I could take a stab at it, although I may not be able to give a very direct answer as to Wales's rate of success in attracting private investments, apart from the hard figures that you see coming up from Zap-Map and Government: 6.4 per cent of all the charges are actually in Wales.
What I could say is that, going forward, I think it's common knowledge that delivery of public charging infrastructure has to be private sector led. It cannot be led by Government using public money forever. What that means is, yes, what Government can do is spend some money to help de-risk private sector investment, not to actually invest directly in running those networks, because it's not the core competencies of local authorities or Government. So, what Government needs to do is spend the money in a more targeted way, whether it's Wales or perhaps even the central Government—spend the money in a way that creates investable propositions for the charging infrastructure sector. What do we mean by investable propositions? So, we set out, actually, in the position paper that we published about a year ago, four ideas on creating investable propositions, including helping the local authorities themselves to oversee the delivery.
The first one is actually through what we call mixed high-low utilisation blocks in long-term tenders. If you leave it in a completely laissez-faire approach to the market alone, no prizes for guessing, the private sector will invest and roll out infrastructure where they could make a great return on investment, because it's a commercial decision. Why roll out charging infrastructure in, for example, rural areas where it will be hardly used? You don't make a return on investment, or a decent ROI, on that. So, if it is left to commercial decisions alone, you will find that there will be notspots all around, because these are commercially unattractive places, which is why, perhaps, Government policy could do with some innovative approaches like mixed high-low utilisation blocks, where a contract for the long term, a long-term contract, will enable the private sector to roll out infrastructure in places that are commercially attractive, but they are also obliged to roll out infrastructure in some commercially unattractive places, and hopefully the returns from the commercially attractive ones will offset losses from the commercially unattractive ones.
But that alone will not suffice. The second measure must come in, and that is where Government perhaps could use money in a more targeted fashion, and that is through modified contracts for differences. You may recall that, in the renewable sector, CFDs, contracts for differences, are the norm, and it's a very useful tool. What we are suggesting is perhaps to modify it for the charging infrastructure sector. In other words, setting some sort of a price guarantee for a limited period of time in places where it's commercially unattractive so that commercial operators will get a guaranteed return for a period of time until the market matures in that particular area. This, used together with mixed high-low utilisation blocks could potentially be game-changing. By the way, mixed high-low utilisation blocks are already used as a feature in contracts in the Netherlands and in the west coast of the States.
And the third measure is that, perhaps local government should come together and, within a region, there should be an anticipatory demand-led approach to sizing up where the best places are to install chargers. And this is a bit like what Olly was saying just now, for the right chargers to be placed in the right locations to maximise utilisation in the first instance. But, you wouldn't know where to put these chargers. You may be doing a bit of a scatter-gun approach or a bit of an intelligent guess unless you have a portal, a bit like in Amsterdam, where you allow the users who are intending to buy a battery electric vehicle in the next six months to log a request for a charger if there is a dearth of chargers in that particular place. And of course, you've got to be a bit more intelligent. Perhaps a downpayment, a deposit, ought to be included by the person who is logging the request, and that deposit is returnable when the logger actually shows that, within six months, he or she has purchased a battery electric vehicle. And the local authority's part of the bargain is to install a charger in that particular place if, indeed, there is a lack of public chargers there. So, you follow the demand, you follow where people want these chargers, to ensure that they will be utilised.
And the fourth and last measure is to ensure that the local authorities themselves are adequately supported in actually planning and helping to oversee the delivery of these chargers in those local places, because quite a lot of local authorities may not necessarily have the right people, the right personnel, to look after these particular areas. And, of course, I'm pleased that central Government has allocated £50 million out of the local electric vehicle infrastructure—LEVI—fund to local authorities to ensure that they hire skilled people for this particular area. Although the issue here is—my understanding is that the LEVI fund is only for England.