'm really pleased to see that they'll be working with Liverpool hospital to make sure that there is some oversight and understanding from a quality service that is seen there. And, of course, we're very keen to see the establishment of that quality panel. You're interested in quality, we're interested in quality. That's what they're going to do: set up a quality plan to strengthen the clinical leadership locally.

As to your question that, of course, there is this—. We have already received a detailed action plan from Betsi and they have committed to immediate implementation of that.

As to your other question about leadership, I can see your point. I think there have been examples in the past where we've seen people move from one board to another. Let me take that away, Darren, and give it some thought.FootnoteLink

And finally, question 8, Alun Davies.

The health board has invested an additional £840,000 in dentistry, including the provision of urgent access. As a result, there's been a provision increase from 157 to 300 urgent appointments available per week. Access to more routine care remains limited due to necessary infection control measures, and priority is determined according to patient need.

Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that.

There is, of course, another crisis in access to NHS dentistry, which isn't simply a consequence of the pandemic, and that is the consequence of the lack of availability of NHS dental services. This affects many parts of the country, but is a particular issue at the moment in Ebbw Vale, where my constituents are simply unable to access NHS dentistry. It is profoundly worrying that a child growing up in Ebbw Vale doesn't have the same access to basic dentistry as a child growing up elsewhere. Older people are unable to afford to go to see the dentist. This isn't what our vision of a national health service is or should be. Can you assure me, Minister, that you will intervene to ensure that my constituents have access to NHS dentistry, that they are able to access the services that we have all paid for collectively and for which the national health service ensures that those services are available to all equally, to enable people to feel comfortable that they themselves can be taken care of and that they're families can be taken care of?

Well, thanks very much, Alun. I can assure you that I've been very concerned about the situation, not just in your constituency, but in other constituencies around Wales. Because of the pandemic, we have seen a massive reduction. And it's not just because of the pandemic, I do accept that, but, certainly, that has reduced the capacity by about 50 per cent. So, you can't ignore that. That is a significant issue. That's why I was very keen to make sure that we put up an extra £3 million in this financial year to boost access to NHS dental services, and then to increase that to £2 million recurrently next year and beyond.

There are issues, and I'm very keen to see what more we can do in this space. It's not straightforward, because we can train people up for the NHS and then they leave to the private sector. There's not a straightforward and easy answer to this. Now, one of the things we're doing is we've got a contract reform that'll be starting in April, where we'll be measuring and incentivising quality and prevention. We'll be getting people to look at not just existing patients, but new patients, and also we'll be encouraging them to use the skills as a whole team, because it's not just dentists who can use them—dental technicians have really excellent clinical skills and we need to be using them. So, it is an area where we need to do more work. It's very difficult, because we pour money into it and people leave the sector. It's very, very hard. So, if you've got any good ideas, Alun, I'm all ears.

I thank the Minister, and I hope that she will have an opportunity to relax now for the rest of her birthday. I almost started to sing at one point there during all those best wishes shared with you, but I decided it was better not to do that. [Laughter.]

The topical question is now, and that question is to be answered by the Deputy Minister for Climate Change, and is to be asked by Janet Finch-Saunders.

Yes. The roads review panel recommended that, instead of progressing the project in its current form, there's a strong case for considering a review of the whole of the north Wales corridor, as recommended in the UK Government's union connectivity review's final report. I accepted those recommendations, and last week set up the north Wales transport commission, chaired by Lord Burns.

Thank you. Llywydd, can I just put on record my disappointment that the Deputy Minister isn't in the Chamber to answer a topical question?

No, you can't, I'm afraid. I say at the start of absolutely every meeting of this Senedd that all Members are able to participate virtually or in Plenary and they are to be treated equally and respected wherever they may be contributing from. Move on to your question.

Okay. Well, I look forward to the day when he's—

Move on to your question. If it's important to you, ask it.

Okay. It will come as no surprise, Deputy Minister, that I rise to challenge you on your decision to scrap the roundabout removal schemes on junctions 15 and 16 of the A55. These schemes have been on the table since 2017, involving many costly assessments. Indeed, to date, the project has cost our taxpayers approximately £9 million. There was even going to be a public inquiry last September until I actually raised your own review with you, because this engagement process was planned. And when I brought it to your attention, you actually scrapped that, then.

Now, the Welsh Government's own report highlights safety concerns as junctions are not compliant with current design standards; traffic delays as a result of poor network resilience; a lack of suitable diversion routes in case of tunnel maintenance, road repairs and accidents on the A55, all of which we know happen far too frequently; poor sustainable travel options; poor coastal access and safety—safety—for pedestrians and cyclists. As part of the schemes, some recently built new houses were actually considered for demolition, leaving many residents in limbo over all these years. Despite repeated claims by you on the cancellation of other schemes, you've been citing that this is all in the name of climate change objectives.

Well, let me tell you, this is not the case here. The queues on the roads joining the roundabouts will continue. Cars idling, emitting volumes of carbon monoxide, affecting the quality of the very air that we breathe—and when I say 'we', my constituents. Deputy Minister, perhaps you will explain to the Senedd and my constituents why you have wasted £9 million only then to do a u-turn. What solutions will you now be putting in place to alleviate all the current problems and issues that have actually been cited in your own scheme assessment reports? Diolch, Llywydd.

Well, Llywydd, it's not four months since I joined Janet Finch-Saunders on the steps of the Senedd to send a strong message to world leaders at the Conference of the Parties on the need to take dramatic action to tackle climate change. I've heard many times in the Chamber Janet Finch-Saunders lecture me how the Welsh Government wasn't going far enough, wasn't going fast enough to deal with the climate and nature emergencies. I would say to her, with the greatest of respect, that it's no good signing up to declarations then to run away from the actions that follow from that.

In order to meet our 2050 target, we need to cut carbon emissions in the next decade by 63 per cent. That includes achieving modal shift. We have a target set out in the Wales transport strategy of achieving 45 per cent of journeys by sustainable transport by 2045, up from 32 per cent now. That requires us to do things differently. That's why I set up the roads review panel, and they are patiently going through each of the 50 schemes currently in development, and agreed, because of the public inquiry—and I would note it didn't take her to tell me there was a public inquiry for me to spot that fact—but, because there was a public inquiry, we fast-tracked this scheme, and one other scheme, through the process so that an early decision could be made. The independent panel has now published its full report, and that is available for everyone to read, and they go through, in detail, their reasons. And they concluded, on the issue of safety, that the proposed grade-separated junctions replacing two roundabout junctions, would create little absolute improvement to the collision record. She rightly says that, in peak season, there are particular problems on the A55 around capacity, but they are limited to the high tourist season. The report also said, I'm quoting:

'The aim of the scheme is not in alignment with the sustainable transport hierarchy, the mode share targets, or increasing the proportion of freight moved by sustainable modes.'

Now, that's there in black and white, in the conclusion of the report, commissioned precisely because I was doing as she asked me to do, which is to respond to the climate emergency and to recognise the impact that transport plays in that—17 per cent of our emissions are from transport.

Now, I recognise there will be some people who are disappointed, and others locally who objected to the scheme who will be less disappointed. On the question of cost, indeed, there has been sunk costs into this. It will not be entirely wasted. The studies and the work underpinning them will be valuable for the Burns commission north in its work. And I see little logic in continuing spend on a project that was set to cost more than £75 million simply because we'd begun work looking at assessments—that makes no sense to me at all. And the purpose of our work is to shift funding away from schemes that add to our carbon emissions in order to fund schemes that help us to reduce our carbon emissions.

The question the Conservatives should be asking isn't how do we stop cars from idling, it's how do we stop cars getting on the road in the first place. And the Deputy Minister is right. It's the broader question here of: are we serious about climate change? And if we are, then are we serious about modal shift and reducing people's overdependence on cars? Are we serious that that is part of the answer? And if we are, then it does mean that things have to change, and there will be fewer big, expensive road schemes. But, just as important, of course, turning to the Deputy Minister, we also need to see investment happening into those alternatives. So, the question isn't what can we do to revive these proposed schemes, but what can we do to address the same issues in a different way. I welcome, therefore, the commission to be led by Lord Burns, and it's probably at the end of that process that we decide whether this is the right decision or not, because it's only at the end of the process will we see and understand what the alternatives are.

So, I'd like to ask: does the Deputy Minister agree with me that it's absolutely key, as part of this process and the wider, ongoing process of the reviewing roads project, that there's absolute transparency and clarity around how these decisions are being made and that there's absolute consistency as well, in terms of the criteria and the factors considered from project to project, albeit within their own individual contexts, because, otherwise, people will be right to be concerned and sceptical about what the real motives are?

Well, I'd like to thank Llyr Gruffydd for his supportive comments and his endorsement of the broad approach that we are taking. And it will be right that there'll be a role for challenge and scrutiny of all of this, and it's important that the Burns commission operates in that way, as it did in the south, as, indeed, the roads review is. The roads review is putting all of this information in the public domain for people to see its reasoning, for us to scrutinise it. The Burns commission will be publishing an interim report, which will be available, to engage with stakeholders, just as they did in their work around Newport. I've already had conversations with the leaders of the three councils in the area affected in the north to get their views on this, to ask them for suggestions of who should serve on the commission and to talk to them about the way ahead. So, I agree with him that transparency and consistency are important, but just as the importance of being willing follow through our words with actions.

I thank the Deputy Minister.

The next item, therefore, is the 90-second statements, and today's statement comes from Jane Dodds.

Diolch, Llywydd. This Friday, 18 February, is international Care Day, celebrating care-experienced children and young people. Too often, young people tell us that they are made to feel like they don't belong, so the theme of this year is 'Together we create community,' celebrating the strength of the care-experienced community and highlighting the importance of ensuring that every child and young person is able to play a full part in their communities.

To mark Care Day on Friday, care-experienced young people from across Wales will meet virtually to create a time capsule and, over the coming year, Voices from Care Cymru and their partners will be inviting all Members of the Senedd to meet care-experienced children and young people in our own constituencies and regions, so that we can get to know them, so that they can get to know us as well, and that we can play our part in building that sense of belonging that care-experienced children and young people tell us that they need. The time capsule will make a record of what they feel needs to change to allow them and other care-experienced children and young people to really thrive, and they will open the capsule in five years' time so that they and we can see what has changed.

Finally, I sincerely hope that the brilliant universal basic income pilot announced by the Government will transform the lives of those care leavers who are able to take part in the pilot. So, on Friday, please show your support for our care community; after all, they are children in our care. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you very much for that statement, and we'll take a short break to prepare for some changeovers in the Siambr. A short break.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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—

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—

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.

Item 6 is the next item, the debate on the petition to save Cowbridge intermediate school for girls from demolition. I call on the Chair of the Petitions Committee to move the motion—Jack Sargeant.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to put forward this debate.

This petition was submitted in March 2020 by Sara Pedersen, having collected 2,080 signatures online and 3,442 signatures on paper, and I'm sure that budding mathematicians across the Chamber have already calculated the total of 5,522 signatures. Llywydd, the text of the petition says:

'We call on the National Assembly for Wales to urge the Welsh Government to protect the former Intermediate School for Girls’ in Cowbridge, Vale of Glamorgan. This was the first intermediate school to be built specifically for the education of girls in Wales (and England) and is the subject of a planning application for demolition. Failure to protect it will lead to the loss of a nationally important historic asset.'

As Members will be aware, the Petitions Committee doesn't get involved in planning issues, but the issue of whether the building should have been listed by Cadw and the petitioner's call for an independent review of that decision was one we could act on. During the fifth Senedd, the previous Senedd's Petitions Committee, under the sterling leadership of my predecessor Chair, Janet Finch-Saunders, agreed to request a debate, but, as the Senedd business was restricted due to the pandemic, it was not possible to hold said debate.

Supporters of the petition argue that the school, designed by architect Robert Williams, is, and I quote,

'a prominent and attractive testimony to a pivotal moment in Welsh history and the equal opportunities afforded to underprivileged girls of the time'.

Llywydd, the committee has written to successive culture Ministers, who have defended Cadw's decision and their process. Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas in 2020 wrote, and, again, I quote:

'My officials have very carefully considered all of the arguments put forward for listing the building but I am afraid that it does not meet the criteria to be listed at the national level.'

Following further requests by the campaigners for a review of the original decision by Cadw, the Minister, and, again, I quote,

'obtained independent advice from Richard Hayman, a building historian and archaeologist with particular expertise in historic buildings in Wales'.

The Minister went on to support that decision not to list the building. In this Senedd, the new committee wrote to the current Minister, Dawn Bowden, who will be responding to today's debate, to see whether she would change anything as Minister. Dawn Bowden, the Minister for culture, replied and said

'there has been no new information presented that would reverse the decision not to list the building.'

I know Members from right across the Chamber who are more familiar with the particular building in question today, and the area in question, and they will want to talk more about its architectural and historical values, and, again, the claims made for its significance beyond the local area. But, Llywydd, if I may, I want to come to a wider point in my contribution today: there must be more we can do in this Senedd to support communities to preserve buildings they value. Cowbridge school isn't an isolated case. As a committee, we've recently seen campaigners in the north petitioning to preserve Coleg Harlech—P-05-1130, 'The Welsh Government should re-purchase and refurbish Coleg Harlech'—another educational building seeking new purpose. I know that the clerking team of the Petitions Committee regularly reject other petitions where local people are seeking to challenge planning decisions that will result in the demolition of local buildings and the memories and the meanings that they represent. I look around the Chamber and at those online and I'm sure each of us in our own constituencies and regions have a building in own constituency or region that clearly fits this pattern, a building that doesn't make enough money or a building that has become too costly to maintain, but nonetheless holds that cherished place at the heart of our towns and villages and in the hearts of the people who live there.

We also know, from the work the Petitions Committee has done on the petition P-05-1112, 'Help Welsh Communities Buy Community Assets: Implement Part 5 Chapter 3 of the Localism Act 2011', that the Welsh Government is working with other partners to find ways of making it viable for communities to take over community buildings and facilities. Now, I recognise that that won't be a solution for the Cowbridge school campaigners, but I do hope, in the long term, this might create another route for communities to preserve and sustain the landmark buildings they so much value.

Acting Llywydd in the Chair now, I do look forward to hearing Members' contributions from across the Chamber, and, of course, I look forward to the Minister's response regarding preserving buildings of significance in communities right across Wales. Diolch yn fawr.

I am speaking today in support of saving Cowbridge old girls' school from demolition, and to speak on behalf of everyone who wants to see this building brought back to life. The issue is a complex one in that the school building is subject to an owner who wants to sell it and release its value, likely meaning its demolition, a local community that wants to keep it, and Cadw, who refuse to give it any protected status.

As we have heard, the school was the first purpose-built secondary school for girls' education in England and Wales, and, as such, I believe it has significant historic relevance. It is also valued by the local community as a heritage building, with highly regarded architecture and local significance. And in this regard, I can clearly see why this petition's prompted such a large local response. The building is also home to the first ever laboratory facility in the UK for the teaching of practical science skills to girls. In my mind, this makes saving this building even more important, because it reflects a turning point in our country in recognising the equality, value and potential of women in science—principles that are now recognised internationally on 11 February. Sadly, the issue is complicated by the fact that Cadw refuse to give listed status, mainly because the original building has been altered, in their minds, extensively, and because several other better examples of secondary schools built in this period have already been listed. For all concerned, there needs to be a resolution, otherwise the building will fall into further disrepair, more funds will be used in maintaining the property and the building could possibly become structurally unsound, meaning that its current potential to be repurposed and brought back to life will be lost.

We hear in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 the Welsh Government's desire for more cohesive communities and for them to have a greater say in what affects them. I believe here we have an example of how the system is letting this community down. If this Government wants greater community cohesion, it needs to encourage communities to have a greater say over the buildings and spaces they see as part of their community, and support them when they speak up to save their local heritage.

There were over 5,500 signatures on the petition, which embodies the strength of local feeling over this building. The Minister has an opportunity to act decisively here and call in the application for a review, and, frankly, if they choose not to act to save this building, it shows more than anything the contempt that they have for the community in trying to stand up and save something that is clearly important to them.

In my mind, the cause of this current situation falls squarely on the shoulders of Cadw. Cadw's lack of concern for the conservation of this building because it fails to tick enough boxes for them could ultimately see this former school destroyed and lost for future generations. Cadw should be more sympathetic to giving protected status to buildings that have local significance, and not just national significance, because it is distressing for communities to have architecture, buildings they value, buildings that they have grown up with and buildings that reflect their local history destroyed simply because it's the most profitable thing to do. Demolition of the Cowbridge old girls' school would, in my mind, be an outright failure of this nation to protect significant local heritage and, with this in mind, I hope Members today will join me in supporting this petition. Thank you.

I rise to speak in this debate not because I have a particular interest in the important building in Cowbridge that has been referred to, but because I wanted to make some more general points about the significant impact that not listing important buildings of local and national heritage is having in other parts of the country.

In my own constituency, there's a very prominent art deco property on the seafront in Rhos-on-Sea, which, unfortunately, is likely to be demolished because of a similar exchange of correspondence with Cadw and, indeed, the Minister. I know there's some sympathy from the Minister and others in this Chamber for trying to overhaul the system to make sure that we can afford properties like 57 Marine Drive in Rhos-on-Sea with the proper protection that they deserve. And it's not only that property that prompts me to speak today either. I also am involved—and I will declare an interest—with a charity, a small charity, called the Evan Roberts Institute. We acquired—. And I'm a trustee of the institute; I just want to put that on the record for interest purposes. We acquired a chapel in Loughor in south Wales called Pisgah. Now, Pisgah has absolutely no architectural merit whatsoever, but it is extremely important to the people of Wales because of its history and because of its association with the revivalist Evan Roberts. And if it hadn't been for the fact that we were able to acquire the building, that building would have been demolished and a bungalow would be sitting in its place right now.

And I do fear, I am afraid to say, that there is a problem with Cadw in terms of the way it lists our buildings. It doesn't always look at the historical importance; it rather looks at the design of the building, whether there are any unique features and the architecture rather than the history and the things that are associated with it. And I think it's a tragedy, because we're going to lose more and more of these important parts of what Wales has emerged from, if you like, what makes the modern Wales we love, in the future. [Interruption.] Yes, I'll happily take an intervention.

As an intervention there, on the point you make, Darren Millar, Samuel Kurtz and I met with the Baptist Union of Wales last week, and the issues that chapels are having with Cadw, of being unable to renovate the buildings at all and then the chapel closes and everything goes and the building is demolished. It's not fit for purpose at the moment.

It isn't fit for purpose, and I know that the Minister will probably refer to the fact that local listing can take place via local authorities, but many local authorities simply don't have the time, energy or capacity, unfortunately, to develop their local lists. So, I think what we could really do with is to have Cadw introduce another category of listing, perhaps a grade III-type list, which affords these buildings that little bit of extra protection that they deserve. And both of these particular properties that I've referred to in this debate, both of them are actually listed on the Coflein website, which, of course, is the online database of the national monuments records for Wales. If they're important enough to be on that list, then surely they ought to be afforded some protection. So, I would be grateful, Minister, if you, in your contribution to this debate, could give serious consideration to perhaps introducing that grade III listing, which does take place in Scotland, but doesn't here in Wales, and I think it would give us the protection that we need.

I'm very pleased to follow my colleague Darren Millar, and I largely agree with everything he says on this occasion, as indeed with Joel James, because I think this is a really important issue and it's excellent that this petition has enabled us to discuss it.

I agree that there are some really complicated issues here, but, as with Darren Millar and the chapel in Loughor, I've got a particular pub in my constituency, the Roath Park Hotel, which is the last Victorian pub in City Road—the last of eight. Unfortunately, the planning system isn't sufficiently in line with the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 to enable local authorities to refuse permission to demolish in order to create a hideous modern building in its place. It has happened so often around Cardiff that we have lost the vernacular of our historic architecture, and modern buildings, unfortunately, in general, are not nearly as elegant or well built.

That doesn't mean to say that we are philistines—that we don't want change—but I just think this building in particular is so important because it's only one of five left of 95 examples of a girls' school that was purpose built for this reason. I've been trying to find out a bit more about Robert Williams, the architect who built it. Because I learnt from the petition that the buildings he went on to build in London and in Egypt have been preserved and yet, here in Wales, we are considering demolishing this fine example of his work. Given that he was a pioneer of building conservation and of social housing, and was setting up the Welsh school of architecture, and the need to use the Welsh language in building the architects of the future, this is a really rich history that we are in danger of losing. The well-being of future generations Act simply doesn't capture the importance of all of these relevant facts, because we're in danger of simply having a system that's based on the cost of everything and the value of nothing. And so, I just think that we really have to change things.

The planning decisions, for example, don't have to pay any regard to the carbon emissions involved in demolishing this perfectly usable building that could easily be converted into some extremely fine and much-needed social housing, because, after all, this is a building that had accommodation involved from day one for girls who couldn't travel that far to Cowbridge on a daily basis. So, I think there are huge reasons why we need to revisit this as a matter of urgency, because carbon emissions are a very significant issue in line with the well-being of future generations Act, but it also touches on the cultural importance of this building, of the language of involvement of Robert Williams in promoting the Welsh language in architecture. And I just think that the system is absolutely not right, not fit for purpose at the moment, otherwise we're going to have more disasters like this.

I find myself agreeing also, like Jenny Rathbone, with the Conservatives in this debate. I know, a historical moment: the first time I've said those words. [Laughter.] But I think this shows that we can be united when things matter, and too much of our heritage has disappeared.

Beautiful buildings across Wales have been left to rot until, inevitably, local planning authorities are told by developers that they cannot be saved. And Jenny Rathbone's point is extremely important in terms of the carbon emissions as well. We should be re-imagining these beautiful and historic buildings to give them a new lease of life. I am fed up of seeing, also, important buildings being listed, but not then being saved and protected, and left to rot. This is not acceptable.

Whenever I travel into Cowbridge, I am always struck by the beauty of the buildings in question, which are reminiscent of Coed-y-Lan school near my home in Pontypridd, which has also been left to dilapidate. It's a very sad situation, and especially when you think about the history of this specific building. I won't repeat those statistics, but I agree with you, Joel: in terms of the role with women in science, this is a building that is of significance. And, clearly, I am not alone in my appreciation of the building and its historic significance. In fact, on the website set up by the campaign group, there is a list of 20 prominent historic buildings specialists, historians and architects, all of whom support listing the building and sensitively converting it. These include Dr Eurwyn Wiliam, former National Museum Wales historic building expert, former council member of the Historic Buildings Council for Wales and former chairman of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales, and who has often advised Cadw on such matters. Yet, it seems that their views and those of local residents have been disregarded, leading to Cadw refusing to list the building.

I understand all too well the need for affordable social housing in Cowbridge—a point made by the one letter I have received that supports the demolition of the building. But, as illustrated in the tens of letters I’ve received in support of saving the building, it isn’t an either/or, and there is a way where we can achieve the best of both worlds: saving the building and converting and repurposing it. Save Britain’s Heritage, working with the architect Philip Tilbury, has produced an alternative scheme, showing ample space to create 23 apartments within the school, as well as 12 new apartments and two new houses on the adjacent land. I urge the Deputy Minister to ask her officials to look further into this matter, as well as the alternative plans put forward.

Historic Scotland and Historic England both have procedures established when there are such disputes, which allow for an independent external peer review in such circumstances—something that I believe is merited in this case. This is an opportunity to reimagine a historic building to meet local need. I very much support the petition and thank all constituents that have contacted me on this matter.

I now call on the Deputy Minister for arts and sport, Dawn Bowden.

Thank you. Can I first of all thank all those Members who have spoken in this debate this afternoon, and for highlighting the strength of feeling towards this former school? And I do understand the strength of feeling that has been expressed, and I've had a similar issue myself, in my own constituency, with the Hoover building, which is hugely important to Merthyr Tydfil for all the reasons that anybody who knows about the history of Merthyr Tydfil will understand. But that's never been listed for all the reasons that I'll come on to now.

So, I do fully acknowledge the historical interest of the school, and I agree it will be a huge shame to see it demolished. However, to be listed by the Welsh Government, a building must demonstrate architectural and historic qualities of national significance. So, it has to meet both those criteria, as set out in that national listing criteria. This building has effectively been assessed against the listing criteria three times: first, as part of the national community listing resurvey of Cowbridge in 1999, then by Cadw historic buildings specialists in response to a request in 2018, and again by an independent expert in 2020. The later assessments included the careful scrutiny of all the evidence provided by the campaigners. The conclusion was that, unfortunately, the criteria are not met in this instance. The assessment—[Interruption].

I wonder if I could challenge you, Minister, to say that this is missing the point. Because it does not meet the criteria for sustainability, which is reduce, re-use, recycle. So, the Cadw framework needs to change, or the planning system needs to change, to capture that.

Okay. If I carry on, I may cover some of those points.

But the conclusion was that, unfortunately, the criteria are not met in this instance. The assessment—contrary, Darren, to the point that you raised—did recognise the historical importance of the introduction of intermediate schools for girls, but architecturally, this building has undergone extensive change, both historically and in more recent times. The better preserved a building is architecturally, the better it is able to illustrate its history and to contribute to our national story. This building no longer survives as built, its form has been compromised by large-scale alterations in 1909 and more recently, as recently as a few years ago, with the insertion of UPVC windows.

Now, while I note the call for a new category of listing, I don't share the view that reducing the threshold for listing to capture buildings such as Cowbridge school is appropriate. This would undermine the integrity of those buildings that have already been identified as being of national importance. There are already 30,000 listed buildings in Wales, more than any other UK nation in proportion to the size of its population.

I'm very grateful to you for taking the intervention. Doesn't the fact that many of these buildings are being listed on Coflein, the national database of historic monuments, tell us that there is a special place for these buildings in our nation and there does deserve to be a level of protection for them that makes us think twice, three times, four times before we decide to demolish them? That is why attaching another grade—. We've got grade I listed, which are the absolute belters, if you like, the ones that we really do have to do everything to protect and never let go to rack and ruin; grade II, a slightly different standard, but things in place to protect them. Grade III could be a different level of protection. Do you accept that that is something you could look at?

I think we need to—. Again, you need to listen to the rest of what I'm going to say, because I am dealing with how I feel that buildings like this do need to be dealt with.

I do recognise that what I've said so far is not the answer that the campaigners want to hear, and I know that they have requested a peer review by heritage organisations in England and Scotland, but further review is inappropriate as a legally binding decision has now been taken. In law, the building has been rejected for listing, and the proper mechanism for reviewing that decision was through the courts on application for judicial review. So, unless there is new evidence, there is no basis on which to change this decision.

The primary objective of the campaign, of course, is to see this building retained and reused, which is the point that Jenny Rathbone was making, and while the building does not meet the criteria for national listing, this does not mean that it is not of value for its contribution to the local area. The Vale of Glamorgan Council has a local list of county treasures, and while the former school is not included, I would strongly encourage all local authorities to produce a local list and keep it up to date frequently.

Unfortunately, this school is not on the Vale of Glamorgan's list, and I don't know why that is. I hear what Darren Millar says about local authorities not having the capacity, but I would suggest that local authorities have a responsibility for buildings of local interest that they can add to their local lists. The demolitions of buildings that are included on a local list can be regulated by the local authority making an article 4 direction under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, and Cadw has provided helpful guidance to local authorities on this, and it's on the website.

The planning application to demolish the building for residential development is due to be considered by the Vale of Glamorgan Council's planning committee on 2 March. You may be interested to know that the local authority's development plan requires development proposals to preserve or enhance the architectural and historic qualities of buildings. This is not limited to statutorily or locally listed buildings, but all buildings. Therefore, the preservation of the building is a material consideration and something that must be taken into account before the council makes its decision.

Consideration of the views of local communities is an important foundation of our planning system, so I would therefore encourage everyone who is concerned about the loss of this building to urgently submit their representations to the council if they've not already done so. The matter of listing the building at national level has been concluded. The fate of the building is now in the hands of the council in deciding the planning application, but it is also open to the applicant to change the scheme, adapting the building, rather than demolishing it. Diolch yn fawr.

I now call on Jack Sargeant as Chair of the Petitions Committee to respond.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, acting Llywydd. I think that today has been a good and important debate, and I thank all Members for their contributions and the Minister for her response. We started with a powerful contribution from Joel James, who supported the petition in its entirety, I believe, and highlighted the teaching of science to women and girls in the school—a historic and important event.

We did go on to Darren Millar, who, I think, reiterated the point I was trying to make about the wider importance of buildings across Wales. You referenced the art deco property in Rhos-on-Sea and you referenced the church and the charity that you're involved with, which was intervened by colleague Rhys ab Owen who also went on to highlight his experiences with the chapels across Wales.

And then, I must say, we had absolute scenes in the Senedd, where Jenny Rathbone and Heledd Fychan agreed with colleagues Joel James and Darren Millar—it's a historic day for the Senedd, I tell you that. But we did hear from Jenny Rathbone about the Victorian pub, the Roath Park pub in her own constituency, and that those decisions that are made should be in line with the well-being of future generations Act. Heledd Fychan claimed we should be looking at new leases of life—not just saving buildings of historical importance, but new leases of life, reimagining buildings, and going further than perhaps we do already.

And then, coming to the Minister's response, the Minister did say at the start that she recognises the strength of feeling not just from this petition but those similar petitions across Wales. You referenced your own constituency within that response. And you did go on to note that it's unlikely the response would be welcomed by the petitioners because it might not be the outcome they wanted, but you urged the petitioners and those with a strength of feeling to contact their local authority and make representations to them.

I do think—again, I'll go back to my starting point—that this is an important debate today. I think this is what the Petitions Committee is all about: we get talking and raising the points that are people's priorities in their Parliament, the Welsh Senedd. So, I would urge everyone who wants to shape or influence our Parliament, their Parliament, to start or sign a petition. The process is relatively easy and straightforward, and obviously the clerking team and other people who are behind the scenes and do all the hard work—and I do thank them for all they do—are ready and waiting to help.

In closing and in concluding, acting Presiding Officer, on behalf of the Senedd committee, I'd like to say my final thank you to Sara Pedersen for submitting this petition, everyone who has signed this petition, and those contributions today. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

The motion is therefore to agree to note the petition. Does anybody object? No. Okay.

We shall move on now to item 7, the Welsh Conservatives debate on local government funding. I call on Sam Rowlands to move the motion.

Diolch, acting Llywydd. I'm delighted to move the motion tabled today in the name of my colleague Darren Millar regarding local government funding. I will again declare an interest as an elected member of Conwy County Borough Council as well.

As the start of this motion here points to, and as I've mentioned time and time again in this Chamber, and it's something that I'll continue to raise, throughout the COVID-19 pandemic councils went above and beyond. Many of us know the sacrifice, hard work and dedication that council staff endured and they deserve to be praised for their hard work, right from our social care workers through to our teaching assistants, librarians through to recycling crews, all of whom have gone above and beyond. In light of this, I was pleased to see the Government didn't delete point 1 of our motion here today, thanking councillors, local authorities and their staff across Wales for their role during the pandemic. It's great to see that as a Senedd we can look to agree on this. Nevertheless, acting Llywydd, it's vitally important to recognise that councils had been doing exceptional work well before the pandemic and will continue to do so afterwards. As many people will agree, councils are often best placed to represent the needs of local people, of course.

Devolution was, in fact, introduced to bring powers as close to people as possible, and this is what councils can and should do. But, for councils to maximise their potential, they need suitable funding to be available to do this, and as point 2 of our motion states, councils must adequately be funded to enable them to deliver the high-quality public services to which they aspire. They need adequate funding to allow them to maximise their potential, which, of course, the Government also agrees with today. Frustratingly, and as outlined in point 3 of our motion here, the current local government funding formula simply isn't fit for purpose, though. I will come on to specifically why I think this is in a moment, rather than just making some soundbites.

As Members will be aware, the local government funding formula represents around 70 per cent of a council's ability to spend on and deliver their services, meaning that this funding dictates the bulk of what councils are able to deliver. As outlined in the Government's amendment today, and as I'm sure many Members on Labour's benches here want to highlight, I do appreciate that the proposed local government settlement for the next financial year will rise by 9.4 per cent. Of course, this is welcomed. Nevertheless, it does come after years and years of underfunding and still doesn't address the fact that the current funding formula is out of date and not fit for purpose.

We also know that the Welsh Government revenue funding for local government fell, in real terms, by around 17 per cent through the last decade, and this decade of decline has clearly had a huge impact on local government services in Wales. This consistent underfunding of councils over many years has left many of them in a weak position to deal with the challenges of the present and the future. This is particularly seen with councils in north Wales—the region I represent, which has an older population and rural areas—who seem to be the losers from the funding formula.

I said I'd talk about some specifics. I want to highlight three issues that I believe warrant the call for a review. The first is the quality of the data used to indicate how much money councils should be supported with. There's a thing called the standard spending assessment, which I'm sure we all enjoy a read of from time to time, and this data in the standard spending assessment drives the decision making behind the funding of councils. But, sadly, a number of the data points in here are over 20 years out of date, and I'll highlight a couple of those that feed into this funding for local authorities. The first one here uses data from 2001, and this looks at how many dependent children are in social rented housing. First of all, 20-year-old data looking at how many dependent children are in social rented housing—none of those children are currently children. So, that funding formula there is completely bonkers. The next one, pensioners living alone in households, again uses data from 2001. Pensioners with limiting, long-term illness again uses data from 2001. In a world that is driven by data, with so much available to support decision making, it's completely inappropriate to be using information that is over 20 years out of date. There are the other points in here that are from 1991. I'm not sure if all the Members were born when some of those data points were used.

Secondly, the current financial formula does not properly reflect our ageing population and the support required to ensure our older people can live their best lives. An obvious example of this is that, looking at the funding formula, it assumes that the cost of councils supporting those over the age of 85 is around £1,500 per person, which may seem like an adequate amount. In the next age category, which is those who are age 60 to 84, the formula assumes that it would cost £10.72 to fund and support those people. So, at the age of 85, suddenly it's £1,500 per person, but for a number of years before that, it's just going to cost £10. It's a huge discrepancy, and a misunderstanding of what it takes to best support our ageing population. And, of course, our ageing population is going to become a more and more significant part of who we need to support, and support well, over coming years. By 2038, a quarter of our population will be over the age of 65 and, currently, in areas such as Conwy, 28 per cent of residents there are over the age of 65, compared to Cardiff, which has around 14 cent. So, you can see there are areas where the funding formula doesn't properly reflect the support required to support our older people. Those areas are going to struggle when it comes to funding from Welsh Government at the moment.

I have selected the amendment to the motion. I call on the Minister for Finance and Local Government to formally move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths.

I move.

I'm very pleased that, at the last Senedd election, we had a large number of councillors who had been council leaders, like Sam Rowlands, deputy leaders and cabinet members elected to the Senedd—people who know first-hand the importance of local government services and the money needed to run them. I will not always agree with them, but I respect their knowledge and experience of local government. I agree we should thank councillors and local authorities and their staff throughout Wales for the role during the coronavirus pandemic. Councillors and councils played a remarkable role.

Just dealing with one single issue, the issue of homelessness, the Welsh Government provided a £10 million fund that enabled local authorities to engage with all those sleeping rough, and ensure they had access to safe and suitable accommodation to meet the pandemic restrictions. But it was the local authorities and their staff who did the work. Within the first two weeks of lockdown, local authorities accommodated or reaccommodated over 500 households who'd either been sleeping rough or were in accommodation unsuitable for social distancing. This figure eventually rose to over 1,000.

Local authorities reconfigured teams and redeployed staff to ensure effective provision of services and also found new ways of working with partners. The mechanism of a centralised co-ordination cell within each council brought together partners such as health, registered social landlords, police and probation, third sector organisations and others to collectively plan and deliver services—an example of Welsh local government in action. We had a serious fire in Swansea several years ago, and the local authority were the only people who could take control and ensure it was dealt with, while everybody else, including the fire service, were trying to find reasons why it wasn't really their responsibility, and they shouldn't be having to pay for it. The local authority stepped in and made sure it was dealt with. That's happened in local authorities the length and breadth of Wales, and I'm sure that colleagues here could talk about what was done in their own local authorities.

The services provided by the 22 local authorities in Wales provide the basic services that people need. The funding formula, or aggregated external finance, which was previously known as the rate support grant before business rates were centralised, is meant to provide resources to financially support local authorities above their local council tax income. The local government finance settlement determines how much of the funding provided for Wales is given to each local authority. This funding contains the revenue support grant and non-domestic rates, and is distributed on the basis of a needs-based formula. I'm one of those people who thinks that the national non-domestic rates should be returned to local authorities. We talk often about devolution; devolution means that some things have to go down from here to local authorities and other places. Devolution should not stop in Cardiff and the Senedd.

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.

You're out of time now. Can I ask you now to bring it to a close?

Oh, sorry. I've only got a couple of sentences left.

They are fundamentally, intrinsically, linked. So, local government—it is fundamentally important that it has to have a sustainable future. The Welsh Government urgently needs to commission an independent review of the formula. If it can't or won't agree to this, they should at least open a consultation on the funding formula, in the same way they're reviewing council tax. Thank you.

Just to remember that those people that go over are taking time from the others who want to come in. I want to now call Carolyn Thomas.

Diolch, acting Presiding Officer. I must declare that I am a Flintshire county councillor. As such, I know that local authorities and their staff across Wales have such an important role, working with Welsh Government to deliver front-line services, aspiring for safe, clean and connected communities.

Welsh local authorities must be adequately funded to enable them to deliver the high-quality public services to which they aspire. Having been a county and community councillor for the last 14 years, I have lived through painful years of austerity, a policy introduced by George Osborne of the Tory Government, cutting important public services, including councils' public and health budgets in real terms, while protecting neoliberalism and growing privatisation.

As councillors, we had to deal with year upon year of painful cuts—restructuring, reorganising and downsizing until councils were cut to the bone. Flintshire went down from six depots to one, and I remember Philip Hammond, at that time taking over from George Osborne, saying that we just had to tighten our belts a little further. I remember shouting at the tv, because there was nowhere else to cut.

We had to look at trying to raise income, with difficult decisions such as charging for garden waste collections, increasing car parking charges and asking departments to shave off another 30 per cent, as vacant positions were taken as cost savings. You can see the results now when looking at the state of the highways right across the UK; councils not being able to react quickly to complaints; taking longer with planning applications; blocked gullies and flooding; street lights taking that little bit longer to repair; and now, not being able to recruit for essential roles.

I could also see, as part of that austerity agenda, how the cuts to social security, under the introduction of universal credit, were impacting on people. Councils were trying to step in again and again to help the vulnerable, just as the Welsh Government are doing. As publicly funded advice services were reduced or cut, even charities have to be core funded.

I wanted to say that because that is the starting point that they are at now. And it's often raised that the funding formula for local authorities needs addressing. I did it here in the Chamber just two weeks ago, and I am aware that for the last few years the debate has gone round in circles, with council leaders writing to Welsh Government, Welsh Government then saying that the WLGA need to agree it as a collective, and then they have all different views. As you say, it depends who has the slice of the cake.

Our public services are one of the biggest employers in Wales, and in Flintshire, despite the reduction in workforce, the council still employs 5,500 people. That's local people—teachers, social care workers, cleaners, teaching assistants, waste operatives. And in many areas, such as Anglesey, the council is the biggest employer. They not only provide important services; they also employ local people that then spend their money in the local economy and send their children to local schools.

I'd like to declare an interest, as a current serving member of Denbighshire County Council for the fantastic Prestatyn South West ward. So, you speak to any council in north Wales, even Labour-run Flintshire County Council, which Carolyn Thomas is a member of, and they will tell you the same thing—that they get short-changed by Cardiff Bay. Historically, we in the north have lost out because the funding formula prioritises the south Wales Valleys.

While it's very welcome that Denbighshire is to get one of the biggest increases this year, it does nothing to address the historic underfunding and gives no certainties for future years. This is an annual lottery and it has to end, and it's high time we had a funding formula that was fair to every part of Wales. Sadly, my constituency is home to two of the poorest areas in the country, and has one of the highest percentages of retirees. Around a quarter of the population of Denbighshire is over the age of 65, yet the current funding formula does not reflect the additional need for services to cater to this ageing population. Councils get an extra £1,500 for every person over the age of 85, but a pittance for anyone between the ages of 65 and 84. How are councils supposed to provide adequate social care when they continue to be short-changed? For places like Denbighshire, the outlook is not great.

Demographic changes over the coming decades will place a further strain on already struggling finances. Key services have been cut to the bone or axed altogether in recent years due to poor settlements from the Welsh Government, forcing councils to put up council tax— council tax bills that the public can't afford. The pandemic has exacerbated the situation, with inflation rocketing around the globe, pushing up food and fuel prices, putting an extra strain on household budgets. Yet my constituents will once again be asked to foot the shortfall in local government funding. Council tax bills will soar once again this year as hard-pressed councils seek to address huge gaps in their funding, struggling to keep services running, and this shortsighted approach by the Welsh Government can and will have devastating consequences. We are already seeing the strain a lack of social care is placing on our NHS. How many people will die because our local authorities can't afford to provide sufficient care packages? And that's the reality of this situation. The societal cost of poor local government funding—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, indeed.

They've got to provide care; it's a statutory requirement. If they don't do that, they're breaking the law—the Gloucester judgment, as Sam will tell you.

Thanks for the intervention there, Mike. So, how many people are now experiencing loneliness and isolation because the day centre is closed, or because the local library has just shut up shop? What will happen to those communities whose community centres have closed and how will digital inclusion suffer as more and more services are forced online because of the cost-saving measures? Our councils provide the majority of services that the public rely on, yet they are faced with the tough choices to cut back or pass the funding burden on to a public already paying too much. We need fairer funding for local government, funding that is fair to taxpayers but at the same time allows for high-quality public services, and I urge you to support our motion tonight. Thank you.

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.

It's very noisy over there. I now call on the final speaker, Janet Finch-Saunders.

Diolch, acting Llywydd. Between 2010-11 and 2019-20, Welsh Government revenue funding to local government fell by a shocking 17 per cent. Additionally, the Office for National Statistics has reported that between March 2010 and 2020 there was a 19 per cent decrease in staff for local government in Wales. These stark and shocking figures give us just a snapshot of the lack of support that our local authorities were receiving before the pandemic. They have been at the forefront of the COVID-19 response and shouldered a significant burden throughout the pandemic. Staff have been seconded to different departments and they helped to establish support networks and even, indeed, deliver food to vulnerable residents. This certainly stretched their already depleted resources and services past breaking point.

In freedom of information responses I've received from local authorities, I've actually been quite shocked to see, between 2018-19 and 2020-21, there's been around a £10 million or an 118 per cent increase in the spend on housing individuals in temporary accommodation. And speak to any local authority leader or cabinet member and they'll tell you that the homelessness budget is a real severe strain now, and it's something that is not dissipating. This increase is, without doubt, actually, if you look at this in a strategic way, partly down to the Welsh Government's continued failure to deliver on the number of new build houses our communities require. And it has been made clear to me by at least one member that the spend has rocketed even higher this financial year.

Sadly, this is not the only example of where councils have been left holding the can for Welsh Government's failings, forcing local authorities to make up budgetary shortfalls through other means. In October of last year, the BBC reported that Cardiff city council was due to see its public debt skyrocket by roughly 70 per cent, with the forecast of the council borrowing over £1.4 billion by 2023-24. This situation has made it clear that this Welsh Government is hiding away from taking all the necessary steps to fund and support local authorities. Rather, they are shifting this burden onto local authorities, forcing local councillors to cut vital public services, which detrimentally impacts our most vulnerable citizens, increasing council taxes, stifling local economic growth and adding additional financial pressure to residents who are already struggling to cope with the cost-of-living crisis in Wales. It is those regulatory departments who have seen depletions in their staff; our planning authorities now having backlogs of several planning applications. Llywydd—acting Llywydd—they should not have to be so overstretched. As announced in the recent UK budget, the UK Conservative Government has committed to increasing the Welsh Government budget by an additional £2.5 billion per year for the next three years on top of the annual baseline funding of £15.9 billion per year, yet, the Welsh Government, you do continually cry wolf all the time about lack of resources.

Can you bring it to a conclusion?

Gosh, I will indeed [Laughter.] I will. Diolch, acting Llywydd. All I would say: come on, we've got a third of new Members in this Senedd now, we've got new talent, who've had experience on local authorities. If you wouldn't listen to me, listen to them. Thank you.

I call on the Minister for Finance and Local Government, Rebecca Evans.

Diolch. I welcome the first part of the motion. We all, of course, want to thank local government staff and elected members for the work that they've done over the last two years. And they've been exceptional times and local government's response has truly been exceptional. I look forward to continuing the really strong working relationships that we've developed during what's undoubtedly been the most challenging time for local government in living memory. The challenges facing local government, though, are not over and we must now collectively face up to further challenges, including the cost-of-living crisis and the climate emergency, and I know that our local authorities are determined to meet those challenges.

I also welcome the second part of the motion. Local authorities funded to provide good public services for everyone and that support those who need it are at the heart of our plan for a stronger, greener and fairer Wales. So far, through the pandemic, we've supported local authorities with over £860 million through the hardship fund in recognition of additional costs, loss of income and the support schemes that they're administering for us, and councils have delivered to small businesses, to individuals and to communities. And as we've heard, I was pleased to announce, on 16 December, a 9.4 per cent increase in local government core funding for 2022-23 over the current financial year. And this means that an additional £437 million is being provided to continue to support local government to deliver the high-quality services that the people of Wales deserve.

I had hoped to keep my response and my comments in this debate positive and helpful, but, my goodness, I have to object to the Conservatives bemoaning what they're trying to characterise as a decade of underfunding on behalf of the Welsh Labour Government, because, of course, we are talking about a decade of austerity imposed by the UK Government. And I respectfully suggest that it's the Conservatives in this place who need to get a grip and it's high time that they started to take some responsibility for the impacts of the choices of their party in Westminster.

But I will move on to say that the core funding that we provide to local government is distributed through a well-established formula, created and developed in collaboration with local government and agreed annually with local government through the finance sub-group of the partnership council for Wales. And this formula is free of political agenda and it's driven by data, and the settlement is distributed on a formula using over 70 indicators of need to spend. It does have collective buy-in from local government and is rightly based on the key principles of equalising for relative need to spend and relative ability to raise income locally. The formula's constructed and governed in—[Interruption.] Of course.

Can I make a brief intervention here? Thank you. You pointed out there that the formula is driven by data. Would you accept, though, as I pointed out, that some of the data points—actually, quite a few of the data points—are clearly very far out of date? And, actually, a piece of work needs to be done, at the very least, to make sure that the data you're using, and Government is using, to fund councils is accurate and as up to date as possible.

And I'm just about to come on to exactly that point. The formula is constructed and governed in such a way that it can't be manipulated unfairly by any one authority or group of authorities, or by politicians, whether they're locally elected councillors or Welsh Government Ministers. And, of course, there have always been calls for a fundamental review of the formula, and some have been made to me as recently as last week. But these calls have been isolated and they're not united, and we've always recognised the risks and challenges that such a review would pose. But that, of course, isn't to say that the formula is fixed.

Would you take a further intervention, Minister?

Of course.

Would you agree with me—? You will see from the Finance Committee's evidence that the Welsh Local Government Association are saying that many local authorities' reserves are shrinking, at a time, though, when the actual reserves in the WLGA, in the local government family's pot, have increased by £0.5 billion during the pandemic. How can it be justified that a formula can allow those huge differences to continue? Because that will allow some authorities to fall off a cliff edge, if it's allowed to continue. This isn't about the quantum; this is about the distribution.

And I think that you would agree with me that, when we do publish our annual report of local government reserves, it is just a snapshot in time, and that many councils do have plans, and they have earmarked money within reserves for plans. So, it does only reflect a snapshot at that point in time. And, of course, we have seen a couple of extraordinary years, so local government reserves I don't think this year are necessarily going to be reflective of what you would see in normal years. I know we'll go on to discuss reserves, but I do want to continue to talk about the formula and say that it isn't fixed.

It is under constant review, through the work of the distribution sub-group, overseen by the finance sub-group. I did discuss the formula's suitability in distributing funding to local government with local government leaders just last week, at the finance sub-group, and we did, at that meeting, consider the impact of changes to welfare benefits and we talked about the census and the timeliness of some data within the formula.

So, as agreed with local government leaders, the DSG is about to embark upon a programme of work to consider potential updates to the formula, using outputs from the latest census, which will provide us with much more up-to-date and relevant information. And I think that this is really important, and it's also one of the reasons why I was only able to provide Wales-level settlement allocations for years 2 and 3 of the multi-year settlement, and that was to ensure that we are using the most accurate and up-to-date data.

Interestingly, the majority of data in the formula, relating to 72 per cent of the funding, is actually updated annually. In recent years, the DSG has recommended changes to the treatment of a number of data sets, as a result of the reforms to the welfare system and also the impact of the pandemic. And then, that separate issue that was raised this afternoon, which was also raised in the Local Government and Housing Committee with me last month, relating to the weightings applied to different age cohorts within the formula, I just want to confirm that officials will be discussing this particular issue with the distribution sub-group at their next meeting on 22 March.

As colleagues have recognised, we have committed to making council tax fairer in Wales and, as part of this work, we will need to consider how the funding formula needs to respond to this, and other change of circumstances, whilst also continuing to provide authorities with stability and certainty. Of course, as we've heard, any change to the formula inevitably results in winners and losers, and these could be substantial. And that's why we've said previously that, if there is a collective appetite from local government to carry out a fundamental review of the local government settlement funding formula, we will act on it, and we'll do that together.

I call on Laura Anne Jones to reply to the debate.

Diolch, acting Presiding Officer. I'd like to firstly declare that I'm still a councillor in Monmouthshire County Council. May I start by thanking Darren Millar and the Welsh Conservatives for bringing forward this debate today? And thank you, Minister, and I thank everybody for their contributions this afternoon.

Acting Presiding Officer, having sat in many Senedds and Assemblies like myself, you will know too that what we've heard today is nothing new. We have heard pleas over and over from Members across Wales, time and time again, as Carolyn Thomas and Janet Finch-Saunders have said, and as Sam Rowlands said, that that formula is inherently out of date and fundamentally unfair. Yet nothing has changed.

It is a shame, and it's a particular shame as we have a sixth Senedd that supposedly prides itself on fairness, social justice and equality, a Senedd that proclaims it wants to look after every person in need in Wales. Yet we have a Welsh Labour Government determined not to change a formula that determines local government funding that means that some most in need will be disadvantaged.

There is a massive difference between doing the right thing and doing the right thing for your party. It is disappointing to witness the look-after-your-own attitudes that we have seen in this Chamber today. Minister, Labour's standpoint is clearly a politically motivated decision to keep a formula that means that some of the struggling low-income families in Wales out there could be potentially left without the services or support that they need, or have to deal with council tax rises because they happen to live in a rural area, where they work, that is deemed affluent.

It is lucky, as Peter Fox has highlighted, that we have councils in these hard-hit areas, like in his own constituency of Monmouthshire County Council, who are consistently at the bottom of the table when these funds are distributed, that are so good at managing money and so innovative in coming up with schemes for their residents that mean that much needed support for their most vulnerable and the less-well-off doesn't have to suffer because of the extraordinarily unfair deal that they receive from this Welsh Government.

It is not right, as Janet Finch-Saunders and Gareth have both said, that councils in rural areas in north Wales, those that have significant ageing populations or with severe pockets of deprivation in rural areas, have to consider raising council tax as the only way to save their vital services for their residents. It is not right, as Janet Finch-Saunders said, that we are putting our most vulnerable at risk.

As Sam Rowlands, Mike Hedges and Llyr Gruffydd say, many of our councils have been exemplary. The way that our councils have reacted to the pandemic just shows how valuable they are, and I extend my thanks to them also. It was impressive to see how councils were able to reorganise, adapt to where their constituents most needed them; how they became a blanket for the most vulnerable in this national crisis; how councils react to flooding. Whatever is thrown at them, as Mike Hedges said, they are always on the front line, delivering to our constituents. We need our councils, all councils, across the whole of Wales, regardless of which party runs them. They play a vital role in delivering our Senedd's and your Government's aims.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is an objection, so we will defer voting on the motion until voting time.

We now reach voting time. We'll take a short break for preparations for the vote. A short break.

We have reached voting time, and the first vote this afternoon is on the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21(iv), on local government elections. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the names of Rhys ab Owen, Llyr Gruffydd and Jane Dodds. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, two abstentions, 39 against, and therefore the motion is not agreed.

The next vote is on the Welsh Conservatives debate on local government funding. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 28 against, and therefore the motion has been rejected.

Next is a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 28, no abstentions, 26 against. The amendment is agreed.

The last vote, therefore, on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 28, no abstentions, 26 against, and therefore the motion as amended is agreed.

That is the end of voting this afternoon.

There is one more item, namely item 9, the short debate. I call on Laura Anne Jones to introduce the short debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'd like to give a minute of my time to Peter Fox, James Evans, Janet Finch-Saunders and Samuel Kurtz.

I'm pleased to bring forward this debate today, 'Regenerating town and city centres in Wales: More of the same will simply not work'. It is now more than ever important to discuss these issues after the past two years inflicting untold damages to our towns and city centres. It's crucially important that we discuss the key issues facing our towns and city centres and offer workable solutions to safeguard our constituents and communities going forward.

The challenges facing Wales following COVID-19 are similar to the regeneration of 1945 post-war Britain. National and local government need to deliver integrated solutions and make brave decisions going forward, providing honest, strong and dynamic leadership. Sadly, in my patch of South Wales East and the rest of Wales, the outlook for many town and city centres is bleak. Newport is thought to have the most closed shops in all of Britain, with more than one third in its centre permanently closed. This shows the scale of the challenge that we're facing here in Wales.

Worryingly, COVID-19 has cost businesses in cities and large town centres more than a third of their potential takings, and shut down thousands since March 2020. The Centre for Cities 'City centres: past, present and future' report highlighted that cities like Newport have suffered significant challenges due to lack of investment over the years from high-skilled businesses. These firms increasingly prefer a city centre location as the dense business environment allows them to share ideas and knowledge easily. If a city centre is failing to attract these types of firms, the city as a whole will lose out on this investment, in turn affecting wage and career progression and opportunities locally.

The lack of inward investment has had a devastating knock-on effect for the local and Welsh economy as a whole. Opportunities have been missed to attract high-skilled and higher-wage jobs to the area, which feeds back into the diversification issue that I mentioned previously. This is a prime example of why free ports, in partnership with the UK Government, should be promoted and brought to places like Newport, to encourage that inward investment. The report also shows the drastic scale of how bad it's now become in my own patch, with Newport having a 24 per cent shop vacancy rate, compared to Brighton and Birmingham, which have a between 8 and 10 per cent vacancy rate.

The pandemic cannot foot all the blame, though; things were definitely not rosy before the pandemic. For over a decade, our high streets have been battered by the perfect storm of recession, rising business rates and increased competition online. We see the results of this with the following: between 2012 and 2020, bank and building society branches reduced by 28.8 per cent, falling from 695 to 495; ATMs have fallen by 18 per cent in the last three years; post offices have fallen 3.9 per cent in the last decade. Since January 2020, 64 retail companies have failed, resulting in 6,882 stores closing, and affecting 133,600 employees in Great Britain. This has resulted in one in every seven shops on high streets in Wales being empty. However, it's far higher, as I said, in areas like Newport. The challenge will be now to attract customers back to retail after a prolonged period of relying on online sales.

When the Welsh Government introduced restrictions on what retailers could and couldn't sell, this forced more people to rely on online shopping, which has developed over the years to be far more efficient with free, cheap deliveries and returns negating the need to physically go into a shop. It is quite clear to me that Wales needs a strategy to attract a more diverse range of service providers to our towns and cities. We all know that town centres can be vibrant and sustainable, provided that brave decisions are taken and they have ambitious leadership driving development. Sadly, Wales has been devoid of this kind of leadership with Welsh Labour at the helm. We've seen certain local authorities, like Monmouthshire, having to go out on their own to protect town centres, and they've been doing it with one arm tied behind their back from this Welsh Government.

We need to see some radical and some very basic ideas implemented that would revolutionise places such as Newport, such as: providing investment through Business Wales to support small and medium-sized enterprises to get an online presence to compete with larger businesses; where larger units and buildings remain empty, creating shared retail spaces to put an emphasis on creating restaurant quarters that champion the good quality, small independent restaurants; taking tougher action against anti-social behaviour, such as employing more community safety wardens and pressing the police to increase their city centre presence so that people feel safe again in their towns and cities; and slashing business rates so that it frees up the tax burden on retailers, allowing for the potential to expand, reinvest and create more jobs locally. Additionally, it would help reinvigorate town centres, creating stimuli to attract businesses to town centres.

We need to assess and cut car parking charges. For example, Cwmbran is a far more preferred option in my area over Newport city centre, because of the range of businesses and the free parking opportunities. It's not rocket science. There are viable, easy ways to reinvigorate our town centres to make them a force to be reckoned with once again. My own area's city, Newport, used to be a vibrant place; it used to be the place to go, and many would travel far and wide from South Wales East to go there to shop. There is no excuse for it not to be again. Quite simply, we need to make a place so that people want to visit their town and city centres again. We need to make sure that people, instead of getting a train from Cwmbran to Cardiff or Chepstow to Bristol, find reasons to come to places like Newport.

A one-minute contribution from, to start with, Peter Fox.

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you, Laura, for giving me a minute of your time. No doubt, there will be some things that will be repeated among the contributions. Two years of pandemic and the growing trend of online shopping have added to the changing way that people use our towns. This has brought huge challenges to our high streets and its businesses. But, businesses can't address the future alone. Concerted efforts from the Welsh Government, together with local authorities, need to be stepped up throughout Wales. We can see, just by looking at Abergavenny, what a vibrant high street can look like. It is becoming widely recognised that, to re-energise our high streets and towns, we need to transform them into something more than just traditional town centres, changing them into vibrant, popular visitor destinations. The ambience of the town, the wide variety of experience that it offers, its diverse hospitality sector, its niche shopping experiences and the coffee shops are the ingredients to making a successful visitor attraction. But, we need short-term incentives to help these sites, such as continued relief with stifling business rates. We welcome what is happening at the moment in Wales, but that needs to be continued, and also looking at things, as I have raised here in the Chamber with the Minister for Economy, like the high-street voucher scheme, where we can enable people to invest and spend in their local high street. However, the immediate priority has to be getting adequate financial support into the businesses that have been hit most. If Ministers fail to do this in a way that truly recognises the difficulties they face, the very fabric that makes our towns what they are will be lost. We must guard against Wales being haunted by any ghost towns.

I'd like to thank you, Laura Anne, for giving me a minute of your time. Town centres in communities in my great constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire are at the very heart of the communities. It's where people gather in coffee shops, pubs, restaurants and shops for essential goods, where they recognise the great work of our high street. Rural Wales is home to some of the most deprived areas across the country. The GVA of mid Wales is the lowest out of the UK economic regions, at £17,628 per head in 2019. Reviving our town centres is vital to tackling poverty and increasing the wealth of families in places such as mid Wales. This must be done by investing properly in supporting private enterprise and entrepreneurship. If the Government gave out business loans to young entrepreneurs in the same way that it gives out student loans, I'm sure this country would be in a very, very different economic place. Diolch, Llywydd, and thank you, Laura.

I'd like to thank Laura Anne Jones for her excellent contribution, and I don't think that we do talk about this enough. She recognised the value of our high streets, and how the initiatives—. We could look at business rates, car parking charges, new initiatives. It's a fact that—. Oh, I must declare an interest as a commercial properties owner. I beg your pardon, Llywydd. I had it written down here that I must declare an interest, and I went off on one.

So, the high street is changing, but we must embrace those changes. Now, I'm very pleased to represent the beautiful constituency of Aberconwy, where we have fabulous high streets. But, we have a problem, Deputy Minister, and that is the length of time that it takes for change of occupier, in terms of shop units. I have many letting agents who come to me, I have many tenants wanting to move into premises, and I have many landlords. If you want to change from class A1 to class A3—if you want to change a particular business—and you require planning permission, it can take up to nine or even 12 months to get that planning permission. So, my simple plea to you is: can you do something in our overstretched planning departments to ensure that they have the capacity to turn around planning applications very quickly, so that those properties are not lying empty in the high street, making our high streets look, as you rightly pointed out, Peter, more like ghost towns? It's crucial that we have a really speedy and fast-tracking planning process. Diolch, Llywydd.

So, if we cast our minds back to 2010, I was still at school, Corona was just but a beer, and the people of Carmarthen welcomed Debenhams to their town centre at St Catherine's Walk. However, only 11 short years later, in May of last year, it shut, leaving a 6000 sq m hole in the town centre. But thankfully, due to £18.5 million-worth of investment—£15 million from the UK Government—the former Debenhams shop is being redeveloped into a gym, a home for some of the county's museum collections, and a welcome centre for tourists into Wales's oldest town. This project is being developed by the local health board and the University of Wales Trinity Saint David. However, as Dr Edward Jones said, an economics lecturer from Bangor University,

'It's going to be a very different high street to what we're used to.'

So, let's not be afraid of this change. As projects such as the Carmarthen hub bring about necessary footfall into our town centres, into our high streets once again, let's welcome it and embrace the change it brings. Diolch.

The Deputy Minister for Climate Change, now, to reply to the debate—Lee Waters.

Thank you for tabling the motion and for the range of contributions. I think the contributions show that, despite a clear consensus on the problem, there is no real clear consensus on the solution, because this is complex. There is a whole range of forces coming together. This is fundamentally about a changing marketplace, and James Evans in his contribution championed the role of the market in accelerating change, and we should also recognise that the market has also brought about many of the symptoms described by Members. The rise of supermarkets, I think, is one of the most significant forces to have shaped our town centres, when you think, inside the supermarket now, they sell almost everything that used to be sold by shops some 30 years ago in the town centre. The move, then, out of town, and then the move online have all come together to make town centres across the UK shadows of their former selves. And if it was as simple as Laura Anne Jones set out in her speech, as an issue of local political leadership, then you would expect to see a very different picture across the UK, but we do not. There are very similar trends right across the UK, and in fact right across the western world, as these forces have all been rippling their way through.

We have recently published a set of reports, one by Audit Wales and another that I commissioned from Manchester university's Professor Karel Williams, 'Small Towns, Big Issues', which sets down the challenge but also says we need a complex, joined-up intervention to tackle the range of issues at play here, and we are now working through that. I've pulled together a group of experts to go through this report in detail, to understand how we can operationalise this, and Janet Finch-Saunders points out one of the issues, which is around the issue of the resource for planning departments. That is no doubt a factor. There is no simple answer to that, because resource is tight. It's one of the reasons why we've been supporting corporate joint committees to be able to pool resource and expertise across a region, to help with common services. They're also looking at the issue of the role of landlords and rents, which clearly is a constraint for many.

The changing shape of a town centre and the fact that town centres, often, are surrounded by a 'doughnut', as Karel Williams describes, of low-income neighbourhoods, are driving a different cash flow into the town centre, whereas out-of-town is attracting higher income customers, which is in turn driving those type of shops and creating a spiral of decline. And we're seeing in those out-of-town shopping centres now an increasing hollowing out of empty units right across out-of-town shopping centres, across America and Europe, so these aren't forces that we face alone. And I think we do need to rethink the role of retail, both out of town and in town, and, as Sam Kurtz said in his contribution, the example of the 'town centre first' approach that we have championed in Carmarthen, of bringing public services into town centres to give footfall and to put services rather than just retail in the centre of where the shops and the town centres see their role.

I thank the Deputy Minister, and I thank you for that short debate. That brings today's proceedings to a close.