Guidance

Freeports Programme in Wales selection decision-making note

Published 25 July 2023

Applies to Wales

Purpose

The purpose of this document is to set out clearly the decision-making process for selecting the locations that would be taken forward to the next stage of the Freeport Programme in Wales process – including the development of outline and full business cases. The decision-making followed the process and rationale published in the Freeport Programme in Wales Bidding Prospectus (for full details of that process and rationale, please refer to section 5 of the Bidding Prospectus).

Pre-decision process summary

Pass/fail

Three bids were received by the closing date of 24 November 2022.

In the Pass/Fail stage, all bids received were initially assessed on the information they submitted in response to the Gateway Criteria (in Section 5.8 of the Bidding Prospectus). The Gateway Criteria outlined the minimum information necessary to explain the geography and stakeholder support for the prospective Freeport. Applicants who did not provide this information, or meet these requirements, failed the initial assessment and were not assessed further. One bid failed to provide the necessary information in four areas - further details are provided in Annex A. The other two bids passed the Pass/Fail stage and their bid proceeded to detailed assessment.

Detailed assessment

In accordance with the process detailed in the Bidding Prospectus, officials representing all relevant policy interests and departments across both governments, assessed the two bids on their answers to the Detailed Application Information (section 5.9 of the Bidding Prospectus).

Bidder responses were assessed against assessment guidance agreed by both governments, and in line with the requirements of the Prospectus, awarded a score of ‘High’, ‘Medium’, or ‘Low’ in accordance with the mark scheme at Annex A of the Bidding Prospectus. For Criteria A, B, and C: ability to deliver against Welsh and UK governments’ priorities and objectives - officials’ assessment of the response provided (alongside the accompanying materials from pass/fail assessment (section 5.8)) accounted for 100% of the bidder’s score for that criterion.

For Criteria D and E: Deliverability of proposal effectively at pace and a high level of private sector involvement in the proposal respectively - bidders were required to respond to multiple questions each having an individual weighting for the overall score (as set out in section 5.9 of the Bidding Prospectus). In assessing the answers to the questions, assessors also considered any relevant information provided in section 5.8 (Gateway Criteria), as well as any publicly available data (e.g. unemployment levels) to test any assertions in the answers provided.

A process of primary moderation was then undertaken, consisting of internal moderation within assessor teams, and then final moderation sessions by a joint panel from both governments, including senior Civil Servants. This moderation process considered both the overall assessment by policy officials and the supporting analysis and involved cross-examination and challenge of the lead assessors for each criterion.

Following moderation, each bid was assigned five ‘High’, ‘Medium’, and ‘Low’ scores, one against each of the criteria listed at 5.2.4 of the Bidding Prospectus. In a limited number of cases, officials noted that the response to some questions fell on the border between two of the bands e.g. “Low-Medium” or “Medium-High” and it was therefore proposed and supported by the panel that this be reflected in the final scores.

Both remaining bids met the threshold detailed at section 5.2.6 of the Bidding Prospectus and were therefore considered appointable.

A cross-government group of senior officials forming the Freeport Programme in Wales Joint Board oversaw the process. As part of the agreed competition governance, they received information on the assessment process and the scoring of each bid (detailed at Annex B).

The Programme Board, having assured the process aligned with the Bidding Prospectus, validated the list of appointable candidates shown in Annex B. This was then submitted to ministers from both the Welsh and UK Governments to make the final decision on which prospective Freeports would proceed to the next stage and develop an Outline Business Case. An information pack was also provided for ministerial consideration, which set out the outer boundary maps of each bid and a summary of officials’ assessment against each criterion, as well as context-sensitive information as outlined in section 5.3.2 of the Bidding Prospectus, ensuring their decision was fully informed.

Ministerial decision-making: Freeport Programme in Wales locations

Welsh Government’s Minister for Economy met UK Government’s Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to discuss the appointable bids.

In accordance with the process outlined in the Bidding Prospectus, ministers considered officials’ assessments of the bids and were free to factor into their decision-making the five additional considerations listed at 5.3.2 of the Bidding Prospectus.

A comparison of the two appointable bids showed a clear distinction between the Celtic bid and that of Anglesey, although both easily met the published minimum requirements (scoring at least ‘Medium’ on criterion A – Regeneration and High-Quality Job Creation and no more than one ‘Low’ over the five assessed criteria).

Both ministers noted that in the Bidding Prospectus, both Governments publicly committed to remain open to the consideration of designating an additional Freeport in Wales, if sufficient exceptional proposals were presented.

Both ministers noted the feedback from those involved throughout the assessment stage that both bids had distinct strengths, with their approaches rooted in the respective local contexts. Whilst the Celtic bid was stronger in terms of the competition outcome, the Anglesey bid offered significant potential to deliver regeneration and Levelling Up outcomes across North Wales and beyond and the strength of the well-established Anglesey bidding consortia, which provided confidence in terms of deliverability, was noted. Both ministers agreed that the Anglesey bid presented a sufficiently exceptional proposal to justify the selection of a second Freeport in Wales.

Annex A: Bids that failed the initial pass/fail assessment

Newport-Led Freeport

Reason for failing:

• Did not provide evidence (e.g. letters) that all landowners had signed up to their vision for the proposed tax site and associated land use and would take appropriate steps to ensure development on the site aligned with the Freeport’s objectives and those of the wider Freeports policy (requested at Question 1.7).

• Did not provide a signed letter from each of the proposed customs site operators confirming the requested information (requested at Question 1.8).

• Did not provide written confirmation of support for their application from all local authorities included in the bid (requested by Question 1.9).

• Did not provide sufficient economic rationale for the tax sites, which totalled more than the total maximum area allowed of 600 hectares (Question 1.13).

Annex B: Bid scoring (alphabetical)

Welsh Freeport	Policy Criterion A: Promote regeneration and high-quality job creation	Policy Criterion B: Establish hubs for global trade and investment	Policy Criterion C: Foster an innovative environment	Delivery Criterion D: Deliverability of Proposal Effectively at Pace	Delivery Criterion E: A High Level of Private Sector Involvement in the Proposal
Anglesey Freeport / Porthladd Rhydd Ynys Mon	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium
Celtic Freeport	High	High	Medium	Medium	High