Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

May I welcome everyone to this meeting of the Local Government and Housing Committee? The first item on our agenda today is introductions, apologies, substitutions and declarations of interest. We've received one apology from Jayne Bryant. Are there any declarations of interest? No. Thank you very much. 

We will move on to item 2 on our agenda today, which is our evidence session relating to corporate joint committees, and I'm very pleased to welcome a number of witnesses here today. Joining us in person, Anthony Hunt, who is chair of the South East Wales Corporate Joint Committee, and also Daniel Hurford, who is head of policy with the Welsh Local Government Association. And joining us remotely, Councillor Dyfrig Siencyn, chair of the North Wales Corporate Joint Committee, Councillor Bryan Davies, chair of the Mid Wales Corporate Joint Committee, Councillor Rob Stewart, chair of the South Wales Corporate Joint Committee, and Chris Llewelyn, who is chief executive of the Welsh Local Government Association. So, welcome to you all and thank you very much for coming along to give evidence to the committee today. 

Perhaps I might begin by asking a question of the chairs, really, which is: what are your key objectives and ambitions in respect of your respective corporate joint committees over the short and medium term? Who would like to begin? Yes, Bryan. 

Bryan, so, are you in a position at the moment then to set out—notwithstanding those difficulties with VAT and corporation tax—what you'd like to do in the short and medium-term?

Yes. Are there any headlines you could share with us in terms of those projects then, Bryan? What is the nature of those projects, the ones that are most important to you?

Diolch yn fawr. Anthony.

Yes. To answer the two parts of your question, in the short term, we're keen to overcome the technical matters that are currently standing in the way of us moving to proper operational mode, and we're keen to do that in the south-east as quick as we possibly can, so that we can—

Anthony, is that corporation tax and VAT?

VAT, yes. I think there are seven separate issues in total that we're corresponding with both Governments about at the moment. We welcome Rebecca and Vaughan's input in that, and also the Wales Office, to try and move those things along. So, that's very welcome. I'm very conscious I'm speaking to a committee here, rather than Welsh Government, but any input you can give into that will be welcome too, because that's currently standing in the way of our medium-term ambitions, which are very much to keep the impact and partnership work up at a regional level and keep bureaucracy down. This is why we're seeking to roll the CJC into the Cardiff capital region in south-east Wales, rather than having separate organisations, and also roll other bits of work around the Valleys, for example, that we've done, to harness that together, rather than having the same people meet in several different forums—more partnership and fewer meetings is my ambition, certainly. That's why I'm here as a CJC chair jointly with the CCR, rather than having separate chairs; we're keen to very much keep that up. We're keen to work on strategic transport and planning things and things that will really have an impact in the region, and also to build on the partnership of the 10 local authorities and the work we're doing to try and take economic development forward as a city region. So, those are the medium-term plans, but it all depends on overcoming that short-term hurdle of the technical issues.

Anthony, could I just ask you a little bit about that rolling in, as it were, of the CJC into the Cardiff capital region? Because I think there have been concerns on the committee, and elsewhere, in terms of the various footprints around and how it can get very unwieldy and confusing at times, and simplicity and a small number of beyond the local authority boundary organisations I think is quite preferable, if possible. So, is there a need for a CJC at all then, if it's being rolled into the Cardiff capital region?

The powers it can give us, the emphasis on the principle of subsidiarity is what I think should govern us—what works best at the right level. But I think the alternative is—. We've already got CJCs, we've got CCR, we've got regional partnership boards, we've got public services boards. If we're not careful—it's the same people, at the end of the day—we'll get drowned in so many meetings that we won't be able to push things forward between the meetings. So, there is a need to be sensitive, I think, when dealing with footprint, for example. I've done some work on the Valleys regional park; we need to make sure we involve the western authorities in that, involve the national parks, for example, in the CJC work as an equal partner. But I think if we're sensitive and genuinely collaborative in how we work, I don't think that's beyond us, and I think it's better than the alternative, really, of inventing another set of bureaucracy that will just need feeding in its own right as opposed to getting the outcomes for our residents.

Okay. Thanks very much. Okay. Dyfrig, could we call on you next, os gwelwch yn dda?

Okay, Dyfrig, diolch.

Diolch.

Okay, diolch yn fawr. Rob Stuart then.

Thank you, Chair. To answer your question directly, the key projects for us and priorities for us, now that we've established the CJC, are to progress as quickly as we can the south-west Wales transport initiatives, specifically the metro. That's a key objective for us. It was a key objective that we would have liked to have included in our city deal, but, of course, at the time, we were in negotiations with the UK Government on electrification and other stuff, which subsequently were removed as options. So, the delivery of the metro is hugely important to our region, not just for improving transport options, both by bus and rail across the south-west Wales region, but also helping to improve journey times between the south-west of Wales and the rest of the UK. So, that's a key objective for us.

Outside of that, energy remains a major priority, as it is within the city deal. We are progressing a bid, being led by Neath Port Talbot and Pembrokeshire councils, for a free port in Swansea. We, obviously, are progressing the revised tidal lagoon proposal, which is now entirely privately funded, called Blue Eden, and that's making significant progress in terms of land assembly. So, these are complementary projects that were priorities for us anyway under the city deal and under other initiatives, but the CJC helps us to co-ordinate more formally the arrangements between the parties there.

Whilst I absolutely agree with the comments made by Anthony and others around the technical aspects that we need to resolve quickly with Welsh Government and UK Government to ensure we've got a firm basis on which to plan and that we have answers to some of the key financial questions, we see the evolution of CJCs building on what we've already achieved around our city deal. So, for us, we’ve taken a very similar approach to the Cardiff capital region. I'm chair of the city deal and I'm also chair of the CJC. The membership and the constitution are largely duplication, in that we haven't reinvented the wheel for the CJCs, because, as everybody has alluded to, the last thing we want is new structures invented where we've already got ones that are working perfectly well. So, we've tried to be pragmatic and guide Welsh Government where we can to make sure that we’re sensible about how we organise, and the city deal for us becomes a major strand of the work of the new CJCs.

Outside of that, we're beginning the work on the strategic planning work and, obviously, economic development, in terms of delivery of the city deal projects, is core to that. Nine of them are now live and in delivery, so it's making sure that they deliver on the aims that were set out when we agreed the deal. So, for us, yes, it's evolution, not revolution.

Rob, are you on the same footing then as Anthony in terms of bringing the CJC into the city deal, or, as you described it, is the city deal sitting within the CJC?

Yes, so the structure's slightly different, as I understand it, in the Cardiff capital region, in that they have essentially a cabinet of 10 authorities. We obviously have a committee of four members, and what we've done is to move our city deal delivery and the central office as a strand underneath the wider work of the CJCs. So, it remains a separate body in essence, but to make sure that it's co-ordinated and aligned, we've included that. So, we've done it slightly the other way, but exactly the same principle.

Yes, I see. Rob, could you just give us a flavour of the advantages that CJCs bring, in terms of that co-ordination that you mentioned?

One of the ones that's key for us is that we haven't had transport, as I said, as part of our city deal delivery. The South West Wales Integrated Transport Consortium, which obviously was a predecessor collaboration, was dissolved and, as such, we've continued to meet informally between the partners in the region to try and plan across the region in terms of our transport initiatives. But the re-establishment, essentially, of a formal transport committee now will really help us to co-ordinate those better and plan for the delivery of big projects like the metro. So, for us, that is a real advantage of having the CJC arrangements formalised.

Thanks very much, Rob, that's very useful. Could I just ask generally then to all of our witnesses if there's anything that you'd like to highlight to committee in terms of the challenges that you're likely to face with the CJCs over the next six to 12 months, beyond what you've already set out? Yes, Bryan.

Okay. Thanks, Bryan, and Chris. Chris Llewelyn.

Thanks, Chair. I just wanted to emphasise that it's still very early in the development of CJCs, and it's maybe a recognition that, when any kind of new tier of governance or regional arrangement is put in place, it does take time. I think, inevitably, these things take longer than would have been anticipated at the start. Very often, they cost more, and when it comes to the delivery and setting up arrangements, there are often challenges that couldn't have been anticipated in advance. And then, as other colleagues have mentioned as well, I think, at every level of government, we need to take account of the challenging circumstances we face. Bryan mentioned the cost-of-living crisis. There is such an array of unprecedented pressures facing local government at the moment; I think we need to take account of those as well.

The beauty of what's being proposed is that there's the capacity to respond in different circumstances. We've seen already the different interpretations of the four regions here today because their circumstances are different, their challenges are different, and they've responded in different ways. We know that this kind of approach is contestable. People often look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions based on the needs of their areas. So, I think that needs to be taken account of as well. At all times, authorities will be trying to streamline the bureaucracy around the development of CJCs, because inevitably, again with any tier of government, the tendency is for bureaucracy to grow, but the intention here is to streamline, rationalise, and bring coherence to arrangements. Within local government, again we've heard this morning arguments for subsidiarity, devolution, decentralising, and the approaches that have been adopted so far by the four different regions, in their different ways, emphasise that point.

Okay, Chris. Thank you very much. Dyfrig.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr, Dyfrig. And Daniel—Daniel Hurford.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to extend on a couple of the points that Members had already made, and Chris likewise, around costs and tax, and obviously that's been made quite clearly, but it's the wider governance and capacity demands on the constituent authorities, who are generally loaning staff to the CJCs to establish what are, in effect, regional authorities. Councillor Siencyn has mentioned the constitution et cetera; quite significant governance arrangements have been set up. Audit, performance duties apply. Equalities, Welsh language, and future generations duties apply as well. So, it's important that the CJCs manage that in a proportionate fashion and that regulators, as well, understand that. We've had some very constructive discussions between ourselves, the CJCs, and the relevant regulators around what's expected and when, but I think that's a critical point as well, around expectation management.

There has been an awful lot of interest, inevitably, in the establishment of CJCs throughout the passage of the legislation, and prior to that, a lot of political interest within local government within the Senedd, regulators and stakeholders. It's important to recognise that, actually, these are very, very new bodies that have just been established, and have just had their core functions around planning and transport conferred upon them. As we've heard, there's likely to be a medium-term transition of some of the growth and city deal arrangements, so there is a lot of interest and expectation, but actually whilst the corporate bodies are there, working increasingly in parallel with city and growth arrangements, the delivery of the core functions around regional transport and regional planning are some years away and some years in development. So, they've hit the ground running as far as they can, but some of the core functions, as I say, will not be delivered for some time yet. So, I think it's just around expectations around what's going to be delivered and when.

Yes, okay, thank you very much, Daniel. Okay, thank you, all. We will move on, then, to Mabon. Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Yes, sure. I very much see this as the start of us recognising more when we do our planning that people exist beyond the boundaries of our authorities. Too much, I think, when we develop regional plans, we act as if people never step foot outside of it. Take Torfaen, in my area; people live and work oblivious to those borders that we create as institutions, and I think the strategic plan can be a part of us in south-east Wales moving beyond that. So, there can be that regional framework and then we can, beneath that, set lighter local plans that take into account these things properly—how people move, where people live and work—so that it can be something that more reflects the realities of our region, as opposed to just having separate local development plans that sit beyond things. 

There are examples, I think, where that can be of great benefit, where some areas have more available land for development than others, for example. We're next door to other areas. We're very light on land in Torfaen, developable land is very hard to come by. We've seen examples of companies looking for sites, and we want to work with our partners to make sure we keep them in south-east Wales, even if we can't keep them in Torfaen, because I'd rather have an employer expand in south-east Wales than see them move to England, quite frankly. So, I think there are those different areas where we can work together. I think the SDPs will get us doing that and help us to shape the places that we govern better. 

I think it can also help—. Our planning departments have been, in many cases, decimated by the last 10 years of austerity and cutbacks. Any collaboration between those to give us a bit more resilience and a bit more partnership working I think will be useful, too. 

Thank you. The key advantage that we see is obviously better co-ordination across the region in terms of delivery of major schemes. I think one of the challenges, previously, has been, if you look at things like Transforming Towns, where we're trying to support our town and city centres, you may have local authorities nearby that will make decisions that have a huge impact on your own local authority, but you'll have no control over that decision making. And I think the establishment of those strategic plans and a regional view of planning will help us better plan our communities that may be close to one another, but in different local authorities. The connectivity, the travel-to-work areas, the impact on how people live and the impact on businesses can be better planned where we've got that strategic arrangement in place, and I think that's one of the advantages I see.

I think the key thing that we need to guard against is, of course, making sure that things are determined at the right level and that we continue to have the local planning authorities making appropriate decisions on local matters and making sure that there is that subsidiarity approach so that local populations are not disenfranchised. But I think a strategic approach, well planned across a region, can only give us some benefits.

I don't have much more to add than what the members have pointed out, but I think the key points are really the integration of the regional planning and some of the regional economic development and transport planning. It is a key point in terms of the regional dimension and travel-to-work flows et cetera. So, it's the key point of integration. That was one of the main rationales for the Welsh Government when they introduced the CJCs—ensuring that those relevant functions were on the same geographical footprint. In doing so, the attempt was to streamline some of the planned bodies that were likely to be established—so, regional transport authorities and regional strategic planning bodies as well—so that they were wrapped up into one. But it's key around the integration of planning, transport and well-being on the same footprint.

Yes, happy to. Transport and how people move is key in this to me, and it's one of the key reasons why planning needs to be within the fold as well. It's because, given all that we know about the climate, how we can effect modal shift is vital. We can't do that on our own as local authorities within south-east Wales—I'm firmly of that belief. We need to work together to do it.

Subsidiarity is key, some decisions, as Dyfrig and others have said, are best made locally, but, in transport as in planning, there are things that, I believe, we can't do on our own and need to be addressed regionally. But that does mean that different areas will have different answers. Bryan or Dyfrig's areas are very different from Rob's or mine, and that will mean that there are differences in how we take this forward, quite rightly.

Okay, Mabon? I think we'd probably better move on at this stage. Carolyn Thomas.

Thank you, Chair. Can I just touch on something that's been said already? Dyfrig and Bryan, I'm getting the feeling that rural areas are differently impacted. Dyfrig, what you're saying—. It needs to be right at the beginning, so, do you think that your region, north Wales, is maybe too large as one region, one CJC? I'm just asking for your views on it. It seems to me that you're saying that north Wales and north-east are very different in character and that you feel that there is a strong connection with west Wales and Ceredigion and that area. And the transport of north-east Wales goes cross-border quite a lot and there is that connection with the Mersey Dee Alliance as well. Is this going to be an issue all the way through, because it needs to be right at the beginning, I think? Is this something that needs to be raised? And regarding transport, you're getting help from Transport for Wales, and then also—.

My question is supposed to be on administration and staffing, and, originally, when these were set up, the idea was that it would be cost saving, because it would save duplication of staffing in 22 different authorities, and then there would be a cost saving and that would help to fund these CJCs. But it sounds to me that you're struggling with staffing after we've had 10 years of austerity, et cetera, especially with planning and transport officers, et cetera. So, would you say that there isn't a cost-saving element any more, because you haven't got duplication in each authority, and you might be struggling—? Would you be struggling to be able to deliver at CJC level and local level and afford duplicate staff as well? There are lots of questions there, very general, just thrown at you, so—

There is quite a lot there, Carolyn—

Sorry, but it's been very interesting, this conversation. Thank you.

Okay. Over to Dyfrig, then.

It was just if Transport for Wales have been helping as well, on the transport. Otherwise, thank you—yes, you have.

Okay. I think Bryan wanted to come in, Carolyn. Yes, Bryan.

Okay. And staffing as well, because I know that you had the choice of having a lead authority model, which you seem to be taking across all areas, or investing in extra staff as well, as its moves forward. So, just, really, how you're finding that with your staffing.

Okay. Dyfrig, did you want to come back?

Okay. Thank you. Rob.

Thank you. Obviously, I'm not going to comment on mid Wales or north Wales—the decisions that those bodies will make are theirs to make. I want to touch on the general point, though. I think the question you posed around potentially some savings through the establishment of the CJCs, I think we've got to be very careful with that. It's clear that there aren't functions that are stopping in local authorities as a result of the CJCs; the CJCs add a new layer of co-ordination and collaboration and that doesn't stop us still having to discharge all of the responsibilities that we have as local authorities. So, there isn't—. By creating a CJC, stopping something happening that you then have a saving from in local authorities—that isn't the case. 

Outside of that, of course, it's then how you fund and organise to support your CJC activities. Like Anthony referenced—and we've done the same in the south-west, as I said—we've tried to make decisions whereby we're using existing structures and existing personnel to carry out the functions that we have. We are not intending to appoint a separate chief executive; I think that would be the wrong thing to do personally, not only because of the financial additional costs, but also, it would create a new chief executive who would then be, essentially, on parity with the existing chief executives in the local authorities, and that would create a whole host of administrative considerations.

The final point I'd make is, of course, when the CJC discussions were taking place before they were enacted in legislation, there were commitments given that there would be a push to try and ensure that governance, audit requirements, assurance, scrutiny, all those other things, would be proportionate and that there wouldn't be this huge new industry built around CJCs. I think the proportionality has to be looked at there, because, as has been said by colleagues, the responsibilities that we've inherited, or have been allocated to us as part of the CJCs, are similar to those for local authorities, despite the spend and the staffing elements being a lot less currently. So, I think proportionality has to be there, and I would hope that Welsh Government will deliver on its commitment to make sure that we aren't tied up in huge amounts of bureaucracy, which becomes expensive and time consuming for the new regional bodies.

Okay. Thanks.

Carolyn, I think Anthony wanted to come in briefly as well.

Thanks, Carolyn. Just to agree with a couple of things that Rob said on cost savings, there may well be long-term benefits, but I think it's very tempting at the moment, with the current economic climate, to present things as solutions to the funding gap that aren't solutions to the funding gap. I wish this was, but it's not.

I very much think these should be viewed as partnerships, not organisations in themselves. The evidence is that what works is strong partnerships, not creating organisations in and of themselves.

And, just lastly, the impact of geography is huge, as has been explained by our colleagues today. I think we have to look around the successful examples from elsewhere in the world. From what I've seen, the evidence there is that no one standard model works; it depends on the region and its nature. So, we shouldn't try and think that one standard model works. That's not the evidence from around the world. But what that evidence does show is there is something about scale, and there's something about the range of different things that we do and how they're best suited to different circumstances. It comes back to this point about subsidiarity and economic development. There is evidence that there's some value of scale that is different to the benefits of taking local decisions. So, how we work on that, I think, is important. But, yes, I think it's very important for us to look around at what's worked elsewhere in the world, and that certainly doesn't suggest that there's one model that fits, especially as none of our regions, actually—but some of our regions emphatically more than others—fits the model of a single, urban centre, and concentric circles from there out. Both Rob's and my region have valleys communities, have different settlements, so they're not like some city regions that are just a single centre and a periphery. And it's even more so if you look at mid and north Wales—they don't fit that straitjacket at all. So, I think we need to be sensitive to how we take forward different regions, because they will require different answers. 

Okay, Carolyn? Chris Llewelyn, did you want to come in?

Yes, it's on Anthony's point, I suppose. We mentioned earlier the way that city regions generate prosperity, and the evidence around the world, but what we also know is that that approach doesn't always work in rural or sparsely populated areas, and in those circumstances it's more challenging. These are issues that everybody around the world struggles with. 

Just in terms of some of Carolyn's questions, it is important to remember that a lot of the regional partnership arrangements that exist currently are bottom up, as it were—they have been generated by the regions and councils involved. As to the transport consortia, there were successful regional transport arrangements in place in the past—SWITCH, SEWTA, Trac and Taith operated very successfully. In north Wales, there is a coterminosity about a lot of the public services—health, police, local authorities, fire and rescue, and so on—which brings a coherence to their arrangements that isn't always obvious elsewhere. Then, in terms of the workforce issues, the reality is there are workforce challenges in every single area within local government at the moment, whether it's education, social care, housing. So, it's worth bearing that in mind as well. A lot of the issues that are being grappled with here prevail in other service areas as well. 

Okay, thank you. We'd better move on to Joel James. Joel. 

Thank you, Chair. I'm conscious that quite a few of the questions that I wanted to ask you about—so, funding and resources—have already been asked, but I wanted to pick your brains about the regional transport planning element of the CJCs. I'm conscious that, back in July this year, I think it was the south Wales west CJC mentioned that they wouldn't be able to deliver the work programmes based on existing levels of funding, and that there would be a need to lobby the UK and Welsh Governments for extra resources. I think that's been confirmed, then, by all the other CJCs, and I just wanted to get some idea of the level of resource or funding you would require more from the Welsh Government or the UK Government, really, just to tackle those planned work programmes that you have in mind. I don't know who wants to come in on that first. 

Shall I start on that one, Chair, if that's okay, given the south-west was referenced? I think you're right to draw that item out. The position for us is we've written to the Welsh Government in terms of support for the work to bring together the transport plan. So, that's in the region of several hundred thousand pounds we're looking for in terms of a contribution from Welsh Government to help us undertake the work that's required for that. Obviously, delivery of things like a metro system with many elements to it, including the rail network, the creation of the stations, the transition to new bus services, potentially new vehicles, hydrogen vehicles, has multiple elements to it, and that's where were referencing that, clearly, that is beyond the remit of any council to deliver.

So, circa the first phase of our metro would be looking at around £250 million for the creation of stations through Neath Port Talbot, Swansea, Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire, and then, obviously, changes to some of the connections to make sure that we could run more services, as I said, to the rest of the UK. Outside of that, we're having separate discussions through Transport for Wales, although Transport for Wales obviously are heavily involved in the rail discussions, and Welsh Government around what we can do to trial and then implement hydrogen bus services in the region, which would be connected, obviously, to the rail services to create that holistic travel network. Obviously, outside of those modes of transport, there's the work that all of the authorities have been doing in terms of active travel, making sure that those also connect to the ambitions for stations and connectivity points. That work has multiple funding streams to it, but the point that you raised is one that is still there. So, there are two elements to the funding that we're after at the moment: one is the funding to create the plan to deliver, and then, secondly, the work that's going on separately, which is actually the Government funding the infrastructure works to create the actual network.   

Okay. Would anyone else like to add anything to what Rob has just told us? Bryan.  

Okay, Bryan. Thank you very much. I see Dyfrig's hand raised. Yes. 

Okay. Thank you, all, very much. We move again, then, to Sam Rowlands. Sam.

Thanks, Chair. Morning, everybody. I really appreciate your time this morning—I know it's precious. And that's probably my starting point, really. As council leaders, because of the proliferation of regional bodies—it was mentioned earlier that you've got regional partnership boards; you've got public services boards; I know, in north Wales, but I'm not sure about other places, you've got things like the regional leadership board, which is always a delight; and now the corporate joint committees, with sub-committees underneath; and you have your city and growth deals as well—just as council leaders, and the four of you, I suppose, as leaders of leaders, how do you see that time strain on you as leaders and your ability to make sure you're serving the councils that you're elected to lead? How do you see that? Happy for someone to kick off.

Bryan.

Can you hear us, Bryan?

I don't think Bryan's hearing me at the moment.

Sorry, Chair.

Okay. Anthony.

Yes, happy to come in next. This comes back to what I said at first—we just need to focus on impact, really, and we have to focus on what difference we're making, not just on how many meetings we're having. I think that's key, because we have to remember the difference is made in most things between meetings, not during them. And if all we're doing is servicing more and more meetings, then—. But partnerships are vital, whatever system you have, and I think that's one of our jobs as leaders, to make sure we're talking to other organisations, not just other councils but other public service organisations and other organisations in our communities. And we'd have to do that whatever. So, as much as I don't like all the acronyms, I don't see any individual organisation as creating more work, as leader, but we just have to make sure we're focused on what's making a difference.

I think, during the pandemic, the partnership working between different leaders and other levels of government gave us a model to work from. And that wasn't built around, necessarily, formal meetings and structures; it was built around us getting together and talking through things, and working together. And just as one last thing, I think we have to make sure in this that we're not just part of lots of partnerships at a leader and chief executive level that don't then filter down through to ways of working in our organisations. We can just say things as leaders, or say things as chief executives, and think that that magically means they happen. Unless we've got the operational level in our councils working in partnership in the right way, it's just hot air. So, I think the key is that we don't just let these things sit at the top level; we make sure that all levels of our organisation have bought into the principles of how we're going to work in partnership. So, I think that's key. So, it's impact, partnerships and making sure there's some throughput. And then I think all this is worthwhile. If it's just a case of creating more organisation for organisation's sake, it's not.

Okay, Anthony. Thank you very much. Yes, Sam.

Can I—?

Yes, Sam.

Can I, before we bring in—? I know others want to comment on this, Chair, but Anthony's raised some really important points that I just want to perhaps just dig a little further on. Because you mentioned it earlier, actually, Anthony, as well, viewing CJCs in particular as partnership and not—I think you said rather than organisations in of themselves. But I guess that's the point of CJCs, that they are organisations in of themselves, aren't they? They're not a voluntary partnership, which, often, as you say, probably works best. And as you said, in the pandemic, that was a great example where people came together voluntarily. So, just a point on that: I think that part of the frustration I'm hearing from members is CJCs were thrust upon, have been thrust upon, local authorities, rather than organically happening amongst local authorities. But, just going back to the point of others in the organisation understanding and feeling the effect of these partnership organisations, do you think, if we were sat here with a couple of ordinary members of the council, whether it's in Torfaen or wherever, do you think they would understand what this is about, corporate joint committees? Do you think someone who's been elected, even in previous terms, would feel that they're making a difference in the work of corporate joint committees?

That is a big challenge for us as leaders to get that understanding going, because, inevitably, there is some exchange of hard power for influence when you work in a partnership, because you're not doing things directly, and therefore, as a backbench councillor, you may think that your power is diminished. I think we need to show how that transfer of hard power to influencing a bigger whole is worth while. You ask about CJCs and their origins; I think this is more about attitude than origins. It's how we go into those CJCs and how we work them, I think, that matters most, and we can work them as partnerships, as opposed to—. And the other thing is, we just need to make sure, within that pattern of regional partnership, we know who does what best, so that we avoid duplication and we avoid things falling through the gaps. Our regional partnership board is largely focused on the health and social care issues. Our PSBs, our CJCs, we need to make sure that they're all doing what they do best and all understand what each other are doing, rather than getting very crowded on the stage.

All right, Sam? I think Rob as well. Rob.

Yes. Thank you, Chair. I know, obviously, Sam was the leader of Conwy, so he knows the situation in local government very well, and I know a number of other members on the committee were councillors. I think, to answer Sam's most recent question, the same could be said, though, of all regional structures. I think the point is that the more broad the structure, probably the less there is in terms of visibility of some of the details of the working. But, certainly, for my own council, members understand what CJCs are, they do city deal arrangements, and they're aware of what we're doing there. I'd come back to the same point Anthony made, though, around impact, and it's one that shouldn't be lost, especially after the COVID pandemic, because the way in which local government responded in COVID was remarkable, and the closeness of working between ourselves and Welsh Government was really something we should all be really proud of in terms of how we delivered, making sure that we were really agile in making sure people were supported during the pandemic. Why I'm raising that in this context is because I came away from that experience, as I'm sure others did, thinking, 'Well, hang on a second, I didn't run to this structure or this structure or this structure to get stuff done', and I think that's the lens I now look at some of the way in which we work—to say, 'Well, actually, when we were in a crisis, if that wasn't what we used, why on earth are we persisting with it?' And I don't mean that in the context of CJCs, because I do think CJCs, as I said in my other comments, have a real role to play here, but I think there are some other structures in Wales that we need to take a look at that I don't think serve us very well. And I think, in terms of that impact and making sure we use our time wisely to get the most delivered for the people of Wales, looking at historic structures is something we should probably take a bit of time to do and see if we can streamline some of that.

Okay, thank you very much. And I think Dyfrig wanted to come in as well.

Okay. And Bryan.

All right, Sam?

Yes, thank you, and thank you for those responses. I agree, this is certainly a challenge—ensuring that things filter down, appropriately, to people who are rightfully elected in their own right to represent residents in their ward at the same level as leaders are.

And then perhaps the final question from me is in relation to how you are seeking to co-opt members onto CJCs, and how that's working with other public bodies, whether it be in health, health services, or perhaps in the universities, and what the appetite is like from those other public bodies to really engage and be involved with the work of corporate joint committees. I appreciate things are still fairly early days, but just perhaps an initial observation as to the engagement of other public bodies with corporate joint committees. 

Okay. I can see Bryan with his hand raised. Bryan. 

And Rob. 

Yes, for us, as I said earlier, we've sort of duplicated our city region arrangements. So, we've co-opted the health boards—the two health boards in the area—and the universities onto the board. We've moved across our economic strategy board that advises the city deal on the economy, so those arrangements transfer across to the CJC, and we look to enhance the economic strategy board membership by adding sector leads to give us further, broader economic advice. Obviously, we've got the national parks as part of our arrangements, and we've allocated them voting rights as well in certain areas, particularly planning. So, again, we've moved as fast as we can to make sure that we have that full suite of both core and co-opted members. 

Okay. Thank you all very much. Sorry, Dyfrig, did you want to add something?

Okay. Diolch yn fawr, and thank you all very much for coming in to give evidence today, either remotely or in person. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy in the usual way. Diolch yn fawr i bawb. 

Thank you. 

Okay. The next item for committee today, then, is item 3, papers to note. We have one paper, which is the Welsh Government's response to our report on the provision of sites for Gypsy, Roma and Travellers. There is a debate scheduled on this for 23 November in Plenary, and this is something we could also discuss later on in this meeting, perhaps in private session if Members are content. Are Members content to note this paper on that basis at this stage? Yes, okay. Thank you very much. 

Item 4 then is a motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of today's meeting. Is committee content? I see that you are. Thank you very much. We will then move into private session.