Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee

We have a number of papers to note this morning, the first being a letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language, written to us following our letter of 27 September this year when we requested further information about the Welsh Government's procurement policies. The letter received summarises the content of the Welsh Government procurement policy note 07/21, which specifies that the Welsh public sector should not ask for more than two years' audited accounts. It also provides further information about procurement policy note 03/24, which stipulates the mandatory and discretionary exclusion criteria that bidders are tested against when procuring authorities undertake their qualification analysis and due diligence. The letter notes that the Procurement Act 2023 will come into force in February 2025 and will change how the Welsh Government and the public sector procures.

The committee has previously agreed to consider issues relating to procurement in other areas of our work plan, including in relation to Velindre Cancer Centre. We will also have an opportunity to ask questions about the Welsh Government's procurement practices as part of our scrutiny of their accounts, particularly in light of the new procurement regime due to be introduced in February 2025. Members, do you have any comments or are you content to note this letter?

I'm happy to note, Chair. Obviously, I just wish it had come sooner. I wish it would have been earlier than 2025, but, other than that, fine.

That's great. And we know when we rehearsed the issues around Velindre that similar issues have been raised with other Welsh Government procurements—not so much whether they've complied with the relevant criteria and legislation, but whether that has been sufficient to manage the risks that may be attached to the awarding of contracts.

The second paper to note is correspondence from Aberystwyth Town Council about the funding of local authorities in Wales. Their letter notes their concern with the current funding formula used by the Welsh Government that they believe, and I quote,

'is disproportionately affecting Ceredigion County & Ceredigion County Council.'

Of course, there are other councils in Wales that make similar statements. The letter explains that this is affected by the unique demographic and geographic characteristics of Ceredigion, with a need to have a funding model, quote,

'that adequately reflects the challenges faced by rural and less densely populated areas.'

The letter has also been sent to the Finance Committee and to the Local Government and Housing Committee. Our clerking team will liaise with those committees to establish what further work they intend to do in this area. So, Members, do you have any comments? Mike Hedges.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Why will the Welsh Government not publish the standard spending assessments for each local authority, and the calculations of them, rather than just giving a final amount? If they produced the calculations—. No-one can tell you whether this is right or wrong, because all you've seen is the final numbers; you haven't seen the calculations. If they published the standard spending assessments for each authority, not just the final figure but the calculations that get you that final figure, and they published the local government funding needs calculations, which feed into the settlement—again, with the calculations, not just the final figures—then people would be able to see whether it was fair or not. It's easy to say it's unfair, and I don't think there's a local authority in Wales that would say it's fair, because everybody feels that either poverty or sparsity or the difficulty of being a large city are not in it. If Swansea were here, for example, they'd be saying that Swansea is badly treated because an awful lot of people from Carmarthenshire and Neath Port Talbot use services in Swansea. If Cardiff were here, they'd say that virtually all the Cardiff capital region use services in Cardiff, for which they do not get funding. Until we get the calculations shown, not just the final result, then it's going to be just everybody saying, 'We've done badly'.

Thank you. Any other comments or observations from Members? Because other matters raised—. Oh, sorry, Adam Price.

Thank you, Chair. I agree basically with the point that Mike Hedges made about the need for transparency. I think that that would be a great help to us as Members of the Senedd and as committees in terms of scrutiny, but also help with the broader public discussion, as was suggested. So, would it be possible for the clerks to raise that point in discussion with other committees, to see who should make that suggestion, if everyone does agree that that is a sensible step?

But, more broadly, I'd like to ask what work has been done around this question of the funding formula. The Government of course has reviewed, as any Government does from time to time, but is this a suitable area for the Wales Audit Office, or does the audit office believe that it's an issue of policy rather than an operational financial area for them to consider? I understand that some people would interpret it that way, but it does have such an impact on public services in the context of local authorities, but also in other contexts. That is, would it be possible to see whether there is an opportunity to have somebody independent of Government to look at this issue? Of course, as Mike said, perhaps it's difficult to expect the Welsh Local Government Association to come to a single view because all authorities will have a different interpretation of the need for change. But if it would be possible for the audit office to look at this question of how the funding formula is implemented, at least, that would be a step in the right direction, I feel.

Thank you. My understanding is that, I believe, in 1999-2000, in the early years of the first Senedd term, or Assembly term as was, the Welsh Government commissioned, I think it was Swansea University, but I could be corrected, to produce a proposed formula, presumably based upon certain terms of reference. And that's been the core formula used since, although the Welsh Government always states that it works with the WLGA annually to review that, and tweak it here and there, but that unless the WLGA requests an outright change, they said that they wouldn't previously consider that. Of course, the authorities that have been impacted have argued otherwise, but, as my own local authorities stated in print, quote, 'Turkeys don't vote for Christmas', and unless we take—and I completely agree with both of you—an objective oversight, independent oversight, the winners are not going to wish to sacrifice their position. Those are metaphorical winners; I don't mean they're rolling in money, but those who do better out of the formula are not going to wish to sacrifice that to those who do less well. But the issue is continuously raised with Members, as you will be aware, over successive Senedd terms, about rurality, about sparsity, about the core cost of delivery of services, and that the indices used are too fixed. So, for example, Ynys Môn, which has one of the lowest levels of prosperity per head also has one of the lowest settlements per head in Wales. Conwy, with the oldest population in Wales, is also one of the worst funded. And my own local authority is one of the two named by Audit Wales as being at risk of potential bankruptcy. So, there are certainly questions to be answered. I don't know whether the auditor general wishes to comment, given the questions raised by Adam, regarding your office's role.

Sure. Thanks. Thank you, Adam. In the next month or so, I hope to publish a national report on financial sustainability across the local government sector, and that builds on 22 individual authority reports that I've already published. It won't examine the make-up of the SSA formula in any great detail, though it will flag that the formula and its impact has been identified by a number of authorities as one of the issues that constrains them and adds to the concern around their financial position.

I think, to Adam's point, in large part I would be nervous about the audit office undertaking any 'independent review' of the SSA because there are policy questions within it around the relative weighting that is assigned to sparsity or to older people versus younger people, et cetera. But what I would say is that I'd agree with Mike's point earlier about the importance of transparency, of how the SSA is arrived at. But also, the data that underpins the formula needs to be as accurate and as up to date as possible and, in one or two areas, I think I'd have concerns about the timeliness of some of the information that is fed into the formula.

Thank you for that. If I could come back, just to ask would—looking forward, of course, to reading the work that the auditor was referring to. I wonder if there was a way of looking at the work that the National Audit Office had undertaken about 15 years ago in relation to funding formulas for local public services. They conducted a geographic review in this area that didn't just look at local government, but also looked at similar formulas in the NHS, for example. So, they coped with the question with regard to where that border is between the responsibilities of the auditors and the policy decisions. But perhaps that report is a basis for us to have a discussion about whether there is scope for us to have a similar review by Audit Wales?

I'll certainly take a look at that, Adam, and once I publish the report that I mentioned, I'm sure it will come to this committee in the usual way, so perhaps we can have a fuller discussion at that point about any further work the committee might want to do on the back of that.

Okay. Diolch. Perhaps you could incorporate that in discussions with the other two committees and otherwise capture that for the future work on this matter, after that report is published.

Yes, that's fine.

Thank you. The third paper to note, then, relates to correspondence from the Welsh Government director general of the economy, energy and transport group, following up on Cardiff Airport, and actions from the committee's evidence session on the airport on 19 September. We may wish to note the information contained in the letter, particularly about the capital expenditure requests. In terms of the information about Holdco, this clarifies its role and engagement with the airport and senior civil servants. The letter sets out Holdco's responsibilities, which include ensuring the Welsh Government receives and reviews regularly financial information concerning the management of Holdco, and that the Welsh Government is informed in a timely manner about any concerns about Holdco's activities. However, the letter does not set out how the Welsh Government will measure Holdco board's performance as we requested. The committee may wish to pick this up when we next take evidence from the Welsh Government about the airport, which is planned for January.

The letter also refers to the publication on 2 October of the Competition and Markets Authority's assessment of the Welsh Government's proposed long-term investment in the airport. They state it's not going to comment on the report but reiterates what it has already told us that the Welsh Government will consider the assessment, and that the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning will update the Senedd once the Welsh Government has decided on its way forward. The Welsh Government does not set a time frame for this, but, on 19 September, Andrew Slade suggested it would be in the new year before the Welsh Government completed this. The committee may therefore wish to request that the Welsh Government advise at the earliest opportunity if there are any delays to the suggested time frame so that we may reflect on the timing of the evidence session. So, Members, I invite you to note the letter, reminding you that you have an opportunity to follow up on any further matters regarding the airport early in the new year. Are you content to note, or do Members have any comments at this stage?

Yes, please, Chair. Obviously, we're going to follow up as a committee with regard to Cardiff Airport—happy to do so. The two areas that you've mentioned in your statement just there, obviously, in relation to the key performance indicators for the team of Holdco, that's really important as an organisation. Any company that is out there in the world, you are performance based as to what you do. We as politicians have performance reviewed—is it every five or four years—when we're elected. I can't understand why they don't have one in place for their upper team.

The one area that has caused me some slight concern is the time frame—the lack of any time frame. I mean, 2025 is a long time. I know Mike Hedges and I have been on this committee, as you, Chair, for quite some time, and I know Adam has joined us recently, but, with Cardiff Airport, delays do tend to be quite a common factor, and they have been in the past. There was one particular sentence that did prick up my ears slightly, and that was where it says the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning

'will update the Senedd in due course once we have decided on the best way forward.'

When is that going to be? So, I think I would like some more concrete dates and times so that we as a committee can actually hold them accountable in the time frame that they've set out. They clearly know a time frame; they have a time frame. I think it's important that they share with the committee and be open and transparent as to what that actually entails.

So, are you proposing that we capture that in the session in the new year, in January, or that we write to them in the interim, just re-emphasising those points?

Please, because I don't want a situation where they come in January and they say, 'Well, we don't know the time frame', or, 'We can't disclose the time frame'. At least give them that time to be prepared and understand that time frames aren't exactly sensitive or confidential information pieces. They should be able to provide that to us, if not now, then definitely in the session when they come in.

Mike Hedges, Adam Price, are you content with that proposed action? Thank you. So, if we could capture that. Otherwise, you're content to note? Thank you.

The fourth item to note is correspondence from the Welsh Government director of propriety and ethics regarding the Cabinet manual and ministerial code following our recent evidence session with the Permanent Secretary to consider the Cabinet manual and ministerial code. We raised a number of specific questions relating to the role of the director of propriety and ethics, and I suspect we'll welcome his prompt response. We've already indicated our view that the Cabinet manual should be published, and note that the Welsh Government has given a commitment to publishing its Cabinet handbook by the end of this calendar year. We've been invited to share our views on what should be included in the manual. The Permanent Secretary has also stated that he would like to be open about areas and topics they have chosen to exclude, and is also happy to test a version of the manual with us before publication.

So, Members, are you content to note, where there will be further discussion later in this meeting to consider next steps in terms of how and what the committee wishes to feed back on the revising and publication of the Cabinet manual? I take that as—. Adam Price.

I’d like to just put on public record, in the wake of the response from David Richards, that it’s obvious to me that the ministerial code, in its current form, is not fit for purpose, and it is necessary to have a new framework. Even compared with the code in Westminster, which has major weaknesses—there is an intention in the Government there to strengthen it—in terms of transparency and clarity and objectivity, to an extent, but even so it is stronger than the one that we have in Wales. So, there is a problem in terms of how the ministerial code operates, or doesn't operate or doesn't work, rather, at present. If the intent is to boost public trust, I don't think that the ministerial code delivers that purpose at present. And the risk as far as the responsibilities of this committee are concerned is that the reputation of the civil service is also going to be eroded because they are tied into implementing the ministerial code, as David Richards's letter shows, and there is a risk not only that the public trust in the Government, in terms of Ministers, will suffer, but also that their trust in the civil service and its independence and impartiality will suffer as well, and that will have far-reaching implications. So, I do think that we need a process of review regarding how the ministerial code operates, and we need some suggestions as regards a new system.

Thank you. I suspect there will be general consensus with the view expressed, unless I've misread Members. Natasha Asghar.

I echo what Adam said. Having read the document that's been provided, it was very much a mental ping-pong match whereby it almost felt as though the Ministers are a law unto themselves, and particularly the First Minister has this enormous weight to have to deal with everything, which I accept and appreciate, but I didn't feel that there was any coherent approach, particularly when it came to a complaint arising, as we've seen in the past. So, I agree with Adam. I do think it needs to be revised and something needs to change, because, currently, the system we've got in place with this ministerial code is not fit for purpose.

Great. Thank you. Well, we will pick this up—I think it's going to be item 5 on the agenda now—and agree our further course of action, capturing those comments also. So, if we can go into a temporary break—I think a five-minute break—before we reconvene for our first evidence session. Thank you.

Croeso. Welcome to our witnesses who have now joined the meeting for our next evidence session on supporting Ukrainians in Wales. Could I begin, please, by asking the witnesses to state their names and roles for the record?

Bore da, committee. I’m Sioned Evans, I’m director general of education, culture and Welsh language. Diolch.

Bore da. I’m Amelia John, and I’m director of communities and social justice in the Welsh Government.

Bore da. Emma Williams, director of housing and regeneration.

Diolch. Thank you—

Sorry, Chair, we have Ruth Meadows online.

Apologies, Chair, should I introduce myself?

Oh, sorry, yes. Sorry, I won't do that again.

Huge apologies for not being able to join in the building today and for being online. I'm Ruth Meadows. I'm director of tertiary education, culture, heritage and sport, but for the purposes of this, I was the lead director on the Ukraine response from August 2022 onwards.

Diolch yn fawr. As you would expect, we have several questions. I'd therefore be grateful if Members and our witnesses could be as succinct as possible in their questions and answers so that we can cover as wide a range of these as possible. As convention has it, I, as Chair, will start the questioning. Can you help us to understand how the Welsh Government went from an initial commitment to accommodate 1,000 Ukrainian people to 3,232 arrivals under the supersponsor scheme by October 2023?

Thank you, Chair. The initial commitment to support 1,000 was with a view to potentially taking our proportionate share in the face of a humanitarian crisis. We based our figures very much on the experience that we had in the past, particularly with Operation Pitting, which was the operation that the UK Government led on the Afghan refugee situation, where we helped to support the housing and resettlement of 400 individuals.

Based on that information, we were able to anticipate around the region of 1,000 people, but as you know, that increased quite a lot in the time from making that announcement to when we finally actually ended up with over 3,300 Ukrainians who have come over to Wales and sought sanctuary. For us, it was an emergency humanitarian response, which we took very seriously, and we were really committed to taking a proportionate amount, so that Wales shared the burden that the rest of the world needed to share.

Chair, if I could say that one of the reasons why we have quite a few people here with me today is that the colleagues that I have here led areas of the activity that we took forward actually in real time. So, during my answering, there may be some points that I will be able to cover in a general sense, but I think for the committee you will get a much better and clearer detailed response from some colleagues. So, if you wouldn't mind, I might defer to Ruth to provide some information, as she was leading the Ukrainian response at this time. Diolch.

Thank you, Sioned, and thank you, Chair. Sioned is absolutely right, that initial 1,000 was based on previous experience around the number of people that we'd managed to support through Operation Pitting, where we'd brokered accommodation and wraparound support for 400 individuals who came to Wales under that scheme. We felt that we could really scale up the response that we had put in place then and that there would be that initial 1,000, but then looking forward to an ambition of trying to create a scheme that would ultimately support what would be a population share of the total number of people who arrived in the UK. I think when the scheme went live, though, there were a number of assumptions that we had made about how it would operate in terms of when visas would be processed, about when visas were granted and about people's plans around travelling. And some of our assumptions simply didn't materialise.

At the start, the processing of visas was very slow, and the UK Government made huge efforts to try to unblock some of the systems and processes in that area. But what we did see was a pause, I suppose, and a delay between visas being granted and actually people deciding to travel. As you can imagine, we did see people from more eastern regions of Ukraine travel quicker in those first initial weeks and months. Many people from those areas and from places like Mariupol were quick to travel to Wales under the supersponsor scheme. But people were essentially taking time, I think, to be able to settle business and personal affairs before they made that decision. Many had already left Ukraine as well, at that point, and were already in some other countries, like Poland, Moldova and Germany, and they were being supported there—so, again, reflecting on when was best to travel for them.

I think that, by the time we had 1,000 applications in the UK Government system, we'd only seen a couple of dozen people actually arrive in Wales. And by the time that the visa scheme, our supersponsor scheme, was paused on 10 June, I think we'd seen about three quarters of our initial 1,000 arrivals actually arrive into the country. So, I think it's a picture, really—. It was very difficult because of all the uncertainty in the system for us to be able to understand when we would be able to reach that commitment of an initial 1,000 people to be able to be sponsored, and, as Sioned said, when we would be able to reach that further ambition of upscaling our response again in light of the humanitarian response that we were putting together.

Thank you. It was reported, certainly last year, that Wales had taken a lower proportion per capita than other UK nations. Is that accurate, and if so, why is that the case?

Under the supersponsor scheme, we've now welcomed around 3,300 arrivals. That does equate to around 5 per cent of the overall number, which would be our population share. So, we can go back and double-check those figures, but my understanding is that we have reached that population share.FootnoteLink

Thank you very much. To what extent do you consider that, as officials, you could or should have advised Ministers to pause the scheme at an earlier stage?

I'll ask Ruth to come in again with the detail, but I think Ministers were really clear to try—. It was shortly after the COVID situation that we had to deal with and Ministers were acutely aware of the media coverage regarding investing in centres that may or may not have delivered value for money. And so, Ministers were trying to strike the balance between the response to the humanitarian crisis and, indeed, that need to keep value for money.

As Ruth said, we had reached 1,000 visas at that point, and 25 people had actually taken up the offer to move to Wales, and therefore we didn't know how that pattern was going to continue. So, there were a lot of regular ministerial meetings, meetings with the third sector and others, to ensure that we had the best oversight possible. The decision to pause it was very much based on the information that we had at the time through that initial response. But I'm happy for Ruth to elaborate more on that if you'd like.

Yes, please. Ruth, would you like to elaborate?

Yes. I was just unmuting there—apologies. The first six to nine months of the Ukraine response was very much an emergency response, and as you can imagine, there were regular and frequent updates to Ministers. I think there was almost daily engagement with the lead Minister at the time; there was a weekly cross-Government ministerial board; we ensured that we were advising and updating on every aspect of the scheme. And that would include the latest picture on visas, the accommodation capacity, what our strategy was for acquiring additional accommodation in those situations, and also the wider pressures on Welsh public services. From time to time, we would invite in the WLGA and the Wales Council for Voluntary Action to give their perspective on that as well.

We also wanted to give a broader picture on the broader pressures across different UK nations and Ireland and other parts of Europe as well. We were starting to pick up as well from our contact centre intelligence about why people were travelling, why people were pausing their plans around travelling. In some cases, there were some really quite harrowing human stories, and we were trying to build this whole picture about the scheme and our capacity to make sure that we could provide that support for that initial 1,000.

We also did quite a significant amount of work at that point in terms of trying to build a forecast model that would look at numbers of arrivals and also test the amount of accommodation and support that we had available. At that point, though, the number of arrivals was so small that it was difficult for that model to have any kind of real statistical value.

I think the other thing to mention is that, in terms of our control of the number of people coming through our supersponsor scheme, the only control that was in Welsh Ministers' gift was around that visa application side; the rest of the visa system was handled through the UK Government, and, obviously, people’s plans about when and how they were going to travel was very much down to individuals.

Given all those different variables and all the uncertainties in the system, like I said earlier, it was virtually impossible to be able to know or advise on exactly when we would be able to reach our commitment of supporting 1,000 people and when that best point would have been to pause. Those discussions were happening during April and May; as you’ve seen from the Audit Wales report, our arrivals were very low at that point. Once we made the announcement to pause the scheme, we definitely saw an uptick in applications and certainly in people travelling at that point as well.

Thank you. Anecdotally, I attended an event in north Wales, I believe in July, for Ukrainians who’d arrived, and coaches were literally arriving with new people as we were there. But how were officials working with their UK Government colleagues to plan the scheme and keep track of applications and arrivals to support your timely decision making, and to what extent were you getting the information and co-operation that you needed?

Do you want me to pick it up, or would you rather go straight to Ruth? I'm happy to pick it up.

You know the skill sets better than me, so—

Absolutely. I think for the initial phase, Ruth led that, so if Ruth is happy to pick those up, and I can come in as necessary. I recognise the time implications here are quite tight.

Lovely, yes. Ruth.

So, I think the Homes for Ukraine scheme, I would say, was a really strong, robust example of inter-governmental working. We had a series of operational strategic working groups that were established as soon as the scheme was announced. They would be focusing on things like data sharing, on safeguarding, and there was a kind of really collective emphasis and view from all of the UK nations that were involved in this that we wanted any arrival from Ukraine to experience similar levels of support and a similar level of welcome once they got into the UK.

Like I said, huge emphasis at the outset in terms of safeguarding, particularly around the Homes for Ukraine scheme, where people were going into hosting and lots of policy discussions on how that would look, and all the kind of safeguarding measures that you would expect in a scheme like that, and also around data sharing. So, I think in terms of being able to share data between the UK Government as soon as visa applications were granted, being able to share that down to Wales so we understood who was arriving in Wales under the supersponsor scheme, we could then share that wider with our public services as well. Those were, I would say, definitely some of the kinds of lessons learnt.

I think we probably learnt some of the lessons as well from working with the UK Government from the pandemic in this area, particularly in terms of that kind of collaborative working, and certainly in terms of some of those elements, particularly data sharing. And I’d probably like to emphasise that, actually, joint working with the Governments across the UK was really strong at every level, ministerial, strategic and operational, throughout the whole response.

Thank you. Again, I was told that there were effectively three waves of arrivals. The initial wave was people perhaps in professions, highly skilled, qualified people who could afford to leave early. The later arrivals were those who then became subject to bombings and risk remaining in their homes. Did you see any pattern of changing needs as the different waves arrived?

I think, like I said, the initial wave of people that were arriving were certainly from the eastern regions of Ukraine, where obviously the invasion had taken place, and we certainly saw individuals, families from Mariupol, once a humanitarian corridor had been established, coming from those areas. I think that possibly, in terms of people who were applying for visas at the very early stages, it could have been more people that were in that cohort that you describe, but we had a full range. It was more seeing regional differences on where people were applying from, rather than levels of education et cetera.

Okay, thank you. On what basis did you think that Ukrainians would move on from welcome centres within 12 weeks, and what might you have done differently in trying to assess accommodation needs with the benefit of hindsight?

I think, like I said, a lot of the response that we put in place was based on what we'd done through the Afghan evacuation, through Operation Pitting. There was also that we considered the amount of time that we felt an individual that was fleeing from Ukraine, potentially from a war zone, would require to make sure that we could provide those effective integration services. The third element that we were considering was really about the time that we felt it would take to be able to make sure that we had safe and secure hosting arrangements in place for people to move into hosting arrangements. A big part of our initial model was about people moving out of our initial accommodation into hosting.

I think Audit Wales describes our 12-week turnaround as optimistic. I tend to agree with that. I think one of the first things we realised was that, actually, we had around 10,000 expressions of interest in hosting at the outset and at the outbreak of war. But, for many reasons, that actually translated into far fewer actual hosting placements. The hosting placements that we received were invaluable, and I cannot thank people enough for their kindness and the welcome and support that they offered at that point. But I think that there were different cohorts that were coming through, hosting offers were predominantly, sometimes, for women and maybe children, and we were seeing families come through, sometimes families of up to eight people coming through as well. So, it was much more difficult in terms of converting those hosting offers into actual hosting arrangements. That then impacted on our move-on and our 12-week initial assessment of what people would need in a welcome centre.

I'll mention it now, I'll probably mention it several times, but the fact that this was the first scheme that allowed people to bring pets with them also was an added level, an added dimension, I suppose, in terms of complexity. That, again, reduced the numbers of hosting arrangements that were available. Finding suitable, affordable and accessible PRS, so private rented sector accommodation, for people was also a challenge. At that point, we did not have arrangements in place in terms of guarantor schemes or anything like that, and particularly around larger families and the fact that people wanted, very much, to stay in some of the larger cities and towns where we know that PRS is far more scarce and far more out of people's reach.

I think the last thing to say on this, really, is the fact that there was a huge—. People came over on the scheme, particularly at the outset, not knowing what their longer term plans were going to be. People felt that this might be a fairly short conflict, they were moving out of harm's reach and would like to move back to Ukraine quite quickly. Again, that added more kinds of layers of difficulty in terms of people wanting to take on longer term accommodation. So, all of that, really, added into the fact that our 12-week turnaround period was more challenging. Also, when people got into a welcome centre in an area, they wanted to find jobs, they wanted to find education and, again, didn't want to move on from those areas. So, all of these variables again added into that.

So, again, with the benefit of hindsight, what, if anything, would you have done differently?

I think one thing we possibly could have had more influence on UK Government around was around the permission to travel letters that were issued once visas were issued. That was an open-ended travel letter, essentially, so that made it very, very difficult for us to plan any accommodation. We knew we had x number of visas in the system at any time where people could travel, but there was an open-ended agreement to when those visas could be enacted. So, I think, in hindsight, that would be one area that we could potentially have done some more planning with UK Government around.

Sorry—

Yes, Ms Williams.

Thank you, Chair. I was just going to add, I think it's quite important for us to remember that our supersponsor scheme was in the context of other UK Government schemes as well, particularly around the hosting capacity, as Ruth said—a huge amount of people to whom we're incredibly grateful, offering to open up their homes and offer hosting. But, of course, those were also being taken up by Homes for Ukraine individuals coming through and families, and the family visa scheme was also in play at the same time. So, supersponsor was only one of three routes for Ukrainians to arrive, so that added pressure on the system in general terms.

Just in terms of what might we do differently, I think one of the things that we came to in the fairly early days—although the early days seemed to stretch for quite a long time; there was an awful lot going on at the time—was making sure that we were being very clear with people before they left Ukraine, or travelled to Wales, of what the expectations were, and that management of expectations I think is a theme that runs through what we've learnt over the course of this response. It was a very fluid, very dynamic situation for those first months. But making sure that those people were clear that there wasn't necessarily a social home available, that that wasn't something that we had the capacity to offer and that longer term accommodation might be with a host or in the private rented sector and everything that went with that I think was quite important, because people came sometimes with a different expectation of what we had the capacity to offer. So, working with people early on, to be clear, was really important.

Thank you. And you used the term 'private rented sector'; I think, earlier on, the term 'PRS' was used, so I presume they—

Yes, the private rented sector. Yes.

We're always wary of acronyms that we all understand but not—. The great people of Wales who may be watching this wouldn't necessarily understand the acronym. Thank you.

Finally from me, and it's following on from the early part of your answer then, what, if any, benefits do you believe that the supersponsor scheme delivered over and above the UK Homes for Ukraine scheme involving private hosts?

I'm sure that Ruth will want to come in on this, but I think one of the key things we were focused on was safeguarding and initial support and integration. So, for people coming through the supersponsor scheme, we were able to provide wraparound support services to help them to engage initially, to claim benefits, to engage with educational opportunities, English language, et cetera. So, I think some of those and the safeguarding elements that went with our support were really quite key and fundamental. But Ruth may want to add.

Yes. I think it actually was beneficial in terms of our public services, in terms of having larger groups of individuals to support made life easier, in some senses, for local government in particular, who were providing that direct support to individuals arriving either under the supersponsor scheme or through the Homes for Ukraine individual scheme. So, I think there were benefits in that sense as well, in terms of pressure on public services.

Okay, thank you. I'll bring in Mike Hedges, who has some questions for you.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. How did the Welsh Government work with local partners to ensure that the welcome centres were adequate to meet the needs of Ukrainians while securing value for money? And how did you work with the previous Ukrainian community? I live in Morriston in Swansea and there's been a very large Ukrainian community here since just after the second world war.

Many thanks. In terms of how we worked with local partners, I think, from the outset of the response, we worked incredibly closely with local government, with the voluntary sector and with the private sector as well, in terms of how we could make sure that our initial accommodation supported Ukrainians. We developed a network of welcome centres and initial accommodation, and certainly, once we saw a steadier flow of people arriving into Wales from about September 2022, we worked with local authorities and the third sector to make sure that we could create a really sustainable and manageable network of initial accommodation. We certainly focused on moving away from the more dispersed model we'd undertaken once the demand for accommodation had outstripped the capacity that we had in our welcome centres.

What we were trying to do at all points, I think, was to balance three elements, and that was really around the needs of the arrivals, to reduce pressure on public services, but also to make sure that we were able to provide more affordable options and value for money. So, over time, I think that we were able to secure that more affordable, certainly, self-catering type of initial accommodation. That provided for our arrivals that greater independence, more privacy, encouraged move-on, and provided greater value for money. Also, I would say it was less challenging then for local authorities to deliver the kind of services that we needed them to and best suited the needs of our arrivals. So, there was a lot of partnership working going on throughout the whole response.

In terms of how we engaged with the previous Ukrainian community, what we did quite early on in our response was to make sure that we were engaged with some of the social media administrators who were running groups in terms of support for Ukrainians, and many of the long-established Ukrainian communities were very much a part of that. We also engaged with a Ukrainian consultant as part of our team to help to guide us in terms of the messaging, et cetera. So, engaging with those local communities through social media, through local authority networks, but also having an individual with us as well when we were making decisions to be able to communicate out to the established community, to people who were arriving, but also to the community back in Ukraine and other countries who were considering travelling, I think really helped to shape our programme.

Thank you for that. What has the Welsh Government done to implement the auditor general's recommendation to work with local authorities to review whether to retrospectively publish contract award notices for the welcome centres, and how many it expects to be published?

We've conducted an internal review of which contract award notices were issued. I think, at the time, it was incredibly sensitive about where our welcome centres were based and that we internally had a rationale for when and where contract award notices were published. What we've done since the Audit Wales recommendation has been put is place is done that review, reviewed whether to retrospectively publish those contract award notices, and also reminded local authorities of their responsibilities in this area as well. So, I think that recommendation is now complete.

What, if any, thought has the Welsh Government given to updating external guidance issued to Welsh public bodies on expectations around publishing contract award notices, alongside updating its internal guidance?

That recommendation, again, is complete. We updated our external guidance via a policy notice, and that was published on 3 July this year.

Thank you. Moving on somewhat, but it’s topical, the likelihood is that Ukraine is going to fall in the next 12 months. American support is about to disappear, or if it does continue it’ll continue on Putin’s side rather than the Ukrainian side. Are you expecting a large number of refugees coming from a fully invaded Ukraine?

We have around about 1,300 letters still outstanding in terms of visas to come to Wales and we are monitoring the situation. Obviously, events overnight have meant that the situation has changed for us, and it is something—. Obviously, the scheme is on pause. There’s an opportunity, should Ministers wish to reopen it, there. But we are monitoring the situation and, obviously, it’s too early to make any decisions on that front. Diolch.

How did the Welsh Government decide what it wanted to include in its initial wraparound offer at welcome centres, including why the offer was more generous than support provided to other immigrant groups?

I'm happy to pick that one up.

Yes, please, Ruth.

Like I said, the decision around our initial wraparound support was very much initially based on the experience of Operation Pitting, like I’ve said previously. It was essentially looking at the kind of support services that were put in place at that point. We also had a really good sense, I think, in terms of the work that we’ve done over the years in terms of our broader nation of sanctuary approach in terms of what 'good' looks like in terms of integration support and when to flex and review that support. So, you're right—on arrival, guests would receive an emergency cash payment of around £200. That was interim support whilst they were applying for income support and for various benefits. Local authorities would provide that support to make sure that they could enrol at schools, that benefits were applied for and that support from Working Wales to secure employment was also available. There was funding available for local authorities in terms of providing that support as well. But I think the key thing is that, throughout the programme, we were really conscious to make sure that we had that equity and parity across different groups, not only groups that we had welcomed from other countries, but also groups that we were supporting and are continuing to support in our temporary accommodation and in our homelessness services.

So, by January 2023, we had reviewed and revised our initial wraparound support offer quite considerably, and we pulled back from quite a bit of the support that we were offering at the start. Again, there were a number of reasons for this: it was to make sure that there was that parity, like you say, across other groups, and to make sure that there was value for money, but also to try and encourage that independence and integration for the Ukrainian groups that had arrived as well. And I think making those incremental changes all the way through the programme in terms of what support was available helped make it a success in terms of integrating people, and we saw some of the move-on successes that we did through the programme as well.

Excuse me, Mike. Emma Williams would like to come in first.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to add, on a really practical level, I think we adopted the Ukrainian resettlement scheme programme that had been tried and tested previously. That was available to us. It meant that we were ready if there were immediate arrivals and allowed us time to then review what was likely to be achievable on a larger scale, if you like. So, as Ruth has described, this was a really dynamic and iterative process, and in the wraparound services there was a core set of principles around the support that people would need and the things that we wanted to help them achieve in those early days. But then we reviewed and refined that as the situation changed, as the numbers increased and as the pace of arrivals increased to make sure that, increasingly, as Ruth describes, we moved towards a parity that started with parity with what had been offered to arrivals from Afghanistan and then moved to, actually, having a population of people who were here for a longer period of time and how to ensure parity with others in the system, looking at pressures on public services et cetera.

Okay. Thank you.

Was the UK Government's funding to local authorities via the Welsh Government sufficient to meet Ukrainians' needs, both as part of the supersponsor scheme and for those with private hosts? And does the Welsh Government hold information on the extent to which local authorities had to meet costs from their own funding?

Ruth, do you want to pick that up, or do you want me to come back with a cover, to give you a bit of a break? Thank you.

The UK Government provided a tariff towards the costs of supporting the guests that we had in the country. For the first tranche it was £10,500, and then for subsequent tranches it was £5,900. In addition to that, local authorities have come back to us with pressures in 2022-23 for education support in the region of £9.6 million, and also for emergency support of £94,000 from local authorities. So, there has been an additional cash injection from the Welsh Government on top of the tariff that comes to us from the UK Government.FootnoteLink

But that money, I would guess, was not shared equally amongst the 22 local authorities. I would guess that those authorities that took the most, which I would guess would include Swansea and Cardiff, especially Swansea with its historical Ukrainian community, would have had greater costs.

The underpinning policy is to ensure that there is parity of support for those who took on the responsibility of hosting and supporting our guests from Ukraine, and that has been quite clear through the entire policy, and that includes things like the initial welcome centres, where some local authorities stepped up and were able to accommodate some initial guests when they arrived, and actually would not have been able to support them in the way they'd wish to had they been left with that entire burden of cost. So, that was shared as well. So, the underlying principle is that we were as fair as possible in our strategies to ensure that local authorities shared the burden of the cost in relation to the guests they took on board.

Finally from me, to what extent could issues around access to healthcare have been avoided or mitigated, and have any lessons been learnt from the tuberculosis screening and vaccination programmes?

Again, I'll go back to Ruth for that one.

Yes, I'm happy to pick that up. Thank you, Sioned. There were concerns from the Ukrainian community around access to healthcare and around dentistry as well. There are very different healthcare systems between the UK and Ukraine, and I think that did cause some consternation amongst the community at the time. There was considerable learning, though, in terms of what that health assessment and screening would look like, and a new pathway has been developed now that is going to be shared. That's around health assessments and also around TB screening and other screening processes at either large-scale initial accommodation or through a more dispersed model. Those will be issued in a Welsh health charter in the next few weeks.

But I think, again, it was one of those themes running through the whole response in terms of managing expectations of people when they arrived, in terms of explaining what the differences between the UK health system and the health system in Ukraine were. We put a number of measures in place to try and do that. We had regular meetings with health boards. We also worked really closely with health boards and with the contact centre to develop a process for individuals with more complex medical needs coming into the country. But, like I said, I think managing expectations, again, is a lesson we would learn from that.

Thank you.

And I think it should perhaps also be noted for the record, certainly from my casework, that a number of pupils were unable to take up their school placements until they'd had that screening, which is certainly something I corresponded with you about at the time. Just briefly, before we move on, what did the range of initial accommodation costs look like in practice, with specific figures if possible, and what was the reason behind the variation in costs?

In general terms, the range of accommodation was something between £120 a night down to £25 a night, depending on the type of accommodation. As you'll be aware, we used a number of different hosts or opportunities to host, at that time, from university halls of residence to hotels in extreme circumstances, when we couldn't find anything, and the Urdd—we worked well with the Urdd at the time—and also sometimes through local authority interventions on that front. Again, Ruth will be able to come in with the specific details as she was involved at the time. Diolch.

I think you've probably covered it there, Sioned. We had an initial model based on that large-scale accommodation, welcome centre approach. This was a model that had been developed through the Home Office with a specification. The Urdd Llangrannog was our first use of that, but what we did do throughout the programme was manage to drive down those costs from our initial welcome centre costs to make sure that—. I think they were around £40 per person per night across most of our welcome centres throughout the response, going down, like Sioned said, to £25, which would be more cost-effective caravan parks, holiday parks et cetera, which we had established in north and west Wales.

We did use hotels, obviously, when our initial accommodation demand was outstripped by the number of people coming in, and those were the first areas that we looked to try and close down in terms of that value for money, and as I've previously said, in terms of enabling local authorities to provide support. We did, however, keep some of those hotels going. Some of the hotels in Cardiff were able to accommodate pets. Like I said, that was, again, a key feature of this scheme. So, it was, again, trying to draw that balance between value for money, making sure that we could meet the needs of our arrivals, and also balancing against the pressures that we were asking local authorities to undertake in terms of providing support.

I think Ms Williams was first and then I'll bring—.

Sorry, I hadn't realised you were in there. Sorry, Em.

Thank you, Chair. All I was going to add to Ruth's comments was that, of course, it was much easier to drive a better bargain when we were negotiating for taking on an entire premises—so, when we were negotiating for bringing forward an entire hotel or establishment as a welcome centre, initial accommodation. Obviously, it's much harder to drive a value-for-money bargain when you are looking to take smaller numbers of rooms in hotels, and having to work at pace in order to ensure that nobody was left without suitable shelter and support on arrival.

So, I think two slightly different models: the initial establishment of welcome centres and initial accommodation, with limitations, because, obviously, we didn't have a huge amount of time, and there weren't a huge number of options on the table. And referencing back to an earlier question, about engagement with the local services, we were only able to take on and set up a welcome centre where the local authority, local health board, local partners, police, all agreed that it was an appropriate establishment and that support could be provided. But it's easier to drive a bargain on a whole premises than when you're buying a small number of rooms and availability on quite a fast-paced and short-notice basis.

Sioned Evans.

Thank you. Diolch yn fawr iawn. So, I was just going to pick up, on a slight tangent, the payment to the hosts. There's a thank you payment made to the private hosts, the families who took in our guests from Ukraine—£350 a month, initially. When the cost-of-living crisis struck, we pushed for £500 per month, to ensure—. Because it still works out as really cost-effective. You've heard some of the figures here; it worked out as a really cost-effective response for us. That was not taken forward by UK Government beyond an initial period. So, Welsh Government does pay £500 a month to the hosts as a thank you payment for taking in families.FootnoteLink Diolch.

Thank you. I'll bring in Natahsa Asghar.

Thank you very much, Chair. Good morning, ladies. So, I want to talk to you a bit about spending, and I'm glad you went on that. So, Welsh Government initially estimated that this entire matter was going to cost roughly £18 million. You actually ended up spending £61 million, and this was partly offset because the UK Government provided support. So, ultimately, the total that you actually spent was £29.2 million. So, based on just over £40 million of a difference to what was actually spent, what lessons has the Welsh Government learnt from the initial work that you've undertaken to assess likely costs, given the expenditure from 2022 to 2023?

So, yes, the cost was considerably more than we anticipated, and I think we've talked already about the rationale behind that: nearly 2,300 more people came in than we'd planned. You can see from the Audit Wales report that much of that cost was because of the amount of time that the visitors from Ukraine, or the guests from Ukraine, stayed in the initial welcome centres. We've gone through the rationale behind some of that. Those costs were far more expensive because it went on for that much longer than we had planned. So, we have learnt that there are different things. This has given us a wealth of information that we will be able to build on should either the situation be exacerbated by events overnight, or indeed whether another crisis comes forward. We have a database now of information.

We've amended, on the back of the auditor general's report, much of our frameworks and our approaches to how we would handle it, moving forward. We have really, really tight controls now over how we would take it forward. And I think we recognise that the Operation Pitting experience we had was, in hindsight, quite limited, but it was the best we had at the time, and we were able to build on that. We have got so much more information now and so much more experience within the team in terms of our processes and our ways forward, to be able to ensure that we can perhaps—. It may not cost us that much less, but we will know which routes to take to make sure that we mitigate costs in absolutely the best way possible, because we have that relevant experience to take forward.

Okay. So, jumping on what my colleague Mike Hedges said, based on current world affairs that we've seen in the last 24 hours, if we do see a massive influx of more Ukrainian refugees coming in to Wales, have you got any projections as to how that's going to look financially?

No, we haven't, because, obviously, it's only happened overnight. It is something we are keeping a really, really close eye on, because I think the point you make is very well made, and it is something we have to be ready for. But, obviously, decisions around any future investment will need to be made by Ministers, but we are in a far, far better position, with those really tight team Wales links, to be able to respond in a way that would prove more cost-effective from a much earlier point than perhaps our response to Ukraine was able to be.

Okay. Final question from me: so, how have you, as Welsh Government officials, engaged, and have previously engaged with, and influenced UK Government colleagues on discussions around changes to the UK Government funding through tariffs and other sources?

Well, I think Ruth referred to it. Relations with UK Government have been fantastic throughout this entire process. We have pushed really, really hard in terms of the tariff. Regrettably, with the previous Government, we didn't get very far with that, so the tariff remains at £5,900. I think, by the figures, we would suggest that it may not be sufficient; that's certainly our position. It's not sufficient to cover the wraparound care that's required for any refugees coming in to the country. But the relationships are very good, we have a seat around the table, we are able to make those petitions, but, ultimately, it's a ministerial decision in terms of what UK Government may wish to do in terms of the tariff, moving forward.

Okay. Thank you.

Diolch.

Thank you. What is the latest position regarding the number of local authorities applying the refusals policy since the end of June 2023, and the income raised in consequence? Has the Welsh Government now completed its review of the refusals policy and, if so, what learning have you taken from it?

Thank you. So, if I could hand over to Emma for some of these things that you may wish to ask in terms of this particular question. Thank you.

By all means. Thanks, Sioned. So, the refusals policy, like many other aspects of the Ukrainian response, has developed over time. So, we had an initial refusals policy introduced in late 2022, which set out some of our expectations and priorities. That was reviewed in spring 2023, and we brought in a charging framework, training in best practice, and that helped us see through to when the final initial accommodation closed. We've then had—. So, the iteration that is currently in place is being reviewed at the moment, but, in effect, we've had so few arrivals recently that the refusals policy hasn't really been an issue. At the moment, we don't have anybody in initial accommodation, we have a policy of direct allocation into host placements, and that is working well. So, if you like, the latest iteration hasn't been tested; it hasn't needed to be tested, but it's been developed in conjunction with local authorities and it is there, should it be needed.

Okay. What information do you now have on the number of Ukrainians that moved into properties secured through the transitional accommodation capital programme? If those figures are not yet available, when will they be?

Okay. Thank you, Chair. We don't collect specific information about which groups—. So, we don't know whether it's a Ukrainian family or another family that's moved into a TACP-funded property. What we do require is that all properties that are funded through the TACP are allocated by local authorities to people who are either in temporary accommodation, homeless or at risk of homelessness. So, it is a very targeted intervention. But, back to the theme that we've referenced a number of times about parity, we don't feel it appropriate to have capital streams that are focused on any one individual group; there is overall pressure on the housing system, and TACP was brought in in order to help relieve that pressure. So, it's been a great success story: £76 million in the first year, just shy of 1,000 homes; £87 million in the second year and just over 1,000 homes brought forward; and the programme is continuing this year with an indicative spend of £100 million, which again will generate over 1,000 additional homes.

One of the successes of TACP has been its flexibility and Government's lateral thinking, if you like, in terms of thinking about how we expand the availability of affordable housing in different ways, alongside our new-build social homes programme. So, it has brought forward a range of different things, including refurbishing, bringing voids that were unable to be let because they needed a significant amount of work, bringing those back into use, some conversions, and some use of factory-built homes on what we call 'meanwhile use sites', of which there have been a couple of successes.

So, whilst I can't tell you the proportion of those homes that have gone to Ukrainians as opposed to other groups, I can assure the committee that those homes have been allocated to people in the greatest housing need, including Ukrainians, but the local authorities' role is really key in that in terms of knowing who people are and the households that are under pressure in their area.

Whilst that's fully understood and clearly a non-discriminatory approach should apply in that way, would it not help to have the data to inform future planning in these areas, and an understanding of how the needs of the Ukrainians who have arrived might develop in the future or have developed in the future?

I mean, it's always helpful to have more granular level detail, yes, and local authorities will be more aware than perhaps we are in terms of the exact allocations. But I think the local authority role in the allocation of housing is absolutely key. Local authorities are the ones with legal responsibility for meeting housing needs within their areas, and it's really important that they have the authority and the autonomy to be able to assess what housing they can bring forward and how they meet local needs and allocate according to those pressures within a local system.

But the Welsh Government has overall responsibility for policy and oversight, so monitoring and evaluation, I would suggest, from an audit committee's or a public accounts committee's viewpoint, should be at the centre of this.

Moving on, to what extent is the framework for accommodation aim of ensuring a fair spread of Ukrainians across local authority areas being achieved, and how is the move-on taskforce supporting that?

Thank you, Chair. So, the framework for accommodation works on a number of principles. In the very early days, one of the main things it sought to achieve was assurance for local authority areas that were hosting large-scale welcome centres, initial accommodation, that they weren't going to be expected to accommodate all of those individuals on a long-term basis, so it was very much the team Wales approach, which we've talked about. So, there was an allocation process looking at a number of factors, including local pressures on the system, the number of people arriving from Ukraine from other schemes into the system, the number of people in temporary accommodation in an area, and population share. So, it was looking at how, initially, the 1,000 people that we were looking to support would be spread out and shared out across Wales. Now, in actual fact, the revised figures work on the basis of 3,000 people and how that would share out. It hasn't been exact, but all local authorities in Wales have stepped up to the mark and now, as arrivals come in and we are in a direct allocations system, we will use that to look at those authorities that haven't yet got close to their allocation under the system, and look to allocate into those areas first, in order to even things out.

Are some local authorities still offering financial support, for example, to help with rent and deposits to Ukrainians that is not available to other groups in need?

So, on the first point, I would say, yes, local authorities are still offering support, but that support is available for local authorities to offer to any groups. The funding they may use to support that might come from different pots, so obviously if they have income relating to supporting Ukrainians, they may be able to use that rather than their more general discretionary housing payment schemes.

We have been clear with local authorities that they need to be cautious with how they use things like rent top-ups in particular. We need to make sure that we don't place people into a situation where, if that support ceases, they're in an unsustainable situation. We also need to be careful about not distorting the market, so not inadvertently pushing up rents by having rent top-ups in place. And, again, not distorting access to affordable housing for all groups. So, not wanting to place one group in an advantageous position for limited affordable housing compared with other groups. It's a really complex set of considerations, and our advice to local authorities all along has been to take it on a case-by-case basis and find the right outcome for individual families, and that is true whether that family is from Ukraine or another family, where you put in the right intervention in order to help them into affordable and sustainable accommodation.

We've only got 25 minutes left, and quite a bit to get through, so again I remind everybody to be as concise as possible.

Now that welcome centres and other initial accommodation are closed, how is the Welsh Government managing the risk of Ukrainians becoming homeless, should individual hosting arrangements break down?

We have a national advisory service, which is undertaking an exercise with local authorities at the moment to identify hosts wishing to participate in the scheme again. That work continues. And we have a system in place where, within the first 75 days, the welcome period, if a hosting situation breaks down, the national advisory service and the local authority will work together to try and find new host accommodation. The local authority, obviously, has duties, its usual homelessness duties and duties to make sure that people are accommodated, which kick in. But we're doing everything we can to make sure that placements are sustainable in the first instance and supported so that they don't break down.

And finally from me in this set of questions: to what extent has the wraparound support, such as English language training and translation services or transfer of qualifications, remained available to people after they’ve left their initial accommodation? And is any ongoing support available to those staying with private hosts?

Thank you very much, Chair. There's very much that wraparound support available in terms of things like English classes for speakers of other languages. Once people have left initial accommodation, which we are calling 'welcome accommodation', they'll then be guided by local authority partners, and the local authorities have been fantastic in this, in accessing English language classes. That might be through self-referral, or referred by the local authority or partners. And, as I say, the caseworkers have been fantastic in that.

We're also funding the Welsh Refugee Council, £1.7 million over three years, to offer support, and they have a specific fund to support Ukrainian people—again, guiding them through not just translation services that are available and English language services, but also advice around tenancies, around immigration support, access to local schools, GPs. So, there's a real suite of wraparound advice available for people.

I should say also that we've got our sanctuary website, which is constantly updated and has lots of really accessible information available in different languages as well. I think we have got a very strong focus on promoting independence, so whilst that support is very much available, people are guided in a way that they gain confidence, can start to feel really confident within their communities, integrate within their communities, so that's a real focus for us as well.

It's worth noting that the standard of English language of the Ukrainian guests is actually really quite high already, so what we're doing, really, is providing some additional support for them moving forward.

I visited, for example, a jobcentre where, in one case, a Ukrainian who was an English language teacher at home was providing unpaid translation services because so many Ukrainians wanted to access work but there were language barriers. So, it's better than for some, but there are still language barriers. Natasha Asghar.

Thank you, Chair. I'm going to come back to the money side of things, if that's okay with you all. Can you share with the committee the outturn position for 2023-24 compared with the revised October 2023 budget of £37.5 million, in what areas any underspends were realised, and the net position taking account of the UK Government funding?

Thank you. If I can ask Ruth to pick that one up, please.

Sorry, I think I was muted.

You're okay now.

Thank you. On the final 2023-24 position, we're still in the process of finalising that. We're still working through some of the costs that we had with one of our initial accommodation providers, to make sure that the correct amount is charged, and that may mean that some of the accruals may be able to be released once that work is finalised. But we did manage to reprioritise budgets during that year and we were able to reallocate £4.3 million from the original programme. That underspend was realised due to the success that we had with our local government partners and with third sector partners in terms of moving guests on into less expensive longer term accommodation, additionally combined with the slow-down that we saw in arrivals. And we were again able to release further funding in the year with that continued slow-down of arrivals at the moment.

Thank you so much for your answer. You mentioned that you are in the process. Do you have a date in mind as to when you’ll be able to give us a concrete figure?

We’ll be able to get back to the committee with that. That process is still ongoing at the moment. It’s quite detailed. We’re working with them to finalise what that will be, but we’ll be able to update the committee as soon as we know.

That’s great. As a committee, we love detail, so feel free to share as soon as you get them. Can you please share with the committee, also, what the latest position is on spending against the budget for 2024-25, and how that budget is going to be allocated?

I'm very happy to pick that up. We budgeted, for this year, £4.5 million. The latest spend, at October, is only £1.5 million. That’s obviously because the number of arrivals has really slowed down; we’ve had very small numbers. But, clearly, we need to have the budget there if those numbers were to rise, and that may happen now over the winter period. We've paid for initial accommodation. The sites closed in July, you’ll know, but we’ve now got a budget for welcome accommodation, data-sharing services, host 'thank you' payments, the contact centre, as was, now our national advisory service. We’ve got some contingency funding for local authorities for unforeseen circumstances to support them, and also a programme fund for staff, because it’s really important that we’ve got a robust team to support the whole Ukraine response.

Thank you so much for your answer. How much UK Government funding is the Welsh Government expecting to receive for the year 2024-25 relating to the Ukraine response, including any funding to prevent homelessness amongst Ukrainians?

We’ve received £2.59 million from the UK Government’s homelessness prevention fund, and that’s been distributed in its entirety to local authorities to support pressures in relation to housing and accommodation as a result of the Ukraine response. I think it’s important to say that that’s not ring-fenced. It’s for local authorities—going back to this point about parity—to decide how to use that in terms of responding to homelessness pressures.

We’re also expecting £2.8 million in the next budget cover transfer for payments for tariffs, and also eligible minor funding, and that’s from quarter 3 of 2023-24 to quarter 1 2024-25. Those transfers are in arrears because they rely on data that isn’t available and then becomes available. So, that’s why they’re in arrears. But, again, I should say that that will go into Welsh Government reserves. That will offset because we’ve made the allocations already, of course, but that comes in after those allocations have been made.

And we are expecting a budget transfer of £970,000 for 2023-24. That too will go into reserves, because it’s already been allocated by the Welsh Government, and, of course, we’re getting the 'thank you' payments through as well from the UK Government.

Okay, great. Just a small sidebar to the question that you’ve just answered, which was great. And I’m sorry, I’m jumping on Mike Hedges’s questions from earlier. On the £2.5 million that you received, for example, for homelessness, you said that has been distributed amongst local authorities. How have you distributed that? Is it based on the number of people that they’re housing? Is it based on just an equal distribution amongst local authorities, regardless of how many people they’ve got? How have you balanced that out?

There’s a formula that we’ve used in terms of numbers of refugees and asylum seekers.

I can provide in writing some detail—

Yes, please.

—but it takes account of population share, Ukrainian share, and other pressures in the system as well.

And alongside numbers, we love formulas, so please feel free to share the formula with the committee—we'd be very grateful. My final question is this: what assessment has the Welsh Government made in relation to ongoing funding needs to support Ukrainians in 2025-26 and beyond?

I think we’ve touched on some of this, Chair. We clearly are modelling and planning for both next year and the following financial year, but there are a lot of unknowns, and we’ve talked about this earlier, in terms of potential winter pressures. We expect the operational response to continue, so we’ll need that team, a budget, our very good national advisory service as well. We’ve planned for all of that over the next two years. But we will have to work very closely with the UK Government and continue those conversations to understand what the implications might be, coming into winter, of rising numbers, potentially, of people coming from Ukraine. Also, you'll be aware of the UK Government's extension to the permit. That, too, may have an implication for people coming from Ukraine and then extending their visa.

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you. Can I bring in Adam Price, please?

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to turn now to the broader policy of the nation of sanctuary, which you've referred to already. I just would like to ask how the Welsh Government has built on the progress update that was published in early 2024. That is, given that progress update, how will you be assessing the overall progress in implementing the nation of sanctuary plan?

Thank you very much for the question. I'll ask Amelia to answer because she's leading on this work currently.

Thank you. Diolch, Sioned. As you have said, we carried out the review of the nation of sanctuary plan commitments. Some have been completed, some are ongoing. There will always be ongoing commitments around, for example, language and translation needs. We've also had a nation of sanctuary chapter within the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan', and a review of that was carried out. And, of course, we had the launch and publication of the refreshed plan yesterday, the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan'. So, we've very much taken the approach of including the nation of sanctuary plan within a distinct chapter in the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan', and we think that that will bring great strength to it, because it takes it as part of that anti-racist approach. We've got very strong governance around the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan' and an external accountability group, of course co-chaired by Professor Ogbonna and the Permanent Secretary. So, we are building on all of the learning from our nation of sanctuary, and that has fed into the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan'. There's a measurement framework around everything within that plan that we will publish later on in this term, before Christmas, which will then allow the committee and, indeed, others to hold us to account on the delivery of those commitments. So, there's very strong governance around it.

Because of a lack of time, maybe could we have some brief answers. I know that this is a broad-ranging area. In the context of this review of the nation of sanctuary policy, how have lessons from the response to the situation in Ukraine informed that review?

We've always learned from every round—I think we've said this. In any resettlement scheme or nation of sanctuary approach, we have built it in. But there has been a heck of a lot of learning around the Ukraine response. We are drafting a safe and legal routes policy handbook, and that responds to the Audit Wales recommendation as well, to help to prepare us for future schemes, but also building on everything that we've learned—so, that whole nation of sanctuary approach. And to be brief, then, I guess the first of two areas I would pick out is the importance of the team Wales approach, and I know we've discussed that a lot, but just the collaboration between ourselves, the Welsh Local Government Association, local authorities and health boards. The third sector are absolutely key in this as well. That's fundamental to the nation of sanctuary approach. And I guess the other thing would be the UK Government, the inter-governmental relationships, the importance of those in that nation of sanctuary approach as well.

What is the latest position regarding the travel scheme and why was there a hiatus between the scheme being brought to an end and a new scheme being put in its place?

We certainly regret the hiatus. I will say that phase 1 of the welcome ticket was delivered as a condition of the £200 million COVID era funding to bus companies. So, they were required to provide free travel to people from Afghanistan and Ukraine and other sanctuary seekers. So, when that funding came to an end in March 2024, that's when the welcome ticket came to an end. We are developing phase 2 of the scheme. I will say that it's a really complex process around the data sharing with Transport for Wales and the Home Office, et cetera. That's really important. But also just to say that we had incidents of discrimination with the previous scheme—not very many, but we did have abuse in terms of some drivers, but also passengers, because people had to show that they were entitled to travel for free by showing a passport or a travel document. So, we have committed that that will not happen again, so we have to have a smart card scheme and it's taking—it's just complex—a long time to bring forward, but we are committed to doing it as soon as we possibly can.

Could I just interject? I'm aware that I was one of those who raised those points, but it applied in travel deserts where the only providers were private contractors who were outside the scheme and the drivers therefore responded the way you've indicated. I'm sorry, there isn't much time, but I'd like to say that I would hope that, this time, you'll be seeking to identify and fill those gaps that are identified.

And certainly that would be our aspiration—to make sure that we don't have those deserts and we don't have those gaps across Wales.

Thank you. Adam Price.

Rent Smart Wales landlords, some of them—. The training for those landlords under Rent Smart Wales had been rated red in the progress update regarding the nation of sanctuary policy. What was the impact of the delivery delay in terms of providing this training?

Diolch. So, the training that's referenced there was in relation to the UK right to rent scheme. So, in very blunt terms, the right to rent checking scheme still only applies to England—it hasn't been rolled out into Wales, so, there isn't the necessity for that training as yet. So, directly to your question: no impact, because that hasn't been rolled out in Wales yet.

Could I turn very briefly to the theme of community cohesion? How did the Welsh Government work with the Vale of Glamorgan Council, because this had been brought up specifically in the Senedd, to develop housing for Ukrainians on the former primary school site in Llantwit Major? And how did you tackle any risks in terms of community cohesion in that context?

Diolch. So, the development that you're referencing there was a TACP-supported development. We provided funding to the Vale of Glamorgan to develop factory-built housing on that site. I think it's 90 units of good quality housing that is in place there under the Vale's permitted development rights. The decision to initially focus that specifically on Ukrainian families was one that the Vale of Glamorgan took. Our general policy, as we referenced earlier, was always that funding through TACP and other support should be about meeting all housing pressures, but the Vale were clear that that was the housing pressure that they wanted to resolve there.

I actually believe that they have moved slightly away from that policy when it's come to, actually, the allocation of those homes, and we have a mix of families in there. I am, if you'll forgive me, Chair, going to take the opportunity to flag—. We don't get very many letters of thanks, but we did this week actually have a letter from a sergeant in the Ukrainian army whose family have moved into one of those units in the Vale and his delight at the support that his family has been shown. Sorry, it would be remiss of me not to share that, because it was a really heartwarming response that we had.

So, the homes are there; they are actually meeting local needs in general terms. Yes, I think there was some reaction from the community that was adverse and that has been handled. I don't know if Amelia wants to come in on the community cohesion issue.

Yes, I'm very happy to come in on that, Chair. There was that vocal opposition amongst a small number—I should say that it's a small number—of people, and the number of people who supported the site actually outnumbered those who did not. Clearly, people arriving seeking sanctuary, people experiencing homelessness, can be very traumatised and that's really unfortunate and distressing to see. There will always be people who seek to stoke community tensions. We have got—Welsh Government—eight community cohesion co-ordinators across Wales as part of our programme, and they really work closely with partner bodies and with us to monitor community cohesion and make sure that we’re able to intervene and support communities and really foster community cohesion.

I have no further questions, so thank you very much.

Diolch. In the few minutes remaining, I have a few concluding questions. To what extent are the arrangements described in the Auditor General’s report about supporting engagement with Ukrainians still in place?

Happy to come in on that, Chair. So, we've slightly changed our approach, because we have far fewer people now coming through, so we don’t produce monthly newsletters any more, because we’ve covered the topics, and, as I say, the numbers are low but we’re absolutely committed to really strong engagement with our partners and with the Ukrainians right the way across Wales. I’ve mentioned the sanctuary website; that’s incredibly important. Local authorities are updated; colleagues meet with them weekly, with the Wales Strategic Migration Partnership and WLGA, and we obviously continue to seek guidance from our Ukrainian consultant, who has a very large social media presence. She both amplifies the information that we provide, but also allows us to understand what Ukrainians’ needs are, whether or not what we’re saying is clear and accessible to them. And we have lots of forums, partnership forums, where we’re engaging, making sure that we’re engaging with partnership organisations who, in turn, are engaged at a local level with Ukrainian people. So, that engagement stays very, very strong.

Thank you. What, if anything, do you have to add about how the Welsh Government will accommodate small numbers of Ukrainians with visas arriving in the coming months if there are no longer welcome centres or initial other accommodation? What early preparation is the Welsh Government making, working with others—including the UK Government and Ukrainians themselves—to support Ukrainians with the repatriation process once the situation, hopefully, is safer and the period of their visas ends? And overall, beyond what you’ve already told us today, what do you consider are the main overall lessons learnt from the Welsh Government’s Ukraine response, and how, if at all, will this be reflected in the Welsh Government’s policy handbook?

Okay. Hopefully, I’ve caught all those. If I miss anything, Chair, please do come back. So, in terms of responding to the much lower numbers, what we’re doing is matching people straight into hosts wherever that’s possible, because that’s by far the most effective way of people feeling settled and supported. We do have a number of response hosts where we have them for 75 days, where then they will be supported to help families move on to permanent accommodation. But that direct allocation we think is incredibly important, and that 75-day period really allows them to settle with hosts if they’re not then longer term with them.

I think you said, in terms of the conversations we’re having around people potentially returning to Ukraine with the UK Government, was that—?

What preparation, working with UK Government and the Ukrainians themselves.

In the situation we’re in at the moment, we don’t feel that we’re anywhere near Ukrainians wanting—most Ukrainians wanting—to return to Ukraine at the moment. We obviously have very strong conversations with officials, and now at ministerial level as well, around what’s happening in Ukraine and what our response is likely to be. So, it’s very much part of our planning, but, at the moment, we’re not having those discussions with Ukrainian people. Clearly, if there comes a point where many are wanting to return, we will absolutely make sure we pass on information and support for them to be able to do that.

And then I think you came on to lessons learned. Others may well want to come in on this, but I think some of my reflections would be managing guests’ expectations right from the word go, so them understanding—and this is exactly what we are now doing now in our response—that initial accommodation will be initial. They’ll either go to a host, and explaining what that means, but if they’re going into initial accommodation or going to a response host for 75 days, then just explaining that that will be temporary, for 75 days, and, within that period, they will move on to longer term accommodation.

I think hosts, using hosts, is really important. That’s a real lesson learned. And also the team Wales approach that we’ve talked about a lot, that sense of that we work so much more effectively if we’re working in collaboration, not just with public services, but with our really important third sector colleagues and people like our Ukrainian consultant, who are able to really feed back to us how our policies are landing on the ground and the impact of those policies. But I don't know if colleagues have got other lessons learned they'd want to—.

I think the right to travel is certainly something as well. We would really be looking for some indicative end dates on rights to travel, I think, just so that it's easier to manage. It's easier to look at things within a start and an end frame, or a potential end frame, even if there is some flexibility around that. Of course, part of the rationale or the reason that we ended up perhaps having more people than we'd initially expected was because it's really difficult to map things if you don't know when the beginning and the end might be, so that's something we would really look to push next time with UK Government.

Fine. Thank you. Can I bring in Rhianon Passmore for our final questions this morning?

Thank you very much, and I think, personally, I would like to thank our witnesses for the important work that they're doing and also those across Wales, across local authorities, and the communities that are working so effectively in this arena. My question, really, has been touched upon. Obviously, we are at present at a really important geopolitical juncture in terms of policy and impacts in terms of Ukraine, potentially, moving forward, which could have a definitive difference to the output in terms of what happens and where potential refugees may want to come to, including the safe route that we are dealing with. So, in terms of agility, flexibility and bearing in mind that we will be needing to work closely with the UK Government, how flexible is the system that we have in place at the moment if there is a dramatic difference in terms of events as we move forward?

Thank you for that question. I will come to others as well, but, actually, there is something quite compelling about, potentially, a crisis coming quite soon after another crisis, because, of course, the skills, the experience and the knowledge are already there. We would have to step up our actions. You'll notice from the conversations and the answers we've given that, actually, we were in a phasing down of some of our response in some of the budgets moving forward. If there was a marked step-up in that, then, obviously, there would be discussion with Ministers about how they may wish to proceed with that, and, indeed, with the level of support that Wales will want to give. But, in relation to our commitment to the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the nation of sanctuary and this being a genuine humanitarian crisis, I would anticipate that we would be looking to provide additional support moving forward, or at least support moving forward. That seems to be what team Wales is set up to be able to do, particularly at this moment. Did you want to add anything?

Only to say that I think we are in a strong position with our partners. We've got such a strong collaboration. I've mentioned the weekly meetings that we have with WLGA, the Wales Strategic Migration Partnership and other partners. Obviously, we are having discussions with them so that we would be able to move quickly if we needed do that. So, I think the planning and structures are in place and very strong relationships, and, equally, with the UK Government as well, having that good relationship and communication with them about changes as well I think puts us in a strong position.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much indeed. So, we conclude three minutes over time, as always, confirming that the transcript of proceedings will be sent to you for checking for accuracy beforehand before publication and to thank you for your attendance. Hopefully, you'll get a less stressful remainder of the day. [Laughter.]

Before I move on, can I just belatedly thank a delegation from Swansea University who have been with us for the session this morning? Hopefully, you found it useful. If you didn't, let us know. [Laughter.]

Now, to move on formally, I propose, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(ix), that the committee resolves to meet in private for the remainder of the meeting. Are all Members content? I see that all Members are content. I'd therefore be grateful if you could take us into private session.