Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Bore da, croeso. Good morning and welcome to this morning’s meeting of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee in the Senedd, the Welsh Parliament. I’m pleased to welcome a new member of our committee, Tom Giffard MS, sitting to my left, who replaces a former member of the committee, our colleague Natasha Asghar MS. Obviously, a big thank you to Natasha for her contribution over the last nearly four years as a member of the committee. We wish her well in her new roles.

This meeting, as usual, will be conducted bilingually. Headsets are available to provide simultaneous translation on channel 1 and sound amplification on channel 2. People joining online can access translation by clicking on the globe icon on Zoom. We’ve had apologies for absence from one committee member, Rhianon Passmore, and another member, Adam Price, will be joining us, I believe, around 09:30 for the further evidence session of this committee. Do Members have any declarations of registrable interests they wish to declare before we move on? In which case, we’ll move on to papers to note.

We've received a small number of papers to note. The Chair of the Future Senedd Committee wrote to us, asking for our views on any changes to be made to Standing Order 18.5, which specifies the requirements for the establishment of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee. The Chair has asked us for our view on whether, in preparation for the larger seventh Senedd, the numeric threshold specified in Standing Order 18.5, which specifies that the committee should comprise no fewer than five members and no more than 10 members, should be changed. So, Members, do you have any comments or thoughts on that matter? Mike.

I think it’s absolutely right. As you’ve discovered this morning, five is a very useful number to have, and with more than 10 it starts to become unwieldly. So, yes, five to 10, good boundaries, very happy.

Tom, do you—?

No, I concur with that.

That concurs with my view as well. If we could note that and respond accordingly.

The second paper to note is a response from the First Minister regarding the ministerial code, responding to our letter of 26 November last year, setting out our views on any changes to the ministerial code. Our letter also included an invitation to the First Minister to give evidence to the committee on this. The letter confirms the First Minister’s intention to review and revise the code as an 'early task' and confirms that she will consider our suggestions as part of that exercise, although she notes that she cannot guarantee that she will implement every suggestion. Responding to our invitation, she notes it may be difficult for her to find a slot in the immediate future, noting that she will need to finalise her thinking on the code in the first instance. However, she has indicated a willingness to meet the committee in the future. So, Members, any comments, or are you content to note the correspondence?

Content to note.

I’d be grateful, obviously, if we could make a diary note to follow up on the offer to meet in the future, and hope we get something in the diary later in the year.

The next item to note is correspondence from the Permanent Secretary, who’s written with a further update on recommendation 8 of our report on the Welsh Government’s annual report and accounts for 2021-22, which reiterated our predecessor committee’s recommendation on FReM requirements. I believe that FReM—I made a note earlier—stands for 'financial reporting manual' requirements. So, the letter notes that the FReM for 2023-24 was finalised in December 2023, and it’s confirmed that this will be provided to us ahead of our scrutiny of this year's accounts. The letter also sets out the requirements that the Welsh Government must follow to meet FReM requirements and principles, including where exceptions apply. The committee will scrutinise the Welsh Government's accounts for 2023-24 on 19 February, and there will be opportunities to further consider these issues during that session. Again, Members, do you have any comments or are you content to note the correspondence? Thank you.

Well, the last paper to note on today's agenda is a letter received from Tim Moss, who is the director general and chief operating officer for Welsh Government, regarding public appointments, and this letter provides an update on the work being undertaken to determine the Welsh language capabilities of their board members. It notes that in the first week of January they'll be issuing board members with a survey to capture that information, with the outcome expected by the end of February this year. The letter confirms that they will capture Welsh language proficiency in future data collection and notes that skills in this area are

'an important aspect of representation on our boards'.

The draft report on public appointments is in the process of being finalised and will be considered by this committee later in today's meeting. Again, Members, do you have any comments on this correspondence or are you content to note?

On that, obviously I’m very new to this, but they haven’t mentioned how they're measuring this in the letter, and I'm conscious, as part of the Welsh Language and Education (Wales) Bill that the Welsh Government are introducing, that they've got the mechanism, which I've forgotten the name of, for measuring people's proficiency. So, it would be useful to know whether that is the measure by which they'll be measuring this, or whether they'll be using something completely different.

Okay, thank you. Well, perhaps could we share that, or respond accordingly? And other than that, are Members content to note? Thank you.

In which case, I propose, if Members agree, to go into a short break before the start of our evidence session on active travel, when our witnesses will be with us. Are Members content? In which case, I'd be grateful if we could go into private session temporarily.

Bore da. Croeso. Good morning, and welcome back, for viewers, to this morning's meeting of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee. Welcome to our witnesses, who have now joined us. Could I ask them, for the record, please, to begin by stating your name and your roles, in any particular order? We'll perhaps start with Mr Price, work across, and then we'll invite Mr Jones to do the same.

My name's Matt Price. I work for Cardiff Council. I'm the team leader of the active travel and road safety team there.

Bore da. Good morning. I'm Kaarina Ruta. I work for the Welsh Local Government Association, in transport.

Bore da. John Forsey, head of highways, transport and recycling at Powys County Council.

Bore da. Dylan Llewelyn Jones. I work for the Isle of Anglesey County Council and I lead on strategic and sustainable transport. Thank you.

Okay. Diolch, pawb. Thanks, all. As you'd expect, we have many questions, and I'd be grateful if—Members know this—Members and witnesses could be as succinct as possible to enable us to get through as many of those questions as possible. And as convention has it, I will begin the questioning, as Chair. I'll open with a few general questions, and then colleagues will pick up questions in greater detail on specific matters.

So, overall, how do you assess, or how would you assess, the Welsh Government's leadership and progress since the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013, at both a national level, particularly in relation to the WLGA, and also at a local level, for those of you who represent local councils? Who wishes to start? It's up to you to indicate. I can pick on one of you, if you wish.

I'll start.

Mr Price.

I think it's been very good, generally. Certainly in recent years, since 2020, we've seen a big boost in funding, with leadership from a high level, making active travel a priority. So, good levels of funding, and also setting up a team in Transport for Wales dedicated to managing grants and co-ordinating the programme, and also building up levels of expertise and providing outreach to local authorities. So, I think that's been really good.

Maybe I can just continue from there. So, I think, since the Act—. Obviously, maybe in the first years, there was more hesitancy and less co-ordination, but, certainly since 2018, when there have been increased levels of funding and a much more concerted effort to look at active travel, with building capacity in Transport for Wales as well and in the local authorities, I think the picture looks very different today.

Given that you're speaking at a national level, representing all your member local authorities, from your perspective, is the position the same everywhere or are there differences in different places?

No, obviously, I think it's very clear that there are differences across Wales, and that is due to various different reasons. Obviously, one is that the resource constraint is very real in smaller local authorities. In many authorities, there's maybe just one person that is responsible for active travel, and not only for active travel but other transport matters as well. Obviously, in bigger authorities, there can be active travel teams, where you have several people delivering. So, that is, I think, one of the biggest challenges. But, of course, there's also different political leadership in the different local authorities, and different priorities for those local authorities, so that will obviously also have an impact.

Thank you. And I see—. Was it Mr Jones wanted to speak? Yes. So, Dylan Jones, do you want to—?

Yes. Thank you. Just to follow on from Kaarina's point there, I think there has been progress, especially in recent years, and I think that's twinned with the climate emergency and the drive towards net zero and decarbonisation—I think there's been more effort on active travel in terms of funding and delivery. But I think, from a rural authority, it has been challenging to try and convey the messaging of the difficulty of delivering active travel in rural areas, because it's certainly a very different environment to urban areas, where the distances from destination to the source are very far and wide. So, you need more infrastructure, in a way, to link up destinations to the source, and also capacity is at a premium in a small local authority as well. But, saying that, I think the way that Welsh Government is trying to communicate and trying to build up active travel, and the team at TfW, I think there is certainly positive progress. Thank you.

Diolch. Thank you. Okay, well, I'll move on. To what extent are you supportive of the Welsh Government's new active travel delivery plan? What, if any, gaps or barriers to delivery do you believe exist and could be highlighted? Mr Price.

I think it's all there. I think it's focusing on many of the right things—training and development, support for monitoring—and it's making a definite attempt to try and link up policy areas, so active travel isn't just trying to work alone. It's not just a transport issue, it's being picked up by other policy areas: health, education et cetera. There are efforts being—. Well, the commitment's there to doing greater promotion, but, I think, really, what it probably lacks is the capacity to deliver it, and there's a huge agenda there. Maybe, given the sort of capacity issues within Welsh Government itself and also within local authorities, then it maybe that it just needs to be slightly more focused on those things. I would say training and development for practitioners, because this is a relatively new thing. Monitoring—I mean, that has been picked up in the auditor's report. We do lack evidence, so there needs to be greater support to evidence gathering at every level. And more work, certainly, around policy linkages, and surely with promotion too. So, I think focusing on those main issues would be beneficial, and not making the agenda too broad at this stage.

Okay, thank you. Yes, Mr Forsey.

Thank you. Picking up on Dylan's point about Powys being a large rural authority, perhaps walking and cycling often isn't the whole answer towards decarbonisation, and perhaps when we start linking the delivery plan against other modes, such as a more effective public transport network in rural areas, to help that decarbonisation, and then making perhaps the links to the public transport network, rather than creating a network in isolation as well—. So, just another point.

Are there any issues of local authorities like yours with cross-border? Because a lot of people in your area cross that border regularly, whether it's to access health services or wider services, for employment or otherwise.

Yes. Our largest border is with England, and we border another 10 or 11 other local authorities, so a lot of people leave Powys to go to Aberystwyth, Shrewsbury, Hereford, for their healthcare. So, it's always something we've got to be mindful of when making strategic planning decisions. 

Okay. Thank you. No more—. Oh, yes.

Just one point, and I agree a lot. I think there's a lot of good things in that plan, and I think, maybe, for me as well, integration with other modes is one of the most important themes, really, with thinking about what is to come with the bus Bill and franchising as well. And then maybe another one to highlight, I think: there seems to be a clear emphasis on active travel to schools. I think that's a very important area and where we can really make a difference, if we really change the attitude of the children and make them make those everyday journeys on foot, cycling, wheeling. I think that's really one area to invest in.

I think I saw Mr Jones—did you indicate?

Yes, just to add and agree with John and Kaarina's points there. I think that in rural areas the link to different transport modes is key to making active travel work, because active travel on its own, in isolation, will not solve getting more people to walk and cycle, so you need that integration with the bus, public transport and so forth. But, to answer your question on the active travel plan, I think, in principle, it's all there, it's just whether the capacity to actually deliver on all those actions is possible in the time period is the only question I've got back, in a way. Thank you.

Thank you very much indeed. To what extent do you believe that the developing role of Transport for Wales has impacted on wider active travel delivery arrangements, and how effective do you believe that Transport for Wales has been in this area? Mr Price.

Yes. Well, Transport for Wales have been involved in active travel for a few years, but it's only really recently that there have been concerted efforts to bring together a team that's focusing solely on active travel. In recent years, the grants administration has passed to them, and, after some teething issues, I would say they're really on top of that process now. So, they're managing programmes for the main applications, for the big schemes, and also they're managing the funding through the core allocation, which has been an absolutely fantastic resource for local authorities, to do small things as well as the bigger things. As I say, after some initial teething issues, I think they're really being effective now in managing the grant funding on behalf of Welsh Government, and they've also put in place a team that is now delivering training to practitioners across local authorities to build the skills base and developing design capability so that they can provide that service to local authorities where local authorities may lack the headcount, but also the in-house expertise, to deliver schemes of the quality that's required through the active travel Act guidance. So, I think, in sum, after some teething issues, I think they're very well established and are key to providing the support that local authorities need to deliver what the Act aspires to achieve.

Thank you. Mr Forsey.

Thank you. I suppose, whilst we welcome TfW's intervention and setting up et cetera, perhaps our only criticism would be it can be seen sometimes as slightly over-bureaucratic, and, when we've got very small active travel teams, it can take quite a lot of their time to get the extensive detailed design in before we can get funding, and, if that funding is not approved, it's a waste of resource, but it does take away a fair amount of officer time, so maybe a consideration around the over-bureaucracy. I understand it, but whether we could streamline some of the processes would be helpful.

And before I bring Mr Jones in, any practical proposals or suggestions to achieve that?

You're putting me on the spot now.

Or come back to us afterwards if you wish, in writting.

Yes, thanks.

Thank you. Mr Jones.

From my opinion, in respect of the operation of the grant funding, that's been very effective in the last couple of years. I know Matt mentioned that there were teething issues to begin with, and I would agree with that, but I think, over the last 18 months, two years, they've really improved on that. I think the system is very effective and clear in terms of operating that grant on behalf of Welsh Government and that we understand what forms are required and so forth. I think that's well established now and I think now they're starting to get to the next stage of their leadership, in a way, in terms of improving on engagement and communication channels with the local authorities, and they're in the process of developing the active travel guidance notes, which will help to formalise processes in the pre-scheme development activities. That's something we've been asking for for a couple of years, in a way, because, when it's not possible to meet the active travel design guidance, the detail, especially in rural areas where there are constraints with the geography and so forth, we've asked for departures and so forth from the design guidance, but there's no formal process in place to allow that to happen. So, hopefully, by developing the active travel guidance notes, that will help to harness the relationship between local authorities and TfW to explain why we're designing something at that level, and then for them to understand the rationale for that. So, hopefully, we'll see that leadership continue going forward. But one interesting point will be how that will change going forward with the establishment of the corporate joint committees and the regional transport plan, so the role of TfW will be integral to that. So, it will be interesting to see how that works in the future as well.

If I ask a regional question, but it can impact in other parts of Wales in local contexts also, in north Wales, as you know, the ambition board and CJC are, effectively, operating as a single body, with the same chair, chief executive and team, and yet one is accountable to two Governments, with joint funding; one is only accountable to one. How effectively do you think that can work or is working, and can be or is a model for other parts of Wales where there are similar arrangements?

To date, from my experience, the way that we've worked as a region in the north, I think the way that Ambition North Wales managed that process with the CJC has worked very well from my knowledge, in terms of the transport subgroup, the officers involved in all the detail behind that. I think, to date, it's worked well. But the only thing is that I wondered is how does TfW fit into that model in the delivery stage, in a way, how do they integrate with Ambition North Wales and the CJC in the north? And, I suppose, how are they funded as well, because, obviously, they need to get the funding to TfW somehow, from the national level?

Okay—. Sorry, yes.

Coming back on the point about Transport for Wales, I think I'd agree with Mr Price that there were maybe some teething issues and there wasn't very much clarity either maybe for the local authorities what Transport for Wales’s role was in active travel. But I think, over the last few years, that has definitely changed for the better, and the feedback that I've been having from local authority officers is that their working relationship is very good. So, I'd just like to highlight, for example, the active travel officers group meeting that Transport for Wales holds for sharing best practice, which has been really successful, the promotion toolkit as well that they have delivered, and also the work that they're doing in the monitoring and evaluation space and also the prioritisation tool for routes, I think. So, there has been a lot of good things starting to happen there.

Okay, thank you. And what impact would you consider that the Welsh Government’s active travel board can have, or is having, on what the auditor general’s report describes as a crowded delivery landscape?

I'll start. 

Yes. 

Yes, I think—. It hasn’t got an official role, I suppose, and maybe that could be even better clarified, but I think it has started in—. Obviously, there’s been the first report that they published, and I think that could be definitely something that they could continue doing—so, having an annual report on active travel—and they have also been obviously highlighting the need for better data, to be able to compare and look at what has actually happened. But, yes, maybe using it, that scrutiny role that it has started doing, both on Welsh Government and also the local delivery partners, I think could be the space that the active travel board could have.

Thank you. Mr Jones. 

Yes, I’d agree with Kaarina that, on the role of the board, we need greater clarity to try and help facilitate the linkages between local authorities and the board themselves. We invited the active travel board for a site visit to Anglesey in July 2024 to try and highlight the barriers that we face on the island, and in terms of our rural context, to help them understand the difficulty in delivery in certain scenarios. I think that worked very well to highlight that with them, because, obviously, sometimes, the theory of active travel doesn’t fully work in practice. So, I think that that visit was very helpful to try and bring both closer together to understand the differences in what you’re trying to implement and what, actually, you can do as well. But I think, in going forward, maybe the board would have better insight, I think, or technical experience as part of the board as well, to understand and to explain to them why certain things can’t be developed in certain areas due to the constraints that exist locally in a way.

Okay, diolch. Yes, Mr Forsey. 

Just to follow on from Dylan’s point, I think it’s that role around understanding that there are 22 local authorities and four corporate joint committees. And sometimes we’ll have a slightly competing set of priorities against national and local agendas, and it’s that role to understand why we’ve got a specific—not necessarily difference of opinion, but there might be a different need, which may sit outside of what the national priorities are. And it’s how we get that level of understanding to help us with things like departures from standards, as Dylan’s alluded to, in rural areas.

Okay, thank you. And Mr Price.

Yes, I’ll just add, really, that I think it probably needs a bit of clarification on who the board is scrutinising. It’s kind of set up to scrutinise Welsh Government, so its role in terms of scrutiny of other players within the active travel space probably needs clarification. And I think if it’s going to have a sort of deeper scrutiny role, then maybe it needs to be considered what sort level of technical administrative support it needs to do that effectively, given that everyone—all the members on the board—is sort of doing it in a voluntary capacity.

Okay, thank you. Right, well, that brings my initial questions to a conclusion, and I’m pleased to bring in Mike Hedges who has some questions for you. Are you with us, Mike? Yes. 

Diolch, Cadeirydd. What are the key capacity constraints in local government, and how could these be addressed?  

Speaking from my own experience, my active travel team are quite junior officers. They’re quite often driven by a passion for the subject rather than any sort of career aspirations. And it’s about, possibly, how do we define a career path for some of these individuals. There’s a lot of really good work going on, and it’s how do we develop those teams into something, and how do we share the best practice ourselves and with other local authorities within our regions and nationally.

Can I just ask about the WLGA? How are they co-ordinating best practice being shared? I know this is incredibly difficult, and we have problems in Wales in sharing best practice in every other area, so I'm not expecting you to be the ones who do share best practice and everything works well, but how are you working together, formally or almost certainly informally, to share best practice?

So, in the active travel space, it is very much a role that Transport for Wales has taken on now. So, there is the active travel officers group that I mentioned earlier on and also obviously the training that they are now providing. Obviously, in other transport areas, we will share practice through meetings and obviously briefings and so on, but specifically in the active travel space, that role has been taken on very much by Transport for Wales. The WLGA is certainly supportive where it can be, but it doesn't have an official role as such in that. But we will, wherever, obviously, try to share best practice. 

And just on the question before, I just wanted to add, really, that I think that, for the local authorities, what has been highlighted to me very often is also the difficulty in building teams where you don't have certainty of funding for several years. So, I think that the year-on-year funding has always created difficulties in building capacity, building teams. So, yes, I just wanted to add that. 

Thank you, because that leads me very nicely on to my next question. The use of external consultants; when you haven't got sufficient capacity inside organisations, do you use external consultants? Are they very expensive and is it value for money?

I'll take that question from a Cardiff perspective, if I may. Cardiff Council are generally considered to be possibly slightly ahead of other authorities in our delivery. I think that one of the reasons for that is that, in the face of severe pressures with head count and budgets, we have been able to retain a certain level of in-house expertise and train those individuals to get to grips with the requirements of the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013. So, we've been able to retain a certain level of capacity and training capacity in-house. So, we will use consultants where necessary for design work, and we do need to use consultants for specialist work where we don't have the specialist in-house expertise to do very detailed modelling and other very niche technical tasks. I think that there is always an issue where you would prefer to be having people trained to do the work in-house, but we're out of that territory now. So, I think it's a case of using that resource sparingly and making the best of it, and going through procurement processes to ensure that you get the best value. 

Yes, Mr Forsey.

Yes, very similar to Cardiff, it's a bit of a blend. We have some internal staff who help us to undertake some specific engineering tasks or, where we need to, we rely on external consultants. And an external consultant—. Defining 'external consultant', for example we've got Ymgynghoriaeth Gwynedd Consultancy, which we use up in Gwynedd, we've got our own internal consultancy within the council that we make use of, but I very much see, perhaps, as things develop, organisations such as TfW, in the longer term, becoming our more strategic partner for some of these consultancy-type activities.

Could I just come in, to follow up? In the same vein as my colleagues there, as we are a small team on Anglesey, we do depend a lot on an external consultancy, especially when developing the Welsh transport appraisal guidance studies at pre-scheme development. And they can be very expensive. You're looking at between £100,000 and £200,000 to develop a WelTAG for a particular suite of corridors in a town or village. Considering that the core funding is only £350,000 this year, a high proportion of the funding goes on the WelTAG studies through consultancy, in a way, which puts us in a very limited position in terms of how much delivery we can undertake on the ground locally, then, in terms of capital works. But on the flipside, you have to develop these WELTAG business cases to be able to apply for the larger main bids in a way. So, in essence, to get the larger active travel projects in place, you have to develop the WelTAGs to get into that position to apply for the main bids. 

Going back to your earlier point on capacity, because the funding is only on an annual basis, and not certain for the following year, it's very difficult for us to appoint staff of high quality and experience, to be appointed for that 12-month role, which is not certain to continue thereafter. So, attracting staff is an issue, which is causing capacity constraint; then, obviously, you depend more on consultancy to help you to develop the schemes in a way. So, it's a vicious cycle, really.

I missed that, sorry.

Sorry, I can't hear—the line is poor, sorry.

I'll do it in English. Is it possible for you to share with Gwynedd?

Share resources with Gwynedd, you mean.

Yes, share people who are experienced in certain areas—for you and them to share expertise. Gwynedd is just the other side of the bridge. They will be employing people in Caernarfon; you'll be employing people ar yr ynys, on the island—isn't it possible for you share some skills and resources?

Yes, it is possible, but I understand that Gwynedd have that Gwynedd consultancy, so they are, in a way, depending on their own in-house consultancy in a way. So, that could be maybe a cheaper mechanism, obviously—they have their own capacity as well. So, it's something that we could discuss with them certainly. 

Sorry, my question—. Sorry, apologies, I don't know what went wrong; I did ask you those questions in Welsh initially, but it seemed to work much better in English.

Moving on, again for individual councils: how would you respond to the suggestion in the auditor general’s report that national policies intended to support active travel do not always play through to local decisions?

I would have to say, in Cardiff, I don't think that's the case. I think generally, through there being political leadership and commitment to the active travel agenda, the national objectives of the Act are reflected in our transport agenda and priorities, and are written into the cross-cutting agenda across different policy areas. So, I would say that that's not the case in Cardiff.

Would you find it helpful to have a Welsh Government review of exactly where each local authority was and what can be done to identify good practice in one, and then provide that information to another?

I can answer that. I think, in terms of the WLGA's capacity, that is happening already, again, I think through Transport for Wales, the sharing and—. I mean, certainly having an idea of capacity across local authorities is important and to continuously have that, obviously, to know where the gaps are. So, I think, yes, whether that is the Welsh Government or the active travel board maybe, or Transport for Wales, I think, is doing that quite a bit through their work and their understanding of the capacity on the ground. But to have that understanding and having that year on year is important, I think.

Thank you. The active travel fund is the largest single area of dedicated expenditure. It's been operating for some time. Is it operating effectively?

I think, after some teething issues with grant administration, which I reflected earlier on earlier in respect of Transport for Wales, I think it has been working very well, and particularly since we saw a considerable boost to active travel funding from 2019-20 onwards. And so the quantum of funding, that additional funding, has been very beneficial, but I think the way funding is structured has also been very helpful, so there’s been funding for up to, I think, four main applications until this year. But also, we at Cardiff have found extremely useful the core allocation, where you have a delegated amount that is set aside for pre-delivery of schemes, design and development of schemes, and also smaller schemes that can be delivered at a lower cost and quickly.

So, on how we’ve used that funding in Cardiff, we’ve obviously used it to pump-prime our big schemes and so we’ve got that continuous pipeline of bigger ticket items coming through for funding, but we’ve also used it very much to focus on active travel schools, which Karina mentioned earlier, and that’s through a combination of doing small-scale schemes, such as putting new zebra crossings in, upgrading crossings, widening footways, putting in parking restrictions to tackle dangerous parking that deters active travel. We’ve also used it to put in bike shelters, so we have done that in up to 80 schools now in the last few years; we started in COVID. We’ve spent it on putting in bespoke bike fleets—so, new bikes in containers that can be used for cycle training and curricula-based activity. We’re also using a small portion of that for promotion, and that includes cycle training. So, that’s national standard cycle training, which we also deliver through our road safety revenue fund.

And again, coming back to Transport for Wales, the way they’ve managed that flexibly is that that funding can be moved about within the core allocation, so if we underspend on a particular item, then it can be moved into another project where maybe there is more demand, and then we can spend more on that. I would have to say as well, the other benefit is that it allows us to spread that funding around more evenly, so rather than just putting all your budget into a big-ticket item that might happen in two electoral wards, we’re doing it in multiple wards now, so multiple electoral wards are feeling the impact of that and everyone feels they’re getting something, and that’s not just a case of spreading the jam thinly; that’s actually doing small meaningful things that actually are supporting active travel in schools, and we’re seeing increases in active travel across our schools, and that’s generating real momentum.

So, I think the quantum of funding has been really welcome and made a difference, but I think the way it’s been managed and the flexibility within that has been hugely beneficial. Sorry to go on a bit, but I think, coming back to your point about capacity earlier, we in Cardiff—and I don’t know about other local authorities—are heavily capitalised. We have a brilliant design team that we’ve managed to build up, and we’ve retained key personnel, but if they lose the fees from the grants, they’re out of work. So, if there’s any hint of funding for active travel being deprioritised, then we’re seriously worried, and we have lost people from our team over the last few years to other organisations, including Transport for Wales, which is good for Transport for Wales, but we have struggled because of our salary structure to replace those individuals. So, we’re losing people with lots of letters after their name, with hard technical skills; we’re not managing to recruit people with the same qualifications. And the point about the Act, really, I think—sorry to go on—and the point I wanted to make earlier is that, 2013, it’s been a long time since the Act, but if we’re looking in transport planning history terms, with the active travel Act, active travel is still in kindergarten in terms of a transport mode being treated seriously. It needs sustained investment, sustained commitment to maintain that level of support, and the professional commitment, capacity and organisations to deliver it.

Thank you for that. It sounded very informative.

I think John wanted to comment as well, Mike.

Yes, please.

This is probably where Powys and Cardiff will differ in our opinions. Powys, for example, based on the criteria, has 11 active town centres with a population of more than 2,000 people, and we get core funding of £350,000 as opposed to Cardiff's nearly £1 million. That puts us in a challenging position with the way that the core funding is come up with, the methodology. In addition to that, when you add into the now one scheme that we can apply for per year, that will take us 11 years to make any sort of impact across Powys. So, we do question whether the funding is proportionate and correct, the allocation, and it comes back to how we include active travel as part of the wider transport offer, especially in rural areas. I've quite often said in a semi-serious, but almost half-flippant way that we'd quite happily take some of the south-east Wales region's bus money and we'd swap it for our active travel money, because we believe that's where we can make our biggest bang in terms of decarbonisation.

For us, I think there are challenges around how we get that core funding and how we can start to make a proper impact. We'd love to be doing some of the stuff that Cardiff has been doing. It's not always appropriate. We can do the same interventions, but we need to take a slightly different approach, and one of the things that is constraining us is around how we're core funded.

Every time you start giving money out, and I won't go into the standard spending assessments, you always have winners and losers—you have happy and unhappy people. The Welsh Government appear, as far as I'm aware—tell me if I've got this wrong—to be now restricting local authorities to a single bid for the competitive part of the active travel fund. Is that your understanding, and are you happy with it?

Mr Jones in first, because I think he wanted to comment on the last question. He may also want to comment on this, I don't know, and then I'll bring the other witnesses in.

I'm happy to come in on both points, because they're interlinked, in a way. In terms of the reduction to one bid this year, our main concern was the fact that we were notified only a couple of months beforehand that there was a change in the number of bids, because it usually had been three or four bids per annum, then you only had two months' notification that it was going down to one this year. Our work programme was geared up to put multiple bids in, because we'd been developing WelTAG studies over the past two or three years to get in a position to put bids in. So, that caused us a problem this year, because we had two or three bids that were ready, for the main bids, in a way. That caused us to have an internal workshop to prioritise which one we were selecting for the main bid. So, I think the timing was the main issue, in that we didn't receive sufficient notification, in a way, and the change in the date of submission as well was changed from January to December. Our work programme was geared up to put the submissions in for January, whereas bringing it forward meant that we had to change the work programme and so forth, and the impact that had on us was quite significant for this year. But, in terms of the principle of that, having one scheme per annum, in principle, we'd be quite content with that to a certain extent, because delivering one scheme per annum in a local area would be quite a challenge in any case.

Going back to your earlier point, and to allude to John's argument as well, I think that having the core fund is excellent, but we need to reimagine how distribution works between all local authorities and that percentage between the core and the main bids, in a way. Our recommendation would be to increase the core allocation per local authority to a higher value in order to tackle more challenging scenarios locally and to deliver more on the ground as well as developing the WelTAGs, and then reduce the main bid allocation for your truly transformational schemes. So, I think that changing that percentage split is something that needs to be looked at, in our opinion. But, yes, the change to the one bid this year did have an impact on us, as we were—. Over the past two or three years, we have been developing multiple bids ready for a main bid, so it was disappointing to hear that, and yes, the timing of it was the main concern, really. Thank you.

Would anybody else like to comment on Mike Hedges's further question?

Yes, if I may. This is the question amount limiting to one bid. Is that the question? Yes. I think, from a Cardiff point of view, that didn't affect us this year. We actually only had one scheme where we would be constructing in the forthcoming financial year. However, if that limit were to be imposed next year, that would give us a serious problem in that we would be making a choice between continuing with developing one of our arterial strategic cycleways, segregated from traffic, and delivering some essential active travel infrastructure around a new school that is due to open in early 2027, because we're using the active travel fund for that purpose. So, we'd be having to make choices between those two things and I think that would give us issues.

An interesting discussion about core allocation and the funding available, yes. In Cardiff, we've enjoyed a good amount of that and I think we've put it to good use. But even so, our amount was reduced by £0.5 million this year. Again, we're going to do less design and we're going to do fewer things on the ground. And coming back to my point about sustaining interest and effort, if the funding wanes, then the interest wanes and less will be delivered.

Maybe I can just add briefly, I know that the Vale of Glamorgan was meant to be represented here as well today and I know that, for example, they were geared up to bid for several projects, so again, for them, similarly, I think it has been an issue. And, yes, funding—if we are serious about trying to achieve integrated continued networks that are safe and accessible for all, I think funding needs to be sustained. That's very clear.

And me. The next question is: is the capital-revenue split about right? I know that you can use revenue to support capital.

I'll start. I think, overall, I've heard very often that the revenue is very limited, so the capital, the split is not quite right. There seems to be never enough revenue to do all the promotional work around the engagement, and so on. So, I think most authorities would welcome more revenue as well.

Maybe, for that, I'm sure most local authorities would be much happier with more capital for other projects, but that's outside our remit here today.

Do you think—and you talked about the Vale of Glamorgan—there would be benefit in a regionally based approach so that cycle paths didn't end at the Cardiff boundary, or didn't end at the Vale of Glamorgan boundary, but actually met up at the boundary?

Well, absolutely. I think I can say that as a pedestrian and a cyclist, but obviously, I think. And hopefully, there is an opportunity, with the regional transport plans and the corporate joint committees, going forward, to be looking at—I see that as, obviously, the main opportunity here—building so that things don't end at the border of one authority, but can continue and that there can be bigger, more ambitious projects, as well.

I mean, there is some work where there has been work together with the strategic road network team and Transport for Wales and the local authority, looking at connecting strategic road networks together with local roads, as well, for active travel. So, I think, yes, that is one of the biggest opportunities I see.

Diolch, Cadeirydd.

Diolch. Can I just ask one supplementary, following on from that last question? What, if any, potential duplication do you see in relation to the different funds and programmes—you know, the active travel fund and programmes like Safe Routes in Communities, focused on schoolchildren—and opportunities for streamlining existing funding streams?

If I can come in on that, I think it’s important to stress that active travel doesn’t stand alone, so active travel does need to be integrated with other modes. We’ve applied for funding from the local transport fund this year for our cycleway 2, which extends to the east of Cardiff, which is also a bus corridor. So, we’re applying for funding to build that as part of a bus corridor scheme, so the two things are closely integrated, and I think that will work well. Could it be streamlined? I would say there’s probably an element of duplication between the things that are funded through Safe Routes in Communities, which is now a relatively small pot of funding, and the active travel fund. So, for instance, we implement School Streets through our active travel programme, but we’re funding that currently through Safe Routes in Communities, but that is something that potentially we could fund through active travel funds. Yes, I think that would probably make sense, you know, just to give an example.

Mr Forsey. 

Where do we want to draw the line or how far do we want to streamline things if the active travel network is part of the wider transport offer? Is it not part of the transport fund and whether that—? I get that you need to understand what’s been spent on what for various purposes, but in terms of a practical approach to it, I would very much see the active travel network forming part of the wider transport offer, and whether that then is considered as part of the overall transport fund, that’s another discussion, I believe.

So, an integrated approach.

A completely integrated approach.

Thank you. If there are no further comments on this set of questions, I’m pleased to bring in Tom Giffard.

Thank you very much. I know Mike talked about mapping at the end of his last set of questions, which is a theme I’m going to develop a little bit further. Can I ask to what extent you believe that the current active travel network mapping requirements and their practical application are fit for purpose, considering some of the limitations that the auditor general’s report highlights? And, if not, how could those arrangements be improved?

Well, I’ll start. Maybe it can be made clearer, and especially to the public as well, and make maps more accessible to the public as well. I think that is a big challenge. So far, I’m not sure that we have convinced the public and that they even know where these maps are and how they can be used. So, I think that is definitely one point. And then, the other one as well is, I think, maybe we need to be clearer about what is actually deliverable in the next few years, and what our desired lines of a network in 50 years may be, or what can we deliver. I think the active travel board's report highlighted that if we continued at the same rate, we would probably see the routes that are on those maps now delivered by 2079 or something—I can’t remember the exact year. So, just to be more open maybe about what is possible, so that the public understands, and understands as well how difficult it is and how long things take, so that they don’t become too frustrated with it.

Thank you. I think Mr Jones indicated.

Yes, I agree with Kaarina's latter point there. There needs to be more clarity on what’s deliverable in the next five years, in terms of your future routes and so forth, because the active travel network map at the moment looks quite comprehensive, but they’re only lines on a map in a way, and to deliver all of those would take 50 years or more. So, I think, there should be more focus on what are the high priority routes for the next, say, five years, for the public to understand where the future priority of that local authority exists, in a way, to add on to the existing routes. Because at the moment, it looks very comprehensive on the map, as I say, but maybe undeliverable in reality.

Okay. Thank you. Following on from that, then, in terms of that long line, if you like, of routes to come, how have the local authorities we’ve got with us today gone about prioritising routes for development from their overall network maps? And have any of you used or seen any benefit from the prioritisation tool that Transport for Wales has recently developed?

Mr Jones. You're on silent.

Sorry, I'll start again. We used appendix N of the design guidance to prioritise our routes, which categorises the various routes by criteria, and utilised that as a starting point to select the priority routes. But, obviously, the more urban towns do score higher because of that population density and so forth. What we tend to do is try and select the higher scoring scheme by settlement, in order to provide a network of improvements across the island, not just in one or two towns. So, it has been an effective tool as a starting point, but I think there needs to be human judgment locally to go hand in hand with it as well.

Does anybody else want to comment? Yes, Mr Price.

Yes. I think we’ve had two editions now of the active travel network maps, and there’s a third due. We’ve got a lot of lines on the map there, and if we’re looking at adding linear lengths of route, it's going to take an awfully long time. So, I think we need to probably look more, to pick up on Dylan’s point, to communicate around our five-year aspirations in terms of what we’re going to deliver. Prioritising all of those lines on the map is difficult.

The way we’ve done it in Cardiff is that the five numbered segregated cycleways are prioritised for short-term delivery. Other primary routes are prioritised for medium-term delivery. And then, in terms of smaller schemes, we use the Wales index of multiple deprivation indices and data to prioritise those.

I think the prioritisation tool that’s been developed is useful, but still it will come down to—. I mean, we have political pressures and there are logistical issues around what’s deliverable. Because as I said earlier, we’re not developing active travel facilities in isolation from other infrastructure, so there may be practical reasons why you wouldn’t follow the prioritisation in the plan. But, generally, that’s how we do it.

Okay, thank you. Can I ask how big an issue is it, of routes being put forward for funding by local authorities not always being in the best areas, or perhaps not adequately connected to facilitate modal shift? In your experience, how big an issue is that, and what could be done about that?

I’m just trying to think of a local example. We developed a fairly—. We’re doing a phased project through the town of Llandrindod Wells. From an engineering point of view, it’s relatively straightforward, simply widening a path into the trunk road, et cetera, and creating that safer route. It has come up against a fair bit of local opposition, and it’s around that behaviour change and how we convince people of that behaviour change. So, there are always going to be those local challenges that we need to address, and I’m not entirely sure how that features as part of the Welsh Government strategy around involving behaviour change in this space as well, which would help us.

Okay. I was going to come on to behaviour change actually, so this is quite helpful. So, beyond simply the development of those routes, what does need to change—and we’ve touched on some of these already—to drive active travel behaviour? So, there might be various push-and-pull factors like public transport, which I know you’ve mentioned in the Powys context in some detail, and different areas will have different needs for different population groups. So, how can we better drive that change?

I'll start. Obviously, promotion is part of it, and I think, through communication and engagement with communities, you can do a lot. It requires, obviously, a lot of effort and time, but that is the only way. But until those routes, whether they are for walking or cycling, become safe, accessible and a convenient choice for everyone, we can't expect people to choose those. So, I think it is a lot about integration, having safe routes to bus stops, to train stations, and obviously then those shorter journeys in all communities, whether they are urban or rural.

I think one thing that we don't talk about enough maybe, and it requires a lot of political courage, is that we will need to take away space from cars, whether they are parked cars, whether we reduce carriageway width because we need more space, and/or also making it more difficult to park, making it more expensive to park. I think those things will need to come together with making public transport and active travel together more—. Yes, so that people actually want to do it.

Just picking up again on my previous point, and Kaarina's there, I think one of the biggest challenges is the communication. What people don't understand is that we've got a duty, active travel, we've got ambitions to shift, but people—. I get criticised a lot about the state of the roads and potholes: 'You're spending all of this money on widening a pavement, but why aren't you filling in my potholes?' It's that cultural thing that car is king, and that's what we need to start shifting. There are alternatives.

Even in a rural area, like Powys, that would be achievable, do you think?

Where we've made interventions in towns like Presteigne and Llandrindod—we're about to start one in Llanidloes now—there is this perception that the council is wasting money, because we should be spending that on improving the road, not widening the pavement. That's a perception. There's a lot of positive feedback as well, because this was around a school, that we're making things safer, but there's always, as I say, the petrol heads, the car contingent, who may have to travel a mile and half into the town and it's that last 500m where they're seeing all that money spent, but they've had to go over umpteen potholes to get to it. It's how we engage people in that dialogue to try and make them understand. We're trying, but it sometimes falls on deaf ears.

Can I just interject? Is that also not just the car contingent, but also cyclists themselves, buses, freight? 

I think there's a mix. We're quite lucky in Powys that we have a fairly good standard of A and trunk roads. It's the unclassified C roads that people come down from the hills on that we recognise are a challenge for us. There will be a mix of cars, cyclists, agricultural communities, et cetera.

Thank you. Sorry.

It's fine. Back in 2022, the cross-party group on active travel called for a structure to deliver professionally designed behaviour change interventions for active travel and a centre of expertise. Are they calls that you would be minded to support?

I would certainly support that. I think we need to be clear that promotion is not just saying, 'Here it is, cycling and walking are really good'; it's also sharing examples of things that we have done, taking the point that we're building networks incrementally, certainly where we are taking away road space where that's necessary. So, we haven't necessarily got infrastructure in now that facilitates end-to-end journeys, but there are things that are happening, and we're using some of our funding through the core allocation for cycle training in schools, but also offering free adult cycle training, and also offering that to communities who are not naturally seen as communities that are interested in cycling and do not necessarily see cycling as for them. So, we're offering inclusive cycle training to Muslim women in Grangetown and Riverside, so they come and do holiday courses. So, it's actually that process of enabling people to do things, training kids and upskilling them, so they can come through and use the infrastructure when it is fully built. But I would certainly support a centre of expertise to do more on this.

I think Mr Jones would like to come in. 

Yes, I'd certainly support that intervention as well. I think maybe there should be more focus on educating the next generation on active travel, because that's the generation that will be using our facilities. At the moment, I think that cultural shift is difficult. I think we need to do more to try and influence the next generation to walk or cycle to local facilities, because in rural areas there's still an overdependence on the car, and trying to shift that mentality is very difficult. So I think having interventions that could influence the next generation would be very supportive, and that's where hopefully positive change will occur.

And finally, what potential do you see for the 'demonstrator town' concept that the Welsh Government has proposed, in which it would then deliver a programme of infrastructure investment alongside complementary behaviour change interventions to understand and learn from what it's possible to achieve?

I'll come in on that. I think it is a good idea. Obviously, there are always challenges around what do you want to fund and will that take away from delivering locally. So it is always difficult to decide, but I think it would be worth while to demonstrate to people that it is possible to change, and if you do all those interventions in one place and you really create networks that will take you where you want to go, and at the same time you work with schools, you work with workplaces and you really do show people that yes, you can shift and you can change behaviour, then maybe people will start believing in it more as well, and it will become a good example. Obviously, you can learn along the way how to best engage, how to best do this, how to best work with schools, how to best work with workplaces. I think there's definitely value in it.

I think the idea in principle is very good, but I think it would be useful to have an AT village as well, more focused on the rural areas, because some of our active travel localities are villages rather than towns and it would be interesting to see how that theory of an active travel town or village would occur in practice to link up the various areas within the village. Our towns are on the small side as well in Wales, so having that thinking of it from a rural perspective, or to pilot that in a rural area, would be beneficial as well, I believe.

Just thinking about active travel locally, we're looking at Transforming Towns in Brecon, for example, trying to make a really nice, wide, green space in the centre of town, which encourages people to walk through, and cycling. But then it's how do we make those links to our other communities that would benefit from tourism, for example. We're reliant on tourism, so we've got the canal towpath, which could take you down to Monmouth, for example. It's about linking all those, about raising awareness of having a nice space to start from or to finish, and then the opportunities that surround that space.

I like the idea in principle, and we did have a sustainable travel town in Cardiff well over a decade ago now, when there wasn't as much funding around. I think the lesson learned from that is that you really do need time for things to take effect and to have an impact. So I think it's really important to manage expectations. Doing this in a three-year time frame is not really going to set the world on fire, so you need sustained investment and effort over a longer period of time. I think there's always a risk that, if the focus is on that one locality, it does take, certainly in the current climate, delivery capacity away from other places.

And then there's the issue of what you do after the intervention and how you sustain things that have been set in motion, particularly on the revenue-funded side, where you wouldn't want things to stop overnight. So I think yes in principle, but we would need to approach that with caution and be mindful of sustainability beyond the lifetime of the intervention, which, as I said, has got to be within a realistic window, within which it's possible to achieve material change.

Thank you. I do have a couple of quick questions before we move on to Adam Price. Given that Sustrans are the national custodian for the national cycle network, what engagement, if any, do you have with them regarding connections with your active travel network planning and mapping? 

We see it as part of the mix. They're an important deliverer of travel that is active; it's not necessarily active travel. We've got a fair few national cycle routes in mid Wales, for example, and it's something we, perhaps, should develop our relationship with a bit more. We've also got the active trails that fall outside of the active travel Act. It's about how we, again, pull in all those bits together to create that. As a cyclist myself, I don't know whether I care whether it's an active travel route, an active trail or a national cycle network, as long as it's part of that network and I can travel seamlessly and in relative safety along it. I think they all form part of the mix. 

Are there any other thoughts on that? Mr Jones.

We've got a good relationship with Sustrans in general, but in terms of development or linking to the national cycle networks, I think discussions have been very limited, so that's something that could be improved on going forward. And also how Sustrans are actually improving our NCNs on the island as well in terms of investment.

My final question on this section relates to—. Well, it's a question, really, for the local authorities represented. What are you doing to ensure that your active travel interventions support accessibility and inclusion? Obviously, there's a requirement under the Equality Act 2010 and the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, but you'll be aware of campaigning and current work by the Royal National Institute of Blind People Cymru, for example, and Guide Dogs Cymru, where they have found that blind and partially sighted people in their case, but other disabled people also, are finding barriers created by some of the active travel routes and calling for them to be involved in that early design stage, and then helping you monitor delivery using their lived experience to help you spend the money once right, rather than having to rectify barriers afterwards.

In Cardiff, we actually have a task group that sits on a scheme-by-scheme basis, so we engage with disability groups and particularly groups for the vision impaired to look at the detail of schemes at design stage. So, we hopefully iron out the glitches at that stage before putting it on the ground, and that tends to work really well. So, we are doing a lot on that. I think there's a point to make around gender inequality, particularly in cycling. The point is that not as many women commute by bike and there are issues around perceptions of personal safety around that, and I think that really underlines the need for us to continue doing what we're doing in providing high-quality infrastructure, protected from traffic. 

Mr Forsey, did I see you indicate, or—? 

Yes, very similar. As part of the consultation process, as part of the design stage process, there would be and should be engagement with a range of stakeholder groups, including the local access forum and the RNIB. So, one would hope—and I'm sitting here reliant on my team—that they are making those engagements so that we invest once and we do it well.

But they are still highlighting this as a current issue, without specifying individual councils. Most Members of the Senedd have been out with one or the other or both groups at various times, with a human, guide dog or blindfold and white stick, and experienced barriers on new projects, whereas if they'd been involved at the design stage and implementation and monitoring, not only would you have got it right first time but you'd be saved the cost of retrospectively remedying those barriers. I'm not saying you individually, but the sector as a whole.

We'd better move on. Adam Price, you have some questions.

Shall I start? There are the obvious ones, such as how many kilometres of paths have been built. But also, looking at smaller improvements I think is important, to see the difference in terms of accessibility. We just talked about it—how many dropped kerbs have been added, how many paths have been widened. So, there are a lot of indicators that could be looked at. But then also looking at, obviously, the schools—I highlighted them earlier on—active travel to schools, what improvements have been made there, how many schools have been worked with, how many more children are actively travelling to school. And also I think a big area to be looked at is travel to workplaces. I think that there could be more there, and we don't really know much about that.

Yes, please, Mr Price. 

Sorry, I called the wrong person in the wrong order. Mr Jones, and then Mr Price.

I echo the comments that have been made. But I think the point I want to make really is around the data sample. We need meaningful data so that we can actually drill down to local authority level so we can highlight where interventions are making a difference and there is modal shift. If we're just collecting data on a national level, those success stories are going to be masked.

Just one metric from me, and it's always a difficult one. 'Who are the people who aren't using active travel, and what are their reasons for not using it?' would be an interesting metric, so we understand for future planning how do we entice the non-users into the active travel space.

How would you also, in that process, ensure that you pick up perhaps the needs of people, which may mean that they can't—? It could be related to impairments, age, infirmity, or otherwise.

Or simple topography in rural areas.

If I can answer that first. Yes, I think, well, the point is we're not doing that really sufficiently well; we do scheme-level monitoring, but we're not doing it consistently, and I think we need support on that, really, to do it better. We're too busy doing the intervention and, as has been picked up in the auditor's report, we're not really gathering evidence and measuring the impact. So, I think that needs to be done. And then, once we have the evidence, that can be fed back in through the loop, to inform future interventions.

It's about that longer term view as well. I'm not entirely sure success should be measured immediately after the construction phase; it's a much, much longer iterative process that we should be monitoring, and seeing that behavioural change—it's almost like a nudge behaviour. And then, as we understand what the longer term impacts are, it's using the best bits of that and applying it into the forward planning.

I think it's a really good point, whether it's—. I think it's an iterative thing. These are fairly new schemes, so I think it's worth reviewing what's happened after five years, what's happened after 10 years, 15 years; it's that continual learning from our interventions. This is all quite new in what we've been doing in terms of highways for—. So, it's having that longer term view over what's happened to people and their behaviours, and to communities, and how they're viewing active travel, as this develops.

Maybe I could start with that. Just to say that, I mean, the active travel Act, obviously, does not require local authorities to have even a delivery plan or an active travel strategy, so, again, I think there have been, obviously, differences in what has been produced and how it has been built in, maybe, into the bigger transport picture. So, I'm not sure that there is a standardised way of setting specific targets and timescales. So, again, maybe there is an opportunity here. We have talked about the regional in those transport plans, and looking forward at how things can be measured, but there will still always be, obviously, an element of local, smaller scale projects that will not have to do anything with the bigger regional projects. So, maybe that is something that could be looked at and, as you say, it's important also for the public to see what targets there are, so they can follow how their authority is performing, their council is performing.

Please, Mr Price.

Starting from a Cardiff perspective, in terms of what we do, we do partner with Sustrans on the walking and cycling index, which is a three-yearly health check that looks at active travel levels. So, that's through a combination of surveys and modelling, and then public attitudes—so we can gauge numbers and public attitudes. We also have the Cardiff transport survey as well, so the transport questions that go out to households. We have a level of scheme monitoring too, but, as I said earlier, I think that's inconsistent and it needs to be done better, better supported, so that we can do it on a more consistent basis. I think the point about what we really need is we need really clear data to be able to assess mode shift, and then looking at road safety stats and, as I said, public attitudes—to be able to gauge and measure changes in public attitudes over time is really very important. 

I think—. Mr Jones, and then I'll bring in Mr Forsey. I'm also conscious thus far that none of you have mentioned the role that elected members may play in not only agreeing the plans but in monitoring and scrutinising them through relevant committees and otherwise, because, ultimately, they're accountable to the electorate, rather than the officers. Sorry, Mr Jones.

Mr Forsey.

Thanks. I think it's a really good point, actually, about the role—. I'm just wondering now, as part of my quarterly performance, whether we introduce some form of active travel metrics into it; there's a lot of other metrics that I and, therefore, my portfolio holder get measured against. Just a point on monitoring, though, and it's a wider point, and I'm going to be brutally honest: sometimes, I feel like we're almost marking our own homework when we're monitoring, and I do wonder if this is the opportunity for the active travel centre of excellence to come up with almost an independent view of the interventions that local authorities have made, compared to the actual outcomes as a result of that intervention. I don't know whether that's a role that the active travel centre of excellence could pick up for local authorities so that it's consistent and independent. 

Chair, I believe Dylan indicated.

Okay, Dylan. Yes, Mr Jones.

Mr Price.

I would echo Dylan’s comments about the process of putting together the report. I think reports have been pretty easy to put together, but I think, currently, really, it's a list of outputs. It's not really giving measures of change. So, that would be the space in which, with improved monitoring, resourcing and measures in place, that reporting could be done on an annual basis. Albeit accepting that you're not going to see massive change if you're looking at mode share, mode split, over a 12 month period, but at least you can build up a picture over a period of time if you have that data to hand.

May I just add one more point? Just to say that, I think, also, just to highlight, I said earlier on about capacity and resourcing local authorities, especially smaller ones. I think, if there is already—. Some might be struggling already with just simply delivering and making the bids. I think it is a lot, in addition, obviously, to do. I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing reports and monitoring and all that, but it is a lot to do if you've got one person doing it all. So, I think we need to take that into account.

Diolch, Adam. Well, to conclude, briefly, if you could sum up, individually, firstly, detailing whether there's any significant issues that we haven't covered that you'd like to raise. And finally, perhaps, indicating up to three things you believe most need to change if you are to realise the Welsh Government's active travel ambitions.

Any particular order? Mr Forsey.

Thanks. I think it's been a really comprehensive session today. I certainly learnt from it as well. There were some good points that have been made, and I hope that the feedback we've given is useful.

In terms of three key points for us to deliver, I think it's about that behaviour change. It's around the communication, and—I'm going to have to say it—it's around the funding. Everywhere I look at the moment, I see Powys and rural authorities at the bottom of the funding pile, and that doesn't match our aspirations.

Okay, I'll take it up from there. So, I talked a little bit earlier about the carrot and stick. I think we need to think about how we actually—. If we're serious about modal shift and reaching our decarbonisation targets, we need to look at that more comprehensively. Integration, I think, of modes is one main point for me. I have talked about it a lot already, I think, but, still, I'd like to emphasise that I think it is about getting to places for everyone: safe, accessible and easy. That's what it is about. And the continued level of funding—I'll just say that as well. And then also I think we need to think more about how we should better work together with other departments, both at local level, in Welsh Government, everywhere. I think there's a lot that we can do together, because there's obviously health and well-being; there are a lot of things where we could look at the leisure and tourism. So, how we pull all that together, really, to think about active travel, not separately, but in that space as well.

Thank you. Mr Price.

I think two things: more work on monitoring that we’ve discussed, and more support for that, to co-ordinate that better; also the funding and support for promotion and behaviour change, and finding a way to boost levels of funding in that area to support efforts. Finally, the third thing is: what we don’t want to change, really, is—. Active travel needs to maintain its priority within the general funding space, making the point that it’s still in its infancy and it needs to be given time to develop. So, it’s sustaining those levels of funding, and particularly when we go into the CJCs, where funding is devolved. I’d be concerned if that would lead to active travel being deprioritised and sort of crowded out because of funding needs across other modes. So, I think it’s what we don’t want to happen, as well as the things that we need to make happen.

And last but not least, from the top of Wales, Mr Jones.

Diolch. Thank you. It’s been a very useful session, and it’s hopefully a drive for future improvement, so I’m very thankful to be here with you to be part of the process.

I’ve got four things I’d like to raise, actually. One is the active travel design guidance, to have a formal process in terms of our departure from the standards if we can’t comply to the actual desirable levels of active travel standards, and the process to formalise that departure of standards, or to justify why we can’t meet the design guidance standards. Secondly, a change in the core allocation for rural local authorities in a positive direction, to have a greater percentage split in terms of more funding in the core allocations for local authorities, and less so on the main bids, so that they concentrate on the truly transformational schemes. Thirdly, integration with other modes of transport, because our active travel can’t happen in isolation, especially in rural areas. And, finally, we’d be eager to see if there's a possibility to expand on the definition of active travel to a wider remit to include leisure and health and well-being purposes, because those types of travel journeys are as important as well for the well-being perspective of the Welsh population. Thank you.

Okay. Well, diolch yn fawr i chi gyd. Thank you very much to you all for attending this session this morning. A draft of the transcript of today's meeting will be shared with you before publication for your consideration. But, otherwise, may I wish the three of you who have attended physically a safe journey home? I don't know how active it might be, or otherwise, but it's very cold out there, so we'd all understand if you're maybe not walking or cycling the whole journey back. And thank you very much to Mr Jones, who, presumably, doesn't have quite as far to travel now to continue his day at work. Take care, all. 

I propose, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(ix), that the committee resolves now to meet in private for the remainder of today's meeting. Are all Members content? I think I can see that all Members are content. I'd be grateful if we could go into private session.