The next item is the debate on the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee report on the national infrastructure commission for Wales, and I call on Russell George to move the motion. Russell George.

Motion NDM6258 Russell George

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Notes the report of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee on its Inquiry into the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales, which was laid in the Table Office on 23 January 2017.

Motion moved.

Diolch. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move the motion in my name. The committee’s inquiry into a national infrastructure commission was a significant piece of work for the committee. In Wales, at this time, I think we do seem to have a number of really high-profile, blockbusting projects in the pipeline. We have the M4 relief road that’s, of course, going through its public inquiry at the moment—and I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his drop-in session today that he put on for Members—proposals for a new nuclear power station at Wylfa, electrification, of course, of the main line through Cardiff and to Swansea and the south Wales metro, and, of course, the potential, as well, for a Swansea tidal lagoon, which, I should add, has cross-party support in this Chamber. And, of course, I don’t want to leave out mid Wales: we have the likes of the Newtown bypass, which will of course be hugely beneficial to the mid Wales economy. So, I think it’s fitting that the Cabinet Secretary is proposing a national infrastructure commission for Wales by the end of this year.

Now, the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee has taken a great interest in the plans, and has indeed made it one of its first inquiries. So, the committee looked in detail at the proposals the Government was putting forward earlier this year. We invited evidence from stakeholders in Wales, those involved in the new UK National Infrastructure Commission, and looked at how similar organisations work in Australia. We didn’t do a site visit, I should add; it was all without a site visit, unfortunately. Our conclusions were largely very positive. The Cabinet Secretary’s vision of an expert body that can depoliticise some of the most contentious and far-reaching decisions in Wales, I thought, was a compelling one, and that was the view of the committee.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Ann Jones) took the Chair.

But there were three areas where the committee recommended change. While we agree that the establishment of the body shouldn’t be delayed by legislation, we believe that there was a real benefit of putting it on a statutory basis to give it more credibility and clout, and, to that end, we recommended that it should be set up with the presumption that legislation will follow. We thought that the remit of the commission should be slightly wider to include the supply of land for strategically significant housing developments, and we also wanted to make the body more independent, by making it accountable to the future generations commissioner, and by ensuring that it was based outside Cardiff and not sharing a building with Government, and by giving an Assembly committee the chance to scrutinise the chair prior to his or her appointment. So, in all, we made 10 recommendations, and I’m pleased that the Government has engaged seriously with the work that we undertook and has given consideration to the ideas that we put forward, and the Welsh Government has accepted six of the committee’s recommendations. Another three have been accepted in principle, and one was rejected.

So, I’m pleased that the committee has been able to influence the model for the national infrastructure commission in the following ways. The preferred candidate for chair of the commission will be scrutinised by an Assembly committee in a pre-appointment hearing, as the Finance Committee did recently for the preferred chair of the Welsh Revenue Authority. The commission will produce a ‘state of the nation’ report on future Welsh infrastructure needs every three years, to detach its work from the political cycle, and will produce an annual report focusing on governance and past and upcoming work, and the Government has agreed to respond to all recommendations within six months. The commission’s annual remit letter will provide information on how much the Welsh Government expects to be able to spend on infrastructure funding over the longest possible timescale to give important context to its recommendations. The remit letter will also encourage the commission to build a strong relationship with the UK National Infrastructure Commission and the Scottish Futures Trust to maximise effectiveness. Appointments, also, to the commission will need to take into account the diversity of communities across Wales, and engagement at regional levels will be set in its terms of reference. Finally, the Welsh Government will explore mechanisms such as the development bank to focus on how more private funding can be used to support infrastructure development.

The only recommendation that the Government has rejected is our view that the commission would be in a stronger position if it was established under the assumption that it would be put on a statutory basis in due course. Now, our recommendation was influenced by the evidence from federal and state level infrastructure advisory bodies in Australia, which told the committee that their status as an authoritative voice on infrastructure has been enhanced by their independent status, and that the benefits of such an approach would apply more widely than Australia. The chief executive of the UK National Infrastructure Commission told the committee that, although being a non-statutory body had allowed it to be established more quickly, there was also a downside, since stakeholders perceived it to be less permanent. The committee agreed with the Government that we shouldn’t wait for legislation in order to establish the commission with pace, but we felt that there would be a real benefit in giving a clear commitment from the outset that legislation would be likely to follow. Now, as it stands, the risk remains that a future Cabinet Secretary—one perhaps less committed than the present Cabinet Secretary’s vision of a national infrastructure commission—could abolish the organisation at the stroke of a pen, or compromise its independence. So, a statutory body would provide protection to the new body and send a clear message to stakeholders that it was here to stay. So, I am, of course, disappointed that the Government has rejected this particular recommendation.

However, I do note that the Cabinet Secretary hasn’t completely slammed the door on this, and his plan to review the body before the end of the Assembly leaves a window, I hope, where these issues will be considered again. So, I and my committee colleagues will look forward to reviewing progress in 2021—it sounds a long way off—and seeing whether the vision that we all share today has been delivered. So, I know there are a number of committee members that are keen to speak and be called in this debate today, and I look forward to hearing the Members’ views and the response from the Cabinet Secretary.

As a member of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee, I welcome the opportunity to contribute in this debate and add my support to the motion. I’d like to start by thanking, actually, my fellow committee members and committee staff for the work that has gone into producing the report, and the Cabinet Secretary for his careful and positive consideration on behalf of the Welsh Government. The Chair is quite right about the range and scale of the potential projects currently in the pipeline, and as a proud north-Walian, it would be remiss of me not to add into the mix the north-east Wales metro and a potential third Menai crossing.

I’d like to focus my contribution briefly today on two areas of the committee report, recommendations 7 and 8. Starting in reverse order, recommendation 8 states that

‘the NICfW board should reflect the diverse communities of Wales to ensure an understanding of all parts of Wales.’

I’ve always stressed that this pan-Wales body, in principle, needs to be just that in practice, and that there is potential for all regions of Wales to benefit. But in order to do so, the commission must have a comprehensive understanding of the needs and aspirations of the different areas of our nation. Given the focus and the recognition of the role of the various city deals and the cross-border growth vision within the north of Wales, I’m pleased that the economy Cabinet Secretary on behalf of the Welsh Government has concurred with the committee’s recommendation that it will be important for the commission to engage with regional fora at the appropriate levels. In fact, the written response to the committee states:

‘This principle will be enshrined in its terms of reference; I see the detailed mechanisms as a matter for the commission.’

I hope that, once the commission is established, we as a committee will be able to play a part in ensuring that these mechanisms are put adequately into action, and effectively into action, of course.

Moving back to recommendation 7, that

‘The NICfW should produce a regular “State of the Nation” report in a timescale disconnected from the political timetable’, and putting forward a suggestion of every three years—a suggestion that was accepted by the Welsh Government—this idea of taking steps to separate projects so significant to the future investment of our economy and the infrastructure of our country from the political cycle, coupled with a long-term pipeline, planning and vision that will hopefully be enabled by the establishment of the commission, was met with consensus and support at a recent Future Flintshire event that I held this week in my own constituency, to discuss the needs and aspirations of our local economy with stakeholders across the area. The priority now must be to establish the commission within the planned timescale and to kick-start work on these key projects, which would not only benefit businesses, communities and stakeholders in my area but across the whole of Wales.

I think that, as the Chair has highlighted, while it is welcome to see the Government’s positive response to some of the recommendations, there is some disagreement about the role and the remit of the national infrastructure commission, and some of that disagreement is fundamental. It goes to the very heart of what problem the commission is trying to solve. You wouldn’t necessarily know this level of disagreement from the figures that the Government has published in relation to its own consultation exercise. The percentages that disagree: it’s 1 per cent and 0 per cent in many of them. I would have to say—and I am not trying to be deliberately provocative here—that some of them are almost questions that it is impossible to disagree with:

‘Do you agree that NICfW should work collaboratively with the UK National Infrastructure Commission…?’

Who could possibly disagree with that? Nobody does. Similarly, ‘Do you agree there should be an open public appointments process for the commission?’ So, I think maybe, if we want to learn something from consultations, let’s actually frame the questions about those areas where there is genuine, sincere disagreement. Even on the first question, which is the fundamental one about the role and remit, it says that 87 per cent agree—but in brackets, it says ‘in whole or in part’. It is the second bit—‘in part’—where of course we find there is disagreement. So, on the question of the statutory basis, some of the key industry bodies—the Civil Engineering Contractors Association—clearly argue, as they indeed have done in terms of the UK Commission, that for this commission to do the job of work that it is tasked with on behalf of the people of Wales, it needs to be set on a statutory basis. Indeed, Lord Kinnock, of course, in response to the u-turn following the commitment in the Queen’s speech in Westminster—which now, of course, means that the UK Commission is also not being put on a statutory basis—went as far as to say that that actually wrecked the whole impact of the body to create the kind of independence and authority that actually is needed to have a long-term approach to our infrastructure needs, which go beyond the political cycle and go beyond the vagaries of the change of administration from one term to another. So, I have to say that that is a great source of disappointment, not least to my party, but indeed, clearly, as evidenced by the committee’s report, across the Chamber and among key bodies and sectors that base it upon their own expertise.

In terms of social infrastructure, again, part of the problem that we have and that we are trying to solve is the imbalance of our infrastructure investment: the fact that there isn’t a long-term approach but there isn’t a comprehensive or holistic approach either. That’s why, though I couldn’t convince all of my fellow committee Members on this—. Why actually keep social infrastructure out? As we heard powerfully this morning, I think, in evidence from Karel Williams, it is an arbitrary divide—the difference between social and economic or productive infrastructure. So, bring it in. There are tentative moves, possibly, hidden within the Government’s response, but actually, let’s make that part of the core remit. I’m glad to see that the Government has said that it will explore alternatives in relation to this key question of how we fund infrastructure investment, but can I ask the Cabinet Secretary a very direct question? Does that mean that infrastructure investment will be part of the other remit letter that he’ll be writing soon to the development bank for Wales?

Finally, on this question of the other imbalance, which is an imbalance of investment across Wales, it’s something of a personal and indeed a party obsession of ours at the moment. There’s reference to having the voice of the different regions of Wales heard within the context of the infrastructure commission, but could we have, in that remit letter to this body, a commitment to equalise investment—indeed, in the region in which his constituency lies as well, in north Wales, but across Wales—so that that is clearly there on the face of the remit? And for us to get a sense—if it’s not going to be put on a statutory basis, could the Cabinet Secretary at least tell us, if he has a figure, what the size of the budget for the new body will be, so that we get a sense of its capacity to do the work of overcoming the decades of underinvestment to which I referred earlier?

As stated in the Chair’s foreword to our committee report:

‘The Cabinet Secretary’s vision of an independent expert body which can de-politicise contentious decisions that have far reaching consequences is compelling.... We hope our recommendations will provide a basis for the swift establishment of a Commission that—once strengthened by legislation—can ensure Wales develops the essential infrastructure we all rely on for a prosperous 21st century nation.’

As the Cabinet Secretary says in his response,

‘we have committed towards establishing a National Infrastructure Commission for Wales to provide independent and expert advice on strategic infrastructure needs and priorities’.

It is therefore regrettable that the Cabinet Secretary has chosen to reject the committee’s recommendation that the commission should be established as a non-statutory body but with a clear presumption that legislation will follow to move the commission to become a statutory independent body.

As our report states:

‘While the Committee believes that believes that ultimately the independence and credibility of the Commission will best be secured by it being placed on a statutory footing, there is no need to delay setting up the body waiting for legislation.’

But as the Civil Engineering Contractors Association told committee,

‘if it is part of Government, I really don’t think that we’ll get what we need from this. I mean that not as an industry, but as a nation’.

Evidence from Australian infrastructure bodies emphasised the importance of being established by legislation. Infrastructure Australia told us that legislation strengthening their role as an independent, transparent and expert advisory body has allowed them to operate more effectively and independently. Infrastructure Victoria told us that the reasons for setting up an independent body to advise on infrastructure applies not just to their particular circumstances, but across countries, increasing, they said, community confidence in processes and outcomes.

Although the Cabinet Secretary has already committed to a review of the status of the commission ahead of the next Assembly election, the committee concluded that, to have clout and credibility and to overcome the perceived lack of permanence of a non-statutory commission, it must be, and be seen to be, an independent body.

The Cabinet Secretary should be aware that local campaigns against proposed housing developments generally focus on the claimed inappropriateness of the site proposed and the inadequacy of local infrastructure such as schools, GP surgeries and transport links to support an increased population. It is therefore also regrettable that he has only accepted in principle the committee recommendation that the remit of the commission should be extended to include the supply of land for strategically significant housing developments and related supporting infrastructure alongside the economic and environmental infrastructure. His statement that this issue will not be considered until the review of the commission before the end of this Assembly term leaves the Welsh Government following rather than leading the agenda.

Ironically, the Welsh Government’s own local development plan manual, setting out criteria against which local planning applications will be considered, includes housing, access, parking, design, green infrastructure and landscaping, and refers to both sites for development and areas of restraint. It would therefore be entirely inconsistent if the remit of the commission excluded this. In contrast, good practice is exhibited in the North Wales Economic Ambition Board’s ‘A Growth Vision for the Economy of North Wales’, which states that the delivery of the vision will be integrated into plans for sustainable community planning, but to deliver a more successful and balanced economy, long-term investment will be required to tackled long-term challenges, including housing needs, and that the housing offer across north Wales, a key component to enabling growth, will have to respond to demographic shifts and cater for housing needs across the region. Further, it identifies the need to address key barriers to housing delivery to ensure supply of adequate land for residential development to meet projected demand and need, especially reuse of brownfield sites, and to assist with costs associated with site remediation and enabling infrastructure.

In its acceptance, in principle only, of the committee’s recommendation that the commission should be based outside Cardiff and should not share premises with Welsh Government departments, but should share accommodation with another public body to keep costs down, the Cabinet Secretary rightly identifies the commission’s need to maintain its independence from a range of influences and bodies, which was precisely the point made by the committee. However, his response makes no reference to the commission’s location outside Cardiff, and I therefore ask him to address this in his response today.

I’m pleased to speak in support of this motion today, and as a member of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee, I’d like to thank the Chair, the clerking team, other Members and witnesses for what’s been a really interesting inquiry. For my contribution today, I’d like to focus on the first recommendation in the report. The evidence we took reinforced how important it is for housing and related supporting infrastructure to be included in the commission’s report, alongside economic and environmental infrastructure. The testimony of the North Wales Economic Ambition Board, the Home Builders Federation, and the Association for Consultancy and Engineering made a powerful case that our approach to housing needs to be holistic, Wales-wide and at the core of how we conceptualise infrastructure.

I welcome the response from the Cabinet Secretary that the Welsh Government will consider the way we use strategic land during the review of the commission within this Assembly. But I’d like to make the point that when housing is developed, we also need to make sure we get the peripheral infrastructure right. For example, I’m dealing with an issue on a housing estate in the urban heart of my constituency that was developed a few years ago. For all this time, residents have been without decent broadband. For example, one resident told me their broadband speed is just 0.3 kilobytes per second. The reason for this: infrastructure provision at the site has never been linked up. This impacts on their ability to work, to study, to communicate and to relax. Residents are forced to go to unnecessary cost and are left disappointed that an infrastructural expectation on a brand-new housing estate just isn’t up to scratch.

Alongside this, the committee considered social infrastructure. We didn’t reach agreement that all aspects of this should be within the commission’s remit, but I am pleased that the Cabinet Secretary placed on record in his reply that the national infrastructure commission for Wales will be expected to consider the potential interactions between its future recommendations and social infrastructure. I’d like to briefly explore why this is so important, and why it is the glue that can bring together and strengthen local communities, to quote from a document on considering Infrastructure in the Thames gateway. Ed Evans, from the Civil Engineering Contractors Association Wales gave some important evidence, which is quoted in our report. He said:

‘we need to see infrastructure in its entirety, and it does encompass economic, social and environmental considerations.’

If we don’t do this, I would argue that we won’t align with the sustainability principles underpinning the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. Chwarae Teg also made this point, noting that the definition of sustainable development in the Act intertwines the social with the economic and environmental. Including childcare, social care and educational facilities will ensure the commission can play its strategic role effectively. In a twenty-first century Wales, we need to consider these elements of social infrastructure, alongside more traditional aspects of infrastructure such as transport or broadband, as both determine whether people can access work, as well as how and where they’re able to do so. Public services and infrastructure are key components of the foundational economy and I was glad to table a motion last week with two other members of the committee on this crucial issue.

Flexible childcare provision is one aspect of this. My constituency and others across the northern Valleys are well-served by a plethora of childcare providers and we see some innovative practices currently in development, such as Wales’s first outdoor kindergarten, which is scheduled to open in Dare Valley Country Park this summer. The network of existing provision will be further utilised under the roll-out of the Welsh Government’s childcare policy, and, indeed, demand for childcare may well outstrip supply. Additional childcare providers are likely to be needed to provide this vital infrastructure—infrastructure that has the potential to assist residents in enhancing their employability prospects, increasing their disposable income and boosting their social mobility.

My final point in support of including social infrastructure within the remit of the commission is that this is what the most ambitious global examples already do. Australian federal and state governments both look at economic and social infrastructure. New Zealand and Canada’s national infrastructure bodies include social aspects in their remits, too. And these seem like good examples for us to be following.

Much of what I say will echo comments by other members of the committee, but it does no harm to reiterate some of those points. Firstly, I confirm that the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee, recognises and welcomes the formation of a commission that will provide expert, professional and, above all, independent advice to the Government of Wales. As a member of that committee, I’m also pleased that this commission will receive an explicit mandate and a clear idea of its funding model.

Whilst I realise and accept that it will be instituted as a non-statutory body in the first instance, I note the information received from a number of Australian infrastructure advisory bodies, which almost all stated that the standing of the body was substantially enhanced by its status as a body of statute. In addition to this announced status, there would be the added advantage of the commission being a permanent institution. So, whilst I am sure that the present Cabinet Secretary would at no time seek to dissolve this body, it would prevent anyone, subsequently holding his position, from doing so at some time in the future. I would also add that I believe that the commission’s permanence would greatly assist its prospects of recruiting the very best quality of personnel. The acceptance in principle to locate the commission outside of Cardiff is seen as a positive move and I welcome this proposal.

I wish to make the point that scrutiny of the commission is of paramount importance and I note here that we do not have a defined set of targets. I feel that it’s highly desirable that this deficit be remedied at the earliest possible opportunity. It cannot be stressed too forcefully that the appointment of the commission chair should be the subject of a pre-appointment hearing by a relevant committee. This is an absolute necessity, given the importance of the appointment, and would establish, from the outset, the independence of the commission. I also wish to echo my fellow committee members’ comments with regard to including social infrastructure in the commission’s remit.

So, in conclusion, we in UKIP welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s vision of creating a body that is removed from the burden of political expediency when making decisions of strategic importance with long-term implications. My party will fully support its implementation.

Can I echo the thanks that my fellow committee members have already extended to the committee Commission staff and everyone who’s engaged with the work of the committee? I think there is some very useful evidence in the transcripts that may not have made its way through to the report, which it would bear reflecting on.

I also welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s response. I wish he had felt able to go further in relation to the land for housing and in relation also to acknowledging an ultimate statutory destination, if you like, for the commission, but I also appreciate the fact that he’ll return to that question in his review in due course.

I want to comment briefly on three aspects of the work of the commission and its implications. The first is the 30-year horizon over which the commission intends to work. We heard, both anecdotally in discussions and formally, how important that was for investors and for the industry generally in terms of resource planning, financial planning and, indeed, skills planning. So, I welcome the long time frame over which it will work. Any business knows that there’s greater certainty in the early years than the outer years, but, nevertheless, I think that visibility is important. I also welcome it because I think it actually increases the prospect of political consensus around some of the projects that will inevitably be proposed. Having a solid base of evidence in the public domain over time, available for reflection and challenge, is bound to maximise the opportunity for political consensus to be reached where that’s possible.

I would say, though, that a 30-year time horizon is no small task. It’s not yet 30 years since the worldwide web was invented, and if any of us can think of a more transformative development in recent decades—I’m sure we can’t. It’s a significant task to do that, whether it’s in the marine renewable sector, in terms of the challenges we face for energy distribution, how we fuel our vehicles, what our ports will be doing, and how the internet of things becomes an indispensable part of everyday life. Imagine a world where 10G connectivity is absolutely essential in all parts of Wales to deliver in-home healthcare, which may by then have become the norm. There are all sorts of challenges, which are, at this point beyond imagining. I think it’s important, therefore, that we will have some free thinkers on the commission, and that we won’t be forgiven for building yesterday’s infrastructure tomorrow. And given the pace of rapid technological change, the 30-year period has never been longer than it is today.

I want to speak briefly about the composition and the approach to the work of the commission. As well as the free thinkers, whom I mentioned, we’ll also need people on the commission with hands-on experience of delivery: people with the imagination to think ahead. Reflecting the comments that Vikki Howells and other speakers have made today, despite the fact that social infrastructure isn’t part of the remit, I think it’s important that we have people on the commission with an understanding of social infrastructure, because it’s vital to understand the interconnection between economic, environmental and social infrastructure, even if that’s not a formal part of its activity.

I’ll venture to say as well that I don’t think this is a time just for the familiar faces. We should be bold and we should seek the best available people from wherever they come. I would like, personally, to see experience of international infrastructure on the commission itself. I happen to think that the quality of the people we’ll be able to attract to the commission correlates very closely to their confidence in the independence of the body. Whatever the formal structure is, I hope the Cabinet Secretary will reflect on that in the arrangements of the commission generally. I think it’s absolutely integral that members of the commission have full confidence in its independence.

The third point I want to make is on its role as a challenge partner. It’s not a delivery body: it’s an advisory body and it exists to advise the Welsh Government principally, and in that sense to be a challenge partner to the Welsh Government. But I also hope that other public bodies with an interest and a responsibility for infrastructure will engage in the same way with the work of the commission, and that it can present useful challenge to some of the assumptions in our local authorities, the NHS and in our city regions. I hope that is welcomed by those bodies. No public body has a monopoly on wisdom, and certainly not over a 30-year horizon. Provided that’s a credible challenge, I think it would be a useful contribution to Welsh economic life, and I hope that other public bodies will engage in the same way the Welsh Government has promised to do.

It’s a pleasure to follow my friend Jeremy Miles, and to echo his call for free thinkers to engage with the debate around our future infrastructure needs. I do have some hesitation about the emphasis on the importance of infrastructure. As we’ve discussed previously in this Chamber, the future economic pressures we face demand a more agile and rapid iterative response rather than focusing heavily on infrastructure as we have in the past. That said, we do need to take a long-term view to meet the known long-term challenges that our economy and society face, not least the climate change target that we’ve all signed up to and the implications of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. It’s quite clear the current system does not work terribly well. I remember Gerry Holtham recounting to me his experience as the Welsh Government’s advisor on finance when he had been tasked to go off to the city to try and raise alternative funds to fund the infrastructure ambitions of the Welsh Government. He patiently spent time cultivating his city contacts, agreeing a package of finance, but no sooner than he was about to sign, a Cabinet reshuffle meant that the infrastructure priorities of the Government had changed and all that work had been for nought, and back to square one it was on trying to find finance for infrastructure.

It’s crucial, though, I think, that any new body makes its decisions in a way that takes into account the long-term challenges and sets out the basis on which it makes those decisions transparently, and applies them in a consistent way. A key measurement must be value for money. We should surely prioritise those schemes that give the greatest payback. The Treasury’s Green Book very helpfully sets out a categorisation of what it regards as good value for money.

I’ll just recount briefly its guidance. A scheme that will return somewhere between £1 and £1.50 for every £1 invested is regarded as being low value for money. A scheme that returns £2 for every £1.50 invested is regarded as being medium value for money. A scheme that returns somewhere between £2 and £4 for every £1 is seen as high value for money, and anything delivering a return of over £4 is seen as delivering very high value for money. As an example of that, schemes that encourage walking and cycling for short journeys, for example, typically return about £9 for every £1 that’s invested. But, some of the schemes that we’re currently progressing or have progressed recently don’t fare terribly well according to that benchmark.

The black route of the M4, for example, is predicting a return of £1.62 for every £1 invested. And it’s worth bearing in mind that the formula used to come up with that figure is in itself heavily biased to try and make road-building schemes look attractive. So, to give you an example of how it works, it’ll project that the scheme will produce a saving in journey time of a certain number of minutes, and it’ll then estimate how many cars will make that journey; it’ll take that figure and multiply it by that year—so, in effect, it’ll randomly pick a number up that has no real basis in fact; it’s a projection—and then it’ll multiply that by 30 because that’s the number of years for which it thinks that the scheme will return an investment. So, road schemes are inflated to make them look as if they’re giving the maximum possible return for public money. Even using that formula, the schemes we’re progressing don’t fare terribly well.

Again, the A477, St Clears to Red Roses, had a return of £1.35 for every £1 invested, even using that very ambitious formula and its assumptions. That is a low return on investment. I was staggered to receive a written response from the Cabinet Secretary on the Llandeilo bypass, which in fact said it didn’t have a figure that it based its decision on to give it the go-ahead. I quote:

‘As there has been no development work carried out on the scheme over the last 10 years the Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) dates back to the Public Inquiry in the nineties and at that time was 1.16.’

For a £1 investment, a very low figure. He went on to say:

‘establishing a robust BCR for the project will be an early action as part of the scheme's development.’

Now, I do hope that, when we have an infrastructure commission, we won’t be giving the go-ahead to schemes without robust data to justify them and without a strong resonance for implementing the target we’ve all signed up to on climate change.

I hear muttering from Adam Price. I must say, I do find it breathtaking cynicism to hear him talk about the need for a statutory body, which would take the discretion out of the hands of Ministers, while at the same time getting an exemption for any scheme—

Adam Price rose—

Sadly, I’m out of time.

No, he’s out of time. I’m sorry, Adam; the Member is—[Interruption.]

Getting an exemption—. As it happens, Dai Lloyd, I’ve given way to Adam Price more times than he’s given way to me.

You are winding up, aren’t you, now? Thank you.

Absolutely. An exemption was granted for the Llandeilo bypass so it wouldn’t need to be looked at by the independent commission, knowing full well that, on the basis of a £1.16 return on investment, it wouldn’t pass muster. I do find that breathtakingly cynical when he’s then demanding that other schemes have to pass a similar test. We’ve all signed up to tackling climate change. We all now need to follow through and reflect that commitment in the decisions we make.

Thank you very much. Hefin David.

Let’s calm it down. I’d like to focus on recommendation 1 and recommendation 8 in my response, particularly recommendation 1:

‘the supply of land for strategically significant housing developments and related supporting infrastructure’.

This is a theme I spoke about on a number of occasions in the Chamber when I was first elected and, indeed, formed an unlikely double act with Neil McEvoy, talking about the need for joined-up—. [Interruption.] It’s a shame he’s not here today, because with his newly independent status perhaps we could have revived that double act. We spoke about the need for joined-up strategic development plans to address the cross-boundary challenges of housing particularly, but also employment and transport, as opposed to several competing local development plans in areas of close geographical proximity. This is something that was discussed at length in the committee, and it’s something I still don’t think we’ve quite got to grips with. I’m hoping that there may be a way for the commission to examine this, even if it isn’t part of its formal remit.

As the demand and supply of housing is intimately linked to the economy and the environment, to me, it makes sense to expand the commission’s remit in this regard. Mark Isherwood made that point, albeit in a slightly grumpy way. He’s not grumpy in real life, but I did agree with him. [Laughter.] I noted that the Cabinet Secretary has accepted the recommendation in principle, subject to a formal review. In his response he says that there are already existing mechanisms in place to consider this issue, and that there’s a need for regional development plans to bed down before extending the commission’s remit. I’d like to know more about what the Cabinet Secretary means by bedding down, and regional plans are needed sooner rather than later, in my view. I would expect the Welsh Government therefore to monitor that situation very closely. They’ve said ‘over the course of this Assembly term’. Could, therefore, the Cabinet Secretary clarify for me how strategically significant housing developments will informally be incorporated in the commission’s remit in order to take the holistic view that he refers to in his response to the report?

Finally, recommendation 8 says the commission’s board

‘should reflect the diverse communities of Wales to ensure an understanding of all parts of Wales.’

And that it should

‘consider establishing a forum to bring together and consider the work going on in each of the regions of Wales.’

That, of course, is directly related to the city deal in Cardiff—the Cardiff city deal. My constituents in Caerphilly would benefit from the Cardiff capital region deal and the associated south Wales metro. I’m pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has accepted this recommendation, but one of the concepts that I’ve tried to develop in the Chamber, and which other Members have made reference to today, is the concept of the northern Valleys, and the need for an economic strategy for these parts of Wales that don’t attract as much investment as the city hub. I’m concerned that the city deal serves the northern Valleys. With the interest in the northern Valleys, which are communities in their own right, would you then have representatives of that area on the commission’s board to ensure that this area is considered in the depth that it should be, now and in the future?

Thank you very much, and I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, Ken Skates.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I begin by thanking the Chair and members of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee for their inquiry and their report? The inquiry was both thorough and inclusive, expertly chaired by Russell George, and members of the committee took a very deep and inquisitive interest in the subject. I do appreciate the strong contribution that their findings have made to the development of the national infrastructure commission for Wales. Ensuring people are united and connected is a fundamental part of this Government’s work, and a key part of ‘Taking Wales Forward’. Our success will be measured by the economic growth and stability that we are able to provide to communities across Wales in the years to come, and that’s why we must focus on developing a stronger and fairer economy.

A fundamental element to improving economic stability is the range and the quality of a country’s infrastructure—the physical systems and services that we need to have in place in order to ensure that Wales works effectively. Individuals, families, communities and businesses all need to be supported by sustainable services that meet the needs of today, but which also prepare us for the challenges of tomorrow. This will be particularly crucial because we know how tough the next few years are going to be. So, our challenge is to create the stability needed for the long-term well-being of our people and communities.

We are living at a time of particular financial uncertainty, which makes it even more important to act now and strengthen the way we consider and prioritise future infrastructure needs. We must create the conditions for sustainable, long-term investment and there is no question that getting the right infrastructure is vital. It’s for this reason the Government is committed to moving towards a better informed, longer term strategy of investment in infrastructure, which enshrines the principles of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.

The establishment of the national infrastructure commission for Wales will be a critical step towards achieving this ambition, and I was encouraged that the committee recognised the importance of the commission by making it the subject of one of its very first inquiries in this Assembly. The timing couldn’t have been better as, last year, I launched a 12-week public consultation on the commission, which ran alongside the committee’s inquiry. I very much welcome the committee’s report and the opportunity today to discuss it further with Members.

The report, which echoed many of the views expressed during our public consultation, was very constructive in helping to shape my considerations of the commission. I was pleased to accept, or accept in principle, almost all of the recommendations. One of the most prominent emerging themes from the report and from the consultation exercise was the pressing need for advice that is strategic, that is cross-cutting and that takes a long-term objective view.

The remit of the commission will be tailored towards ensuring focus and resource are directed towards strategic infrastructure needs. It will be critical, also, to protect the independence of the commission. So, I welcome suggestions for the National Assembly to take an active role in scrutinising the independence and recommendations of the commission, as well as how Welsh Government responds to these recommendations. So, to facilitate this, I plan to lay the annual report of the commission in the Chamber. I also agree with the committee’s suggestion for a three-year state of the nation report to provide an effective framework for the reporting arrangements.

Now, although the committee’s recommendations align mostly with our thinking, there are some areas where more time is needed to assess the benefit and the potential impact. I view the establishment of the commission as the first stage of a developing process and I was encouraged by the clear support in the committee’s report and the consultation responses for a review of the commission’s status and remit towards the end of this Assembly term. We’ll establish the commission on a non-statutory basis to ensure that it is able to provide advice and recommendations as soon as possible.

I agree with the committee that the remit should not extend to social infrastructure in general, and have accepted in principle the recommendation to extend the remit to include land supply for housing developments. I recognise the clear links between housing supply and economic growth, but I’m minded to give this more careful consideration given the pre-existing mechanisms in this sector. Furthermore, more time is needed for strategic development plans to mature and for their effectiveness to be assessed. I therefore consider the scope of the commission to be a focus for planned review before the end of this Assembly.

However, from the outset, the commission will be expected to consider the potential interactions between its recommendations and social infrastructure, as many Members in this Chamber have spoken of today. This will ensure that the commission’s recommendations take a holistic view of infrastructure needs, but also maintain its primary focus. Furthermore, through its advice and recommendations, the commission will be expected to fully reflect the obligations on the Welsh Government in respect of the environment Act as well as the goals and principles of the well-being of future generations Act. Another key aspect of the consultation was the importance of having a close working relationship with the UK National Infrastructure Commission. We’re committed to building on and developing a constructive and mutually beneficial relationship with the UK commission on such key areas as rail connectivity and energy, and this was strongly supported by the committee and responses to our consultation.

The UK commission has liaised closely with us on engaging with stakeholders in Wales to help inform its first national infrastructure assessment. We are co-hosting a visit by the UK commission to Wrexham this week with round-table discussions for politicians and for businesses.

I’ll pick up on the small number of additional points that were raised today during the debate. I do believe that, as Members have indicated, the commission should be based outside of Cardiff, but in an area, in a building, that sufficiently removes it from any organisations that might benefit from its considerations. I also believe, as Members have highlighted, that there should be a fairer allocation of resource for projects right across Wales. We shouldn’t just look at a fairer share of resource, though, for the regions, but also within the regions. Because, quite frankly, if we were to follow the suggestion that has been posed by some to reduce spending dramatically in south-east Wales without looking at how that spending within south-east Wales is proportioned, then—

Will the Cabinet Secretary give way?

Absolutely.

When has anyone, I think, in this Chamber, actually called for less investment in south-east Wales or in any part of Wales? The point is to get investment up in the other regions as well. We’ve provided him with some innovative methods whereby he could do that.

In talking about disparities between regions, and, essentially, playing regions off against one another on the spending, unless you can identify how to increase spending and the resource in those areas without cutting in other areas of Government, one must assume that you are talking of and proposing a reduction in one or another region of Wales in order to increase funding in another area. My point is a point that should surely be supported by yourselves, and it’s this: it’s not just about regional inequality, it’s about intraregional inequality, as well, and we must ensure that, within the regions, there is a fair allocation of resources to ensure that no communities are left behind or disadvantaged.

In terms of some of the other points that have been made, I think that it’s absolutely essential that we should look at drawing the best technical experts from not just within Wales, but from around the world, and I would agree entirely with Jeremy Miles that we have to reach out and bring in new blood and new ideas and innovation. This is something that I’ll be speaking with Lord Adonis about on Friday.

Finally, in terms of social infrastructure, Vikki Howells made a very important point about childcare. Of course, childcare provision should be linked closely to the development of new metro stations, and this is why I think it’s absolutely essential that there is a good understanding of emerging social infrastructure on the commission.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I now look forward to seeing the commission set up and starting to fulfil its potential. My aim is to launch the public appointments exercise for the chair and members in the early autumn and to have the commission in place by the end of this year.

Thank you very much. I call on Russell George to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I thank all the Members who took part in this debate today? I think the fact that every single member of the committee, and further Members, not part of the committee, also, took part in the debate demonstrates the level of interest in the national infrastructure commission for Wales, and, indeed, the potential it has, I think, to develop the Wales of tomorrow.

I should like to also put on record my thanks to not only my fellow committee members for their work in this inquiry, but also for the support that we’ve had from the committee clerking team and the wider integrated team. I speak on behalf of all my members in that regard. They’ve offered fantastic support in supporting us in our work.

Adam Price presented some fair views in regard to some of the questions asked in the Government’s consultation, and I wonder if there is an opportunity here where the Government is aware that there is a committee undertaking an inquiry where it could, indeed, consult with that committee and involve that committee in, indeed, asking the committee for its views on its own consultation questions. I think having valid and purposeful questions in a consultation is something that we’d all want to see, and I wonder whether committees in the Assembly have a role to play in supporting Government in that regard. Adam Price also talked about why keep social infrastructure out, and we had a very good session with Professor Karel Williams this morning in that regard as well. I’m grateful to Hannah Blythyn and to Mark Isherwood, both who often fly the flag in the committee in regard to north Wales, and they did so in the debate today as well, and to Mark for expanding in more detail in regard to the recommendations that were only accepted in principle.

Vikki Howells has been a strong advocate in the committee in our discussions in regards to social infrastructure, and very much shaped our report in that regard and prompted the recommendation from us in that regard as well, I think, and I thank Vikki for fleshing that out a little bit more and presenting the examples that she did today as well. I thank David Rowlands and Jeremy Miles and Hefin David for their contributions, and Lee Waters—I thank Lee for taking part in today’s debate; not being a member of the committee, it’s interesting to have views from outside of the committee. I was a bit disappointed that there wasn’t time for Adam Price’s intervention, but if Adam did want to intervene on me to put across the point he was going to make to you, I’d be happy to accept that intervention. [Laughter.]

I’m very grateful to the Chair of the committee—collaborative and consensual as ever. I think the key point was the role of a national infrastructure commission, if, in the remit letter, it has clear guidance from the Welsh Government that we need to equalise the levels of infrastructure investment across the regions, and, absolutely—echoing the point made by Hefin David—as well within the existing city regions so that no community is left behind.

I’d certainly support that, and very much so. I think also the important point here, as well, is that doesn’t take away—the infrastructure commission would not take away responsibility from a Government Minister, but it would allow the commission to work outside of politics, and I think that’s what the commission is set up for in that regard.

Can I also say that I do think that the Cabinet Secretary has taken a pragmatic approach, I think, to establishing the commission, and his intention, I think, to review its effectiveness at the end of the Assembly term is to be welcomed as well? It will give us a chance to take stock on whether the commission has delivered and is delivering on its potential as well, and whether it needs support, for example, by putting it on a statutory basis in order to succeed. The next steps, I think, will be absolutely crucial, and Jeremy Miles spoke strongly in this regard, but I do wish the Cabinet Secretary and his team well in recruiting the high quality of individuals that will be needed, with a diverse range of backgrounds and experience and knowledge of Wales, to give the commission the human infrastructure that it needs to deliver for Wales. So, I would like to thank the members of the committee and Lee Waters for contributing to today’s debate. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to note the committee report. Does any Member object? No. Therefore the motion to note the committee report is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.