Can I begin by thanking the committee for conducting this inquiry? I think it's a very valuable examination of progress and obstacles identified to date. As Members in the Swansea bay city region will know, we’ve had an absolute devil of a time trying to get the shadow board to meet with us for a briefing session on progress. I tend to agree with Jenny and Vikki Howells, bearing in mind the comments made about transparency in this report; it’s worth all city deal leaders remembering that they can only gain from engagement with all parties collectively. Being open and candid with us now, particularly with those of us who will be interested in scrutinising this as it goes along, can only be of help in building trust.

I was struck by the report’s findings on the opacity of the governance structures generally. As a relative newcomer to the world of these deals, I would have hoped to see some evidence of the Welsh bodies learning lessons from those who have gone before. I have no problem at all with each deal and its structures being different. Attempts at unified approaches in the name of consistency or an all-Wales identity have seen many a promising policy flounder in delivery as the best local outcome has been sacrificed on the altar of homogenous processes. Even so, some or maybe all of these deals, as they stand now, have really tested the conclusion that I’ve drawn over my years as an Assembly Member.

In terms of accountability and contrary to received wisdom, I've often found it easier to get answers from arm's length bodies—separate, independent bodies, anyway—than I have from Government itself, and so far, these deals don't fit that conclusion. So, I'm pleased to see that recommendations 2, 3, 6 and 8 all speak to scrutiny, understanding, assessment and monitoring, not in a way that is about ensuring that boards stick to a Government-determined process, but in a way that allows us to see clearly what a board is hoping to achieve, and that their chosen way of getting there is effective and fair. And I think that's going to be especially important when these deals are approaching their fifth anniversary.

Knowing what good enough progress against agreed key performance indicators looks like at this milestone has to be a priority, I think. The risk of central Government funding, from both sides, not being forthcoming at this five-year point could be high, and it worries me that almost a fifth of the time, at least in the case of Swansea bay, has slipped by and we haven't even pinned down the governance structure. The gateway assessment phase has 'political football' written all over it if progress is dilatory, and I for one would rather be singing the praises about how the lives of my constituents are starting to improve as a result of economic growth, than kicking that ball around in the predictable and traditional blame game.

There are two findings I'd particularly like to look at, as they're especially relevant to my region, and they're touched upon in a number of recommendations, and the first is the alignment—I'm a bit worried about the word 'alignment', but let's use that—with Welsh and UK strategies. I start from the point that the intrinsic autonomy of these deals offers the chance to actually outstrip these various strategies in terms of outcomes, but there is little sense in working at complete cross purposes and ending up in a spaghetti bowl of competing initiatives. The Valleys taskforce, for example, needs to be in harmony but not necessarily clamped to the city deals in terms of vision and mutual leverage.

I think the structures embodied in the future generations Act could facilitate some common objectives, or they could be more spaghetti in a bowl; I really don't know. But where I think the Act's influence must come to bear is on bringing some flexibility on this issue of well-being being an outcome of the deal, as well as GDP, because the latter really is not of huge significance if it doesn't actually improve the former. I'd also like to see, as a core ambition, a demonstrable move towards co-production, where the beneficiaries of economic growth, namely our constituents, are active participants in the process. It's a real opportunity for a better balanced approach to achieving common goals. 

Secondly and finally, recommendation 10. I also urge you, Cabinet Secretary, to reconsider your view on this. The harmony of vision is not about markers on maps, and I'm really concerned that the boundary between these two city deals runs right through South Wales West with an artificiality that clashes with local identity and local potential workflow. And the worry is not that Bridgend will get the best of both worlds but that it will benefit from neither, at the same time as the council carrying financial risk of failure to get past the gateway assessment. By all means suggest mechanisms to protect from abuse of accountability, Cabinet Secretary, but please let the deals take responsibility for managing fuzzy boundaries instead of obliging them to bang their heads on solid walls. Thank you.