Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Bore da—good morning. As Members are aware, the Chair is unable to attend today's meeting. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 17.22, I call for nominations for a temporary Chair, for the duration of today's meeting.

I nominate Mark Reckless.

I second that.

As there's only one nomination, I therefore declare that Mark Reckless has been appointed temporary Chair, and I invite him to take the seat for the duration of today's meeting.

Bore da—good morning, and thank you. And welcome to Professor Docherty; I've just got a couple of housekeeping points to go through before we bring you in.

Firstly, we have apologies from the Chair, Russell, and from Joyce, who, as Members may be aware, are opening, or at least participating in the opening of, the Newtown bypass this morning. Also, we have apologies from Vikki. And no substitutions, as far as I am aware. We're not expecting any fire alarms, or similar, today, so, anything along those, follow the directions of the ushers. And, should it be required, we have translation from Welsh to English on channel 1 of our headsets and amplification on channel 0. Unless there are any points or questions from Members on that section, I will move to section 3, which is our papers to note. 

Firstly, we have the future development of Transport for Wales, the committee visit to Manchester. It's important to note this as a paper because it brings it into our record. And, while we were in Manchester, my understanding was that we weren't on the record, or quoting everyone on what they said. What they have done, the various organisations, is approve the note that clerks have prepared for us. So, I think that's very helpful, if we can read that into the record. Is that a paper Members are happy to note? Thank you.

And we also have a letter from the Minister for Economy and Transport to the Chair, which incorporates the most recent remit for Transport for Wales. Are we happy to note that as well? Thank you. Noted.

We now move on to section 4, which is our first oral evidence session on the future development of Transport for Wales. We have two panels this morning, the first of which is Professor Iain Docherty, who we're very grateful to for joining us from Glasgow University by Skype. Can I check, Professor Docherty, that you can hear us okay?

Good morning. Yes, I can hear you perfectly.

Thank you very much for joining us. And can I compliment you on your background, and your wonderful selection of books, and how neatly they're all arranged, which I think compares well with backgrounds I'm familiar with from other sessions, when we've had witnesses Skype in? So, thank you.

Can I commence by asking you, in general, what your assessment is of the importance of executive transport bodies to an extent, at least, distinct from the central Government that they support?

Okay. [Inaudible.]—to bring together a range of professional people, many of whom might not normally be employed by the central civil service. So, I've spent 20 years researching the governance of transport and related issues, and I think I've come to the conclusion, having done that, not just in Scotland, but across the UK and Europe, that the more specialist or specialised the professional agency with responsibility is, the better decision making that you end up with. And I say that because transport is perhaps a uniquely difficult political policy area to deal with. And I think Members will be aware of much of what I'm about to say, but the old truism is that, whenever a decision is made to make a particular transport investment, the lead times of that project are such that the people who make those choices are rarely around to see the benefits from them, or even to get the political capital from the decision. So, it's very important to take a long-term view, and it's also very important, I think, to make sure that there's an open and transparent prioritisation framework for making investment decisions.

One of my biggest critiques of transport strategies that you see from all agencies—Government departments, et cetera—around the UK and elsewhere, is that they tend to promise that everything will get better for everyone everywhere at the same time. In fact, when we make transport decisions, we improve accessibility and the economic potential of some places. Sometimes, by doing that, we actually make it more difficult for the economy to grow in others. So, transport is an intensely political process, and I think that that separation between the professional technical expertise and political decision making is essential for transparency.

What would you see as the key elements of effective governance for such bodies?

So, in terms of outcomes, effective governance to me is about spending scarce public resources on the right things. So, again, Members will also be aware—there are so many transport schemes that we'd all like to build, and a pipeline, usually, that can be measured in the decades, if not even longer. So, there are always demands from different communities, different interest groups, different stakeholders, for their scheme to be the one that is progressed. I think that being able to have a decision-making process that is as transparent as it's possible to be, where all of these competing political demands and trade-offs are analysed in the open, so that decisions are made clearly about resource allocation, is the most important thing to do.

Again, I think that reinforces my opening points about the advantages of a specialist technical agency, because, particularly in transport, we are able to set out the criteria by which we make investment choices perhaps more clearly than in many other areas of public policy. So, I think, often, you find that political preferences about scheme choice are not the same as those that would be recommended by experts. That's fair enough. That's the political bargain. That's how we negotiate the allocation of resources between places and between communities, but we have to absolutely transparent about how and why that's done.

Thank you. Can I bring in Bethan Sayed for a quick question? 

I just wanted to ask about your comment in saying that it should be taken out of the political sphere. I'm wondering how you think that's possible, given that accountability needs to be somewhere. If it was with an agency and there was no political accountability, surely it would be very hard to be transparent. So, I just wanted to understand what you meant by that.  

Okay. Sorry, I should—[Inaudible.] Obviously, even in the agency model, the Minister in the Assembly Government or in any of the other authorities across the UK, or equivalent in the English devolved institutions, would retain ultimate political accountability for the decisions that are made. I said that because of the transparency point. I think it's very important, when we've got so many competing priorities for investment, that we have as much information set out about them as is possible, and any transport strategy will be a selection of competing schemes with different costs and benefits. I think that, actually, accountability is improved if these processes are, if not put beyond politics, but if they are put in a separate box almost, so that we can see the technical appraisal and the way that prioritisation recommendations have been made. It is, of course, for—in your case—the Assembly, the Senedd, or the other political or representative chambers to take the decisions about where actually to deploy resources. But I think that separation of responsibilities between setting out the economic case, as we understand it technically, and political decision making is very helpful to increase the clarity and accountability of why investments are directed to some places and not others.    

Professor, we don't expect you to be a Wales expert on our very early stage emerging model with Transport for Wales, but I just wonder, to the extent that you are aware of any arrangements that we are making through the Welsh Government here—whether you think that they are a sensible approach relative to what you've seen elsewhere, particularly perhaps in Scotland. 

Of course. So, I'm aware that you've set up Transport for Wales and that you're moving towards this kind of national executive agency. One thing I'm slightly less clear about, which we might want to discuss, are the reasons for the limited company model, which I know is something that is being pursued. There may be reasons for recruitment of staff and, indeed, procurement of contracts, which—I can understand why you'd go down that model. But the general idea of having some kind of executive agency, I think, is a very good one. 

If you look at those agencies that have worked best across the UK, and this is something that I've been researching with colleagues, and I've published on quite a bit, I think you can use Transport for London as the obvious model of good practice. It's easy, of course, or relatively easier, in an organisation like TfL, where the funding environment in different—it's had a five-year funding plan from central Government and also the sheer scale of resources is different from any other agency across the UK. But what's very important about TfL is that it has, probably, the best cluster of professional expertise in transport planning and economics of any body in the UK—certainly better than the Department for Transport, and it's comparable with any agency anywhere in Europe. And, in my view, if you're able to put together that kind of expertise, you will get better decisions.

And also I think what happens then is that the professional labour market pool, which the agencies are able to recruit from, is different from that that you would get with the traditional civil service, because the recruitment mechanisms and the way in which traditional civil service positions are defined is not always attractive to people that come from particular disciplines and who want to be specialists. So, I think you end up with a different set of expertise, a different blend of people, and, if that's managed well, that can be very useful.

Thank you. Could I bring in David Rowlands?

Yes. We've already mentioned those essential elements of scrutiny, transparency and accountability. How should these be embedded in Wales, and should the approach differ from an arm's-length, central Government advisory or delivery body like Transport for Wales, compared to the local government structures like joint transport authorities?

Okay, I think there's quite a lot to unpack there. One thing that you might explore carefully is the notion of having Transport for Wales just as a delivery agency, with policy development and implementation, decision-making powers held in a different organisation. So, if you look back at Transport Scotland—and I was a non-executive director in the first iteration of TS in 2006 to 2010—it was originally set up as a delivery body with a relatively narrow remit for particular policy areas, effectively managing the roads network, advising on rail post rail devolution and delivering the national concessionary fares scheme.

But, very quickly, what happened was that an evident tension grew up between a professional body asked to deliver projects that it hadn't appraised and it hadn't prioritised. And so there was a difficult period where the kinds of professional expertise that I talked about in my previous answer—so, people who are professional transport planners or economists, who had come through those career tracks, who were staffing the new agency and who were responsible for the delivery of projects—were very uncomfortable with list of things that they'd been given to deliver, because they were politically inspired and they hadn't been developed and prioritised in that transparent arm's-length sort of way that I talked about earlier. So, for that period, which lasted a couple of years or so, inside Transport Scotland that was quite a difficult time. And, again, as you probably know from your briefings, the Scottish Government decided to reform Transport Scotland and to put all of the Scottish Government's devolved transport powers into that body. And now it, effectively, acts as a specialist department of Government. So, although it has an agency background, it doesn't quite operate like that.

In local authorities, my experience across the UK is that for at least the now 20 plus years since local government reform, particularly in Scotland—also, arguably, I think, in Wales and parts of England—that kind of professional expertise has been so hollowed out of local authorities for a variety of reasons: one is the funding environment and, secondly, just that the people that used to occupy transport roles in local authorities are likely to work elsewhere now, either in specialist agencies like TfL or in the private sector. I think it's very difficult outside the largest cities—[Inaudible.]—more significant—to put together any kind of expertise that makes local authorities good transport decision-making bodies. In many ways, that's unfortunate, because local knowledge can be very important. I think the evidence is that not many local authorities now are particularly strong, professionally or technically, in transport.

Okay. Can we move on to the importance of engagement with stakeholders? What structures and approaches would you expect to see in place for both types of body, and how should stakeholders be engaged in the development and operation of such organisations?

Okay. Three things there. One is that I think it's very important for these organisations to have a very accessible and transparent formal consultation process and mechanisms, and there are a variety of ways, I'm sure, that your Government departments do these during inquiries such as this and in the normal course of business. Whenever there is a significant question of policy or you have an inquiry about the future of a particular mode or a particular region, there should be a formal consultation process, normally done online now, where all of the relevant stakeholders are invited to put their views on investment priorities on the record. So, that's a kind of minimum position that I think that most organisations will be aware of and comfortable with. The problem with that, of course, is that that doesn't reach all stakeholders. So, the best examples I've seen of mechanisms that complement that kind of baseline are to be active and to use some of the emerging methods, like citizens' panels, particularly to try and reach younger people and older people and those who don't normally respond to formal consultations.

So, stakeholder engagement is a bit of an art. There's a baseline that requires, I think—or a baseline that most organisations are familiar with, which is about written record-keeping of those stakeholders, so other agencies, other Government departments, business and sectoral interest groups et cetera, whom we all interact with all the time and whom we expect to have views on investment decisions.

But then there's a second level, which is really important, about reaching users of the transport system who wouldn't normally perhaps engage in these kinds of methods. And the best ones I've seen recently are the kinds of, as I said, citizens' panel events, where either facilitators that are third parties are used or experts from within the organisation go into communities, go into user groups and proactively engage with them to develop and elicit views and evidence on priorities.

The third thing I would say—and having been a non-executive director of TS in its early agency days and now on our rail operating company—is that I think it's very important to have third-party non-executive experts as part of board-level decision making. I think that that challenge function is very important. I think back to my time on TS, and I think the most important contribution I was able to make was to consistently remind people who were surrounded by what can be very complex and technical civil service process demands that, actually, what matters at the end of the day is spending money on the right things and sometimes to challenge some of their professional and technical recommendations to political decision makers. So, I would always recommend that some kind of non-executive-type input from academics or from other experts in the field is necessary at that very top level.

Could I just ask you on that point—? One criticism that we've heard made, at least potentially, of where TfW has been developing in its early stages is that the non-executives aren't especially transport, expert people. Would you be concerned at that?

No, not necessarily. Transport is a derived demand. This is what everybody who does a transport degree learns on day one and then most people forget for the rest of their careers. So, we invest in transport and the transport system is there to enable us to do other things—to access employment, to access healthcare, to access education, for example—and it's the end uses and the end users who are the important focus of the system. So, I don't necessarily think that people from a non-transport background are a bad thing. Any of you who have recruited colleagues or people to these kinds of roles will know that it's the abilities and the skill sets of the individuals that are important, so it's their potential to be a critical friend and to understand the limitations of the processes of the organisation with which they're being involved but also to be able to challenge them such that the decisions that those processes make are robust.

Can I bring in Hefin David at this stage?

I just missed the first thing you said. You said that the first thing people learn when they do transport degrees and then they forget it afterwards—what was that? I just missed it. 

That transport is a derived demand. So, it's the acceptance we don't travel around for the sake of it: we travel around to do other things. 

Right. Why does that influence the knowledge and skills of those leading a body? 

Well, to use the health service as an example, because the health service is one of the greatest generators of transport demand, people who understand the organisation of the health service, who understand who the patients who attend the health service on a daily basis are and what their needs are, that's a level of detailed sectoral knowledge that wouldn't necessarily be available to transport planners.

So, to give you an example of something else I'm involved in at the moment that might be useful, the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport agency in the west of Scotland is currently rewriting its statutory regional transport strategy, and I've been asked to chair its strategic advisory group, and we don't have any transport people in that group at all. We have people from a public health background, we have people from economic development, we have a couple of entrepreneurs, we have people who are from a background in urban design and planning. And what we're trying to do through that mechanism is to elicit a set of understandings and challenges to that strategy precisely from people who see the impacts of the transport system, see what it delivers and see where the gaps in it are, but are not transport specialists, because that gives a completely different perspective on what the challenges might be and also what our investment priorities should be. 

Okay. Can I move on to think about the bodies that exist in the UK? In your answer to Mark Reckless, you mentioned Transport for London and, sort of, did a mini case of Transport for London, but what other bodies might we take inspiration from?

Well, Transport Scotland is probably the body that looks most similar to what Transport for Wales might become because, of course, it's in a similar devolved environment with reasonably similar scope and scale. You may wish also to look at some of the stronger regional transport planning bodies on the continent. Another country with which I work quite a lot and that looks quite similar to the devolved nations in the UK in terms of the population size and the urban-rural mix is Sweden, and, so, they have very strong public transport authorities at the regional level that don't look dissimilar to Transport Scotland or a model that Transport for Wales might emulate. And they've been very successful, particularly in constructing the kind of strategy that underpins local rail development, which is at the heart of the Welsh rail and metro franchise. So, somewhere like Skåne, for example—the region in the south of Sweden around Malmö—is quite a good example of a regional authority that's relatively powerful and has a strategy that looks similar to that which you might want to emulate in Wales.

And how does the local context inform the development of a transport body? So, for example, the topographical characteristics, the geography of an area. Does that influence the kind of body you need to deliver for those areas?

There's a difficult question. There are different approaches to that. I think the most common approach—the delineating transport authority—either is just to use a natural governance-type boundary that's just—. Of the example in Sweden I just gave you, the majority of trips are, effectively, contained within a travel-to-work region. So, the normal transport planning assumption is to create regional or local bodies that are based on travel-to-work areas. Now, of course, in the kinds of deeply rural environments that we have in much of Scotland and you have much in mid, west and north Wales, these places are very rural and they're at some significant distance from any of the major cities. So, that environment might justify a different body.

The other thing to say is that as well as the geographical considerations, there will be—and there are—increasingly stark demographic differences between places. So, in most of the UK's deep rural areas, the population tends to have different demands; it tends to be older, it tends to be trying to access different kinds of services, et cetera. So, there is a strong case for local and regional delineation of agencies, but where the lines are actually drawn is always difficult because it's rarely possible to get it right in the sense that it matches existing governance agencies, plus our natural travel geography, plus a cohesive demographic.

Is it easier to deliver a transport system in a concentric area, for example like Manchester, than it would be in south Wales, for example?

Probably. I don't know the Manchester example very well, but the policy challenges that Transport for Greater Manchester has got are relatively straightforward, at least conceptually. They've got a metropolitan area that is growing strongly and recentralising, so the demand for travel into the centre of Manchester is increasing largely because of the restructuring of the economy, and we see this in Glasgow as well—employment is increasingly moving into the centre, so the traditional radial transport demand is still growing quite strongly, and these are things that we understand the policy interventions to fix. We can't always afford to do them, but, conceptually, they're not unusual.

South Wales has a distinctive geography. You've got the topography of the Valleys, and you've got a fairly well-defined set of corridors, and so, in that sense, urban transport planning for the region in south Wales is not something, I don't think, that would look terribly different from most other metropolitan areas.

But connecting across the Valleys is the difficulty.

That topography is very difficult. It's not a part of the world I know well. But, to make some general observations, you've invested a lot of money in the Heads of the Valleys road, for example, which is one of the few corridors that accommodates that kind of movement. You're never going to build a rail network that is going to deliver that kind of movement either, so you've got a road-based challenge in an area that we know has a particular history of industrialisation and a set of economic challenges that are probably unique within the UK context. So, that's an example of a planning problem that is different and would probably require different solutions from elsewhere.

I've gone off the topic a little bit and gone into my Valleys interests. Can I come back to Transport Scotland? You said it developed incrementally. Are there things we can learn from that incremental development that we can actually then transfer and turn into a plan for the development of Transport for Wales?

That is a very good question. If you'll permit me, let me talk out loud a bit about what I think was the major issue that lay behind that, to see if that explains things better.

So, I said at the beginning that, when Transport Scotland was set up, it was a delivery agency and yet policy development responsibility rested still with the central civil service and the Scottish Government, and that was an uncomfortable period. I think what changed there were two things. One is the confidence amongst the professional staff and officers inside Transport Scotland to say, 'We are the experts. You set us up. If you gave us policy responsibility, then we would deliver better outcomes for you', and by 'you' I mean Government Ministers. I think, secondly and most importantly, after a while Ministers decided that, actually, they would benefit from that professional expertise and they would benefit from more challenge about their priorities, and that that would deliver a better strategy for Scotland for public investment overall. But that requires a level of—I was about to say 'political maturity'; that sounds far too condescending, but it does require a political culture in which Ministers are prepared to be challenged and perhaps change their views because of technical advice.

The best equivalent public policy example I can think of to help explain that is one from the health service. So, for a long, long time the evidence has been fairly clear that health outcomes are much better if we organise the health service on the basis of fewer, larger hospitals, and leave hospital treatment for a particular set of interventions. Now, we all know that the closure of local hospitals is one of the single most difficult issues that elected members in any tier of government can deal with, and yet slowly in Scotland—and this applies to both political administrations—that message has also got through because, like Transport Scotland, the health service is probably the most professionally specialist area of the civil service. So, you can see that kind of debate and dialogue between the technical, professional staff and elected politicians change and develop over the years when politicians became more difficult to accept advice that might be politically challenging for them.

Okay. Hello?

Anything more from you, Hefin?

I think the signal's down.

Are you still with us, Professor Docherty?

I am.

Great. Any more questions, Hefin?

Regional transport partnerships—. Can I just check the success of the seven regional transport partnerships? We're suggesting for Wales joint transport authorities. Is that a good path to follow? Have they been successful in Scotland? Should we continue down this path in Wales? 

My view of the RTPs in Scotland is that they've been of mixed and limited success. So, you may be aware that the legislation that set up our RTPs is quite complex and that there are a range of different levels of powers that the RTPs can take over. We call them models 1, 2 and 3. And, so, we've got one RTP, which is in the west, around Glasgow, which was a passenger transport executive of the kind you'd find in the English metropolitan counties, and so had a much stronger institutional memory, a larger staff base and had more professional expertise, and it's the only meaningful model 3 partnership that we've got, and it still delivers a range of policies on that basis.

The other models that have been more successful are those like the partnership in the north-east of Scotland, which had a voluntary history. So, it was a voluntary partnership of local authorities before the legislation and it still continued to work on that basis, and there is reasonably efficient and consensual, I think, decision making there. It's hard to say that the rest of the RTPs in Scotland have been a success, and I don't necessarily say that as a criticism of the bodies or the people who are in them, but their role and remit has never really been particularly clear, especially as Transport Scotland has become, over time, more successful at delivering projects. So, one thing I would say very strongly is that it's very tempting when designing a new system of governance to try and have several tiers or several kinds of authorities to meet the range of stakeholder and local needs that you might have. But, if you do that, it then becomes very easy for these bodies to overlap and to become confusing and to not take decisions because the system is too complex, and there is some research in Scotland that tries to look at our model from that basis as an explanation for why the RTPs haven't done so well. So, I would counsel you very strongly: think about how many bodies you actually need and not to have any more than are required.

One final thing I would say about joint transport authorities is that these are a very common model across Europe, and where you have an urban area with a fragmented system of local governance like you have in south Wales or we have across central Scotland, as soon as you have representation or a decision-making body where there's an equal set of representatives from each area rather than there being an obvious population influence on the number of members on the decision-making committees, then you very quickly get a kind of decision making where all must have prizes and prioritisation towards fewer, larger projects is very difficult to have. So, the form of joint authority that you create through the members and what the arithmetic of the decision making is can be very influential on the kind of policies and investment choices that that organisation makes. 

Thank you. Could I bring in Bethan Sayed? 

I just wanted to pick up quickly on a comment you made earlier to Hefin David. I take your point in relation to comparisons with other departments, but, in relation to health, I think it's quite a difficult comparison to make because I don't envisage there'll be an opportunity or a realisation from the Scottish National Party Government or from the Labour Government here to create an agency or an arm's-length body for the health department. So, while they may listen to experts, it's not going to be the same type of situation that we're discussing in relation to transport where you would have this type of limited company-style, arm's-length approach. So, in relation to your comments earlier about a limited company and whether this is the most appropriate way forward, could you give us some insight into your views on that? Of course, many of us were calling for a truly not-for-profit company. Do you think that, through a limited company, the aims of what the Government want to achieve are realistic in that regard? 

Just to clarify the issue about health as a comparator: of course it's different. But, the way that the health service is run in Scotland is that the civil service expertise and NHS management expertise within central Government do have substantial policy autonomy in that sense, and do make some very strong recommendations to Government. The reason that I raised that example is because the dialogue under these circumstances between people who are politically accountable, Ministers, and these professionals is very different in that kind of context and, I would argue, better—and I think that there's substantial evidence for that—than it would be in different kinds of set-up.

But you rightly raised that if the home of the professional expertise is a limited company, then that's potentially a very different context for that kind of debate to happen. I'm not entirely sure why you want to have a limited company.

It wasn't my idea. I'm just—

No, I know. [Laughter.]

I just wanted—. I mean, this was, I think—if I'm fair to the Welsh Government—allegedly the best that they could get from the way that the devolved system works. So, I just wanted your expert view. Did it have to be this, or can it be amended to something that would potentially work better? Or, is it too early to tell?

Well, I'm definitely not an expert on the details of Welsh devolution legislation. So, if your civil service advice is that this is the way it had to be, then that's okay. It's somewhat different from, 'This is the best of a number of available options.' I find it hard to understand why you wouldn't want to create a national Government agency along the lines of TS or Transport for London, which effectively is a professional agency of the devolved London Assembly and Government. That's what it is.

We have a very interesting example of a limited company in Scotland in transport that doesn't have a very good history, and this is one that you should possibly learn from. So, there was an organisation called Transport Initiatives Edinburgh, set up around 20 years ago, and it was created to be the delivery vehicle for the Edinburgh tram. I think all Members will be aware of the general history of the Edinburgh tram, which was that it didn't have a good early construction period and had to be rescued by Transport Scotland in order to be finally delivered. Indeed, TIE was also given responsibility for the construction or the upgrading of the Alloa railway line when it was reopened for passenger service, again about 20 years ago, and it did not manage that project well either. You'll be able to look on the record at various Scottish Parliament committees that looked at why that might be the case.

So, you know, the standard reason that one hears for having these kinds of arm's-length companies, which are governed by general company law rather than being a public agency or an agency of Government, is that they need to recruit the best people and therefore they need to pay them salaries that are not within civil service grades. I hear that argument a lot, and with the exception of TfL, where it is able to pay really quite high salaries, I don't see a reason—or, rather, I don't see much evidence that that's ever made much difference to outputs. It certainly didn't do that in Scotland.  

So, you think there's potentially a risk with this current mechanism for delivery. Obviously, we have had concern from the Public and Commercial Services Union that there doesn't seem to be an apparent workforce plan. Prospect, another trade union, has identified a risk of the duplication of tasks. So, you don't think it's as simple as saying, 'Well, we may be able to get better staff in because of this set-up.'

I hear that argument a lot, and I think it's slightly lazy, to be honest. I think there's a lot more to it than that. One thing I would say, however, is that good organisational design is not the same as the ownership or the legal status of the company, necessarily. So, you can have organisations that are successful or that fail in the public and private sectors and hybrid models, and, mostly, that's not really to do with ownership. My test, or my kind of challenge would be: why this model and why not something that is better understood and more straightforward? 

Okay. And my final question is about—you may be aware that there's a White Paper out at the moment in relation to extending the role of Transport for Wales, and it's got particularly ambitious plans in relation to that. Do you think it's too early to be looking at those things? You said in your initial statement that the mistake Government makes is to try and say, 'We can do it all.' Is it too early to try and bring in bus regulation and other elements into the mix at this point?

I think the answer to that is down to the people and the expertise that are in the organisation. TfL, which, of course, as I said, is very well resourced, and when it was set up was able to attract lots of people because it was a very enticing place to work, would not have had a problem doing things quickly because of the depth of the expertise base it had and the political capital it enjoyed. That's very hard to replicate anywhere else. And I do understand that there are, particularly in the bus sector at the moment—where the industry is, possibly, in terminal decline, and yet we see the social impacts of reducing bus services every day. I understand the urgency in the bus sector and I understand why Governments want to be able to intervene quickly. I don't say that that's necessarily the wrong thing to do, but you'd need to make sure that you have people with the appropriate skills to be able to do that kind of planning and the work that goes behind that, and these people are not easy to find. On the bus issue, a good example that you might wish to pursue and ask colleagues to advise you on is Nexus, which is a transport agency for the north of England. You probably know that they had very ambitious bus regulatory proposals that have essentially not come to fruition because they found it very difficult to implement them for a variety of policy and legal reasons. If bus regulations and that process is of interest to the committee, I recommend that you speak to colleagues there.

Nexus, is it? Nexus.

Yes. It's the transport authority for the north-east of England—Tyne and Wear.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Now, to turn to the issue of the national joint transport authority. Jack Sargeant has some questions, but if I can just bring in David Rowlands for a question on that first.

It seems as if Wales is going to have three agencies delivering transport, which are: the local authority level, the regional, national and local authority level through JTAs, and at a national level through Transport for Wales. Are there specific functions that Professor Docherty believes should be delivered at each level, or does it depend on circumstances? What factors should be considered in deciding this?

A simple answer to that is: it depends. We began to explore some of these things earlier on with the questions about different geographies and the balance between urban and rural demand. The normal kind of assumption is that the heavier the mode, and therefore, the larger scale of investment to make a significant difference, then, the higher tier of Government tends to be involved. So, for example, management of the rail network, which you have significant ambitions for, would seem to be an obvious responsibility to place at the national level.

The local authorities, especially given their planning powers, are usually best placed to do local interventions. So, if you think about active travel, for example, walking and cycling, that's so intimately connected with physical planning, with housing development, with the location of employment and all the kinds of day-to-day decisions that local authorities make, it, again, seems obvious, and it is generally the case that these powers tend to lie with local authorities. It is harder, therefore, to find what it is that regional transport authorities are for. I think, to come back to my Scottish example in answers from earlier on, part of the reasons why many of our RTPs have struggled a bit is because it's never been very clear why they're there and what it is that they do that is different from local authorities or from a national tier. So, I think you'd have to be very clear and transparent about what the problem is at a regional level that can't be solved by something else.

One example of that where I think there is a clear justification for a regional tier is that, to come back to the bus industry, bus journeys tend to be local, but they also often cross local authority boundaries in a travel-to-work area, and so, if the bus network is sufficiently publicly controlled to be planned through a mechanism like franchising, for example, it would appear to make sense to have some kind of cross-boundary, i.e. regional model to undertake that task.

Does a body like Transport for Wales allow it to have a much more holistic approach to transport in general?

Yes. Bodies of that scale do tend to do that. The reasons that I say 'yes' are because of the kinds of policy outputs that are well known across Europe, so these kinds of bodies have taken the lead, for example, on integrated ticketing across many regions of Europe. They also tend to be the home of planning expertise in some respects. So, yes, they can make a difference, but one of the recurring themes that I come back to is that structures are important, but the right blend of expertise and actually recruiting the right people to do the job is always the most important factor in policy success.

Thank you. Can I bring in Jack Sargeant for our concluding questions?

Thank you, Chair. Just to round up, really, you spoke at length about JTAs and so on, in the White Paper—. It's currently not clear what the relationship between Transport for Wales and the JTAs will be, but in the White Paper, it does propose, potentially, a national JTA to work alongside Transport for Wales. What issues do you think this will raise and is this a risk worth taking? Does it seem sensible? You spoke earlier on about how it would potentially make sense to have at a local or regional level, but at national—does that seem strange to you?

Yes, it does. I'm not clear why you would want to have, effectively, a national agency and then a separate national joint transport authority. I don't know whether that's a quirk of the decision to propose a limited company, but that, to me, sounds like at least one too many organisations.

Members may also be interested in something else that is happening in Scotland at the moment. The Scottish Government has just finished the consultation and is in the development phase of the new national transport strategy for Scotland. As part of that, it's had a review of what are called the roles and responsibilities between all tiers of transport governance in Scotland. The final output from that work is not quite published yet, but I understand it's imminent. One of the issues there has been about the interaction between the regional and national tiers, and something that the Scottish Government has considered—and I don't know whether this is going to be an output—is about the organisation of Transport Scotland and rather than it having a national headquarters, as it currently does, and effectively operating from one site, whether it should be organised regionally. So, there is perhaps potential to think about Transport for Wales or the all-Wales bodies that come from this process and think about how they should be organised, both in terms of their statutory responsibilities, but the day-to-day organisation of where work is done. So, having a single national authority based, presumably, in Cardiff is going to feel very remote from some of the rural issues that you might have in mid or north Wales, as indeed, having a single national agency headquarters in Glasgow is often criticised in Scotland for being remote and not understanding the planning implications or the broader implications or its investment decisions in areas such as the highlands or the south of Scotland.

So, I think the model that's been proposed—it strikes me as odd as to why you would have two different national bodies. I don't know whether there's a legal quirk that's behind that given the limited company model. But it also strikes me as not entirely clear what the relationship and the separation or overlap of powers is between your joint transport authorities, which will be perhaps small regions but at least regional in nature and your national institutions.

Thank you. Just very briefly, how important is it to have that clear division and public understanding, really? You spoke in earlier evidence saying that the overlap of different authorities make it more difficult, which I think we all understand, and decisions simply don't get made. How important is that, really? 

That's a difficult thing to answer, because it depends as much probably on local political cultures as on what day-to-day operations, decision making, collaboration and co-operation are like. I am enough of a dirigiste at heart to think that fewer harder boundaries between organisations usually works better, because it brings clarity to those issues where there is conflict between different scales or between different interests. And I like to think that if we have clarity on where the areas of disagreement are, then that actually makes it easier to solve them. 

Thanks, Chair. 

Professor Docherty, can I thank you very much indeed for your evidence, which I think we found extremely useful? We'll be sending you—

Thank you very much for the invitation. I'm sorry again—committee members may be aware that I've been a little unwell in recent weeks, so I haven't been able to give you a written paper, but if you'd like me to follow up with any of the things I mentioned today, I'd be more than happy to do so afterwards. 

We're very grateful for the offer. We will send you a transcript of this so you can check for accuracy if you wish, and I will speak to the clerks about any follow-up questions that we have. Thank you very much indeed. 

Thank you very much. Bye now. 

And Members—if we can have a break until 10.30 a.m. 

Good morning, gentlemen. Thank you very much for joining us. And welcome back. We have, on the headsets, translation on channel 1, amplification on channel 0, as needed. Could I ask you both to introduce yourselves and the organisation you're representing for the record, please?

Iwan Prys Jones, representing the North Wales Economic Ambition Board, and co-ordinating transport activities on behalf of the board across north Wales.

Thank you.

Roger Waters. I'm the lead transport officer for the Cardiff capital region city deal, and the Cardiff capital region transport authority.

Could I initially ask you both what you think of Transport for Wales and how it's been progressing so far?

Okay. I think it's still in a sort of formative stage, I guess, and going through the process of forming, storming, norming, leading to performing. And I think, particularly in terms of the franchise procurement, you'd have to acknowledge that was a very successful process—quite innovative, competitive dialogue, very complex, significant confidentiality issues, which I think were managed well. I think it was quite inclusive, certainly from the Cardiff capital region. We were involved in discussions, particularly around the metro element and we seconded a member of staff into the procurement team to give the view, if you like, from the local authorities. It was slightly frustrating that we couldn't get any feedback from that because of the confidentiality, but that was the nature of the beast and entirely appropriate. So, I think, through that element, it was very well done.

Mr Prys Jones.

I'd echo a lot of what was said. I think the franchise procurement process did go reasonably well. I know there are a few teething problems at the moment with rail services, arising from some of the historical legacy issues of rolling stock, but I think the actual end result, rolled forward in two or three years' time, by the time new trains and new services come on board, will deliver a step change in terms of quality for the rail network. I'd also echo some of the issues and concerns. I think we have a positive and open working relationship with TfW as far as they could go, because of confidentiality issues, and that was reflected in quite a high level of projects, which we considered as priorities, finally being included in the end package.

And do you think the governance arrangements for Transport for Wales are appropriate and sensible?

I think they were certainly appropriate for where and what it's delivering at the moment in terms of a direct series of appointments by Welsh Government to secure the delivery of the franchise. Those governance processes seem to have worked quite well, and would seem to be appropriate for that. Clearly, as the role for TfW changed over time, and in particular how it might play a much wider role in terms of the wider transport network, particularly when it starts moving away from things that are purely the responsibility of Welsh Government towards issues where local government has also got a role to play in the transport network, then I think the relationship between local authorities and Welsh Government and with TfW as a contractor/provider probably needs some further thought and some further work as that rolls forward. And I think the process that's being undergone at the moment on the back of the transport White Paper might provide a way to achieve that review of the role, as it changes over time.

And Mr Waters, what's your view?

I guess the only thing I'd add to Iwan's comments would be around the potential emergence of joint transport authorities through the White Paper and having that dialogue to understand how these roles will crystallise to make sure we don't get duplication and we get the most efficient and best outcomes for Wales.

And currently, is there enough information about what TfW is currently doing that's available to you and in the public domain?

In terms of their remit and the information provided in the remit letter, particularly the stuff around rail and the work that they've started doing on coming up with proposals for reform on buses—that bit is clear. I think there is still some uncertainty over what their long-term role will be, but in particular how that then interfaces with some of the transport responsibilities that local authorities have. The process of moving towards establishing joint transport authorities or regional transport bodies or whatever it is we end up with—that process needs to emerge having given clarity over how TfW relates, not just back to Welsh Government, but how it relates to local authorities as part of that role as well. I think it's only if we end up with a structure where it's clearly set out what the different responsibilities of all three of those organisations are is when we'll know how the overall picture comes together.  I think you could probably also throw into that mix exactly what the role of the National Infrastructure Commission is also, then, sitting alongside that, in terms of how we prioritise projects. There's no doubt that, if we get that right, it'll become a really powerful mechanism for identifying what the key transport priorities for Wales are for the next decades. If it's not clear, then it could potentially cause increased workloads, I think, in trying to resolve any lack of clarity around the different relationships between people.

Hefin has some questions about those future governance arrangements.

A simple question, really: what would you like Transport for Wales's future role to be?

One of the key issues for me where I think Transport for Wales have got a clear role to play is to build the kind of skill base and capacity that’s needed to deliver major transport projects. I think we’ve been—. There’s been a—. There’s no denying that the capacity among local authorities has dropped off significantly in the last few years as a result of local government change, budgets and all the other issues that have been discussed widely.

So, I think having that arm’s-length, professional, well-resourced organisation that can support the delivery of major projects is a critical role to play, and I think that professional advice bit that they can also offer is also important.

So, you think it’s appropriate that national transport policy remains with the Welsh Government.

Yes. I hesitate a little bit there, because I think there's equally a role for local authorities and regional bodies to have an effective say in how transport projects are prioritised as well. At the end of the day, transport is a means to an end. It’s an important means to an end, but it needs to sit alongside economic growth planning, it needs to sit alongside how we plan for the delivery of services, and transport is a means to achieve all of that. So, it needs to be properly integrated, not just in terms of national transport policy, but how that then relates to the wide delivery of services across the whole of the public sector.

And from a scrutiny and accountability point of view, it’s always difficult with a new organisation to think about how we ensure that organisation is appropriately scrutinised. What kind of scrutiny arrangements do you think should be in place for Transport for Wales?

At the moment, their role is very much focused on delivering things that Welsh Government have commissioned from them: the rail franchise, and some work on bus. So, the scrutiny relationship is between TfW and Welsh Government at the moment, and that’s probably appropriate for what they’ve been doing up till now.

As the role evolves, and as it starts playing more of a leading role, I think, in transport provision, then how that then relates to local authorities and democratic processes in the local authorities needs picking up and resolving. And I think, as I said a little bit earlier on, that debate around how joint transport authorities or regional transport bodies come together and work with or alongside Welsh Government in how strategic interventions are prioritised and delivered might be a way of resolving that scrutiny issue.

Okay. Roger, do you want to—?

I think the joint transport authorities will obviously be rooted in the local authorities and will have that governance and scrutiny that is already well established—

But Transport for Wales, I was thinking, wouldn't have that.

It isn’t apparent at that level at this moment, but they are very different to a joint transport authority or even the other transport authorities across the country. You know, Transport for Greater Manchester, the midlands, et cetera, they're different animals altogether. This is an arm’s-length company of Welsh Government, so it’ll be for Welsh Government, I guess, to hold it to account and avoid the sort of perceptions of the quango-type role and perhaps not being tied into things.

But I think that where they offer us a real advantage is giving that capacity and capability to crack some of the real big challenges on behalf of Welsh Government. So, the piece about integration of services and ticketing in particular, you know, to put an integrated ticketing platform together and get all of the operators across Wales, all the bus and rail operators, on the same page and working together, I think, is something that needs some special capability and capacity, and I think Transport for Wales have got the potential to do that.

So, your feeling is that, as long as it is accountable to Welsh Government and to scrutiny committees like this one, that would be sufficient—

Well, I think there’d be some issues going forward in terms of identifying schemes, prioritisation, funding, et cetera, and the local authorities would be very interested, of course, in how schemes are prioritised. And I think that should be—. The funding and prioritisation really should be Welsh Government’s, with advice from—the technical advice in terms of business, et cetera, for the projects.

So, with that in mind, what plans and programme information should Transport for Wales publish?

I think the national transport plan and the Welsh transport strategy will be matters for Welsh Government, advised by Transport for Wales. So, I don't see a kind of publishing plans-type role. But, in terms of projects, I think it's important for everybody to understand what is being developed and what is on the cards because it then informs a complementary investment from the local authorities and the JTAs, land use planning and so on. So, it's really important, and I think you'll see that, at the moment, locally, we've got a reasonable idea what will come forward through metro now in south-east Wales. So, you're seeing complementary investment coming through from the city deal and the regional transport authority in developing hubs and investing to add value to the investment that's already being made through the city deal and metro. 

Okay.

I'll just follow up briefly on that. We heard Professor Docherty, as our witness just now from Scotland—he said that in the early stage, with Transport Scotland, it was difficult when a policy and strategy responsibility remained with Scottish Government, including selecting projects for Transport Scotland to take forward, and he feels the system now is better where all that is with Transport Scotland, essentially, the arm's-length body. What would you say to that?

If that's the case, it's probably not run as an arm's-length company of Welsh Government, then: it becomes Welsh Government, effectively, and you need that scrutiny and governance of a Government department. 

Thank you. Could I bring in Bethan Sayed, please?

Roger Waters?

Nothing to add, thanks. 

Okay. I think the issue is one that needs to be tackled at a national level. If the Cardiff capital region dealt with it, then it would be a regional integration piece, and travel, then, to Swansea and so on wouldn't really work. So, you need a Wales-wide solution, and I think the difference that you've got now is a body with the capacity and the capability. You know, they are very, very capable, I believe, of taking this piece forward, and I don't think we had that in place previously. There was probably a reliance on consultants and so on, with no real buy-in and responsibility and accountability. So, do a short piece of work, offer it up, and then it could roll forward after that. But, I think now we're in with a good chance of getting that Wales-wide engagement and involvement of all the operators.

I think it would be inefficient to try and develop a system just for the Cardiff capital region. It's 10 authorities. It's about 1.5 million people. We should have a Wales-wide opportunity so that the interfaces then will be across the border to England, with the big conurbations there in terms of agreeing travel, rather than trying to work on borders around smaller regions within Wales. I think it would be very inefficient.

Thank you, Bethan. Could I ask David Rowlands to come in?

Can we discuss the potential future role of Transport for Wales, including whether witnesses have any clear views on the additional transport functions Transport for Wales should deliver, given the fact that the Minister has said that his aim is that the public transport network will be increasingly directly owned or operated by Transport for Wales?  

I see that relating specifically, or particularly then, to the rail network. At the moment, the core Valleys lines have transferred into Welsh Government from central Government and Network Rail, and that's the first time that Wales has had direct responsibility for not only running the railway—the rolling stock—but the tracks themselves, and the responsibility for maintenance. You could see, if this is successful, then that would roll out to more and more routes across Wales. I think that's an area of focus that would be very worthwhile. I think you've had evidence from others—Professor Cole and others—that suggests that commissioning local bus services is probably better done at a local authority or regional level because of the local knowledge, and I'd agree with that.

I'd echo a lot of that, and it harks back, in a way, to the first series of questions, I think, about the relationship between Welsh Government, local authorities and Transport for Wales. It needs to be a joined-up process. I think bus and rail need to be far better integrated than they have historically been. When we've got such limited transport networks across parts of Wales, to have bus effectively competing with rail makes no sense whatsoever. They should be feeding into each other. 

The other tension I think we've struggled with in previous years is that passenger transport is seen as having a whole different set of prioritisation processes from decisions that are taken about road investments and infrastructure, whereas it actually should be about how we stitch together an effective transport network that works for people across the whole of the country. 

So, it's actually quite hard, I think, to put defining lines in to say, 'That's their responsibility. That's local authorities' responsibility. That's national Government's responsibility.' Actually, we're a small enough country to be able to stitch that together and be able to work together effectively to deliver a transport network.

From my perspective, in the discussions that we've had amongst local authorities in north Wales, there seems to be clarity emerging that if prioritisation decisions are taken jointly by Welsh Government Ministers and by local authorities, through some form of regional transport body with a clearly focused delivery body, which would be TfW, and with a role for local authorities also in terms of delivery, that strikes me as being an appropriate arrangement for the future. And if that partnership works effectively, it ought to be possible to work out relatively straightforwardly who takes responsibility for delivering what bits of the overall picture.

We're not there yet. Maybe the White Paper will potentially provide an opportunity for us to stitch that together. But I think it's important, right from the outset, that it's seen as a partnership, not a takeover bid by somebody else, not somebody dictating that's how it's going to be done, but a coming together of organisations right across Wales, tasked with the job of delivering an integrated transport network that supports economic growth.

The Minister has identified a number of different roles that Transport for Wales could take over, which includes buses, cycling, et cetera—they're obviously the responsibility of local government, many of them, at the moment. So, what issues might arise out of that? There's obviously a potential for conflict within that or duplication, so where do you think those competencies should lie?

It comes back to the issue I was talking about a minute or two ago around the blurred lines of accountability. I don't think it's as simple as to just say, 'It's a local issue', or, 'It's a regional issue', or, 'It's a national issue', because people don't see transport networks in that way. They want to make the journeys that they want to make. There's nothing more frustrating than coming across some kind of a boundary or other that means that you have to buy a new ticket or change vehicle or move from one mode to another.

So, how that comes together is really complex sometimes but ought to be possible to be resolved within the debate that's starting to emerge now about regional transport bodies, joint transport authorities, and the emerging role of Transport for Wales. There are some things—minor cycling projects on the public highway, local bus services, particularly where they relate to education and college transport—where there's clearly a continuing role for local government. But how you then stitch those things together into a regional network and who takes responsibility for delivering what bit of it is perhaps where you start straying into the emerging proposals for regionalisation.

I think this is the great difficulty, isn't it? It's for Transport for Wales, JTAs and local government to recognise their responsibilities and for there not to be that conflict. There is such a potential for conflict, isn't there?

There is, but this is where maturity of partnership working arrangements needs to come into the equation. I strongly believe that it's possible to do that, but it will only really be effective if those proposals are developed as a partnership, as opposed to through some other kind of mechanism—says he, fudging his words.

I know exactly what you mean. 

In terms of the consultation that's under way at the moment relating to JTAs, the overall consultation is related to improving public transport. The JTA is a small element of that, and it looks as if it's opening the issue up then to test the appetite from local authorities and others to take that forward. Our region is still considering that and is formulating a response, but the initial soundings seem positive. If the response from across Wales is in the same vein, then I anticipate we'll see another White Paper later in the year, which hopefully will be a very co-produced piece then with the regions and with the local authorities, so that it sets out some of these issues and gives that crystallisation of where everybody fits in and how we can make it the most effective offer. 

It's very important, the engagement that Transport for Wales has with all the other elements that are there. I just want to make one small point if I can, Chair. I mentioned in the last evidence session the ability that Transport for Wales will have to bring a holistic approach to transport, which could take in planning, et cetera, and a great deal more into the mix than would normally be the situation. Do you think that is a good or a positive side to Transport for Wales? 

I think, through the development of the transport models that they're working on for the region—so there's one in existence for Cardiff capital region at the moment, and they're developing others to suit the other regions—there's an opportunity for Transport for Wales to inform strategic development plans that should hopefully emerge over time, so that the developments are placed in the right place to minimise demands on travel, reducing the need to travel and help form better placemaking. 

Jack Sargeant now has some questions. 

Thank you, Chair. We've spoken quite a lot about the integrated system, which I think needs to go ahead. But I just want to get your views, really, on the proposed JTAs that are set out in the White Paper. There are two options in the White Paper, with one being a single, all-Wales JTA with regional delivery boards, committees. The second option is a national JTA with three separate regional JTAs. Out of those two options, which do you prefer? And do you see a national JTA working alongside Transport for Wales as a sensible approach, a sensible idea?

As I say, we are still formulating those views as regions, so we're jumping the gun a little bit, so these are my personal thoughts rather than perhaps the regions' thoughts on it. We've had previous experience of regional working through the likes of South East Wales Transport Alliance, the South West Wales Integrated Transport Consortium, Trafnidiaeth Canolbarth Cymru and so on. Whilst the budgets were fairly limited, I think it showed the potential that was there to work in that manner, certainly in south-east Wales, with 10 authorities working in accord and prioritising. It took away the need to be submitting 22 bids for transport funding from across Wales and all the inefficiencies that were in place there. It also meant that Welsh Government didn't need to then scrutinise those bids and prioritise and allocate funding perhaps in a difficult manner. So, it took a lot of the inefficiency out of it. The case for the regional JTAs is very strong. I'm unclear at this point in time, and I think that's why we're looking forward to perhaps the next round of discussion on forming that White Paper as to how the national piece will work. 

In north Wales, there seems to be strong support from members for regionalisation of strategic transport planning. There's recognition that people don't operate and live purely within single authority boundaries. They need to travel not just within Wales, but across border as well and, therefore, transport networks need to be integrated.

I tend to support Roger's view that the proposals for regional JTAs seem easier to resolve than how a governance structure for a national JTA might be put together, but I touched earlier on the need for it to be an effective partnership across all layers of government. I would hope that the process of consultation leading up to the current White Paper, and then any subsequent White Papers, is actually held in a positive manner that enables us to put together a structure that works for both local authorities and Welsh Government but delivers the ultimate goal of improved transport networks across Wales.

So, it's not a direct answer to your question, because I don't think we have one yet. All of those things become possible, but I think there's a discussion to be had about exactly what is the most effective way of delivering a properly integrated network. And it may well be that it's a blend of some things being delivered nationally through one governance process and other things being delivered in partnership through some form of regional transport body or joint transport authority, or whatever it may look like at the end of the day. For me, the critical thing is that both local government and Welsh Government have got a common view around exactly what the critical priority is to be delivered.

One final point, I think, is that it's probably important not to get to hung up on governance structures as well. The governance is important, but it's a means to an end. Actually, what's needed is to deliver the projects that are going to make the difference, which means they have to be prioritised properly and the fundamental question is where the funding comes from to deliver a lot of this stuff. And given that there are debates taking place within the North Wales Economic Ambition Board, the Cardiff capital region, plus other parts of Wales around how economic growth strategies, land use, planning strategies, transport, skills all come together, then the work on transport needs to be seen in that context as well and not just as a piece of work in isolation of everything else.

We heard that particular point from the professor earlier on. Just moving very quickly to governance, then, because it does seem that the Welsh Government are moving towards a three-tiered governance structure—an arrangement with the Welsh Government, Transport for Wales, JTAs and then local government. Without getting too drawn into it, do you feel that sort of structure would be appropriate? And then, in terms of how clear the responsibilities would be, how important is it for clear responsibilities for each tier, or do you think that you could work more fluidly and still have that partnership?

I think I prefer to see it almost as a triangle rather than a tier. That, to me, is what would work, because you then can't make the structure work without all parts of it having an equal slice in the end result. I think the minute you start trying to put it into hierarchies is where we start getting into problems about ownership and conflict between whose responsibility things are. It comes back to what is the most effective structure for delivering an integrated transport network across Wales. I've got a view that that needs local government to be involved every bit as much as it needs Ministers from Welsh Government to be involved, but the third bit of that triangle is about having really effective delivery structures and the capacity to be able to make projects happen, when they are prioritised, in a timely, cost-effective and efficient manner. And if that's what the primary role for TfW is going to be in the future, which seems to be what Ministers have articulated, then I think that's potentially quite a powerful approach.

It's that co-production of the next White Paper that's key, so that we can all contribute to that. 

I think, Hefin, you had some more questions.

So, can you just be clear on the involvement that you've had in the current consultation for the White Paper?

We're aware of the White Paper being developed. The Minister had announced that the paper would be forthcoming for buses. I think it's probably shifted in its direction over recent months, and that's probably been helped by contributions from Transport for Wales in terms of the expertise they have and through the bus strategy work that they've been doing. I think it's predominantly the bus strategy work and our engagement with Transport for Wales and Welsh Government that has influenced the shift in the paper. So, I think there's a lot greater understanding of the issues around bus and how bus operates that has now come into the White Paper that perhaps wasn't there in earlier forms.

So, what involvement has local government had in the development of the White Paper beyond that? I mean, there's surely direct routes into influencing decision making from a local government point of view.

We have regular discussions with Welsh Government on a whole host of different issues. So, as Roger said, the fact that the White Paper was being produced was not a secret at all. In terms of direct input into the way it was drafted, that was fairly limited, but then the paper at the moment is a very high-level piece of work in any event. There's very little in there in terms of really specific details about how some of these issues are going to be developed over time. As Roger alluded to earlier on, our anticipation is that there will be a second White Paper later on in the year where it will be a lot more focused around exactly what kind of structures and working relationships and partnerships are going to be. At the moment, it's got two quite high-level options and a whole pile of quite detailed potential bits of legislation to transform the way in which the bus network can be managed. So, at the moment, we're in the middle of responding to the consultation. Welsh Government have been quite open. They've come out and met with the north Wales transport cabinet members' group meeting in north Wales—I understand they are meeting local authorities in other parts of north Wales—but this first-phase consultation process isn't due to come to an end until March. So far, it's looking positive that Welsh Government are keen and willing to listen to feedback from local authorities in terms of that process leading into March, and post March, we would hope that dialogue continues to get to the second White Paper where the more detailed proposals start to emerge.

How do you perceive the role of the structures of local government fitting in with the plans for the JTAs?

The local authorities are already talking about what might be possible in terms of establishing regional transport bodies, regional transport boards. In north Wales, members have already taken the decision that they are supportive of the principle about moving towards delivering strategic transport issues regionally. We were starting to engage with Welsh Government around how that might fit alongside. Obviously, the JTAs are another opportunity to develop that kind of thinking. But there's recognition at local authority level, certainly in north Wales, that there needs to be a greater level of regional working in order to deliver a properly integrated transport network.

Thank you. Can I ask Jack to raise some of the points around funding that I think you had?

Yes, just to discuss the future funding of Transport for Wales and also the resourcing of TfW. Focusing on resourcing first and the fact that the current consultation responses have raised a number of queries on the actual approach to the resourcing of TfW, I'll just list a few now: they include the suggestion that few staff are employed directly, the suggestion that there is a lack of transport expertise on the board of TfW, and the suggestion that the recruitment and employment practices, terms and conditions and so on, are difficult to identify. Do you agree with those comments in the consultation?

I think TfW has been going through a really intensive period of growth, and that's coupled with the fact that for much of the last couple of years its primary role has been to secure the delivery of a new rail franchise for Wales. That's been the meat and drink of the organisation for much of the last two years, to be honest with you, and that is a highly technical, highly specialised piece of work, and it's probably fair to say that there were very, very few people with the kind of skill set that was necessary to drive that through, either within Welsh Government or local government in Wales. So, the alternatives were that we paid substantial amounts of money to consultancy firms to do that on our behalf, or to resource it in a way that TfW have done till now, by buying in specialist technical capacity to be able to do that. And I think that worked well, it delivered a good outcome for Wales, but obviously it's not the answer for the long term. Until the structures start stabilising around what its long-term role is going to be, whether it's managing the rail franchise, whether it's delivering transformation on bus networks or some of the issues around ticketing—that's the point where the permanent structure will start to solidify. What I would say is that the capacity and skills generally across local authorities have reduced significantly over the last decade. I think some of us did quite a bit of work in 2012-13 around the collaboration agenda at that time. At that time, it felt like quite a defensive piece of work—it was all about protecting resources and skills. To be truthful, that horse has long since bolted now, as a result of the changes that have happened over the last six or seven years, to the extent where the capacity to deliver, and the right skill set, is quite patchy, certainly across local authorities. So, having an organisation like TfW that can skill up appropriately to deliver the strategic projects that are needed is, to me, an entirely proportionate response.

Just touching on that, the Welsh Local Government Association have also commented on that—more focused on a commercial basis rather than what you would expect in local authorities, really. From your response there, I'm picking up that, at the moment, that is the appropriate level, but until the actual structure of TfW is in place, we can't address this issue, which we may well need to do in the future. Would that be fair to say?

It would be fair to say, but I think just as an addition to that, I talked at length earlier on about this needing to be about a partnership to deliver the best outcomes for transport in Wales. It would be—and I've already referred to the fact that local authorities are finding it hard to retain and develop the skill base that they need as well. If all that happens is that one bit of the public sector takes staff from another bit of the public sector in Wales, I don't see that as really adding much value in the great scheme of things. But if it comes together as a proper partnership, then what we should be able to do is develop and grow the skill base in the country that enables us to be able to deliver projects effectively. That's the real prize, I think, at the end of this, and TfW potentially provides a mechanism to allow that to happen—however, in a way that will allow people to grow and build and develop successful careers instead of feeling they have to go elsewhere to do this kind of thing. But that needs to happen as part of the wider partnership approach to transport delivery, I think.

I think you mentioned funding, and the fact that there's indicative funding over a five-year period for Transport for Wales is really significant. It means, then, that you can employ a team, a core team, that are going to be with you for a period of time and allow career development, but it also allows you then to invest in development. So, you can bring in apprentices, you can bring in graduates, you can add value then and you can broaden the workforce and widen the workforce for everybody. It's something I think is fundamental for local authorities as well in terms of longer term funding. What you'll see in some authorities that haven't been successful, perhaps, in a round of bidding is that they've had to dispense with some of their staff. They can't retain, they can't train, they can't grow, whereas some authorities have been able to invest substantially in a capital programme, and that's almost transformational, because you can grow a team, you can retain a team, you can offer them a workload going forward that they can see, they can grow within that organisation, and prosper, but also you can take on numbers of apprentices so that you're always feeding the bottom end of the system and bringing those apprentices through. So, with Rhondda Cynon Taf we've been, probably for the last four or five years now, taking on three or four apprentices as civil engineering technicians. They run through national vocational qualifications, we retain them, then, if we're lucky, and we take them through a higher national certificate and degree. So, they're starting to come through the system now, and they're very capable and very competent, and they're a commodity that's obviously valuable to anybody, but if we're growing our capacity in south Wales and across Wales, then that's a really strong piece for Wales.

The figure I quote often on this is that, if you go back a decade, there were eight fully qualified chartered transport professionals in north Wales. There are now two, and two is not enough to go around six local authorities. So, we need to find different ways of managing the skill base that we have in order to achieve the outcomes we want, which is properly transformed passenger transport services.

It's certainly pleasing to hear the record of apprentices and your commitment towards that. And I agree—it is a significant moment with the five-year funding, because we hear that all the time, and I'm a big caller for long-term funding as well.

Just finally, TfW is currently funded by the Welsh Government. How do you think that should be funded in the future? We've been on a visit to see Transport for Greater Manchester and Transport for the North and so on, and it was highlighted by other bodies that we met there that there is a wider stream of funding options available, but it also seemed it could potentially make it more complex. Have you any thoughts on that?

I think they're entirely different animals, aren't they? The transports for Greater Manchester and the midlands and so on—they are combines of the local authorities and they're rooted in the local authority way. They've had growth deals and different things, but they've also developed a transport plan and it effectively works as a contract with central Government that, in developing and accepting a transport plan, the funding then starts to flow through. I think, certainly in Wales, if the JTAs come to the fore and develop regional transport plans, then you'd like to see those becoming almost a contract with Welsh Government, and the funding flowing through. That would take out the inefficient process of bidding, et cetera, and the peaks and troughs of being successful or unsuccessful, and then that growth that we talked about earlier, of resources and skills within the JTAs, or within Transport for Wales, coming through. So, I think there's a virtuous circle here. If we can get on the first step, I think it will be transformational.

I very much echo that. Certainly from a local authority perspective, the stop-start nature of funding at the moment and the requirement to bid for everything is an issue, which impacts—certainly, from my own experience, you can see across a number of authorities, because they might go a year or so without winning a bid, they actually lose the ability to be able to effectively bid in future. What we then end up with by default is that transport projects tend to happen in parts of the country where—I'm not saying they're not a priority there, but if there's another authority that doesn't have that immediate capacity available, then it doesn’t mean they're actually any less in need of transport intervention—it just means they're not very good at filling forms in, because they haven't got the capacity. That really needs to be addressed, because there's a limited budget, and what we need to be delivering across Wales is the projects that are absolutely priorities for making sure we've got a fully integrated network.

Thank you. This committee published a report on the state of the roads in which we recommended that if Welsh Government could give five-year funding for Transport for Wales, it should be able to do the same for local authorities. That was not one of our recommendations that was accepted by Welsh Government, and we have had well-worn explanations about the uncertainty of UK funding and austerity and Brexit, et cetera. I just wondered, though, in terms of the joint transport authorities, could you see a path where Welsh Government might be able to fund them for a longer period, perhaps, than it has to date local authorities, on the model it's taken for Transport for Wales?

I would see that as being part of the critical ask from local government as part of its willingness, if you like, to regionalise delivery through joint transport authorities.

Roger.

I'd totally agree with that. I think the rounds of annual funding—and I provided some information on that in my evidence—are totally inefficient. They create peaks and troughs even across a calendar year. So, when funding is allocated close to the start of a financial year, there's a hiatus then when contracts are drawn up, commissioning briefs are put in place. So, the work doesn't actually start for a few months, so you've got consultants, workforce, et cetera, potentially at standstill. And then, towards the end of the year, when people are trying to spend that money, there is a peak in the workload and it's problematic then. And if there are underspend opportunities that come through, the ability to react to those because of the volume of work that's going on at that point in time might be limited, so we could even be losing money that we could otherwise have spent. So, the longer term, particularly in bringing forward bigger projects, is fundamental to me.

So, Welsh Government is consulting around the joint transport authority proposals. I wonder, Mr Prys Jones, for the North Wales Economic Ambition Board, would you see yourselves potentially becoming the joint transport authority for north Wales, or is it seen as a separate body?

Again, the debate is still taking place amongst members at the moment, so this is very much my personal view, but I talked quite extensively earlier on about a partnership approach, and, to be honest, a regional transport body of local authorities and a joint transport authority are more or less the same thing to all intents and purposes. What we need is a body that's capable of working in partnership with Welsh Government to prioritise strategic projects where it's got a significant slice of the decision making in terms of where projects are funded and delivered across the region, and that needs to be supported by an effective delivery tool. Now, whether that's a regional transport joint committee or a joint transport authority or some other mechanism, frankly, really doesn't matter that much. What's important is that it's seen as being a strong and effective partnership to prioritise projects and then deliver them and make sure they happen.

Mr Waters, I know the wheels of local government have yet to turn out a combined view on this issue, understandably, but when one looks at a joint transport authority and the type of powers or role it might take on, do you think in principle it makes sense to have that as a separate body, or might it make more sense to have the Cardiff capital city region and the Swansea bay region taking those powers for their respective areas?

I think it will be those regional footprints that emerge, and I think probably the ideal position would be that the regional cabinets of leaders set the direction in terms of the economic strategies, the land use strategies, et cetera, and then the joint transport authorities enable those visions to happen from a transport perspective and whatever that takes, really, in terms of developing strategies, delivering projects, the whole gamut, really, in conjunction with Welsh Government and Transport for Wales.

And could you help me with an issue I'm slightly struggling with? If we have regional JTAs and if we have Transport for Wales at a national level, what would be the point of then in addition having a national joint transport authority?

I think that's the discussion that we were alluding to earlier. We need to have that conversation to understand how it fits, where it fits, the value that it brings, and that will crystallise, hopefully, through the next White Paper.

Yes. There are some transport functions that are very much part of the local government legislation, so arguably there's a case for consolidating those on a national basis as opposed to discharging Welsh Government functions, but, as I said, that debate is one that needs to be had, I think, over the next few months as we move through the White Paper and on to the more detailed proposals that emerge subsequent to that.

Can I thank both of you gentlemen very much indeed? Before you leave, could I also say that we had invited Ann Elias to represent the mid Wales perspective, and she sent her apologies? Unfortunately, she's been ill. I'm sure the committee would want to wish her a speedy recovery. We have had written evidence come in from her, and it may be that, once we've reflected on what's been said today, if we do have any further questions, I hope you'd be happy to answer those in writing.

Yes, absolutely.

And, finally, just to say that we will have a transcript of the meeting that we'll send out you both to check for accuracy. We really are very grateful to you both for coming in today.

Before we move on, can I just ask Members to agree a motion under Standing Order 17.42 for us to move into private session? Is that agreed? Thank you very much.