Consultation: A National Infrastructure Commission for Wales

Transcription

1 Julia Williams Policy, Planning and Partnership Division Welsh Government Cathays Park Cardiff CF10 3NQ Consultation: A National Infrastructure Commission for Wales Dear Julia, Please find enclosed our response to the above consultation. We are pleased to respond to this consultation and believe that a National Infrastructure Commission for Wales (NIFCfW) can play a significant role in addressing gender inequality in Wales. Below we have outlined our response to those questions posed in the consultation that we feel best placed to address. We also wanted to highlight a number of key points which we feel should be integral to the NIFCfW: 1. The NIFCfW remit must include so-called social infrastructure such as childcare, social care and schools. Including social infrastructure will ensure that the NIFCfW can play it s strategic role effectively and will ensure alignment with the definition of sustainability outlined in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act which includes economic, environmental and social factors 2. Membership of the board of the NIFCfW must be gender balanced. It is welcome to see recognition of the need for diversity in the consultation paper and Welsh Government should look to work with relevant groups to ensure that the appointment process reaches individuals from under-represented groups. 3. Equality impact assessments should be carried out on the recommendations made by the NIFCfW This will ensure that Ministers have access to comprehensive information regarding the potential impact of investment in infrastructure projects prior to embarking on a particular course of action. We would be pleased to provide further information and answer any questions based on this response. Kind regards Natasha Davies Policy and Research Lead Natasha.davies@chwaraeteg.com

2 A NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE COMMISSION FOR WALES CONSULTATION RESPONSE FORM Please note responses are required by 9 January Responses can be sent to: Julia Williams Policy, Planning & Partnership Division Department for Economy & Infrastructure Welsh Government Cathays Park Cardiff CF10 3NQ julia.williams@wales.gsi.gov.uk Question 1: Do you agree that NIFCW s remit and output should consist of analysis, advice and recommendation to the Welsh Ministers? Broadly speaking we would agree with this role for NIFCfW. Some clarity is needed around the following: The process by which NIFCfW will report to Welsh Government (WG), whether such reports will be public and subject to scrutiny in the National Assembly for Wales (NAFW) and the expectations for WG to respond. The process should Welsh Ministers disagree with the recommendations of NIFCfW We believe that reports from the Commission should be available publicly to ensure transparency and that WG be expected to respond to reports in a given timescale as with reports from NAFW Committees and other bodies. We also believe there would be benefit to the NAFW having a role in discussing / debating reports from the Commission either in Plenary or through relevant Committees. Question 2: Do you agree that NIFCW s remit should extend to non-devolved as well as devolved infrastructure? It is our view that it would be incredibly difficult for NIFCfW to not have some role related to non-devolved infrastructure. While it may not be appropriate for

3 NIFCfW to have the same extent of involvement with non-devolved projects, the interaction between non-devolved and devolved infrastructure is crucial. This could be delivered by ensuring that the NIFCfW is working closely with its UK counter-part. The nature of this relationship and how it will be maintained should be set out clearly when the Commission is created and be subject to review as the Commission develops. Question 3: Do you agree that NIFCfW should not advise on programmes and work that have already been decided, or will be decided in the immediate future, by statutory and regulatory bodies? We disagree with this position. While it may not be appropriate for NIFCfW to be able to fundamentally / significantly change decisions that have been made on programmes and projects begun before its creation, the manner in which these might interact with future work of the Commission would make it difficult should it have no ability to advise on existing projects at all. Delivery of key projects, such as the South Wales Metro for example, may begin before the Commission is created but the delivery of these projects could still be in development and/or process. The NIFCfW should be able to offer advice on how these large projects continue to be developed, delivered and maintained. This role would enable the NIFCfW to ensure that the benefit of large projects to local communities is maximised for the duration of the project e.g. through jobs and training and any additional projects that might further complement the initial investment. Question 4: Do you agree that NIFCfW should be able to look at cross-cutting delivery issues if it considers them a barrier to delivering infrastructure needs, including governance, costs, financing and programme/project management methodology? Please specify any other delivery issues that you consider NIFCfW should be able to look at and the reason. We agree that NIFCfW should be able to look at cross-cutting delivery issues and would suggest that procurement be considered as an area that the NIFCfW may be well placed to advise on. The WG have outlined their continued commitment to ensuring that investment of public money should be maximised to ensure that the benefit is felt by local communities, that quality jobs and training opportunities are made available and wider strategic priorities, e.g. a more equal Wales, are met. The NIFCfW will be uniquely placed to advise how multiple projects can be delivered in a way that fulfils these aspirations for procurement. As such, we believe that there is a strong case for including a role for the NIFCfW in procurement.

4 Question 5: Do you agree that NIFCW should engage closely with and consult other bodies that may have an economic and environmental infrastructure remit? Who do you think are the key bodies that NIFCfW should engage with and consult? Engagement and consultation should be key priorities for the NIFCfW. Not only to collate as much expert advice as possible but also to ensure that communities are engaged in the development of projects that will impact on them. While the NIFCfW won t be subject to the duties of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act, we believe that every effort should be made to ensure that the Commission is applying the principles of the Act, including involvement, and seeking to support the delivery of the well-being goals. Key groups that we believe the Commission should engage closely with are the Commissioners, including the Future Generations Commissioner, other bodies that are engaged in infrastructure planning both around the UK and internationally to learn from best practice, equalities organisations to ensure that the equality impact of projects is effectively assessed and harder to reach groups are engaged in the consultation process, environmental organisations and community organisations who can support further engagement. Question 6: Do you agree that NIFCfW s remit should extend to participating in other relevant strategic advisory fora, such as the Council for Economic Renewal? Please specify any other forum you consider NIFCfW should participate in and the reason. N/A Question 7: Do you agree that the Welsh Government should undertake and publish a review of NIFCfW s status and remit before the next Assembly election in 2021? We agree that a review would be sensible to ensure that the NIFCfW is designed to best deliver for Wales. However, we believe that social infrastructure should be included in the Commission s remit from the beginning. The definition of infrastructure in the consultation document is the physical

5 systems and services that (a country) needs to have in place in order to work effectively. However, we prefer the following definition the basic physical and organisational structures needed for the operation of society or enterprise. This slightly broader definition allows for a greater range of structures and services to be considered as part of a nation s infrastructure, which we believe will better deliver on achieving the wellbeing of a nation s people. Traditionally, so called social infrastructure has been considered separately from things such as roads, rail or broadband. However for many, services such as childcare or social care are as crucial a factor in determining whether they can work, how many hours they can work and where they can work as more traditional physical infrastructure. If we take childcare as an example: The Welsh economy is currently not making the most of women s potential. Women s economic participation remains lower than that of men (72.4% compared with 80.3% 1. Women are more likely to work in part-time jobs, receive lower pay and work below their skill level. Childcare continues to be a key barrier for women in the workplace. This is evident in the economic participation rates of women with children aged 0-4, which at the UK level is just 65% compared with 74.5% for those without children. 2 The notable increase in the gender pay gap for older women further demonstrates the impact that caring can have on women s engagement with the labour market. There is increasing agreement of the importance of investing in social infrastructure such as care to not only address gender inequality but also drive economic growth. The New Economics Foundation recently stated that since childcare can play a pivotal role in entrenching or reducing income and gender inequalities public investment to raise quality [of childcare] and make it universally accessible will reap returns to individuals, society and the public purse. 3 This is echoed by the Women s Budget Group and Nesta. 4 Therefore, adopting a more strategic approach to delivering childcare and considering childcare provision as an economic prerogative could vastly improve the employment situation of women, which would in turn deliver economic growth. It is our view that including social infrastructure within the remit of the NIFCfW will help to ensure that such a strategic approach is taken and that the economic benefit of this investment is considered. The stated aim of the NIFCfW is to provide a better informed, longer-term 1 Nomisweb Labour Market Profile Wales Accessed ONS Partipation Rates in the UK New Economic Foundation The Value of Childcare: Quality, cost and time Women s Budget Group Investing in the caring economy the case for free, universal childcare in the UK 2016 / Nesta The Next Grand Infrastructure3 Project 2015 (Blog post; accessed )

6 strategy of investment in infrastructure which enshrines the principles of the Well-being of Future Generations Act. It is our opinion that this can only be achieved if the remit of the Commission includes social infrastructure. The Commission will need to be mindful of sustainability as defined in the WFG Act. This clearly states that sustainable development means the process of improving economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being of Wales. In this context we believe the case for including social infrastructure within the NIFCfW is even more compelling. Membership of the Commission will inevitably stem from the remit as this will guide the knowledge and expertise the Commission requires. It is our view that to even fulfil the role outlined in the consultation document to provide advice on the interactions between economic and environmental infrastructure and social infrastructure social infrastructure needs to be included in the remit. If not, there is a risk that the Commission will not have members with the required knowledge and experience to provide this expert guidance. Question 8 Do you agree that NIFCfW should work collaboratively with the UK National Infrastructure Commission where relevant? The relationship between the 2 bodies is vitally important to ensure synergy between investment on both side of the border and to explore the potential impact of projects on issues such as cross-border skills needs. Question 9: Do you agree that NIFCfW members should be appointed by virtue of their expert knowledge and experience? Any board should be comprised of members that have the required knowledge and experience and bring diversity of opinion to the table. It is likely that the remit of the NIFCfW will guide decisions about what knowledge and experience is required, which is why getting the remit right is such an important element of the development of the Commission. This is why we would argue for a wider definition of economic infrastructure to ensure that NICfW members are best equipped to provide the strategic advice and guidance that can ensure a coordinated approach is taken to delivering infrastructure projects across Wales. Effort should be made to broaden the talent pool of potential members to ensure diversity of opinion. In our work to address a lack of diversity on public boards we recommend that Boards carry out an audit of the skills, knowledge and experience that is needed, including diversity of voice. Such an audit should be carried out prior to opening up an appointment process for the NIFCfW.

7 It is our view that the Commission will need to carry out a range of engagement activities and be mindful of equalities issues in all that it does. As such, we would recommend that membership of the NIFCfW includes individuals with experience in these areas or alternatively, that all members of the Commission have access to appropriate training in these areas. Question 10: Do you agree that all appointments to NIFCfW should be made through an open public appointments exercise? Yes and it is very welcome to see the under-representation of some groups in public appointments considered and a recognition that the appointment process to the NIFCfW should seek to address this. An open public appointments exercise is important but should actively seek to appoint members who will ensure diversity of voice. We would also recommend that action be taken to ensure that the process addresses some of the identified issues that are contributing to a lack of diversity in public appointments. This is set out in more detail in answer to the question below. Question 11: How do you think we should promote this public appointments process to under-represented groups? With existing boards, the first step is often making the case that diversity will lead to better decision making. The creation of the NIFCfW offers the chance to build this understanding and gender balance in from the beginning. Those involved in the recruitment process must have an understanding of the importance of diversity and the impact of unconscious bias. Unconscious bias can be seen not only by discriminating against individuals but also in favour of individuals. Often, those with high profiles and/or a long career in public life can be favoured for public appointments, which tends to favour older white men. In our experience, the involvement of an independent panel member, who has experience of equality and diversity, can help to counter this favourable unconscious bias towards the more usual suspects. Crucially, the recruitment panel must be gender balanced and ideally chaired by an independent member. The recruitment process must be underpinned by an audit of what the board needs, including diversity of voice as outlined above. Question 12: Do you agree that NIFCfW should be able to commission targeted research? Please identify any specific research you think NIFCfW should commission as a priority in order to best inform its work, and explain why. Yes. Quality, up to date research is crucial to steer policy development. Depending on the final remit of the NIFCfW we would suggest that research

8 into the economic benefit of social infrastructure be carried out and further work be undertaken to inform how to maximise the benefit of procurement. Work to better understand the potential equalities impact of infrastructure investment would also be useful and support the Commission to make recommendations to WG that will deliver equally for everyone in Wales. Question 13: Do you agree that NIFCfW should publish an annual report on its work? What factors do you think might require reports to published more than once a year? An annual report would be in-keeping with the work of similar bodies carrying out work on behalf of the WG. We would be keen to see an annual report debated in Plenary to enable greater scrutiny and transparency. We can see the benefit of more regular reports in relation to specific projects should they be particularly large investments or if they offer a number of different options for next steps that would benefit from wider debate and scrutiny. Question 14: Do you agree that NIFCfW should hold public meetings in North, Mid, South and West Wales to explain and promote its role? Yes. This would be in-keeping with the principles of the WFG Act and would ensure that the NIFCfW is engaging with a wider variety of stakeholders. This should be in addition to engagement activities with communities that will be affected by specific projects. Your name/organisation and postal/ address Natasha Davies Chwarae Teg Natasha.davies@chwaraeteg.com We have asked a number of specific questions. If you have any related issues which we have not specifically addressed, please use this space to report them: We believe that the NIFCfW should carry out equality impact assessments on recommendations to WG. While such an assessment may well be carried out once projects have been agreed, we believe that an assessment of the potential impact on those with protected characteristics of different recommendations made by the Commission will ensure that Ministers have all relevant information to guide their decision making. Having access to such information would enable Ministers to make informed decisions based on a firm understanding of how different approaches or projects

9 may deliver on the various well-being goals, which include a more equal and more prosperous Wales. Responses to consultations are likely to be made public, on the internet or in a report. If you would prefer your response to remain anonymous, please tick here: