Children, Young People, and Education Committee

We'll move on to the main item on our agenda today, which is the scrutiny of the Welsh Government's draft budget 2023-24. This is our second evidence session. We've got the Minister and his officials with us today. Good morning, bore da, you're very welcome. We have Jeremy Miles, who's the Minister for Education and the Welsh Language. With you, you have your officials: Owain Lloyd, who's director of education and the Welsh language, and Jo-Anne Daniels, who is director of tertiary education.

Members have a number of questions to put to you this morning. I'll start on some general questions and the overall context. First of all, I'd like to thank you for your paper that you provided to the committee. In that paper, you describe the difficult decisions that have had to be taken to reshape the budget. You say your department's been asked to identify funding that could be released to support cross-governmental pressures. Perhaps you could just explain a little bit about how you went about that exercise. In doing so, are you satisfied that the £103 million that has been reprioritised out of your budget is in the areas that it will be, perhaps, missed the least?

Yes, certainly, Chair. I think any cut of that magnitude will be missed, won't it, to a budget. But what we have endeavoured to do, in making choices that I'm sure have been the most difficult choices during the period of devolution, really, given the pressures on the budget, is to try and do that in a way that is as strategic as possible on the one hand, and that has an eye to minimising the impact on people's real experiences on the other.

What we have tried to do across the Government, I think, is to try and reshape those budgets to reflect the challenges that we face at the moment. There have been some common principles that all Ministers, I think, have sought to apply, which have been around trying to protect the front-line services in the budgets that we are responsible for, to prioritise jobs wherever that has been possible, and to try and extend the partnership working that we have, so that we can try and weather the storm together across public services more broadly. The consequence of that has been the freeing up of money, including from my budget, for the NHS and for the core local government settlement in particular.

As you say, it's a little under £103 million in my budget, which is around 5.68 per cent of my budget. But you will have seen from the paper and the tables we submitted that that percentage reduction hasn't been applied consistently across the main expenditure group; we have looked to balance that set of reductions. The consistent principle, which I hope I've been able to apply, is that we would do everything we could to protect pre-16 education settings, and to focus funding, as far as we possibly could, on improving standards. That has inevitably meant that other parts of the budget, therefore, carry a larger part of that burden, necessarily, unfortunately. But just over half of it, actually, has been found from demand-led budgets, and the heavy lifting there is done by the student support budget, as you can imagine, as you will have seen from the tables.

What we have done in relation to that is, essentially, reproject the level of demand. We believe that is going to be, as you can see, quite significantly under what we had provided for in the budget, and so we are releasing that funding to the centre, if you like, for reallocation. Just to be absolutely clear with the committee, this is a demand-led budget, people have entitlements to it, and those entitlements aren't changing. We are projecting how many of those entitlements will arise. If we end up being wrong, and there are more than we have projected for, we will need to meet those claims as well. So, this won't affect an individual student's entitlement to make a claim. We are making assumptions about that level of demand, if you like. I think that is a sensible approach. Obviously, it's an approach that carries risk. I think it's a risk that's reasonable for us to take, but if I'm wrong on that, there will be consequences in the budget, obviously.

In other parts of the budget, we've tried to limit the impact of reductions. For example, in the Welsh language budget, in agreement with Plaid Cymru, we will be reprofiling an increase to the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol and the canolfan dysgu of £3.5 million, so that will be increased over future years. I took that decision because the alternative was to find that sum of money from a plethora of grants that go to third-party organisations who do important work, and very often are quite dependent on those grants, because they're quite often quite modest, quite small-scale organisations. The only advantage, if you like, of limiting that cut to two big, resilient organisations is that they have some more flexibility and are able to manage movements in the profiling of their funding in a more flexible way. So, we've applied that lens to how we've made that reduction there as well. The net effect of that is that the funding going to schools, through my school grants programme, has been prioritised in this set of reductions, as it was in the in-year set of reductions last year as well.

Thank you. That's really helpful to outline and set that backdrop, I think, for this session. Significant in-year reductions to your budget were already announced in October last year, and they're formally documented in the second supplementary budget for 2023-24. While the draft 2024-25 MEG is worth less than the 2023-24 final budget, it therefore seems it is actually higher than the current year's budget once the reductions announced in October are taken into account. Perhaps you can confirm whether this the case, and, if yes, to what extent has the financial hit already been taken in the 2023-24 year rather than in the forthcoming 2024-25?

We may be some time with this, Chair. [Laughter.] The short answer to your question, which I'm sure you would appreciate, is that the 2024-25 revenue budget, which we've published in draft, is in fact a little over £15 million higher than the 2023-24 budget, when you take into account the reductions that we made last year. So, it is, in fact, higher. It depends what you're comparing it against, doesn't it, but that is the short answer to your question. So, the revenue reductions that we're making this year are, of course, higher than the revenue reductions last year, but that's partly due to the original baseline budget in 2024-25 being set to increase anyway. There was intended to be an increase, so it's less of an increase than was intended, but it's still higher than it was last year.FootnoteLink

Thank you. Are the areas you have identified for savings next year against the indicative budget for 2024-25 the same as, or at least similar to, the areas you have had money moved away from during 2023-24, in the October announcement?

Well, it's a mixed picture, Chair. So, the approach that has been absolutely consistent is that we've applied the same set of principles. So, we've asked ourselves the same questions in making the cuts we had to make in-year last year as the reductions we've been able to make. You know, we've had more planning time this year, haven't we, so we've been able to make them in advance of the year, so you're able to be more strategic, perhaps, about some of those choices, and there is some more flexibility in how you approach what is a daunting task in any year, really. So, the consequence of that is that some of the decisions that I took last year were in relation to one-off funding, and some decisions relate to funding that is year on year. So, there's a range of approaches. Last year, because we didn't have the flexibility of having more budget lines that hadn't been committed—. Before the financial year, there are more options in that sense, aren't there? But, last year, the in-year cuts were based on, again, changes to demand-led budgets—and there are some similarities to that approach this year—but also, where there were grants, which, at the point in the year when we were having to make the cuts, hadn't yet been committed. So, we weren't in a position, as you might recall from the discussions we had at the time, in the in-year cuts of having to stop or discontinue anything that was already running. It was a question of remodelling the demand or reclaiming grants that hadn't yet been spent and weren't really going to be spent. So, that was the basic approach for the in-year cuts that we had to make.

So, there are some aspects that are similar to this year. So, if you look at the demand-led budgets, student support grants have been a source of the reductions in both of those financial years, of broadly similar levels. Another one in that category is the initial teacher education incentives. Again, there isn't a teacher going without an incentive; it's just that the numbers are different from what we projected. But we made a saving in the budget of £700,000 last year, and it'll be roughly £300,000 for the next financial year.

Again, in relation to the universal free-school-meals programme, there was more budget allocated than demand that accrued last year. This year, we've protected that from reduction, in discussion with Plaid Cymru, so that will be different this year from last year. But, last year we had an underspend in that budget line, so that carried some of the burden last year, if you like.

The youth engagement and employment budget expenditure line is in a similar space. We made a reduction last year, and it's a similar reduction this year. It's not a demand-led budget, but the reductions have been roughly similar. But then there've been some quite different approaches this year from last year. Two examples of that would be, firstly, in relation to the whole-school approach to mental health and well-being. We had to make a reduction to that last year; we haven't made a reduction to that this year. And, in the post-16 budget lines, last year that was largely in line with what I've just said to you—grant reclaims, grants that weren't being spent and therefore would ordinarily come back to us anyway. That did some of the heavy lifting, but we also had some uncommitted funds for other aspects of policy that we then repurposed. This year, that is different. So, this year, there will be an actual cut to funding that we had planned to make, if you like, and the largest element of that relates to the newly merged part-time learning and personal learning accounts budget lines. So, there'll be a reduction in that. So, that approach has been different this year, I'm afraid.FootnoteLink

Okay, thank you very much. We've got some questions now from Sioned Williams. Sioned.

Thank you, Chair. Going after that element of post-16 education is what I want to do, because those cuts perhaps are clearer than the other reductions in other areas of the education budget. In your paper, and you referred to it there, you say that there will be reductions to personal learning accounts and that this, you say, will impact on your commitment to increase the number of adults who are learning. And personal learning accounts, of course, also support people to upskill or to reskill within priority sectors for the Government. So, has the Government engaged with further education colleges and other providers with regard to this reduction of £7.2 million, and what will the impact of this be?

Okay. If I may, just two things in terms of context on this. The first thing is that, in terms of the cut to the post-16 budget in general, if you put the fund for supporting learners that we've just mentioned to one side, the cut in terms of percentage is far lower than the 5.6 per cent required across the budget. So, I've been able to give some element of safety to this too. There has been a cut, but it's less than the 5.6 per cent. And the context for that is that, in the two years—over two years now—that I've been education Minister, we've increased the budget for further education colleges by more than 20 per cent, I think—yes, 20 per cent. So, the increase has been quite significant, just as some background—I'm not proud of having done this, but just to explain.

Catching up with the lack of investment is what that expenditure was, wasn't it, historically perhaps.

Well, there has been an increase is the point I'm making. But in terms of the PLA itself, we have a new approach in this budget of combining PLA with the broader budget, because we were hearing from colleges that the way that PLA works—. PLA is popular—we've increased it from about £2 million at the start to something that's now worth about £15 million, and it has been worth much more than that in previous years. So, colleges were saying that it was popular, but it's quite bureaucratic to administer and it's quite inflexible in the way that the plan was structured. So, by combining that with the broader budget for part-time learning, that gives us an opportunity to provide more flexibility in the scheme. So, although the cut seems to be a cut in the PLA line, I myself don't believe that it will be a cut to the provision of PLA, because PLA is popular, and the new method of combining it allows the PLA budget to expand. And I think that that is what will happen. But that will happen at the expense of other part-time provision, because the budget is combined. So, what I expect to see is that PLA increases, or at least does not decrease, and perhaps then a cut will happen to that broader provision.

So, our intention is to work with colleges—discussions have happened already, and more will happen this month—so that we can provide guidelines to colleges on the elements of the budget outside of the PLA element, so that they can prioritise what has the greatest impact. Those discussions are ongoing at the moment. But the essential point is whether I believe that this will mean that fewer adults will have these opportunities. I do believe that that will be a side-effect of this. Our responsibility now is to ensure that the provision that is available has the greatest impact.

Thank you. You then referred in your initial answers to grants, and the cuts to grants for post-16 education. The grants for postgraduate education after 2024-25 are going to be cut, and the support for students is going to be on the basis of loans only. So, could I ask you what was the basis of this decision, and, again, who did you consult with regarding the impact of this on numbers, and also on the well-being of students? As a committee, we did an inquiry into the mental health and well-being of students, and we had clear messages especially from postgraduate students, who tend to be older, who tend to have more responsibilities in terms of having to spend at home and childcare, et cetera. The cost-of-living crisis was a great pressure on them. So, I wanted to ask about that. And also, do you foresee that the total amount of funding available to new students will change, or it'll just be the basis of the funding that'll change?

Yes, it will be the basis of the funding that will change. I don't expect and I'm not planning on the basis that that will change. The change related to how it's paid and the move from grants to loans. This is one of those very difficult decisions that we've had to take, and the question we then have to ask is: what do we prioritise among all of the things that we want to do? The provision for postgraduates here in Wales is amongst the most supportive across the UK, so these changes start from that point, if you like. Therefore, it won't affect anyone who's already a student, so in terms of well-being it's not going to change anybody's situation who's already in the system. It might change the questions and the decisions that people will make as they think of whether they want to apply to be a postgraduate student next year or the following year. So, it will be part of that decision-making process, but it doesn't affect anyone who's already in the system and so it doesn't change their experience and the support that's available for them.

In terms of prioritising, what I decided was that we have to spend the money we have in the most innovative way we can—so, where that money has the most impact to give people the best opportunities. And we know from evidence from all sides that the sooner you spend that money in an educational journey, that's where you see the most positive impact during people's lives. So, that was part of the research studies that we've taken into account in reaching this decision.

There's no statutory basis for consultation as regards this kind of budget decision. This element and the bursary element available to postgraduates comes within the remit of HEFCW, as you already know, so there's an element of discretion in that already. But that's the context of this decision.

Thank you. So, you accept that perhaps it will prevent some people from being able to choose to go further with their training and education in terms of having the expertise of a postgraduate qualification at Master's level and beyond.

Well, with that postgraduate element, that of course is possible. We don't believe it will make a big difference, to be perfectly honest, but it's possible that some people might decide not to where they previously would have.

Yes. And specifically, you referred to bursaries. There were three bursaries that the Welsh Government provided, and you say again in your paper that you think cutting these Master's bursaries will have an impact specifically on women, because these bursaries were supposed to support training and expertise in STEMM, and support older students and those studying through the medium of Welsh. So, can I ask: is it not a priority for you, then, to incentivise and support these kinds of students?

I don't think it's fair to say that at all, but, again, it's a process of deciding where you spend the money that's available, and there's far less money this year than in other years. You're right to say, if you look at the cohort who do take advantage of this bursary at the moment—and I agree with what you say—that it is more likely to affect the categories of people you referred to. But if you take a step back, what we're talking about here in this budget—. If you're eligible for a bursary, what I tell you is not going to be of any comfort, but that's the reality. If you take a step back, we're talking about a relatively small cohort of people, and this support is with the most generous, if you like, so it's support that's available on top of other support for graduates, who already—. So, it's more supportive than what most people, across all of Britain, currently have access to. So, that's the system at the moment, and those bursaries are available on top of that support, for a relatively small number of people. So, the decision, again, is whether you prioritise a cohort of people in that situation, or whether you try and ensure that you can provide that money for the basic education of every child in Wales, and the decision I made was that we needed to prioritise the latter, for that purpose.

And of course we haven't had the statement regarding your priorities for the new commission. We were supposed to have that before Christmas. So, can we take it that perhaps these areas aren't going to be part of that, in terms of what you want to refer the commission to look at in the post-16 education sector?

Well, I wouldn't say that. The fact that a bursary isn't available doesn't mean that we're not trying to encourage people—

But it sends a message, doesn't it?

Well, it doesn't send a message. It can be a priority without its being funded in that specific way. But, in terms of that statement of priorities, I had expected to make that statement before Christmas, as you said, but I made the decision to delay that, to be completely honest, so that this kind of discussion could happen on the basis of the budget. Because it felt strange to me to make a statement of priorities without the context of the budget, which wasn't available to people at the time. So, it felt better to me to have this discussion and then to make the statement, and I will make that before the end of the month, or, certainly, right at the start of next month.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Diolch, Sioned. Questions now from Ken Skates.

Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Minister. I'm just going to ask some questions about the commission, specifically regarding funding. Now, your paper states that specific funding allocations, including details of hypothecated funding, will follow in the commission’s funding letter. Are you able to give us any information today on areas where funding is likely to be ring-fenced, such as for degree apprenticeships? And when should we expect to see the funding letter and allocations for the new commission?

Yes. Well, those conversations are, as you would expect, going on at the moment, running up to the start of the next financial year, about what the commission’s budget is going to be. So, I think it’s too early to be able to give you any meaningful information that is settled, if you like, at this point. You will know, from previous discussions that we’ve had, that the transition to the new commission is a complex process. It’s going to be a very, very large public body affecting a range of stakeholders from different parts of sectors, and therefore the budgetary process is also complex, at least in this first year. So, planning for the new financial year, obviously, will be undertaken before the commission is operational, because that’s happening already, and that will, effectively, then be done by the Welsh Government on the one hand, with HEFCW on the other. I’m a little wary of giving specific indications on particular possible hypothecations simply because anything I don’t mention creates speculation that something isn’t going to be. But for planning purposes I’ve informed HEFCW that funding for degree apprenticeships will be ring-fenced, and that will be determined in the first supplementary budget for next year. So that’s the planning assumption at the moment.

Thank you. It's going to have a huge budget of around £800 million. Can you assure us that future Welsh Government budgets will make funding allocations for different parts of post-16 provision, given that it will have oversight of all post-16 education and training, as clear and as transparent as possible?

Yes. So, this is a question of striking the balance, isn't it, between, as you say, on the one hand the transparency that I want to provide and you will rightly be asking for about decisions taken by me as Minister, but, on the other hand, the commission is an arm's-length funder, isn't it? So, it's a question of how we can recognise those two realities in the information that we provide to the committee and others. So, we're working through, at the moment, some of the options for striking that balance in future budgets. Partly, it'll be through the publication of that budget and that'll give you a certain amount of information, obviously, but then there'll be a separate letter that goes to the commission, which sets out its funding. So, a combination of those two documents will provide the clarity, I hope, that you are looking for. But it is obviously important that we give the commission the space to make funding decisions across the tertiary sector—we've discussed this in the committee plenty of times previously—and having that level of flexibility is a really important part of how the commission discharges its duties. But I also recognise that the committee will want me to say, 'This is where the priorities lie from my point of view.' So, once the commission is fully operational, we will then have discussions with the commission about how those allocations are dealt with and we'll be able to provide that information to you.

Okay, thank you. It's already been mentioned, actually, that the statement in December on the statement of priorities for the commission's establishment was withdrawn, and the statement of priorities is yet to be published. When is it likely that it will be published and how is it going to inform the funding allocations for the commission, going forward?

Well, it'll be published—. I haven't got the date in mind, but I think it's the end of this month, or, at the latest, the start of next month. The statement of priorities sets out our ambitions for the commission; it's the starting point for the commission then drawing up its strategic plan and we absolutely expect the commission to take account of the priorities statement in doing that. I'm not intending to be prescriptive, in the way I've just said, about those funding allocations, though—. Looking to the commission to use the funding it has in a way that is creative is important. But, just to go back to the point we made, I recognise as well that you'll want to know from me how that funding is put together.

Thank you. Thanks, Chair.

Thanks, Ken. Sioned.

Can I just ask one further question regarding what you've mentioned about degree apprenticeships? You've mentioned that the funding for that would be ring-fenced again within the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales budget, and therefore, I take it, the new commission. Last year, in our scrutiny session, you said that some £5 million was going to be ring-fenced for degree apprenticeships, and then nearly all of that, over £4 million, was transferred from the economy main expenditure group into that; more was spent in the end. But, this year, we've seen a letter from the Minister for Economy that says that no transfers from the economy MEG will happen for the next budget for degree apprenticeships. So, I just want to confirm whether you feel that all the funding is going to be within the whole funding for HEFCW or the commission.

Those details I don't have to hand, unfortunately, but I'm happy to—

Unless you happen to know the answer to that.

No.

So, we will provide you with an answer to that.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Sioned. Just before we move on to Laura, I wonder if you can provide in writing a breakdown of the £74.7 million of reductions announced in the in-year budget in October—sorry to take us back a little bit—just in writing, because we don't have that. So, we just wonder if you could provide that in writing following the meeting.

Yes. Absolutely. I'll see if I can give it to you now, actually, if you want, but—. No, I'll write to you. I think that's probably better, isn't it?

Yes, that's fine. Thank you for that; that'll be really helpful. So, we'll move on to questions now from Laura Jones. Laura.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Minister. To what extent is the 3.1 per cent average increase for local authorities, do you think, going to be sufficient for them to be able to adequately fund schools, particularly after they've met the costs of the teachers' pay increase, which you say will be £80 million in 2024-25? Obviously, whilst the local government settlement isn't in your portfolio, how satisfied are you, as education Minister, that schools have the resources that they need, particularly given the challenges that they face in terms of implementing reforms, raising standards and even meeting the basic needs of learners, particularly as many of our evidence sessions have said that schools are struggling with stretched budgets and even providing a safe environment for their learners? Thank you.

Well, there are two aspects to your question. One relates to the revenue support grant and one relates to other support that is provided more directly from the education budget for some elements of reform that you were, I think, alluding to in your question. On the question of pay, we believe as a Government that pay awards should be fully funded to make sure that front-line services aren't negatively affected or impacted by that. What's happened this year, as you will know, is that the UK Government chose to make public sector pay awards from existing budgets, meaning that there was, therefore, less funding available for those services, because the pay awards weren't met with new money from the UK Government.

You mentioned the RSG and the Minister for finance. She's taken the decision again this year to provide all the available funding upfront, so not holding back, if you like, funding for in-year recognition of pay deals. And so authorities are now planning on that basis. They understand that is the case, and so they're planning on that and they will be planning on meeting the pay awards from within that envelope as a result. Obviously, last year, we increased the overall local government settlement by just under 8 per cent. This year it's been increased by just over 3 per cent. The costs of inflation have eroded the value of those budgets, obviously, as they have the Welsh Government's budgets, and, obviously, as they have school budgets. So, this is a set of challenges that is being felt right across public services, right across different levels of government.

As I mentioned in my earlier answers, in my own budget, the funding that is going to schools in relation to standards, reform, equity policy, the Welsh language have all been protected. That's been the guiding principle, if you like, of the decisions I've made in the budget this year, and it was the same during the set of in-year cuts that we had to make last year.

The Welsh Local Government Association has estimated £164 million of funding pressures on schools in 2024-25 and has highlighted the impact of pay in increasing costs of education. Do you expect this estimated £164 million shortfall to be bridged by the local government settlement, or do you believe Welsh Government funding for education will still need to be increased in the future?

Well, you know, I suppose it's the same set of answers to the question that I've just given to you, really. We will do everything we can to prioritise core front-line services. Our settlement as a Government is simply not sufficient to meet all the pressures that public services face because of the impact of inflation, but also because of rising demand. In that very challenging context indeed, just as we are having to make awful choices between competing priorities and important things that we want to spend the funding that we have on, local authorities are having to do the same. So, no-one, I think, around this table is saying that is a position anyone wants to be in or wants to see local government in. What we have done is to maintain the funding at the levels we had indicated and, speaking on my own behalf, done everything that we can to make sure that the funding going to schools is protected.

Thank you, Minister. Are you concerned at all by the high level of cuts that are proposed for education in council budgets?

Well, the picture varies between local authorities, and I know that councils will be working hard to minimise the impact on schools of the choices that they have to make. But there will be consequences in schools. One of the choices I've made, for example, this year is recognising those additional pressures on schools. I was anticipating having to reduce the funding that we've made available since COVID to schools to employ additional staff. As you will know, from having read the previous indicative budget, that was intended to be reduced in this financial year to reflect lower budgets, but, actually, I've taken the decision to increase that so that that funding that is there for additional staff isn't just preserved, but increased, recognising the number of challenges that schools face. So, that will provide some extra flexibility.

Do you think the money that Welsh Government is sending will be sufficient enough to plug the gaps that will be needed to be met by the cuts in local government funding?

In what sense?

If they're cutting the budget for education and you're sending money to schools, isn't that money just going to fall into those holes?

Well, the intention, as you know, from the grant amalgamation is that some of the aspects of the funding I provide is for specific reform programmes. Some of it is for, effectively, additional staffing, some of it is around initiatives for standards in particular, so there's a range of purposes to which the funding is to be deployed. I can't tell you, in each individual school level, what the mix will be of support from local government and support from my budgets directly, in effect, but I think that the larger point, if I might suggest, is that there is an incredible level of pressure, as I was saying, on school budgets and local government budgets and on our own, and our task is to make sure that we provide as much as we possibly can, both directly, but also through local government in the RSG, and then councils are in the best possible position to allocate those resources to reflect local circumstances and needs.

Thank you, Minister. What assessment have you made of the latest position regarding reserves held by schools? Obviously, they fluctuate and they're varied. What action are you taking about that, if any?

Well, the position on the last data that's been published on reserves is coming up to a year old, isn't it? So, we will have new data in March on school reserves, I think, and they have been high, haven't they? They've been high as a consequence of our continuing to fund schools during the time of COVID, when the expenditure by schools was less, so that's created reserves that are higher than they normally are, and, in fact, very much higher than they normally are. That isn't unique to schools, by the way; there are a lot of organisations—some businesses, even—who have been in that position, and I think what we are seeing generally is that organisations and schools certainly are spending those reserves increasingly rapidly. So, obviously, schools need to be spending the reserve; that's what they're there to do, so that, in fact, is what should be happening.

What I think we will see when the new data is available in March is that the rate at which those reserves have been spent is likely to have been getting faster because of the pressures on schools. So, that's the current picture. We'll have more data in March. I expect to see the deficits that had reduced by about £100 million in the previous year—I wouldn't be at all surprised if they'd reduced much faster than that in the last year. And I also think it's important to bear in mind that whilst there are, on the current data, many schools, some with quite significant reserves, there are also some schools that are in deficit. And so the picture is not an even picture, and I know that councils, given the pressures we've just been talking about, will be and should be doing everything they can to release those reserves to be able to protect the services that schools provide.

Thank you, Minister. Is that something that you would want to do, then, to have conversations with local councils, considering that, for example, Vale of Glamorgan's reserves are £298 million and Gwynedd's are £725 million? There's a marked difference there. Is that a conversation—? Does that concern you at all? Is that a conversation you want to have, to try and level it out?

Well, we have an ongoing dialogue, don't we, with local authority partners on a continuous basis, and I meet regularly with education cabinet members—this is kind of a pretty ongoing discussion, really. I don't think anyone isn't alive to the fact that there is a variation between the schools. I don't think it's quite as straightforward as saying, 'This is the per-pupil figure in this authority, and that's the per-pupil figure in the other authority.' That's a fact of quite a complex range of other considerations. You'll know from other discussions that we've had that, from the school funding review that's been undertaken, one of the challenges in the system, which we are working to address, is the complexity of the range of approaches between local authorities and how they fund their schools. So, I don't think you can draw that straightforward comparison, but the broad point you make is obviously correct, that authorities ought to be working with schools to make sure that those reserves are being used, and I'll be extremely surprised if there's an authority that isn't doing that.

Thank you. Whilst this draft budget sets out that you've been able to maintain enhanced levels of funding for implementing additional learning need reforms that have been put in place, of course, over the past couple of years, there remain very real concerns about pressures on our schools meeting ALN demands. How have you responded to Estyn’s findings in its report published in September that overall approaches to evaluate the impact of funding on pupils with ALN remain weak, and that some school leaders have said that they still don’t clearly understand how funding decisions are made by their local authorities? Thank you.

Yes, do you mean in addition to what I said in December?

Yes.

Okay. Well, I set out in December exactly what I'm doing in response to those concerns, so I think that's probably the best place to start in terms of looking at what I plan to do. So, just the two main points, I suppose, in this area that we are—. There is over £56 million in this budget in relation to ALN reform. We've been able to boost that, certainly in the last two financial years, possibly three, to increase the funding available every year, year on year, because I absolutely recognise that there is a significant level of demand in the system. So, that funding has increased and we've been able to protect that for important—. It's crucial, isn't it, that we get this right? So, that funding is important to protect.

I just mentioned to you the complexities of school funding formulae and the work that Luke Sibieta has done for us. As you'll know from my statement in December, we are now doing a review of the funding landscape so that we can get a more granular understanding of the point that you've made, which is how the funding, which is allocated in my budget, ends up in schools, if you like, and how different authorities may do that differently, and to understand that is obviously very important. So, that's what that review is intended to do.

Thank you. Just quickly, Chair, to follow up on that, school budgets, Minister, at the moment, are absolutely stretched to the max, and are not able to meet the needs of ALN students in our schools to the level that, obviously, the teachers in the schools want them to be maintained—maybe they're not getting the one-to-one or one-to-two support that they need. Do you think that all the moneys that you're putting into schools, all the moneys going into councils, all the moneys being cut from budget—do you think that those with ALN in Wales are really going to get the money that they need?

Well, just to be clear, I have just described to you the ways in which I have not cut school grants and that, in fact, has been the entire purpose of the choices that we've made elsewhere in my budget this year, so just to clarify that point.

I recognise that ALN reforms are transformational, aren't they, so there is a huge set of changes that are happening in schools and, at the moment, because schools are running two systems, you might think that that's the point of maximum pressure in some ways and that will be even without what is obviously happening in schools, which is, in particular in the early years, children presenting with more complex needs than we have seen in the past. So, there are new levels of demand in the system as well. So, I absolutely recognise that. That's why making sure the funding that I'm able to provide is not just protected but increased year on year is absolutely critical, but it's also important for us to understand how that funding is being allocated to schools. So, that's the second part of the work that they're doing, which is the review that I've just talked to you about.

I would just say—you mentioned the Estyn report, certainly Estyn and the schools that they were talking to did not conclude that the young people's needs were not being met, but I don't take from that any great comfort that the system has all the resource and capacity that it needs. I understand that it's under pressure and my task is to make sure that I can help alleviate that pressure as best I can by increasing the funding available, which is what I'm doing.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Laura. Following on from Laura's question just around school reserves, I just wonder—you say that the data will be captured in March, but I don't think it's published till October. I just wondered if there's a point when you will be able to share that early with the committee or, when possible, to share the data with the committee when you have it.

Yes, so that is absolutely the case, but I think, through other regular conversations with the Association of Directors of Education in Wales and with local authorities, we're constantly getting information through, so we will look to see what we can do sooner than that autumn 2025 publication. We're happy to do that.

Brilliant. Thank you for that.

We'll let you have whatever we can as quickly as we can.

Thank you. That's really helpful. Questions now from James Evans.

Diolch, Chair. Minister, I want to ask specifically about an area that I'm not sure is in your portfolio or the health portfolio. We've done a bit of research and can't find where the funding comes from for the Wales police schools programme.

That's in Lynne's portfolio.

It's in Lynne's, but I'd like to get your views on that, if that's okay, because it directly impacts upon learner well-being in schools, with pupils being kept safe online, with regard to safe relationships, and substance misuse as well. There has been a reduction in that budget. I just want to know, do you think that budget is going to have a direct impact on learner well-being in schools? I understand that it's not in your portfolio, but it does directly impact our young people and pupils across Wales, so it would be interesting to get your views on it.

Well, if that was the only thing we were doing in schools to address those concerns, then that might be a fair argument, but it absolutely is not the only thing we are doing in schools, so—. I'm not going to speak on behalf of another Minister on choices that that Minister's made in their budget; I know that the Deputy Minister has also had a review undertaken of that programme and how it can be adapted, so I'm absolutely certain that that review will have been fully taken into account by the Deputy Minister in making what I'm sure was a difficult choice. From my point of view, as education Minister, I know that there are a range of initiatives in schools to support the well-being of our young people—that is not the only one—so I'm confident that we are doing everything we can through those other interventions to support the well-being of our young people. I mentioned to you earlier, for example, that this year we've not reduced the whole-school approach funding, which is a policy area that I and the Deputy Minister work very closely on, as you know from previous discussions, so—. But these things are questions of making reductions where they are going to be least impactful and I'm absolutely certain that that's the lens that the Deputy Minister will have brought to that decision.

That's fine. I'm sure, as a committee, we can write to the other Deputy Minister on this issue.

Okay, I want to talk about the amalgamation of the 21 individual grants, if that's okay? One thing that we heard from headteachers—actually, this was quite welcomed—was the amalgamation of the grants together, so I'm quite pleased about that. But one thing I'd like to know: is there going to be any ring-fencing or demarcation of funding of the objectives that were previously in the budget lines before? Because one thing that might happen, through the whole-school approach, for example—. Is that going to be a protected budget? Because what we don't want to see is schools not delivering on the whole-school approach and using that money elsewhere. So, I'd just like to know how you're going to monitor this to make sure that, actually, these programmes are going to be delivered. Because everything being lumped in one grant together can start to get a little bit disjointed of where money is actually being spent.

Well, you call it 'lumped together', I call it a partnership approach between local authorities, but I think that's an important point, because I think there are ways in which, by providing some more flexibility and less onerous approaches—I hope there is some scope there for some innovation and some different approaches to be tried to reach the same outcomes. I mean, that's the underlying thinking behind the decision. This is a continuation and probably an acceleration of a journey that we have been on for a little while, as you will probably know, so we've been trying to streamline how we monitor and how we evaluate grants for some time, and we have been doing that, and there have been some amalgamations along the way over recent years. So, I think it's moving forward quickly, but it's consistent, if you like, with the direction of travel for a little while.

So, what we've been trying to do: at the moment, grants are allocated to different recipients—some to local authorities, some to the consortia. The statutory responsibilities generally here lie with local authorities, so part of the exercise has been to align the funding with the statutory responsibilities, which I think is the most coherent way of proceeding, and there are existing accountability and governance arrangements with local authorities that we can take better advantage of by aligning the funding with the statutory duties. So, that's the general approach to how we evaluate and monitor and how we, you know, look at what's being spent, if you like. So, neither the level of funding nor the priorities that it's being applied to have been changed. So, that's, I think, an important starting point, and, as you say, what we have heard from all partners, really, is that there's too much complexity in the system. We've talked twice already this morning about the school funding review. One thing that has seen a pretty consistent set of signals is, 'This is just too complex a landscape', so—. But, on the last part of your question, we are working through now with authorities, in time for the start of the new financial year, how those outcomes will be described, how the terms and conditions will be cast. I think you asked about ring-fencing as well, didn't you?

Yes. Is any of this money going to be ring-fenced?

So, one of the elements in this set of four new grants is the pupil development grant, for example. So, in effect, that will be ring-fenced. The funding is for formula funding and it will be passported to schools, so there's no question there of underspend being used elsewhere or, you know—. That element is simply going to end up being passported. There are other elements. So, in the reform grant, we put things into that category where, in general terms, the reform is still bedding in in the system. So, in broad terms, there will be higher levels of—I wouldn't describe them as ring fences, but higher levels of—.

Scrutiny, or something.

Well, I'm looking for the right word, really. So, the terms and conditions in those areas will be more prescriptive, probably, than in the other areas. That balance is still being worked out, in truth. And I think that's appropriate, because they're reform interventions and it's important, until the reform is embedded, that that is what that funding is spent on. So, there'll be a mix of approaches, basically. But the general picture is we will be measuring the outcomes and providing flexibilities for councils in how that budget is spent.

Will this funding still be distributed by the regional consortia, or is there going to be another mechanism for distributing this funding?

No. So, that's the point I was making earlier—obviously too obliquely. So, we're aligning it—. Because the statutory duties are with councils, we're aligning the funding with the statutory duties, so the funding will be going to councils now.

Okay, lovely. The additional £10.9 million that's been put in the local authority education grant for school standards—I'm just interested in how you think that's going to be used. And did the recent Programme for International Student Assessment results influence any decision making around this? Basically, how do you want to make sure this money is being spent on standards?

Sure. Okay. Just to say, on PISA, PISA is useful data but it's not the most useful data that we have, in all candour. This is a pattern that has been established over some time, really. If you look at the—. I published the online personal assessments results last year, and we'll be doing that in some way each year now. That is actually much wider—. There's a much wider pool of data that gets drawn up into that, and I'm just encouraging the committee to look at that, really, because that gives you a much broader context. It's consistent with what PISA is telling us—it doesn't make a different argument—but I just think there's more data and more useful data there for us all to look at.

But the purpose of that funding is the increase in the Recruit, Recover and Raise Standards programme funding that I mentioned to the Chair a little bit earlier, so the money that I expected to have to reduce this year, which has been paying for additional staff, basically—additional temporary staff in schools—we were planning on that having to come down this year, but I have concluded that that isn't possible in the current context, and so we've put an extra £10.9 million into that budget line. So, that will be spent on maintaining that additional staffing level.

Okay, that's fine. You say that supporting those who are most vulnerable to the costs of living remains a priority for you and a priority for the Government. How exactly did you go around allocating the budget with that guiding principle in mind?

Well, there are a number of examples of that. We've protected PDG. We've protected the school holiday enrichment programme. We've protected education maintenance allowance. We've protected the financial contingency fund. So, all the big building blocks of budget that make the biggest difference to those who need the most support we've been able to protect, which is an important part of the values that have been underpinning the process, really.

A recent example of that was discontinuing year 7 free school breakfasts, to save £800,000 a year and not continuing the holiday free school meals. As I say, it's a Government balancing act, but it's just interesting how you've weighed up things like that, really.

Well, I mean, I've just described to you four very large parts of the budget that are intended to support learners who have the greatest need in this sense that you're describing, so I think the values that we've brought to bear are very clear.

On the two things that you've mentioned specifically, I wouldn't describe it as a discontinuation of the pilot. The pilot is a pilot, and it had come to an end. We've had it evaluated by the WLGA. And just to say, there won't be a single child who will lose an entitlement as a consequence of this. It was for year 7, so people in year 7—. You know, it came to an end in the summer; people leaving year 7 would not be getting it in year 8 anyway. So, there isn't—. You know, we haven't withdrawn an entitlement from any individual child. And it was a pilot. It's been evaluated. We think there are more effective ways, really, of making sure that we are supporting young people. There are some challenges in that particular pilot. A very low level of uptake, both from schools and within schools, was one of the challenges. So, I think there are other ways we can provide more support.

On the second point, as I've said to the committee previously, obviously it's a very difficult decision to make that sort of decision. I actually looked again in October, as you know, as to whether we could find some money to do it over the holidays, and, in the past, where we have been able to provide over the holidays, that's been, frankly, because we've been able to find an underspend. In the context of trying to plug a multi-£100 million hole in the budget, there isn't an underspend by definition. So, it's been impossible, unfortunately, to do that, but it's not for the want of trying, frankly.

Okay. I just want to move on to Cymraeg in education. I know a strategic objective of the Welsh Government is to strengthen Cymraeg in education. So, I'm just interested in how the new amalgamated local authority education grant will support that, and can you clarify, in total, how much of the MEG is allocated to Cymraeg in education, as it does come from several different budget lines within your portfolio?

Yes, so this is another example of the point I was making earlier about aligning the funding with the statutory duty. So, the new grant—the new 'Cymraeg 2050' grant—will have the Welsh education grant, professional learning, late immersion and the Siarter Iaith. So, it's got four current components. None of those are being reduced; they're simply being combined. The point is that we have the Welsh in education strategic plans, which are owned by local authorities, and they're responsible for discharging them. So, by combining these grants, we think they will be able to more effectively trial new ways of working, in order to discharge their obligations, which are set out in the WESPs.

You asked for a figure on—

Yes. It's how much is allocated to it.

Yes. So, the overall figure that is allocated in the MEG is £35.6 million, which is made up of £16.9 million from the Welsh in education BEL, £8.9 million from the teacher development BEL, and then £9.8 million from the new, combined grant that we've just talked about, the 'Cymraeg 2050' BEL. So, that's the revenue position—£35.6 million—and, then, from a capital perspective, the figure is £26 million, which, basically, comes from the education infrastructure BEL. I hope that's helpful.

Diolch, Gweinidog. Thank you.

Thank you, James. Questions now from John Griffiths.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Minister.

Good morning.

Yes, some questions on capital funding. Firstly, on the Finance Minister's announcement in October, which took £40 million from your capital budget for the current financial year, which I think equated to around 11 per cent of the budget, could you tell the committee this morning, Minister, what has been the impact of that reduction up to this current time?

Well—. So, what the impact hasn't been, if I can put it like that, is any individual projects coming to a standstill or anything. That hasn't happened. Essentially, what we've been able to do to try and mitigate, because that's what we're trying to do, to mitigate the loss of that capital—. It's quite a fluid programme, as you understand. It's people—. There are projects being presented continuously, and projects being evaluated continuously. So, what we've been able to do, effectively, is to reprofile the Welsh Government's contribution to projects during the financial year. There's an intervention rate, so, roughly speaking, for a school, that's about 65 per cent. So, effectively, what we've asked local government partners is if they can bring forward some of the investment from capital that they were making; we will make less this year, but we'll make that up in future years. So, it's been a reprofiling, really, a rebalancing of the contribution we are making this year and local authorities are making this year. So, that's how we've been able to do that.

And local authorities have been in a position to make that contribution, generally?

Yes. Generally, yes, because it's £40 million spread across Wales, isn't it? So, it's been more—. It's been able to be done; that's been possible.

Okay. The sustainable communities for learning programme, there have been previous increases in that budget, but then we've had, unfortunately, fairly rapidly rising inflation in recent times, haven't we? How would you say those two things have played out? Have those previous increases been cancelled by that rise in inflation, so, basically, more or less the same is being delivered, but at greater cost?

I think it's quite complex to draw that conclusion, probably, just because it's quite a fluid programme. So, I'm not sure I could say specifically to you that this has been the overall effect of inflation, and this is the extent to which it's eroded commitments. It'll affect projects at different points in their development in different ways. The obvious big-picture point is, if you have a budget that is not increasing and you're trying to spend it on building something that is more expensive to build, then, clearly, you're going to be spending more to get the same amount, aren't you? So, that's obvious, in a sense, but I don't think I could tell you more specifically than that what the exact picture looks like. What I would say is that we've adapted the programme recently so that it's now a rolling plan, so it's less rigid than it previously was, so it does mean that projects can be brought forward a bit more flexibly than previously. So, you will expect that to have the effect, maybe just at the margins, of smoothing out some of this, because it just provides more flexibility for councils and for us, but I don't think you could make a specific conclusion from that, really.

No. So, from what you say then, Minister, when we look forward, with budgets flat or perhaps even going down in cash terms, it will inevitably then, I guess, be a matter of delivering less with the same money, or delivering less with less money.

Well, I think—. I was making this rough calculation the other day. Someone might tell me I'm wrong, but I think the reduction in the capital budget for this year—. It depends what you're comparing it against, but it's roughly 2 per cent. We're—[Inaudible.]—but that is the order that we're talking about, really. I think it's a £7 million reduction against a £350 million budget or something, roughly speaking. So, obviously, there will be less funding available, but, as I say, the flexibility in the programme I think helps us mitigate some of that.

Are we, though, likely to see projects that were programmed over a period of time taking longer to be delivered? Is that inevitable now?

It's possible. I think it's possible because of construction costs, but also because of labour market questions as well, really. So, I think that may happen for some projects, but I think, equally, it's fair to say some projects might be brought forward faster because of this new rolling programme. So, I think it's probably a mix of the two, really.

Okay, Minister. Could I also ask you about the different sectors—the schools, primary and secondary, further education, Welsh-medium? When we look at this picture of higher construction costs and greatly pressured capital funding budgets, and we look at that sustainable communities for learning programme, where will the impact be felt, do you think? Is it possible to give us some sense of that by sector, by those different sectors? Will the impact be felt more by one of those sectors—primary, secondary school, FE, Welsh-medium? Or would you expect it to be quite even? Or is it very unpredictable?

I think it is probably more predictable, actually, to be honest, because—. Well, there are two elements—two categories—of intervention that we make as a Government. So, broadly speaking, 65 per cent is the intervention rate for most standard projects. But you will know that we've increased the specification on new school buildings now so that they all need to be net zero in operational terms, and we pay 100 per cent of the uplift costs for the specification to take it to net zero, because that is a part of the market, if I can put it like that, which is still emerging. So, we want to make sure that we speed that up, basically, by covering the cost, until it becomes a standard part of the specification, and then you would expect that to, probably over time, fall into a more standard approach. But that's the thinking. I think it is true to say that there is a difference in impact on settings and schools. That is really a factor of the size of the project, though, rather than the category of the school. So, the larger the project, obviously, the bigger the economy of scale that you can make in a construction context, and so a small primary is going to be comparatively more costly, if it can't make those economies, than a larger project.

So, I think the figure that we have is probably around a 10 per cent difference in costs per square metre, which is attributed to that question of scale, really. So, we would expect to see, probably, more impact on the smaller projects, just in terms of that overall exposure to inflation. But what we are doing to try and mitigate that is changing what we call the benchmark cost, which is the cost that you have to hit in order to qualify for elements of the funding from us. So, we're trying to recognise those different pressures by adjusting those benchmark costs, basically, so it doesn't penalise our partners, effectively.

What I would say, though, on the net-zero element, is that I think we are finding that it is less challenging, or easier, whichever way you look at it, to meet that specification in primary schools than it is in secondary schools. I guess that's probably understandable as well, really, because it's just a smaller project. What that probably means is that we would expect to see the net-zero cost element that we pay for—that 100 per cent element—probably coming under pressure in terms of that increasing, because that'll be more expensive for the bigger projects, basically. So, I do expect to see a bit more pressure on that element, if you like.

Is there anything that might be done, do you think, Minister, to deal with those issues of economies of scale with the primary schools and the fact that they are smaller projects, in the way that we group different schools together and get local authorities combining and working together? Obviously, you take a Wales-wide look at all of that.

I think there are some things we can do, and some things that are happening, actually. Some authorities have taken a slightly more standardised approach, if I can put it like that, to the design of the schools that they build. Some take a very bespoke approach, and a school is built, if you like, designed from new each time. Others have taken a slightly more, 'This is the design of most of our primary schools' sort of approach. I guess that the latter approach does bring cost savings, really, not least in the design element of it, and perhaps even in the construction element of it. I'm not sure I can give you specific examples, but I would expect that to be the case.

Absolutely, and I think that's an area that we're increasingly interested in driving forward with local authorities. If you have a school of a certain size—obviously, geography and other issues make it more complex at times, but a school of a certain size—if you can standardise that design and delivery, then there are cost efficiencies to be made.

The other thing I would say—and the Minister's referred to the rolling programme—is that we have a clear line of sight in terms of the 22 local authorities and what the pipeline looks like, so that we are in constant dialogue in terms of how we manage that, how we manage design issues, economies of scale, value engineering, to make the best use of the totality of the capital budget we have.

Diolch yn fawr. Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd.

Thank you, John. I'll bring James in first.

I've just got some questions on teacher training, if that's okay, Minister. We tend to hear a lot from teaching assistants, who say they don't have enough time or enough opportunity to go on to do any training, to go on to get further qualifications to become teachers or to upskill themselves. I know there has been a slight reduction in the training budget this year. I'm interested in what more work can you do as a Welsh Government to support our teaching assistants to go on this training. Because it's vitally important, if we are going to get more teachers and help our workforce in the future, that our teaching assistants play a key role in that. I know the budget has been reduced slightly, and that was due to it not being taken up before—as you said, it's underspend in the budget. I think it's a key part of work that the Government need to do, and I'm just interested in how you intend to do that, going forward.

I agree with you; I actually couldn't agree more with you, really. We were discussing this in the schools social partnership forum yesterday, actually, this very point. There are a few things here. Just to say, as you, I think, have acknowledged, the reduction in that budget is a demand projection reduction. So, just to be clear. We don't expect that to change the individual choices of individual teachers. But the point you're making is about teaching assistants, and we've already done a number of things in this area.

For example, on the professional learning support that we provide to teaching assistants, there have been two significant developments in that area. One is the introduction of the new professional learning entitlement in September 2022, which gives teachers and teaching assistants the same entitlement to professional learning. That's still bedding in; people are still getting familiar with it. I actually think it's fair to say that teaching assistants probably have engaged less with it than teachers, and I think you'd probably expect that, unfortunately, in the way we currently promote that, if I'm honest. That's one thing.

Secondly, recognising that, in special schools, the ratio of teaching assistants to teachers is higher than it is in most other schools, we've adjusted the basis on which the professional learning grant is calculated for special schools, so that it isn't calculated simply on the number of teachers, but also on the number of teaching assistants, recognising that there will be disadvantages otherwise. That's a new change that we've brought in, which I think has been widely welcomed in the sector.

But there is another issue—I was going to say it's an emerging issue; it probably isn't emerging, but it has definitely become more apparent—and that is the numbers of teaching assistants who are given the opportunity in INSET days to get full access to training and professional development. Whilst there has been—. Well, I'm not sure I could say there's been an increase. The figures that I saw were higher than I expected to see, if I'm honest. However, I think they probably mask the extent to which teaching assistants are there for the full day, or just a part of the day. So, there's more work to be done to understand just how much that actually delivers for teaching assistants, even at the levels that currently participate.

There's a separate question about the nature of the training. I think, speaking to teaching assistants, they will say, unsurprisingly, 'We want training on the same core aspects of the curriculum as teachers are getting, so that we feel able to deliver that in the same way'. So, there's a piece of work that we need to do to understand just what the mix of training is that they're getting access to.

Because time is a big thing as well, isn't it? As you're well aware, a lot of teaching assistants only have term-time contracts as well, and a lot of them, when they're out of term, have to go and do other jobs as well. So, actually, the ability to go and have time to do training is very, very difficult. I met with a teaching assistant not that long ago who said that, if they didn't take another job during out-of-term time, they wouldn't be able to feed and support their family. I know the budgets are extremely tight. How can we work on that area, to extend their contracts, in a way, so it does give them more opportunity to train? Because if we are going to get more teachers and more staff, that out-of-term time is very important, isn't it, for their development, and if they can't access it during that time, then we're going to be in a catch-22 situation forever and a day, aren't we?

I think that's a fair point. We are trying different approaches, to see if a better model can be developed. One example of that is that in Gwynedd, I think, from memory, they are working on a pilot to offer combined roles to teaching assistants with other roles within the local government range of services—maybe care, but maybe other roles as well—so that the combined duties, over the course of the year, offer a 12-month contract. If that were to be possible, it obviously would be helpful, but that is at a pilot stage at the moment. With those kinds of things, I think we just need to explore more of those options, to see how we can address what is, I think, for many teaching assistants, a really significant challenge.

Okay. Diolch.

John.

I'm just wondering, Minister, whether we need to join up a bit more in terms of the early years workforce—the private nurseries, the teaching assistants, teachers, the school team—and whether we need to see that as more of a whole rather than as distinct elements, and the progression routes through and the way that experience is valued—so, for somebody in a private nursery, who's been working there for quite some time and gained qualifications during that time, whether that is valued enough and provides perhaps a speedier, easier route into the direct teaching workforce in our schools, for example. Do we just need to join all of that up perhaps a little bit more?

Yes. We have, as you will know, the pathway for teaching assistants, and as we will all know as Members when we go to schools, there are a number of schools who have supported teaching assistants to become teachers. My experience—it's obviously anecdotal—is that that's pretty much universally successful, really, because you're working with someone who's already part of the school family, who obviously fits in and enjoys working in the school. And in a context where recruitment is challenging, sometimes, that's also quite a successful way of addressing that. So, I'm keen to encourage more of that.

And for the very early years, and the workforce in the private nurseries, and so on, would there be perhaps more opportunities for them to advance?

We will look at that, yes. We should look into that, I think.

We should. From memory in a previous role, we did actually have an early years workforce plan. It probably would have been back in 2018 or 2019, so I'm a bit rusty; I'd need to look back at that. But that certainly looked at some of the kinds of things that you're talking about around that pipeline, and how we can encourage and support maybe the early years workforce to then move into schools. So, it's certainly something we can come back to, maybe, with more detail, Chair, if that would be helpful.

That would be really helpful. Thank you.

Just taking us a little bit back to the grant amalgamation again, and the mechanism for distributing the funding, does the fact that the funding is going to go to local authorities rather than the regional consortia and partnerships reflect any less emphasis on the importance of the role of regional working for school improvement?

You'll know that, separately, we've undertaken a review of the middle tier and the roles and responsibilities of partners there, and I'll have more to say about that in the next couple of weeks, I think—certainly imminently. This recognises, really, that the statutory responsibilities lie in the hands of local authorities. We're doing this amalgamation, it makes sense to do it all at once, but obviously, equally, we want to make sure that the review that is under way is able to be concluded in a way that is sensible and orderly. So, we'll make sure that the terms and conditions that are attached to the funding that is now going to be going to local authorities reflect the ongoing support needed by the consortia during this review period. We'll manage that through terms and conditions attached to that particular element of the grant.

That's really helpful. That's the end of our evidence session this morning. Thank you very much. Diolch yn fawr for coming in this morning and for the answers that you've given to Members. You will be provided with a transcript to check for factual accuracy in due course, but diolch yn fawr.

Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you for your time.

We'll just do the papers to note. The full pack of papers on the agenda is in the paper pack. Are Members content to note those papers together? I see Members are content.

We'll now proceed to meet in private.