National Assembly for Wales

Bore da. Croeso. Good morning and welcome to this morning's meeting of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee in the Senedd. The meeting is bilingual. Headsets provide simultaneous translation on channel 1 and sound amplification on channel 2. Participants joining online can access translation on the globe icon on Zoom. Although we’ve had no apologies for absence, Rhianon Passmore will be unable to join us until later in the meeting. Do Members have any declarations of registrable interest they wish to make now? There have been no indications of a wish to declare, so we will move on.

We have a single paper to note: a response from the First Minister to our letter of 4 December regarding the publication of the Welsh Government Cabinet handbook. The First Minister addresses the committee's points in turn. She explains that the handbook will be publicly available on the Welsh Government's website and will sit alongside the ministerial code. She notes it will

'act as an introductory guide to the Welsh Government for incoming Ministers, their Private Offices and those across government.'

She goes on to note that recommendations from the COVID inquiry will likely influence changes to the content, and therefore the timeline for publication has been extended, with an initial version published 'early in 2025'. She commits to reviewing the content of the handbook every autumn, confirms there will be general provisions on unauthorised disclosures, and that the conclusions of the COVID inquiry will influence any guidance on the use of technology.

In conclusion, she endorses the comments from Transparency International UK noted in our letter, and states that

'Publication of the Handbook will be another demonstration of my government’s commitment to the principles of the UK Open Government National Action Plan.'

So, Members, do you have any comments or thoughts on this letter?

Okay. Diolch. Mike and Tom, do you have any thoughts on Adam's contribution, or alternative thoughts? Owain, any thoughts on what we've heard?

Just to address Adam’s first point—I’ll obviously leave the other matters to Members—the letter set out, in relation to the draft, that we were more comfortable seeing the final product, as that would give us more opportunity to scrutinise its contents. If we were part of a sort of co-design, it was felt that, maybe, actually, it would be better to see the end product, particularly as, in the First Minister’s letter, she alludes to potential changes arising out of the COVID inquiry recommendations around use of technology et cetera. So, that was the thinking behind that, but that’s not to say that, if the committee was minded to, it could not change its approach and decide it would like to see a draft prior to publication. But, potentially, that’s a separate discussion amongst you in a private session.

So, do you want to leave it there, or do you want to write back to the First Minister or the Permanent Secretary, raising the points we've heard from Adam?

Mike and Tom, any thoughts? Okay. Right, in which case, we'll take a short break before we bring our witnesses in for our formal first session on active travel with Transport for Wales. So, we'll go into a private session briefly. Thank you. 

Croeso. Welcome to our witnesses, who've now joined us. I'd be grateful if, for the record, please, you could state your names and roles.

James Price, chief executive of Transport for Wales.

Geoff Ogden, chief transport planning and development officer at Transport for Wales.

Matthew Gilbert, the head of active travel and placemaking at Transport for Wales.

Thank you very much indeed, and thank you for being with us. As you'd expect, we have a number of questions; I'd therefore be grateful if both Members and witnesses could be as succinct as possible, to enable us to cover as many of the issues this topic has generated as we can. As convention has it, I'll ask the first questions as Chair, and then invite colleagues to take up the questions thereafter.

So, how would you assess the overall position on active travel in the context of the ambitions of the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 and Welsh Government transport strategy when compared with other parts of the UK?

Okay, so if I start to answer that question and then bring Geoff in. And I think I should probably say, as part of the introduction, that Matthew and Geoff are certainly better technically qualified in this area than I am to speak on it, but I guess I've got quite a long time of experience of dealing with the Act in different administrations. So, I guess, at a headline level, there are a number of things the Act has definitely achieved, including raising the profile of active travel in policy making, increasing the amount of money that is spent on active travel, and, in recent years, improving the quality of active travel schemes that are delivered, some of which demonstrate some quite good benefit-cost ratios and some good usage.

The thing that it hasn't yet achieved, based on the evidence that you have in front of you and I have in front of me, is driving the use of active travel up at any significant level and on an aggregate basis, albeit there is some suggestion that, without the Act, potentially, the propensity of active travel may have indeed gone down. One of the biggest issues, I think, that we have is that the evaluation methodology and the way that we monitor the effectiveness of active travel has not been consistent over time and therefore it is very difficult to really answer the question in a comprehensive way. If you compare us to other parts of the UK, I think all parts of the UK have got basically the same problem in this area. A lot of the issues around monitoring have been caused by difficulties of obtaining data in a cost-effective way, and I guess the good news on that is that that has changed in the last three to five years, with technology allowing for much better use of things like mobile data and disaggregation at a local level. So, we are now able to get a much better understanding of schemes. So, that's just an overview. I don't know, Geoff or Matthew, if there's anything you'd like to add to that.

Well, just a couple of things to add to that, I guess. I guess the requirement on mapping has been a positive thing in that it has led to more consistency and visibility of routes and it's enabled local authorities and ourselves to look more at prioritisation around routes and comparison between different options. And then, just to build on the challenges, I guess that some of the challenges that we see are definitely the culture change piece and the behaviour change piece that James has mentioned, but also, I guess, realising active travel interventions that will improve walking, wheeling and cycling as part of other interventions too, so, in terms of development, road investment et cetera, just that wider piece and bringing that. That continues to be a bit of a challenge, I think.

Just a final point if I may, Chair, as well, on the Act itself. I think the mapping in particular and the approach that has been taken in Wales has been seen elsewhere as being useful in terms of establishing good practice in development elsewhere. So, we've had conversations with the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland previously to run through the processes that we established, and they were very interested in the national mapping data set that has been produced as a result of the Act, and have looked at how they can learn some lessons from our experiences as they've developed their own approach.

If I could just add one final thing that I probably should have added earlier, which is around inclusivity of active travel schemes, I think—. I don't know whether you can necessarily attribute it to the Act, but, certainly, over time, the amount of thought that is put in to thinking about making active travel schemes available and of use to all, rather than simply a certain sub-set of society, I think has got much better, and it's certainly something that we've been focusing on quite a lot in recent years. 

On that point, in terms of society as a whole, to what extent are you factoring in the needs of the whole of society, not only growing the numbers of people ready, willing and able to participate in active travel but also recognising those who encounter barriers? We're taking evidence later from disability organisations, for example, and we hear from older people and other groups who might find that the active travel changes actually impair their ability to get around.

So, that was exactly what I was driving at—not very effectively, I guess—when I was talking about inclusivity and thinking about how to design, build and, I guess, operate active travel that does work for all. And when we do that, of course, it's not just about the active travel intervention itself, it's about how other people, who may be engaged in shorter forms of active travel, engage with that itself. So, just speaking very honestly, on the walk down from Cardiff Central here this morning, without looking where I was going, which was unwise, I nearly got myself run over once by a bicycle—on a segregated bit of a pavement, but I just wasn't paying attention. So, it's that type of thing that we need to think quite carefully about as well. 

I think that would have been a front-page headline. 

Yes, probably. [Laughter.] Luckily, I avoided it. 

We have got some really good engagement now through Transport for Wales's what we call our advisory architecture. So, there's a group, the accessibility and inclusion panel. So, we're engaging with that and through their manager, Rob Gravelle, and our design hub have got people working with that group. I guess the challenge there is that a lot of them are volunteers, and we need to ensure that we can engage with them in a positive way that is respectful of their time and effort, and that's something that the team are working on. But we've certainly got to bridge. I'm very, very pleased to cover that a bit more later or, indeed, afterwards, if appropriate. 

Okay. We'd better move on, but to what extent was Transport for Wales involved in the development of the Welsh Government's new active travel delivery plan? How confident are you that you have the resources in place to deliver on what is expected of you?

So, TfW team members were, I guess, quite heavily engaged in conversations with Welsh Government around the plan. Welsh Government is clearly the policy lead for active travel, but the modus operandi is that we provide the technical expertise that feeds into that. I'll let Matthew speak to it, but I think that Matthew was pretty well engaged in that exercise. 

In terms of whether we have the funding and the expertise necessary, I think we have the funding necessary and agreed, and we've been working very hard to try and build the expertise necessary to deliver in this space. One of the difficulties in building the expertise is that the expertise is actually quite thin on the ground in the UK because, traditionally, it's been an area of engineering and transport that has not attracted as many people as more traditional forms of transport planning and engineering, I think it's probably fair to say. And that is one of the things that we are absolutely trying to change. Matthew, do you want to—?

I agree with that, James, and in terms of the preparation of the plan itself, yes, we did have a couple of team members who were heavily involved in the drafting of that document, working with colleagues in Welsh Government. So, supporting on that throughout and informing it with the information from our plans and our proposals, and the wider strategy from Welsh Government. So, yes, very closely aligned in terms of supporting them on the delivery of that document.

And in terms of the funding, I'd echo that, for TfW, we are well placed in terms of supporting the delivery, going forward, of the plan, and I think that's obviously then something that we need to work with Welsh Government on in terms of wider opportunities going forward.

Thank you. Moving on, obviously, it's a crowded landscape—Welsh Government, yourselves, other delivery bodies. What do you see as your role in that crowded landscape? To what extent is it working with the others? To what extent do you see specific demarcation of functions and roles? And what are your current key areas of focus from the delivery plan?

So, it's probably useful to answer that question in terms of thinking, maybe, about three broad phases over time as well. So, when Transport for Wales was first asked to get involved in active travel, it's probably fair that we were asked to get involved in quite a mechanistic way in terms of just helping to ensure, in effect, that money was paid out to local government in a safe and efficient way for local government to deliver their schemes.

The second phase I would characterise as a challenge to Transport for Wales to encourage and, to some extent, police Wales to up its game on active travel in terms of particularly, I guess, expertise and design and thinking about some of the stuff that we've talked about today. And I think today's phase, and looking forward, is all about working in partnership with local authorities, trying to share expertise, upskill people, provide technical services to local authorities, enable local authorities to share technical skills amongst themselves.

And, of course, as we look towards the future with the de-hypothecation of individual transport funds to local government—so, in the future, there will not be an active travel fund as such; it will be transport funding for a corporate joint committee—it has to be Transport for Wales working in partnership with and helping local authorities, and groups of local authorities, to design schemes, and, I would emphasise, to monitor schemes and learn from the monitoring evaluation over time. I don't know if anyone wants to add anything.

I can add a bit. I think that last point is a really important one; there is going to be a change—well, there is already a change in terms of the role that we've got alongside corporate joint committees and local authorities, which plays out very much under the grants modernisation piece that James has just talked about, and the regional planning piece.

I guess, in terms of our current objectives, I've got four here. The first is providing strategic oversight of the active travel delivery plan and how that fits into the wider piece alongside things like the national transport delivery plan. The second is a key piece around the development of our active travel and our design hubs. So, the capability that helps with things like design reviews, and supporting on design of more challenging infrastructure—the more difficult-to-achieve infrastructure. We've got a piece about developing the metrics to demonstrate the benefit of active travel, which was picked up as one of the things from the Audit Wales report, and making that a reality.

And the last one—I guess this is a key challenge, as we’ve already talked about—is demonstrating and encouraging the behaviour change that'll be required to increase usage of sustainable transport, and we've been doing a lot of work on that. I think there are one or two areas where we are still understanding the landscape and the role that we can play within that. So, for example, I would bring into that agenda transport planning or sustainable transport planning with employers, destinations, helping their employees, visitors, et cetera, to understand what the options are for sustainable transport, helping them do that, and also helping us to understand the challenges that they’ve got, so that, actually, we can improve our network and our offer in that space. So, we are currently trying to understand the landscape of that and what our part in that would be in that—I forget what your terminology was, but in that crowded landscape, I guess—to pick a way through that.

You mentioned the CJCs, corporate joint committees. I attend a couple of meetings; one yesterday morning online, on the Wrexham Gateway project, for example, which is being led by Wrexham County Borough Council that’s supported by Ambition North Wales, which is also the corporate joint committee. But Ambition North Wales is responsible for the growth deal, which also incorporates the UK Government, whereas the CJC is a Welsh Government body. So, are you involved directly or indirectly in engaging with UK Government as well, where there’s that kind of cross-over organisationally on the ground?

I’m happy to speak to it. So, the answer is: it varies, but certainly, yes, in quite a few instances. I think I would characterise CJCs as being—for me, anyway—a local authority body rather than a Welsh Government one, but I guess created at the behest of the Welsh Government. And I guess this is all quite new territory for all of us is the truth, but if we think about the north-east Wales schemes, we are certainly involved in speaking with English authorities over the border, and in providing business cases that go to the UK Government as well as to the Welsh Government and as well as to local authorities, and the same is true of both south-east Wales and west Wales.

Right. Just thinking in that context, in north Wales, for example, a number of the growth deal projects that appear to now have got the green light will incorporate active travel.

Absolutely, and other forms of travel as well. And I guess the biggest positive change that potentially lies ahead of us, if it can be delivered, is that the CJCs and the regional transport plan should be an integrated transport network that is multimodal, of which active travel would be an integrated part. One funding pot, if done correctly, has the potential to force that integrated thinking.

Okay. Moving on, what do you consider has been the impact of the Welsh Government’s active travel board, and how, if at all, do you see yourselves having a role in scrutinising its delivery?

So, the active travel board has certainly added technical challenge and a bit of pressure on organisations to ensure that they up their game. I, as chief executive, have certainly been aware of the things that they have been saying, and have reflected that with our own Transport for Wales board and our own teams to ask how we can effectively respond. So, I think the kind of technical work and the technical challenges that they bring have certainly had an impact on our thinking, but it's probably fairer to ask Geoff or Matthew from a more technical perspective.

I think the sessions we’ve had with the active travel board have been challenging and constructive. They add significant—. It underplays it to say it like this, but they add significant value into the overall governance of walking, wheeling and cycling in Wales, is my view. They have the ability to take away some challenges and do a bit of research work in their own right and feed that back in, and we've participated actively. I think you've only got to look at their last annual report and see the quality and depth of understanding and the challenges that they set forward, and there's constructive criticism that they'll give and helps us make sure that we're doing the right things. So, shining and putting the sunlight on the matters that we need to take into consideration and deal with is positive to me. I don't know if you've got anything to add.

No, I'd agree with that. I think since the board was reformed in 2023, the increased focus on the scrutiny function has been welcomed. That's added some real value and benefits to the conversation around active travel in Wales, and certainly the sessions that we've attended and the scrutiny sessions we've participated in have been valuable for us, in terms of taking away comments and thoughts from those with wider knowledge of the sector and a more objective view of where our efforts should lie. So, it's been a very positive experience, I think, so far and does open up that conversation to a broader audience in terms of challenge.

We heard constructive criticism mentioned and scrutiny. What, if any, direct role do they have in scrutinising you?

We attended a session—last summer, I think it was, Geoff—where they scrutinised the role that we play in managing the active travel fund on behalf of Welsh Government. So, there was a session purely focused on that where we had a range of questions from the independent members of the board, and then took away some of the points that were raised in terms of how we might enhance the work that we're doing, and pick up on some of the key challenges that were represented at the board.

Okay, thank you. What status or what prominence does active travel have within your own resourcing and governance arrangements? For example, what, if any, scrutiny is there within Transport for Wales of how you're delivering on this agenda and how you track your own delivery and performance on it?

I would say quite a bit, and focused on different areas and for different reasons. So, if I start with probably the most boring part of it—but, arguably, in the short run, the most important one—which is are we spending the money appropriately, is local government spending the money appropriately, have we got the right checks and balances in the system, and are we ensuring that money is spent in the financial year in which it's meant to be spent, i.e. driving schemes that are procured correctly and a plan of work that has grown quite significantly over time. Getting the schemes on the ground, with the increasing spend, has been difficult, but the team have worked really closely with local government colleagues to drive that, and that has, by and large, been achieved. So, that would be the first area of governance. We spend quite a bit of time, all the way from board, all the way down to Matthew's team, to ensure that that happens.

The second area of focus has been around the effectiveness of the schemes and the effectiveness of our advice and our administration to local government. On that, broadly speaking, there have been two challenges coming in two different ways the whole time. One challenge says, 'You are not being clear enough, Transport for Wales, on what a good scheme looks like. You are not being strong enough about what you fund, or what you don't fund.' And then, the opposite is local authorities are very stretched in this area, the teams are very light and they don't have the time to engage in, I guess, at the extreme, what might be considered pointless bureaucracy.

So, we've spent quite a bit of time trying to get the balance on that right, but, as I said, I think the next phase of this is very different anyway, because the funding gets packaged up and given in non-hypothecated terms to CJCs. But where we've ended up on all of that is to try and work in partnership anyway, to try and understand how we drive better schemes that will be better used as part of an integrated network.

And then, the final area of work, which has really, I guess, grown over the last 18 months to two years, has been how do we really make sure that active travel is being developed as part of a multimodal network, linking into other transport modes, particularly public transport modes and interchanges. And our mantra around that is 'one network, one timetable, one ticket, one team'. That is where we've been particularly focused in recent months, and I think that is the focus, and, as the funding moves to CJCs and regional transport plans, that focus must continue.

In terms of timescales for the funding, what's the current position regarding the appraisal of the active travel funds for 2025-26, and when do you expect that that will be finalised and allocations will be confirmed?

If I could take that one, please, Chair, the appraisal and moderation sessions for the funding applications was completed last week. The initial discussions on the draft recommendations took place on Monday with Welsh Government officials and we're in the process of preparing updated recommendations to go back to the Welsh Government for consideration by the Cabinet Secretary in the next week or so. At the moment, the anticipation from our side is that we should be able to undertake the decisions on awards in time to allow announcements before the end of March. That's certainly been the expectation that we've been having with the Welsh Government.

How will this process work in practice, given that it now appears that the overall active travel fund allocation will sit within a wider pot of funding and has not yet been fixed, and, further, are you also involved in assessing other elements of that pot of funding?

So, is it worth, Matthew, you talking about how we're going to play out this current scheme, because it hasn't finished yet and there's still another year's worth of active travel funding, which we were just talking about? And then, also, feel free to add to what I'm going to say about the future funding.

So, the way that regional transport will be funded in the future is still under quite a bit of discussion with the Welsh Government and between the Welsh Government and local government. My understanding—but we're certainly not the policy leads in this area—is that what is being attempted is a de-hypothecated lump sum funding to groups of local authorities through the CJCs, and on the CJC footprint, to fund transport. The way that the Welsh Government wants to ensure that this has strategic effect is that there needs to be a good regional transport plan and then a good delivery plan that sits alongside that. The Welsh Government, I think, retains the ability to approve or not approve a regional transport plan and will be retaining the ability to specify what type of monitoring and evaluation that they require and, potentially, what type of expertise needs to be put into the creation of those RTPs and, I guess, the delivery of individual schemes, as well, because you could have a very good plan and you could deliver it inefficiently or ineffectively.

The one thing I would argue for is that, to the extent that any of that runs into teething trouble, and it might do—there might be elements of it that don't work perfectly that we should try and gradually improve and tweak things—rather than throw it out and then try and create a new model, because every time we restart a model, nothing's happening for 18 months, my advice would be to roll with the policy and make the policy work.

So, if I could just add to that, James, for this year, we're intending to manage the programme in the same way we have for the last couple of years, working closely with our local authority colleagues to manage that programme effectively and to see how we can maximise the value of the investment from the Welsh Government for the coming year. I think the session that you had with local government colleagues previously seemed to be quite positive—the responses from them, in terms of the way that the programme is established now. I think that we would acknowledge the statements that they made around some teething issues at the start with the new system and the new approach. There were bound to be some challenges. I think that we've worked through those now, and we have a very good working relationship with local authority colleagues. They understand the requirements in a clearer fashion than they may have done at the start.

So, I think that that has put us in a very good position, in terms of managing that fund effectively and providing assurance to the Welsh Government at the same time. We are more than happy to work with the CJCs and the Welsh Government and our local authority colleagues to share the benefit of our experience and the lessons learned from that process, as the new model is developed.

Okay. Thank you. What involvement, if any, have you had in the decisions that have led to restricting local authorities to one main active travel fund bid for 2025-26 and mandating that at least 60 per cent of a local authority's core allocation should be spent on making direct improvements on the ground? And, in this context, what are your views, generally, on the pros and cons of those changes?

So, shall I start and hand over again? So, again, I think that we have been involved in—well, I know that we have been involved—the conversations that led to that. I guess that those conversations, though, will have been dictated by evolution of funding and of Government policy itself.

So, the two things that have led to this have been, No. 1, the overall money that is likely to be available for spending on active travel schemes in the upcoming year, and the second one has been a wish to target schemes on more shorter distance routes, to drive, I guess, modal share rather than other things. The potential slight tightening of the budget has meant that there is a view being taken that it would be unwise, really, to spend a lot of time developing lots of schemes that there isn't enough money to fund. Hence the one-scheme argument. I think that there is a legitimate criticism from local government that, perhaps, that could have been explained to them earlier. Having read the evidence, people have said that they spent time developing other schemes ahead of knowing that. That feels like a legitimate criticism to me. Then, the 60 per cent of core funding on smaller scale interventions is all about trying to drive that short or very short distance active travel, allowing people to walk around, quite often, urban areas in a much more effective way and, therefore, ditch the car and use active travel instead.

If I could just follow on from that quickly, please, I think that the budget scenario that we were working to—or the budget assumptions that we were working to—at the time with Welsh Government colleagues were, as James points out, slightly different to what we ended up seeing in December. We issued the guidance and developed the guidance with Welsh Government colleagues earlier in the year. So, that position was that there would be less funding available for local authorities. It was really an intention to try to reduce the burden of paperwork for the local authorities when there may be a reduced possibility of them being successful, given the likely funding available. So, that was the reason at the time why that decision was taken.

In terms of the 60 per cent for core allocations on minor works and core activities, that was principally to focus attention on delivering on-the-ground interventions and impact—so, smaller scale schemes, as James said. So, more localised projects for crossing points and the types of things that would have a relatively significant local impact, as well as enabling other core activities like monitoring and evaluation, promotion and engagement. So, it was not just for minor works, but broadly around those activities, rather than spending a significant amount of that core funding on scheme development on a number of projects when the budget scenario indicated that there may be less of a likelihood of being successful in multiple projects in the future.

Okay. Thank you. How will those bids work where the routes, whether they are shorter or longer, cross county boundaries? Moving on, also, how will the expectation around the 60 per cent of the core allocation being spent be monitored and assessed in practice? And finally, what are your views on the overall balance between core and main allocations for the fund?

Do you want to take that one?

Yes, I'll take that one. So, the cross-boundary routes, wherever they're identified by local authority colleagues, we state in the guidance that there's an expectation that they would work in partnership with the adjacent authority and nominate a lead authority who would run point on the funding application and managing the project, with engagement with their colleagues. That's been in the guidance for some time, and we'd still work with local authorities on that basis.

In terms of the other points, around the management of the 60 per cent core allocation, we've got a very robust variations process that can be applied to allow funding to be reallocated within local authority programmes or across the active travel fund programme as a whole. So, we have very good oversight of that and can keep track of the types of schemes that may be progressing particularly well and require some additional funding, or, conversely, if they're progressing slower than anticipated, we can reallocate funding to other projects. So, we'll have an oversight of the types of projects that are being funded or funds have been requested for from the local authorities, and we can make determinations in-year as part of that variations process.

And the final point, around the balance in terms of the main and the core, I think that balance has generally worked pretty well over the last couple of years. I think that £15 million fund in the past that's been available for core allocations has been welcomed by local authorities, to give them a degree of certainty in terms of what might be possible for scheme development and those minor works, as we've said, although we do recognise that some local authority colleagues are definitely of the view that they would welcome further core funding to enable them to be more ambitious in some respects.

Okay. [Interruption.] Sorry.

Sorry, might I just add to that? In terms of the last point, I think, in the absence of the ability to do multi-year committed funding, the teams have co-developed, with local authorities, us and the Welsh Government, a plan to provide consistency and sustainability of delivery, which I think everybody welcomes and helps with recruitment, skills building, supply chain engagement, et cetera, et cetera. Just coming back to that point, as we move into the new space of that different funding arrangement, it's like handing over a baton. It needs to be handed over smoothly and in a consistent way so that, actually, that progress that we have been making and the co-development we've done are not lost. I think that's an important point. We see our role in helping that transition in a measured and sensible way.

Okay. Thank you. This is the last question from me in this section, before I open up to colleagues. There's been advanced completion of a number of steps mandated for active travel fund applications for 2025-26, such as an equality impact assessment, a monitoring and evaluation plan and scheme-specific engagement. To what extent have you been satisfied with what you're seeing coming through from local authorities regarding this?

Again, I think Matthew can take that one.

Yes, that's fine. I think that one of the things that we welcomed in the Audit Wales report was that recommendation around strengthening the requirements for certain elements of the applications. It's something that we were already in the process of introducing for the applications for this financial year around, as you mentioned, equality impact assessments, monitoring and evaluation plans, and the consultation and engagement activities. I think it would be fair to recognise that there has been some inconsistencies in the quality and level of detail provided in previous years for some of the applications, and it was felt that having that as a fairly robust red line within the applications was the way to really encourage a shift within some local authorities across Wales. So far, the team have reported that they've noticed an improvement in the quality of those elements in particular from the applications they've assessed this year as well.

Okay. Thank you. Can I bring in Mike Hedges, who has some questions for you?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. What action has Transport for Wales taken to set out in its operating procedures for the active travel fund strengthened safeguards to exclude any possibility of bias in the appraisal of applications for active travel funding with regard to the involvement of Sustrans?

I'll give a headline answer and then I'll bring in Geoff and Matthew, if this is okay. So, in essence, as I understand it, the legitimate concern here is that Sustrans, and in particular an individual Sustrans officer, might both be working on a scheme and advising on the funding of said scheme. And in essence, what we have in place is a process and procedure that does not allow for that to happen. We've tightened that up still further and just double-checked that that is always the case, and I think we're confident that that is the case. Geoff, do you want to just talk to that?

Yes. I think we had a process in place and the Audit Wales report suggested that we do a review of that, and we have been reviewing that. We have put additional safeguards in place for this funding round. That includes ensuring that we've not got conflicts of interest for any assessors and their roles, because it may not just be with Sustrans, it could be for all sorts of reasons. We've also asked for reports from Sustrans in terms of projects that they're working on for local authorities, and so we've triangulated the data from a number of points just to make sure we're happy with it. I'm not aware of any issues with it that have come up so far, but I have got a review later in March with our head of corporate governance to look at what's been done and whether we need to do anything further and, yes, any further lessons learned. Matthew, do you—?

Yes, just one final point to clarify. During the appraisal and assessment process, those conflict of interest forms will highlight where there are officers working for Sustrans who might be working on a particular scheme for a particular local authority, and we make sure, where that is the case, they are not involved in the assessment and appraisal process, and the moderation for that, for schemes that might be for that particular local authority. So, if they're involved in working on a project for one LA, then we would make sure that they're involved in assessing and appraising schemes for other local authorities rather than the schemes that they might benefit from in the future. I think it's also worth pointing out that it's a similar scenario that we would find from employing other consultants to support us on those activities as well; it's not just a Sustrans-specific issue.

Thank you. ‘Why Sustrans?’ is the question. Why do you need to bring in somebody from outside? Why can't you do it in-house, and why are you using Sustrans rather than somebody else? 

I'll take that as a headline answer. I guess the reason for this is because Sustrans is recognised across the UK to be a third sector advisory body that is recognised to have quite significant expertise. As Transport for Wales was getting into this, we were certainly not in a place at the very beginning—apart from Matthew, because Matthew was, in effect, the first person with specialist expertise in this area that we employed—. We felt that we should not adopt an attitude that would probably be quite arrogant, in saying that we had the expertise when there were others out there who clearly had it, and we wanted to take advantage of that.

This is not a defence, but we are certainly not the only part of the UK to do this. Scotland uses Sustrans quite heavily in their approach, as does England. Over time, as we've built up our own expertise, we have used external expertise less, which is also a constant thing that we have done across all parts of Transport for Wales with all parts of external expertise. But I guess we would always want to buy in expertise where we think it adds value and delivers better value for money for the public purse. And then, why Sustrans, not someone else? Really because Sustrans was probably the only player in that space providing that particular type of public policy advice. I can see Matthew would like to add to that.

Yes, just to clarify. James is absolutely correct that when we started the management of the active travel fund on behalf of Welsh Government, we had a very small team and we needed some additional capacity. We did undertake a procurement exercise and Sustrans was the successful tenderer for that exercise; it wasn't a simple direct award, so just to make sure that you're aware of that. And obviously, their support has been very important as we've grown our own resources internally and our own expertise. And as the capacity within Transport for Wales has grown, we have reduced the amount and level of support provided by Sustrans in that particular role and taken on more responsibility internally amongst our regional active travel leads.

Thank you. Moving on to travel spending, what's your view on the split between capital and revenue?

Right, I'll start to answer this by saying that there is reasonably good evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of revenue support in this area, but that it has been consistently very difficult to argue for any significant revenue spend in this area, and it's over more than a decade that that has been the case. If you were to ask me what do I mean by revenue support, typically it's around behaviour change schemes, explaining to people, persuading people that they can use both public transport and active travel. I don't know whether I would argue for spending less on capital to spend more on revenue, but I would certainly argue that if money could be found—. And the problem, of course, within Government is that revenue money or operational expenditure money is always very difficult to come by in a sustainable way, and it really should be sustainable. Otherwise, you have short bursts of activity, which don't lead to sustained change. Then, I would certainly argue that that is something that we should try to do. I don't think there's any pushback from Government on that; I just think it's the difficulty of finding the funding. I don't know if either Matthew or Geoff would want to add to that. 

I guess the only thing to add to what you're saying is that if you look at public attitude surveys—and there was the one that was done back in 2022—people tend to talk about wanting safer footways and safer traffic-free routes, and I guess both of those have a blend of revenue and capital. Probably the first is more about revenue spend and maintenance and good-quality operational things, and the latter is more about new routes and then them being maintained in a good way. And then also we have got revenue spend like the behaviour change activities that we talked about. Matthew will comment on the specifics of the balance, but I think there is always that balance to be had and, actually, I think, as we move forward, the good maintenance of existing infrastructure, as it grows older, will be absolutely critical to keeping people engaged in walking, wheeling and cycling. 

And in terms of specifics, I think there's not a huge amount more to expand on, Geoff, than what James and yourself have said, but there's definitely a feeling, I think, amongst the local authorities that additional revenue funding to support them on adequately resourcing—or to increasing their capacity, sorry, for the delivery of active travel would be helpful. And there are opportunities that they've taken in some cases to capitalise that to support their programme delivery. But I think the challenges are around the revenue funding that's available for behaviour change, as James mentioned, and the maintenance of infrastructure that's provided through the capital funding that Geoff alluded to. And I think those pressures are really where some additional funding would be welcomed by local authority colleagues.

In a different job many years ago, I was the first person in Wales to dedicate 1 per cent of highway maintenance to cycleway maintenance, and I think that's worked incredibly well.

But moving on to look at the corporate joint committees and active travel, how, in practice, has Transport for Wales been involved in regional transport plan development? And I can see the importance of regional development; you wouldn't want a cycle path to end at the end of Ystalyfera and not go into Ystradgynlais, would you? And you also wouldn't want a cycle path to end at the end of Peniel Green Road in Swansea and not go into Skewen. The ending of cycle paths and footpaths would be a problem. How are you working to ensure that, if we have these regional committees and corporate joint committees and everything is done regionally, we do actually cross council borders? 

So, the whole premise of regional transport planning is to avoid the types of issues that you've just described, and I guess, beyond that, to try and ensure that everybody is thinking long term, making sure that people are being evidence-based, and making sure that, even beyond the region, actually, things are joined up. Because, quite often, even on the regional barrier, you need to cross it, so it's linking regional, national and local. There is rarely—. The only journey that people will routinely take, typically, is local; there is rarely a journey that is only national or only regional. So, it is how do we link all of those things together. I think we have made reasonably good strides in getting a much better evidence base, such that our analytical team and our transport planning team are now able to give as good quality advice as you can get anywhere else in the UK, and that is now being built into regional transport plans.

So, the theory—what I would argue for—is that Transport for Wales ought to be providing the technical expertise and the technical know-how to local and to regional government, who will then put their political leadership and their political priorities over the top of it, to create a long-term plan that we then all work together to fund and to deliver. That's what we're doing on regional transport plans now. The north Wales regional transport plan is out in consultation form. For what it's worth, it does include quite a few active travel schemes, and the other key part—and I know we're not talking about this today, but the other key part of that is bus franchising and bus networks, which would also be built up on the same footprint, using the same principles. I don't know if you want to add anything, Geoff.

Yes. I just—

Before you move on, can I come back to the Ystradgynlais-Ystalyfera one, because that's definitely a local journey, but it will not be in the same region?

And that was my point that we need to make sure that, where regions overlap, the journeys also happen. I mean, the one that's very close here, and I'll get myself tied up in knots, because I can't remember which is in which now—. Bridgend was always the interesting one in south-east Wales, wasn't it? Does Bridgend look west or look east? And, of course, the answer is that Bridgend needs to look both ways, because people there go both ways and people go through it.

If I could just, perhaps, pick up on a couple of points on the back of that. So, I think we have got teams now that are working regionally, but they are engaging between them as well, to actually ensure that the sort of challenges you've just talked about there are addressed. But the other thing that I have personally noted, from some of the evidence sessions that you've already had, are things like the visibility of the mapping and the surfacing of that mapping for different users. So, at the moment, I think the mapping we've got, through DataMapWales, is largely focused on supporting officers and decision making, it's not necessarily about users who can understand, 'When am I going to see something landing in my area?' And I think there's something that we could take away there and just have a look at how useful that is, because I think the information is there, it's how we actually bring it to bear more and make it understandable by people. So, actually, in terms of the scenario you've talked about, if, for whatever reason, it wasn't picked up through other mechanisms, somebody would see it and be able to say, 'Well, actually, that doesn't work for me', and would highlight it.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Just one final point on the points that you raised. So, the last couple of years, we've been focusing our discussions with local authority colleagues around facilitating end-to-end journeys, and that might be end-to-end journeys as a single mode, by walking, wheeling or cycling, or in combination with other forms of sustainable transport, such as the train or bus services. And that's certainly led to some constructive conversations with local authority officers about why certain schemes may have been funded, or we may have had follow-up conversations with them around further development of those projects, to make sure that they, in future, will make sense as discrete sections, as well as part of an overall project.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much indeed. Can we bring in Tom Giffard, please?

Thanks very much, Chair. You've talked about local government on a number of occasions in answers to other questions, but I just wonder if you could encapsulate for us what the key capacity or capability gaps are in local government around active travel, and which steps or programmes, perhaps, you are taking to support local government—[Inaudible.]—in terms of training and development or the technical support that you could provide.

It's quite difficult in the time we've got available here to answer specifically what the gaps will be in local government, because the gaps will vary massively from authority to authority. Some authorities are very highly skilled and have got very good teams on this, and other authorities probably don't have anyone working on it, is the truth. So, I guess that the first point to recognise in that is that a regional approach should allow for people to pool the expertise that is available within the region, and all regions have got good expertise at a regional level.

The second point is that that is why Transport for Wales is building up its own expertise and reaching out and trying to partner with local government, certainly not police local government. So, in my view, we ought to be seen as the first place people want to go to get expertise and to get help to deliver schemes, and the help that we can give goes as far as helping to design schemes now. We have a design capability that we haven't yet talked about today. That was always something that we aspired to do. We now have achieved that. And then, the thing that I think is probably most interesting in that space is that we have started, in effect, a professional development school or academy for developing the expertise of officers right across Wales—and I'd be open for Wales and the borders, frankly, in this—to share best practice, to continue with CPD, and just to get better in that space. I spoke, at a very high level, I must stress, at the first all-local-authority training session that we had on this. I can't remember how long ago it was—

November.

Yes, last November. Matthew could talk—. Or Geoff—go.

If I just say a couple of things, there's the academy that you've talked about, and there's also just consistency of process. So, we were talking about design earlier and, actually, understanding where the challenges are and things like where you might be able to do departures, and what's led you to certain decisions. All local authorities are probably doing that in terms of their design processes, but actually bringing some consistency to that allows us to bring it up, analyse and do some shaping of it as a group, rather than as individual authorities.

The other piece that I think plays into this is where we can just take a challenge off the local authorities and help them at a national level, and a good example of that is something like the promotional toolkit, which Matthew and the team supported the delivery of. I don't know if you want to say more on any of those.

Yes, just a couple of quick points, if I may. I think it's fair to say that there isn't a consensus or a co-ordinated view of where all the gaps are across local authorities and the challenges that they face at the moment, and that was something that was picked up in the active travel delivery plan and referenced in the recommendations in the Audit Wales report around an assessment of the funding framework that the Welsh Government were keen to influence, and I think there's an opportunity there to get an understanding from local authority colleagues about the pressures that they face and where specific support might be more appropriate in future.

But I'd just echo the points that Geoff and James made around the Academi Teithio Llesol programme that's been established. That's going to grow in the coming years. We had, as James said, our first session in November with local authority colleagues and others, providing workshops on a range of different activities. So, we're looking at how we can share best practice in those types of sessions, but also through our regular quarterly active travel officer meetings, which bring together all 22 local authorities and the Welsh Government and us to share information, raise challenges, and provide guidance and best practice from across Wales and the UK.

Thank you. We talked a bit there about the expertise. I'm interested as well in the commitment of local authorities to active travel. So, can you give us an indication of the extent to which local authorities across Wales demonstrate that clear commitment to active travel? Who's leading the way and who's lagging behind?

That's a difficult question, or maybe a question I don't want to answer, rather than a difficult question. But, clearly, different local authorities, partly based—. It's not all just about political leadership. Some of it is about opportunity and about the skills that they have in the officer grade, I would say. Let's talk about some authorities that are doing a lot. So, Cardiff have done a lot over recent years, as have quite a few of the north Wales authorities, actually, and some of the Valleys authorities have increasingly done more. I think it is easier to do good active travel in terms of getting lots and lots of people to use it in an urban area, though, and that's my opportunity point. Arguably, it's more difficult to drive large numbers of people to use it in a more rural area. But, I have to say that, increasingly, the conversations we're having with rural local authorities at a leader level indicate that they genuinely are interested in trying to drive up active travel, so long as it works. I think that's the—. And that makes sense, doesn't it, really? There's no point building a scheme that no-one's going to use, so it's, 'How do we work together to develop schemes that work?' And to be honest, there are certainly different views across different local authorities on how brave people want to be around, say, road space reallocation. But gone are the days when any leader that I am speaking to—and they've been gone for a long time, actually—would say, 'I'm not interested in active travel. I'm not going to do it.' Everyone is interested in doing this. Some are more brave than others. Some have got a better team than others, and some have got more opportunity than others. That is, I think, the way I'd put it.

I think that's a fair position, at the end, to summarise there, James, that it is a mixed picture across Wales. There are very good elements across most local authorities, if not all of them. We have certainly noticed, in the last couple of years, where a number of local authorities have increased their capacity around active travel specifically and grown their teams. We've enjoyed very positive conversations and working relationships with those local authorities and others across Wales as well. So, certainly, the approach amongst the local authorities is very good with the ones that we work with, and we'd certainly look to help them be as ambitious and effective as they can be.

Thank you. I'm sure you will have seen our evidence session last week with representatives from local government, and, obviously, one of the representatives was from Powys County Council who—and I apologise for paraphrasing—suggested that active travel schemes do not always have councils like Powys in mind and perhaps aren't appropriate in all cases for local need in a rural area like Powys. To what extent do you identify with that critique, and does that explain, perhaps, the difference, if you like, in approach from different local authorities that you identified in the previous answer?

I think that some of those challenges are fair, and I think it goes back to my previous answer that the opportunities facing different local authorities are different. They're objectively different, in fact. But, equally, society and the technology that society has to play with are significantly changing. So, maybe even five years ago, when e-bikes where not common, it might have been unreasonable to expect large numbers of people to be cycling up and down a hill even on a relatively short distance—say, 3 km to 5 km. What you will see in other parts of Europe now is that people will, in even quite rural areas, use e-bikes to go quite some distance, so 7 km is quite a normal length of travel to see large numbers of people using them. I think what we need to do is work with authorities to understand where that kind of changing consumer behaviour and changing technology can help. And, of course, all areas have built-up areas within them and urban areas within them, and most people walk, cycle or wheel around those urban areas, and making it easier to do that is going to be better for those people who are doing that, it's going to be better for the economy and it's going to be better for society. I think that it was John Forsey who made some of those comments. Some of those comments I recognise and I think what I would say is that we're working with rural authorities as we are with urban authorities to try to drive schemes that work for them.

If I—

Can I just comment? We've only got, technically, 25 minutes left and we're barely halfway through our intended questions. So, could everyone please be as succinct as possible?

Shall I just say something very briefly on that, then? Active Travel England have, obviously, done something around their assessments that take into account things like leadership, which you've talked about. I don't think that there are any plans absolutely to do that in Wales, but I think it is an important criterion that does have some bearing on success of delivery. But we do have to look at things like the recent regional transport plan that has been published for consultation by north Wales, which is really successful in terms of active travel interventions. So, actually, as they start to come out, that will give some visibility of the commitment in regions on active travel investment. 

And I guess, just in terms of our own practical piece, our design hub, led by Tom Wolf in our team, is starting to work with local authorities now on designs. Powys is actually one of the local authorities that we are engaged with in developing an active travel scheme with them. We have had a bit of a discussion internally about how we will prioritise our efforts when we have more, but, at the moment, it is about the willing coming to us, which is partly a measure of the sorts of things that you've talked about. It may also be, of course, a measure of capacity that teams have already got themselves. Thank you.

Just one final point, in terms of the urban-rural support from Transport for Wales, we'll work, obviously, with all of the local authorities on any of the projects that they want to bring forward, and I think it's fair to say that we would take a pragmatic view of how we can best apply the standards set out within the Welsh Government's active travel Act guidance. We will, obviously, push for the highest possible standards that can be achieved and we will look at what options can be considered as part of that scheme development, but we do recognise the challenges in differing geographical locations across Wales.

Thank you. With the Chair's comments in mind, I'll move on to talking about active travel network mapping and route prioritisation. I just wonder what you think needs to change to improve active travel network mapping arrangements and whether what's needed is, in fact, broader sustainable transport network mapping, showing the linkages with other transport modes.  

Okay. I'll try to be quick on this. That is exactly what I think is necessary and that is exactly what we are trying to do, both in terms of how we technically plan things and in terms of how we engage with the public and with other stakeholders, and, in the future—and I think, arguably, this will be the most visible bit—how the public engage with transport. So, we have a project ongoing at the minute that is all about how do we, in essence, create an app—by the time this delivers in a couple of years' time, 'app' might be the wrong terminology to use—how we create an app that allows people to seamlessly get themselves from door to door through mapping and ticketing. I'm very happy to talk about that another time, or now if you want to, but that is exactly where we're going and that is exactly the plan.

And would you share the view expressed by some local government representatives that the maps would benefit from clearer identification of short and medium-term priorities? And can you tell us more about this prioritisation tool that you've developed and what factors it considers in practice and how will you be supporting local authorities to use it and any ongoing development work?

Yes, I'm happy to pick that one up. So, I think we'd agree that, having set priorities over three- to five-year timescales would be a positive move. It's certainly something that the regional transport delivery plans offer an opportunity to introduce. I think that would provide a greater degree of clarity, both in terms of the planning and delivery of those projects, but also communicating to stakeholders and managing expectations going forward.

The prioritisation work that’s been done to date, I think, broadly follows what’s set out in active travel guidance from Welsh Government, but the tool that we’ve developed was intended to provide a more consistent approach across local authorities, and to give them more consistent evidence-led information to assist them in their pipeline and programme planning. So, it includes 12 metrics across five main themes, including the potential for modal shift, access to services, impact from deprivation, the impact on health and safety, and it uses all the information we’ve got from the GAS-based system that it’s based on to provide a scoring of the schemes within each local authority area. So, it’ll effectively give us a view on the schemes and whether they are likely to have a very high degree of impact, all the way to a very low degree of impact, in terms of achieving the objectives set out in the guidance.

So, that ranking has been provided to each of the local authorities. We’ve also provided them with the data files to allow them to integrate it with their own mapping systems, and supported them on its use, so that they can better understand how they can prioritise their projects going forward. It’s an ongoing process; we’re looking at doing further iterations of that in the coming financial year, and looking at how we can use it to support the regional transport plans and their development.

We’ve heard about an issue around routes being put forward for funding by local authorities not always being in the best areas, or adequately connected to facilitate modal shift. In your view, how big an issue is that, and what could be done about it?

Do you want to carry on?

Yes, I’m happy to carry on with that one. I think that was one of the reasons why we developed the tool was to help with that decision-making process. I think that the mapping system itself that has been developed following the introduction of the Act was very good at bringing together that national picture, but having a core evidence base on where to focus attention, I think, was where we saw a gap that would enhance the understanding amongst local authorities.

So, I think we’re definitely seeing a positive shift in that direction and a greater focus on those types of schemes that are likely to have a bigger impact in terms of modal shift. We do recognise, and the active travel fund allows as well, or the programme allows for the current financial year, out of the four schemes that are submitted, one to be for a more rural project as well, so there is that scope to allow for both circumstances. But we’re definitely working with them on their use of the tool and their building of cases for change to understand how they can have schemes that are going to be in the right locations to have a greater impact in terms of that modal shift.

Thanks. I’m going to move on to the active travel scheme design, which I know you’ve mentioned a couple of times already. So, just for clarity, then—because I know you’ve touched on this—what progress has been made to establish a design and review process that ensures designs incorporate provisions for groups with protected characteristics, and to conduct specialist equality, diversity and inclusion design reviews as well? The active travel delivery plan shows these actions timetabled for 2024.

So, in terms of the design review process, there is a formalised review process that’s being worked up by the design office at the moment. We’ve had a structured process previously, which we’ve used to provide feedback to local authorities on their designs when they’ve shared them with us, and Tom and the new design office within TfW have been working up a more robust process around that to enable a clearer feedback process to local authorities on the views on their projects.

One of the things that we have been doing with that and we intend to continue doing is liaising with our access and inclusion manager to see if there are opportunities to build in greater consideration of access and inclusion requirements in the design review process. But we’ve also had some work that we’ve done previously that you might want to come on to in bit, where we worked with a number of local authorities to sample their projects, and undertake a review of the access and inclusion requirements of those projects, and identify some key themes that could be shared with others, so that they could be incorporated within their design processes.

Can I just ask before we move on, because time is short, would you be able to stay for a few minutes longer, until say 11:20, just to enable, hopefully, the conclusion of our questions?

Yes.

Back to you, Tom.

Can you tell us about the extent to which Transport for Wales has been engaging with groups representing disabled people in developing that design review process?

So, as I said, the design review process at the moment has been primarily focused on engaging with our access and inclusion manager to start with, in terms of understanding what implications there may be. There will obviously be opportunities for us to develop more inclusive processes going forward, and the intention is for us to have a process in place and provide information to local authorities that does enable that inclusive design process to be baked into the way that we approach things. For example, we've got one of the design office team who attends the access and inclusion panel within Transport for Wales, and we've had regular contact with external organisations about their requirements and their particular concerns as well, as we've provided advice to local authorities. An example of that, I suppose, would be the training programme that we had back in November, where we had representation from the Royal National Institute of Blind People delivering a workshop to local authority officers, and we're keen to maintain that going forward and build that into our processes. 

To what extent will the process be considering acceptable departures from design guidance? I know this is something else we've touched on already—so, in rural areas, something the committee has previously heard has been an issue. What practical examples are there where departures might be deemed excessive? Sorry, 'acceptable', I should say, not 'excessive'.

If I can just start with this, from my perspective, this is something that's very important. Without departures from standards, you will either not build schemes, because it's not possible, or you will drive ridiculous cost into schemes, and that's the case on building anything from a house to a road to a runway to active travel. So, it's something that I'm very keen that we have a proper process for and we get the balance right. Of course, you can go too far, and you can build schemes that aren't effective because you've deviated too far. The type of things, I think, just personally, we need to think quite carefully about would be, for example, if you had a very tight corridor where you were trying to weave several modes through—and there are lots of those in the Valleys, for sure—and you cannot reach the widths necessary for all of those modes, then being able to be pragmatic and think about what widths are necessary in different spaces is really important in that.

The other thing that's probably worth just touching on in this is that, obviously, many more roads are now 20 mph than were when lots of these original—what do you call them—standards were developed, and, therefore, some of the ways around this might include stretches of on-calmed-road solutions. There will be many more around what surfacing you put somewhere. What drainage do you put somewhere? What depth of material do you put in somewhere? And there's a whole range of factors that will lead into that. What are the local weather conditions likely to be? What is the environment? What is the visual pollution that you might be causing? I think we've got further to go, but we are definitely getting into that.

If I could just follow on from that, please. So, in the design review process, we're also working up a design departures log as part of that process, to capture where there may be a need to consider departures from the standards. We always start with the aspiration of meeting the desirable standards, not just the minimum standards, within the Welsh Government guidance. I think if we shoot for the minimum standards, there's always a risk that we'll end up having to compromise on that even further and it makes it less attractive to encourage people to use those modes. So, we start with the desirable level and work our way down, if we need to, but it's more around having a formalised process in place to identify what those challenges might be, and what, as James said, a pragmatic solution might be in each of those circumstances.

We certainly recognise the challenges in those areas, but having a more formal structure for capturing that—. And it's something that most local authority highways engineers would probably do as a matter of course, within their work, but certainly, for us, it would be a new part of the process to support them on making the case for where there may be a need for those departures.

In the interests of time, Chair, I'll leave it there.

Okay, thank you. Adam Price.

Okay. So, if I start answering at an aggregate TfW level and then pass over to you, Geoff, is that okay?

Yes, that's fine.

Behavioural change is something that we are genuinely very focused on and we think it's really important, and we think it has the potential to be really powerful. You can see this in all forms of public life, you can see commercial entities engaging in it, you can see Governments engaging in it around the world, and it is effective, but it does require people to think in a way that they're not necessarily trained to think, as public servants or as transport professionals.

So, what we have attempted to do is to go on a journey by partnering with people who do this type of activity. We've done quite a lot of work with Public Health Wales, for example: we have seconded individuals into the organisation, and we have set up training days and training sessions, including for myself, the senior management team and the board to think about this. And again, at an organisation-wide level, we need to carry on doing that and we just need to repeat doing it, because we repeatedly see people being a slave—I'll be very unpopular for saying this—to their own profession, rather than thinking about how their profession is actually encouraging people to do the right thing, and most people want to do the right thing anyway. 

So, at a headline level, that's what we are doing, and that sits with our marketing and communications team, who are all the time thinking about how we encourage our own team and encourage the people who use our services, or who use infrastructure that we work with local authorities on, i.e. active travel, to use it and therefore to do the right thing. We have also done more on this in the active travel space specifically, but I think, in that area, we need to do quite a bit more, and I'd reference back to the comments I made earlier, that there is quite a lot of evidence to say that you can be very effective in this space, but sometimes it can require quite a bit of money to do it. So, Geoff.

Just to build on what James has said, really, I guess there is that training that's been taking place, working in partnership with other organisations, and we're starting to see that feed through in terms of the engagement we're having in the teams. So, we use a thing called a COM-B model, so actually looking at behaviour change on the basis of capability, opportunity and motivation. And I think some of the conversations we're now having are, 'Well, we're ticking the box on opportunity, but what are we doing in this space too?' So, I think it is starting to weave its way through, the more that we do.

I take James's point on active travel, but there are some good examples there too. We've got the promotional toolkit, which we mentioned earlier. There's work taking place in the south-east of Wales around the Burns commission, with organisations like Newport Live, on cycling awareness and helping people to understand the benefits of active travel. And, as I mentioned earlier a little bit, I think there's a piece in this for us around travel planning, and we have been having some discussions with Dr Tom Porter, and we've signed up to the Healthy Travel Wales charter in south-east Wales, but actually looking at the opportunities for us to understand and influence behaviours with employers and destinations and that sort of thing, which I mentioned earlier. So, we're on that journey, we're learning along the way, and when we're bringing people in, we're getting them into this type of thinking too.

I think that's a really good challenge. I think that if Lewis Brencher, who is our comms lead, was here he would argue that he's doing that already, probably, with a couple of the team that do this all the time. But I think that's a fair challenge for us to take away and say, 'Can we do more?' I think the key challenge to hold against that is that we need everybody, really, in the whole organisation to be engaging in behavioural change, not just the team at the centre. And the team at the centre should all be about training everybody else, because it's how you do the detail of design that makes a difference as to whether it's easy to use or not easy to use: how you think about where you put the footpath. Because how often do we see new infrastructure being built and then you see everyone's walking across the grass, not on the footpath, because we've put the footpath or people have put the footpath in the wrong area? So, yes, I take your challenge. We can always do more, but I think it's about how do we train and empower the whole organisation to do this. If you looked out of active travel: even a station manager—how are they managing their station and putting things in the right place that make it easy for people to use?

To save time, we could probably send you some more information about what the plans are, if that would be useful?

Yes, great.

Okay. I’m going to pass this one to Matthew, who’s certainly got more of the detail than I have.

We’re very closely involved with Welsh Government on this particular concept. We have a programme lead working within Transport for Wales who’s developing the project plan for that at the moment and in discussions with a local authority about potential implementation of that. The programme itself is intended to bring together a combination of infrastructure and behaviour change intervention, so that we can maximise the impact of the investment in that area and then utilise some of the learning from the evidence that comes out from that and apply the successful lessons to other locations and other settlements across Wales. I think one of the things that we’ve focused on with that particular concept is the town that we’re working on is a more rural town. So, we think there are some lessons that can be applied in a rural context from that without having to do an additional programme looking at a village setting. But also we’re mindful of the active travel Act’s focus on everyday modal shift for the designated localities of 2,000 plus. Although we’re obviously looking broader than that and working with local authorities in outlying settlements as well, it is more around utilising the funding and the resourcing that's available currently to apply the learnings on a broader basis.

Okay, so if I start and then hand over to Geoff, if that's okay. Monitoring and evaluation is key. It's really important, and that's a key thing that's come out of both this report but other reports as well. As I said earlier, technology is improving, and we are therefore able to gather better information more easily. But information directly from the source, in terms of users—in terms of why are they using something, how often they use it et cetera, et cetera—is vital, and that’s why the national transport survey is going to be a really key component part of what we do, going forward. That has been funded for three years, but, again, I think that it will be really important to make sure that it’s not just funded for three years, and that that is a consistent thing that just goes into the future. Otherwise, we will become blind again quite quickly. Geoff, can I hand over to you, just to take that to the next level?

Yes. So, I recognise absolutely that monitoring and evaluation is a critical piece of the jigsaw that needs to be filled, and the evidence to support future investment. So, the aim of the framework that we are putting in place is that it will provide a clear and consistent methodology for the collection of the data. It is going to identify a number of robust indicators to monitor progress against the key outcomes, and it will support the wider monitoring and evaluation framework that we've got for ‘Llwybr Newydd’, the Wales transport strategy, and the delivery of that through the national transport delivery plan.

It has got a range of indicators. Is it 15 indicators? So, some of those are: length of active travel networks that meet or exceed Welsh Government standards; the percentage of the population within 400m and 800m of an active travel route; the percentage of short distances made by walking or cycling; the percentage of journeys to a railway station by walking, cycling or bus. We've also got a measure in there around air quality. So, it is a wide-ranging set, which will align with other things and also support, as James has said, the Wales national travel survey when we get that live, and we are able to interrogate the data from that too. Matthew, have you got anything to add?

Matthew, can I ask you to—?

Yes. So, the framework itself won't pick up that level of detail, because it is quite a broad picture across a range of objectives. Where we would look at the impact on different user groups is on scheme-level data collection, which is something that we are looking to issue guidance to local authorities on in the next few weeks, to support them through the new resource that we've got within Transport for Wales. But also, the Wales national travel survey will allow us to have a much better picture, I think, in terms of individual circumstances and help us create a better picture on a number of different areas for those outcomes.

I think it's a good challenge, though, and one that we should take away, even at an aggregate level: are we working with local authorities in the future to design a set of schemes that are truly accessible to all? We might tick all of the accessibility boxes, I guess, and still people don't use it for a reason that we are unaware of. It's a good challenge.

And it is one of the reasons why we have, in our recommendations for monitoring and evaluation, both qualitative and quantitative measures. So, we're not just counting the numbers, but we are actually capturing or encouraging the capture of user experience and journey purpose, and being able to track that against different groups as well.

Just very briefly from me, I genuinely believe we're taking a pretty robust approach to the national travel survey. We've been engaging with a large range of people, including people who use the data, but equally importantly people who have got a very strong understanding of statistics to make sure that the data is valid and can be properly used for policy making and planning purposes. But I would also stress that that's not the only source of data, as you were talking to, and there's lots of other data that is available, both in terms of individual monitoring—I'm trying to remember the terminology I'm trying to use—where you would stop people and ask them, person counts and the look at pedestrian flows, but also, really importantly, data from mobile phones et cetera. But you need to wrap all of those different data sources together to get a true picture. Geoff, you are leading on all of this.

Yes. So, we're at the latter stages of the development of the national travel survey. We've done two pilots of it last year. We've done quite a lot of engagement and we'll follow that up with some more detail for you. It will be a random sample of 12,000 households across Wales in the year. It will be regular and—. It's not all in one go; it's throughout the year. We've put a lot of effort into the approach that we're doing to make sure that it is as efficient as it can be in getting to being attractive to complete, and how actually we can support its completion. There are statistical considerations about the granularity and the detail we'll be able to get out of it, and I guess we'll learn some of that from the response dates that we actually achieve, but there will be an opportunity for us to develop it and shape it a bit further if, actually, we're finding that, if we did a bit more, we might be able to get a bit more granularity in certain areas or around particular topics.

I'm happy to pick up on that one. As I just mentioned, the guidance document that was drafted and shared with local authority colleagues last year is nearing the final stages of amendments following some feedback from the active travel board and Welsh Government officials. So, we're looking to get that out in the next few weeks, and certainly before the end of the financial year. The document itself will include clarification around the proportionality that should be applied by local authorities to monitoring the schemes, and that's something that we've obviously taken account of during our conversations with local authority colleagues, as I know there's been some concern about the amount of burden that they feel is placed on them in terms of reporting on the outcomes, and we're keen to continue to work with them on that to find the best value that we can.

I'm happy to pick up that as well. So, the guidance itself won't differentiate in terms of the techniques that can be applied in terms of whether they're active travel journeys or leisure and tourism journeys. I think the thing that we've recognised, and I mentioned it earlier on, in terms of qualitative and quantitative approaches, is that route user surveys and speaking to people who are actually using the infrastructure is the only way currently to identify the journey purpose that they're undertaking. That is why we've included it as a minimum recommendation for monitoring of active travel infrastructure.

And if I can just jump in there, it's qualitative. Why I couldn't remember that word I do not know. That's the word I was trying to use, and that is even more important post COVID than it was pre COVID, and we're seeing this in other journeys. So, typically, people would have said anything outside of commuting hours was not commuting. We know that's not the case anymore, which is why that qualitative information is genuinely important, and mobile phone data et cetera is just telling you where people are going; it doesn't tell you why they're doing it. 

And just to pick up on that point as well, mobile phone data has provided us with a lot better understanding of general travel patterns, but, for active travel journeys in particular, once you get down to very local journeys, if you're relying on moving between mobile masts, those journeys are sometimes of a distance that doesn't trigger that changeover, so they don't pick up all the local journeys. So, it can be very difficult to rely on mobile phone information for those localised, short-distance trips, which is where having the quantitative and qualitative measures for scheme-specific monitoring is very important.

I think just one thing I should clarify is, with the annual performance reports, that's something that is linked directly to the active travel fund programme, which we, obviously, administer on behalf of Welsh Government, so we've got an understanding of that. The annual reports will go to Welsh Government as part of their work on the active travel Act, so we have less clarity over the contents of those reports. So, if I may, I'll stick to the annual progress reports, the performance reports, for now.

As you mentioned, the submission deadline was in September. We have been working really closely with local authority colleagues to address some of the gaps in the information that was provided, so we're working with them to understand and enhance the speed at which they're getting information through to us, because we don't have information for all local authorities at this point in time. That analysis hasn't started on the 2022-23 and 2023-24 data, which is what was due for submission in September. That is due to start in the next couple of weeks. We've shared some of the information with Sustrans, who are working on it on our behalf in their research and monitoring unit, to do the analysis. But we do have some initial findings from the 2021-22 data, which is the first dataset that we have available from when we took over the management of the fund. That analysis is nearing its completion at the moment.

We have a variable picture, I think it's fair to say, in terms of the quality and consistency of the data across Wales, and it's something that was reflected in the Audit Wales report and the active travel board report as well. There have been either gaps in outcomes data in terms of post-monitoring or baseline data collection at the start, and sometimes there isn't a consistency between the two. I think the period at which those monitoring activities was taking place was obviously challenging, because a lot of them were happening during COVID. So, there were some issues that local authorities had in terms of data collection and being able to follow up on successful schemes and the completion of those schemes. But what we're tending to find from the examples that we've got and some of the case studies we've identified as having baseline and outcomes data is a broadly positive sign, and the increase in usage varies across the five or six really clear examples that we've got for those projects. There are increases of 130 per cent in one example and significantly more in others. 

We're running out of time, even on your agreed extended agenda. So, thank you. To conclude, in one-minute maximum, could you just tell me: does the 2013 Act still remain fit for purpose, and could you share a maximum of three things you suggest we need to change to deliver on the Welsh Government's active travel ambitions?  

So, broadly, yes, I think it does remain fit for purpose. I think monitoring and evaluation are clearly really important, so that would be the first thing—on a consistent basis. And then I think the second point would be that consistency of approach would be really important as well. So, I would recommend that, when things aren't working, we tweak things, we evolve things, but we don't have big changes, because big changes always take a long time to bed in.  

Okay, thank you. I will therefore bring matters to a conclusion by, again, thanking you very much for attending. As you'd expect, a record of today's proceedings will be shared with you. You'll have an opportunity to comment on it before it's formally published. So, safe journey home, whatever form that may take, and please avoid the bicycles. 

Right, Members, I propose in accordance with—[Interruption.] Okay, we propose a short break.

Croeso. Welcome to our new panel of witnesses. To begin with, I'd be grateful—although I know who you all are—if you could give us your names and roles for the record. Do you want to, Andrea, start, and then move to your right?

Hi, everyone. Andrea Gordon. I'm external affairs manager for Guide Dogs Cymru.

Hi. I'm Kirsty James. I'm policy and campaigns officer for the Royal National Institute of Blind People Cymru.

Hi. I'm Kat Watkins. I'm the Access to Politics project officer for Disability Wales.

Well, thank you, and welcome, again. As you'd expect, we have a number of questions, therefore I'd be grateful if both Members and yourselves could be as succinct as possible in your answers, to enable us to get through as many of the issues and topics as possible. As protocol has it, as Chair, I'll begin the questions and then I'll hand over to colleagues to proceed with further questions. So, my opening questions are fairly general, before we get into specifics. Overall, do you support the increased investment that has gone into active travel over recent years?

Are we working in the same order, Mark?

Can do, yes.

I think, for us, if we probably do that, it might be a little bit easier to—.

Fantastic. Yes.

Okay. I would say 'no'. I think a lot of opportunities for a better and more inclusive environment have been missed. So, ideally, the money would have been spent more effectively to promote an inclusive environment for everyone, and I think there are examples of where we can see that hasn't happened. I'm going to pass to Kirsty.

Yes, I totally agree, Andrea. I do feel that more money could have been spent on inclusive designs and the continuity of designs that we see across Wales. I feel that, yes, like Andrea said, there have been real missed opportunities.

Yes, I agree with that one. And there hasn't been enough involvement with disabled people to make sure that these things are done properly, and the investment isn't going in the right place.

Thank you. Well, I know both Guide Dogs and RNIB have produced papers with recommendations, which Members may be aware of. But to what extent do you consider that the Welsh Government's new active travel delivery plan goes far enough in addressing the issues and concerns around accessibility and inclusion you've highlighted, and, if not, what more you would like to see the plan feature?

We haven't been involved in the new delivery plan. So, I've read through it, and what stands out to me immediately is there's not enough in there about the involvement of disabled people. And, you know, on a community level, 'nothing about us without us', so there doesn't seem to be a lot of reference to that in the plan. And also the requirement to conduct equality impact assessments, which we may return to later on in the evidence session, but there certainly should be stronger measures to require that equality impact assessments are done effectively; at the moment, they're often not. Thanks. Kirsty.

Yes, I agree. I feel that the delivery plan is very vague. We haven't been consulted on to input where parts of it could have been strengthened to support disabled people and making inclusive designs or promotions. One thing I noticed is it said that there was a design review for local authorities in 2024. I just wonder what that even looked like, because we didn't come across that in our work, where we work with a number of local authorities. So, there are lots more questions, I suppose. What I'd like to see more of is more of a commitment to inclusive designs and promotion and accessible information.

I agree with that as well. It clearly wasn't written with disabled people—pan-impairment as well; so, everything has to be right for everybody. But then there's also wording such as 'removing barriers where appropriate'. Well, barriers need to be removed even if it isn't appropriate, if they can, because they're still a barrier, they're still in the way for somebody, and it's shutting a lot of disabled people out from accessing the beautiful countryside that we have in Wales.

Okay. Thank you. What role do you think the active travel board's inclusive active travel sub-group could play, and what areas would you like to see them focus on? And to what extent would you like to see your own organisations involved in that?

So, we do have a place on the inclusive active travel board, which has recently been restructured and reconvened. On the couple of meetings I've attended so far, I've been really impressed with the commitment of the members of the board to promote inclusive design. I understand its role is to be a critical friend to the active travel board itself, and I would say that what I would want it to do would be to be actively looking at the way that the active travel board itself monitors the delivery of active travel schemes for accessibility and inclusivity and to make sure that it is resourced and supported to conduct that work effectively. But, so far, I'm very, very impressed with how it's working. 

So, I am one of the co-chairs for the inclusivity sub-group of the active travel board, as I am an independent member of the active travel board. So, I was recently appointed for a recent re-launch of the group, and really where we're at is making our work plan and work streams, what we want to focus on. So, the membership of the group, there's pan-disability, diverse organisations on there and really we're trying to get to and listen to what the barriers are in the different organisations or the different people affected by the barriers to active travel. We've been drafting a letter of recommendations, which we'll put to the board.

I do think that the board takes inclusivity seriously. I feel that there is a place to really have this group make some changes. For instance, the recent barrier removal in Flintshire—that has been removed, and it's really good to see, and we hope that we'll see that replicated across Wales. One of the sub-group members and also an independent member was a part of the writing of the report to Flintshire County Council. So, I think, yes, I do think there are big, important roles to be played and good opportunities coming where we can scrutinise and work with the design office and local authorities and the Welsh Government to really see inclusivity embedded in active travel.

Can I—? Sorry, Kat.

Sorry. I was going to say, Disability Wales doesn't sit on the sub-group because of capacity issues within our organisation. However, we would also like to see the voices of disabled people being heard, and we know that, through Kirsty, who sits on both the sub-group and the active travel group, this will get done, because I've been assured that she's a very strong voice.

Can I just ask a supplementary before I move on? Although the Welsh Government has publicly committed for more than two decades—two and a half decades—to the social model of disability, and we also have the public sector equality duty, to what extent, in practice, do you think that's understood by officials and politicians at local government level and in Welsh Government?

Chair, it's not understood. I think there are areas of work and public service delivery where the requirements for equality impact assessment and the public sector duty are understood, but when it comes to design and planning and construction on the ground, there is many a slip. The schemes aren't—. Even though the expectation at a higher level and a strategic level may be sound and good in terms of inclusive design and including all of our communities, it doesn't percolate down, and, often, equality impact assessments—I've seen many—are just tick-box exercises and, often, differential impact may be identified on paper but not what will be done to mitigate it. There are particular examples—I won't go into those, but there are real examples that are really shocking. Thank you.

I feel, yes, with the equality impact assessments, that they're not robust, and that is definitely a mechanism that needs to be strengthened and utilised, really, in the design, because we are seeing in numerous, across all of the local authorities, that it is like a tick-box and then it's not come back to, and the risk could have been mitigated. I feel that the social model of disability isn't understood, going down. At the top level, we've had some training through my role in the disability rights taskforce as a group member. We've had training through there, and it's a real driver, but I wouldn't say—. I would say then, when I work with local authorities, that that's not really translated, and even the language in which consultations or engagement are promoted doesn't necessarily reflect the social model of disability, let alone—that's just the language element of it—actually being able to engage, because the consultations are not accessible or even user friendly, to be able to do that.

I think that I would agree as well that the social model of disability, despite our best efforts, still isn't understood properly and not instigated properly. If everything was done at the beginning, where communication between disabled people and those designing whatever it is was started, nothing would go wrong, because all the elements would be there already. So, as my colleagues said, the equality impact assessments are not really adhered to at all. It is just a tick-box exercise, and a lot of them are not worth the paper that they're written on.

And getting it wrong costs a lot of money, apart from creating problems.

It does. If it started at the beginning, it would be a lot cheaper.

Thank you. Mike Hedges, could I bring you in, please?

Diolch. It's strange, really, because I've had most of these conversations privately with Andrea, so I think that, perhaps, this will allow us to put some of the things we've said on the record. What are the views of the witnesses on common access and inclusion issues with scheme design that can act as a barrier to active travel participation?

Where to begin? I think the common challenges in active travel schemes are—. There are a number that need to be considered early on—so, the impact of shared routes with cyclists and the lack of delineation, for a visually impaired person, and actually for many other people, to know which side of a route is safe for pedestrians and which is for cyclists. I have a lot of comments from cycling organisations that say that they don't like un-delineated routes either, because we are, obviously pedestrians, who are a danger to cyclists. So, it doesn't work for anyone. So, it's just creating kind of no-go areas, in effect, for many disabled people, and other people, and with children. It's dangerous, they move fast, cyclists move fast, and often are hard to hear. So, I think there are lots of issues about shared routes for cyclists.

I just wanted to touch on a particular aspect of active travel that is causing difficulties, particularly for me. It's an example of what’s called a continuous footway. I brought an issue to Mike directly. I live in Swansea, and it’s on a route that I use frequently. The kerbs have been removed on the junction, so the only indication that I’m walking into a road is a small area of tactile paving. I rely on my dog entirely to find the place to stop, exactly where she needs to stop. It’s not a big piece of tactile paving. And then, because the M4 is very close, the traffic noise is so loud I never actually am sure when it’s safe to cross. So, when I step out across that junction, I don’t know whether it’s safe. I literally make a best guess. Guide dogs are not trained to tell you when to cross the road safely. It’s something we make the decision on, so you never know. And the bit that I think is really concerning is that I had an opportunity to engage with the local authority officer who is responsible. I explained the impact on me if the scheme was introduced, and it meant moving a pelican crossing where I did have a safe place to cross previously to this new arrangement. I asked that it wasn’t done because it would put me in danger, also for anyone else crossing that road, that junction, to go to school with their kids, the same thing, it would put them in danger, too, and yet my concerns were overlooked. I presented a formal complaint to Swansea Council, which was also overlooked. And I would argue that that scheme puts me at direct risk every time I have to use it, which is frequently. Thank you. Kirsty.

Thank you. I’ll use an example of—. Andrea spoke about the urban barriers and how they cause lots of challenges with shared-use space and continuous footways, and I’ll talk about active travel route schemes that we may see that are offset from the roads. There's a particular scheme that is in a beautiful part of Wales that has been recently designed that will connect parts of the Valleys together, and you will be able to go from the top to the bottom of the Valleys. It’s in a really beautiful setting and it incorporates history and the environment—all of the elements except for inclusivity. So, I went to the scheme and I was really disappointed. It was in such a beautiful setting and you really could go for a walk, but it’s a shared-use space. There’s no kerbing on the side, so I couldn’t physically use my cane. I couldn’t walk there independently. A lot of people see me in these environments and I come across as being confident, so, to then see me in an environment where I genuinely was struggling—. If I was on my own, I don’t know, I would have been really stuck, basically.

And what was even more frustrating about the scheme was that I don’t think any engagement was done with the disabled community. It certainly wasn’t done with RNIB or Guide Dogs on some of the changes that could be made. And there was enough room to have clear delineation, segregated paths. There was a loop around. So, it can be done, and I just think that these kilometres and kilometres of active travel routes to join a community together, well, they're not going to be joining communities together because disabled people will not be able to use that route, and, if they’d engaged, would we have a different outcome?

So, I’m going to talk about pavement parking and the bus stops in Cardiff. So, the bus stops in Cardiff are a hindrance for everybody. So, when the bus stops, you get off the bus onto a small area of tarmac and then there's a cycle track right next to it. Now, my colleagues with guide dogs, their guide dog is going to get hit first. Using myself as an example, I live with an impairment that means my bones break easily, so if I’m getting off that bus straight into a cycle lane and a bike goes past, both my legs are broken straight away. So, whoever thought of these crazy bus stops just, obviously, did not consult with disabled people to get their full views on this.

Also, pavement parking really hinders disabled people, because you get a metre of pavement and then you’ve got a car on it. You’re trying to get past. There’s no room to get past. There’s no dropped kerb to get around, but why should people have to walk in the road? It’s dangerous. That’s what a pavement is for. So, previously, parking on pavements was going to come with a fine to try and stop this, but that hasn’t appeared, and in my area particularly—which is, again, Swansea—it’s getting a lot worse. There’s street furniture everywhere and loads of cars parked on the pavements. It’s just hindering everybody that needs to get through. And it’s not just disabled people; it’s people with prams, or anyone that’s trying to get through. It’s just really wrong.

Thank you. Back to you, Mike, and, obviously, you had a few local examples from your patch referred to as well.

Yes. I think the first thing—and you'll agree with me on this, Mark, as you know my sister's deaf—is that having sound is of no benefit at all to the deaf community. But are there any practical examples where active travel has been got right?

Well, of course, we are one organisation that works closely with RNIB and we try to have a finger on the pulse for all of Wales, but that’s extremely difficult to do. There are some good examples, and actually one that you all may be familiar with is the Castle Street bridge, just by the entrance to Sophia Gardens, which is a well-delineated space. I struggled to find many more; my colleagues may have.

But may I just, Chair, please, make one supplementary comment to what Kat said about the bus boarders in Cardiff. Just to add an important point, RNIB and Guide Dogs flagged our concerns about those bus boarders, which is the name for the active travel scheme there, we flagged that with Cardiff Council in 2020-21 and for the last four years, and it’s taken us four years to get that scheme improved. It’s just been done now. I have to say that Guide Dogs and RNIB jointly contributed to the cost of an access audit before that scheme was changed.

I think, where local authorities have got it right, you do see patches of inconsistency within each local authority, and we see patches of good. I would say, in Cardiff, you have patches of accessible, inclusive designs, but then it will go into—. So, moving around, at the top of Castle Street, yes, that’s clear delineation, but then as you get to the crossings, it’s quite hard to cross. A volunteer of mine—a very confident guide dog owner, very confident blind person—nearly got hit by a cyclist on the crossing, meaning that it absolutely frightened him so much so that it knocked his confidence, his mental health, meaning that he has to get mental health support now, and he’s really, really lost his confidence to the point where he’s not going out anymore. He was such a strong volunteer, a part of different organisations, a part of community groups. Somebody like that, to see the difference in him—. You just don't see that continuity—you’ve got one end of the street that’s successful and the other end isn’t, and the other part of Castle Street goes into a bus boarder. So, within one street you see different elements.

But I would say, where some local authorities have got it right, there’s Newport council, in terms of their consultation. Their scheme isn’t complete yet, but, from the plans, if the plan materialises how they’ve said, then that’s likely to be a really, really good scheme. But it’s just hard; we can’t always be everywhere, so we don’t always know how they’ve been developed.

To be honest, I can’t come up with a very good example, because any good example that I come up with comes with a lot of negatives as well. I was thinking particularly of Wind Street in Swansea that’s been re-pedestrianised. It’s great; it’s quite nice being able to walk down that street now. However, that has then taken blue-badge parking away from those that need to use private cars. There's also a lot of cycling around there, particularly Deliveroo and Just Eat—they are always on their bikes. So, it is a shared space, again, so it hasn't been got right there either, so I struggle to find a good example.

Thank you.

Coming back and saying sorry to Andrea, because these are things we have discussed privately, but now we're in public. Looking beyond the large schemes to some smaller schemes and the importance of delineating using colour, as you know, for we've discussed it, because a mutual acquaintance of ours has difficulty with it, when they used the same colours or very similar colours for the areas for bikes and the areas for pedestrians. So, it's very difficult for those who've got sight loss, not those who've got total sight loss, but those who've got substantial sight loss, to work out where they can go and where they can't. Do you come across this outside of the problem we've had in the centre of Swansea?

Yes. Thank you, Mike. We'd like to see a better understanding of the design of streets for safer streets for everyone, so colour contrast on all street furniture. Literally, there's so much variation in the way that seating is coloured and bins and lighting columns. So, yes, it would be an easy fix, you would think, to make sure that everything doesn't look grey. The particular case that Mike is referring to is a gentleman who, unfortunately, walked straight bang into a lamp post, his glasses were knocked off his face and he was hit to the ground and he couldn't find his glasses. The whole incident was probably, I would think, really humiliating and upsetting. And that's just because some colour contrasting hadn't been put onto a lamp post. It's such an easy thing to do.

Yes.

The colour contrast would really help, but I do hear back from different local authorities saying that there's no continuity. They would probably like to see some continuity and a colour across Wales, identifying the difference between a cycle path or a footpath, that everybody knew, so when they saw it, it was a common colour that you saw. I know that it doesn't help people who are totally blind, so you would need textural changes in that, but clear things.

But other things that really need to be considered are tactile, so that the use of tactile is meaningful, where you obviously have the blister paving on crossings, and you make sure that there are plenty of dropped kerbs as well. But also, when they're using the corduroy tactile that indicates that it's going somewhere, or there's a danger, that actually it is going somewhere, not into a brick wall. We do see that a lot, and you just think, 'Somebody's just put it down, and it doesn't actually mean anything.' So, those would be some simple little things that you could consider.

On the lighting, much better lighting. We know a cycle and active travel route was recently put in where lighting wasn't, so people couldn't actually use it, and they couldn't use the footpath either. That wouldn't just help blind and partially sighted people, or people who've got low vision, it would help everybody.

RNIB, and it's been supported by Guide Dogs, have a document of key principles of design, and in that document it has lots of useful tips that designers, local authorities can use to help make streets safer and more inclusive.

I think that the use of contrasting colours would be beneficial for all disabled people, not just those with visual impairments, because they'd know where these different sections were without needing to be able to read a sign or something like that. So, from a pan-disability perspective, colour contrasting is quite important.

Thank you. Could I just welcome Rhianon Passmore? And she's indicated that she'd like to speak, so, Rhianon.

Thank you very much. It's been very interesting listening to the last 10 minutes of your witness evidence. I've just come from a hospital appointment myself.

I was rather concerned, prior to this session, in terms of where we are actually at across Wales in terms of signage, in terms of street furniture, in terms of access around active travel for disabled people, and I'm even more concerned now. Do you think that there should be, as has been indicated, perhaps an easy fix here, which is a national overarching framework across Wales, of consistent signage, et cetera, et cetera? Who would like to answer that first?

Well, there already is standardised Department for Transport guidance, but the difficulty is that local authorities will often interpret it differently. So, that means that it's not then consistent. So, local highways and planning departments do need to follow the design guidance that is out there. Unfortunately, what has happened in Wales is that, since the introduction of the active travel legislation, it seems to have eroded away, taken away from that, and quite often, in our experience, people will interpret it differently because the active travel guidance will be seen as the primary guidance to use, which is unfortunate, because although the active travel guidance is mostly good in its content, in some aspects it's very vague, so it's not enough and it's actually—

So, what needs to happen, Andrea?

Well, the active travel guidance I understand is to be reviewed; I hope that does happen. We've been told it's going to happen, we've been invited to contribute—we wait to see. And that needs to be much more robust, and then, obviously, local authorities need to be called to account on the delivery of what they should be doing.

Do you have any other brief points to add? You don't have to speak, but—

In terms of signage, yes. So, recently, we've been involved in a project with Cardiff Council around new totems, so basically new information points. They've tried to make it so that you have the continuity and it mirrors Transport for Wales, so that when you leave the stations, whether you go into the city or you come down to the bay, you'll see that they're similar colours, and that sort of thing is really helpful. They did a lot of engagement. Okay, some people who are totally blind are unable to use that and we do need to find work-arounds, which they're trying through different types of QR codes. But in terms of the actual signage, you are seeing that continuity with just that project, so is that something that could be mirrored?

Can I just ask, Chair, if I may—? Sorry to interrupt again, but with regard to what our witnesses feel would be useful moving forward, is there a single person or a single organisation that has control over this agenda, and should there be?

Kat, do you want to come in on this?

I don't think there is a single person who is in control of all of this. Signage is also a very contentious problem, because it needs to be done in so many different ways: there needs to be easy-read available; there needs to be bilingual signage available; there need to be lots of different things available. So, it is quite problematic. The fact that there is signage is great, but there need to be more options available, so that people can access the signage better. So, on Kirsty's use of QR codes, well, if there's an easy-read version of that, then hopefully that would help people who use easy-read as a language. But I think that coming into the use of AI is going to be very important with using QR codes and things like that, and I think that would simplify things quite a lot.

Okay. Any more thoughts on that particular question, before we bring Mike back in? No. Okay, Mike, back to you.

My last question is: what involvement have you and your organisations had in the active travel delivery plan and in the task groups? 

None so far. I imagine that may happen, we wait to hear. I don't know. I'm going to hand to Kirsty, because I haven't heard anything about that.

In terms of what input we've had to the taskforce groups, no, we haven't. We've been working with Transport for Wales, where they've been engaging very well with us in terms of looking at the fund and trying to include the inclusive design element in that. But, no, we haven't been involved in any of the review.

Kat.

So, we’ve been involved with the taskforce, as Kirsty said, no, we haven’t been involved either.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much. 

Most of the examples we have heard are south Walian. I would point out it is all Wales, and I know, 20-odd years ago, I first went out with Guide Dogs in Caernarfon, for example, and very recently I've been out with RNIB in Wrexham. So, I'm just putting the geographical references in, so that anybody watching this appreciates it's the whole nation we're talking about. Okay, if I can invite Tom to raise a few questions.

Thanks, Chair. I just wanted to focus on the active travel network maps and what perspective any of our witnesses may have on the usefulness of local authorities’ active travel network maps as a resource for the public.

Obviously for people who are visually impaired or blind, they are of very little or no use. So, to give an example of how we tried to tackle that in Swansea, there was a group that was convened a couple of years ago by the cycling officer at the time. I guess that role is paid for from within active travel funding; I don’t know, but I imagine. And they would call a meeting and some disabled people's organisations were represented, obviously local to Swansea, and then I did go along to a couple of meetings. But what I found was that they would typically put the plan up on the screen, which I had no way of reading or accessing. So, I then spoke to the cycling officer separately and I said, ‘Look, we need to find a different way to do this, because I can’t participate, screen sharing won’t work’, and he suggested having separate meetings. And I think we had one over one scheme, but it was obviously more than he was able or willing to do. So, that consultation mechanism failed.

I would guess that unless someone local is proactive and says, ‘Well, hang on a minute, we need to find a different way to do this, you need to sit down with us and explain what it is you’re going to be doing to our high street and talk us through it, and even maybe conduct a site visit, so we can walk around and tell you what the key issues are for us'—as vision impaired people, I mean—'then we have no way of understanding what you’re going to do’, therefore, we’re routinely left out. And I believe that to be the situation across Wales.

I completely agree. I do think the maps, since they’ve been around, have frustrated me, because there are two parts to this: the community will not be responding to any of the consultations, reporting any of the issues on the active travel routes, getting involved, because these maps are simply just not accessible for blind or partially sighted people, and even cut out people who don’t have access to the internet and things. So, this mechanism isn’t a true reading of the barriers, the issues that are on the routes.

Then, secondly, the second issue is that I represent RNIB, I am also visually impaired, meaning that I have to attend these meetings and, like Andrea said, they put the maps up and then I’m at a disadvantage. I’m representing an organisation where I have the skills to do that. But by presenting these maps, I cannot engage, and it's just simply not good enough. We pushed back and we pushed back when they were coming up with these maps, and nothing has changed, and it just leaves us at a disadvantage. I think: do they really know the real barriers that are happening? How can you possibly know, when you see the networks and, obviously, there are gaps that need fixing? How do they know that they are accessible? There are issues currently on the networks.

I agree with all of that, and it also relies on you being able to understand the map yourself, even if you can see it. I am not a map reader. I don't understand maps. There are a lot of disabled people who will be shut out from this as well because they can't compute what is being put on the screen, and you don't get a proper explanation of what is happening.

As my colleague said, going out on these site visits does help with your understanding of what is going to happen. It's also a way of pointing them out—the different barriers that are not available on the screen, or the fact that they are just about to cut out that dropped kerb. Well, that dropped kerb was there for a reason. It needs to stay.

So, having these maps is not the be all and end all. There needs to be more explanation with them. Also, they are mostly available as a PDF. There aren't many who like to use PDFs. As far as I can see in looking at them, they are just a bunch of squiggles. I don't know how to interpret them, and I am sure that there are a lot of people—disabled or not—who can't interpret these plans.

Thank you. Tom, do you have any further questions?

Yes. So, I was going to follow up and ask what involvement you had had in developing the maps and what you made of local authorities' involvement in drawing them up—the involvement of disabled people. But I think that you've pretty conclusively answered that in response to the first question, unless there is something else on that front that anybody wanted to add. If not, I will pass back to you, Chair.

Thank you very much indeed. In which case, can I bring in Adam Price, please?

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Good afternoon. I will be asking my questions in Welsh, so we will just pause for a moment.

May I remove my headset for a moment, or do I need to keep it on to reply?

That's fine. You can take it off.

No, you don't have to keep it on to reply.

Okay, thank you. So, we have some really good practice happening around accessibility to rail, which is demonstrated through the Transport for Wales access and inclusion panel. That exists, if you like, as a critical friend for Transport for Wales, in terms of all things related to rail and train services. So, RNIB and Guide Dogs are represented on the panel, and so are other organisations and individual disabled people, who all bring their lived personal experience—they are all frequent users of public transport—on the panel.

It's a small group, and a very enthusiastic group, and I think that they probably provide a significant amount of free consultancy to Transport for Wales. We meet every month. It's a good three-hour meeting, and you have to do preparation for it. So, I reckon, if they had to pay consultants to do that, it would be quite expensive. However, we are all volunteers on that group, and it's done some really great work about improving access to rail stations, directly influencing the new rail stations, and all things related to passenger assistance and so on. So, it is a really good example. We are told—and we've been talking to Transport for Wales about this and they've been open in their intention to extend the remit of that group to bus; we wait to see. I think that will be a more challenging environment to work in, because the panel, as I said, is a group of volunteers, so we would need expertise and more resources. At the moment, a concern for us, which we've voiced previously to Welsh Government, is that there is no representation from deaf people's organisations on that group. There would need to be funding for a British Sign Language interpreter. We don't have that. The way that the panel is resourced within TfW is inadequate, so there's a very small support team working with us and with a big job to do. So, as I said, you get a lot of bang for your buck from that panel, so then there needs to be a bit more investment in it from TfW, and if we're going to do more, we need more resources to do it with.

I've got two parts to my answer. I completely agree, Andrea, that the panel is great—I'm also a panel member—and it definitely does need more resources to support Transport for Wales to deliver this exemplar panel, I would say. In terms of the work that we've done around rail, there's some fantastic projects we've worked on. We really have seen some significant changes in inclusive design across Wales, and I feel maybe the bus and active travel could lean into what Transport of Wales have done in that area, to learn from it. I really think, maybe—. We see the issues of shared-use space; there are problems with bus boarders. We know the barriers, we've got so many examples of the problems, but we need to take it that next step. They have an innovation lab. Can't we be using the innovation lab to design a solution for this? If we're constantly coming across, time and time again, from local authorities that, 'This is the way it has to be. It has to be shared-use space, because Welsh Government say that we have to provide this, but we've only got a small amount of space'—I just feel that's old now. Come on, let's innovate and create a space that is accessible. And I think that does sit with Transport for Wales and their innovation lab.

In terms of where I see potential, we do need that multimodal shift for disabled people to be at ease, but we're not seeing the continuity. An example: Porth interchange. It's fantastic, the wayfinding up there, with the tactile wayfinding and the accessibility. It's really, really good, similar to Cardiff interchange. But as soon as you leave the boundaries of Transport of Wales, you then see the shoddy tactile—. So, there's not that joined-up approach with local authorities—well, it wasn't last time; hopefully it's been improved. But maybe, if we're going to be seeing more and more of these designs around, then local authorities and Transport of Wales need to work stronger together to have that continuity in the fantastic designs that we are seeing, especially around some of the interchanges that have been developed. I know there are still teething problems, there are still some issues for other disabled groups, but I'm talking about accessibility for blind and partially sighted people in terms of the wayfinding and the colour contrast. So, there's a lot of potential, I think, and opportunities where Transport for Wales and local authorities can work together to learn from fantastic examples that are around.

Thank you. Kat.

I want to reiterate that the new passenger assistance personnel at the trains stations—well, the big train stations—is really making life a lot easier for people when using the train, because there's always a guarantee there's someone to get you on and off, to help you find the train, to help you get through the station. That has been absolutely excellent, because it really has helped. In terms of buses, well, it's the age-old problem of rural areas needing buses, needing local buses, and more consistency in this area. Disabled people don't want to stay at home, but because they can't access public transport, this is where they do stay, and it has to change. In the future, I believe working with Transport for Wales and what they have done will help local authorities to re-innovate and get with the times, and understand that disabled people aren't there to just stay at home and look pretty.

Adam, do you have any further questions?

Do we have time?

If you keep it to two minutes, please.

We were optimistic that the Welsh Government would legislate on pavement parking in this Senedd term; sadly, I don't think that will happen now. So, for all disabled people and just all of our communities, this issue of pavement parking is a massive problem, and it really puts our lives at risk. People indiscriminately park on the pavement, they park near junctions, and quite often I have to walk into a road and I have no idea whether the traffic can see me. It's hard to understand what other people can't see when you can't see yourself. So, you take a risk every time you do that. It might be near a junction and you can't hear because of the road, the traffic noise around you is too much. It's ongoing and it's not getting better. I'd say it's getting, actually, worse. We have too many cars up there on the pavements and we have too many obstructions and too many risks.

So, hopefully Welsh Government will proceed as soon as possible with what they were going to do, which was to introduce civil enforcement across local authorities. I should say that we would like there to be standardised guidance, or more standardised guidance, when that is developed. We were involved; Guide Dogs was on the task group, and I was really encouraged by the commitment on it, but it's very disappointing, particularly now that Scotland has it, and London has it, and has had it for years, restrictions on pavement parking—we're not talking about a ban, we're talking about appropriate measures—and Wales doesn't. So, I eagerly wait. Thank you.

I agree, Andrea. I completely agree that we would like to understand when this is likely to happen, because the barriers are real. I think I'll just use my own personal experience. Being visually impaired I was a guide dog owner, and even with a guide dog it was scary enough, the dog taking me out into the road, but now I'm a mum with a toddler, and that's a totally different ball game. Having to walk into the road with a toddler and a cane—well, I'm just not doing it, meaning that my independence has been affected. I can't actually access my local communities now, because I can't trust that I can actually walk to a bus stop, or walk to school, take him to nursery, because of cars parked on pavements. Because what would happen if they come round really quickly? I know the 20 mph is in place, but we know that people aren't adhering to it. Yes, my personal experience is definitely that it is getting worse rather than better.

Yes, I would completely agree with all of that, and as I said before, the Welsh Government was going to introduce fining, which hasn't happened. It could have made local authorities a lot of money because people continue to do it, but also with people parking on pavements it is damaging the pavements. They're becoming a lot less safe to walk on because there are a lot more potholes, there's a lot of just damage from these cars, and anyone can trip—visually impaired people, they can go down that hole quickly, but my chair would probably tip over as well. It's dangerous and it is getting more dangerous, and going out into the road is not something that should happen because this is what these payments are for; they're not for cars, they're for people.

Okay, thank you all. The clock has beaten us. If you have any thoughts afterwards about significant issues you've not had an opportunity to raise, could you let us know, perhaps in writing? Otherwise, it just falls to me to thank you all for being here. Sorry we delayed you at the beginning because the previous session ran over, and we hope you have a safe journey back in whatever form that may take. We will be copying you in on a draft of the transcript of today's meeting for your consideration before it's publicly published. So, thank you once again.

Thank you very much. 

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