1.0

Introduction

1.1

Transport for the North (TfN) is the statutory Sub-national Transport Body established by Government (pursuant to the Order made on 22nd January 2018) and whose functions include:

a)     To prepare a transport strategy for its area

b)    To provide advice to the Secretary of State about the exercise of transport functions in relation to its area (whether exercisable by the Secretary of State or others)

c)     To co-ordinate the carrying out of transport functions in relation to its area that are exercisable by different constituent authorities, with a view to improving the effectiveness and efficiency in the carrying out of those functions

1.2

The Transport for the North (TfN) Board is the voice of the North of England for transport; it is formed of elected leaders, and business leaders from across the whole of the North of England. It collectively represents over 15 million people in the North.

1.3

Complementing the work of local transport authorities, and with powers devolved down from central Government rather than up from local Government, our statutory role is to advise Government in a way that ensures that funding and strategic decisions about transport in the North are informed by local knowledge, expertise and requirements.

1.4

Alongside local political leaders, our Board also has representatives from the national delivery partners (Network Rail, Highways England and HS2 Ltd) and works closely with our neighbours in Scotland, Wales and the Midlands.

1.5

National Highways operate under a licence through which the Secretary of State for Transport sets out statutory directions and guidance. 
We ask that Government amend the licence to reflect TfN’s statutory role and in doing so require National Highways to formally consider the advice provided by TfN, and to provide a formal response as to how that advice is reflected in the Road Investment Strategy.
 

1.6

TfN welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Transport Select Committee inquiry into Strategic Road Investment in England.

2.0

General comments
 

2.1

TfN strongly advocates the need for a ‘whole journey’ and ‘total network’ approach to improving transport outcomes, encompassing all travel modes. This requires a move away from siloed delivery strategies and funding, so that investment is not constrained to a narrow set of modally based options. Removing these barriers is critical to enabling more user-centred, place-based and outcome focused investment decisions. For example, greater investment in active travel and/or public transport as part of strategy to reduce reliance on car borne traffic will contribute to reducing traffic congestion.

2.2

TfN has consistently argued as to the benefits of the Department providing an indicative funding allocation for the North as a means of enabling the move away from siloed thinking.  Such an approach would enable the Board to consider strategic investment priorities in the round, and across modes, thereby enabling the Board to provide better advice to the Secretary of State.  The TfN Board’s advice is prepared with reference to the published Strategic Transport Plan: a statutory document prepared in consultation with its partners and grounded in the most comprehensive evidence base established at the regional level.

2.3

In this way TfN would be able to ensure that its advice on investment priorities reflects agreed strategic outcomes for the North, whilst recognising the need for the Secretary of State to be able to consider that advice in the wider national context.

2.4

Future transport investment programmes must support the need for better outcomes in transport decarbonisation, greater inclusivity, improved biodiversity, and sustainable growth in economic productivity.  If the North is to achieve economic growth that is truly sustainable in the long term, investment in transport infrastructure and services should be targeted at supporting the least carbon intensive modes first. Improving public transport (bus, tram, metro, and rail) is critical to reducing reliance on the car for the medium and longer distance trips.  These are the trips which account for the most carbon, nitrous oxide, and particulate emissions, and which give rise to high levels of congestion on the strategic and local road network. 

2.5

TfN’s ground-breaking Regional Decarbonisation Strategy has identified the urgent need to ensure that future investment decisions reduce the environmental impact of transport.  In addition, TfN’s work on Transport Related Social Exclusion serves to highlight the extent to which the current modal/siloed approach has resulted in a car-centric transport system which excludes the more vulnerable community members from accessing services and opportunities. TfN’s Regional Decarbonisation Strategy set out the importance of ensuring that transport investment is consistent with targets to achieve net zero carbon emissions, that includes investment in road, rail and local transport. 
 

2.6

The Select Committee will be aware it can take significant time (10 or more years) for new technologies and major infrastructure to impact at scale. Rapid concerted action is required now, to maximise the efficient use of the existing transport system. Investment on the SRN should seek to optimise the function of the existing road network as an important community asset, delivering safe and reliable journeys for road users, and making the most of opportunities to reduce severance, improve air quality and biodiversity. 

2.7

Investment in new road capacity for motorised traffic is still required, particularly to improve safety and resilience but should only be taken forward where there is compelling evidence that options for reducing traffic levels have been fully considered and improved road connectivity is required to deliver economic and social benefits.
 

2.8

Within the TfN constitution there is a commitment on the part of TfN, DfT and National Highways to work closely on issues relating to the Strategic Road Network.  This commitment includes ensuring that TfN’s role as a statutory body being clearly identified in the published RIS governance process and TfN’s advice being fed directly into the RIS Steering Group (although non-binding).  It is on this basis that we argue there is a need for Government to amend the National Highways Licence.

2.9

It is essential that National Highways and other national delivery bodies collaboratively with regional and local partners on developing and actioning strategies, which support national strategic networks and ‘Place based’ objectives. TfN and National Highways have adopted a shared commitment to a constructive and collaborative relationship and have agreed a Joint Engagement Action Plan (JEAP). Jointly, we have strengthened our working relationship over the last 3 years and have good engagement with National Highways Network Planning Division, responsible for developing National Highway’s proposals for the next Road Investment Strategy (RIS3). 
Strong collaborative working with National Highways and the Department for Transport combined with transparent decision making is absolutely critical to ensuring that investment channelled through the Road Investment Strategy is aligned with the requirements of the Strategic Transport Plan.

2.10

The Strategic Transport Plan identifies the importance of investing in improved connectivity across the North to realise its economic potential and improve social inclusion. When people need to travel and freight needs to be moved, transport users should experience a safe, secure, reliable, and resilient ‘level of service’ whether travelling on foot, by bike, train, bus, car or goods vehicle. Motorised travel by road is and will continue to be the dominant mode of transport for medium and long-distance trips, and to have a more productive and successful economy we need motorised travel by road to be efficient and reliable.
 

2.11

TfN and our constituent partners are working collaboratively to identify the North’s priorities for investment in improving the performance of the Strategic Road Network. And strongly urge the Government to recognise the importance of good strategic road connectivity for people and businesses living and working in the North. The dualling of the A66 (A1(M) at Scotch Corner to junction 40 of the M6 at Penrith) is a primary example of a fundamental strategic need to provide a safer, more reliable, and resilient east-west route connecting Yorkshire and the Northeast to Cumbria and the West Coast of Scotland. TfN strongly supports plans to progress the A66 dualling and through ‘Project Speed’ complete the scheme by 2029.

2.12

In 2020 HM Treasury reported on fundings from its review of the ‘Green book’. The review stressed the need to improve the way strategic cases are considered for investment proposals, pointing out a failure to demonstrate how projects contribute to wider government goals, and criticising a lack of well-defined objectives, which in turn undermines the option generation and assessment process. It also found that strategic cases don’t adequately explore wider economic and social impacts, or how projects interact with other strategies, programmes and developments in given areas. The review highlighted an overdependency on the use of the Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) to quantify benefits, which works well for benefits that are easy to put a monetary value on, but risks ignoring costs or benefits for which there may be good evidence but are difficult to monetise.

2.13

To meet Government policy priorities, transport investment, including through the RIS Programme, must therefore be grounded in delivery of strategic objectives and outcomes and not predicated on more easily monetised Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) calculations based on a narrow ‘predict and provide’ model of how to adapt to traffic growth.
 

2.14

The evidence base assembled by TfN demonstrates how investment in the North’s infrastructure contributes to achieving agreed outcomes on reducing carbon emissions, improving health, and achieving sustainable economic growth.  This will require at a minimum alignment of decision making in transport investment with that in energy systems and digital connectivity. 

2.15

Further, the emerging results from the modelling of economic scenarios to refresh the Northern Powerhouse Independent Economic Review (NPIER) indicate that to fully achieve the potential of the North investment in other areas of public sector policy (including education, health services and R&D) needs to be aligned with investment in infrastructure.

2.16

TfN’s economic modelling of the NPIER, shows that in the transformational growth scenario, the Government’s investment would be recovered through additional tax revenues from higher growth in the North, and lower spending on health intervention and welfare funding by 2050. The scenarios also detail how private sector investment would be incentivised by a consistent long-term public-sector approach to policy and investment.

2.17

Fundamentally, in order to achieve the agreed strategic outcomes for the North there is a need for targeted investment in transport, including enhancing the Strategic Road Network, combined with complementary policy and investment focused on education, health and on supporting key sectors of the economy.

2.18

Since publication of RIS2 Government has published several key policies and plans, including the ‘Levelling up White Paper’, and the Transport Decarbonisation Plan (TDP). In addition, National Highways has published ‘Net Zero Highways’.
It is essential that planning for future RIS investment, including the approach to business case appraisal, is aligned with these policy commitments. For example, appraisal of proposed SRN schemes should include analysis of future traffic demand based on the traffic scenarios used by the DfT to underpin the analysis in the TDP.

2.19

Changes in National Government, delayed announcements, and uncertainty, for example on the Government’s response to the Union Connectivity Review, the updating of the National Networks National Policy Statement, the Planning White Paper, and the approach to managing the policy and fiscal implications of the transition to zero emission vehicles (at tailpipe), have the potential to impact on planning for the future RIS Programme.

2.20

To optimise the benefits of Strategic Road Investment it is vital that Government set out a clear set of strategic objectives that are outcome focused and within which National Highways is charged with developing the RIS.  Those strategic objectives must be shaped by and agreed with statutory partners, such as TfN.

3.0

Specific Response to the Call for Evidence.
 

3.1

How effectively the RIS2 enhancements portfolio has been managed to date.
 

The RIS2 portfolio published in Spring 2020 represented a significant increase in road investment over the five-year period and was published late (only 3 weeks in advance of the start of the programme commencing).

Although TfN provided advice to Government on the North’s recommendations for SRN investment in RIS2, prior to publication neither TfN or our partner local transport authorities were consulted or sighted as to how TfN’s advice was reflected in the RIS2 document. This represented a missed opportunity, particularly given the need for local transport authorities to plan for the consequences (if any) of investment in the SRN on their networks.

A more collaborative approach with TfN, at the early stages of RIS development, in which there is a shared understanding of the challenges, the potential options, and priorities would have provided far greater opportunities for achieving place-based strategic outcomes.  This would in turn have improved the efficiency of delivery by encouraging shared ownership and enabling actions amongst key partners including Local Transport Authorities, Local Planning Authorities and where appropriate LEPs, to be identified.  For example, this might include bringing forward planning of complementary investments on local transport networks and/or local policies supporting improved outcomes.

RIS2 is an ambitious programme including several substantial and challenging investment proposals. Earlier and more thorough engagement with key partners and stakeholders would have supported a more comprehensive approach to mitigating risks, particularly with respect to statutory planning processes where most delays and uncertainty with delivery occur.

In common with all sectors National Highways had to contend with the impacts of the Covid 19 pandemic, for example adapting public consultation activities and working with contractors to deliver Covid safe working on construction sites. Although we understand this caused some disruption and delay, National Highways seem to have adapted quickly and effectively in reducing potential delay to the RIS2 programme because of the pandemic.
 

Where schemes have had confirmed funding and statutory approvals National Highways has been effective in progressing construction, with six RIS2 schemes in the North now open for traffic and a further three well underway. 

TfN is not sighted on the outturn cost of the RIS2 schemes, so cannot comment on National Highways performance in managing costs/delivering efficiencies. However, it is important where the need to seek efficiencies requires re-consideration of the scope of a scheme, National Highways should be required to seek the views of TfN as part of that process.

Schemes where there has been a significant delay include proposed interventions on some of the most congested parts of the SRN, where technical and/or environmental considerations pose a critical challenge to gaining public support and statutory approval. Resolving performance issues on these sections of the SRN is vitally important to achieving improved outcomes, including supporting growth in housing and jobs, better transport connectivity for people and freight, and improved social and environmental outcomes, particularly for local communities blighted by congested roads.
 

It is essential that rather than abandon challenging schemes, National Highways should build on lessons gained from across the RIS2 Programme to work with TfN and local partners to re-scope the approach to identifying and appraising potential solutions. Key to this would be to have a shared view on an integrated ‘place-based’ strategy, one that encompasses options for complementary policy, technology, and infrastructure interventions. Such an approach could help mitigate the need for major road capacity enhancements as originally envisaged and serves to emphasise the importance of focusing on outcomes.

Examples of sections of the SRN where there is need to find solutions to significant congestion, poor connectivity, safety and or local environmental issues include the M60/M62 in Greater Manchester, the A628 Woodhead Pass, and access to the North’s Major Ports from the Motorway network.

Further devolution of funding and transport responsibilities that empower statutory bodies such as TfN to provide better advice to the Government would go a long way to support better integration of SRN and local network planning.

The Transport Select Committee is aware of the issues surrounding Smart Motorways, and TfN supports the need for a pause to the current programme until safety can be delivered and assured.
 

3.2

Whether risks to the enhancement’s portfolio for the remainder of the RIS2 period are being well managed;

TfN does not have detailed insight into management of the RIS2 portfolio risks, which sits properly with National Highways. We are aware of delays to several schemes in the RIS portfolio but have limited insight on how the risk to delivery of the schemes is being managed within the RIS portfolio.  Given TfN’s statutory role it is important that it is informed of significant risks to both scheme delivery and the RIS portfolio and have the opportunity to comment on risk mitigation plans.
 

3.3

What the impacts of delays and cost overruns are on the overall programme, and whether the revised programme can be delivered to schedule and on budget;

TfN does not have detailed insight into management of the RIS2 Programme across the whole of England, or of the cot pressures on the Programme.
 

The general message from both DfT and National Highways is that there are substantial budget pressures, and that delays to RIS2 schemes mean that delivery of some schemes will potentially move into RIS3, impacting on the number of new schemes which can be funded and delivered within the RIS3 Programme.  It is essential that where there is a need for National Highways and DfT to consider the implications of cost pressures that have consequences for future investment periods, there is an effective mechanism for seeking the formal views of TfN.  This is particularly important where a reassessment of the scope of proposed works might enable a more efficient approach that represents better value for money once the wider benefits to local communities are considered.  
 

3.4

What progress is being made on planning for the next Road Investment Strategy;

DfT invited input to work on developing Strategic Objectives for the next RIS, and National Highways have engaged with TfN in sharing plans for development of the SRN Route Strategies and SRN Initial Report. 

Through a series of virtual workshops National Highways engaged with TfN and our local authority partners on gathering evidence for their Route Strategy Reports. Held in autumn 2021, National Highways Route Strategy workshops covering TfN’s geography were attended by TfN and our local authority partners. Through which National Highways received significant input on local priorities, problems, and future challenges. 

TfN has provided National Highways access to our extensive evidence base and in May 2022 provided comments on the six draft Route Strategy reports, most relevant to the North of England.

TfN welcomes the early and collaborative engagement on developing the objectives and the evidence base that will be used to inform the next RIS Programme. However, further meaningful engagement and transparency in decision making is critical to supporting development of a successful RIS Programme. It is important that the objectives/outcomes underpinning the RIS programme are consistent with those set out by TfN in the statutory Strategic Transport Plan.

The SRN Initial Report and Route Strategies were due to be published for public consultation in Summer 2022, but at the time of writing have not been published. We are concerned that slippage in completion and publication of these key documents is impacting on the development of the next RIS programme. In addition, TfN is mindful that the consequences of the 2022 Autumn Statement on the Departmental capital programmes are a matter of on-going consideration.  Clarity on the likely level of funding available for RIS3 is urgently needed to enable TfN to provide advice to Government on investment priorities. 

There is a significant risk that further slippage will undermine opportunities for effective and meaningful engagement and consultation with TfN and its partners. It would be significant mistake not to maintain the collaborative work to date.

RIS Pipeline Schemes

National Highways has progressed early-stage development on seven of the nine RIS Pipeline schemes identified in RIS2 in the North of England.
 

Responding to the moratorium on further delivery of Smart Motorways, work has stopped on developing two Smart Motorway schemes.

The rate of progress with scheme development has been mixed and will mean not all proposed schemes are developed to the same stage when being considered for potential inclusion in future RIS investment.

As with other aspects of RIS development, meaningful engagement, clarity on timescales and transparency in decision making on the pipeline programme is critical to partner and stakeholder support for the RIS

3.5

What lessons from RIS2 need to be incorporated into RIS3 to ensure it is achievable and delivers on policy objectives.

Key lessons from RIS2 are:
 

• The National Highways Licence should be amended to reflect the statutory role of TfN, and a requirement placed on National Highways to formally seek the views of TfN and to then report on how that advice has been reflected in RIS3

• Early and ongoing engagement, collaboration and transparency in decision making with the key regional and local partners is vitally important; this should as a minimum include TfN, Mayoral and Combined Authorities and Local Transport Authorities.
   
• The SRN operates as part of the wider transport network and there is a need to ensure that the objectives set for RIS3 are grounded in the agreed outcomes for the North as set out in the statutory Strategic Transport Plan.
   
• Alternative options to new road capacity should be thoroughly considered as part of early options appraisal work. This should include appraisal of policies and investment which would reduce the need for travel by car, LGV or HGV, and go beyond a basic assesment of a ‘do minimum or business as usual’ appraisal of the potential for planned investment in public transport and/or active travel to reduce vehicle trips on the SRN. National Highways should be encouraged to make maximum use of the regional evidence base assembled by TfN, thereby supporting use of a consistent evidence base across all modes.  Collaborative engagement with Local Transport Authorities is critical to fully appraising all options to support greater use of more sustainable travel modes.
   
• DfT is due to publish new Local Transport Plan guidance in 2023. In planning for RIS3 National Highways will need to engage with Local Transport Authorities in considering the role of the SRN in supporting local transport plans and targets, with for example the monitoring and reduction in transport related carbon emissions, a new duty placed on local transport authorities.
   
• A fair and just transition to transport decarbonisation will require an integrated approach to managing transport demand on the strategic and local road networks. For example, planning for the implications on the SRN of road space reallocation on local roads, to support active travel and public transport.
   

3.6

Whether the Government’s current and forthcoming roads investment programme is meeting the current and future needs of consumers and business.

The RIS programme represents a substantial investment of public funds and should be delivering significant improvements for consumers and businesses using or impacted upon by the performance of the SRN.

In the North one third of all vehicle miles, and two-thirds of HGV miles are driven on the SRN. The safe, efficient, and reliable performance of the network is vitally important to all users of the network.

Delivery of RIS2 is delivering road capacity enhancements in the North, including on congested parts of the network in the Northeast (A1 & A19), the A63 in Hull, M56 in Cheshire East, and A585 in Lancashire. However as previously stated there are delays and uncertainties on progress with several proposed RIS2 schemes, potentially impacting on opportunities for future growth in jobs and housing.

In many places the SRN also has substantial impacts on local communities, with Nitrous Oxide and particulate levels exceeding legal limits and World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended levels and traffic noise an issue affecting communities. Severance is also a major problem, particularly in urban areas where limited and/or unsafe crossings reduce opportunities for local travel on foot or cycle.

Through the designated funds programme National Highways are delivering localised improvements to tackle these issues. However, more could be done to communicate progress on outcomes from the Designated Funds programme. TfN would like to see regular reporting on the delivery and evaluation of designated funds schemes.  This should include a programme level analysis of how the funds are distributed across the regions and regular engagement with TfN as to how best use might be made of designated funds to support delivery of agreed outcomes in the North.
 

Policies and actions to manage both supply (road capacity) and demand (traffic levels) are critical to optimising performance of the SRN. That is providing safe and reliable journeys for road users and delivering on wider social and environmental objectives, including the legal duty to meet net zero targets for carbon emissions.
 

3.7

Whether the Government’s roads investment programme aligns with other policy priorities, such as decarbonisation, levelling up, productivity and growth

TfN experience is that in developing plans for RIS3 National Highways is placing a greater emphasis on considering the strategic case and is highly cognisant of the challenges and potential trade-offs in considering options for future RIS Investment. However, we still believe that investment choices remain predominantly determined by Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) based on ‘WebTAG’ calculations, and most critically on the economic value of time savings from reduced delay achieved through road capacity enhancements, calculated based on forecast growth in traffic.

Agreement on future RIS investment must primarily be driven by how best to achieve strategic objectives/outcomes, and not primarily focused on BCR’s.

The SRN Strategic Objectives should act as the framework for strategic decision making, underpinned, but not dictated by outputs from the monetised appraisal of proposed transport schemes. It is in this context that it is essential that National Highways are required – through their licence – to ensure that the RIS objectives reflect the agreed outcomes identified by TfN and set out in the statutory Strategic Transport Plan.
 

This also requires a move away from siloed delivery strategies and funding, so that investment is not constrained to a narrow set of modally based options.

RIS planning and appraisal must do more to consider the benefits of spreading opportunity and prosperity to less economically productive regions. Published as guidance for business case authors DfT’s ‘Transport Business Cases: The Levelling Up Toolkit’ describes how to assess how a transport proposal contributes towards delivering the DfT strategic priority to Grow and Level Up the Economy. Though focused on individual schemes, the guidance should equally apply to considering the RIS portfolio.

Maintenance of the existing highway asset is fundamental to ensuring the SRN supports environmental, economic, and levelling up outcomes.

The RIS needs to ensure existing infrastructure is well maintained and build resilience to the impacts of climate change into all infrastructure planning. This might also include the need to prioritise new infrastructure which can ensure connectivity for those communities likely to be most affected by the effects of climate change.
 

4.8

How RIS3 should take account of technological developments, and evidence on ways of increasing capacity on the Strategic Road Network (such as smart motorways and potential alternatives to them).

The way in which businesses and people responded to the pandemic highlighted the extent to which the need to travel, and the way in which we travel can change rapidly: there is nothing immutable about our current travel choices.  Moreover, the evidence is clear: if we are to achieve national strategic outcomes – like decarbonisation – we must harness such change positively. New technologies continue to emerge that are transforming the future travel demand and choice.

It is vital that planning for RIS takes account of these changes, allows space for innovation and the flexibility to adapt to new and emerging technologies. Areas of change RIS must address include:
 

• Delivery of infrastructure to support the uptake of zero emission (at tailpipe) transport technologies such as electric and hydrogen fuelled vehicles. This requires rapid and sustained action, underpinned by a sound evidence base and clear strategy for ensuring all areas of the country have good access and to EV charging/hydrogen refuelling. TfN’s work on its EV Charging Infrastructure framework – developed in partnership with the energy sector – provides an evidence led approach for investment.

• Future combinations of 4G, broadband and emerging 5G connectivity will provide the foundations for many new technologies and associated services that will both change the nature of future travel demand and in some instances reduce the need to travel. It also presents opportunities for new ways of communicating with consumers, with and between network operators (National Highways and other network operators) and for managing the highway asset.

• In-car connectivity is increasingly standard in new vehicles, with almost all new cars expected to have digital connectivity by 2025.
  This opens up opportunities for more direct communications between network operators and drivers, and for vehicle–vehicle communication.

• The rate of adoption of Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAV) remains uncertain, with research and testing ongoing in the UK and the timeline for full automation of all vehicles operating on UK roads some way off in the future. However, CAVs offer the possibility of delivering improved connectivity and a high level of service without building a significant amount of infrastructure. Government should support further work on the technology for CAV’s and ensure the regulatory environment is updated to enable CAV technology.

•         In planning for the future RIS National Highways should build upon plans set out in its Digital Delivery Plan published in 2021.  This sets out nine future trends across three core areas: demand; infrastructure; and vehicles that will shape the SRN and influence future operations.

Government published the ‘Future of Mobility – Urban Strategy’, in March 2019, highlighting the opportunities arising from advances in data science, artificial intelligence, and sensing technologies, and what they could mean for future modes of travel, transport business models, and the future mobility of people, goods and service.

The strategy states that, “In facilitating innovation in urban mobility for freight, passengers and services, the Government’s approach will be underpinned as far as possible by the following principles:
 

•                   New modes of transport and new mobility services must be safe and secure by design.

•                   The benefits of innovation in mobility must be available to all parts of the UK and all segments of society.

•                   Walking, cycling and active travel must remain the best options for short urban journeys.

•                   Mass transit must remain fundamental to an efficient transport system.

•                   New mobility services must lead the transition to zero emissions.

•                   Mobility innovation must help to reduce congestion through more efficient use of limited road space, for example through sharing rides, increasing occupancy or consolidating freight.

•                   The marketplace for mobility must be open to stimulate innovation and give the best deal to consumers.

•                   New mobility services must be designed to operate as part of an integrated transport system combining public, private and multiple modes for transport users.

•                   Data from new mobility services must be shared, where appropriate, to improve choice and the operation of the transport system.”

New technologies offer huge opportunities for improving the customer experience, for better integration across transport networks and modes of travel and for more efficient and effective management of our transport networks.
 

Working with the transport sector, Government has a key role in supporting innovation, bringing forward regulatory change, and adapting to the implications of new technologies when shaping policy and determining investment priorities.