Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

I propose Delyth Jewell.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. I'm Ken Skates, Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales. 

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Peter. 

Diolch yn fawr hefyd. My name is Peter McDonald. I'm director for transport and digital connectivity in Welsh Government.

Thank you both so much. If it's all right with you, we'll go straight into questions. Cabinet Secretary, your paper and your letter that followed the scrutiny session in June—in that you outlined your priorities for the UK Government's rail reform process. Could you provide us with some further detail, please, on how that is progressing and when you'll have clarity on any future arrangements?

Thank you. Yes, there's a huge opportunity here with the rail reform Bill, and we're in very, very close communication with UK Government, both at an official level and at a ministerial level. The Bill will be introduced next year and my understanding is that formal consultation is going to be beginning by the end of this year, so we'll start to get more detail very, very soon. We are seeking, obviously, an empowered Wales business unit within GBR, Great British Railways, and our discussions are really, really productive at the moment.

Thank you, that's really useful. You mentioned in the paper that the UK Government has committed to a statutory role for Welsh Ministers. Could you outline how that will work in practice, please?

Yes, sure. That would effectively work in practice through the Wales and borders business unit. It will be empowered, it will be accountable to Welsh Ministers. My hope is as well that Senedd Members will be able to play a part in holding it to account and scrutinising its functions. So, it's through that specific unit for Wales within GBR. 

That's really useful. Thank you so much. Finally from me, you say in the same paper that you're

'seeking a role in the specification of services operating in and out of Wales'.

Is that part of the statutory role for Welsh Ministers, as you envisage it? 

Well, it's still early days in terms of determining how services are going to be specified in the future, but during discussions what we've insisted is that we have the scrutiny function over specification services that are currently operated by Avanti, GWR and CrossCountry. And the quid pro quo, of course, is that we have planning functions with our neighbours and colleagues just across the border to make sure that there's a greater interface of rail services operated by TfW with the rest of the operating network.  

Okay, thank you so much. 

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Minister—Cabinet Secretary. They keep changing. Right. On 24 September, you said

'full devolution of rail infrastructure...remains our ambition',

but that you recognise this is a process. What will the process to full devolution look like? And also, if full devolution doesn’t feature in the current reform programme, which seems likely to be the biggest rail reform programme in 30 years, do you believe it does remains an option in the near future or will it be off the table for another generation?

I'm going to rehearse a comparison and a simile that I've used in the past. The rail network in Wales, outside of the core Valleys lines, where we are responsible for the network, is a bit like a used car, and a used car with a pretty high mileage. Now, when you go and buy a used car you can seek a warranty for it, you can ensure that you know exactly how many miles it's done, its history, how well it's been maintained, and you can get a guarantee for it so that you're basically purchasing something that is as close to being new and guaranteed as possible, or you can go to an auction, or, at even greater risk, you can go to an online auction, where you never get to see the car and you don't really know the detail about it. 

Devolution of rail infrastructure should be like the first of those options. We need to make sure that when infrastructure is devolved—I stress 'when'—it is in the best possible condition that it can be in, and that requires enhancement work. That enhancement work is very, very substantial. So, we've learnt from divestment to the core Valleys lines and we need to apply those lessons to the rest of the network. I'm confident that, with the creation of GBR in the meanwhile and with the creation of the Wales business unit, we'll be able to see the sort of modernisation and enhancement of our network that we haven't seen in many, many generations. 

Thank you. That's me done. 

Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language wrote to the Chancellor setting out priorities for the 30 October budget, and asked for a fair approach to rail funding. How are those going to be discussed in future budget settlements? 

Well, largely—. What I should say is that, with the budget, it wasn't a spending review. So, the budget only reflects the situation for the current financial year and the next financial year. What is vitally important is the spending review. In terms of long-term investment, the ideal scenario would be for that Wales business unit within Great British Railways to have a dedicated enhancement fund, and, with it, funding that is proportionate and fair. We need to make sure that Barnett works for Wales. That will be the ideal outcome in our discussions with UK Government Ministers but, as I stress, the spending review is going to be vitally important. 

The letter did actually refer to a need to agree treatment of the core Valleys lines network in that Barnett formula, and you've just said that. So, what are the concerns that need addressing? Are there any that you want to add to the one that you've just described, using your analogy of buying a guitar?

Yes. On the core Valleys lines, we were operating to a really tight time frame when it came to taking control of the network, and we decided in early 2020, when divestment took place in March 2020, that we would maintain negotiations following the transfer. And those negotiations over funding have largely been resolved, and we now have £39 million included in the Welsh block grant. So, the outcome has been very positive indeed. But there are still some negotiations taking place relating to access charges that could deliver—could deliver—further funding to Wales. I don't know whether there's anything more that Peter can add, from an official view.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. So, yes, those negotiations are going well, and there are some good settlements on the ongoing costs of having to maintain the CVL. But, as you say, Cabinet Secretary, it's worth distinguishing between retrospective negotiations to make sure that Barnett in the past has worked effectively and the prospective consideration of a Wales enhancement fund, which would be, for the first time, a dedicated pot from which Wales could fund rail enhancements. And what we are seeking is both the existence of that pot, that mechanism, but also accountability to both Welsh Ministers and UK Government Ministers for determining what should be the priorities that that fund should deliver. And that's I think what we would describe as the bigger prize on a future basis, looking ahead, because that is not something that has featured in our architecture before.

And finally from me, have you worked out how much you believe Wales is owed as a result of HS2?

Yes. As things stand, as of the end of the financial year 2024-25, the sum is in the region of £350 million, which is a substantial sum, but, as Peter has mentioned, actually, if we want to see the rail network upgraded to the standard that we wish, it will cost far more than that. And so, the bigger prize is actually having a dedicated Wales business unit, with a dedicated enhancement fund, within Great British Railways.

I've got Carolyn Thomas who wants to come in for a supplementary on this.

I think it's really important if you could clarify. Originally, we thought it was £4 billion. The total cost of the scheme was £96 billion, I believe. Is that why £4 billion was calculated?

Yes.

A lot of the scheme has already been dedicated—there's funding dedicated, a lot has been done. So, £350 million actually seems a very small percentage. So, how is that calculated? Can you clarify that, please?

Yes. That's on the basis of the work that's been done so far, that is, Carolyn. So, you're right to point to the £96 billion and the £4 billion, but that's on the basis of HS2 having been delivered in full.

To Crewe?

Beyond—beyond Crewe. My understanding is that that is a figure that's attributed to completion of HS2 to the north. So, the current figure is based on the work that's already been done, up to the end of the current financial year, and the consequential that we would have expected from the overall cost of the work so far.

Okay. [Interruption.] Yes. We can follow that up in writing.

Diolch. Bore da, Ken. Can you say a bit more about the current state of discussions with the UK Government on investments in major rail infrastructure enhancements? And to go on to ask specifically about the plans by the Burns delivery unit of the requirement of £385 million of UK Government investment in the south Wales main line between 2025 and 2030: have you had any discussions about that, and do you think that will be funded?

We've had lots of discussions about this, Julie. Fortunately, the Minister at a UK level who is responsible for rail is very, very aware of the work of Lord Burns, both in south-east Wales and in north Wales. In terms of delivery of those projects, of course, they are major rail enhancement programmes, and they will be caught up in all of the negotiations that are taking place ahead of the spending review. That is why I say the spending review is vitally important, and that's why we're pushing for investment in the Burns recommendations. So, we're pushing for not just the rail enhancements in south-east Wales but also rail enhancements required in north-east Wales, in accordance with the transport commission reports in both of those regions. I'll bring in Peter, though, on Burns, because he was heavily involved.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I just wanted to make a point around the status of different infrastructure proposals in terms of their timing. So, the proposals for the Burns work in south-east Wales are probably some of our most, if I may, 'oven ready' pieces of work, because a lot of the technical feasibility has been done. So, that is why it's particularly relevant for this spending review, because it would be practical and feasible and realistic for spending to start on those schemes in the spending review period.

Many of the other pieces of rail infrastructure in Wales, we would want to prioritise development work on, such that they could then be in a suitably ready state for future spending reviews and future years. And this is the benefit of the Wales enhancement fund—going back to that point on an ongoing basis—because what we could do is work in partnership with UK Government to determine how much of that enhancement fund should go towards funding actual construction, such as the Burns stations and lines, and how much should go towards developing projects for future years. And what I would like, certainly, through the Wales rail board, is for the board to curate a ready pipeline, so we always have something developing and we always have something ready to spend money on in terms of construction, and that is the value of having the certainty of the fund: you can do very long-term planning, you can run an effective pipeline, and, rightly or wrongly, rail is a very long-term sector, so having that certainty makes a great deal.

So, the south Wales project is ready to go, basically.

I mean, there are lots of different stages, but it is more ready to go than anything else, and certainly improvements to the relief lines are in a high state of readiness.

Right. So, when do you think you'll be in a position to know that the money is there, available?

When the spending review has concluded.

Thank you.

How concerned are you regarding the vulnerability of our railway infrastructure? So, there was much talk about electrification of the north Wales line, but I've seen a high tide with the water nearly coming over it, and I know, travelling from north Wales to south Wales, we had a lot of flooding, and Conwy valley as well. I know maintenance over the years has come and gone, really, the investment, and so it's not always been there. So, I'm concerned about—. We talk about enhancements going forward, and investment, but how concerned are you about the vulnerability of it?

Oh, very concerned. Very concerned. And this is another reason why I think devolution right now would be a mistake, because we are dealing with enormous change in terms of the climate and severe weather patterns. The latest storm, storm Bert, has demonstrated how damaging it can be on infrastructure. It's largely roads that have been affected by storm Bert, and properties, but we do know that extreme weather patterns are impacting on rail infrastructure right across the world. So, right now, we need to give very, very, very due regard to the need to make sure that we maintain and protect our rail infrastructure as it stands, and you've highlighted specific areas that are vulnerable. I think, particularly in terms of the Conwy valley line, we've gone there on numerous occasions to repair that particular piece of infrastructure, and it's all owing to severe weather. So, we are very, very conscious of this, and it's something that I discussed with Louise Haigh very recently, the UK transport Secretary of State.

So, those lines should be added, I guess, to the pipeline then as well.

That's an enhancement programme, that pipeline, so that's to, for example, get the borderlands line up to metro standard. Whereas we're talking, in terms of the Conwy valley line and the north Wales main line, about a maintenance programme and a protection programme, a resilience programme, to make sure that the infrastructure is protected in years to come.

Okay. So, hopefully, separate funding.

Hopefully, separate funding. And to be fair—to be fair—Network Rail has spent a considerable sum of money on the Conwy valley line in recent years. I visited there I think it was around about seven years ago, to see the enormous work that was being undertaken to protect that line. But, of course, the weather is becoming more severe.

In 2020, the Welsh Government said the Green Book appraisal process systematically disadvantaged rail investment in Wales and other areas outside London. The Green Book was then reviewed. Has this review addressed the Welsh Government's concerns?

I really welcome the review. I regularly used to talk about how the Green Book needed to be amended to reflect place-based challenges that we have in the UK, and to ensure that we get greater investment from outside the south-east of England. In the past and to date, investment in rail has largely been focused where the business case is strongest. The business case is strongest where you have greatest return. But that ignores fundamental challenges that we face in the UK, that the previous Government described as 'levelling up', and which the new UK Government is determined to address. And that's why I do welcome the Green Book review.

Ultimately, though, whether we're able to get more funding to Wales will be down to ministerial decisions. So, it's political. And my understanding is that, in terms of the outcome of the review and Green Book appraisals, Ministers aren't actually bound by that process, and so can make decisions of a political nature, and that's why it's so important that we maintain constructive dialogue. I think Peter may have something to say about the Green Book. This is something that he’s taken a fairly keen interest in.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I think the point I'd make, building on your point, Cabinet Secretary, about, ultimately, Ministers making decisions, which is entirely correct, is that the Green Book, effectively, now levels the playing field when it comes to analysis. But the Green Book also says that Ministers have the prerogative to set the objectives for what they want to achieve with things. And value for money and a benefit-cost ratio does not trump those objectives. So, there is now what you might call fair and level analysis going in to advise Ministers on which schemes would best meet their objectives, but those objectives are set by Ministers themselves.

If we apply this to rail in Wales, what you might then take from this is that there would be most power when Welsh Ministers and UK Ministers had the same objectives for rail in Wales. So, for example, if both sets of Ministers came together and said regional economic growth is what they want to achieve through that, then the Green Book provides the tools to find the best way to deliver against that objective. And the decisions, as the Cabinet Secretary says, are ultimately for those Ministers.

Peter, just briefly, on that basis, then, is that a fundamental flaw in that process, that it would be geared towards—? Everyone wants there to be co-operation, but sometimes you'll have Governments in the two Parliaments who would not have the same objectives.

I think, ultimately, decisions have to be taken by Ministers, given the constitutional position. I suspect that it would not be credible if they were made, in comparison, let's say, by algorithm based upon the Green Book. So, I'm not sure there's any way that we can get away from the constitutional proprietary of Ministers. But it remains the case that, on rail specifically in Wales, because of the current devolution settlement, there is most power when both Governments work together.

Thank you, Peter. That's useful. 

Thank you, Chair. What is your assessment of TfW’s current performance? Data shows that while it had made improvements at the beginning of the financial year, performance has declined in recent rail periods. What are the reasons for this?

It's often down to seasonal conditions, and we've had, of late, some pretty severe weather patterns that we've had to deal with. Overall, though, I've been very impressed by TfW’s improvement in terms of performance, reliability, punctuality, and also customer satisfaction. If we go back to where we were last year, I think the picture was very, very different, and the way that Transport for Wales has improved, I think, is to be applauded. It is now consistently, this year, the most reliable operator of the four in Wales, and that is down to, I think, in part—I think it's been proven—the use of brand-new trains. We're investing £800 million in brand-new trains, and, also, in the work that’s being carried out on the core Valleys lines, where we’ve seen quite a dramatic improvement in terms of performance. 

Thank you. In the summer, there was the air conditioning problem. Has that now been resolved?

I’d need to check on where we are with that. That was on the Marches line, I think.

North to south. 

Okay. Can I check—? Because the units are, as you’ll be aware—and I know Carolyn uses the same units—extremely comfortable. The air conditioning systems are new, so we’ll have to check on whether they’re operating to a standard that you’d be satisfied with.   

Yes, I did hear from one of the people—it’s when we went to see the metro—that there’d been this problem, because, of course, the new trains don’t have opening windows. So, if the air con doesn’t work in the summer, it’s quite uncomfortable.

It’s quite interesting; in general—and I’ve been told this by a number of rail experts—if you want a reliable rail network, actually, you don’t get any new trains, you keep operating the older trains. 

Yes, I can see the logic there as well. Do you expect performance to improve once the December timetable change is implemented?

Yes, that is my hope. The December timetable change is about providing greater capacity where it’s needed. It’s about simplifying the rail network and the services. And so my hope is that people see further improvements in performance. 

And will you ensure TfW publishes the performance data broken down by individual line, given it previously did accept our recommendations to do so in principle?

Yes, I’m really keen to see this happen. They’re already publishing separate data for the core Valleys lines and the rest of the network, but we’re working with them to develop a system that will deliver up-to-date data for passengers concerning every single specific line.

Okay, thank you. 

Diolch. Cabinet Secretary, your predecessor had given a target that 95 per cent of journeys would be made on new trains by the end of this year. Will that be met, please? 

The challenge with meeting that target is that the delay to the core Valleys lines completion has a major impact in terms of the new trains that can be delivered. We can’t use the new electrified trains until all of the lines are completed. And so that’s had an impact on the target, because more than half of the services operating in the Wales and borders network are actually within that CVL area.

So, we won’t be meeting that target by the end of this year because of the overrun on the infrastructure works, and that’s in no small part because we had the pandemic, and that’s had a continued knock-on effect. That said, a huge proportion of services are operating with new trains, and we saw the first electric trains on the CVL come into operation, offering more reliability and far more comfort. And in some parts of Wales, we’re seeing 100 per cent of services operated by brand new trains. So, we are reaching that point of delivering brand new trains right across the network, and that delivery of new trains comes as a result of our investment of £800 million.

It’s a really interesting story as well, of going from having one of the oldest fleets in the UK in 2018, to having one of the newest fleets next year. And that’s a very short period of time, actually, to deliver such a huge change in terms of the age profile of the fleet. But, also, the uplift of the fleet is quite phenomenal—we’re going from 270 trains that were inherited in 2018, to more than 480. And I know of few other places where there has been such a significant—80 plus per cent—increase in the number of trains being operated.

When you said earlier that someone had said to you that to make things more efficient don’t get new trains, I thought, ‘Oh, please, don’t cancel them, we definitely want them’.  

It’s a constant headache, though, and a constant anxiety—will they work when you switch them on? But so far they're working really well. 

Is there a new target, please, or a new timeline, by which point you’d hope to meet that 95 per cent target? 

We’re hoping to meet that once the work on the metro has been completed. My hope is that we will see it in tandem with the completion of that work.

What might help, Chair, is if I provide a supplementary note on the specific target points for new trains to be introduced on each of the service lines, if that's okay—so, for example, the Cambrian line, where we're anticipating new trains operating from the autumn of next year. I can provide a pretty comprehensive brief on the time frame for the delivery of those new trains.

Yes, that would be very helpful, please. We'd be very grateful. Thank you. In June, you told us that 70 per cent of the new fleet had been received. The current figure, what would that be at this point, please?

I believe that, at this point, it's around 73 per cent. The delivery has slowed slightly because Transport for Wales need to make space for the legacy fleet, and that's associated with the delays to completing the metro programme. 

All right. Thank you. And finally from me—. Well, I was going to ask if you're still on track to have the entire new fleet delivered by mid-2026; I'm guessing that that's something that you might be able to cover in the supplementary note that you'll be providing to us, unless there's something that you wanted to say at this point on that.

No, that would be fantastic. I'll get a get a comprehensive note to you on the delivery time frame. 

That would be fantastic. Thank you so much. 

Thank you. That note will be really useful. I know that, on the north Wales line, there are two carriages still on services, and overcrowding, so can you include that one as well?

Yes, absolutely. 

What you said about new trains coming, it feels like it's great because it improves capacity, so there's no overcrowding, but I remember there were problems with the engines, so then there's a little decline, then they're sorted and everything is great again. But I must say that the old mark 4s, which are 40-year-old diesels, are the most comfortable trains that you have on the system. They're lovely.

I'd like to ask you about an update on the metros, the north Wales metro and the south Wales metro, and also branding, because I know that investment has happened in the past, including with the active travel routes through Deeside Industrial Park, park and ride systems and things, but people don't realise that that was all part of the metro. So, are you going to have some consistent branding as well? I know that there were talks about having the 'T', but because it's about the metro, people envisaged something different—like in London, going on the metro. But the concept is about connecting bus, rail, active travel routes, walking, cycling and all that under one metro brand. Am I right, or have I got it wrong?

Yes, that's right. There has been the aspiration to create a 'T' network, but I'm very keen that we have a brand that speaks to the place where it's based. So, that consistent branding across different modes is really important. Ultimately, Carolyn, I think it's also important that the region itself has a say in this, and so in the case of north Wales, the corporate joint committee will have a role in determining the branding exercise and, ultimately, the brand that emerges from it.

Shall I give an updates on the metros as well?

Yes, please.

That would be wonderful, please.

The north Wales metro is largely a programme of work to create a spine out of the Borderlands line, which connects Wrexham with Liverpool. The aspiration there is to develop that as a metro-style service, a turn-up-and-go service. Also, as some Members will be aware, we need to deal with capacity constraints at Chester station to enable us to run more frequent trains in and out of Wales. They're the two big pieces of work, and feasibility work is in progress now. Obviously, the delivery of those programmes is caught up in the spending review, but just as Peter outlined how the projects in south-east Wales are probably the most oven-ready, ready to go projects, so too, arguably, are those projects in north-east Wales that apply to the metro.

And then in south-west Wales, the work is largely focused on seven new stations and integrated public transport. As it will be in north Wales, the role of bus in south-west Wales and Swansea bay will be vitally important. And Swansea bay and south-west Wales will be the first region to franchise bus services.

Thanks. Earlier, you said that CJCs will be playing a greater role, working with Transport for Wales. Who is going to lead? Transport for Wales or the CJCs? Or is it done in collaboration?

It's collaboration. I think a way of considering it, perhaps, is that the CJC gives the steer and creates the plan—the regional transport plan, as it's known—and then TfW delivers on it.

Okay. Thank you. 

Joyce would like to ask a supplementary.

Cabinet Secretary, we've talked a lot about north and south Wales, but of course, I live in west Wales, so, I want to just bring that in in the name of fairness, and would like to understand any conversations that you might be having with the UK Government about a direct train from Milford Haven to Paddington, as I understand it. If you haven't got details now, I'm quite happy to have them later on. But I know that we've had additional trains from Carmarthen down that have been delivered, and I know it's complicated because you've got a mix of GWR and Transport for Wales on those lines. But, nonetheless, the trains are heavily used and investment in what is a travel-to-work area and also a heavy tourism area would enhance job opportunities and also help with the tourism industry. So, could you give me any updates on what's happening in the west?

Yes, absolutely, Joyce. I would entirely agree—what matters most is the passenger, and I think the potential extension of the service all the way to Milford Haven would be very beneficial for passengers. So, discussions have taken place with Transport for Wales, which, I understand, has been asked for a review by the Department for Transport. So, my hope is that we are able to reach a position where we can see those extended services. But this point is really to the more general point that we have to have a greater say in terms of specifying services that we're not responsible for. And if we had a greater say over GWR services, then I'd be able to tell you today, 'Yes, it's going to be happening', because we've insisted that it happens or, 'No, it's not going to happen', because it's going to have an adverse impact on passenger services operated by other services. So, I think having that central role in specifying services—all services that operate in Wales—is really important.

Thank you.

Yes, diolch. Just to say, it's obviously wonderful seeing the new trains running through Cardiff North, my constituency—absolutely fantastic. But my question was about the completion of the core Valley lines work and whether you're confident it will be completed by 2027. And what is the current estimate of the final cost of the project?

I'll bring in Peter to provide some more detail on the costs. I am hopeful that it will be completed to the date that you gave—2027. But I'd also apply a very, very heavy caveat on that in that we saw how COVID, which was entirely unexpected, blew apart the time frame for delivery. There's always the risk that catastrophic events of that nature could provide further delays. So, whilst I'm very hopeful that it will be completed by then, I would also add that caveat that there are unknowns out there that could impact on progress. Peter.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. So, yes, I'd say that we are on course definitely for that timing, but, as the Cabinet Secretary says, there are a fair few uncertainties still to overcome and that will undoubtedly affect the costs of the project. But the Welsh Government is committed to seeing it through and it is happening. And I think, increasingly, we will start thinking of the CVL and the south-east Wales metro as—and I'm afraid to use this phrase again—a process not an event. You already referenced the new trains being used on some parts of the network. The December timetable change is the next step. There are then further steps next year in 2025, and there'll be further steps in 2026, and then the network starts docking in with some of the things being considered in Cardiff—for example, the Cardiff Central enhancement programme. You'll have seen some of the ideas around Cardiff Crossrail. This may start to become more of a rolling programme rather than a one-off event. So, it may become less relevant to talk about one single number for how much a project would cost over years, but to think in terms of the kind of annual amount and the choices that Ministers will have on what to spend.

The Manchester metro is a case in point, and so too the London underground. They've now completed the latest line of the London underground, the Elizabeth line, and that process of delivering the underground has taken a lot more than a hundred years. So, it is a process, as Peter says.

So, basically, you don't have a figure of how much this would cost, because of it being ongoing?

Ongoing. 

I'll happily give an example. One of the things that will have to be overcome at some point is signalling upgrades at Queen Street.

Yes.

And we are focused on other bits of infrastructure delivery at the moment, so those will come in the future, and whilst there are, obviously, estimates for how much that will cost, those estimates will undoubtedly change once you open the box of signalling and start to explore it more. And this is, I'm afraid, the nature of the rail industry and rail infrastructure, in that there is a high degree of uncertainty around the costs of work that is in the future.

Right.

It is quite different from building a road, whereby, in that type of infrastructure, you tend to have more fixed-cost contracts where the contractor bears more of the risk, because it's more of a known quantity. We have built more roads than we have core Valleys lines, for example. So, that has an impact on how the infrastructure is managed.

Yes, thank you. And then one last question from me. I think, Cabinet Secretary, you said earlier on that we've learnt the lessons of the core Valleys lines. Could you just elaborate on what those lessons are?

Yes, absolutely. Largely it's that rail infrastructure is incredibly expensive to modernise and to update, and you can never be completely certain of all of the challenges at the point that you take control of it, and when you're seeking to electrify about 100 km of line, you're bound to come across problems that you didn't envisage and those problems cost money to resolve. So, making sure that you don't pin yourself down to a strictly fixed figure at the outset is very important, and instead to see the process as one of upgrading over time, and reacting as and when you come across a new challenge associated with that piece of infrastructure.

Thank you.

Just one more mention about rail.

Okay.

We've talked about investment in infrastructure, but I just want to say, investment in staff has been really important,—that we retained our ticket offices, the guards on the trains, and also the assistance staff. We have a lot of vulnerable users that use the network, and, every week, I go up and down and see the amount of people that are helped, people that need assurance they're on the right train, confidence in going on. It's been really, really valued.

As Chair of petitions, I had a petition about cashless payments as well, as to vulnerable users who can't use cards. Would this be something that you could look at, please, that people are unable to use cash to purchase tickets on the trains, and goods, please, if I write to you about it?

Yes, absolutely, and we were together recently, weren't we, in Llandudno, where we met with representatives of Mencap and they raised this very issue. So, I then took it up with Transport for Wales and was assured that cash could be used by passengers, but I'd like to get that formally to you, if I may, Carolyn, so I'll write to you with that confirmation.

Thank you very much. Just moving on to 20 mph road safety, local authorities are now considering raising some of the roads to 30 mph. Have you any idea of how many roads might revert back to 30 mph? I notice some are doing it on an ad hoc basis. I thought it might happen under one traffic regulation order. Just your thoughts on that.

I don't have an overall figure at the moment, and councils are sharing information with their citizens via their websites, and our website is able to point people in the direction of each of the 22 local authorities' sites. I think what we will see is a different picture in different parts of Wales in terms of the volume of roads that are going to return back to 30 mph. The process is already under way in some local authorities, like Flintshire, for example, where there have already been TROs published, and, in other local authorities, officials are seeking to package routes together where possible. This process is being pursued at a local authority level, and I'm not instructing, in any way, shape or form, how to undergo the process or the routes that should be applied. This is very much about local decision making and local authorities pursuing the process in the way that they feel best.

I think that's valued, actually, very much—that it should be local. Thank you. Can I ask you about further information on the review of trunk road speed limits? Specifically, is this focused on 20 mph limits or is it more broad, and how were the 111 sections of road subject to the review identified?

So, there are 111 sections of road being reviewed, and they relate to sections that are either 20 mph or 30 mph. However, with the revised guidance that we published in the summer, we're also looking at the possibility of having buffer speed limits. So, I'm sure, Carolyn, you're aware that, for example, on the A5, there are some sections where you can travel at the national speed limit and then you immediately enter 20 mph. So, we're looking at whether buffer speed limits should be incorporated.

Okay, that's great. It makes sense. Thank you.

Diolch. In relation to promoting the benefits of 20 mph to the public, your letter, following scrutiny in June, outlined the evaluation process and describes early data on speed collisions, et cetera. How are you communicating this information to the public?

Largely through the established media, and I think it's been pretty well recognised now that, in terms of collisions, figures have reduced and that's when you're comparing periods of the same with previous years. So, there is no doubt in my mind that, so far, the trend is showing a reduction in the number of collisions, and, with that, I would always add the caveat that figures fluctuate. We will see figures rise from one period to the next, because of seasons changing. But the overall trend is downward so far.

Okay. And can you update us on your plans—this really is something I want to see disappear whilst I'm able to influence it—to address pavement parking and outline the reasons for delay, given your predecessor's intended legislation to come into force by the end of this year? This is a huge problem across Wales, but nowhere more so than in Aberconwy, and here you've got young mothers with babies, and then people don't always keep the hedgerows or their garden hedges tidy, and you've got young mothers, people in wheelchairs, these mobility scooters having to swerve these cars on pavements. It's wrong.

It is wrong, and it's wrong for so many pedestrians. Blind or partially sighted people in particular are very vulnerable when people park irresponsibly. I have to say, I really, really am conscious of the amount of work that we've asked local authorities to do in regard to 20 mph. We're also facing really difficult conditions in terms of the weather this autumn that may continue into the winter as well, and so the focus has largely been on ensuring that we deliver the change on the ground where 20 mph is concerned—

But can you—

—and making sure—

On that note—

Yes, sorry.

Sorry. No, I interrupted you, so I do apologise.

No, not at all, I was just going to add that there is actually another opportunity with this, in that we're in discussions with the UK Government over what plans they have to address pavement parking. If we could piggyback on any actions that are under discussion or that they may be pursuing, then that would obviously be beneficial to Wales.

Yes, because, at the end of the day, they're crossing council land, and those pavements then get damaged. If it's a big, heavy van carrying construction materials and things, it damages the pavement. Someone can easily fall. There are so many reasons why it is wrong that people park on pavements. And I would just ask, can you not work with North Wales Police to make it a criminal offence? [Interruption.] Oh, it is a criminal offence—. Is it a criminal offence?

[Inaudible.]—local authorities.

It's what? Is it a criminal offence now to park on a pavement? Anyone?

I don't think it's a criminal offence at the moment to park on a pavement—

Because you're on council-owned land, aren't you? I have properties—I declare an interest—but they're commercial properties where we own half the pavement and the council owns the rest. And sometimes, I've had to tell traders to get off, outside my properties, because they've crossed the council highway, or land, to get onto it.

Yes. Would it help if we provided a briefing?

Yes. I'd like to know what the complexities are, because if I ruled the world, there'd be no pavement parking. [Laughter.]

That's useful to know; the world according to Janet. [Laughter.] Cabinet Secretary, could I just check, you said that it would be difficult doing this because of the powers of local authorities and how that interacts with the Welsh Government's interactions, but could you explain to us how it would be less onerous, in that case, to piggyback on what the UK Government is doing? 

Apologies, no. Apologies. What I was saying is that right now, the capacity of local authorities and their transport departments is largely focused on delivering on the 20 mph and the changes back to 30 mph, where deemed appropriate and safe, and also making sure that the road network is safe and secure during extreme weather. It's not about responsibilities at a local level, Welsh level; it's about just the capacity of local authorities to be able to pursue measures on pavement parking at this moment in time.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. As you can hear, there's a lot of strong feeling from committee members about this, so I'm sure this will come up again in the future.

A paper would be useful.

Diolch yn fawr. Yes, that would be very useful.

Can I bring Peter in, actually? 

Yes, certainly. 

He's familiar with all the complexities that emerged over the years that I wasn't in this role. So, it might just be helpful for him to give a quick download of the challenges that we face.

Yes, sure.

I'll keep it brief in the interests of time. As some Members have touched on, there are complexities in terms of land ownership, different council rules, different bye-laws, and what this means is that it may be that part of the solution, depending upon what Ministers ultimately decide, requires a form of legislative intervention, not least to provide a better framework for their more targeted enforcement action to take place. As the Cabinet Secretary says, the two current developments are, firstly, a focus of local authority officer time on 20 mph, but, secondly, the UK Government's interest in considering this. And if they were to come up with, let's say, some form of legislative proposal, there would be the option for Wales to join up that legislative approach, which, if it is in the interests of Wales and if it works for Wales, and Welsh Ministers are content, could prove a faster route to a legislative solution. But it all depends upon the UK Government's consideration and whether that's right for Wales.

All right. Thank you for that, Peter. That's really useful. We will move now to Julie.

Thank you. It's very encouraging to hear that the roads are safer because of the introduction of the 20 mph limit. But I wondered what had delayed the publication of the new road safety strategy. Could you give us some information about that, please?

Yes, absolutely. It's largely the same reason—it's the focus on 20 mph and resolving that policy to enable us, then, to turn our attention to general road safety and the strategy that we’d like to publish. But, equally, we're also in discussions with the UK Government over their proposals for a road safety strategy for England. So, we want to make sure that we have consistency across the border wherever possible when it comes to road safety, so those discussions are ongoing at this moment in time.

Thank you. And have you any idea when it might be published?

Not at this point. I can't offer a promise, I'm afraid, at this point, when it will be published. It will largely depend on discussions that are taking place with the UK Government and their intentions for an England road safety strategy.

Thank you.

We’re going on to road building under review and unadopted roads, Cabinet Secretary. Can you provide an update on the roads policy statement? Is this officially under review? And if so, when will the outcome be published?

So, it’s not an official review. What we’re doing is assessing road building tests to ascertain just how they’ve been interpreted and applied on the ground. So, we’re working very closely with local authorities on this. I think that officials are meeting this week with council officials to discuss the impact that tests have had in reality, because I think there’s a Shakespearian difference between appearance and reality. It appeared that the policy would prevent road building, it was portrayed as such, whereas, actually, road building has taken place, is taking place and will take place. For example, the new Queensferry crossing will be built in the not too distant future, and we’re going to be moving ahead with the consultation on that later this year.

Okay. So, do you maintain your view that more road building can help meet the Welsh Government’s target to reduce private car use by 10 per cent? Because when you were asked for evidence to demonstrate how road-building projects have successfully reduced private car use, your letter cites how improvements on the A55 Aber to Tai’r Meibion scheme have led to an increase use of the active travel route. Are you able to provide evidence on how the scheme has reduced car use, or data from other schemes to support that position?

I’m in the business of giving people choice over how to travel. I want people to have the best options that they can. That means ensuring that, if they wish to cycle, they wish to walk, they wish to push a pushchair, or be in a wheelchair, they’re able to do so in the safest way. That can mean diverting traffic from local roads onto trunk roads and building new roads that enable people to use local roads more safely. Newtown is a great example as well. Would it help if I dusted off the impact appraisal for the Newtown bypass and shared that with the committee? Because I think that will provide ample evidence of how well-being and active travel is being enhanced within the Newtown community.

Yes, please. That would be very helpful.

Okay. Yes, fine.

Thank you.

Thank you. Can you clarify how many pilot schemes addressing unadopted roads have been undertaken, how much funding has been allocated and whether any evaluations of these pilot schemes have been published? And my final point: are there any plans for further work or financial assistance to address this issue?

Thanks, Janet. There were quite a few questions there, and I’m going to bring Peter in on some of the numbers, if I may. But my understanding is, in the three programmes that have been operating to date, something in the region of £3 million has been allocated to local authorities for this. I understand that the majority of local authorities have shown an interest—I think it’s 17 of the local authorities that have shown an interest in securing funding for unadopted roads. It will be for the Welsh Local Government Association to carry out an evaluation. I don’t believe that that evaluation has been completed yet, but Peter may be able to give a bit more detail.

Peter.

That is all correct, Cabinet Secretary. As you say, it’s on average about £1 million a year of cost, and over a few years that takes you to the £3 million. And you’re correct on the role of the Welsh Local Government Association, including potential publication. The wider point here to make is that, in the future, the Welsh Government is looking to have a fewer number of specific grant schemes for local authorities, and to give at a regional level more flexibility for the region to decide on how transport money is spent in those regions. So, in some regions in the future, it may be appropriate to spend more on unadopted roads, in others it may be appropriate to spend less. But this is not a decision that central Government may be best placed to make in the years ahead.

Absolutely. It’s all about devolving responsibility, decision making and the funding to the regions, and utilising regional transport funds as well, to ensure that the funding is aligned with the priorities of the regions.

Okay. And are there any plans for further work or financial assistance to address this?

Well, that will come as part and parcel of devolving the funds for local transport infrastructure improvements, and it'll be for the regions and, therefore, local authorities to determine how that money is spent. I want to make sure that we are less, if you like, directive in the way that we go about business and empower and enable local authorities at a regional level to make decisions that they feel are right for their citizens.

So, you're looking to reduce the number of hypothecated grants to local authorities.

That's right, yes.

Not before time, not just in your department, but all departments. It's mad—the numbers.

And with transport, I have to say that we're at such an advanced stage in terms of developing the regional transport funds, that, in devolving funding, the regions have really stepped up and provided comprehensive details of where funding needs to be allocated. So, it's very, very welcome—the work that's been done by local authorities at a regional level, and we as Welsh Government must respond to it by devolving.

Absolutely, yes, because that is about true devolution—more to the communities, yes.

Subsidiarity, yes.

We're going to be talking about active travel now.

Regarding the devolving of funding, it's been mentioned to me that applying for active travel grant is really onerous, and quite technical as well. Often, the applications were 20-pages long, and they had to do reporting, monitoring—so, really resource-heavy for technical teams to do. And then there have been issues with maintenance as well of the tarmac paths. Ramblers have asked if they could have, actually, limestone gravel, so it can be a better multi-use path, with maybe not quite the same maintenance. And we have old railway lines that people would like, like Lôn Las Môn—18 miles of disused railway lines. I know that the ones that people use the most for cycling are being used for recreation, as well as—. The highly prescriptive rules of active travel were about access to work or destinations of purpose, whereas, very often—. The ones at Deeside industrial park are the best used, and those are for recreation, as well as access to work. I know that we had—. I think the indicator was 13,000 uses one summer, in August. It's really good, but I'm concerned whether it's actually delivering what it's supposed to do.

Audit Wales were in last week and they concluded that they're a long way from achieving the step change in active travel. I know the funding's trebled as well over recent years, so the funding's not been an issue; £210 million pounds over three years went into that, yet highway maintenance was just cut completely, and cyclists use roads. You've committed to undertake a review of the Act—

That's right, yes.

So, can you outline the scope, methods and when the outcome will be published? And will you be looking at devolving some of this funding directly to local authorities, like you just mentioned earlier, which will help, I think, with trying to jump through the hoops to get the grants through the Welsh Government, when they could actually be delivering them locally?

Yes, absolutely. So, in short, the answer is 'yes'. All of those grants that are currently hypothecated—the local transport grants—will be assigned to the CJCs to deliver the plans and the priorities contained within the regional transport plans. There's quite a lot I could probably say on active travel this morning, but I'm just conscious of time. To the direct question that you asked about the Act and the evaluation and the review, that work is taking place right now, and it should be completed by July of next year.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Cabinet Secretary, in terms of the conclusion that Audit Wales had come to, what would your response be to that? What would you assign—? What would you put that down to in terms of why, perhaps, the achievement hasn't as yet met the ambition?

I've got a number of points to make on this, if I may, Chair. First of all, the report identified the need for accurate data relating directly to Wales, and so we will have that more accurate data as a result of the national travel survey, which will be completed for the first time in 2026. So, we'll have a true picture then, if you like, of how successful measures in terms of active travel provision have actually been.

The second point I'd make is that change does take time, especially when you're aiming to deliver an entire network, and actually what's being delivered to date are components and a relatively small proportion of the entire network, and so it requires a longer term view of implementing the sort of infrastructure upgrades that are required.

The third point I would make is that walking, for me—this is my view—walking is fully inclusive, and I'd like to see sharper focus on providing safer streets, safer bus stops, safer train stations, safer routes to schools for people who walk or people who are in a wheelchair, people who push a pram. That should be the first priority, making sure that we have safer, more attractive alternatives to the car through walking.

Diolch. It's really gratifying to hear you say that. As you know, that's something that I feel really passionately about as well, so thank you, that's really useful. Thank you very much indeed. 

Yes, thank you. Cabinet Secretary, do you ensure that the views of disabled people are included in any surveys you take, and, obviously, how will the national travel survey ensure that that happens? Because I think we've all heard of occasions when certain developments have been maybe beneficial for one group, for example, active walking. But, for a disabled person—. The dropping of curbs, for example; you can see the advantage of that, but, if you've got a guide dog used to stopping at the curb—. That's just one example. But there's a whole load of things to do with active travel, and disabled people sometimes don't feel that they've been part of the planning, and I wondered if you could say what you are planning to do about that.

You raise such an important point, Julie, and you're not the only one writing to me asking for a meeting regarding shared use of active travel routes, and specifically the concerns of the RNIB in relation to blind and partially sighted people being struck by cyclists. I'm also concerned about the advent of e-mobility and how that applies to our approach to active travel. I think a national conversation is required concerning the use of e-bikes. Now, we know you can only go up to, what is it, 250 W to be using one legally on an active travel route, and that the motor should cut out at something like 15 mph, but some e-bikes can be thousands of watts now and capable of in excess of 85 km an hour. Now, of course they're illegal on active travel routes, but the police can't always enforce, and these e-bikes are being used more and more. So, the big question that I'm asking myself is: how do we better protect people who are walking, people who are in a wheelchair, people who are pushing a pram, people who are blind and partially sighted, who want to go about their daily lives walking to and from bus stops, to and from work, to and from services? How can we better protect people when they're walking? That is a big concern of mine.

So, I am meeting with different groups, and I'm hoping that we'll be able to meet very soon with the RNIB, as you invited me to do so. Other Members have asked me to meet with citizens who have first-hand experience of the problem that you've identified, and Transport for Wales also have an accessibility group that's able to provide advice in terms of not just active travel, but all forms of travel. And they've been particularly helpful, I have to say, in ensuring that we have level access to trains on the core Valleys lines, which has been very, very much welcomed. So, this is a piece of work that is right up there as a priority, Julie, for me, to ensure that walking is safe, that walking is desirable, and that walking rates continue to increase.

Thank you very much, and I'm looking forward to the meeting. 

Thank you. How do you respond to Audit Wales's suggestion that active travel targets have been set without Wales-specific data, and it’s actually uncertain whether the targets are achievable? Will you be reviewing active travel and modal shift targets? And also, I was surprised to learn, through putting a question in, that, despite all the millions of pounds that have been spent on active travel, the actual numbers of cyclists using these routes have not increased. How do you intend to address that? 

Well, it concerns me as well, Janet, and this is why I think a far sharper focus must be placed on how we use active travel investment to promote, principally, walking, safer walking routes, not least because it speaks to our social justice agenda very well. Walking is free. Pushing a pram is free. A lot of people cannot afford to get a bike, whereas walking is far more inclusive. So, we're looking at how we can ensure that active travel expenditure is primarily focused on providing better opportunities for people to walk safely.

You point to the data issue contained within the Audit Wales report. I'm very, very conscious of the data not being particularly reliable and that's why I approved the creation of a national travel survey. The first data from that survey will return in 2026 and we may have to revise the targets accordingly, because I think, until we actually have Wales-specific accurate data, we can't be confident that we're going to meet the targets that have been published.   

Okay. And then Audit Wales also say that reporting from local authorities on active travel is inconsistent. How are you going to address that one? 

Well, again, that's going to, hopefully, be addressed through the national travel survey, which will provide data and intelligence from across all local authority areas. 

Okay, thanks. 

Okay?

Yes, there's the final point—. Sorry, thank you, Chair. How do you respond to the suggestion that TfW expanding its own active travel team has resulted in local authorities losing skills and their own expertise? 

I think this is probably a concern about staff transferring from local authorities into TfW, I'm guessing. Look, TfW have been incredibly valuable in providing expertise and capacity for local authorities across Wales. Some local authorities are very, very well equipped to deliver active travel. Other authorities have less capacity and expertise, so TfW has been able to provide that national service. But I do recognise that staff will transfer across different organisations. It can't be prevented, it shouldn't be prevented—indeed, it's down to personal choice. My concern is that we have to have at least one body that can act across the whole of Wales in providing expertise, and TfW is that body. 

Okay. 

Thank you for that. 

Right, in our final, ooh, 17 minutes, 16.5 minutes, we're going to be talking about the bus reform Bill, and we'll go to Carolyn first. 

Can you provide us with an update on the development of the bus reform Bill? Is it still on target for introduction in spring 2025?

Absolutely, yes. I struggle to contain my excitement about this piece of legislation. [Laughter.] In all honesty, it's something that, when I was previously in the role, I was most excited about and I really am now, because we're at the point of introducing the Bill. We'll introduce it in March of next year and, subject to Senedd approval, we'll receive Royal Assent early in 2026. So, the final pieces of work are being progressed before we introduce the Bill, and the intention is to introduce those franchise services once secondary legislation has been passed. The south-west of Wales will see the first franchise agreements put in place and rolled out. Then it will be followed by north Wales, south-east Wales and mid Wales, of course, and it will provide the framework for us to ensure that bus services are planned on the basis of passenger interests right across Wales. 

There is a difference between our Bill and the UK Government's Bill, which I very much welcome, insofar as the UK Government's Bill, if you like, provides the tools to highways authorities to franchise—to transport authorities, rather, to franchise—whereas our piece of legislation will ensure that those tools are utilised and we will be providing franchise services. So, it guarantees, if you like, the franchising of bus services.

Can I ask a supplementary?

If it's very brief, then, yes.

A brief one. [Laughter.] I'm really excited about this, because this is really fantastic. But I know that providing public bus transport is expensive, and we really need to encourage people to come back to using buses, and to encourage young people especially—I know they're a target audience at the moment for operators. So, would you look at any pilot schemes going forward, maybe free bus transport for young people? Could this be part of it, do you think?

Yes, I'm very much—. Well, I've been looking at different options, to be honest, for how we could drive up patronage and increase the farebox, and also offer perhaps pilots that would incentivise more passengers to use buses, particularly young people. So, I'm very, very aware of proposals that are out there, and you yourself actually, Carolyn, have provided ideas for potential pilots. It all comes down to revenue at the end of the day and whether we have the funding to enable us to use some innovative proposals. My view is that we need to make sure that we drive up the farebox in order for it to provide sustainable services. And the farebox can be driven up by ensuring that services are more reliable, regular, and that that they're planned on the basis of what passengers need, rather than in the interest of profit. So, pursuing the legislation and also having novel ideas about how we can bring more people onto buses is vitally important to the department and to the whole of Government.

Thank you for that. Just before we move on, welcome to the young people who are joining us in the gallery. It's lovely to see you all. We're talking about bus reform. So, thank you so much for joining us all. We'll move on to Joyce.

The White Paper stresses the importance of small and medium-sized enterprise and municipal operators for a healthy bus market. Can you outline your current thinking on how those two sectors will be protected?

Yes, absolutely. We're so conscious of this. There are so many SMEs that operate in this space. There are currently, I believe, around 1,800 buses and a significant number of small and medium-sized businesses that are very, very well rooted in their communities, that provide excellent opportunities for local people in rural parts of Wales, in particular. So, we are conscious of the need to ensure that we protect SMEs in this particular sector. They're also, it has to be said, a vital part of a competitive market. So, we need them to be players in a franchising world. So, we're looking at systems that could be introduced that would enable SMEs to thrive in franchising. And that could be through local authorities packaging smaller route options, so that SMEs are able to bid for them, or it could be that local authorities place a heavier emphasis on community benefits. So, we're looking at different ways to enable us to protect our SMEs, who are really the backbone of the bus network in Wales.

Equally, there are municipal operators within a commercial market. Are you going to be able to offer any specific protections for those?

Yes. We are working with Cardiff and Newport councils regarding the need to protect the municipal companies that are in place at the moment. No decisions have been made about how we do that right now; it's probably the final piece of work that needs to be completed before we introduce the Bill in March. But we are at advanced stages of discussing this issue with local authorities.

The final question from me: in October, Passenger Transport magazine reported a u-turn on all areas franchising for Wales. It contrasts with your evidence during scrutiny in June that you were content with the approach set out in the road map. Have you changed your approach?

No, not at all. It's not a u-turn. There will always be exceptional circumstances, and they will be very limited, in all honesty: circumstances such as when a bus company goes out of business or where a new route is identified after a franchise has been agreed. So, there has been no u-turn; I've not changed my view on this at all.

Thank you.

The UK Government is opening up bus franchising to all English local authorities, not just the mayoral ones. Does this have any implications for Wales, for example, co-ordinating bus cross-border services, and if so, how are they being managed in developing the Bill?

Yes. I welcome the UK Government bringing forward this action. We've been discussing with them how we can ensure that, through their legislation, through our legislation, we don't just protect cross-border services, we actually enhance them. So, we're looking at permitting some cross-border routes to make sure that they are maintained, permitting other new routes to enhance cross-border movements. I'm very, very keen to work with our colleagues across the border to make sure that we protect those vital routes for passengers and that we build on them.

I don't see.

Wonderful. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Well, at this point, because we've noted those papers, just thank you so much again to the young people for joining us for the end of this session. It's been lovely to see you all. Have a lovely rest of the tour of the Senedd. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Can I just—? Sorry.

Of course you can.

Can I just come in on 3.8, the petition—

Yes.

—regarding the closure of the visitor centres?

Yes.

I've been having quite a lot of correspondence, as Chair of the Petitions Committee, regarding that, and there's still a lot of concern about it, that they are going to close before another organisation has been brought in. So, I thought if I could write to the Chair of this committee with the information I've been receiving, would that be a way forward? Is that okay?

Yes. I think everyone would be happy for you to do that. Yes, please, if you could.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are Members content for us to go into private? Okay, we'll wait to hear that we're in private.