Economy, Trade, and Rural Affairs Committee

Many thanks, Chair. Councillor Rob Stewart, leader of Swansea Council, but I'm also the chair of the Swansea bay city region joint committee.

Jonathan Burnes, I'm the portfolio director for the Swansea bay city deal.

And Craig Griffiths, managing officer for the south-west Wales corporate joint committee.

Thank you all very much. It was 2023 that the city deal was last before this committee and, obviously, presented evidence on progress to date. The city deal in Swansea and west Wales came into being in 2017. Councillor Stewart, could you and your colleagues inform the committee what progress has been made on the city deal since your last appearance before it, back in November 2023, please?

Yes, certainly, Chair, happy to do that, and, again, grateful to have the opportunity today to update the committee on where we are. So, when we came in September 2023, we had three projects completed to the value of about £113 million. As of the end of 2024-25, we've got six projects completed to the value of £210 million. Nineteen projects are in delivery, with an investment value of £761 million, against 17 projects previously advised, with a value of £415 million. Fourteen projects are currently in pre delivery, with a total investment of £403 million, against the 15 previously in pre delivery, with a total value of £711 million. So, significant progress in terms of moving them from the feasibility stage into the pre-delivery stage, and then into the delivery and completion stages.

So, again, as you'll be aware, Chair, we've committed all of our capital, and I know the committee will already know this, but perhaps for people who are watching our session following the capital region's session, our city deal is very different from the growth deal in the capital region. Given that we agreed our city deal with a different UK Government, there were very different terms and conditions applied to it, in that we had to define all of our programmes and projects upfront, which we did, and therefore we've committed all of our resources into those nine transformational programmes and 36 projects. So, we're well on our way to delivering. I'm looking forward, in the next week or so, to be opening 71/72 Kingsway, which is a city deal project in the city centre, creating around 600 jobs.

In terms of jobs so far, while we're on that topic, 896 jobs have been created, and that is against 542 when we last came to see you. In terms of private sector investment, we recorded around £30 million-worth of private sector investment when we last came to see you, and that's up to £133 million now. So, again, good progress being made on that.

We've also had a number of audit reviews and gateway reviews, and all of those have come back positively. In terms of our recent internal audit review, that came back with a substantial green rating for the deal, and all of the five recommendations that that made have been completed. Again, in terms of Audit Wales's assurance and risk assessment, that was undertaken in the period of May 2024, and, again, that found good arrangements in place for the city deal.

I mentioned looking forward, in Swansea, to opening 71/72 Kingsway. We've already, as you know, opened the Swansea Arena, and that has welcomed over 750,000 visitors since its opening, and is contributing well to the local economy and is ahead of its business plan. Pembrokeshire dock infrastructure, which includes a supersize slipway with work-boat pontoons and extensive layout and lay-down space, and renovation of the Sunderland hangar annexes into offices and workspaces, are all completed. In March 2025, the University of Wales Trinity Saint David officially opened their innovation matrix over in SA1 in Swansea, and again, that is a cutting-edge facility around 2,200 sq m in the SA1 waterfront. In Carmarthenshire, Pentre Awel zone 1 is officially now named as the Canolfan and is due to open in the summer of this year, and again, I visited that with fellow leaders in the region recently to see the work that's been done down there, and it's looking absolutely fantastic. The Bay Technology Centre is over 80 per cent occupied now, with several leads progressing as of June 2025.

So, again, good progress being made across the piece, and just totalling that up, we've delivered nearly 80,000 sq m of complete floor space across our projects; 46 tenant companies are in situ with terms agreed; 35,000 additional skills have been created; and 119 courses and frameworks delivered through our skills and talent programme; 230 full-time apprenticeship opportunities have been created or progressed; and 1,078 homes as power stations homes have been delivered, which have leveraged £83.5 million of investment in addition to another £17 million-worth of public and private sector investments. So, that means that we've had over 300 construction contracts awarded, worth over £300 million, including 250 of those contracts going to Wales-based companies. And finally, we've also relaunched the updated Swansea bay city deal website.

So, there's quite a lot to, I guess, digest there. I'm more than happy to say more on those or come back on further points if Members have questions. But if I could, Chair, just ask my colleagues if there's anything else they want to draw your attention to.

Just one thing from me, Chair. So, even though they're our jobs created, they're direct jobs of construction and the operation. We know that there are more jobs created, but until we do the evaluations on the buildings—. We're talking about 12 to 24 months after the buildings are complete and occupied, we will then perform those evaluations. So, we know that the wider supply chain and stuff around the infrastructure will have higher job numbers than we're reporting currently.

Okay, thank you for that comprehensive briefing on the progress since the last appearance before the committee. Could I just clarify something? You made the point that there's a distinction between the agreement that you have for your city deal and the one the capital region has, and obviously the capital region has moved forward with projects that weren't originally in their bid. Have you found that problematic for you, not having that flexibility, and has it stalled any projects or caused issues over the financing of projects because you haven't had that flexibility?

I think it's a double-edged sword in that respect. I've got the benefit of being here back in 2015 when we started the journey to negotiate with both Governments. Obviously, at the time, we were negotiating with Theresa May and Philip Hammond; they chose a different approach to city deals to that that had been chosen by David Cameron and George Osborne. So, they forced us, effectively, to define our strategy, our projects, upfront, and I think that did mean that we did a lot more thinking upfront than perhaps other city deals had done. And I think there was evidence at the time that city deals were being awarded money and then taking quite a significant amount of time to decide how they would invest, how they would take that investment forward. So, in that respect, it was probably a good thing that it forced us to crystallise what we felt were the most important interventions for our region as part of the city deal investment.

I guess, as you alluded to, Chair, that has over time then created some challenges because, of course, nobody in 2017 when this was signed knew a pandemic was coming; nobody foresaw a war in Ukraine; and nobody foresaw the sort of cost-of-living impacts and changes that we've seen in terms of inflation in the economy. So, those are things, I guess, that have affected not just city deal projects, but all projects across Government and the private sector. So, I guess one of our challenges has been that we’ve deployed all of our capital into those programmes and projects, because we believe those are the best interventions we can make, but, of course, we’re therefore having to continually make sure that we deal with the cost pressures that come through inflation. And both Governments have been very clear that they’re not reopening city deals, that we have to be innovative in how we attract additional funding, or align additional funding, to do that. So, we don’t have the benefit of a growth fund like the capital region has, where it can invest or decide to deploy in different ways into things that it feels are important at this time. So, it’s a double-edged sword—some benefits, some challenges.

But, on balance, would you say that the Theresa May and Philip Hammond method of setting up your city deal, and asking you to focus specifically on the projects, so that they are clearly defined and, obviously, road mapped to delivery, is a better and more sustainable model than maybe the original concept under which city deals were set up under George Osborne and David Cameron?

No, not entirely. As I said, I think there are benefits to both. I do like the fact that we were able to be really clear, in the early days, about what we were going to try and deliver and intervene, and why that intervention was appropriate. But, speaking with a personal view, as chair of the Swansea bay city deal, I would have liked—and I know we wanted at the time—that flexibility that growth deals have to decide later on how best to deploy some of that capital. So, maybe if we’d have been given the option of defining some of it upfront, and then keeping some of it as a growth fund, that might have been the best of both worlds.

Okay, thank you. And my final point—you give an extensive list of projects that are progressing and generating jobs in your specific areas. Are there any concerns over projects that were highlighted for delivery, but are flashing either amber or red, either through cost pressures, or, obviously, other obstacles that were unforeseen at the time, that are posing potential delivery issues on those projects?

Yes, there are clearly some cost challenges, and we’ve highlighted that in the written response we’ve given you. But, again, I think, there’s a multi-tiered approach to this at the project level. Project managers are working to value-engineer the projects. Obviously, we’ve got the programme management office that also are looking over the whole programme to ensure that any changes that are made do not affect the deliverables and the outcomes. Because that’s the key thing here, that we may choose to amend the project, or do it slightly differently, but those outcomes, in terms of jobs created, in terms of the impact it has on the economy, still need to be maintained. And, again, you’ll have noted in there that the gross value added outcome, even though that’s a very blunt measure, and not one that we now use, has increased significantly over its original estimate, up to about £2.34 billion from £1.8 billion. So, again, we are continuing to make sure that we hold to the aims that the city deal originally signed up to, so that we do deliver those jobs that we want for the economy of south-west Wales.

Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Jenny.

Thank you. I want to explore the impact of the city deal. So, the UK Government published an industrial strategy on Monday, highlighting eight areas of priority that they want to see developed. So, focusing on Wales, I note that Swansea University was designated as the lead for the doctoral research centre for semiconductors. What, if anything, does that have to do with the work that you’ve been doing?

Yes. So, look, obviously, Swansea University are one of the partners in the city deal. They helped author and create the projects that are in the city deal. Our digital innovation strand, which is a golden thread that runs through the city deal, obviously will take account of the industrial strategies of both the Welsh and the UK Government, and more recent announcements, as you say, which are really welcome, for Swansea University.

So, we see nothing in the new UK Government strategy to give us concern, nor in the previous Welsh Government strategies for economy. We think, at the time, that there was a lot of thinking, and I guess this is one of the benefits that did happen at the time, that we took a lot of time with our university partners, with our industry partners, to make sure that what we were proposing as a city deal would last the term of the 15 years, so it would be forward thinking in terms of the challenges and the opportunities we thought were going to come from the new economy that we were aiming to create. Part of that is obviously the digital economy, and of course Swansea University is a leader in semiconductors, as is south-west Wales and south-east Wales. So, we believe that there's no issue there, but I know that Jonathan wants to add to that.

Yes, if I could. Myself and the officer who leads on the regional learning skills partnership were part of a working group with Swansea University to establish that bid last year, so it was great to see that announcement earlier this week. We'll continue to work with them and support them, but for us we are looking at growing sectors, and this is one of the growing sectors, not just for our region but for Wales, so we will help support that. There could be opportunities around skills and talent to help pump prime some of those pilots—curriculum development et cetera—but a lot of it as well is around the collaboration. Even though you picked that one example, there are many other examples that we have within the region that already exist—things like biophilic living. There's stuff around the BioHUB, and stuff around Innovate UK with one of their catapults down in Pembroke around floating offshore wind. So, a lot of what we do for the city deal and the wider regional economic growth is keyed into all of those types of projects. For example, I would sit on advisory boards or be part of the bidding process to help support those with the teams around the region. Another example was recently we had a place-based impact accelerator account on net zero. That had to be led by a local authority, which was Neath Port Talbot in our region. So, there are probably lots of examples, which all link in with city deal, that are probably worth highlighting.

Okay. Just sticking with semiconductors for a moment, obviously the manufacturing base is all clustered around Newport. I just wondered whether you had any ambition to have any manufacturing in the Swansea bay area as well, or whether you're content being the research lead.

Look, we'll never say 'no' to jobs, but I think it's picking the things that are most important to you and, as you say, the research, development and innovation part of that sector is where we believe we are leaders. We collaborate with the Cardiff capital region. I meet with the chair of the capital region quite regularly. And again, it's important that we have that consistent, collaborative approach across south Wales in terms of what we do, and making sure that we place our energies where we are best suited.

Okay. Some 900 jobs have been created to date, against an overall target of 9,700. Could you just tell us—you're now in your ninth year—how you think you're going to reach that target and how you can assure us of the sustainability of these 900 existing jobs that have been created?

Obviously, in terms of all projects, you have to go through the approvals process. I'm on record a number of times at this committee and others saying how difficult some of those approvals were in the early days with both Governments. Given that we're talking about £241 million-worth of Government money, the amount of assurance and hoops that all the city deals have had to jump through has been probably disproportionate. It took a long time, despite us doing a lot of upfront work, to get to the point where moneys were starting to be released into projects, and of course once those projects had the secured funding you then get into the part where you're actually starting to deliver those, to build the facilities and create the jobs in terms of construction, and then to create the longer term jobs within the project. So, it's a bit of a j-curve in that respect. You start to see an acceleration of the jobs created, and you've seen that over the last year. We fully expect that further jobs will be created on an increasingly regular scale, so that the jobs growth will create over the remaining term of the city deal, will achieve, the 9,000 jobs and, hopefully, exceed that total. But, as Jonathan said, those are just the direct jobs. There is also the work that's going on to identify what we believe are the secondary jobs and the consequential jobs of the investment in the city deal, and again we expect that to be a multiple of the sort of numbers that we're talking about today.

In terms of sustainability, well, that, we would hope—. The work that's been put in to make sure that the jobs and the sectors that we believe our city deal should intervene in—. Because, again, the city deal is there to make sure that we diversify our economy, that we try to invest in smart manufacturing and energy and in other things that we believe that this region can excel at, and, if we get that right, then those jobs should be sustainable for the long term. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. I guess, though, that we won't be immune to economic downturns or economic impacts that are created anywhere else in the UK or in the world. So, it remains a challenge in this region, as it does in all, but we believe that what we are creating and what we are delivering are sustainable, long-term, well-paid jobs for our region.

Okay. So, how many of these—

Jenny, could I just invite Hefin to put a supplementary in, please?

Yes.

Perhaps I should have come in with this a little bit earlier, but, when Jenny was talking about specific projects, I just wanted to quickly ask you about the Global Centre of Rail Excellence. I know that the city region had the establishment of a long-range wide-area network gateway there. Has there been any other work with the Global Centre of Rail Excellence as part of the deal? Thanks, Jenny, for letting me come in on that.

So, I'm not aware of a direct link with the deal, because obviously that element of investment in the region is not part of the city deal. And you'll be aware, outside of the city deal, because again it's good to have the corporate knowledge on this one, we were advised at the time not to include transport as part of our city deal submission. So, we were going to make, at the time, as you know, a direct appeal to UK Government for electrification of the lines to Swansea and the creation of the Swansea bay metro. We've since worked on the Swansea bay metro with Transport for Wales, and we've reignited discussions with the UK Government around the potential electrification of the main line to Swansea—

But GCRE is a separate project that needs support, and I was just wondering if there was any thought in the future of supporting that project as an innovation project.

Well, we will not have any spare funding to directly support it financially, but of course what we will do strategically through the work of the CJC, which will have a broader economic reach, is to bring in all of the elements in terms of strategic transport et cetera. So, that will be done primarily through the CJC, not through the city deal.

Okay. Thanks for that.

You were about to tell us about the discussions you were having on trying to get electrification of the line to Swansea back on track. Those are discussions with the UK Government, presumably.

Yes. Look, we, as you would expect us to, have lobbied UK Government for this to be reinstated as a priority. We've always felt it unfair that electrification goes to Cardiff and then we're back to diesel trains running to Swansea and the west. We hope that, in time, we will get the necessary funding from UK and Welsh Government to see that electrification take place, and obviously we've been working with Transport for Wales, who have done an incredible amount of work with us to work up the elements of the Swansea bay metro—so, the station designs, et cetera, that will need to be delivered. We're very blessed in our region in terms of not needing lots and lots of new track—the track already exists—but we do need the creation of the new stations. But, again, these are not elements within the city deal, but they are ones that we pick up as part of the CJC, so obviously that broader economic and transport—

Okay. They're an important part of the landscape. Okay. Can I just go back to the smart manufacturing? How many of these 900 jobs are in smart manufacturing?

Do you want to pick that one up, Jon?

Yes. So, the smart manufacturing—. The advanced manufacturing production facility and the stuff down in Pembroke Dock marine—the advanced manufacturing production facility isn't built yet. So, in terms of directly attributable jobs in smart manufacturing, very few.

Okay.

So, the predominant focus as to where those jobs are created are around construction and around the operation of the buildings, which are nearing or at full occupancy. What we are yet to determine are things like SWITCH, which is all about the decarbonisation of steel in Harbourside in Port Talbot and the advanced manufacturing production facility and the training centre. Those will be starting this financial year, and they will have, probably, about a two-year lead-time to get them built and then into operation. So, to answer your specific question, once those are on line, that's when the jobs will be created around the wider smart manufacturing.

Okay. So, in the next three years, you're hoping that that's going to—

It's still within the period of the city deal, up to 2033, but it's some of the later-delivered infrastructure.

Okay, so—[Interruption.] Go ahead. Sorry, I didn't mean to—.

I was going to say that Pembroke Dock marine is another important point, because a lot of what they've done there for the infrastructure, which Councillor Stewart just highlighted earlier, will enable and bring companies into the port down in Milford Haven and Pembroke Dock, and that will create advanced manufacturing opportunities as well.

Okay. So, the emphasis in this industrial strategy was put on these free ports as well as these deals. So, how do you think the impact of the city deal so far is going to enable you to ensure that people are paying sufficient attention to expanding those important developments?

The good thing about the city deal is that all the right collaborators are working well together. The two projects I just highlighted—supporting innovation and low-carbon growth—and Pembroke Dock marine were part of that Celtic Freeport bid. They were a catalyst, if you like, to help support that. So, we were already on the right trajectory to help support the Celtic Freeport. Now, what we need to do is—. Obviously, the Celtic Freeport is much broader—more land available, more opportunities for businesses—so we need to make sure that those two things dovetail and that the partners are at the table from both the city deal and the Celtic Freeport, having those conversations.

Okay, because some of the concerns that I'm getting from the trade unions is that these free ports will just become warehousing operations for bringing in goods from other countries. So, how are you going to ensure that that is transformed into sustainable, long-term good jobs in your area?

Again, I think that's one that we're discussing at the corporate joint committee level, because, again, the free ports are not part of the city deal. So, if you like, in terms of the economic approach in the region, you have the corporate joint committee, which takes care of, or oversees, all of the economic aspects, and you then have the city deal, which is an element, the Celtic Freeport is an element, and then, obviously, the stuff that the CJC do in terms of transport, strategic planning et cetera. So, we are having those conversations. Our hope would be, again, as the Celtic Freeport proposals progress, that we see not just elements taking place in Neath Port Talbot and Pembrokeshire, but that we get that connectivity across the region and we get benefits all across the region, including in Swansea and in Carmarthenshire, so that we have and we feel the full effects of the free ports.

I know that there are a number of voices out there who are opposed to free ports and who do have genuine concerns that they will suck investment into those areas, as you've outlined, and to the detriment of the surrounding areas. That's exactly the approach that we're trying to avoid in our region by working collaboratively across the four authorities.

I think a colleague of mine will come back to all that later in the conversation.

Thank you. Sam.

Thank you very much, Chair. Good morning, panel. I'm just looking to ask a few questions around the regional spread of the impact. In terms of the achievements to date, how spread out across the four local authority areas are they, and are there certain areas that have sucked in a little bit more investment due to population density or any other specific reasons—specific skill sets within the workforce or any specific reasons?

No, I think—. Look, there's a good spread across the region. As I outlined in the introductory comments, you've seen significant delivery in Swansea, in Carmarthenshire, in Neath Port Talbot and in Pembrokeshire. And then there are cross-cutting projects, which are ones taken forward by all four local authorities—like homes as power stations, like digital—where everybody is seeing an aspect of development of those projects in their local authority. So, to my mind, yes, you will have seen some projects deliver earlier than others, as you would with a significant project and programme mix of 36 projects, nine programmes. So, yes, you'll have seen a couple deliver earlier than others, but that is the nature of delivery, isn't it—we do them in sequence and some in parallel, and, to my mind, as chair of the region, we've seen really good delivery across all four local authorities.

Okay. Just coming back on the nine programmes that you mentioned there—the headline programmes—how have they benefited the whole city region deal?

So, if you think of it like a pyramid, you've got the nine programmes at the top, of which the 36 projects sit underneath, and they allow you then to deliver into smart manufacturing, into skills and talent, into economy and infrastructure, into energy. So, they allow you to make sure you've got a suite of projects that are connected in a coherent way and deliver aspects of what you need to deliver at that programme level. So, again, on the projects, that's why the programme office have done a really good job in making sure that we continue to map the delivery of the projects to make sure that the programmes themselves then deliver and that the deal then delivers what it agreed to deliver in terms of jobs, in terms of economic impact and in terms of the benefit to the four local authorities. Jon, do you want to say a bit more about that, perhaps?

Yes, and I'll pick on Councillor Stewart's area. If we take Swansea city centre as an example, with having office accommodation, innovation space, the arena, it's a catalyst, it's a magnet for many other developments. It gives people confidence that we can invest and do things, not just for businesses, but for the residents of Swansea as well. So, there's that element of a city-centre approach. But then if we take stuff around Pembroke Dock marine infrastructure, having a concrete slipway doesn't sound exciting, but, actually, what that does for the local economy and for job opportunities for the local people in an area of deprivation is really important. So, there are a number of things at play where they're not in isolation—these things working together. But if I flip over to Neath Port Talbot, because you said about the spread, there's an Innovate UK catapult now residing within one of the infrastructures—the bay technology centre. That catapult supports businesses for things like advanced manufacturing, for innovation. So, in terms of the spread, that is a regional impact. In fact, it could be a Welsh national impact, but, for Neath Port Talbot and for the south-west Wales region, it certainly is an impact there for us. So, we want to try and encourage as many of those opportunities, further developments around what we do.

We've mentioned supply chains a couple of times. Those are one of the key things that we're looking at. Again, Councillor Stewart talked about homes as power stations. We do have a little bit of flexibility with some of the funds that we have within the city deal. So, we've got a supply chain fund, for example. That is looking at technology that goes into homes, decarbonised for added health benefits, reduced costs. We are trying to attract and grow companies within the region to grow and install and build those technologies. That's a £7 million fund. We've just put the first call out for expressions of interest, which we're going through and shortlisting now.

And then there's another example of a property development fund looking at new builds and refurbishments, again, within the Neath Port Talbot area. And, again, there's a £5 million fund there, which has flexibility for businesses to apply to that fund, and then refurbish and build new builds around manufacturing. But they will have spillover effects for students, for other businesses around supply chains of those as well. And every project element has a similar thing—it's not just about building a building or developing that coarse framework; it's the spillover effects of what that has.

And if I draw on one last example, our skills and talent programme, we have now over 20—I think it's 27—current pilot projects that have been awarded. They may start off small with up to 100, 200 people as part of that pilot, but what happens is that those pilots, if they're successful, start getting traction from other colleges, other schools, and then that spreads out. So, we're even, from our first one, Destination Renewables, which was in Pembrokeshire College, having colleges in England wanting to take that pilot forward and actually embed that in the curriculum. So, again, impact isn't just about the region and Wales; it can be further afield as well.

Okay. Thank you very much for that comprehensive response. On the projects that were—. Coming back to a previous answer given, Rob, to the Chair, around the differences between the Theresa May, Philip Hammond city deal that you negotiated, or were part of the negotiation of, would those projects have existed or been completed without the city region deal? Or what's the mechanism that's so attractive within a city region deal to help deliver these projects that were earmarked right at the beginning of the process?

Okay. I'll try and answer that in two ways; if I haven't answered your question, do come back to me. On that one, clearly, I think the UK Government at the time had signed a number of city deals and then they hadn't seen particularly a lot happen in those areas, and they wanted to see faster delivery. I think the response to that was the new incoming administration in the UK Government said, 'We want you to define more upfront so that you can hit the ground running.' I think that was the principle of what they were suggesting. What that did was for us to sit down, then, as four local authorities with our health board partners, with the universities and with the private sector and say, 'What is it in south-west Wales that would make the most impact? What is it that would really change our economy? Where do we need to intervene? Where do we need to innovate? And where can we be excellent over and above any other region of the UK?' So, that was the sort of challenge that we were taking on board.

I think that was really useful in terms of making sure all the partners did that hard thinking, but, I guess, as I said in my response to the Chair, the downside of that is you do that thinking and then the world changes around you and you get hit by things that nobody expected, à la COVID, et cetera. So, what we've tried to do is to make sure that we continually test that the projects are the right ones. Where we felt that they weren't the right projects, we've reformed them or we've refocused them, and we have done that a couple of times during the life of the deal. We're eight years through at the moment, and we've got about seven years to run on the deal, so we're just over the halfway stage, and we will continue to place that critical eye over the projects. But we still believe, even with the publication of the new strategies, with the changes in administration both in London and in Cardiff, that the deal and the interventions that we seek to make are still the right ones and the best ones for our region.

What we're trying to ensure on top of that is, of course, now we've got the CJC structure in place, now we've secured the Celtic Freeport, now we've got the opportunity to potentially deliver the south Wales metro and all the other transport initiatives that we've talked about, that we bring all of those together in a sensible way to give the most and greatest economic impact we can to our region.

Okay. Thank you. That's quite comprehensive. I appreciate that. One final point, on dealing with the closure and job losses at Tata with the blast furnaces, how has the city deal reacted to that?

So, again, we've been supportive to both Neath Port Talbot, to Tata Steel and to the boards that were set up, obviously, to manage that. As Jonathan referenced earlier, we were already delivering the smart manufacturing interventions, we've got the South Wales Industrial Transition from Carbon Hub—SWITCH—project, and the skills and talent project. So, those interventions were ones that were equally helpful, given the impacts of the decisions on Tata Steel. The other projects that we are delivering, obviously, will create, hopefully, opportunities for people to move across, if they do lose their employment with Tata Steel, into other industries, help them to retrain, and, again, we're linked into the programmes that have been set up to help with that. Again, whilst the city deal doesn't provide all of the answers, it is an integral part of assisting, and, again, what we were seeking to do anyway with the city deal should, hopefully, be beneficial to meeting some of those impacts created by the decisions on Tata Steel.

Obviously, outside of that, the Celtic Freeport will really help, again, in terms of addressing some of the impacts of Tata Steel. It's good to see the investment, obviously, going in in terms of Port Talbot port recently, and, again, the opportunities that we have within that region with the award of the licences for floating offshore wind and the potential benefits that will come to Port Talbot there. So, again, in that broader economic strategy, I think there's a lot that we can do to help, but the city deal is playing its part in doing that as well. I know that colleagues want to say a little bit more about that.

Just one thing from me is that Neath Port Talbot Council have a local economic action plan, and, in there, they talk about things like how public sector intervention is critical around land acquisition, around development premises for infrastructure, skills development and research and development. I think the bread and butter of what that plan does in conjunction with not just the city deal, but the other local authorities, the universities, the health boards and the private sector—everybody working together on those—can help support, because it's not just about the Tata Steel employees; it's about the supply chains and the businesses associated with it as well. So, I think having that joined-up approach and that plan in place can help support that, but public sector intervention is needed, both from the city deal perspective and beyond that as well. Neath Port Talbot Council was successful in getting some of the Tata Steel transition board funding through that process. I think it was around about £20 million that they successfully secured to help support that kind of transition, which will benefit the city deal aspect as well.

Right. Okay. I think I've got some clarity on that. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Hefin.

Can I move on to risk, please, and for you to explain to us what you mean by a red issue and what that classification means in practice?

Jon will probably say more than I do, but essentially, a red issue is a critical problem that threatens portfolio success, timeline, budget or scope and requires executive action for resolution. So, it’s a serious risk and I’m sure that Members are familiar with risk ratings, but essentially, a red risk is one that we have to address, and it takes us, generally, outside of the tolerance of a project by more than 10 per cent. Again, I referenced in my introduction some of the challenges that are facing all major projects at the current time, which is the tail end of the inflationary issues that we've seen. So, whilst we have a static city deal with a static amount of money in it from Governments, we are trying to manage those cost pressures. I don’t know whether Jon wants to say a little bit more from the project management perspective of it.

I think you've covered the definition. The distinction between the risk and the issue is that risk has a potential of happening, issue is it is happening and it needs a resolution or escalation in place. But I think because the portfolio is quite complex with so many different moving parts, a lot of the risks and issues kind of straddle both definitions. We had feedback from audit a good few years ago now that we needed to rank—red, amber, green—issues as well as risks, because they straddle both the risk—potential—and issue—currently happening—definition. So, we've got that all documented and we have a risk strategy and an issue management plan.

But we do a lot of stuff. When issues and risks come through, we do have a fairly robust change management process. So again, flexibility comes through that. If I wind the clock back four years ago, floating offshore wind was not part of the Pembroke Dock marine initial outline business case, it was around tidal, but then it became more prominent and we went through a change process to make sure that FLOW was part of the PDM solution. So, we do—

Let's have a look at some current issues—I'm just conscious of time, that's all. One is the construction industry and the impact of inflation and access to resources. How is that red issue being addressed and what are you doing to make sure that it doesn't become a cause of project failure?

As I said, in general terms, it's managed at several tiers, mainly at the project level. Where we may see cost pressures coming back through bidder contracts, we may see quotes coming back significantly outside of the allocated budget. Obviously, there is value engineering that takes place in terms of discussing with potential contractors how we can deliver at a lower cost, ensuring therefore, if we can't contain all of those costs then with the allocated budget, what else we can do. So, again, being innovative in terms of aligning funding that may also assist us in that delivery.

But one of the challenges, as I keep going back to, is that it is—as you would expect me to say, as chair—a slightly ridiculous position in that everybody knows that we have been through a period of extremely high inflation and that the sorts of prices we were paying five years ago are not the prices you can get today in the market, and yet we are still living within the budgets that we had five years ago. In that respect, I would have liked a bit more flexibility from both Governments in terms of acknowledging the inflationary pressures that we see, but I think the teams, both at the project management and the programme level, are doing an exceptional job in making sure that we mitigate those risks as best as possible so that we can continue to deliver. I don't know whether Jonathan wants to say anything more in terms of the actions taken.

There are three key mitigations that we're currently exploring and have done for several projects. One is identifying additional sources of funding, so that could be public, private, national government or local. The second one is around the design: can we shave any money off through the design brief? And then, the third one is often through negotiations with contractors, because as we enter in a tier 1 contract and then cascade that down to the supply chains around the tier 1 contractors, it puts pressure on everybody to try and deliver within the envelope of what sometimes was originally set. So there are lots of negotiations around contracts that take place. Those three things, unfortunately, do create some time delays and obviously budget constraints as well.

What was the original inflation figure over the 15 years that the bid was working to? Because inflation would have been there whatever, but accepting the point that with the Ukraine crisis and obviously COVID that's introduced a turbo onto it, what was the figure that the bid was working to over the period?

I don't know, because I've never seen a document, but I would imagine it's 3 per cent, but you're well over double that in the last few years. The Building Cost Information Service, the construction industry forecast, said towards the end of the last financial year that by 2029 we're looking at building cost increases of an additional 17 per cent in the five years.

You believe that 3 per cent was the original figure that was factored in.

Chair, I wouldn't want to mislead the committee. My guess was it was around 3 per cent. I think that would have been a reasonable working assumption, but I'll need to go back and check that. I think the point is that £241 million was the amount that the city deal received from Government; it's a fixed amount. So, the point is inflation would have had to have been absorbed, some of it, as you quite rightly say, over the period, but I think, as you again quite rightly point out, it's been turbocharged in a way nobody expected. And that's the part I get a little bit more, I guess, frustrated with, which is that the reality is we've experienced very high inflation that nobody anticipated, and yet there is no acknowledgment of that in terms of any flexibility of the funding from central or Welsh Government.

I'm happy to move on for the sake of time now.

Thank you, Hefin. Earlier, in the engagement we had with the earlier questions, you highlighted how additional moneys had been identified from the private sector. I think £83 million you've identified, certainly in the papers that you provided to the committee, but in your earlier remarks to me as well when we opened the meeting. Can you elaborate on that? Because obviously that's welcome investment. To see an increase in that level of investment is something that other city deals and growth deals haven't identified. So, could you explain how you've managed to do that, and what a difference that will make vis-à-vis the private-public partnership?

Jon, do you want to take the first bit of this one?

The predominant part of that is through our digital infrastructure programme, so working with all the providers for fibre and various 5G networks. So, that's where a lot of that money comes from, and we're in the process. There's a six-year delivery programme for that. We're just over halfway through that delivery period. So, we would expect to see more private sector funding be leveraged within the region for that digital infrastructure. But we also have our Pembroke Dock marine project through the port authority. They put a lot of money upfront into the port infrastructure. But we do a lot of things with industry collaboration. There's another project called the Marine Energy and Engineering Centre of Excellence within PDM. They look at industry and university collaborations. It was partly funded by the Welsh European Funding Office, but also partly funded by the city deal, but that attracts and leverages private sector funding.

One of the things that is probably a bit of a surprise—. We always had a reasonably good target for skills and talent, but through the pilots that we're doing we're leveraging a lot more private sector funding through those. We've had quite a few million pounds through the skills and talent programme. But I would say all projects and programmes at varying levels are all attracting private sector funding, sometimes upfront, but often it's after the building has been built or through the process of the building being built into the operation—things like tenancy and things like that. We do report this on a quarterly basis to identify how much has been secured, where that money's coming from, and then report that through the governance committees. But broadly, what I've just provided you is where the majority of the money comes from.

Do you envisage being able to leverage more money in the remaining period of the city deal? Because obviously there's £83 million identified to date in specific projects around broadband and other connectivity issues, I think you've highlighted. Is there scope to push that number harder and get up to a higher figure?

We're actually targeting to be higher. Rob, you might want to say the figure.

No, no. It's fine. Go on.

So, yes, to answer your question. Our investment forecast for private sector investment is now up to £720 million. Our original portfolio target was £637 million. So, we are estimating around £83 million over the lifetime of the portfolio as an increase. Even though it is a double-edged sword with everything costing more, what we're also finding is that investment is going up for the city, both in the public and private sectors. So, in one respect it's a good thing; in another it's costing us more to build these things. We used to have this as a red risk, in terms of the private sector, but because of the amount of money that is starting to flow through and the plan that we have in place, with all the reporting in place, we've lowered that to amber, because we're more confident now, knowing where this money will come from and when it will come in, or when it’s forecasted. So, in summary, yes, we are confident that we will get this. It is difficult, but I think the public sector intervention is helping to support the confidence, if you like, of the private sector to invest.

Just for clarity, you said in the earlier evidence that, obviously, the public sector contribution is fixed, especially the UK Government and Welsh Government contributions. There's no danger that this additional money will dislodge any public sector money. This extra private sector money is uplifting the overall pot and the public sector won't look at it and think, ‘We can shave a bit off our contribution’.

No, absolutely not, I'll give you an assurance on that one. We'd be the first to shout if that were the case. I'm very grateful, actually, for the accelerated funding from the Governments for the city deal, because, again, there was a decision taken a few years ago to accelerate the funding, which has been really helpful. Certainly, from the public sector partners, there is that firm commitment to see through their commitments on these as well. So, no, I see no evidence that anybody's trying to reduce their amount going in; in fact, they'd probably end up putting a little bit more in, especially from a local partnership point of view.

To put a number against that, to date there's £17 million of extra, other public sector funding in addition to the city deal being put in as part of the investment. That is likely to grow, because there is a funding gap with some of the construction cost increases in future projects.

Just for clarity in my own mind, you've got £83 million extra from the private sector, and you've just introduced a £17 million figure there from the public sector. So, cumulatively, you're knocking on the door of £100 million of extra capital coming into the city deal. Have I understood that correctly?

Well, the total new figure would be £1.374 billion. So, yes, it is an increase of about close to, Jon, £100 million.

The difference between the two numbers of the private and public that we just referenced, which are correct, is that the private is forecast up to the end of the deal; the £17 million of the other public sector investment is to date.

So, the public might grow further—that's the point.

Thank you for that clarity—that's helpful. Hefin.

Can I just ask about public engagement? If you go into Gilfach Workmen’s Club, they aren't really talking about the Cardiff city deal—they’re more likely to be talking about Cardiff City Football Club. How are you ensuring that the residents get what you're doing, even if they aren't using the term, and understand what's happening in the area?

Well, obviously, it's a challenge for us, because Swansea are in a higher league than Cardiff—[Laughter.]

I'm a rugby fan, so it doesn't matter to me.

Same here. To be more serious, again, I think that you make a really good point, which is that, actually, people talk about the things that they can see that really matter to them. What we've seen in recent years is people seeing things like the arena being delivered, 71/72 Kingsway, Pentre Awel, the stuff at Pembrokeshire Dock marine and the houses being built in the authorities. Those are real things to people, so, inevitably, as much as we talk about smart manufacturing, energy, investment in skills and talent, all those things being hugely important, it's the stuff that people can touch, feel and see that is the stuff that really excites them and gets them interested—

Sorry, Councillor, but how do you understand the feeling? I imagine members in their wards will be feeding back to you, but across the region how do you gauge public appreciation and the public's understanding of where this investment is coming from, but also, most importantly, how do they influence it?

We do a lot of public engagement, through a variety of media. You'll be on your social media interacting with people, there'll be the press releases, there'll be the local sessions with communities across the region and with businesses. There are a number of events, like careers events and conferences, where we can engage on different levels with different types of organisations or communities. I've always taken the approach that you can never do too much of that, and, again, as we would do as a local authority in terms of trying to get our messages out about the things that we're delivering and why those are important and what they mean to communities, that's exactly the approach we're taking at the regional level. I think the challenge is a little bit more difficult at regional level, especially, as I said, when you're talking about things like smart manufacturing. That might be not an obvious topic to engage with the public on. But, certainly, using the Swansea example, get great engagement on the arena, remind people it's a city deal project that was able to be made possible with the support of UK and Welsh Governments—people love it, and it's something they've taken to their hearts.

Okay. You mentioned the governance arrangements, and there's an ambivalence towards corporate joint committees in local government, I'm sure—some are happy with them, some aren't. What role does the south-west Wales CJC play in governance and oversight?

So, we're in the process of looking at options as to whether the city deal would move fully within the governance of the CJC as part of the economy portfolio there. That, we think, is sensible. We know Cardiff capital region have already gone down that road. So, at the moment, city deal governance and corporate joint committee governance are separate, although there is, as I've said, a pretty good argument for them being combined and aligned. Just to reflect again in terms of the set-up within the south-west region, in the corporate joint committees, you have, basically, the same partners around the table, and same players around the table, as you would have in the city deal, apart from the national parks. So, again, it's the same people meeting in two separate meetings. We don't think that's sensible. We'd like to make that more efficient. But the governance in both the city deal and the CJC is very strong, and, again, speaking from a south-west perspective, yes, you're quite right to reflect that across Wales there was a varying degree of support for CJCs, but they are the Welsh Government's preferred regional model, and people are making them work and we want to make sure that we deliver as much as we can both out of the city deal and the CJC.

I stood down as a councillor in 2017, and, around that time, amongst backbench councillors, there was some concern about the ability to scrutinise what CJCs are doing, particularly in this case. How is scrutiny working across local authorities involved in the city deal, and is there an opportunity to scrutinise? When it does transfer to the CJC, will there be an opportunity to scrutinise that work?

I'll bring Craig in on the scrutiny arrangements in a second, but, just in terms of the city deal, we have a simple principle, which is you do scrutiny well and you do it once. Obviously, as the chair of the city deal, it's not for me to advise scrutiny what they should look at, but we'll turn up and obviously engage with scrutiny on whatever they seek to look at. But what we've decided to do is to say, 'Look, we have a regional scrutiny committee, they hold us to account, they will look at whatever aspects of the city deal they feel is important', but that won't be duplicated then by separate scrutiny of the same topic in the local authority. But they can choose. If, for instance, it's a city deal project that's entirely contained within Swansea, for instance, the Swansea scrutiny committee may look at that rather than the city region scrutiny committee, to save duplication. We've made that work. I think scrutiny has been really helpful and really important, and I think it's worked really well. We're now in the process of considering what we do in the CJC, and, I think, if I bring Craig in, he can talk about—

Just before you do, just to follow up on that, just to understand, for example, in your council, do any of your ward councillors in your group ever express any reservations about the way this is done, or are they very happy?

No, again, we co-produce. It's up to scrutiny. We have different arrangements, I guess, in Swansea to most other authorities in that we don't have a set number of scrutiny committees. We have a programme committee that allows scrutiny to set up as many committees as they wish and to look at anything they wish to look at, so we don't constrain scrutiny in any way in terms of how it works. It might be slightly different in the other local authorities in the region, but the principle of saying, 'Look, if you want to look at homes as power stations, for instance, there's no point in looking at that four different times across the region in four different local authorities; that one is better done, potentially, at the regional scrutiny committee'—. But if you want to take something that purely sits, for instance, within Swansea or Carmarthenshire as a project—Pentre Awel, for instance—you could look at that in Carmarthenshire scrutiny, or you could look at it in the regional scrutiny. They can, if they wish, obviously, have combined scrutiny. That is something they can elect to do. So, again, it's not for me to fetter how they do it or what they do, but I think the principle was agreed early on: just do it once to do it well.

That's really helpful. I’ve often wondered about that since I left local government, how this was working. That’s a very helpful insight. But, Craig, you wanted to come in, did you?

Just as a follow-up more than anything. As Councillor Stewart just mentioned, we've invested a lot of time and energy into the scrutiny process to make sure that the backbench members obviously have an opportunity to be involved in the work programmes of this city deal and also now the corporate joint committee. So, we had a regional scrutiny committee that comprised three members from each of the respective parties for city deal. We've also adapted that model then into the actual CJC itself. But, as Councillor Stewart mentioned, we've recognised the importance of trying to see if we can look at a more holistic approach, ultimately, to scrutiny, given that they're going to be looking at issues that are very similar. One of the proposals we will be looking at, hopefully, over the next couple of weeks and months is to actually create one unified scrutiny committee that will have the responsibility of looking at all of those areas just to make sure that we've got a consistent approach to it and they can look at it from a much wider perspective.

Okay, thank you.

Can I—? In practical terms it's important as well. So, for the Swansea bay city deal joint scrutiny committee, what we've introduced is periodically we get the projects to update—so, as Councillor Stewart said, both regional and location-based, so they have the opportunity to listen to those and test and challenge, et cetera, and scrutinise. But the thing that's worked really well recently is site visits. So, we've gone to the homes as power stations site in Sandfields. We've recently gone to the Pentre Awel site down in Llanelli. So, that is really good because it's not something that is on a PowerPoint slide or verbal; they can actually go and explore and talk to the partners involved in the delivery of these things as well. And the feedback we've had from that has been extremely positive, and Craig's team has been supporting those activities as well.

Okay. Sam.

Thank you very much, Chair. Moving on to business support, and ensuring that there's no duplication of business support, we've talked about the Celtic Freeport, the CJCs. We've talked about, obviously, the city deal. There are a lot of different bodies. So, how are you ensuring within the scope of the business support landscape that there's no duplication and that it's easy and accessible for prospective businesses and current businesses?

From a public sector perspective, obviously we're connected in terms of making sure that we've got oversight of the various strands. As I said, I'm lucky enough to be both chair of the Swansea bay city deal and of the joint committee for the CJC with that broader economic view. That allows me as well to look at things like the Celtic Freeport and also the opportunities that we may have in terms of transport infrastructure et cetera, and the work that we're doing with the Port Talbot board to shore up support for—

Sorry, Rob. Can I just ask quickly there—? Given that the Celtic Freeport is a joint venture between Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, Associated British Ports, Pembrokeshire County Council and the Port of Milford Haven, and you yourself chairing the CJC, and your local authority isn't directly involved in the free port per se—how does that then work? That feels a little messy looking from the outside in.

No, because we don't work on hard borders in that way. So, yes, absolutely right that Neath Port Talbot and Pembrokeshire are the named partners in the Celtic Freeport, but they went forward to bid for that with our full support from Swansea and Carmarthenshire. And as I said, the approach that we're taking is a collaborative one to make sure that the free ports don't act as drains that pull out investment from the rest of the region, but actually pull investment in to the benefit of all four local authorities. So, again, we're trying to make sure that the actions we take in the free port are consistent and aligned to what we're doing on the broader economic strategy, what we're doing in terms of the CJC delivery and the city deal delivery.

So, yes, it is, I would guess, a complex set of structures, but these were what were on offer and we're an ambitious region. If Governments offer city deals, we're going to apply for one. If Governments offer investment zones, we're going to apply for one. If they offer free ports, we're going to apply for one. So, we've been very successful in getting most of those, but it does mean that we then have different structures that we have to work hard to make sure that we have that good collaboration on and oversight of.

Jenny, you wanted to come in on a supplementary.

I wanted to come in on—. You've mentioned homes as power stations as one of these overarching projects that you've got across the area. I just wondered how successful you've been in getting the supply chain needed for doing the work on converting homes into power stations.

Yes. The guys might give you other examples; I'll give you the Swansea one, because it's the one I'm obviously closest to. So, as an example for us, we started by building homes that were, basically, a passive house standard, but we found through that that we were having to bring in some materials from outside of the UK—not great in terms of the local supply chain, but also not great in terms of the carbon footprint for importing those goods. So, what we did then was revise the standards into a Swansea standard for house building so that we could build something close to the passive house standard, to get most of the benefits of passive house, but to make sure that the supply chain was one that was within a few miles of the delivery of the housing site—so, potentially within south Wales, but within Wales as a whole.

Again, we took the learning from the original aims, modified them, created a new standard, which enabled us to then create a supply chain that was much more local, but deliver some of the benefits. I'm very proud of the delivery of some of the stuff that we've seen already out of homes as power stations, reducing people's energy bills in those homes now down to a few hundred pounds a year. I'm sure all members of the committee, and myself and others, would love to see our energy bills back down to a few hundred pounds a year. But that is really important in terms of how we deliver housing to people who may be on low or no incomes, and removing the 'having to eat or heat' choice. That's a tangible example of how you get to that point.

Okay. So, tell me about the retrofitting programme, because, obviously, that's what housing associations in Cardiff are grappling with—they can't get the skills needed to do it.

Again, we've got some good examples of retrofit both in Swansea council and within homes as power stations. Obviously, retrofit is more challenging, because you're working with older properties. But, again, we've got examples up in Craig-cefn-parc in Swansea where a series of bungalows were retrofitted with batteries, solar power technology, ground heat source pumps, and again delivering really good benefits for residents.

So, again, as Jonathan said, it's not a one-size-fits-all, it's not a one-spoke approach to delivering homes as power stations. Each of the four local authorities has explored different variations of how these new energy-efficient homes can be delivered, and, again, the aim is to take the best of all of those learnings and to upgrade the industry standards to deliver higher quality, more efficient homes and make that become mainstream. And then, as Jonathan alluded to, there are other interventions that we've also put forward as part of that overall homes as power stations programme to help more delivery, but Jonathan can say more about that.

There's probably one point of clarification with homes as power stations: even though the fabrication of the homes—. Whether it's refurbished, retrofit or new builds, public sector, housing association or private sector, homes as power stations is about facilitating the adoption of energy efficient and renewable technologies. So, it's about the technologies in the home—the air source heat pumps, the batteries, the solar panels, and the list goes on. What the supply chain fund will specifically do—the £7 million I referred to earlier on—is help and support its renewable technology supply chain across the region, but it doesn't work in isolation because the fabrication has to be part of that process as well. So, all of the different providers—. And, as you said, not only for the technology but also for fabrication, skills is a massively important part of that construction—

How much are you able to draw down the community funds of the windfarm community funds that are already being generated?

Offhand, I wouldn't know the answer to that.

I don't think those are eligible for these types of schemes—they're usually community benefits more than benefits to local authorities.

No, but it's about community benefits. Community benefits is what we're talking about. Perhaps you could send us a note about the numbers of homes that have been retrofitted and/or built in each of the local authorities, because I think this would be a very useful number to have.

Yes, more than happy to do that.

We have the breakdown, and, just to give you an idea, there's just over 10,000 as a target for retrofit and new builds. We're just shy of 1,000 I think the number is; it might be slightly higher than that now, currently, but when we reported last quarter it was around 1,000. We can get you the numbers and the detail.

Sorry, it's 1,078 homes at the moment.

Fine.

Right, I'm going to come back to business support. The Cabinet Secretary has said she's looking to review business support to understand what the best business support system looks like in the future. What involvement in that review do you expect as a city deal?

I'm assuming we will have a consultative role to play in that. We'll obviously be keen to feed in any learnings that we've got and to give, as best we can, our advice to the Cabinet Secretary, as she takes a look at that. Again, I've no reason to believe that Welsh Government will not include us in that, and I'm sure we'll supplement that with our own various responses as local authorities as well.

Thank you. So, you've not had a formal request to do so, you're just thinking, historically, you've been included in these sorts of things, so you're expecting to be included, going forward, from a city deal basis. But, obviously, would you also be included—? You mentioned there as a local authority, and the 22 local authorities, and as a CJC, would those three tiers be all involved in this, do you think?

Again, I wouldn't want to mislead you, so I will need to check whether or not anything's come in to any party within the region. It may have, but at this point, I'm unaware of it, and I've certainly not had anything directly, as far as I'm aware. But, yes, I think there's every likelihood that we'll be consulted as a CJC, we'll be consulted as a city deal, and as local authorities.

Thank you. In terms of the written evidence, talking about a one-stop shop to provide a unified business support portal, digital and physical, I was just wondering—. This might prejudge some of the suggestions you may give the Cabinet Secretary in the review of business support, but what does that look like in practice, do you think? Is that a high-street presence? Is that a digital platform where businesses have login details? What are you envisaging when you think of that?

We're working through that at the present time in terms of how it could work out, but I'm guessing it's bound to have a digital element to it, because most people will want to access services, advice, et cetera, as easily as possible, and that's often via digital. But again, making sure that there is no closed door, which is a way we try to work in the region, so, again, potential for some physical presence. But again, we don't know how that will play out yet; these are just early ideas in terms of how we potentially could respond to that. So, I'm sure we'll have more to say when we've gone through the formal thinking on that.

And just quickly on that, is that business support in terms of just what you're able to deliver locally, or would that include wider business support that's available through the Welsh Government solely? Or even the UK Government.

If you go to the local authorities, we all have business support teams, we've got a great team here that deals with shared prosperity funding, as well as all of the other potential opportunities that businesses might want to take advantage of. We have our employability teams, et cetera, so there are multifaceted ways in which we provide support as local authorities. It's about making sure that we take the decisions to see how we can do that at a regional level most effectively. Once we've had the time to do the thinking, and we know the questions being asked by the Welsh Government, we'll respond appropriately on that.

Around this review, it's important to get the voice of the businesses: what do they want through that process? If they don't see it as being a one-stop shop and they want something different, whether it's digital or physical, it's that kind of approach. Your point about having a view on the holistic support for businesses at different tiers or different spread, that would be something to get the voice of the businesses as to what they need going forward.

Just to say, Chair, we've recently appointed a full private sector advisory board, so I'm sure they'll want to feed into that.

Thank you, gentlemen. Just for clarity, on the business support point, am I reading it right and hearing it right that, to date, you haven't had any formal correspondence from the Welsh Government in relation to their review, hence that's why, obviously, it's difficult to enlarge on what process might be undertaken to see how you can inform that review?

Chair, that's my understanding. Again, if I get back to my desk and I find I've got an e-mail in my inbox, I'll have to correct my answer, but that's the view that we have at the moment. We haven't had anything formal.

Thank you. That's very helpful, considering that the Minister made this statement in March, and we're now in June, and, obviously, you're significant players in this, and you don't seem to have been contacted yet. But I'm grateful for that.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your evidence this morning. A transcript of the record will be sent to you. The information you've provided has greatly informed our inquiry and review into business and growth deals. If there are any concerns around the transcript, please could you liaise with the clerking team, otherwise that'll be the official record of the proceedings of today's evidence-gathering session. Thank you all very much. We'll now move into private. Can I have a motion to move into private session? Thank you.