Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee

Item 2, papers to note. We've got two papers to note today: a response from the Chief Executive and Clerk of the Senedd to the Chair following the evidence session on 5 October regarding the Senedd Commission accounts; and a response from Andrew Slade, the director general for enterprise, connectivity and energy regarding our queries on the Global Centre of Rail Excellence. I'm glad to see that the director general is with us today.

I am indeed.

There may be some follow-up questions to your letter during the evidence session later. Are Members content to note the papers? Members are content. Papers duly noted.

Item 3, scrutiny of accounts, Welsh Government 2024-25, interim evidence session with Dr Andrew Goodall, Permanent Secretary, and officials. The purpose of that is to hold an evidence session on progress made by the Welsh Government in addressing the recommendations made by our predecessor committee from the sixth Senedd and its report on the Welsh Government accounts of 2024-25. I'd like to formally welcome the panel to today's meeting. We noted the response to the report at our meeting on 13 July. This session provides an opportunity for the committee to consider that response and any progress made on the recommendations. Permanent Secretary, for the record, please, could you introduce yourself and your officials?

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Gadeirydd. Andrew Goodall ydw i, Ysgrifennydd Parhaol Llywodraeth Cymru. Ti nesaf, Andrew. Diolch.

Prynhawn da. I'm Andrew Slade, director general for enterprise, connectivity and energy.

Prynhawn da. Sioned Evans, prif swyddog gweithredu.

I'm chief operating officer of the Welsh Government.

Good afternoon. My name is Dean Medcraft, director of finance, Welsh Government.

Prynhawn da, bawb. Dom Houlihan ydw i. Fi yw cyfarwyddwr pobl a lleoedd.

I'm Dom Houlihan, director of people and places.

Thank you very much. I'd like to remind everyone the meeting is bilingual. Headsets provide simultaneous translation from Welsh to English on channel 1 and sound amplification is on channel 0. I'm going to kick off with the first question. Permanent Secretary, the predecessor committee made a substantial number of recommendations, many of which were accepted, but accepting a recommendation and delivering it are two different things. Information promised by September has not arrived, and some responses do not fully answer what was asked. Who is responsible for the delivery and how is progress monitored, and why have deadlines been missed?

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Gadeirydd. Thank you. We spend a lot of time, and a number of sessions, of course, as part of the annual accounts process. Whilst we are picking up general recommendations from committees, of course, we have a monitoring process within the organisation to make sure that we're able to respond. There's something about the expectation and the tone of committees and the way in which we respond. We've had some discussions over years about some of the principles that help us, hopefully, give the most effective response possible.

You may want to touch on this, Chair: in terms of accept/reject, in the past, we've had a way in which we've been able to accept in principle. Sometimes, that has allowed us to more accommodate some of the recommendations, because the language may be preventing us from accepting them. There may be one or two examples that are worth me just giving that show how we make progress on that.

Within the organisation more generally, we use our assurance and risk committee arrangements across the organisation. We have assurance boards that are in place at each individual group level. They fit in with the director general responsibilities. We also have an audit, risk and assurance committee that is chaired at the Welsh Government level. And in all of those committees, for the recommendations that are relevant, we receive those, monitor the responses and make sure that we are responding to the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee.

There are a couple of areas where it has been more difficult for us to accept them, and we have rejected them. I'll maybe give you an example of one of those, just so you can understand the dilemma that we had in responding. There are a couple that we have missed some of the timescales on. The main focus around that, which we can explore, is we're quite a compact team associated with the annual accounts. It's a very intense timetable to make sure that we submit by the end of November. Some of those colleagues will have been tied up with that process, and we do prioritise the annual accounts mechanism. But I'm happy to revisit that.

On the general tone, we try to be as helpful as possible to accept, but I'm mindful of one example, which was a dilemma for us: the process that was requested by the committee to ask us to do three years' worth of grants analysis. We've improved a lot of the information in the public domain through our annual accounts process around grants if you compare with where we were five or six years or so ago, but there were some particular changes, not least around international audit standards, that affected our ability to go back. It becomes a very intensive piece of work. So, rather than spend the time going back on that analysis that was requested by the committee, we have actually decided instead that we are putting it into the annual accounts that we'll be submitting for this year, so we can go back over that period of time and handle it prospectively, if that makes sense. Otherwise, it would have diverted attention. And sometimes in our responses, we don't really have the chance to articulate that or explain maybe some of the little bits of detail about why.

Thank you. I'm conscious that we've got a very brief time with you today and we've got a lot to cover, so I've asked Members if they can keep their questions concise, and the same with the panel, please. If you could be as concise as possible so we can get through as much material. Just one quick follow-up on that, which is straightforward. When do we expect to have that outstanding information through to us as a committee?

Which information? The grants analysis?

From the September—.

We will drop you a note after this, but we'd hope that we can respond to those—. I know the annual accounts were—. We're confident that we're going to get there by the end of November. Perhaps if I can come back to you with a specific date, but it will be over the next few weeks, Chair.

Okay, thank you very much. We'll move on to Anna Nicholl.

Thank you. I've been struck by the number of senior civil service positions that appear to be secondments, and also how this might be impacting on salaries. It appears that it has enabled higher salaries than would otherwise be in the structure. Some secondments seem to have gone on for a long time. I think the Permanent Secretary has been on secondment since 2014, if I'm correct. Does the Welsh Government accept that these arrangements have increased senior pay costs? What assessment has it made of the implications for future appointments and the gap between the salaries for those posts and other director general roles?

Diolch am y cwestiwn.

Secondments have been a formal feature of civil service arrangements and certainly of our arrangements in Wales over the 35 years of my career. Secondments were in place during the Wales Office times, right through to right now. They are there and available to be able to access quick exchanges, to access specialist expertise at times, and to bring people in who have different sector experiences. In some respects, even my own appointment into the Permanent Secretary role isn't a traditional route for a civil servant, if I could say that to the panel as well. We have a range of secondments that are available in the organisation.

From our perspective, it's still a more exceptional tool that's used across the organisation. Maybe in a moment Dom could just give you a sense of some of the numbers across our organisation in general terms. But, of course, we are looking for particular expertise to come in. I guess, from an area like health, for example, you would have an expectation that people will come in with health sector experience. The civil service arrangements are not always able to match some of the market levels for posts, which is why individuals will stay within their existing organisations and be seconded across.

My final point as a matter of policy is that we have a 'one Welsh public service' policy from the Government. They would have an expectation to have exchange programmes in place, and we do underpin that. The UK Government civil service actually has all of these arrangements in place, with quite a lot happening at the moment around experiences of local authorities, for example, going into the UK Government level as well. But it can introduce some inconsistency, as you said.

Thank you for your response. I fully support secondments and, as you say, that quick exchange and bringing different skills in. It feels to me, though, that there's potential for that—. There's almost an abuse of the secondment principles here, where we have long-term secondments. It's not a back and forth of different skills. It's not a quick exchange. It's difficult to see sometimes, perhaps, whether this is not focused around salary differences in particular. I don't mean to go into it further, but I'm concerned. It seems to me that it's not really about the secondment, it's about a way around salaries.

Our recruitment process is still overseen by the Civil Service Commission and, ultimately, particularly for the most senior civil service appointments, they are a matter for the future civil service commissioner and also the UK Government Cabinet Office, because of their oversight of the civil service. Dom, do you want to pick up on the arrangements—because not all of them are choices for us in the Welsh Government about those mechanisms—and perhaps give an idea of some of the numbers across the organisation?

Diolch. Thanks, Andrew. Across the Welsh Government workforce, which is around about 5,954 full-time equivalent staff, we have 76 colleagues seconded in and 12 colleagues seconded out. Across our senior civil service, we have nine colleagues seconded into our senior civil service and seven colleagues seconded elsewhere across the public sector. All of those arrangements would be subject to the usual Civil Service Commission oversight and approval processes for the most senior of appointments. Where we have those colleagues seconded in, the vast majority do appear to be within the health space, which recognises the complex and unusual skills that would be required to support the NHS across the civil service. There are a huge amount of existing governance approvals, recruitment controls, HR oversight, and, indeed, Civil Service Commission requirements, when we're looking at secondments.

Of course, matters relating to the senior civil service are not devolved to Welsh Government. They are still a matter for the wider civil service frameworks that we operate within. So, I think it's accurate to say that there are some salary challenges when we're recruiting across local government or, indeed, across the NHS. But we use the existing framework that's set up within the Cabinet Office and within NHS guidelines to support the transfer and movement of staff across the piece.

Thank you.

Thank you. Carrie Harper.

Diolch, Chair. Welsh Government failed to implement the new system for collecting and publishing senior officials' declarations of interest in 2024-25. Given previous concerns raised by this committee about outdated registers, can you tell us why this is still a recurring problem and what assurance can you give us that conflicts have been properly identified and managed in previous years? Has this information been collected for 2025-26?

Yes. It's obviously a long-standing collection issue. The reason for it not being in the public domain was a problem, actually, with the supporting system. We will be able to put that right, as you would expect, for this year. It didn't prevent the underlying information being available, however. Dom, do you just want to respond on the technical issues with the system that did get in the way of those declarations?

Diolch. Thanks, Andrew. We were looking to introduce a system called Datgan, which was developed with positive intent to try and improve the collection and management of declarations of interest. However, as implementation progressed, it became clear that the ongoing licensing and operating costs associated with it would significantly outweigh the benefits that were going to be described from the system. So, I concluded, as the director of people and places—this was within my policy sphere—that a new control mechanism through an updated declaration and management of interests policy, and, alongside that, a propriety in financial dealings policy, would be a more cost-effective way of ensuring that the organisation has a handle on conflicts of interest.

Last week—sorry, last month; apologies—we published both the new declaration and management of interests policy and the propriety in financial dealings policy. Both require directors general and their various audit arrangements within groups to collate any potential declarations of interest—that includes actual, potential or perceived—and for them then to be highlighted to our own audit and risk assurance committees, following on from further advice from myself and/or the director of propriety and ethics.

So, we have moved from having a single system that would cover everybody to making sure that we've got a policy that covers everyone, and, for our SCS, a mandated annual return to make sure that our most senior colleagues are covered through the management of interests approach.

We're able to still draw some of the relevant information for those of us who are Welsh Government board members as well, and they form part of the annual accounts process. I know, for example, I submitted the annual information that was still required last year. So, we didn't omit to receive the information.

Okay. It's good there's assurance that that information is there, but it seems to have taken quite a long time to unpick this. When will we see that latest information published?

That information is linked to the related party information in the consolidated accounts. I've seen that information. It's all been completed. It's actually over with Audit Wales; they're going through it for audit perspectives. So, it will be published with the accounts for this year.

So, it'll be the end of November, when we put the accounts into the public domain.

Okay, diolch. Welsh Government accepted the predecessor committee's recommendation to provide information on the number of staff dismissed for poor performance and those placed on performance improvement plans. That information was promised by September, but it's not been provided. So, could you talk us through the delay with that specifically? And then more broadly, how does the Welsh Government then assess whether its performance management arrangements are actually effective?

We have performance management arrangements in. They're a formal part of our annual appraisal. There are a range of reviews that take place within the organisation for that. So, to reassure you all about the system. Dom, do you just want to pick up the reporting side on performance? I know one of our worries was the extent to which things can become identifiable for individuals, irrespective of some of the numbers. And some of the numbers aren't very large, are they? It is what we had to check about.

Diolch. Thanks, Andrew. So, they're not large. And my apologies to the committee and to the committee clerk for not keeping the committee clerk up to date with the collation of data. I should have informed the committee that there was going to be a delay. So, my sincerest apologies to everyone on that matter.

Our default position is always to try and tackle performance before formal dismissal becomes necessary, so our policies are all geared towards having early intervention. I think it's true to say that, over the last four or five years, there's been a renewed focus on performance management and that's seeing increasing confidence from our own staff reporting on their belief that performance is being tackled and being evaluated fairly. So, for example, over the last four years, we've seen a 10 percentage point increase in staff confidence in the organisation tackling staff performance, as evidenced through the annual people survey report.

On average, we typically see somewhere between 15 to 20 people dismissed each year across Welsh Government. They are relatively low numbers, but, of course, dismissal is just one mechanism; it is just one factor of performance. Last year, the 2025-26 performance year, we saw 14 dismissals for a range of reasons under the performance category; the previous year, 15 dismissals. A relatively small proportion, but rather in line with the wider civil service as well.

I would suggest that perhaps the comparatively low numbers are not a sign that performance concerns do not arise, nor necessarily are they a sign that we do not tackle performance management, but rather we do try to do everything we can before we get to that stage, before dismissal becomes necessary. So, what's not included and what I don't have a clear figure on are the individuals who perhaps resign because we're in the process of having conversations and discussions, or, indeed, probations that have come to an end because those arrangements haven't been suitable. But my apologies for the oversight of not coming back to the clerk on the numbers. I'll make sure that we have that sorted in the future.

There was quite a wide reset of senior civil service performance categories from a UK civil service perspective that also we were implementing across Wales. So, when we look at some of our compare and contrast, certainly over this last 12 months, there are some quite visible changes on categories, because there has been a change around some of the definitions around categories, such as when an individual is achieving or whether they are exceeding some of the expectations on their objectives as well. We're very happy to try to cover that off, because it's covered in the annual accounts and we're able to describe some of the processes in place there as well.

A quick follow-up on that from me, before I move on to the next person. So, how many staff were on staff improvement plans?

We don't hold centrally the data of staff on performance improvement plans. That's held at a line management level and we don't have a mechanism to collate that centrally across the organisation, so I can't give you—

Is that something maybe you can have a look at, to come back to this committee about, please?

Diolch. Thank you.

Thank you. Iain McIntosh.

Thank you, Andrew. Thank you, Chair. I was wondering why the Welsh Government rejected the previous committee's recommendation to share the David Noble report setting out the results of his external review of legislation, but then released it in response to a freedom of information request. In February this year, you obviously provided information on the plans to improve the way in which Welsh Government supports the development and delivery of legislation, but it doesn't mention the David Noble review.

Yes. So, the Noble review took place around four years ago, and our focus in the organisation has actually been, originally, using that review—which was undertaken on a confidential basis, as in including confidential reflections from staff in the organisation—for a legislative improvement plan. So, when I was here giving evidence—I think it was in February earlier on this year—I was describing our focus around the legislative improvement plan, and that was the basis on which I went back to the Chair to try and describe a number of the areas that are included in there. So, we have been protective in the first instance about just the level of confidential contributions that were made from staff across the organisation. We would have been prepared to have a different conversation around the committee table; there may have been a chance to have given that perhaps in private, or in confidence to the committee in a bit of a different way, but I thought it was better to focus on what were the actions that were agreed and what's the progress that has taken place. We did deliver all of the legislative programme for the last Government term, including Members' Bills that came in as additional areas.

For the first time on legislation, we have ended up with year 1 legislative proposals. So, for example, today there was information about a taxation Bill that has been released by the Cabinet Minister for Finance, which I hope shows that we have made some improvements around our overall processes.

But we would have been just protecting some of those more confidential contributions that we wanted to do some four years or so ago. The freedom of information tests are rather different; they go through an independent set of criteria. Independent officials made judgments on that and, ultimately, they felt it needed to be released in the public domain, given the questions. But I hope I was able to give some assurance at the time, under different circumstances, to the committee on what we were doing differently as well. And, just as an example, when you look at the Prif Weinidog's legislative programme that he's announced for the next 18 months or so, you'll see, for example, more contained, sharper Bills, which are a reflection of the Noble review at the time, to say that we can do smaller pieces of law and actually get them done more quickly, rather than have Bills that cover almost anything and everything under a general topic as well. So, we've already seen a change on those proposals too.

Okay. So, did you accept the options that were, obviously, set out—I think there were 25 altogether in the report—and, if so, how many of those have you implemented and which have yet to be implemented?

So, we translated the programme into six themes, and they are the ones that were more upfront. Some of the 25 recommendations weren't perhaps as hard-hitting, they were more personal reflections from the individual, and it wasn't ever intended to be a review where we would take absolutely everything on there. But, certainly, on the six themes that we've taken from the 25, we've made progress on all of those. For example, there's now a central specialist pool of individuals with experience of law making who we deploy as programmes are going through different stages, and we're able to make sure that there is always expertise around in the system; there's the more contained Bills; there's improved governance around the progression of Bills. And I hope that the delivery, ultimately, of the legislative programme at the end of the last Government term, which was four years after Noble, was a sign that we have actually done some different things as well.

Okay. And perhaps—if you'd indulge me just a little bit—we can have an update to the committee as to where we are on each of those at some point. That would be helpful, I think, if that's okay.

Yes, I'm very happy to show the changes that we've done on that legislative improvement side, and I'm sure there'll be some new things that we learn with the new Government about some of their expectations and practice as well, but very happy to do that, Chair.

Thank you.

Alun Cox.

The Welsh Government has accepted 141 recommendations relating to its programme and project management arrangements, to be implemented over 12 to 18 months. Which recommendations are the highest priority and how will the Welsh Government measure whether the changes have improved its programme and project management practice?

Sioned, would you like to take that—I know, probably, rather than recommendations, they're more like criteria, aren't they, around the major projects approach, but—maybe to sprinkle on some of the progress we've seen as well, including how many people we've trained? Thank you.

I'm very happy to do that.

Diolch yn fawr iawn am y cwestiwn.

So, yes, there are 141, essentially, criteria that we need to follow. And I think, maybe, some of the terminology we've used previously, in terms of them being audit reviews that we need to meet—these are recommendations, these are criteria we need to meet. There are 141 of them; we are making progress towards those. They're the same 141 that other Government departments and the Scottish Government also have to have, and it shows the maturity of the organisation in programme and project management.

I'm a really passionate believer that we need to get this right and, therefore, part of the transition and the changes we've made since I've become chief operating officer is to bring the team that is focusing on this much closer to my area. So, they now report directly through to me. I'm making sure that we are training capacity and capability across the organisation to make sure that not just sitting centrally, but in every group, in every department, we have members of staff who are learning to become programme and project managers, and that they are recording their experience in a way that meets with the Government functional standards. If we can find our way to adhering to the Government functional standards, then we have a model that is sustainable and transferable skills that we can move both around the organisation and in and out of secondments as we choose to do it.

So, we are making progress; we have a plan for this year. There are 13 where we have self-assessed that we are up to the right level—and you can probably tell that the fact that there's only 13 means we've been very stringent in how we are self-assessing ourselves. There are another 45 or so that we have in operation now, moving towards the end of this year, and then we'll be tackling the rest of them next year. But this is progress; we need to build on this, and some of these recommendations can't be undertaken until we invest in some of the systems and processes that we need to have as an organisation. So, they're not as binary as perhaps the impression that may have been given previously.

Can I just follow on from that? Thank you for the answer. You've noted there you're making good progress towards those criteria/recommendations, but that doesn't tell us how you measure the success of those. You can implement 141, but it changes nothing. I'm not suggesting that is the case, but what have we got in place to measure improvement?

I think that's a very fair assessment. None of the UK Governments, as far as I'm aware—I did check this morning—have had all 141 signed off. So, that gives you some context, at least. There's a self-assessment tool. Wwe are being quite harsh on that in terms of how we look at ourselves. But we will start to see that progress over the next few years, as we start to see the disciplines coming through and the projects being delivered in a far more systematic and assured way.

One of the things we have taken as a direct action as well, through the Permanent Secretary's delegation letters to directors general, is that there's now a very clear, explicit requirement of directors general to adhere to the process of programme and project management. We've not had that before in that explicit way. So, it will be part of performance reviews and it will be part of the disciplines the directors general will be needing to adhere to, led by the Permanent Secretary. Diolch.

Thank you. Shav Taj.

I guess my question is going to be about what assessment you've made of whether the Welsh Government and the civil service are now sufficiently, properly resourced. The Senedd has got bigger, there's more scrutiny, there are the demands from the public as well—the FOIs are flowing in, I'm sure. So, what sort of assessment have you made as to whether or not you are properly resourced for 141 recommendations, for example? And also, in terms of an assessment, then, have you also identified, maybe, some of the greatest pressures or gaps in terms of capacity, and how are you then looking to address some of those?

I think that there is a medium- to long-term view of the shape of the organisation, and there's where we are at the moment. I think the backcloth to this conversation is that, every single year, the budget is set for the civil service, and we have a responsibility, obviously, to work within that. That has been the case over recent years, working with previous Governments, and will be the case, I know, of this Government as well.

The civil service shape, from a Welsh Government perspective, has not really changed that much over recent years, particularly when we track very significant changes, for example, when we had law-making powers, when we took on new post-EU exit responsibilities, even during the pandemic as well. So, there's always been an underlying discipline, I suppose, about making sure that we are managing within the money despite our range of responsibilities. There are expectations, of course, of the new Government to show that we are working differently and meeting and responding to their expectations. Of course, the budget cycle that is ahead of us will be about setting our outlook as an organisation. We think there's a lot that we can offer positively about our experience. Even the way in which the civil service has responded to the transition to a new Government really has been exemplary, all part of good planning and preparation, I hope, and having an understanding about the new Government's expectations as well.

But we do need to be clear about some areas where our teams are pretty small and will struggle at times. I describe ourselves as a compact organisation, but, in many respects, it's because, when we are liaising with colleagues, for example, at UK Government level, often where there are teams of tens into the hundreds on very specialist areas, we'll end up with only a couple of colleagues who are joining the same kinds of conversations as well. So, one of the advantages in Wales is that it creates a more intimate system, and I think it does help with some of the liaison with other public bodies, accessing their expertise. So, I do think we work in a different way, and that was very true as we were responding to the pandemic as well.

And then, in terms of that, and how you liaise—you mentioned project management skills, and the skills gap in particular—I guess capability and skills tend to be that recurring theme that often will pop up. With the new civil service school, Arwain, that's being currently considered, I guess, what specific capability gaps is that going to address? How will that then add value to the substantial training and development that's already available through the UK civil service? Is that going to change anything? Is that going to help?

Shall I just come in quickly?

Yes, you come in quickly, and then Dom can pick up some of the individual details on Arwain.

Thanks, Shav. So, one of the things we're in the process of doing now is prioritising how we support the Government, moving forward. That piece of work has been ongoing now for a few weeks. That will help us to start to identify where we have the gaps. I think there's no secret that we are quite thin. We have a number of areas where there are real pressures and, potentially, single points of failure, and we need to make sure that we address those. We need to make sure that we tackle those. We identify them, we tackle them and we provide our staff with the skills and the experience and, indeed, the training they need to be able to either fill those gaps, or, if they're not a priority for us as an organisation, they're something we really need to consider how we stop, amend, change, so that we can then ensure that staff are not overburdened but, more importantly—or maybe not more importantly, but as importantly—that the organisation isn't at risk, because we need to make sure that we protect the organisation and ensure that we can deliver for Ministers in the best way possible.

In respect of the school of management and the Arwain approach in Wales, there's obviously a school of Government at the UK civil service level as well, which we also can take advantage of. But, Dom, did you just want to comment on that?

Diolch. Thanks, Andrew.

Diolch am y cwestiwn.

Arwain is designed to be the primary vehicle for public sector leadership, rather than a civil service training school or training college, as the case may be. Arwain has a more deliberate external focus on how we support the pipeline of talent for our public sector roles. Internally, across the Welsh Government, my human resources team, and in particular my talent and learning team, have been working with colleagues following an activity and alignment exercise that took place earlier in the year to look at what are the top skills that we need to continue to develop across the organisation—so, legislation, for example, policy, digital technology. Working then in conjunction with the UK Government's national school for government, as its primary vehicle for civil service learning, we are pulling together a package for our staff.

So, I think there's a number of activities here. We've got our own internal offer, primarily through the talent and learning team. The focus is on the outcomes of previous activities that have been undertaken. We have the national school of government at the UK Government level, which is the primary delivery vehicle for all civil service learning now, going forward. But also, we can tap into mechanisms like Arwain. Even though it's designed to be an external leadership element, there are things there that we can tap into to make sure it's equally applicable for our own civil servants.

Are you confident, I guess, that this will genuinely address capability and delivery, and not end up duplicating something that already is on offer?

We've met with the school of government colleagues from a UK civil service perspective. We are part of the UK civil service, and we access all sorts of development and training through those mechanisms to our advantage and benefit. And we were really clear that this was about having a complementary approach—that outward facing public service network arrangement, as opposed to the more pure internal civil service kind of training. So, I do feel we can describe them as complementary mechanisms, definitely.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Alun Cox.

I think this follows on, and you've talked, as well, about those single points of failure within the organisation. The Welsh Government has said it's making progress with a long-term workforce strategy. Can you share an update with us on when you expect to complete that work and when the results of that work can be shared with this committee?

Dom, you may want to respond to that. It's probably worth saying that, of course, liaising with the Government at the start of their four-year term, it's helpful for us to now have an outlook over that period of time into the medium term as well. And there'll be some approaches that we're taking, again, with the Government, including how we prioritise work, with the programme for government now out in the public domain, and how we're going to align to that. That's going to help us. But, Dom, on the workforce plan—thank you.

Diolch, thank you, and thank you for the question. There's been significant progress since the previous Audit Wales review into workforce planning. I think it was in 2021, the previous one, or 2022. So, we've undertaken and implemented a delegations framework, new recruitment processes, a new talent investment approach. We have revitalised our heads of profession, looking at the capacity and capability within those professions. Alongside that, over the last 12 months, we have undertaken, as I referenced earlier, an alignment exercise to understand who does what, what skills they are bringing, what profession they are part of. And now we are undertaking a prioritisation exercise to look at how we deploy staff to this Government's programme for government commitments. So, all of that combined comes to a new approach for workforce planning that pulls together organisational design, the ability for us to develop capacity where we need to do so, the ability for us to develop capability where we can do so, plus targeted recruitment as mechanisms, alongside existing things like banc barod, for example, which is our internal movement of staff.

Am I in a position to say we will have a final strategy by x date? The honest answer is 'no', because I think this will be a live document that will reflect the priorities, capabilities and the funding envelope that we operate within. So, we're going to have to flex and have choices depending on what the next couple of years are going to look like. Will we have a very clear framework of the things that we are prioritising? Absolutely, yes, and that is part of the people plan that we are pulling together as a bit of a north star for people services over the next couple of years. My anticipation is that we need to understand the outcome of the funding discussions. We need to understand what the budget position is going to look like for the next two or three years to then really pull together a much more detailed capability assessment. Once I have that, obviously I'd be happy to discuss it with the committee and see what we can do there to see what information you'd like.

Mr Medcraft, you wanted to come in?

I totally agree with everything Dom says. I'm a head of profession, head of the finance profession, and what I've done is look at the skills capability of that profession within the Welsh Government, working with senior finance leaders. We've developed our finance development strategy for the Welsh Government, as well, over the next four years, looking at capability, skills, looking at the use of data, because we've got limited resources. I'm envious of other colleagues in Northern Ireland who have double the finance staff I've got for the Welsh Government. We are small, but perfectly formed, and what we try and do is get as much as we can out of that resource as well. We are very thin, but we are working together to improve our skills and capability across the organisation.

Just to come back, I'm always a bit worried when somebody's asked a question in terms of timescale on a document and they say, 'Well, this is a live document and there isn't a timescale.' I'm always worried by that answer. I accept everything that you've told me in terms of there being lots of different factors involved. Towards the end of your answer, I think you talked about a capability framework that you could share with us. Did you give us a timescale for that?

So, we are working on that towards the end of this financial year, because we need to understand the implications of the upcoming budgets for the Welsh Government and its workforce.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Andrew R.T. Davies.

Just on that one point, you just said that you're working on an alignment plan, or something, in your long-term workforce strategy. Earlier, you said that you don't have central data for those members of staff who are on a staff improvement plan. So, how can you know what is suitable for someone, going forward, if you don't know what their skills base needs to be improved by?

Well, we work with our heads of profession for us to understand what do our professions need. So, rather than an individual plan for each member of staff, we work with our heads of profession to understand what's the general direction for, for example, our policy profession, for finance or for whichever profession you care to name. We use that information to base where we wish to make our investment decisions or where we wish to make our development decisions, going forward, rather than individual performance improvement plans.

But you need to know what your staff are capable of, do you not? If you haven't got that information held centrally, trying to mix the two up and join them in a coherent way is difficult, isn't it?

I think there is a huge degree of challenge, absolutely, I would agree with you. But I do think we need to lean on our heads of profession as individuals who are closer to the workforce delivering that work, to understand where the gaps are. It's that gap analysis, through working with our heads of profession, that then tells us where we wish to invest and what additional levers we might need to pull, although I take the point that better clarity of employee information inevitably would help, but we are not there with our systems presently.

Okay. Dr Goodall, Welsh Government 2025 and here we are in 2026. For our millions of viewers, they might ask why we're looking back to 2025. When you brought the plan forward in 2022-23, it was about making the Welsh Government fit for purpose after COVID and, obviously, the Brexit vote. The predecessor committee said they couldn't understand the matrix that you were using to measure the goals that you'd set yourself in that strategy. The strategy was redefined halfway through and it had five pillars to it. It was shut down to three because of budgetary pressures, as I understand it. In earlier evidence to the committee in response to a question, you said that the shape of the Welsh civil service hasn't changed in recent years. That statement runs contrary to what Welsh Government 2025 was supposed to set out, wasn't it, because that was meant to be a dramatic change?

Welsh Government 2025 was about trying to focus on infrastructure, skills and capability across the organisation, and it was never envisaged of itself to be an end point. It was deliberately a targeted three-year period where we would try to show the change arrangements in the organisation and give people confidence in our ability to do things in a different way.

I referred, in our last evidence session with the committee, to seeing some of the feedback that we've had from our own staff in our staff survey, which actually shows that we have seen a really significant change in people's approach to change and their confidence in leadership for change as well, which puts us as one of the higher departments across the UK civil service as well.

But I do think it's really important to recognise that change is something that happens over time, it affects the culture of the organisation. There were a series of tangible things that we did deliver through Welsh Government 2025. Sioned, I know you'll comment on that. It was, however, tricky that, right in the middle of that change approach, and because of the particular budgetary pressures across the whole of the Welsh Government, not just from a civil service perspective, we did have to pivot what was originally a culture change approach into something that was actually about having to manage within the budget that was available, and a very significant set of decisions by the previous Government as well. Sioned, on the individual areas that we achieved, do you want to just call out a few of those examples?

Diolch am y cwestiwn.

We undertook a really big IT refresh as part of it, which keeps us secure, moving forward, as part of our infrastructure, and there may be a question on cyber security that we're happy to pick up if you wanted to. We developed the voluntary exit scheme also as part of this. We hadn't envisaged that at the beginning, I think it's fair to say, but we were able to adapt and pivot to ensure that we could manage a successful voluntary exit scheme.

We also introduced, in consultation with staff, our values and behaviours framework, which is underpinning a lot of the way that we are developing our staff now as we move, because WG2025 has clearly come to an end, as you've pointed out, and we're moving now and have moved into the launch of Barod am Newid, in which we are building on what we learned from WG2025 to be able to change the culture for the staff, in empowering them to be able to do more things, reminding, perhaps, some staff of the power they have already and what they can take forward, and encouraging that opportunity for teams themselves to organically develop the ideas they want to do, rather than feeling that everything has to come from the centre. So, we've taken a deliberate decision this time to have the cultural change under Barod am Newid, which will be different to the corporate development plan under which the transforming corporate services and other activities sit.

Did Welsh Government 2025 hit its targets in delivering, I think the wording was, a fit-for-purpose organisation for a post-pandemic, post-EU-exit world, supporting Ministers more effectively in delivering for people and communities in Wales within an increasingly challenging global context? Did it hit its targets? Obviously, our predecessor committee, for the life of them, couldn't work that out from the evidence you gave them.

I think it made progress on those areas in delivering change. On a range of our staff survey matters, not just on change, our staff are telling us that the organisation feels very different, and there are a number of those areas where we stand out when we compare ourselves with other UK departments, having done something a bit different, particularly around our values. We discharged the programme for government of the last Government. We prepared ourselves for the transition with the Senedd elections around a new Government. We've been able to support the very clear expectations of the new Government arriving now over the last three or four months. But I don't think the fixed position of our staffing arrangements at the moment do reflect where I would want us to be in three years or five years. We're going to need to adapt. A very visible expectation from the new Government is, in setting new programme for government priorities, they will expect to see that the civil service is changing where its attention is, and that some colleagues will be moving to new and different areas over the course of the next couple of years. But we did deliver.

There were a lot of words there, but what I just want to know is: did it hit its target? Yes or no?

It's fair to say its target had to change. We had ambitions for that programme—

It didn't hit its original targets because it changed halfway through because of budgetary pressures.

All external pressures, actually. There were a number of external pressures, not least political change, but also the budgetary pressures have meant that we've had to curb back on a lot of the activities we would like to do as an organisation.

Okay, fine.

Thank you. Anna Nicholl.

Thank you. We've had a number of high-profile scandals in recent years in our public bodies, unfortunately. We've been able to see the kind of waste that's caused not just in finance and resource, but also it's a challenge to public trust, I suppose, in our public administration. So, making sure we're dealing with that properly, or the Welsh Government is addressing that and its role in it, is really important. Sometimes, in the responses, it's felt shrouded in a bit of a mystery about what actually what has been that response. I understand there's been a public bodies unit that was disbanded and now reinstated, and that's following a review of what you've done. But, still, it feels quite a mystery, what's happened there and the reasons for that. So, would it be possible to share the findings of that review with us, please?

I'm very happy to write to the committee afterwards with detailed information on that. Very briefly, the public bodies unit was set up in 2018 to have three different arms to it: a governance and leadership arm, where we support chief execs and chairs to undertake their duties; a recruitment arm to look after public appointments; and then a pay and wider support arm, to look after some of the pay remit questions that come out of it.

I should stress for the committee that at no point did any of those functions cease to operate. They have remained within the people and places family over the last couple of years. What did happen was that, rather than it being one team, we explored whether it could be part of our centres of excellence—so, for example, whether the public appointments team could be part of our wider recruitment service, our governance and leadership team be part of the wider public leadership team, and the public pay side part of our pay team.

Upon appointing a new deputy director, I asked her to undertake a review of how effective that model is. The review found that there was merit in aligning the centres of excellence, but did also highlight the loss of identity of the public bodies team having a core focus and a core named identity to it. So, we reinstated its core identity, but at no point did any of those functions stop. We went from being a matrix model back to being a single team, all under the people and places umbrella, all under my watch.

Do you feel confident now—they seem like quite structural changes—that you can identify early where there are red flags happening in governance in our public bodies? Do you feel confident it's much less likely for this sort of thing to happen in the future?

I think we are in a much stronger position, certainly from a governance perspective. The public bodies team provides one level of assurance that's already there through individual public bodies' own audit and risk committees or in their own responsibilities as accounting officers. We offer a third line of defence, if you will, within that space. So, yes, I'm confident that we've got the right model in place to support our public bodies, but there's always more that could be done. I wouldn't wish to be complacent; I recognise there's more that we could do.

When we were giving evidence to predecessor committees, there was also something to make sure that the public bodies unit wasn't held accountable for what it wasn't responsible for. And whilst it has a wider setting—as Dom has described, that will include things like aligning with the self-assessments—there's a wider public appointments process that takes place around these areas as well. We do have individual teams who have sponsoring responsibilities; so, for example, as you would expect it's line managed, health will be under the health area, under the director general. Natural Resources Wales would be under the director general arrangements for sponsoring as well. So, just to make sure that we don't perhaps confuse some of those responsibilities in the wider governance with the day-to-day teams who are actually overseeing organisations at the same time.

Thank you. I'm just conscious we've still got a reasonable amount to get through and I'm just watching the clock tick down. Iain McIntosh.

Thank you. Despite agreeing to provide information about its progress in updating 'Managing Welsh Public Money' by September, I don't believe the Welsh Government has done so. I was wondering why this is. Can the Welsh Government provide an update about its work and confirm when it expects to publish its revised 'Managing Welsh Public Money'?

It was one of the areas that I would have highlighted when I was responding to the Chair's question earlier. Hopefully, our reason, which Dean will set out, will help, because it's because we've been getting on with the work. I think, already, six out of the seven chapters that need to be updated have been done. We're expecting it to be ready once we get the annual accounts out of the way.

Apologies, that was an administrative oversight on my behalf. We saw the pressures of doing the accounts, the in-year position, dealing with new Government, and a very small team. However, I knew I was coming here today, so I thought I would give you a verbal update. In February 2026, I said to the previous committee that I'd got a small resource to take this forward, which hasn't been done since 2016, I think. That team, two people, have actually looked at this. They're going through it chapter by chapter. We're looking at legislation, policy and UK Government advice. As Andrew said, I've now got to the stage where, with the team, we've done six out of seven chapters, which I think is great. Over the autumn, I will make sure all chapters are completed, plus the annexes. Obviously, I've got to go through governance routes within the Welsh Government and then be prepared to publish. So, we are so far forward now, and I'm really confident we'll get there by the end of the financial year.

If you've only got two people on this, is that enough, do you think? Are you satisfied with that?

It's two people doing the actual work, then they will pass it to others who are specialists in their areas. They will then review. Then we go to the operational effectiveness committee, to ExCo, so there are lots of people involved in it, but two people driving it, and I've got confidence in their ability that they will do it, and they've delivered six of the seven chapters already for me, so I think we'll do it.

When we did it last time, it took us 18 months to work through the process, just because obviously you're launching this as a really significant governance framework for the whole of the public sector as well as for the Welsh Government.

Okay, thank you.

Shav Taj.

My question is for Andrew, and it's about business support. The committee previously raised some concerns about the decision to dissolve Industry Wales and the lack of transparency around that decision. Following that early scrutiny, what assessment have you made of whether the functions and sectoral expertise previously provided through Industry Wales are now being maintained?

Of the four forums that were supported by Industry Wales, we've got three that are carrying on in one form or another, and a fourth in relation to automotive has effectively wound itself down. We are pretty confident from conversations with the sectors concerned, but also with business representatives across Wales, that we have the functions of Industry Wales covered off in other areas. So, I would give you a pretty high level of assurance around that.

In terms of the functions that have been transferred, where does that responsibility now sit? You've mentioned three of the four.

Two have gone into their own self-sustaining arrangements. One now has as its guarantor the Development Bank of Wales. And as I say, the automotive—. Sorry, that was Net Zero Industry Wales. And then the automotive forum has effectively wound up. There are some small legacy issues for us as the Welsh Government to manage out in respect of Industry Wales as the core body. There are small sums of money associated with those. We have appointed two directors from within our staff cadre to undertake the work that's required there over the course of the next few months to finish that off, and then the whole lot will be dealt with and will be audited.

And the two that you've appointed, they're temporary appointments for the purpose of that—

They're appointments to allow us to get to the end of that process, yes, with relevant skills, and to draw on colleagues as well, as needed.

How will the new economic development agency address any remaining gaps, perhaps, until everything is fully operational? Who is responsible for and accountable for ensuring that continuity of support for investment, skills and, of course, good jobs?

The core functions within Government haven't changed, so all the work that we do in relation to supporting business and in economic growth terms continues. The new innovation and development agency design work is now being undertaken by an expert panel, which is meeting this week, in fact, to get going on all of that work, building on a lot of contextual work and background research done over the summer. And of course, they will take findings from what happened with Industry Wales into the mix for the things that they will be looking at. We would expect them to produce a report in the next six months or so for Government, in terms of the design of the new agency. But in relation to the sectors themselves, all of the work carries on and we continue to engage with all of the relevant sector bodies, the business organisations, and indeed many businesses across Wales directly.

So, you're confident that this new structure, this new system, is actually going to work and people are not going to miss out.

Yes, in the sense that Industry Wales was providing a sort of concentration point for advice and supporting the four forums underneath—looking at aerospace, Tech Connected and net zero industry matters, and then the automotive forum. We think those functions are completely covered off with the arrangements we have in place and will be built on in the future in the new arrangements with the new agency.

And of course, the agency itself will still be subject to ministerial choices and decisions once they've heard the expert group outputs as well.

Yes—its input to Ministers choosing the way forward.

Thank you.

Thank you. I've got a few catch-up questions just to try and get in before we finish the session. The Welsh Government expected to complete the full business case for its transforming corporate services programme by 30 April 2026, for consideration for ministerial approval in the new Senedd term. Can the Welsh Government provide an update about the status of the transforming corporate services programme, and, having accepted the predecessor committee's recommendation, when will it share a breakdown of the estimated costs and benefits with this committee?

Obviously, we've been clear in previous evidence that investments in this area are outwith the day-to-day civil service budgets in place and they are a point of negotiation and discussion with the new Government. Sioned.

Diolch. Thank you for the question. I'll try and keep my answer brief. Apologies that the business case is late. I'll take all of that on my shoulders, in that I stopped where the business case was being developed, because having looked at the budgetary implications and the environment as we look at it now, and indeed the priorities of the next Government—the current Government, sorry—I wanted to look at what was really possible to be deliverable for us. So, we've undertaken a review of the business case. We had a project assessment review undertaken on it in April as well, and we've just had a follow-up now in October. But I expect to have the provisional business case with me by the end of this month, with a view to signing it off by the end of this year. We're hoping we'll be able to go into some sort of mobilisation, subject to any finances being agreed, by the the fourth quarter of this year.

Thank you. Mr Slade, in your response to our letter to you, you say that achieving greater certainty to attract a potential investor for the Global Centre of Rail Excellence includes developing a fixed construction cost for the rail project, as well as providing confidence over the early years revenue of the operational rail facility. What specific criteria must be met for Ministers to conclude that GCRE represents a viable investment?

GCRE have submitted an updated programme business case, which I think I referred to in my letter. That is now with us for consideration, amongst officials, and drawing in appropriate expert advice. And then that will form a set of recommendations to Ministers, which needs to happen over the course of the next few weeks, partly in order to take forward the GCRE proposition and give clarity to the team there, but also because it ties in with our budget processes and we need to be clear about the budget for the next few years. So, for a whole range of reasons, over the course of the next few weeks, we will be bringing this material to a conclusion in terms of the next steps for GCRE.

Thank you. And the final question is from me, unless anyone's got a quick follow-up they can come up with. Dr Goodall, I was very pleased to hear that you're on course for filing the accounts by 27 November.

Yes.

Are there any material risks to that timetable?

At this point in time, we are confident we can get there. We've put in all of the actions and activity. We've handed over information to Audit Wales. They have, I believe, remained on track—but that's speaking on their behalf—with that process. The only thing that will affect both of our processes will be if something is spotted that needs some further investigation and needs a level of technical response. And, at this very late stage of the annual accounts, all of our goodwill and commitment in working together doesn't mean, actually, that there may not still be something that Audit Wales need to pursue and ask for further information on.

To emphasise, we are still submitting this, even by the end of November, four months earlier than the statutory deadline, so we tried to do it as early as possible. Hopefully, Dean, that's covered it off. It's a bit of 'fingers crossed' at this stage, but we'll liaise over the next month.

We're crossing everything, Andrew. I meet with Audit Wales on a weekly basis, go through with the audit team their findings. We met last week and everything is on track. We're going before the Welsh Government—our audit risk and assurance committee—next week, going through part 1, part 2, part 3, which is excellent. Hopefully, nothing comes out the woodwork, but fingers crossed.

My signing date is already in the diary, so fingers crossed.

Okay. Does any Member want a quick follow-up? Iain.

A very quick question to Mr Slade—

A very quick one, please.

—on the GCRE, if you wouldn't mind. Could you provide an update on the conditions that GCRE must meet to be able to continue receiving support, the final date for either a 'go' or 'no go' decision as to whether to proceed, and also, if private investment isn't secure, what the exit plan might be?

I'm pretty sure that the enterprise committee is looking into this in some detail, at the policy level. So, maybe the best thing for me to do, Chair, is to tie the work that we're doing in relation to that committee up with the advice that I'm providing to you, and I'll write in due course on those points.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. So, that brings this session to a close. I thank the panel for their attendance this afternoon. As usual, a copy of the transcript will be made available for you to check for factual accuracy in due course.

So, I'm going to now move to item 4 on the agenda. I'll let the panel leave.

So, item 4, a motion under Standing Order 17.42(ix) to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of this meeting. I propose, in accorance with Standing Order 17.42(ix), that the committee resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. Are Members content? Members are content. We will now proceed in private.