UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 601- iii

House of COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE

WELSH AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

PORTS IN WALES

Tuesday 23 JUNE 2009

MR MATTHEW KENNERLEY, MR DAVID WHITEHEAD and MR TED SANGSTER

MR KEFIN WAKEFIELD, MR BRYAN GRAHAM and MR RICHARD WORKMAN

Evidence heard in Public Questions 98 - 154

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Welsh Affairs Committee

on Tuesday 23 June 2009

Members present

Dr Hywel Francis, in the Chair

Mr David Jones

Alun Michael

Albert Owen

Hywel Williams

Mark Williams

________________

Memoranda submitted by Associated British Ports, British Ports Association and Milford Haven Port Authority

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Mr Matthew Kennerley, Port Director, South Wales Ports, Associated British Ports, Mr David Whitehead, Director, British Ports Association and Mr Ted Sangster, Chief Executive, Milford Haven Port Authority, gave evidence.

Q98 Chairman: Good morning and welcome to the Welsh Affairs Committee. For the record could you introduce yourselves, please?

Mr Sangster: Ted Sangster, Chief Executive, Milford Haven Port Authority.

Mr Whitehead: I am David Whitehead, Director of British Ports Association.

Mr Kennerley: I am Matthew Kennerley; I am the Port Director for ABP, South Wales Ports, so Cardiff, Barry, Newport, Port Talbot and Swansea.

Q99 Chairman: Could I begin by asking a pretty straightforward question. Obviously ports policy is a reserved matter whilst many of the relevant economic and transport policy areas are actually devolved. How does this affect the development of Welsh ports?

Mr Whitehead: I will start on that, Chairman. I think it is a complicated picture in terms of policy for Wales. Basically the overall policy is driven from London; we have an English and Welsh ports' policy. Some parts of the licensing regime are operated from Cardiff. Harbour Revision Orders, which are a very important part of development and licensing, are operated from London; so there are a few grey areas here and potential for confusion. If you look at the figures, Wales handles about 10% of the total UK throughput; England handles 400 million tonnes - I cannot give you the percentage, but a very high percentage - so inevitably there could be a tendency towards a concentration of English issues. And if you take Harbour Revision Orders there is a very small team in London dealing with those, so resources is a big issue as well.

Mr Sangster: Just a comment to add on to David's. Ports operate in a UK market - in fact a European and global market - and as such require recognition and support that takes that into account. There is some benefit in being part of a UK responsibility from that point of view but it does require, as David has touched upon, an understanding for the Welsh Assembly Government of the value and importance of ports in Wales in delivering to the Wales priority and the Wales economy as well. So as ports we have to balance that relationship between our accountability and responsibility in dealing with the UK Government, whilst also keeping the Welsh Assembly Government informed and working with them on those issues that are devolved and also provide value to them as well; so it is a two-way process that we have to balance and manage at the moment.

Q100 Mr Jones: The Committee has had evidence previously about the importance of the planning side infrastructure to ports and of course roads are a devolved issue in Wales. To what extent are you finding that there is coordination in policy between the Department for Transport, which is responsibility for ports, and the Welsh Assembly Government which is responsible for roads, in connection with the development of ports in Wales?

Mr Whitehead: I will start. Just taking strategic national corridors, for example, which have been identified in England, the map suddenly disappears when you get to Wales. We have been told that there will be a similar consultation for Wales fairly soon - we have not seen it yet - so we assume the links will come.

Q101 Mr Jones: We will be touching on that later, by the way.

Mr Whitehead: You are absolutely right. Ports, quite frankly, are only as good as their infrastructure connections. We have a TENs route identified in the north, not yet completed but at least identified - and my colleagues will come in - but certainly the southern route really suffers from lack of investment there. It is not just Wales. We talked about integration of policy; the problem that ports have is that because they are not a part of public spending they are essentially private sector. They are always a little bit at the margins when big decisions are made about transport spending and getting them to the forefront and getting them round the table when the big decisions are made is one of the big issues for us.

Mr Kennerley: Just speaking on behalf of the ports that we operate in South Wales, road connectivity has improved over the years in specific areas: for example, the southern distributor road around Newport enables good access on to the motorway system. The one area that requires continual work is the M4 and that provides linkage right through to the western most ports in Wales. There is a process ongoing at the moment for a new M4 route and we encourage improvements on the M4 but that has to be balanced in terms of its negative impact on the port and at the moment that M4 route is currently crossing the centre of Newport Dock, which obviously presents a number of operational commercial challenges. So it is having the right balance in terms of proper solutions and making sure that road development does not accidentally hinder port development at the same time.

Q102 Mr Jones: I can see the problem. What I wonder is whether it is being addressed in a coordinated manner between national government and the Welsh Assembly Government.

Mr Sangster: If I may just comment on that? Just building on what Matthew has said regarding the M4 corridor being of advantage to ports in South Wales, if you look further west at the ports at Fishguard, Milford Haven and Pembroke Dock, whilst that route is identified as part of the TENs network, so it has European acknowledgement of the strategic value of the route and UK support and Welsh Assembly Government for that, where there is a failure is in delivering to that in the particular context of the failure of the Welsh Assembly Government to fulfil the expectations and the needs of the Pembrokeshire economy in those ports in dualling the A40 beyond St. Clare's, which is a significant dampener on potential investment opportunities in west Wales and the use of those ports and a detractor from the use of the ports and the traffic making use of those ports.

Q103 Albert Owen: Mr Whitehead, you have mentioned the licensing arrangements and you are aware that the Marine Bill is going through Parliament today and that a new body is going to be set up. Do you have concerns that certain measures that will be devolved under the Marine Bill will go to the Assembly and that you will still be dealing with two separate departments and there might be some gold plating; or do you see an advantage of going to Cardiff first?

Mr Whitehead: That is a good $64,000 question.

Q104 Albert Owen: It is a good time to ask it.

Mr Whitehead: You are absolutely right. The Marine Management Organises for English ports will sweep up Harbour Revision Orders and licensing and so forth. The situation in Wales, as we understand it, is that those functions could well go to Cardiff. It is a question of resources and expertise because the Marine Bill sets up a huge marine planning process; it is putting all the licensing expertise together in one organises. It seems to us that it would make sense for all applications to go there and not to be split between two centres. But, you know, this is a calculation for us and where our best interests lie and if the decision goes to Cardiff we would say exactly the same - the resources have to be sufficient to be able to carry out this work. Ports fundamentally depend on these licenses.

Mr Kennerley: And the way that those organisations operate needs to be consistent as well across the UK because Welsh ports are not just serving Wales, they are serving a much broader hinterland into the Midlands and into the M4 corridor and are therefore competing with other ports in the rest of the UK. So if it is fully devolved it would need to be properly coordinated with what is going on in the UK as a whole.

Mr Sangster: UK ports fully support the Marine Bill and the principles behind it - the application of spatial planning to the coastal environment - and there is a very real opportunity being presented for a simplification, as you touched upon, and bringing all the consent processes into one well resourced and specialist body to do that. Wales is perhaps not taking full advantage of that and therefore Welsh ports are going to be not as advantaged as other ports in the UK because we will still have devolved responsibilities - and it looks as though we are going to be looking to Cardiff; and for non-devolved responsibilities to the MMO. I fully understand and support the need behind the principle of things in Wales need to be managed in Wales, but we have been urging the Welsh Assembly Government to take the pragmatic view of perhaps engaging with the MMO to make use of the high level of skills and resources that will be put in there for the MMO, to act on behalf of Wales to not put Welsh ports at a disadvantage in having to go to two different organisations or parts of the country for their processes.

Q105 Alun Michael: Just in parenthesis I am inclined to observe that the activity and the economic importance of the ports in some cases, particularly the case in Cardiff, is dramatically greater than it was 25 years ago, and perhaps this report might highlight that and any evidence that you would like to give us that would assess that would be useful. I just wanted to touch on two questions in relation to competitiveness. Witnesses have said to us that the UK ports are less competitive than those on the continent due to the lack of a public subsidy for ports' development. Do you agree?

Mr Whitehead: Yes; that is a certain disadvantage. The picture is not all gloom for the UK. The UK private sector ports industry system is a system that the industry is quite comfortable with and wants and we get clear advantages from that. Where we fall down is that we do not get the investment that the continental ports get, and especially they get road and rail connections relatively easily to their ports, paid for by the government, in a much more coordinated way than we do.

Mr Kennerley: It is a very difficult thing to measure as well in that continental ports are feeding into a much bigger hinterland, so there is a natural economy of scale for shipping to move in larger ships and therefore they have an advantage that they are feeding into a bigger population. But that can also present opportunities for UK ports and ports in Wales in that we can offer alternatives in terms of feeder-in cargoes and avoiding some of the big calls into the UK, possibly, and avoiding then long road haul links across the country and with associated environmental benefits as well. So there are opportunities there that might come out of feeding into a lower population, basically.

Mr Sangster: But there are other competitive disadvantages with container ports as well. One is in some of the support that David touched upon. In some aspects some continental ports get subsidy or the dredging is undertaken for them, rather than being the responsibility of the port. Secondly, a number of ports, such as mine in Milford Haven - and I believe that some of those in South Wales - are subject to the Habitats Directive and all our port is designated a special area of conservation. The way in which the UK has gone about that is different to the way in which many European countries have gone about it, in that in the UK we follow the letter of the Habitats Directive and the whole of the port - 60 square miles of the port is an SAC. In continental administrations such as Germany, Holland, France and so on the navigation channels and the ports themselves have been not put in the SAC in recognition of the economic and social value of the ports and not exposing this extra layer of environmental hurdles and legislation upon them. So that is an approach that the UK Government decided to take in following the letter of the Habitats Directive, which a more pragmatic approach, as taken by some of the continental countries would not have given us these extra hurdles, as it were. Another point of that of course, looking at the continent and the UK and Wales, are light dues. It does not affect ports directly but it affects the customers using the ports and the way in which the UK Government requires shipping companies to pay light dues and has recently increased those by a significant amount can put UK ports at a disadvantage in attracting some shipping calls, albeit, as Matthew has indicated, that can create secondary opportunities in terms of feeder services; but in the UK economy those feeder services probably cost extra in terms of servicing the basic economy requirements so there is a cost to the UK economy in doing that, whilst there might be an advantage to some UK ports.

Q106 Alun Michael: Each of your answers have indicated that there are swings and roundabouts.

Mr Kennerley: There are, yes.

Q107 Alun Michael: If there were specific concerns that you wanted to highlight we would be open to hearing about them.

Mr Kennerley: Just to add on to that and just building on what David was saying, we are funded very differently than a lot of different continental ports and we rely on meeting certain financial criteria in terms of port investment and some continental ports, because of the way they are funded, do not need to follow those specific criteria; so there is a different financial model then played out in terms of how the customers are charged and therefore which way their cargoes move through those facilities.

Q108 Alun Michael: The other issue at the moment is on the horizon rather than just outside the port, but perhaps particularly to Matthew Kennerley, the prospect of the Severn Barrage. You actually cover quite a range of ports so you have a variety of different responses probably.

Mr Kennerley: Yes.

Q109 Alun Michael: Do you see it as full of opportunities or problems or challenges?

Mr Kennerley: At the moment we are still looking at what various alternatives there are. There have been five schemes put forward now into phase 2 of the assessment and it will very much depend on which one of those schemes comes out. But if we are talking about a barrage across the Severn, which seems to be the scheme that everybody is more focused on, then clearly any obstruction that slows or has an effect on a ship's passage through to its destination or from its loading port creates a competitive disadvantage with a port that does not have that obstruction. So in terms of ongoing business then there is probably a negative impact on most of the business coming up beyond that barrage and that includes Cardiff, Newport and the Port of Bristol. The ports outside that barrage then are obviously clearly not affected, and we have Port Talbot down in the west that could benefit from that in that some of those ships might see that as a more viable alternative rather than coming all the way up the Estuary. There is a positive side to it as well because during the construction phase any port facilities in the Severn Estuary are clearly going to have a role to play in that in terms of moving materials and the whole logistics of building such a huge structure; so there is a potential positive there as well. I think providing the marine restriction, angles of that and how we get ships in and out of it efficiently without causing delays and at no extra cost, providing those things can be covered then it does not mean to say that a barrage could not be accommodated an dour ports could not operate in a viable manner, but there is a lot to think about.

Q110 Alun Michael: So are you saying that Cardiff and Newport in particular would be affected clearly, but would still have a business?

Mr Kennerley: They could still operate providing those issues of access through the barrage can be addressed and that there are no additional costs then presented to the ship owners, who will compare Newport with coast ports outside the barrage on the south coast or east coast even, or further round on the west coast.

Q111 Mark Williams: I would like to turn to some of the future opportunities available to the ports. We have heard in some of the submissions we have had about the future or the cruise market, the supply and generation of energy sources, energy generation on land adjacent to ports. What actions as port owners have you taken and continue to take to harness some of the new development opportunities at ports themselves or in terms of the development of trade routes? And fundamental to that what is the role of government? You have touched on the Welsh Assembly Government; what is the role of government to promote those opportunities?

Mr Sangster: To answer your last question by answering the first part of it, to give an example - cruise. There is a very real opportunity for Wales as a whole to benefit significantly in more active participation in the growing and expanding cruise market in which the market itself is expanding, and the interest in northern Europe and the British Isles as a cruising ground is expanding as well - it is growing at about 8% or 9% a year - the figure is not in my mind. Wales is under represented in terms of its participation and yet the reason why cruise passengers are attracted to north Europe and the British Isles are exactly the sort of things that Wales can provide - the culture, the history, the scenery, the atmosphere, the crafts and so on as well. So what has been happening over the past number of years is that ports working together in Wales, together with the Welsh Assembly Government and other tourist bodies from county councils-related, have been working together to promote Wales as a cruise destination, recognising that any one of us acting by ourselves are not going to be successful because no cruise company is going to want to send a ship to one port - it has to be a port as part of a package, part of a seven-day cruise or whatever. Indeed, that sort of partnership needs to go beyond Wales, so we forged links with Ireland, for example, and we recently, led by Anglesey County Council, were successful in getting an Interegg bid for about £1.4 million for a three-year programme for marketing the Celtic Sea for cruise. So that is a very real example of a market opportunity and the way in which ports in the private sector and the public sector locally and the Welsh Assembly Government can work together on behalf of, in this case, the whole of the Wales tourism.

Q112 Alun Michael: What are the origins of that initiative? Was it from the Assembly Government or was it yourselves as operators?

Mr Sangster: We as a port started ten years ago in promoting and selling the port and south west Wales to the cruise industry. We joined Cruise Europe, an organisation for European ports. We were one of the founder members of Cruise UK and from that and the contacts that we had and similar recognition happening elsewhere we were one of the founder members in Wales, in which the Wales Tourist Board, as was, was a driving force and that has been carried forward.

Mr Kennerley: We are similar. In terms of the cruise in particular we see cruise developing in Wales along the lines that Ted has described there, to build on to some of the attractions that Wales can offer in terms of its coastline and the various heritage sites and cities in the country. Longer term potentially for regional departure points so that as some of the bigger ports become focused on some of the bigger cruise lines then some of the more regionally operating cruise lines operating in more niche markets can use ports in Wales to embark and disembark their passengers at the start and the end of their cruise, and that is a different prospect altogether. We genuinely believe that in the future there is a potential for that. For ports in the scale that we are talking about, speaking frankly here, cruise ships do not tend to be huge revenue generators for ports; they are fairly limited. But they are potential huge revenue generators for the local authorities and for the local cities in terms of their offering. Whilst we have those facilities available to us we are actively encouraging that because that helps with the economic development of the areas around which and in which we are operating. So whilst it is not going to deliver huge financial advantages to our operations unless you are in the scale of, for example, Southampton, where we are handling up to 300 cruise calls a year, we believe it is still a useful addition to the port and it helps to promote the port and people have a different vision of what is going on inside the port as well. So there are societal improvements as well.

Q113 Mr Jones: This Committee has recognised that from Members of this Committee standing on the quayside at Stockholm last week with a huge cruise liner and there were thousands of people.

Mr Kennerley: It generates a lot of interest and it is an area we are supporting.

Mr Whitehead: The renewables industry is another big opportunity. You referred earlier to what does the industry do with the government, there has been some good material issued by DECC in terms of which ports are suitable places for servicing offshore wind farms and so forth. I think there are about four in Wales that have been identified, and then it is up to the ports to step forward with the investors to take that on. Matthew was saying that perhaps the cruise industry in its visits to ports does not generate a lot of money but with the renewables industry there could be a real opportunity there and it is something we are looking at. In terms of cooperation, we now have a system where every port is encouraged to produce a master plan, which identifies the pressure that that port will put on the local infrastructure, on the planning system and so forth. This was developed jointly with the DfT, so this again is ports perhaps speaking more clearly about what they are going to do and what their markets are going to do; so there has been some quite useful cooperation.

Mr Kennerley: Can I just go back to the question of energy - and I think Ted will comment on his area anyway - that energy is a big part of what we already do in terms of supplying energy producers, generators with power station, coal or other fuel sources. We see that the ports are well positioned from a land holding point of view, from the vessel access point of view as more generators rely on imported fuel supplies, whether that be coal, oil or biomass. Ports are unique in a way in that very often they are well connected into the local energy supply grids as well as the National Grid and we see that right across our South Wales ports, so there are opportunities in Wales to develop additional energy resources and there is talk of an energy gap in the UK within the next ten years or so or perhaps even sooner than that, and we see that our ports are in a very good position to provide locations for generators to build new power stations, whether they are biomass, multi-fuel, peaking plants, whatever - we have the facilities that can accommodate all of those things and it is one area where we have seen some fairly interesting developments. Prenergy, for example, in Port Talbot now have planning for a 300 megawatt woodchip burning power station. You mentioned the government and what their involvement is; I think what we need to see from the government is a consistent approach to planning to make sure that our ports which are industrially zoned we can continue to develop them as port locations, and whilst recognising that there are other leisure related activities in and around their boundaries that we are port locations and we have unique facilities here and we need to make sure that they are promoted in that way.

Q114 Mr Jones: To revert to the point you were making about the economic benefit of the cruise industry, has any research been carried out as to the per capita spend of cruise passengers in this country? The reason I raise it is that when we were in Tallinn in Estonia last week we were told that the average per capita spend was only €29 in the port.

Mr Kennerley: We did a study in Southampton - I spent some time working in that port - and a study was carried out there with the assistance of the local authority, I believe. An attempt was made to measure the economic value and if I recall - and again this would need to be checked against the documentation - it was anything between £50 and £100 per passenger and when you look at Southampton handling 650,000 passengers per year that is a significant impact into the local economy. I am not sure if anything has been done in Wales.

Mr Sangster: As part of Cruise Wales, as I mentioned, one of the first things that Cruise Wales did was to commission a study as to the market opportunity for cruise in Wales, commissioned from a company called GP Wild. As well as identifying the market opportunities one of the things they looked at was exactly that spend and they came up with figures, some of which are those that Matthew has mentioned, between £80 and £100 from each passenger going ashore and about £30 from each crew member as well going ashore because you had crew members going ashore, stretching their legs and going to the restaurant and getting a beer or going and getting some groceries or toiletries, whatever - they are a part of that spend as well.

Q115 Mr Jones: Would it be possible for you to point the Committee Clerk to that piece of research?

Mr Sangster: Yes.

Q116 Albert Owen: What is the impact of the trends of the international market and the increase in freight and container use and do you have any plans for future growth?

Mr Kennerley: There are three or four strands to our strategy moving forward and each one of our South Wales ports is slightly different in its hinterland and its capacity, but certainly for Cardiff and Newport there is a potential to develop more unit load business and from that encourage inward investment to develop facilities for logistics and distribution for secondary manufacturing that can build on a unit load operation. So instead of containers perhaps being routed through east-cost ports in the UK from deep sea lines, which all call on continental ports as they are coming through, there may be an opportunity to offer a more local port of entry for those cargoes, which would reduce road haulage and enable a longer sea journey basically. With that we see some of our port areas potentially and peripheral areas around - and this is the important thing, to make sure that local authority plans are engaged with the Port Master plans to make sure that those areas are also their potential to do this sort of additional processing and manufacturing and then get the value out of the goods that are coming through the port maximised. It is important to keep that value in the location where it would count. There will always be an element of through traffic serving a broader hinterland but we think that ports can play a much greater role in that economic development scene.

Q117 Albert Owen: So what you are describing is this new business or is it business that goes in via road or ship and across land more on to sea?

Mr Kennerley: As an island a lot of this business comes by sea anyway and that is really what we are talking about, offering alternative routes that means we can reduce the amount of road miles involved in some of the traffic that is coming into Wales, most of which now will have to come - when I am talking unit loads here, primarily heading for the retail sectors or secondary manufacturing - on a fairly long road haul at the moment or by rail from an east coast port. What we think there is potential to do is to offer a more locally based port option for those sorts of cargoes.

Chairman: Can I ask you, with all due respect, to answer the questions in a somewhat shorter form because we have a large numbers questions to ask you.

Q118 Albert Owen: Going on to the cruise business, the original question was what has been the role of government and obviously there is need for assistance with infrastructure. Some of these vessels that we have seen now and the potential for growth in the future are going to require deep water and they are going to require longer berths, which are hugely expensive to build, particularly, as Mr Whitehead said, it is not great business for the port itself. So do you see the role of Cruise Wales to facilitate between yourselves as the operator and the government to get a package together?

Mr Sangster: Yes. If Wales is to realise the full potential of cruise Wales needs to have berths that can accommodate cruise ships up to 300 metres in length. It does not at the moment. Wales of course can take ships up to about 150 to 200 metres and we can take them longer than that but they have to anchor and tender their passengers ashore, which is increasingly less acceptable, as you will probably be familiar with. So the Welsh Assembly Government have indicated through the work that they have been doing with Cruise Wales there are possibilities for such developments in North Wales at Holyhead and in South Wales in Milford Haven, where in Holyhead there is a facility with the Rio Tinto Jetty, which can be converted, and work is being done on that and in Milford Haven there is a sight currently owned Pembrokeshire County Council which we are working with the County Council and the Welsh Assembly Government in developing that site for multi use and one of those uses is a deep water, large cruise ship berth.

Q119 Albert Owen: Just on that, you said about the growth being 8% to 9% expanding business. Is it not the case though that the bids for cruise liners in two or three years have to be done now in the international market, and is there clarity that these berths are going to be ready by then?

Mr Sangster: You are quite right that cruise ship marketing is a slow burn, so if you were talking to cruise customers now you might get them in four or five years' time. Once you have credibility they will make bookings for you a couple of years ahead. One thing that Holyhead has found, with the indication that they are on their way to providing what is being looked at for a long time, an alongside cruise ship berth, their bookings for the intervening period have increased significantly. So if you can work with the cruise industry and show that you are working with them and you are finding a solution they will then come back and they will partner with you to enable you to build up to that. But you need to be quite firm about it and to demonstrate that what you are saying will be delivered.

Q120 Albert Owen: You mentioned Cruise Europe, Cruise Britain, Cruise Wales: is there not a niche market for Celtic - you touched on it. We saw the Baltics coming together and having destinations to four or five unique destinations. Is there a plan that Cruise Wales has to adopt that on the western seaboard?

Mr Sangster: Absolutely and that is the basis of the Interegg bid that I mentioned of €1.4 million to market the Irish Sea - a partnership between the south west England, Ireland and Wales and around the Mersey and the Isle of Man, to promote a cruising ground, if you like, in the Irish Sea.

Q121 Mark Williams: Just to go back to the issue again about who is responsible for the promotion of development opportunities - this is addressed to Mr Kennerley. In your written submission you noted about a large number of business with extensive supply chains have been encouraged to locate in Wales and you cited the example of Amazon, but you gloomily went on to point out that companies have not been made aware of the offering of ports and what ports are able to offer them. How big a concern is that and, again, should that promotional work be the role of government or local authorities or the port operators themselves?

Mr Kennerley: It should be a joint effort really. Clearly we are out there marketing our own facilities but I think those introductions could be made sooner to many operators or many potential business development proposals.

Q122 Mark Williams: Who would you look to facilitate that?

Mr Kennerley: It should be coming through WAG really who are making those introductions and thinking about the port resource - this is the point I made earlier - that is on their doorstep and making sure then that thereafter everything else then, the planning regimes that apply are conducive to that sort of development to bring that value added benefit into the local economy.

Mr Whitehead: If I might add a point? Perhaps one of the difficulties has been getting the Welsh ports collectively to come together and express themselves as Welsh ports. And we have just set out a Welsh ports group, which met at the beginning of June and there were WAG officials there, all around the table talking together about opportunities and the relationship with WAG and the relationship with DfT, so we regard that as a really important step so that maybe things like inward investment can be addressed by that group and they can start to produce material and a website and so forth to do that; so the industry has started to get together a bit more.

Q123 Hywel Williams: Good morning. Can I ask you about the use of land and how do you balance the shorter term demands that you might have with the longer term expansion aims of the port itself, for example in Milford Haven. Is there a tension there? How would you achieve that?

Mr Sangster: You are quite right, there is; and I can point to ports elsewhere in the UK in which short term decisions are being taken which are then denied access because that land is being put to other uses, maybe housing or warehousing, whatever, that has denied its use for port development in the future. In our own local context there are not many sites with access to the water. Our policy is working with the county council, is to identify their sites and with the county council identify appropriate use for those sites, which is access to the water. One of the largest sites is actually owned by the county council so our arguments fell on to very receptive ground and we are working collaboratively with them to ensure that that site is developed appropriately; but there are other smaller sites as well that, if allowed to be developed for particular uses, could deny opportunities for expansion even in a leisure capacity for more marinas and moorings and so on in the future, and that is in the forefront. The planning system - and certainly in our own context, the way in which the county council and the National Park are going about their development plans to identify such sites, we have had the opportunity to put in our views as indeed have others as to appropriate development.

Q124 Hywel Williams: Is this the case generally for other parts apart from Milford Haven? I am thinking in my own area of a very small leisure development in Pwllheli where there have been problems in developing the quayside for the marina because of the uses that have been allowed over the years and clearing all that away is hugely problematic. Thinking in entirely another context - the building of a car park is going to probably make it difficult to have a cargo handling facility in a particular place. To the other two witnesses, do you think that there is sufficient recognition within local planning policies of participating in planning in this respect?

Mr Kennerley: There are issues there and I can think of some examples in Swansea where we have seen the development of SA1 and the potential marine there with leisure and retail around it and clearly that is very close to some of the port activities and some of the port areas that we see as having continued commercial potential for biomass power stations, for example. I think that the planning regime does create some issues there in terms of how schemes like that which could generate a bit of noise and bit of dust now and then are potentially perceived locally. Clearly our master planning process is about identifying those areas and making sure that we protect our interests in those areas and keep them available for commercial development.

Mr Whitehead: I am not aware of any particular problems. Obviously once you develop waterside land that is it, you have lost it; and it is a very precious commodity - quite a rare commodity as well in many ways. So the planning system has to be thoughtful about what it does. I come back again to this issue of master planning - each port articulating what it wants to do in a clear way so that all the planners and everyone involved - potential investors - can see what the picture is.

Q125 Mr Jones: Can we return to the national corridors that we touched on earlier in this evidence session? The BPA's submission raises concerns of course about the fact that Welsh road routes are not part of the Strategic National Corridors; how do you think that that could be resolved?

Mr Whitehead: We wait expectantly for this new consultation actually. When this group met in June we were told that the arrows do not disappear at the Welsh border and in fact there will be something there, there will be proposals there. So obviously it is difficult to comment on something that we have not seen. But these north and south routes, it is said so often are so fundamental to the ports themselves and as Eddington showed the investments in links to the report produce excellent value for money as well; so these things are all tied in.

Q126 Mr Jones: You did not quite answer my question though. The question was how do you think it should be resolved? Clearly it would appear that on your evidence there is a disconnect between the road infrastructure in England and Wales.

Mr Whitehead: First of all, we have to see what the plans are and then we have to see where the funding might come from, and that might be TENs funding or other sources of funding. It could be that there is a turn to develop a contribution. One of the difficulties we have in England is that if you want to develop a port infrastructure connected to a port then the port is expected to make contributions to those developments; so that is possibly another option that we have. We are waiting to see what the proposals are.

Q127 Mr Jones: To what extent and how do you feel that Welsh ports could be more involved in consultation on transport spending decisions?

Mr Sangster: If I can put things in a local context I mentioned the corridor that I mentioned, the A40, because the Welsh Assembly Government is in total control about that. What is needed there is active consultation between us and the government and the south west Wales business community, the ports, the county council and so on, and working to find a satisfactory solution which has not happened. There is a patchwork of partial development taking place which does not really address in any satisfactory manner the real needs that this could bring about. In the context of the relationship between your original question to David about the Department for Transport and the Welsh Assembly Government, the answer in the current situation is that close collaboration and working together and working in concert at the same sort of time scales rather than the impression given at the moment is the difference to the levels of time scale and also detail as well. It may well be all going very well behind the scenes but like a swan sitting on the water there is lots of activity happening underneath but our impression is that there does not appear to be much happening on the top.

Q128 Mr Jones: Do you have any evidence that anything is going on behind the scenes?

Mr Sangster: The confirmation that we have had from our discussions as the Welsh Ports Group with the Welsh Assembly Government, that there will be a statement coming out very soon which will demonstrate the way in which they are in accord with linking up with the work that is being done in England.

Q129 Alun Michael: Could I ask you particularly about Milford Haven. What changes you are experiencing particularly in relation to security requirements as a result of recent developments and do you feel that the level of policing and security arrangements is adequate?

Mr Sangster: As a port, having operated ferries since the 1970s to Ireland we are well used to terrorism security provisions under the various requirements in that part of our business. Having supported major sites with the oil refineries over the years they and therefore we are well used to the security provisions regarding those sites. You are quite right, there has been an increase in the level of interest and an increase in the level of perceived risk associated with changes that have taken place and physical changes with the new LNG terminals being built now on stream, and that has provided a sharper focus. Running alongside that was the introduction of the international shipping port facility code about four years ago and, more recently, the European security requirements as well. Then the instability with the terrorism threats. The terminals comply with all the existing regulations and requirements. They are actually exercised and demonstrated and we in our port have taken the lead in coming together as individual operators to work collaboratively with TRANSEC, the security part of the Department for Transport, and other agencies including the police and Special Branch, to share information and to have a concerted approach. In the context of you mentioning the police and their resources, I know that Dyfed Powys Police have been making representations for improved facets to enable them to better deliver to what they see ---

Q130 Mr Jones: It is a long established tradition I have to tell you.

Mr Sangster: Quite rightly, yes. They have made a very good case to us and we support that case. They have made it elsewhere; they have yet to get an answer to it, I understand. If you have not already you will be receiving their case in evidence from them. We and the port community, including the LNG and the oil terminals in Milford would support the case they are making for a greater range of assets, particularly in marine assets, to enable them to undertake security responsibilities.

Chairman: Thank you very much for your evidence today and also thank you for your written evidence. I apologise for rushing you earlier on but we have a very tight schedule today and I hope you appreciate that. If you feel that there are other matters that you would like to raise with us we will be very happy to receive a further memorandum from you.

Memoranda submitted by City and Council of Swansea

and Pembrokeshire County Council

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Mr Bryan Graham, Head of Planning Services, Mr Richard Workman, Director of Technical Services, Carmarthenshire, City and County of Swansea and Mr Kefin Wakefield, Head of Economic Development, Pembrokeshire County Council, gave evidence.

Q131 Chairman: Good morning and welcome to the Welsh Affairs Committee. Could you for the record introduce yourselves, please?

Mr Workman: Good morning; I am Richard Workman, Director of Technical Services at Carmarthenshire County Council and the current Officer Chair of SWWITCH, which is the Regional Transport Consortia for south west Wales.

Mr Graham: Good morning; I am Bryan Graham, Head of Planning Services in Swansea Council.

Mr Wakefield: Good morning; I am Kefin Wakefield, Head of Economic Development for Pembrokeshire County Council.

Q132 Chairman: Thank you very much. Could I begin by asking you a straightforward question: as local authorities what influence or impact or involvement you have at the Welsh level and at the UK level in terms of port development?

Mr Graham: If I could start - and obviously I am speaking specifically from a Swansea perspective? The council through the planning process provides the land use planning framework, the spatial planning policies for the development of the port at Swansea and its hinterland. In my evidence and submission I have described that process in relation to the preparation of the council's Unitary Development Plan, which was adopted last year, and obviously there was an extensive consultation process that that involved, including, for example, consultation with the Department for Transport in England, which obviously has responsibility for policy in relation to ports; but, more specifically, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Association of British Ports. So, very briefly, that is a description of the role of the planning process.

Mr Workman: From the Transport Consortia auspices, Chairman, obviously we are putting together a Regional Transport Plan within the context of the Wales transport plan, which actually sets the context for priorities within the region. All of those priorities are not necessarily in our own gift to deliver because the trunk roads and the rail system are within WAG's auspices. However, what the Regional Transport Plan will enable us to deal is to deal with the issues of connectivity that we have been hearing about from previous evidence and access to the ports in trying to build the network to give better access to the ports and egress from the ports.

Mr Wakefield: In Pembrokeshire many of the developments along the Milford Haven Waterway have been of a scale that has taken them outside of normal planning regulations. More recently - or most recently - the construction, the approval of the new power station was 2000 megawatts and that fell within the remit of DECC. The process there took approximately four years from submission through to consent. The local authority influence I think is principally through the local development planning process and through the transport network which services the roads around the Haven as opposed to into the county. We also have interests within some of the environmental controls and regulations and a special area of conservation in and around the Milford Haven Waterway.

Q133 Alun Michael: I think you have set the context in terms of the planning processes, both locally and more widely but I wonder if I can ask more in terms of the needs of ports and how they get promoted. Where you see the ports and where they lie in your authority's priorities, is the importance of the ports something that is going up, going down or standing still? How do you proactively seek to ensure that the ports in your authority's area are the ones that are successful?

Mr Wakefield: If I may start, Chairman? We have just done some work through our own county council scrutiny committee to look at the impact of the energy sector; clearly the energy sector along the Milford Haven Waterway is a consequence of the deep water facilities of the port itself and led to the establishment of the port authority as an authority. So the impact is very considerable. The energy sector employs over 2000 people and generates £100 million a year into the local economy. The marine sector on top of that will generate additional jobs and additional spend and the diversification of that marine sector, particularly into marine leisure, is something that we encourage and we see as having further growth potential. The difficulty, as Mr Sangster referred to, is looking to the future and trying to understand how you accommodate the changing needs of ports in an uncertain world. He referred to a particular site which has reasonable access to deep water, which we are working with the port authority to try and find a way of bringing that forward for development; but the nature and cost of that development has many variables - how big that site should be, how much reclamation, what are the access and services costs for serving it, what the end use might be and is it a viable proposition to bring forward all imponderables at this stage, which we are starting to address? It is a complex challenge to try and look into the crystal ball to see what the optimum development might be for the future of the port and wider economy.

Q134 Alun Michael: And that is something that the local authority, if I understand you correctly, is taking a lead on rather than being reactive?

Mr Wakefield: Very much. We work strongly in partnership with the port authority because they are more than a port authority; they are a vehicle for regeneration as far as we are concerned and are therefore key partners within the planning process for the Pembrokeshire economy.

Q135 Alun Michael: In Swansea of course there is a different situation.

Mr Graham: Yes, I think that there is an extensive and ongoing liaison associated with British ports to try and ensure that we meet their requirements, whether it is in terms of land use planning, the safeguarding of operational land and the importance of striking a balance between the retention of that land and the marina development, of which there has been quite a lot in Swansea, as you are probably aware, and reference was made by one of the previous speakers to the potential conflicts that that can generate; although I would stress that that development effectively went ahead with the blessing of the port to the extent that it was surplus land, it was redundant land that was released which they no longer required. Certainly a fundamental principle that we adopt is that we rely on ABP to tell us what land and facilities they need because of the importance that the authority does attach to the port's continuing success as an operational port. In economic development terms we also have regular meetings with the ABP operators and provide what support we can for local firms to use the port facilities and also to benefit from tourism derived initiatives, such as the Swansea-Cork ferry and services to Devon, which are due to come into effect next year.

Mr Wakefield: From a SWWITCH perspective obviously we work under the auspices of all four local authorities in the region, so we are promoting the aims of the four authorities. A lot of what we do is look at east-west connectivity as a whole that you mentioned, which, by definition, has a general benefit to the ports because, again, as we heard earlier, those are the routes which need to be improved. More specifically our Regional Transport Plan, which is due to be submitted in September, identifies a number of priorities which will have a direct impact on the ports. So, for instance, there is significant investment continuing to go into the Port Talbot distributor road, which will provide a much better access into the facility there, and that is planned in the next two to three years. We are continuing to promote Assembly Government improvements to the A40. There are some improvements taking place but we are promoting further improvements. Some of the local access issues around Pembrokeshire and Milford Haven, again it is contained within the Regional Transport Plan. So the Regional Transport Plan does directly address the issue of ports and, more generally, addresses the issue of accessibility; so there are specific examples of how we are promoting that.

Q136 Alun Michael: Can I ask you about the role of the public sector in relation to private ports?

Mr Graham: ABP is obviously a private company but I would not say that that has any effect in the way that we deal with them.

Q137 Alun Michael: No issues?

Mr Graham: Not that I would say.

Mr Wakefield: In terms of Fishguard, which is a private port, again I think we have a very positive working relationship with Stena, and we share development objectives for the port and diversification of the port, which to some extent was triggered by the Welsh Assembly Government and their regeneration response to a major closure in Fishguard, which resulted in a regeneration plan for the town in which quite clearly the port played an port role. So a positive working relationship.

Q138 Alun Michael: Could I finally ask about the approach in Pembrokeshire to suggestions of privatisation of Milford Haven?

Mr Wakefield: I think our concern is that there may be pressure for privatisation, and the port as I mentioned earlier is more than just a Port Authority. I think our concerns would be found at a number of levels. I think the first level is that clearly the port, or the operations around the port dependent on the port, are there largely in the national interest; that the public face of the port provides a management of the port which does not allow it to, if you like, be held ransom in any way; so there is a national interest concern: but the more local concern is that the operations along the port are intrusive within the landscape, and to some extent some of the operations are intrusive from a community point of view. The Port Authority can pay back and offset some of that negative effect through its own investments in refurbishing areas which have become derelict, and there are two examples, I suppose: the first would be Milford Docks which, in the decline of the fishing sector, was left derelict; the Port Authority was instrumental in finding a new use and bringing that forward in a way which helped to add value to the town, by diversifying the town's offer; and, secondly, within Pembroke Dock, where the legacy of many Georgian structures were decaying, the Port Authority again became involved in helping to restore some of those structures. It is also involved in helping to diversify the offer in Pembroke Dock, again through its engagement in some marina-related developments and port-related developments.

Q139 Alun Michael: You would see those sorts of things put at risk, would you?

Mr Wakefield: Yes, I think we acknowledge, we would recognise, that some of that investment does not offer a return on investment in the strict sense, at least in the short-term. We also have the view that much of the Welsh Assembly Government's priorities for investment lie further east; and this helps to restore some sense of balance in terms of investment in infrastructure within the county.

Q140 Mark Williams: Mr Wakefield has actually pre-empted my question in terms of the community engagement dimensions of this. How do you balance the port's need for efficient freight movements with the needs of the community and the needs of the environment more generally? You talked about an investment by the Port Authority back into those communities. Could you say any more specifically on that, or your colleagues?

Mr Wakefield: I think we are fortunate in having an Authority which is proactive in the way in which it deals with both the community and its environmental challenges. There is a very good communications team and a good public relations programme of activities which help to bridge the gap, and therefore puts the Port Authority as being part of the Haven community. Similarly, in terms of the environment, the Port Authority has been proactive in hosting activities - the Marine Forum, for example, and the Pembrokeshire Coastal Forum. They will host these activities within their own offices and infrastructure and support them I think in an open-handed and fair way. I think there are a lot of public relations in this.

Q141 Mark Williams: If there was likely to be a predicted increase in traffic flows to your port, to Milford Haven, or Fishguard for that matter, would the county council proactively engage with the community and alert them of that; or would there be a response from the community - predictable pressure groups emerging and then campaigning in that way?

Mr Wakefield: It depends upon the nature of the business I think. Once you start talking about LNG, which is highly specialised, I think we prefer that the engagement is led by the experts who have the responsibility for managing that activity. We are very happy; clearly we have our own engagement processes with our communities and structures in place; and in the normal course of events we would discuss these things and reach a sensible conclusion on the best way forward.

Mr Graham: I think it is undeniable that in Swansea there are tensions, and there have been historically, between the operational activities of the port and the adjacent communities. I am talking not just about SA1 - which is the generic name for the regeneration of the eastern side of the Tawe River; the redevelopment and regeneration initiative that has gone on over the last seven or eight years - but also the existing communities of St Thomas and Port Tennant which are to the north of the dock on the other side of Fabian Way. I do not know if members are familiar with Swansea at all, but this is an area of inter-war housing which actually overlooks the docks, and historically there have been issues with port activities, particularly in relation to the movement of aggregates and coal and associated environmental problems that have occurred. In terms of the Authority's response and role, I think it is fair to say that has again been largely carried out through the planning process. I do not think there have been any wider community-based initiatives. Reference was made by a previous witness to a biomass application. This was a planning application for a biomass plant within the docks that was actually refused planning permission by the council. I had actually recommended it for approval, but there was a tremendous weight of local objection, and members of the planning committee decided to refuse it because of their concerns over the perceived adverse impacts that it would have. I suppose fundamentally there is a lot of local member engagement, representation and interest in the operation of the docks. I would say that currently, and given that there are still activities at the port associated with the transfer of coal and aggregates, there are not any ongoing environmental or so-called pollution issues; so it is something that we are able to balance.

Q142 Hywel Williams: I did ask the previous witnesses about land use and would like to ask you the same sort of questions. Mr Graham, you said earlier on that you had extensive consultations in the planning process and also that you worked with Associated British Ports?

Mr Graham: Yes.

Q143 Hywel Williams: How do you identify - perhaps in Pembrokeshire as well - what surplus land is available? How can that be put to use without compromising the future developments of the ports?

Mr Graham: I think it is fair to say that we have relied on ABP to identify land that they consider to be surplus and we have not carried out any objective or empirical analysis of our own to decide how much land the port needs for operational purposes; we feel that is ABP's business, frankly. With the Unitary Development Plan, if you look at the end of my evidence I included an extract from the proposals map and it shows not just where the SA1 regeneration development has taken place and is scheduled to expand, but also there is some pink land there which is employment land; that is vacant land at the eastern end of the Kings and Queens Docks, which again has been identified with ABP's approval. As I say, we rely on them to identify their operational requirements, and then the regeneration and the use of land that is surplus is put forward based on what is considered to be the most appropriate use of that land. The fact, as I say, that the port still carries on as an operating port and new development is taking place it does seem to coexist reasonably comfortably. I think it is interesting that when a planning application comes in, such as the biomass, then public consultation takes place and that will then provoke a reaction based on fears of what the impact may be. In terms of existing issues, the uses seem to coexist reasonably well.

Mr Wakefield: In Pembrokeshire the existing Unitary Development Plan is a joint one with the National Park. There are policies, which you have received in evidence, which set out our position. We try to be proactive, in the sense that in considering a marina development at Fishguard it has been possible to look at how such a development could result in an extension of land for the port. There is an added value to the port from a leisure development, and I think that is a happy coincidence. The new Local Development Plan is at a process at which people have been invited to submit candidate sites. We, as an authority, and the Port Authority, have flagged up areas of interest within that process; but we are still at a stage in that process at which they are purely aspirations on a piece of paper; so it is rather premature really to talk about the conclusion to that process.

Q144 Hywel Williams: On a different tack, could I just ask all three of you if you have any thoughts on the potential for the cruise markets as far as Wales is concerned?

Mr Workman: From a transportation viewpoint, clearly there are issues in terms of developing the cruise market. Tourism plays a major role in the whole region's economy. Within an hour of ports - and again this comes back to improving local access to visitor facilities within the region, bearing in mind the expenditure we were hearing about earlier - I think there are issues about ensuring that if that particular area is developed then people have good access to the facilities and opportunities they would wish to take once they actually arrive at the ports.

Mr Graham: Cruise ships have started to visit Swansea; it is a recent development. My understanding is that it does benefit the town, the city, perhaps in a more direct way than necessarily the ferry terminal did. Obviously people came across when the Swansea ferry was open and I am glad to see that it is due to reopen next year. A lot of users will arrive at the port and head off away; whereas with the visits of the cruise ships they will focus on Swansea, the Gower Peninsula and the spend that comes in is retained in the towns. That is my understanding.

Mr Wakefield: There have been cruise liners visiting Milford Haven and Fishguard over a number of years in relatively small numbers. We see it as important for the spend that they bring to the local economy. We see it as important because it opens up Pembrokeshire as a destination to new largely international markets, which is a good thing. As a local authority we work with Stena or with the Port Authority to support them, if you like, on the landward support side, whether it is encouraging shopkeepers to open their doors maybe when they are used to closing them on a Wednesday afternoon; or, indeed, supporting and assisting in terms of guides, transport or whatever.

Q145 Alun Michael: I wonder if I could return specifically to Swansea, because I am a little bit puzzled between the earlier answer that Mr Graham gave and I wonder if he would like to have another go. You said there are no problems with the public sector support for developing Swansea Docks; your later answer seemed to be much more about leaving it to ABP - let them decide how they want to use the land; yet you have acknowledged yourself, in talking about the potential of tourist ships and so on, that there is a much wider implication than just implications for business in the port by some of the activities that can be developed. Surely the City of Swansea has to be very positively engaged, does it not, in projecting the future, looking at the opportunities that can be grasped and so on, as well as reacting to any plans from ABP about how they use their land?

Mr Graham: Absolutely. The point I was trying to make was that we rely on APB through the development plan process to identify the land that they need to carry out their dock operations.

Q146 Alun Michael: That will have changed over recent years. The dock's operations have changed a lot. There were hardly any in Cardiff 25 years ago; there is an awful lot happening now and it is expanding.

Mr Graham: Bear in mind we are talking about a substantial area of land and impounded water at Swansea. They have been able to declare land surplus to operational requirements and still retain significant landholding facilities there.

Q147 Alun Michael: Could I just explore the other bit of engagement, because one of the things we said to the earlier witnesses was that there was evidence of, in some cases, finances available in the local area to ports in Europe which are not available to ports in Wales. What sort of support does the City of Swansea give to the port? Has there been any issue of public sector funding, for instance, under EC or state aid support at any time?

Mr Graham: I do not think so. I have to qualify my response because it is not my area of responsibility. I am reasonably certain that the Authority has not provided financial support to the Port Authority. I can verify that and come back to the Committee.

Q148 Alun Michael: How about transport facilities related to the docks? Again, we heard in earlier evidence that a dock is only as good as the transport for getting stuff out and away. Is that a priority as far as Swansea is concerned?

Mr Graham: I think Swansea is well placed in terms of connectivity, to use the phrase, given that there is a dual-carriageway link literally from the entrance to the docks, to the M4, to the motorway network. Clearly reference has been made to problems elsewhere further down the M4; but in terms of accessing the motorway network it is probably no more than two or three miles at most from the entrance to the port to the nearest M4 junction. There is also a dedicated rail link to the port. I do not believe it is in use at the moment but it is there and it is safeguarded. Fabian Way, which is the dual-carriageway link from the port, is due to be trunked by the Assembly.

Q149 Alun Michael: As a city do you have a vision for the future of the port within the future of the wider docks area? Is it a vision you share with ABP?

Mr Graham: I think it is. Not just in the Local Development Plan but in the Council's Economic Development Strategy and reflected in the Wales Spatial Plan there is an acknowledgement of the importance that the port plays in terms of the prosperity of the town as a whole.

Q150 Mr Jones: A couple of questions for Mr Wakefield. The memorandum that you supplied to the Committee highlights the opportunities provided by the TENs review. Why would you say that such opportunities had not been provided in the past; and what do you think could be done differently this time?

Mr Wakefield: It has not been immediately obvious to us as a local authority how the prioritisation of TENs within UK Government, Welsh Government and Irish Government planning processes has been joined up. For example, our understanding is that the Irish Spatial Plan process seeks to reduce the congestion in and around Dublin and encourage growth points more extensively around the country. Whilst TENs covers the northern and southern routes, it is not immediately obvious how the Irish Government aspiration to reduce congestion in Dublin ties in with investment on the southern corridor as one way of helping to reduce that congestion. I think we would welcome some further clarity really around that issue, and indeed how the TENs review, which is shortly to commence, is going to consider that question.

Q151 Mr Jones: Thank you. You have also mentioned in your memorandum that you would wish this Committee to look very carefully at the response capability of the Dyfed Powys police given the recent expansion of the number of port-related installations that may be regarded as critical national infrastructure. What are your specific concerns about Dyfed Powys police's capability?

Mr Wakefield: In preparing evidence for this Committee I consulted with other colleagues, including our emergency planning officer; I think the point has probably been covered by Mr Sangster. The increase in installations of national and international interest and importance has expanded. The UK economy is, to a significant extent, dependent upon the energy installations along the Haven; and it is a concern, I think, which has been talked about elsewhere that there needs to be adequate police resources to respond to issues which may arise in the future.

Q152 Mr Jones: Do you have doubts about the capacity of Dyfed Powys police in this regard?

Mr Wakefield: Certainly Dyfed Powys police have expressed concerns about their capacity.

Q153 Mr Jones: That is a concern you share, clearly?

Mr Wakefield: Yes.

Q154 Mr Jones: What about the emergency services, apart from the police?

Mr Wakefield: I am not probably terribly well qualified to talk about fire, ambulance and health facilities in general. There have been concerns frankly in the past but I am not really in a position to quantify or detail those concerns.

Chairman: Thank you all for your evidence this morning, and also for your written evidence. Again, I would repeat what I said earlier, if you feel there are points which we have not covered today we will be very pleased to receive a further memorandum from you.