National Assembly for Wales

Bore da, everyone. Good morning. I welcome Members back to the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee. I do move to item 2, and we have apologies today from Mohammad Asghar, and if there are any other declarations of interest, please do say so now. 

In that case, we move to item 3. We have one paper to note, which is a paper from myself as Chair to Transport for Wales with questions around rolling stock. Are Members happy to note that paper—or letter? Thank you. 

And now we move to item 4. This is a session in regard to the draft national development framework for Wales and I'm aware that another committee of the Assembly has done quite a bit of work in this area, but we'll be looking at some aspects that are relevant to our committee in the two sessions that we've got today. So, we'd like to welcome our witnesses this morning. We're very grateful for you being with us. Perhaps you could just introduce yourselves for the public record. I'll start from my left.

I'm Ellen Jones, and I'm the senior policy officer for Sustrans Cymru.

Good morning. My name's Mark Simmonds. I'm the head of policy and external affairs for the British Ports Association and we facilitate the Welsh Ports Group.

Lovely. Thank you for being with us. The first set of questions are from Hefin David. 

I'd like to start by taking a step back and looking at the purpose of the national development framework and how it influences planning and development of transport infrastructure. One of the issues, perhaps, with the principle of a national development framework is that it is intended to set the direction for where investment in infrastructure should go, but the problem we've got is that local development plans are already up and running in many cases, or in the process of being developed, and we won't see a strategic development plan in Wales until 2025, and that's only in one part of Wales, in the south-east. So, doesn't that suggest that this disjointed nature isn't going to enable good strategic transport planning?

I think the national development framework provides a great vision for the next 20 years, as it states, for us to be a sustainable and more prosperous society, and I think that it gives that vision to regions and local authorities to be able to have an ambitious strategy on how to plan over the next 20 years and see that vision realised.

I suppose the point I'm making is the problem is they've already got their visions in their local development plans. 

Yes, but those visions also are able to be improved on and also the plans are in place but the things in which they wish to implement—. So, in integrated network maps, for example, which change all the time, they are able to improve those against the vision of the national development framework. 

Okay. And do you think—? So, you've got quite a positive view. You don't see an issue with the timelines between LDPs and NDF.

I don't see a major issue. I think Wales does need a plan in place to show how we're going to grow over the next 20 years, and I think this gives that, especially in regard to planning policies—so, how we plan new developments and things like that. And I think that's really important for the strategic view of Wales. 

And the draft document talks a lot about strategic development plans. Are you concerned that there aren't actually any operational strategic development plans and unlikely to be any prior to 2025?

We do have concerns that there aren't any in place at the moment, but as this is still in draft form, those strategic development plans will be able to be implemented from the vision of the national development framework, and we think that would be a positive step.

But the timescale for implementation will be quite a long timescale, won't it? I mean, we won't see one operational one until 2025. That's quite a long timescale.

Yes, I agree.

Have you got concerns about that?

Yes.

Okay. How well does the draft national development framework reflect the Welsh Government's transport strategy? And I'll come to Mark as well. You first and then Mark after you.

So, as we know, the Welsh transport strategy is actually being updated at the moment, and I hope that people within Welsh Government, within those teams, have looked over it with each other for direction about what that will look like going forward. I think it's important for those documents to work in harmony, and I think that, yes, it's hard to say how that represents that as it's being updated at the moment.

Okay. Mark, what's your opinion on that question?

On the final question or some of the earlier ones?

Well, if you've got reflections on my previous questions, I'm happy to hear those. But because you didn't jump in, I thought you might not—

Well, I didn't want to interrupt. But on the previous questions, we're fairly relaxed about the timescales and in which order they come, partly because, for us, ports exist already—they're there. And for us, the main concern around planning, particularly at a national scale, is around connectivity. We're not going to be seeing any brand-new ports being put into place. What we're more concerned about is connecting those that are already there, connecting them better. And I would say, possibly on the transport plan, probably I'd like to see a little bit more on freight in there. Whenever we talk about transport, there's always a lot of talk about passengers, and that's obviously very important, but we'd probably like to see a bit more continuation of freight movement as well.

Okay. So, you don't see anything radical for ports that's likely to change in the next 10 years, or the period of the plan, which is, what, six years?

Possibly, but where we're usually coming from, as a base when it comes to port development, is that it's always been market-led. So, we're not looking for the Government to set out what ports are going to look like in 20 years, we're just looking for a bit of support so that whatever they will look like in 20 years, ports are able to adapt to whatever the market demands relatively quickly. So, what we're more concerned about when it comes to planning is, as I said, connectivity, and that the planning system is quick, and consenting is able to be done relatively quickly and at as low a cost as possible.

Okay. So, it's been quite a laissez-faire approach from your particular interest's perspective—the Government just needs to support where necessary—whereas I would suggest for the likes of active travel, you're expecting a much more prescriptive approach in a national development framework.

Yes.

 Okay.

Thank you. Can I just ask on the model, as proposed within the draft NDF, the three-region model, which is based on the regions in the economic development plan—have you got views on that split or whether there should be more or fewer regions?

We don't have a view on the split, but we do agree that there should be a focus on growth around already existing centres. As we know, the places in which we live and the places in which we work have an effect on the way in which we travel. Sustrans believe that in light of the climate crisis and in light of the decarbonisation that Welsh Government is aiming for, then we need to aim growth around these areas.

I'm looking at the evidence that Dr Neil Harris from Cardiff University gave to our colleague committee, and they very much talked about a four-model approach, splitting up the current mid and south Wales region. So, mid would be Powys and Ceredigion separately. That was proposed by him, and he commented to the other committee that he was disappointed that that wasn't taken up. Do you have any views on that at all?

Do you have any wider information on the reasoning for that split?

Not that I want to get into giving my own views too much here, but I think the reason, the logic behind this, is that the economies of mid and south Wales are very different, and it made sense for there to be a further split of that particular region. I think that was the logic behind it—the difference between the economies of the two areas.

No, we don't have a specific view on the regional set-up.

Okay. Bethan Sayed.

Hefin's asked some questions already on the transport strategy, but there has been evidence presented to the other committee, which I'm sure you've seen, about the fact that there's a lack of detail on the transport infrastructure projects, particularly the proposed metros. You may or may not have a view on it, but, specifically, the infrastructure projects—we know that the infrastructure commission is only going to be releasing its report at the end of this month, so it's probably a bit hard at the moment to know what those priorities are, having not seen that. But, still, what are your concerns in that regard?

Sustrans feel that the national development framework, at the moment, is taking steps towards improving infrastructure across Wales, for example with the transit-oriented development and placemaking at its heart. However, we share the view of the Royal Town Planning Institute that they are not showing a vision for the next 20 years on what our transport system should look like and where that investment should be focused. So, for example, we know that we have a public transport system and we have active travel infrastructure in place, and that serves a purpose. But we do know that it's not up to scratch, so how is that going to be improved over the next 20 years, so we're enabling people to make that modal shift away from the private car and onto more sustainable modes of transport?

You said earlier, Ellen, that you didn't have a view on the regions, but do you have a view on the fact that the mapping seems to suggest that there's more emphasis on the east-to-west connectivity, as opposed to north to south? Because, also, the Royal Town Planning Institute have said that the north-south links, transport-wise, are something that need to be there that aren't there. What are your views on that?

Sustrans think that if we're going to really have an integrated transport system that is sustainable, then we need to be improving that across the nation and we need to be setting out how we have a good sustainable integrated public transport system that connects all parts of Wales, and that includes east-west, north-south, as well as those missing links to the west of Wales where people are having to rely heavily on the private car.

So, you would want to see a balance of approach, really, as opposed to more of an emphasis on one or the other. That's what, I think, some people have written in to be concerned about—that there's more of an emphasis on west-east than there is on north-south.

Yes, and there are two components to this, so Sustrans believe that we should focus on urban growth, and we should be investing in areas and building settlements with more densities in order to combat the climate crisis. But, again, we don't want to leave those people who aren't in urban centres isolated from access to jobs, from services and the daily things that they need for their communities to thrive.

Did you have anything, Mark?

Yes, well, just to add to that, we're not against the—in fact, I'm broadly supportive of the approach taken to support population centres and growth where it is. However, we don't want that to be to the detriment of coastal areas, where, particularly, what we've been setting out over the last couple of years, actually, is a vision for ports to be economic hubs and doing more than just being gateways, in some cases, for cargo or passengers, but supporting wider economic activity.

Whilst I completely understand why the draft plan is going in the direction it is, we just want to make sure that that doesn't put coastal areas or port cities at any disadvantages. So, that's the only concern we have, but, that said, there has been some recognition in the plan that ports can be economic hubs. We probably would have liked to have seen a little bit more on that—perhaps for one of the general policies to be around port-centric hubs of economic activity, and we've set out various plans for how that might work across the whole of the UK, actually. But we're fairly relaxed about how it is at the moment, and I don't think it's going to be—it's not in a bad place.

Okay. Again, this is only if you have an opinion, just on the view of the policy on ultra-low emissions vehicles and how feasible it is to establish rapid-charging points across Wales. We know that—I think it's £2 million, isn't it, that's gone in from Welsh Government into new investment in that regard? But is that enough? How much should be emphasised in this document, considering that technology changes all the time in this particular area?

We don't have a specific view on the cost, but we do think that it's really important that electric vehicles play a bigger role in decarbonising transport in Wales. But it's not the be-all and end-all. We don't just need newer cars on the roads, we need fewer cars on the roads in order to meet the decarbonising targets that we're planning to meet.

No views on the electric cars.

Is there going to be electric freight at all?

Possibly. That's one scenario that is possible—I think probably unlikely.

Even for smaller—. I mean, I know nothing about it.

Certain types of vessels, short sea vessels taking short journeys, like ferries, are more adaptable to that sort of thing, and you are seeing some hybrid ferries around the UK at the moment being put into use, but electrification of deep sea vessels is not likely, and if that were to happen, there would be significant challenges around the energy networks and energy demands from ports. That would need a lot of investment.

To sustain the fact that they would be able to—

There are different scenarios. Electric vessels could mean lots of different things; battery-powered vessels, for example, would need quite a leap in technology, but it would also need significant investment in energy systems to make sure that those batteries could be charged or new electric fuel, or whatever it is, could be delivered at ports. At ferries, there's definitely an opportunity for that, yes, but others, probably not.

Just to perhaps expand on some of Bethan's earlier questions—in terms of cross-border traffic with England, do you think that's appropriately reflected within the NDF? I'm probably looking at Ellen for that.

There are a few places within the NDF that it focuses on. If we're talking about north-west England to north-east Wales—I'll go through a bit of it each by each, if that's okay. So, I am myself from a village in north Wales called Northop, on the A55, and I understand everything that goes on within that area and the issues that they're facing. Sustrans supports the plans of the north Wales metro as well as the content within policy 21 in the document, which calls on sustainable development plans to

'ensure that long term strategic decisions maximise the opportunities in areas that will benefit from improved accessibility and investment in public transport services.'

But also we would like to see the NDF set out how, so we think there should be some sort of vision on how we're going to move traffic off the A55 corridor and give people that option to take up more sustainable modes of transport. So, how are we going to provide strategic routes to jobs, wider than just the metro? And how are we going to encourage people and tourism into north Wales from across the border?

And what are your views on those two issues?

What we should do?

Yes. You've said that you think the NDF should address those issues. What's your view?

Well, we believe that there should be—I don't know if I did say this, actually, earlier—we think that there should be a map of what an integrated transport system should look like so that regions and local authorities can then have the ambitious vision to be able to integrate transport across that network. So, not just buses, not just trains, but active travel as well, all linked up, giving people an actual option to leave their cars at home and use more sustainable modes of transport. This is also a bonus for things such as freight coming from Holyhead. This will free-up congestion on the A55 and make better connectivity between England and north Wales.

And removing the tolls on the Severn bridge—is that reflected, do you think, in the NDF appropriately?

In short, no. In 2018, Sustrans did a project with the future generations commissioner on a new package of goods that would be an alternative solution to an M4 relief road, and we believe that this package, which is public transport as well as active travel options, should be included within the national development framework, maybe not in as much detail as is written within that report, but a vision of how we can alleviate the congestion in Newport, as well as moving those journeys onto more sustainable modes.

Chair, if I might add to that, I agree with what Ellen said on the cross-border points there, but we'd also like to see wider consideration given to one of the things we talk about regularly, which is coastal shipping and moving things around the UK by ship—freight, primarily—as a way to take trucks off the road and help us to meet our decarbonisation targets. I think it's something that Government is looking at for England, or will be in the new year, and we'd like to see a little bit more consideration about how that can help us to meet our targets, and that will require a bit of planning as well.

Okay, thank you. Vikki Howells.

Thank you, Chair. I've got some questions around active travel, so they'll be directed to you, Ellen. First of all, the tenth edition of 'Planning Policy Wales' strengthened planning policy around active travel, requiring it to be an essential component of new development proposals. Do you think that the right balance has been struck between what's in PPW and what's in the draft NDF? And do you think that the revised planning policy on active travel actually goes far enough? If not, how could it be improved?

Sustrans welcome the new edition of 'Planning Policy Wales', especially that the sustainable transport hierarchy is an essential part of that. We think that that is going to go a long way towards making sure that the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 is implemented. Within the national development framework, we welcome placemaking as an integral part of that, as well as transit-oriented development. For those two examples, we think the balance has been correctly struck between a high-level vision and how that's going to be implemented for practitioners on the ground. However, we do feel that some strategy is missing within the national development framework at the moment, and this is around some of the things that I've spoken about already. So, what is the vision for how our transport system is going to look and where is that investment most needed in Wales at the moment? And we would like to see a map of that, which the Royal Town Planning Institute also asked for in their evidence to the other committee. We support that wholeheartedly. We want to give practitioners a vision and ambition to strive towards so that we can actually create that modal shift from the car to more sustainable modes of transport.

Thank you. And can I just clarify one thing from your answer there? You talked about that balance between a high-level document and the more local level, so am I right in taking from your answer there that you're happy that what's in the draft NDF is pitched appropriately between that and what's left for strategic development plans and local development plans?

Yes, I do think so. We do think there is one thing that is missing, though, and that is the national cycle network. The national cycle network is nodded to within the document and they say they support the development of the national cycle network. There are roughly 1,700 miles of national cycle network in Wales, and a lot of those are long, strategic routes. So, there's Lôn Las Cymru from the north to south, there's the Celtic trail in the south and, also, there's the Lôn Cambria, spanning mid Wales, from west to east. An economic impact study that we did in 2008 showed that, along the Celtic trail and Taff trail, there were 2.6 million trips a year, and that invested £75 million per year into the local economy. So, we believe that, in order to get parity of esteem between walking and cycling as well as other modes, the national cycle network should share the same status as trunk roads and they should be mapped out, as trunk roads are, in the national development framework at the moment.

Thank you. You mentioned in one of your earlier answers that you were happy with the way the NDF directed growth around existing centres, but can I just explore that a little bit further with you? How realistic do you think that actually is, given the potential scale of growth and the capacity of existing urban areas and public transport and active travel networks to accommodate that growth? Would any further action be required in order to support that?

We support that vision, as we know that that the research showed—. There's a really good piece of research from Transport for Quality of Life for Friends of the Earth that shows that more dense cities are going to be the thing that really reduce the impact that we're having on the climate. So, we support neighbourhoods, and we need to be planning in a way that is supporting neighbourhoods to have access to local shops, local services and stop planning away, which we are at the moment, which leaves people devoid of services and people without access to a car unable to access them, and in isolation. So, yes, we do support that principle of focusing around growth, but it can't be to the detriment of rural communities as well.

Okay, thank you. 

Joyce Watson. 

My questions are all on ports. So, first of all, what are your views on how the draft NDF covers the issues relating to ports? We can see some policies relating to Holyhead and Haven Waterway, but there are other ports that aren't mentioned. So, do you think that that is adequate and sufficient?

'Adequate' would probably be a good word for it, I think. Yes, it's adequate. It's always a little bit difficult when high-level plans like this mention some ports and not others, and there are always going to be some tensions, perhaps, when that happens. I understand that. However, it's obviously recognising the strengths in those particular areas—ferries and freight up in Holyhead and energy around Milford Haven, and ferries as well, actually, down there. So, I understand that. Other ports are mentioned, and I'm fairly relaxed that there is some mention of ports; we're obviously always pushing for more. We're always talking about the value that ports could bring, so, yes, of course, we'd like to see a little bit more.

As I think I mentioned a little bit earlier, we would have quite liked to have seen a general policy on the value of port development, and perhaps a presumption in favour of development in ports is something we've asked for in the past, particularly where it enables more trade or investment, or other things like that, or perhaps other areas like offshore energy, which obviously we are vital hubs for.

So, we're fairly relaxed. As I said, the ports sector in general is independent of Government; we don't ask for Government to invest directly in ports. All we ask for is good connectivity and transport links on the surface, so roads and rail, effectively. And my view is that there could have been a little bit more on that, particularly on freight, but we're fairly relaxed about that.

Government has said, of course, that they expect the spatial development plan and the local development plan to pick up and have policies that would include a wider remit and focus on ports, whether they're free ports or port zones, or whatever. Do you think that that's the appropriate level for that action and that thinking?

I think it is. Actually, I think it's probably got it about right, in that for some ports it is, and I understand some ports are seen as more strategic national assets, and so they have been mentioned for that reason. Not everyone might be happy with that, but that's the approach they've taken. As I say, I'm fairly relaxed. But other ports, yes, absolutely, it's I think more appropriate that they're picked up in the strategic plans or the local plans, and that's something we'll be following up.

On the free ports, that wasn't mentioned in the plan and that's not a surprise to us, as we're part of the panel advising the UK Government on what those might look like, and those involve certain reserved areas like customs and so on. Hopefully, free ports and port zones are something that can be included in later revisions of the plan, or on more local levels.

We have talked about decarbonisation, but it goes beyond just the shipping. It reaches into the activities that actually happen with shipping. So, have you looked at or considered what activities might be able to decarbonise and thus reduce the emissions around the ports more generally?

Absolutely. That's probably what we spend most of our time on these days—looking at the challenges around decarbonisation. Without sounding too defensive, I would stress that the emissions from ports themselves—port activities themselves: cargo-handling operations and so on—are really quite minor even compared to shipping, and shipping is fairly small as an overall slice of the pie. And I would also reiterate that shipping is the lowest carbon way to move freight, so that's why we're always pushing that as a short-term or medium-term solution to decarbonisation.

As for what ports can do to decarbonise, as I say, the operations aspects are relatively small, so it's quite limited and there are lots of challenges around electrification for port equipment and so on. There are a lot of ports looking at that. However, that comes with a fairly significant price tag sometimes, and one of the challenges with port operations is that port infrastructure, as in cranes and other equipment, has quite a long lifespan, so you're looking at 30 years or longer of investment, and that doesn't come around every day.

So, the opportunities aren't always there immediately to make those kinds of investments, and even when they do come around they're not always viable, but there is lots going on. As I say, I don't want to sound too defensive, there's a lot going on around electrification for port operations and also port optimisation, making port operations more efficient, ensuring ships arrive just in time or aren't waiting, and things like that. There's a lot of interest in this sector around what ports can do in that area as well, and that can have a big impact on emissions.

You've talked about short sea shipping—you have to be careful how you say that—as a way of reducing the emissions. How advanced is that thinking? I've heard it before over the years. And if it is advanced, is there advice that you can give to Government by using that as a way to reduce the obvious emissions that happen on the road currently?

Yes, there's lots. The thinking's fairly advanced at various levels. One of things that I did want to say today on decarbonisation is more of a plea, really, in that the UK Government has kicked off a fair bit of work on this and they have a clean maritime plan for England. I think that would be much more effective if the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government and the UK Government could work together on making sure that that encompasses the whole of the UK. What we don't want is to have three separate plans for decarbonising the maritime sector around the UK, because that would not be helpful and it would make efforts to decarbonise more challenging.

So, what we want to see is perhaps a study into how more short sea—. Basically, it's already there—we already know that short sea shipping, or coastal shipping, if you find it easier to say, will help bring down emissions. It takes trucks off the road. For example, if you have a big tanker coming in to Milford Haven, rather than distributing that oil or petrol, then, by tanker out to various petrol stations, you could have smaller ships then taking it to smaller ports around the country, around Wales and around England as well, and then the tanker's going from there, so it saves a lot of road miles.

So, we know it works—what we want to see from Government, and what I'm not sure is happening that much in Wales at the moment, is some more thinking about how that can be encouraged. I know there are certain grants for modal shift. We'd like to see that be more favourable to moving freight by water.

Okay. I think the one question that isn't on here but I'm going to ask it is the obvious potential impact of a border in the Irish sea and the obvious impact that that will have on those two major ports that we've just discussed. So, have you—I'm sure you have—thought about the impact of that, and have you had any discussions with Government about reflecting that in the national development plan?

We haven't had any discussion about reflecting it in the plan, because I hope that won't happen.

So do we.

Yes. As ever with Brexit, we've been saying the same thing for about three years and we still don't know what it's going to look like. So, I have some sympathy about why it wouldn't be in the plan as we don't know what's going to happen in one year, never mind 20 years, with Brexit. Our view from the beginning has been that the Government has promised frictionless trade with no new checks at ports, and as far as I'm aware, that still is Government policy. And we've come a long way in working out some of the potential problems with a hard or 'no deal' Brexit, and so on. But our firm view is still that a 'no deal' Brexit and borders in the Irish sea are not desirable at all. So, I wouldn't want to see it reflected in the plan, quite frankly.

Okay. I'm going to just round this up now and I'm going to give you an opportunity to say whether I've understood it right or not. But when it comes to decarbonisation from the emissions on the activities, I didn't seem to get any understanding that the ports are looking at it or seizing any opportunities. I understand what you're saying about long-term investment in very heavy gear, but is that a correct understanding?

No, there is lots going on. It's definitely being looked at; I'd say what takes up most of our time is looking at emissions and how we can reduce not just carbon emissions but other emissions as well.

But one of the challenges in reducing emissions around ports is that the amount of control ports have over those emissions is relatively minor, so they have their own operations; it's only a small amount they can do, quite often. Most of the emissions tend to come from their customers, whether it be ships or whether it be tenants on their land, and there's relatively little you can do about that at the moment. But ports are certainly doing what they can on their own operations, but as I say, it comes with a price tag, quite often.

So, we need to get to the customers.

Well, it's not my—. When you talk about decarbonising shipping, that's the challenge that we're all working towards, and the fact is, there isn't really an alternative fuel at the moment, and that's the main problem, as far as I can see. There are lots of other short-term measures you can take, but the challenge that we're all working on is: what will a zero-emission fuel be?

Okay, that's fine.

Okay. Is there anything else that you would like to add to our work in terms of looking at the NDF? We appreciate that another committee has looked at this work in far more detail, but in terms of our remit as a committee looking at the economy, infrastructure and skills, is there anything else that you think should be noted that has not been drawn out through questions at all today?

Could I just summarise by saying that I think that the national development framework should be a broad vision of sustainable transport, planning and development that local authorities can work together on, then, on strategic cross-boundary routes, and it'll help bring that together much more strategically?

Thank you. Mark.

No, nothing to add from me. Thank you.

In that case, you will be sent a record of the transcript. If you can review that and you want to add anything further to it, then please do so, but diolch yn fawr. Thank you for joining us this morning.

Can I just say, as we are running a little ahead of time, we will take item 7, which is a scoping paper on degree apprenticeships a little bit earlier? So, if Members are happy, we'll have a five-minute break.

I take item 6, which is to exclude members of the public under 17.42 for item 7, then we'll take that and we'll come back into public session, then, at 11:50. Thank you.

I'd like to welcome Members back, and we move to item 5 with regard to our next session on the national development framework for Wales. I'm very pleased to have our witness before us this morning, perhaps you could just introduce yourself for the public record. 

I'm Vincent Goodstadt. I'm associated with the UK2070 Commission, which is chaired by Lord Kerslake. It's an independent commission into the deep-rooted inequalities that exist across the UK and what we can do to maybe make some impact and tackle the problems that they pose.

Thank you very much for being with us. I'm going to start with a very, very wide question: what are your initial thoughts on the draft NDF?

Initial thoughts on the national development framework?

That's right.

Yes, certainly. Well, first of all, I want to make clear, as a context for anything I say, that it's a sense of delight that you're doing it and that it is being done. Because one of the things that we've been particularly pleased about is the fact that, in Wales and Scotland particularly, you've led the way in trying to develop spatial planning for the nations. This is quite critical, based on our experience of what is being done elsewhere, that, in fact, countries are most effective where they have a very clear vision of their future expressed in terms of a national spatial context, whatever that's called—a framework or whatever—that sets out a framework through which everyone understands where we're going, what we want to achieve, and what changes we want to do to deliver a sustainable economy.

Is it ambitious enough?

In some ways, it's difficult to answer the question in terms of its current form, because the ambitions that are set out in terms of the objectives are clearly of very high order; the question is how they're translated into action. And, if I can give an example of what I mean, the context for the commission, our understanding of the situation in Wales, is that it actually experiences the same problems as other parts of the United Kingdom—Scotland, the north of England and the midlands—where, in fact, they are suffering from the imbalanced nature of economic development of the country as a whole. And so, the levels of development, levels of productivity, levels of social equity, mobility and others, they actually suffer relative to other parts of the country.

That imbalance in the country's development is actually to everyone's disadvantage—that, even those areas that are experiencing high levels of growth suffer from that in all sorts of ways, and no-one's winning. And actually, it's in the interest of everywhere—in the case here, of Wales—that it aspires to a much higher level of performance and contribution to the overall economic development of the country than it's actually been able to do so in the past.

I've tried to unpack the figures [correction: the figures used in the NDF]. I'm not 100 per cent sure exactly what they are, but in terms of my understanding of the baselines that are being used for, say the number of people, jobs and houses that are being allocated to the various three sub-regions, they are much less than would be, for example, arising out of one of the scenarios that we've put in our own work for a rebalancing of the country. So, in the order of [correction: So, instead of] 120,000 houses or a number of that level—something of a much more substantial nature—might be required if, in fact, Wales is to perform and unlock all of its potential. So, in terms of aspirations, the aspirations are there, but actually that needs to be translated into maybe a much higher level of outcomes, in terms of jobs and people.

Do you have any views in terms of the climate change and decarbonisation agenda within the NDF?

Decarbonisation, obviously, is a key issue that affects everywhere. What is there is sound and consistent with what is advocated generally. In terms of the commission's [correction: the UK2070 Commission's] look at this issue, which has been quite a significant part of its work, it's not only concerned with what's required to actually address the issue and mitigate its impact and adapt to it, but actually to recognise not only that we need all the types of things that are in the plan in terms of the switch to the forms of energy that are needed, but to what extent those changes are required. First of all, they have to be done in a way that is called 'a just transition'. All of the evidence is that those people who are going to be most affected by climate change, unless we do something, are the most disadvantaged.

But, secondly—and this is the positive side—the change to a zero-carbon economy of itself will open up all sorts of new opportunities in terms of the nature of the economy that's required, the production side of it and, if you think of it in terms of, say, the battery economy that's going to be required. To what extent can those be harnessed to actually result in a new economic geography of the country, and particularly, to actually create opportunities in places like Wales, like the north of England and like Scotland, which are, actually, not currently available? So, it's a question of to what extent can the change to the economy actually create a new economic base for the country.

In the foreword to the document, the First Minister, Mark Drakeford, has said that the NDF has combating inequality at its core. Is that something that you would agree with?

I would agree that it's actually one of its core objectives. If you read through it, it's stated as being one of its core objectives. What I don't see in the current framing of it, and it may be in some of the background work, is, actually, what that means, because inequality operates at various levels and in various forms.

In terms of inequality within Wales, from our understanding of the nature of the problems, the nature of inequality varies from one part of the country, so those parts of the nation that are actually disadvantaged in terms of economic opportunity may not be the most disadvantaged in terms of accessibility. Therefore, if that's going to be translated, we need to unpack it more as to which areas are disadvantaged, and therefore, what interventions are required, because the interventions for tackling inequality will vary depending on the nature of the inequality.

But, the more fundamental issue, I think, that's posed is that there's this wider inequality that arises from the imbalance of development across the whole of the United Kingdom—that, actually, in terms of inequality, the inequalities that we see are not only just intra-urban or intra-regional, but they're actually at a national level.

So, just to check, you think that the draft NDF, as outlined, does combat inequality.

I'm saying that it raises it as an objective, but what is not clear is how that will then be translated into specific actions, because it needs to unpack the variations of inequality in Wales, in terms of what types of inequality exist, and, therefore, how it's addressed.

But, there's also a bigger one, which is the aspiration—going back to the question about aspiration for Wales. The inequalities that exist in Wales are linked to it—lower levels of productivity and lower levels of economic performance relative to the whole of the United Kingdom, and whether, in fact, the aspirations for higher levels of performance in the country actually are part of an agenda for the whole of Wales, not just for the most deprived parts.

Okay, thank you. Bethan Sayed, you wanted to come in.

I just wanted to ask specifically on the need to translate it into specific actions. I'm just curious to understand whether you think it's this particular framework that should be showing those actions, or should it be in the economic development plan or the 'Prosperity for All' economic plan, or would you think that it needs to be in this framework so that it's guidance to all levels of planning?

The development framework, if I understand it properly, is the consequential expression of the policies across the social, economic and environmental—it's bringing them together. The strength of that as a document is then to say, 'And this is how it impacts on places', so that each part of Wales understands what its contribution is to the national economy, society or environmental strengths, and to what extent it needs to change to unlock the potential of Wales and what its particular contribution is—  

So, you need that specificity then.

—and without that, it's difficult to know when you've achieved it.

Okay.

Vikki Howells.

Thank you. Building on that line of questioning, really, to look at whether the NDF does enough to address regional inequalities. So, the draft says that the NDF provides a framework for regional planning to tackle regional inequalities and ensure the most prosperous parts of Wales play a role in supporting their wider regions. To what extent would you agree that that's the case within the document?

One of the strengths of the way that the NDF is emerging—I accept it's at a consultative stage—is to recognise these three distinct regions of Wales, and that's part of the steps you need to take to unpack wider overall objectives. So, it tries to spell out what the particular strengths and weaknesses of each of these regions are and opportunities [correction: and their opportunities], but it also leaves a lot of the decisions, the detailed decisions, to be resolved through the regional development frameworks, as such. So, it actually stops short of specifying. That, actually, I understand, has been a sound approach to enable more local areas to actually unpack what they need and how they respond locally because that way they can take much more account of local circumstances, involve people more locally than you might be able to do at a national level. If that's to, though, be effective, from experience, what is required is clarity in the national document as to the contribution it makes [correction: each region makes]. And that's where I'm saying, in some senses, it actually falls short of being as clear as it might be on the particular issues of inequality that might apply. So, if I—. And, in this, I'm only doing it as illustrative, not a definitive thing, but, if I take an example, the issues of central Wales, mid Wales, and the rural nature of so much of it, pose issues that are fundamentally different in rural areas [correction: in these rural areas] in terms of how you tackle inequality than if you're dealing with the problems of urban inequality that exist within our urban areas of Cardiff or other places, and, therefore, the issue, for example—and we may come on to this—of access to services may be the most critical issue in rural areas, rather than issues of poverty per se.

Thank you. So, am I correct in taking from that that you're happy with the three-region model as an outline, but that you think more work needs to be done to dig down into particular areas?

Yes, and the only thing I'd say on the three—. I don't know if it's appropriate to mention that at this stage, but, on the three-region model, it makes sense, as such, just in terms of my understanding of Wales. The question I would ask, and it may be as it goes forward, and it may be there already, is just having a deeper understanding of how those areas function and what are the relationships. And, by that—for example, if you take the mid Wales, which is a very large one, is it a single area, or do the western and eastern parts orientate differently and are their needs different? And that's the type of thing that can be unpacked more locally or may be more usefully unpacked at a national level so that issues are not missed out on.

Do you have a view on that? Sorry.

Almost by definition, I don't, because I don't have the evidence, and, therefore, if I gave you something, it would be a very personal impression, and my personal impression is that the orientation of the areas around towards Aberystwyth is very different to those that are oriented towards Hereford, for example. But I don't know, because I've not seen the hard evidence. I can only go by my own experiences of travelling around Wales from time to time. 

Okay, thank you. And a final question, then. The NDF requires these three regions to bring forward strategic development plans and it actually provides areas that they believe should be included within these plans. Do you think the NDF is too restrictive in this regard, or do you think it still provides enough free rein for the regions? 

I don't think it's too restrictive. I think, if anything, it could be clearer on some of those and actually maybe quantify some of those issues more than maybe is there already. I've touched on—. A key issue is understanding how they function. There's an issue also about the interrelationships, because these are not islands. There are interrelationships that maybe need to be pulled out and made sure they're taken into account. I know that you've touched [correction: touched on this]—and the NDF talks about relationships with England, which is right, in, say, the north towards Chester, or towards Bristol, but there are internal relationships as well that need to be thought about in that respect.

In terms of its scale—. And the scale of them [correction: of the regions] is not that big, to be quite honest, to be able to be handled properly. I say that from personal experience, where, you may be aware, I was partly responsible for the strategic planning of the area that was called Strathclyde in Scotland, which covered an area that is 75 per cent the size of Wales, and we could manage it. It is not a technically difficult problem. What is important, if you go large—and there are values [correction: there is value] in going large, to be quite honest, amongst them being political, because you can clearly separate out what is being done at that level from what a local authority can—. If you go too small, you get this overlap of responsibilities between a smaller region and big authorities, and people get confused roles. Going big removes that. But the other thing about 'if you go large, you have to be careful' is not to treat it as a uniform area with formulaic policies, so that the areas—. The issues of the deep rural parts of mid Wales are very different to maybe the catchment of Aberystwyth, as an example.

Okay, thank you very much.

Hefin David. 

Do you think there's an issue that there's a timelag between the development of local development plans and the national development framework, in that local development plans are being operationalised and developed at a different pace and entirely separately to the current consultation on the NDF?

In the sense—. Sorry for clarifying, but in the sense of—which one are you saying that you feel is going faster than the other?

Well, the LDPs are currently operationalised, aren't they?

At any stage, you're going to be inheriting a system, and therefore there's always going to be a transitional period, but it's not a reason for not having a more strategic approach to decisions being taken. I think that's a question of how that's managed, as such, but it is purely a management process, it's not a reason for delay. I think the real challenge and the way I, from experience, express it is that, if you get the NDF right, it actually allows people to act with more confidence locally, and certainty, because they have a clearer context in which they're working.

The issue I've got is when does that transition period end, because, in addition to LDPs, you've also got strategic development plans, and, currently, there's only one in the pipeline, for south-east Wales, and that won't be operational until 2025. So, when will we finally have all these LDPs, SDPs and the NDF lined up and all pushing in the same direction, given that there are all these timelags in the system? Could it be 10, 15 years before we even end the transitional period?

I'm not close enough to the details to understand why it needs to take that long. All I can say from my own experience of an equivalent system being introduced elsewhere is it doesn't need to take that long, and there were always short-term mismatches in terms of people's aspirations, but we pressed on and implemented it and got it going, and it did work and it was better for it.

But you would have concerns that—if it was taking that long, it would be a concern.

And I'd want to know why, to be quite honest.

Yes. Well, it's a fact that the strategic development plan for south-east Wales is the only one in the pipeline, and it isn't close to being operationalised yet.

And there is a question then of how that can be incentivised to be done faster. I think that would be my approach to such a problem.

So, these things need to be lined up faster.

Yes. And there's no reason—. I think there's always an issue, and this is certainly with [correction: certainly the case with] the NDF, and this is why I opened by saying I'm starting from the point of welcoming what has been done, because of the importance of having a national development framework for Wales. The issue really is that you can wait for perfection in these things, and there will be things that it will not cover as well as you might want in an ideal world, or it might not go into depth, or they may be subjects it has to leave to another time, but it's much more important to get something on the table early and create and not wait for it. The experience of other countries is that—if you take the Dutch example, they got something on the table, but it got to a second roll forward when they felt, 'Well, we've got it now in shape.' But it was more important they got something on the table. And the same applied in Scotland, and that was my advice.

I think the local authority boundaries work against moving quickly, particularly with strategic development plans, and your clear implication is that, if you don't do it quickly, there is an implication for growth and development in regions.

It will not be as effective as it could be. My experience is having worked with both very strong regional authorities, but also on joint strategic development plans.

We have got difficulties in that area in Wales. The other issue is the NDF, SDPs and LDPs are not the only part of the picture. We've also got something you know very well about, the growth deals. You've worked on growth deals in other areas, you've mentioned. Would you like to see more reference to growth deals in the draft NDF?

What I would like to see is more explicit linkage to delivery vehicles of any kind, whatever they are, and, if deals are part of that, then they should be there. The issue about the deal-based process that we've come across in the commission is that they're too ad hoc, too sporadic. What you need is this linkage [correction: is linkage] between the strategic plan and delivery across the country.

So, the strategic plan can be the connecting document between different growth deals.

Yes. And there should be an explicit linkage between the plan and resources to deliver.

Okay, thank you.

Joyce Watson.

The UK2070 Commission had a first report and it established a £250 billion UK renewal fund. Have you got more detail regarding that, and how far do you think that the NDF aligns with recommendations from your second report?

Well, the context of that £250 billion fund, renewal fund, that we advocated was that we're in a situation where the action that's required to address the issues that the country faces, including Wales, has been often too little, too late in terms of when there have been major changes in economic conditions or environmental issues that need to be addressed, and that in fact that could well be heightened as an issue with the loss of European funding, which in particular has been an issue as a [correction: has been a] source of structural funding for major projects in Wales, Scotland and other areas of that nature. The other aspect is the way we actually go about choosing where money is put is often conditioned by criteria like Treasury Green Book assessments, which are very short term, incremental and favour areas that have actually been successful in the past. So that, if you wanted to change, it's very difficult—where money is put. So, the idea is in creating a fund that actually is ring-fenced, which is transformational in nature, of a scale and continuity that allows us to break out of that kind of short-term, incremental approach. The scale that is there is based upon a scale that is greater than in fact that allocated through, say, European funding, but also related to the experience of countries like Germany, who, when they sought to bring two countries together, set up a funding mechanism that was more, but, in proportionate terms, is similar.

In terms then of how it's allocated and how it might be taken forward, it's something that we're obviously still working on, and it will be in our final report as such, but in principle we're looking for a scheme that is not just centrally then managed, in centralised control, but, actually, is managed locally. It seems to me that in fact an NDF that sets out an agenda for change and progress of the nature I've talked about, of uplifting the scale of action and economic development, and identifies the infrastructure that's required to deliver that and other investments that are required, it then sets out the agenda for the scale of its access to a central, ring-fenced fund that it then can allocate and use locally to help deliver change beyond what is the current situation in Wales. So, the idea would be that, in fact, it would be a locally managed process, but a centrally ring-fenced resource. 

You do also mention that the decisions about regional economies—so, Wales would be a region—should be devolved to those regions. What do you think that would mean for Wales? If we had this big national pot and then it was devolved down, what difference do you think that would make? 

Besides securing the scale of resources that are available for Wales to help manage the change it wants to see in the first place, that your scale [correction: , the scale] has changed. The issue on devolution more generally, which I think is behind your question, is that there is already, in relative terms, a higher level of devolution to Wales, and where would one go further? In some senses, it's related to the aspirations within Wales itself. Control of resources and ability to raise resources is clearly a key area in terms of creating a more local sense of control [correction: more local control] of decisions and having confidence in setting higher aspirations. I think the lack of resources and the low levels of funding have actually held people back in aspiring to achieve more, and they're geared to, 'Well, what do we have?' and 'That's all we're going to get', and therefore maybe sub-optimise their aspirations.

So, you think if we're in charge of our economy and we can take people with us on a journey to aspire—

We can speak with more authority if you have the capacity to make decisions on a scale and a continuity that, in fact, gives confidence for us to gather around and also invest in. 

Thank you. 

Also, I think Joyce Watson did ask you about the NDF aligning with the UK2070 Commission recommendations from your second report. Can you comment on that at all, as well?  

Yes. The UK2070 Commission, in its second report, had seven key priorities that were the unpacking of what it had put out in its first report. They hung around these seven things. If I go through them: on climate change, it clearly, as I said earlier, relates closely to the same aspirations that are in the NDF, as a national aspiration to move to a zero-carbon economy. The key thing that we put out, and I think I've tried to touch on today, is that we need to be more spatial and we need to make it clearer what that means for places. So, if you take the way climate change will affect one part of the country to another in Wales and across the whole of the UK, it will vary. But a particular issue, for example, might be to what extent, if Wales has become a much wetter area, which is one of the elements that comes out of the work that's been done by the Committee on Climate Change, are you resilient against extreme weather conditions, not just responding to a change in climate? And which infrastructure is most vulnerable? 

I suppose, in general, I'm asking, in your second report, how much does the draft NDF align with what you outlined in your second report? 

Well, I think that the areas—. A lot of it does align, although I think it could be stronger on climate change. Similarly, you pick up the whole issue of connectivity, and improvement of connectivity is something that is closely aligned as to how that should be improved. The issue of devolution we've touched upon. 

The areas that I think we are exploring that may be ones that are relevant to the NDF are to what extent we need to think about some radical new ideas about harnessing the new economy that's emerging. And we talk in the report about a Massachusetts Institute of Technology of the north. This is actually trying to harness the power of our major universities, and one of the big assets of the UK is that our universities, including the ones in Wales, are amongst the best in the world at innovation and research. But, in terms of the way that the country has harnessed that, it's very much concentrated into what's called the golden triangle of the Oxford-Cambridge-London axis. What they have done is remarkable, and what we're saying is that that type of performance—rolling out the power of the universities into economic development is something that the rest of the country needs to look at more seriously, and having a major initiative and investment in research and innovation in the rest of the country on a scale that we've not done to date.

Are you saying that the NDF doesn't capture that?

It doesn't capture the scale of change that we're aspiring to and we think is needed to get a rebalancing of the economy of the country.

Is there anything else?

The other one that is in some ways interesting, because it's one we've actually quoted Wales as being a leader on, and that's the way it's actually brought the whole concept of the foundational economy into the thinking of Government. It's one that we, in fact, say should be—the approach that's been adopted in Wales should be adopted elsewhere in the country. However, it doesn't seem to have been reflected in the NDF to the extent I expected it to be.

Okay. Can you expand on that a little more?

Well, the foundational economy—I mean, you've told me, so I'm only putting back to you what I've learnt from talking to people in Wales—is that part of the economy that is fundamental to all communities and, actually, represents probably half or more of the economic component of jobs within communities. It's particularly important in those areas outside of the metropolitan centres.

Give an example of how better supporting the foundational economy could be captured within the NDF.

In terms of how it's expressed within it, I think we're talking here about the way—. If you take just the sheer scale of the contribution that it should make, in terms of where, in fact, it actually needs to be strengthened, you get some sense of where the priorities for action are in terms of which areas are ones that need to be supported more than others in opening up—. For instance, in relation to, particularly, say, the skills agenda, which of the areas—I'm only picking it as an example—where, in fact, the need to develop skills is particularly important in actually opening up the opportunities for it. 

The other area is in terms of the role of the small and medium-sized enterprises, which are critical to the foundational economy. Actually, which areas [correction: areas of Wales] have the greatest potential or need for strengthening that base, either in terms of access to financing, in terms of regional banking, or things of this nature?

So, you don't think that these areas are reflected within the NDF.

I might be wrong, but I don't even think that the concept of the foundational economy is actually mentioned in the NDF.

Okay.

Even if it's to mention it and to recognise it, but I think it's more than that; it's actually unpacking it, because it is—

Is the NDF the right document to unpack it?

Well, yes, because it is a major part of the development of the nation.

Yes, okay. Just to press you on this, is there anything else in your second report that doesn't align with the NDF? You said two things, I think—is there anything else?

Well, I'm saying that there is—. The other elements, as I say, like climate change and like connectivity are clearly there, but it could go deeper. But, the ones that I was looking for and could not find were those two areas. 

Okay, thank you. Bethan Sayed.

We touched on it earlier, in relation to the specificity in terms of what should be in this document and the economic action plan, but do you think that the regional disparities are there in the economic action plan? Are the opportunities between different parts of Wales presented well enough in the economic action plan, going forward?

I think, generally, there's a sense that they could be much more clear as to the contributions that are going to be made and where the strengths lie. But, as I say, the problem is that that is, in many ways, something that's got to be unpacked in the regional development frameworks in detail. So, that is there, but in fact, in some senses, what's interesting [correction: what's missing] is some sense of the overall scale of the Welsh economy and what that should be. That almost is fundamental, because if, in fact, there is, and you accept the need for Wales being able to unlock its potential to do more than it's done perhaps to increase its productivity when it's actually one of the areas with the lowest levels of productivity in the country, then if that's true and we don't want that to be sustained—we want something better—that affects the scales that actually should be set as the aspirations, and that needs to be set for the regional development framework, as the context in which they develop their frameworks. And I don’t think that's there. And I think that without that, you're defaulting to just what I call a 'trend-based view of life'.

Just to clarify, though, does the detail have to be in all the plans then? Or are you saying that the construction of the detail needs to be in regional economic development plans, and then an explanation of those details in the economic action plan, and then the NDF?

The NDF needs to set a very strong context from which they're all working and therefore working to a consistent basis. That context has to be more than a trend-based view of life and just doing things better and in a more sustainable way. We're actually talking not only about a more sustainable approach to the way things are done, but also to a greater scale of outcomes from that process in terms of the level of economic activities.

So, in relation to what would be in the regional economic development plans, if you could give me some idea as to what activities and approaches would be taken to shape them, that would help me, because a lot of this is quite high level. What's tangible that could be done to make this a reality within those particular plans?

Within the regional development framework, I expect there to be a very clear expression of the economic nodes, and the places of growth within them; the scale of linkage in this in terms of where there are missing links, a lack of capacities in those links, the quality of those links in terms of accessibility; the actual gaps in the labour markets that are required in terms of, I touched on skills or employment or areas that might be there; and the actual very clear expression, locally, of what is the asset base of that region that you're going to measure [correction: to build] on. And not just the industry, but also, it could be to do with the natural assets that one is harnessing. In fact, it seems to me that there's an issue then about whether there are delivery vehicles, whether current systems and current mechanisms will deliver that or [correction: deliver or] whether there are special delivery vehicles required to do so. It seems to me also [correction: also there is a need for] a very clear idea of what are the priorities for investment in that [correction: in that region]—whether that is in terms of the strategic economic developments or environmental action, or whatever.

You said earlier that, obviously, this would have to adapt to what already exists. Are you suggesting that these types of activities and the suite of things that you've just described needs to happen isn't happening now? Or is it happening, but not deep enough or well enough?

I have not done an audit of them; it wouldn't be appropriate. And the commission is very careful not to try and say it's got the answers for specific places. I'm talking about—. You asked me what my expectations were, and when it's done, what I would expect to see.

Right, okay.

And it relates to the question Mr David asked about timescale, because in many places, a lot of this should be being done already, but what you're doing is bringing it together in a coherent way to make sure that they fit together and there's consistency, and identifying the gaps in that [correction: in them]. And in some ways, one of the critical values of what's being done is actually to make clear what is already in hand. If there's no explicit national framework for development or regional development frameworks, the reality is there is a hidden one. The way things are being spent at the moment, the way investment is made, if you put them together, they represent a de facto national framework for development or the regional frameworks. And the reality, generally, is that when you pull that out, they aren't quite what you want.

And at a national level, the thing that—. It’s articulated very clearly in our first report, there is a hidden UK policy, which, despite over 50 years of trying to rebalance the UK economy, hasn't worked, and partly because it's [correction: there's] a de facto policy that has favoured investment in London and the wider south-east [correction: south-east of England], and by articulating and bringing it out, you can make this much clearer. You create a forum for discussion.

But that was what I was coming on to, but, firstly, my gut reaction is, 'Do people actually want to do that, especially the UK Government?', because we know, here in Wales, that the inequalities have persisted, but by exemplifying it, it makes it clearer and perhaps more real, in a way. So, that may be an issue, but that's a political question. But could you just tell us, in terms of—? You think that the inequalities have persisted because of this de facto, unwritten route towards the south-east of England.

Well, I would say I think it is there, and I think if you—. As I say, in our first report it was articulated very fully and no-one has demurred at that. And I think the issue and the thing that we've been very clear about is that this is actually a situation where no-one wins. The level of pressure that's taking place on areas of high growth is creating unacceptable conditions of life for people, and, again, if you read the report, we articulate that. So, we're putting [correction: putting forward] something that is actually in everyone's interest: the need for Wales to have its potential unlocked to the full is in the interest of the rest of the country.

But have those inequalities persisted because of that prioritisation of the south-east of England? And what has been the basis of that, then? That's what I'm trying to understand, because I'm not sure I am—.

Well, because—. I touched on action being short term, of insufficient scale, and also that the criteria that are used tend to favour areas that have already experienced growth, because the return on investment that's evaluated through the various mechanisms actually always favours the places that have the highest increases in land values and so on.

And my last question is just with regard to the UK Government's shared prosperity fund and the future design of regional policy, really. I mean, how do you think that would look like with the UK Government obviously running schemes that would have previously been run by EU structural funds?

Well, we don't know what's going to happen on that, but, in principle, the proposal we put forward for the UK renewal fund, this £0.25 trillion fund for a 20-year programme is actually, in some ways, beyond that. It's actually saying we have to move from that incremental approach to the way we invest in the short term to actually having a scale of investment that, in particular, moves us from two things. One is a project-based approach to investment in infrastructure, for example, which is very short term and actually ends up with a beauty contest, often, between two schemes that are actually both of merit. The second thing that's related to that is that we challenge the current cap on investment that currently persists—. We haven't reached it normally, but aspiring for [correction: but the NIC is aspiring for the cap to be] 1.2 per cent of the GDP—that's the current ceiling that's used, certainly by the NIC for England. I don't know what the NIC for Wales does. But that 1.2 per cent is low by any international comparison, and what we're saying is it should be raised to 3 per cent, and that is workable, and once you make that change, you start to change the nature of the discussion because you're not into a beauty contest between equally deserving schemes.

Joyce.

Can I just—? It's, sort of, Keynesian-type thinking: you spend, obviously, strategically, but you spend with a clear strategy behind it to increase the wealth of the nation.

It's not been presented in those terms and it's for others to analyse the theoretical base of it. The practicality is that we underspend on infrastructure, for example, on a significant scale, and have done consistently for 40 years, compared with our comparable countries, and what we're talking about is a level of—. We should gear our level of spend to what is needed to restructure the contexts in which investment can take place in our economy.

Where can you find that comparator?

It's actually in the—. The first report has stuff on that, and it's stuff, obviously, if the clerk or anyone wants to come back to us, I'm happy to make contacts to do that.

That would be good. That would be very useful. Thank you.

Thank you. Can I just ask—? The NDF very much focuses on links between Welsh communities and it also talks about the economic opportunities with communities over the border in England, particularly in the north-west and the south-west of England. Do you think there should be a focus in order to reduce economic inequalities? And also, how important do you think the role is of connectivity to the Republic of Ireland and other European nations in the context of Wales's economic development?

I think the relationships to the adjoining areas of England are clearly quite critical. That comes back to the issue I touched on earlier, which is to be very clear about the functional interrelationships that exist in terms of the patterns of work, in terms of labour markets, patterns of housing markets. Because if you don't make decisions within those coherent areas, you actually end up with sub-optimal policies, if I can put it like that, that are actually inadequate. What I've been, and what the commission have been, particularly supportive of is the initiative of the links that are developing between south Wales and Bristol and Swindon through the western gateway, I think it's now called, where they're talking in a bottom-up approach—it's not imposed, which I think is a very big strength of any initiative—people talking to each other about how they might co-operate on that and in terms of improving the sharing of experience, improving connectivities and so on.

One of the things that—and, again, it's one that I think is relevant in the case of south Wales—there's a report by Greengauge 21, which has been an independent grouping—. It has taken forward, [correction: taken forward its thinking] in a report to the commission, which is on our website—it looks at the issues of levels of relative access to the wider markets of the UK, and Cardiff actually comes out as the least advantaged of the major cities of the UK, which poses questions, then, about what should be done about that.

In terms of the north-west of England and the links to north Wales, well, having seen that as being part of my living environment as a child, that relationship, and with relatives there and so on, they're very close, north Wales, to that part [correction: that part of England], and you cannot think about it without taking them [correction: without taking that relationship] into account.

There are other linkages. You talk about Ireland and—

And the rest of Europe.

—the rest of Europe. Well, I think, clearly, they're important, therefore the—. The importance, for example, of the ports that are provided by Wales on the west coast are clearly part of the infrastructure of the nation. So, they're more than just local issues, they are of national importance and need to be developed and harnessed. I think in the way that global trade will change, we need to ensure we can retain that capacity [correction: the capacity] they provide.

Bethan.

I just wanted to ask one question on your rosy analysis of the western gateway and then in north Wales. Can you tell me what other nations of Europe—you may not have done any work on this, I don't know—where, obviously, they're on the mainland and there are lots of borders, and so, obviously, parts of Germany and France would be working together, but in terms of how that then feeds into the national picture of investment—? Because I know there are a lot of people who've come to me saying they're worried about that east-west agenda when, potentially, it shouldn't come before north-south, so that we build a nation and then we can look to progress those western gateway opportunities. I think there's a bit of a conflict there, but I don't think there would be so much of a conflict if they could understand that it's just a natural thing and that other countries are successful in doing it but also still remaining strong in that nationhood. Do you know what I'm saying?

Yes, absolutely. I think there are two aspects there: one is in terms of international comparisons. The cross-border planning and co-operation has actually been one of the main initiatives in European policy, and there are many examples of such cross-border working that can be as dramatic as the Øresund bridge issue in terms of Copenhagen to Malmö—

Yes, I've been on that.

—to just co-operations across the border between the Basque Country either side of the border in France and Spain and so forth. Actually, if you like, I can try—. I'm sure there is a report that deals with these issues—

We'd like to see that.

—to see that. So, it has been a central thing of not denying [correction: of not to deny] the boundary—in fact, there are different administrative issues and so on, but actually dealing with the places that people live, work and play in. If a boundary is there, you don't stop and pretend there's a wall there, you actually deal with those relationships and you harness them to make you stronger. That can be on a very large scale. I was involved in one that was called the European diagonal, which was trying to link the whole area from southern France and Spain to try and build stronger linkages between those places.

So, it's important in that, but you also touched on a second issue, which is the second report of the commission, and we've actually tried to highlight that there is a need to put the debate about inter-city movement and priorities that gets a very high profile, because it'll be big schemes, into a context, and saying that there are three critical components to building what we think is required in this country, which is a connectivity revolution. There is that inter-city—getting that right, in which all the connectivities are very strong and tend to be London-centric. That's not a criticism, that's just a fact of economic history. But, actually, the links between the rest of the cities is something that needs to be critical [correction: to be critically addressed]. The second one is actually intra-urban mobility, and, therefore, what is done within our great urban complexes has to be on a different scale. Again, you're putting much greater emphasis on that. The third one is the connectivity beyond, so the connectivity to the wider, remoter or rural communities is as important a part of that; they are not leaving places behind, and getting that right is there [correction: is therefore important]. Again, there's a report that's been done for us that highlights the need for this and how some parts of the country are going to be particularly disadvantaged if we don't get that right.

Okay, thank you. Sorry, it's just that time is pressing—

If we could get that report—

Yes, no problem.

—that you mentioned about the European—. That would be useful.

We'll drop you a note to prompt on that. Thank you very much.

Mr Goodstadt, thank you very much for your time with us today. It's been valuable, so thank you, and we'll send you a record of the proceedings, so feel free to look at that. If you think you can add something afterwards, then please do as well, and we'll drop you a note just to prompt on those couple of issues to raise.

Okay. As I was saying, I'm just obviously very pleased that Wales is ahead of the game on this, to be quite honest, because we are using you as an example of what can be done, and it's something that's worked out, rolled forward and kept going, and it's important that it's done so.

That's it. We can bear that in mind in our evidence as well. Thank you.

Right, that brings an end to our public meeting this morning.