Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee

We'll move on to our evidence session with Dr Andrew Goodall, the Permanent Secretary of the Welsh Government. This will provide an opportunity for Members to scrutinise Dr Goodall and other senior colleagues on the Welsh Government's accounts for 2024-25. Can I welcome you to the meeting and ask you and your colleagues to state your names and roles for the record?

Good morning, Chair. I'm Andrew Goodall, the Permanent Secretary of the Welsh Government.

Good morning. I'm Dominic, director of people and places.

Bore da, bawb. Good morning, everybody. My name is Dean Medcraft, I'm the director of finance for the Welsh Government.

Thank you very much. I will start the questions and then Members will have further questions later on—

Chair, could I come in to introduce myself?

Sorry.

Thank you. Good morning. I'm Sioned Evans, I'm the director general of corporate services and also the chief operating officer of the Welsh Government. Thank you.

Diolch. I'll start by asking this: your 2024-25 accounts were laid before the Senedd on 15 December 2025, which was a few weeks later than the 2023-24 accounts, which were laid on 29 November. Why was that?

Chair, I'm very happy to explain that. If I could also just say for the record at the outset, just to confirm that we were able to break even within the funding that the Welsh Government is working through, £26 billion, of course, as we've reported, which I recall in committee last year. It remains a very complex and technical set of accounts, more so just because of some of the recent increase in internal [Correction: international] audit standards and some of the events that were occurring through last year, which related to quinquennial reviews and also to student loan finances in particular.

We have worked with Audit Wales on the timetable for submission, noting recent experiences, and whilst we submitted the accounts ultimately on 15 December, that was still three and a half months within the statutory deadlines. There was a delay, as I know Members will be aware, just because of a qualification on the set of accounts that related to student loans. That was something that we were working through late through November in terms of some of the outstanding questions, and inevitably, we had to work on some of that detail to support the audit process with Audit Wales as well.

There's been a very serious approach through the year with the timetable overseen by our risk and audit committee, through the chair of that mechanism, but it was one of those judgments to make, which was just to ensure that the accounts were handled properly and submitted. I know, around this table, Members will always want it to be submitted to the earliest time possible, but again, just to say that it was three and a half months within the statutory deadline.

Just to back up what Andrew said there, it was three and a half months before, it was a couple of weeks late from where we actually said, but I did write to the committee in November to explain why it was going to be late. I can't overestimate how hard it is pulling these accounts together. These are Government accounts, this is not a UK Government department or an arm's-length body, and the sheer consolidation, when we take into account health, the airport, Transport for Wales, the road network—all that comes in. This is the most complex set of accounts I suggest that I've ever been involved in and the sheer volume of work that needs to go into it. For me, the committee has always said that they wanted a set of accounts that tells a good story, the infographics within it tell that story of how we spend the £23 billion. I think these accounts do it.

Last night, the National Audit Office put out a good practice guide on how accounts should be produced. I think we hit all those things in there, because we've taken back feedback from the committee over the last few years to produce these accounts. Just for the record, can I express my thanks to the teams that pull this together, the accounts team in particular, across the Welsh Government, and for the collaboration between ourselves and Audit Wales? This is not an easy position to get to, and we would do everything we can to bring the timetable forward. However, this is a complex set of accounts, and, like I said, we had the qualification issue that we had to deal with as well. So, hopefully, that gives you some context.

Thank you. I know Mike wants to come in.

Do the UK Government, the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive also produce consolidated accounts?

Yes, they do. Obviously, the UK Government total consolidated account [Correction: whole of Government account] is based on department accounts and local government accounts. They are qualified. They are not at the timescales we have. The Northern Ireland accounts were qualified as well [Correction: The Northern Ireland Department for the Economy accounts including student finance were disclaimed], and the Scottish Government had an emphasis of matter within it [Correction: had a significant audit risk in relation to student loans]. They have complex issues. However, I would suggest ours are more complex because of the issues I said. And we've got a really small team in Wales to deliver on all this.

That's a matter where we can agree to differ.

Thank you. The auditor general qualified his true and fair opinion on the 2024-25 accounts due to uncertainty about your valuation of the student loan asset using adapted Department for Education modelling files. Have you completed testing the new statistical modelling technique, and what's the resulting likely change in the asset value?

Just from this process, this was the first year that we were looking to switch over to the new methodology. Rather than being a methodology that is specific only to Wales, it's one that has been agreed to be taken forward at a UK Government level and also through the devolved Government arrangements as well. Lots of things needing to work on there, and some of the numbers involved mean that very small changes can have a very significant impact as well. Even through this last year, we received some of the modelling very late from the Department for Education, so we have always attempted to receive the right information.

But your point is right. Irrespective of where we are on this year's position, do we feel that we're able to work through that revised methodology in order to secure the approach for the accounts for the financial year that we're currently in? Dean, you might just want to talk through some of the technicalities about that. But I think it's still going to be a complex exercise to make sure that the figures make sense to us. But at least this year has helped to prepare the path, I think, for the next financial year.

You've drawn attention to the qualification in the accounts, which everybody can see. That is related specifically to the uncertainty of that evaluation of that estimate. It's the auditor general's opinion of that, and I respect that opinion. I understand where he's got to. I am disappointed as the finance director that we got to this stage, because for me, it detracts from the overall accounts, which I think are a great position to be in, showing how we spend that £23 billion-worth of money, the outcomes that we deliver with it as well, and the good governance behind it.

Specifically on the student loan bit, we went through a modelling exercise. We do that in conjunction with the Department for Education, where we've got a service level agreement. We were in the same position as Northern Ireland and Scotland. For 2024-25, we were in the same boat as them when it came to the estimation. What I can say is that was the best information that I had at the point in time. I followed international standards, basically. So, we did all the correct things, and nobody could have done anything differently.

Going on to this year, we have got full compliance with the new DfE model, basically. So, Scotland, Northern Ireland and ourselves will be using it. It only finished compliance testing at the end of November, and so for this financial year we will be taking that forward. Thank you.

Thank you. How do you assess whether the student loan schemes provide value for money and how did the results of the modelling technique impact that assessment?

I think there's a balance on the modelling side. Obviously, some of the choices on the value-for-money side are embedded in the policy that Ministers decide at the moment. It would be true to say that the student loans process is not just value for money in respect of repayment. There is something there, which is the value of securing the qualifications and the society contribution as well. Obviously, it does need to translate into the modelling side. But on the choices on the policy side, they would remain a matter for Ministers.

I think committee members will be aware that the Cabinet Secretary has gone out for a consultation during January, just on a wider conversation about student loans and a way forward, I think reflecting some of that complexity as well. But, Dean, do you want to pick up, perhaps, the modelling points, which would be more relevant for our conversation?

Thank you, Andrew. Again, we've now got the first estimates from the new modelling system, which show that there will be an impairment. That will have implications going forward for policy. But as Andrew just said, that is now for policy officials to take forward with the Cabinet Secretary for Education. From my side, I'm comfortable with the position we've got now. I'm in discussions with Treasury to make sure we get cover, and what I can say for 2024-25 is there was no loss to Wales as a result of the change in models.

Thank you. Finally from me, the Treasury has fully funded student loan schemes on the basis that costs are broadly comparable across the four nations, as you said. Have they confirmed that will continue to be the case?

What they've confirmed to me is that the change in the stock charge will be supported in this financial year. However, we will need to look at, as a result of any divergence in policy, the implications of that going forward.

I think it will be tied into the wider consultation that I outlined, which the Cabinet Secretary is undertaking, so we won't be able to give a view on behalf of the UK Government; we'll just have to see how that is worked through with the next set of annual accounts.

Okay. Mike.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. You've told the committee about your plans to take forward in the seventh Senedd investment plans for the transforming corporate services programme, including a new finance system. Can you provide a breakdown of the cost, which you estimate, I believe, to be in the range of £55 million to £65 million? How has this been derived?

Sioned, would you like to give a general reflection on the approach on the transforming corporate systems? And then maybe, Dean, you might want to pick up the detail that the Member has asked for. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you very much for the question.

I think it's a really appropriate question to ask, because we've done an awful lot of work in this space over the last number of years, and we're in a position at the moment where we are likely to be able to put forward the final business case in April this year.

The team have done an awful lot of work in terms of looking at the models that we would need to be in comparison to Scotland and to Northern Ireland, and indeed to England, and the transformation that they've undertaken within their own Governments. So, at the moment, we're doing some market testing, we're going out to have a conversation with suppliers about what that might look at.

We've got a number of options that we're looking at—well, I say a number; there are three main options. The first one is to look at an enterprise architecture model [Correction: enterprise resource planning model], which—just for those who may not be as familiar with it—is the model that would support our target operating model. Essentially, a target operating model would be how we want to work, and the enterprise architecture underneath that demonstrates what we need to enable us to be able to work in that way.

So, we're doing the market testing; we'll have an idea around the option 1, which is the enterprise architecture. There's another model option, which is doing things in a phased approach, which will be slightly more measured in terms of some of the costing, and it will be phased over a longer period of time. And then there's a third option around speaking to existing suppliers about how we can refresh that relationship and bring things forward.

Obviously, doing something once and having a model that is comparable with those in other devolved administrations and with England would be something that we would aspire to have, but there's a big, big investment decision to be made, and that would be something for the next Government to determine.

So, in short answer to your question, we've undertaken a lot of market testing, we've looked at what's happened elsewhere and the sort of cost there. At the moment, it's a provisional costing, but we are confident that it's broadly in alignment with what we'd expect to pay for option 1, which is the enterprise architecture [Correction: enterprise resource planning] improvement to bring us in par and in line with the other UK Governments.

And Dean, on the specific points, because you asked about that £55 million to £60 million range.

Thank you. As the Member just said, this is not just about the finance system; this is about our corporate services, it's about the transformational journey and about the cultural change we need. It's linking our old-aged finance system with our HR system, our payment system, which is how we pay everybody. So, this is not just finance, but this replacement is needed. They are old systems. They're still supported systems, which is the main thing I think we should worry about; they're not going to fall down tomorrow, which is the work we've done in the last year to get to that point.

As Sioned said, when it comes to the £55 million, £65 million, at this stage this is an estimate; this is about pre-market testing, going out to suppliers in consultation with the UK Government, shared services, where they're taking those initiatives, also with Scottish and Northern Ireland colleagues, who I have conversations with, because they're already on the journey. I think those costs are based on that. As Sioned said, this is for the new Government, because the Welsh Government has not got that money to support the current civil service at the moment if we have costs of £55 million to £65 million. So, this is a decision for the new Government.

Given the head of internal audit’s assessment that legacy IT systems pose ever-increasing risks—amongst them, rising costs, inoperability and non-compliance—can you set out a clear timetable for replacing or modernising these systems, and how are you mitigating the risks in the meantime? I assume that you haven't even considered open source.

In respect of the split opinion, I think that was intended to, obviously, give confidence and reassurance about our broader systems approach. But there was a need, really, to recognise the inclusion of our corporate systems on our own risk register and to make sure that that was understood. I know that, of course, the Auditor General for Wales reflected also on some of the issues around the systems, because whilst we have managed to produce very complex sets of accounts, that does become a struggle if we're not able to invest in that.

On the timetable for these issues, this isn't simply about plugging in the technology, it's actually about the changes to business processes and practice that need to happen. If I give you an example of how long it took Scotland and Northern Ireland to work through their experience, given that they are working similarly in a devolved setting, it was a two to four-year period of time that it took to process all of the areas, to do so safely with a risk approach, once the decision is made.

In terms of the different options, we're still open about other ways in which we can work on this, learning from practices elsewhere. There remain some shared service opportunities for us to see, some of which may be open source as well. But the final business case, having completed the outline business case in October, would be the process where we make those final decisions.

What we really need to do, though, is—. We do not have access within the civil service budget to make that as an in-year decision—it has to be a strategic investment over time. The other thing that we're going to have to build into some of the costs will be that there will still be some on-costs during the years to come, some of which we would hope could be, however, mitigated by efficiency and productivity gains within that process as well. Dean, do you want to just finish off?

Thank you. On the specific issue on the head of internal audit's split opinion, I think that shows the value of her independence, because she works in my directorate, but it was her opinion. I understand where that opinion came from at the end of the financial year, which was reflected on the state of the finance systems and the issues that she has outlined.

However, since then, we've picked that up, as Andrew has said, as part of the corporate risk register. Now we've got an ICT road map, which we've never had in the Welsh Government, which outlines—. The case for change also goes through the systems—the financial systems, HR systems, grant systems—and shows whether they support it or not, whether they fall down, which we've never had before. We've extended that out across the Welsh Government so that we're covering all the areas of the Welsh Government as well, so it has actually improved things. So, I'm glad the opinion was there, and it has actually improved us as an organisation.

Thank you very much for that. The auditor general will confirm that it's the belief that your own internal auditors should not come under any pressure from you or anyone else in your department to produce anything but their own opinion. So, can I just say that I'm very pleased that's the case?

I can confirm that as well. I think the role of internal audit, again, as I know we've reflected in the committee, is to be able to go searching for problems that we need to do something about. And if internal audit ends up being a mechanism by which everything is full of reasonable assurance, you're probably focusing on the wrong issues.

Yes, I think you're probably right. You have recently made appointments to your senior team, including to the director general for the health, social care and early years group and chief operating officer roles, as well as to the new director general for strategy post. Were these three senior appointments made following fair and open competition?

I've taken opportunities in the past on structures to make some changes around the DG table. I did that three years ago. Members may be aware of some changes that I did when I amended some of the group structures in the organisations. Often, that's a process that we need to go through Government terms and amend in that way. But yes, I've taken some opportunity to move some of the DG portfolios around on the basis of experience and backgrounds as well. That is a process where, whenever a job is vacant—and obviously the wider trigger here was Tim Moss, who's been around this table before, stepping down from the chief operating officer role—we have a chance to review the roles that are in place to see whether there is any internal experience and determine how we want to do that.

Dom, I know you'll be able to speak on this. I took the opportunity to move colleagues around, which I've done through both Sioned's appointment, who's here on this occasion as the chief operating officer, and through the director of strategy appointment as well. There was also another role that was appointed to, which is an interim post in respect of the education and social justice portfolio as well. That's currently held by Emma Williams, who is the interim DG arrangement in there. But once we knew where the vacancies would lie, which was in the health post and also in the education and social justice area, we have to go through the usual civil service process.

All senior civil service appointments are overseen by the UK civil service. There are links that take place with the First Civil Service Commissioner, and we also have to seek agreement to any plans, including for interim roles and the moves of directors general around, with the senior leadership committee of the UK civil service, and all of those went through. Your question was on fair and open process. Once I had moved existing colleagues around, the two processes where we appointed two interims both went through open processes. Dom, you might just want to talk about the different processes that happened with those two roles.

Diolch. Thanks, Andrew. Bore da. Thank you for your time this morning. All matters relating to the senior civil service are regulated by the Cabinet Office, it's not devolved to the Welsh Government. In respect of director general roles, there are even tighter restrictions and we are duty bound to comply with the civil service first commissioner, who is expected to sign off any appointments.

In relation to colleagues who are already substantively at the grade—i.e. have previously gone through open and fair competition—I'll spare Sioned's blushes, partly because she's my boss, but also because she's on the call today, but Sioned went through open and fair competition and was appointed as a director general. Therefore, to move an existing director general internally, we're required to have committee approval from the senior leadership committee at UK Government level that's chaired by a different permanent secretary. We went through that process and we got that approved accordingly.

In respect of the interim director general for education, culture and Welsh language, because that was an internal competition, because it's not a substantive appointment yet, we will still need to go out to open and fair competition at the point that we advertise that job in the usual way. We again sought approval from the senior leadership committee, who agreed and endorsed our approach.

With respect to the interim director general for health and social care, there was a process that we put around that to make sure that we could recruit the best individual and we're very delighted that Jacqueline was appointed. That was a direct temporary appointment under exception 3 of the civil service commission's recruitment principles. That was signed off by the civil service first commissioner, as is required under senior civil service rules.

We've given commitment and assurance that all interim appointments will be recruited through open and fair competition as per senior civil service rules at the point that we are able to advertise them. That is likely to be in the new Government term, so that a new Government can help us to shape the direction of those roles.

Just to put it down simply, everything that's been done has been signed off by whoever is responsible for signing it off in the British civil service.

Yes. There is a full audit trail of all of those appointments.

Thank you. What informed the change in postholder for director general for the health, social care and early years group, and were they employed on civil service terms or did they move on the terms that they previously had?

Dom, do you want to continue to pick that up? Thank you.

Yes, absolutely. The previous director general for health and social care and chief executive of NHS Wales was recruited onto standard civil service terms, and therefore when she moved across into her new interim role, those terms continued because she is a substantive member of the senior civil service, not on secondment to us.

That's very helpful. Finally from me: has the director of strategy retained the terms and conditions she had as the director general for health, social care and early years? What responsibilities fall to the new role, and what's the rationale for bringing them together?

I'll pick up the role and, Dom, you may just want to comment on the terms associated with it as well. I've adapted our structures a number of times over these recent years, as I've said, around directors general and group areas. It's probably obvious to all of us at the moment that the Welsh Government will be going through very significant changes for the year ahead, as is the Senedd itself, with the generational change happening with the Senedd expansion as well.

I needed to ensure that I was able to bring around me some further attention and experience in a strategy role that was going to help around some of the election preparedness, the transition to the new Government arrangements and to see it through. We'd also had a number of reflections in the organisation about just looking to the longer term from an organisational perspective so that we're able to see through beyond just some of the immediate requirements of Government so that we are able to work that through, and it's allowing us to address some of those longer term areas as well.

And there are a number of other factors around the role. So, for example, the future generations requirements on the team have also been brought in to underpin this role, so that we are ingraining some of the expected practices and processes. The reason it's interim is that we'll need to see whether this is something that was required on a more long-standing basis, but we've got a rather exceptional period around us at the moment, and it was a way of elevating some of that leadership support that I need as well, myself.

And on the terms and conditions, as you said, Dom, given they're already an existing member of the civil service, they retain those terms and conditions in civil terms.

Yes. The terms continue as an individual moves from one post to another because they're permanent. However, to offer reassurance to the committee, at any point that we ask a senior colleague to move from one role to another, we are duty bound to undertake a job evaluation to make sure that the role is equivalently graded, and that, for DGs—the director generals—is sent to the senior leadership committee, so it's independently verified there as well. So, we follow that process as well.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Adam, I know you want to come in on this.

Yes, thank you, Chair. I have three questions that are relevant to this issue in terms of the senior civil service. First of all, last month, the Westminster Government made a statement about a new evaluation framework for the senior civil service that will mean a performance-based assessment, and dismissal in situations where performance does not improve in relation to key performance indicators set for them. Given that you said that issues relating to the senior civil service are reserved to Westminster, is it right to assume that this assessment framework will be relevant in respect of the Welsh Government senior civil service?

Thank you very much for that question.

From an overall perspective, it is right that the senior civil service appointments process and terms and conditions, and, indeed, the pay settlement, are overseen from a UK civil service perspective. Of course, the Welsh Government itself is part of the UK civil service, in terms of our status, although staff arrangements will be more under the supervision, including pay, of Welsh Ministers. So, there are, sometimes, some complexities about how we do it.

There is an understanding of the way in which devolved government works differently from UK departments, and there is something in the translation of policies where matters will be remitted to us in the Welsh Government to determine how they translate best to the wider range of objectives that we satisfy here. I think, to call out a difference, for example, on existing performance management processes, the senior civil service process at UK Government level is driven by a process that will lead to an assessment of performance and bonuses as part of a remuneration package, for example, at the end of a financial year. That is not something that has been in place in the Welsh Government at all, so there is difference in that respect as well.

I know, Dom, often, what we're doing here is, whilst liaising on some of the wider principles, we do translate these into something that is meaningful. And I can also say, as an example of that, there are specific senior civil service objectives, for example, that we will set in the Welsh Government, not just on policy areas, but on our expectations for the organisation, that themselves will be different in respect of how they are taken forward by UK Government departments. But, do you just want to try and capture the technicality, and which policies apply and which ones have some local discretion?

Diolch. Thank you.

And thank you for your question.

The matter that you're referring to includes a number of measures, including new common civil service leadership standards, which we'll be looking to apply, but we'll be looking to add a Welsh Government flavour to represent the commitments and the priorities of the Government. They are also looking to introduce a new process around what's called 'managing approved exits'. So, that's a way that underperformance can be moved much quicker along the process, and where, through shorter performance management arrangements, exit payments may or not be applicable. Now, in that situation, there is a distinction between what happens at UK Government level and what happens at Welsh Government level, partly because we operate under two different frameworks. So, in the Welsh Government, we have the managing Welsh public money framework, which has a different requirement around who signs off exit payments or any issues relating to that. That is different to the UK Government. So, what we are doing is working very closely with the Cabinet Office and with our Scottish Government counterparts to look, where there are areas of commonality, that we absolutely adopt them and we expect the common standards across the board. Those common standards, for example, include clear diversity objectives, clear finance and performance objectives, and, where individuals have specific responsibilities—policy, finance, human resources kind of professions—those are built in as well. And we are liaising with our finance colleagues to understand what the implication is, in terms of any pay framework and performance framework that might result from this. So, I can expect us to follow the common standard, absolutely, but there will be nuances here because we operate under a slightly different framework, in terms of who signs what off at a UK Government level compared to a Welsh Government level.

Ministers in Westminster have decided to make these changes. Do the Welsh Ministers, within the discretion that you've just outlined to vary issues relating to performance management in Wales—? Is it the Welsh Ministers that determine how to use that discretion?

Diolch. Yes, it is. I have not had those conversations with Ministers yet. We are still waiting for the final detail to come through from the Cabinet Office and, in particular, I was with my Scottish Government counterpart earlier this week to explore some of these issues to see what commonality there might be between both devolved Governments and where there could be areas for both of us to work in partnership, as we do on a number of matters already. But, yes, we will need to have conversations with Ministers about how the framework will apply to our senior civil servants in the Welsh Government.

And two other brief questions. There was a reference in the same statement to creating a national school of government, by the UK Government. How does that affect your intention as a Government to create a national school of government for Wales?

Permanent Secretary, your term of office ends, I think, later this year. What processes or plans do you have in place in terms of managing succession and continuity in relation to your role?

Diolch yn fawr. Dom, do you just want to start off by answering the first question? I'll, maybe, come back with a personal perspective on that as well. Thank you.

Diolch. Thank you. I am just conscious, as I’ve been prescribed glasses recently, that I’m taking them off a lot. That is not a deliberate statement from me; it is just a matter of me getting used to them. So, in relation to the national school for government, we are working closely with the Cabinet Office and the Scottish Government on what that means. We have recently sought to re-establish a new offer for Academi Wales, which is our public sector leadership approach. We have also been exploring what that would look like if we were to expand that offer come the next Government and come their determination on what their expectation is of public sector leadership.

I have had personal discussions with the directors being tasked with the UK Government to set up the national school for government, which is a reflection of a model that was in place around 10, 15, 20 years ago, for those of us around in the civil service back then. We've committed to working closely on this. I have also spoken to both the former chief people officer of the UK Government and the interim chief people officers of the UK Government—the post changed just before Christmas—to make sure there are connections there. What we will need to do is make sure that, if there are any cross-devolved issues, as inevitably there will be, we build them into the UK Government's national school for government so they understand the impact of devolution and what that means—we serve the Governments of the day, as many of us in the senior civil service say—but also that there is a close link to Academi Wales for whatever we do here in Wales as well. And there will be proposals for an incoming administration to discuss what we could do further in that space.

Also, just to pick up on a personal reflection around the school of government, I think what we’ve tried to do is always to take advantage of our status in the UK civil service, whilst also being able to focus on development and training that helps us deliver in the Welsh context, including that close proximity and alignment with public services more generally. I see it as a little bit of a menu choice, in the sense that there are absolutely areas that we will want to push for wider learning and development of the UK civil service and their insight and understanding into devolution, but we can take advantage of the national school of government for training and development that is accessible to our own members of staff. But, equally, we can continue to push on those areas that are more directly relevant to Wales, using Academi Wales, for wider discussions of school of government equivalents—do something that actually helps us as well. So, I see it very much as a complementary approach.

In respect of your second question, about tenures, I'll perhaps speak more generally, but, Dom, you might just want to take it away from me, if that's okay, to speak on it. It's absolutely right, as the Member says, that, since 2014, every Permanent Secretary appointment—although that will be on the back of substantive employment—undertakes a role for an initial five-year fixed-term period of time. There is always discretion within that process to consider whether, if an individual wishes to continue and if an organisation wishes them to continue, that that can occur. We are facing a very significant year ahead in terms of managing the Welsh Government in the context of an expanded Senedd, so it's probably an unusual year in that sense, but there is always a way in which First Ministers are able to accommodate their choice of a Permanent Secretary when a period of tenure comes to an end. Dom, it's probably a bit more complicated on this occasion. I'm really mindful not to talk about personal circumstances necessarily, but you might want to just enhance the process for Members. Thank you.

Diolch. Thanks, Andrew. So, matters relating to Permanent Secretary appointments and, indeed, extensions or other affairs, are reserved entirely for the Cabinet Office, but in close consultation with the First Minister. I've been having regular discussions with the Cabinet Office leads who are responsible for Permanent Secretary appointments, to discuss opportunities and options, and I've also held discussions with the current First Minister to explore options there. At the point that the next election happens, the next Government is formed, one of the first conversations I'll have with whoever is the First Minister at that point will be opportunities around the Permanent Secretary role and what they wish to do there.

In the meantime, there is a plan in terms of how we will navigate the next couple of months to make sure that the Welsh Government isn't without senior leadership. Forgive me for not going into detail today; it's simply because the Permanent secretary is next to me and it might not be appropriate for me to talk about personal circumstances in that space. However, matters are with the UK Cabinet Office and the Cabinet Secretary, who oversees all Permanent Secretary matters, and those discussions are under way and a plan is in place.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Rhianon is next.

Thank you. In regard to last year's leaked internal report from the culture division, there was confirmation that you were going to review the Welsh Government's performance management arrangements. What actually is different within that and what was the scope of that light-touch review? How are you going to assess the effectivity, moving forward?

Thank you. Dom, I know you'll be able to pick up some of the detail, but it was a really important discussion that we had last time. I think it probably also showed that, when issues are raised, how we respond to them in a very serious way and irrespective of how we look at things from across the organisation. Obviously, we employ 6,000 people. There are individual teams across the organisation and we're always wanting to make sure that we can spot any problems or concerns that are happening.

I was really pleased, on our latest people survey, beyond even what we've reported in our annual accounts, that we had some very strong confirmation from staff about seeing that they are able to call things out, to feel that they can be supported as they go through a process. We've actually also seen some very material improvement in our performance management scores over the course of the last few years.

So, what is different in terms of—?

Dom will speak on the difference, but if I could say that, in respect of the people survey scores, in overall terms, we are seeing that the Welsh Government is standing out amongst civil service departments. So, we have seen a very significant change. And even on the areas of respect and talking out, we are ranked, currently, first out of all of the departments in the UK for allowing an environment where staff can feel that they are supported to highlight these issues as well. So, I just wanted to say that. But, Dom, on the practicalities of the review and what it's meant for the wider organisation—.

Diolch. Thank you, Andrew. So, we undertook a number of different items. We introduced pulse surveys to check and measure how confident colleagues felt having performance conversations. We've undertaken case reviews with our social partners. We've introduced refreshed guidance in the process. We have also introduced a new principle that we're working through around 'do no harm' in terms of the way that we apply performance management and wider HR policies to our staff, borrowing from NHS mechanisms, all in consultation with social partners. We have, throughout the year, monitored what staff have been saying to us through the pulse surveys and, indeed, through the civil service annual people survey. In terms of responses, last year we saw a six-point increase in the score around colleagues feeling that performance is evaluated fairly from the previous year. And that total score, which is an 81 per cent Welsh Government score, is seven points above the UK civil service and, as we say, we are performing as one of the best, if not the best, across the main Government departments—that's the 20 main Government departments that we would evaluate against.

As a more general trend, as a result of those mechanisms we've taken taking place, we have seen a year-on-year increase in staff agreeing that their performance has been evaluated more fairly compared to the previous year. We are also introducing, and have started to do so, the new civil service line management standards, and we've introduced a new training offer as well. I personally have led a number of sessions, as have other colleagues within HR, that the staff can access about how to have an honest conversation, how to have a reasonable conversation.

As part of Welsh Government 2025, we set an ambition to make sure that all colleagues had clear objectives. I don't have a single system, unfortunately, as we've discussed previously, that allows me to pull them off. However, the people survey data tells us that we're seeing more individuals with the confidence in reporting having objectives, and having objectives in a timely way. If I look at confidence scores around trust, for example, including staff feeling that their managers trust them to do the job effectively, we saw around about a 92, 93 per cent score of colleagues feeling that they felt trusted to do their job, following on from the regular discussions that they should be having.

So, how would you summarise what you've done differently? You've mentioned a lot of feedback initiatives in terms of staff satisfaction and different mechanisms, and the training, which is really important. How do you summarise that, very briefly?

Refreshed training, refreshed focus, clarity with social partners and a more honest conversation around the organisation around what 'good' looks like.

Okay.

And track it on results and outcomes. So, our bullying and harassment rate in the Welsh Government civil service has halved over the last seven years, and also is the lowest of UK departments as well. So, we can track it on results and outcomes as well.

So, on that particular point, there's been a sort of thematic, hasn't there, about legacy IT systems and overspend, in terms of the previous question, in terms of the information technology fiscal resource departmental expenditure limit budget. That's a mouthful. In terms of that—and you mentioned you haven't got a system to track it—is there anything, any mitigation, that can be put into place? Because, obviously, it's important to be able to track initiatives.

Yes, absolutely. So, we do have the benefit of having a consistent approach of tracking staff engagement over a prolonged period of time. That gives us a good opportunity to measure where we were at different points in the organisation.

We've adopted [Correction: We're adopting], across HR and across the wider corporate services, Government functional standards, which means, at the point that we do introduce new IT systems, we'll be talking the same language. We've begun the process of mapping what do those Government functional standards look like onto our current processes and where is the gap. And I think, if we look at the trends over a period of time, if you look at, for example, satisfaction in performance and development, we've increased our scores 16 per cent over the last couple of years. If you look at 'safe to challenge', which is another indicator of a performance measure, that score has increased 11 per cent over the last couple of years and, actually, 28 per cent since 2018. So, there is a sustained improvement that we are seeing. However, is it where I'd like it to be? Absolutely not. There is more work to be done, and we're not complacent.

Okay. Obviously, in terms of sickness absence for 2024-25, around mental health, which is over a third of those absences, which is high, around a fifth of those who have been referred to occupational health in regard to declining mental health cited work reasons. How are we addressing this? Have any staff been dismissed for poor performance up until 2025? How many were on a performance improvement plan at dismissal?

Dom, do you want to pick it up, particularly through the lens of sickness absence? And, Sioned, just to flag if there's anything that you want to reflect on more generally there, given your chief operating officer oversight as well. But to Dom first, thank you.

Diolch. Thank you. I don't have to hand the dismissals and poor performance figures, but I will find them out and come back to the committee on that. In terms of sickness absence, we have, unfortunately—

Around mental health in particular.

Mental health in particular. We have followed the civil service trend. In fact, our numbers last year for the reported year are exactly the same as those reported across all departments. We've implemented a couple of key actions as a result of that. First of all, there are new data packs that have gone out to business areas and groups so that they can track and monitor sickness absence within their areas. So, that makes it cleaner and easier to follow. We've implemented case reviews, including case reviews with our trade unions for the more serious cases. We've refreshed our employee assistance programme offer. We've refreshed training for our mental health allies. As an organisation, it's one of our core priorities on the scorecard that we look at on a monthly basis through our finance and corporate services deep-dives. We've also held deep-dive discussions through our health and safety and well-being board to understand what further can we do to tackle the rise in mental health absence.

It is noticeable that the increase in mental health absence is at the team support and executive officer level. We have looked at are there any other measures there that we need to put in place—so, are there, for example, any measures relating to finance or other well-being initiatives. We have also undertaken analysis of are there any correlations between areas of staff who have absence due to mental health and other poor performance issues within that area—for example, our people survey scores, triangulation of case data—is there anything else going on there.

So, in terms of an ability to track that corporately, not just within individual departments, there are the same systems in operation. And in terms of—. You mentioned UK civil service training, et cetera, et cetera. Are we an outlier in terms of this mental health figure?

No. We are absolutely on trend with the civil service. Now, that's not good enough. I don't like being on trend; I like to make sure that Welsh Government is leading the way. So, we do have systems that allow us to track it, but it does require a lot of manual intervention. That's why transforming corporate services will help us to speed up processes and make it much cleaner. So, there is a range of things that we've done.

It's probably worth saying that in-year—because we've been targeting this, Sioned, I know, as part of the balanced scorecard—we can already see, in-year, that those sickness absence figures are dropping down. So, we obviously want to maintain that trend, but, Sioned, it may just be worth reflecting on the importance of picking this up as one of three very significant priority areas within the performance reporting approach and the balanced scorecard.

Yes. Diolch, Andrew.

Thank you for the question.

Thank you for the question. So, the balanced scorecard has been a real innovation, really, I suppose, for us. It allows us to be able to track these things in closer to real time than perhaps we've ever been able to do before. These are the stats we look at on a quarterly basis, and they are looked at through the lens of a number of the committees that feed into the board—I think board once a year, twice a year—then through the executive committee and through the finance and corporate services committee, which I chair.

You mentioned some of the EOs and the pressures in those lower grades. One of the ways in which—. We've launched recently network Draig, which is actually a network for those grades, because there's a recognition, across the board, really, that some of those grades are maybe not coming into the office often and are maybe not able to build up the resilience that would benefit them in terms of career development and in terms of how we can best support each other in the organisation. There's been a really good level of interest in that and lots of ideas coming up to truly start to engage the more junior grades—both those new into post and those that have been there for a long time, with a lot of experience—so that we can start to help them build the resilience, as well as help them share ideas with us that we can start to implement as an organisation.

So, I think the balanced scorecard approach of more regularly looking into things, which is why we know that the sickness absence rates are improving slightly this year—Dom's gone through many of the interventions that we are focused upon—that starts to give us some confidence that the interventions are right at a much earlier stage than we would previously have had.

Okay, thank you. There doesn't seem to have been an updated published register of interests for senior officials. When's that going to come out? Why is this published register of interests for senior officials and external board membership not being updated?

Okay, we'll have to take that away. I wasn't aware of that. If it's the case, I apologise.

And then one more, in terms of the issues with the data held on your system about staff Welsh language skills. As of 31 March last year, those had not been addressed. Has that been dealt with?

Dom, do you want to just pick up on the Pobl issues?

Diolch. We've been working through a programme to improve our Pobl data and that's been on the horizon. It has improved and I can now give you the latest figures. So, as of 2025, 18 per cent of our staff identify that they are fluent in Welsh, 9 per cent say that they are just below fluent level, 22 per cent say that they can speak some Welsh, 35 per cent say they have a basic understanding, and around about 17 per cent have no understanding.

Thank you. I'm going to move on then to the performance framework, which we've touched upon. How does the introduction, as we've just started that topic, of the balanced scorecard for the performance framework drive improvements in the productivity of the Welsh Government civil service? And how does that approach, and the metrics it utilises, differ from what was previously a more retrospective framework? Who would like to take that first? Sioned or—.

Sioned, do you want to start that? I'll give a personal view maybe at the end. Thank you.

Thank you very much for the question.

Thank you for that. As I touched on earlier—and I may have given a lot away at that point—looking at our performance retrospectively is always really interesting, but it doesn't allow us to make the interventions we need to make in a timely way to ensure that we are starting to move the track of a very big tanker in the correct direction. So, some of the things that we've highlighted through being able to look at the balanced scorecard, which is refreshed on a quarterly basis, include legislation, for example, recognising that we need to be ready for Senedd reform, recognising there's a new legislative programme, how do we ensure that what we were starting to see in terms of our ability to perform what needed to be performed—how can we improve that, I suppose.

And actually, through having the balanced scorecard, that meant that last year we had real success on the legislative programme, where all the Bills announced in the 2024-25 legislative year were introduced within the year. Now, we've not always been able to do that, so that is really encouraging, and it's through some of those early interventions. We've also talked a lot in this session about leadership, and we know from the staff survey that staff report high levels of confidence in senior managers. But that comes about through recognising that, perhaps, some of the feedback has not been as robust as we'd like to have had before.

So, for me, being able to look at things and being able to use our corporate weight and our governance to be able to start to make those interventions much earlier, means that, at the end of the year, not only can we look back at the situations that arose, but we can also look back and see how we addressed those, what was successful, and what impact that had on our performance. It also shows up the areas where we know we're not performing as well—you've mentioned well-being—and those are areas where we need to get involved that much sooner. But being able to do it now, as opposed to waiting until the end of the year, is a significant breakthrough and a positive change.

Thank you for that. And then, very simplistically, how is the scorecard driving that productivity? You've mentioned a number of different initiatives, in a sense. How would you summarise the driving of productivity through the scorecard?

Well, what it enables us to do is, as a senior team, to all give the same message to staff. And that can't be underestimated, insofar as we know how well we responded in the pandemic to a really clear set of instructions. And as an organisation, we're big, we're quite unwieldy. There's an awful lot—. Dean pointed out how many different threads there are to pull together. But actually, having that consistency of approach and that messaging, and that focus on performance, which we've also touched on in this session, starts to drive a different culture, and that is a huge thing to shift. That's probably the biggest challenge we have collectively, the cultural change.

Okay. And finally, then—[Interruption.] Oh, right. Sorry, Dean.

Thank you. If I could come in and give a personal perspective on one of the areas, which is payment performance. So, payment performance, they'll see me, as the finance director, as responsible for that. However, it's a Welsh Government responsibility, and what this does is actually focus attention on those areas. A couple of years ago, like I said, nobody would have touched it: all my problem. However, we have discussions at executive committee, on the balanced scorecard finance committee, and then we get under the areas to understand why we haven't got the performance we got. In this particular one it was staff resourcing, there was a lack of communication, lack of training, and it actually gave that focus, and it was a corporate responsibility to go out there and improve. We are seeing the benefits and we are keeping on top of it, and we’re driving our performance improvement.

That's a really good example, thank you. And finally, in terms of the legacy issues with the systems that we have, and the holy grail of AI in terms of how that's going to transform every single organisation, how is that going to—? What's the vision there in terms of the systems that we've got, and the inability at the moment to replace them across the board? How's that going to speak with our AI—?

For any AI to be effective, you have to have data available, and you have to have your infrastructure in place, and there is some danger in the wider conversations about AI that it feels as though we just pick it up and, by tomorrow, there's a new world ahead of us. It does require that understanding of the nuts and bolts of systems as well. This was something that, obviously, we weren't reflecting on at all at the outset of this Government term, and, from a civil service perspective, have had to pick up very quickly.

There is an AI plan for Wales, which is now in place, which was asked for very promptly by the First Minister. We have made sure that that does not just relate to how other public services and other organisations respond; it's actually relevant to Welsh Government. We've had to put in training and development in terms of an understanding of how AI affects not just the way we run corporate functions, but actually even in areas of policy development. There's an initiative that's taking place across the UK civil service at the moment, which we have adopted ourselves for Welsh Government, which is called Un Peth Mawr, One Big Thing, and allows us to give individual training to every member of staff. That closes in February at the moment. We're currently, I think, sixth in the running out of 37 wider UK departments and our arm's-length bodies, just trying to make sure there's a very individual understanding, and it at least means that we start to appreciate how we use AI carefully and appropriately in the workplace, but we do use it.

We've been at the forefront of some of the developments. Microsoft Copilot is something that Welsh Government has actually been using ahead of other departments more generally, so I think that, if we're looking at the next two to five years of Welsh Government, the significance of how technology can help us to do our roles better, be more effective, and alleviate some of the pressure and workload that is experienced by our staff, is really important. So, we are adopting the AI plan ourselves internally in the organisation, and no doubt the committee, future committees, will have a real interest in seeing the progress with this, not just for ourselves, but obviously on behalf of Wales as well.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much. I could ask all day about AI, but I'm not going to, because Adam's got a series of questions.

We can access the training for you if you wish. [Laughter.]

Adam.

Thank you, Chair. Could we turn now, therefore, to workforce planning and, in particular, the Welsh Government 2025 programme? Could you tell us about the programme itself—has it delivered what you expected it to deliver? How do you measure its success, and what have you learnt from this programme?

Diolch yn fawr.

Andrew, do you want to go first?

No, Sioned, you go first, and I'll give a personal perspective. Thank you.

Thank you very much for the question. I've been in this role since April at the start of last year. It falls within my responsibilities to ensure that this lands properly at the end of 2025, and then to plan the new programme to move into the next four years.

Since taking over, I've done a lot of work to consider exactly what has been provided during this period, and there's a great deal. We responded to the questions that the committee asked us last year, outlining a lot of the things that we did until that point.

During the year that I've been in post, what I've been striving to do is to pull to things together and to look back at the successes that we've had and also the challenges that emerged during that period. And there were many challenges, not only the financial envelope, but also changes in the Government itself and also the fact that we had to respond to be genuinely flexible to everything that was happening around us. All credit to the team and the people running it. We've shown that we can be very flexible, as the programme should be, and the level of positivity around the programme is still there.

What I've done is I've tried to pull things together and look at three things—not new things, but how we pull things together, which are things that have already been reported to you, I think, in response to last year's questions—which are to look at Senedd reform, to look at innovation and to look at our people and how we invest in our people for the changes to come. The programme itself was ambitious, but it was never supposed to be the end game. This gives us the foundations to provide the next programme, and to build on that. That's the important thing: ensuring that we have a continuum of organisational improvement.

So, we're doing a lot of work on Senedd reform and a lot of work on the estate—and maybe Dom can mention what we've been doing on the estate. I mentioned network Draig, and we've done a lot of work on the IT and ensuring—. We had a laptop roll-out at the end of last year, I think it was, and that was very successful, and that will ensure that we're ready for the next stage that we have to go through.

During the past year, I've been looking back at the work streams that were being taken forward in the third year of the programme provision, and have done a lot of work to see what worked there, and also, more importantly, what didn't work, because that's what will help us to plan what will come in the next stage. I could go through everything now, but it might be easier if I offered to share with the committee the list of the things that we have provided during the course of the programme.

Chair, if I could just add a personal perspective, I think, because it is about developing the organisation, not just a technical exercise, we're trying to, as Sioned has been reflecting, ensure that the organisation feels it has got permission and confidence for change that occurs right across the organisation.

I think, secondly, we're trying to make sure that we have staff who feel that they've got the skills and can access the tools to allow them to take forward changes in their areas, but then, of course, we really need to make sure that we are planning and delivering activities that show that something different is happening in the organisation.

When we were at committee last year, we needed to reflect that the middle part of Welsh Government 2025 had been really affected by the need to think about the budget context that we were working in and the need to look at our staff numbers, including, ultimately, the need to have a voluntary exit scheme, and I think that would have perhaps removed us away from some of the culture and developing the organisation areas that this was always intended to be about.

But, just to give some feedback on our own people in the organisation, feeding back on leadership and managing change, between 2018 and 2025, again through the people survey, we've seen a 19 percentage point change in the confidence of people about the way in which our organisation approaches change, and we are currently, in that section of measures, ranked as the top department in the UK civil service as well. That doesn't mean that there isn't more that we need to do, but I think that does show quite a lot of change that has been occurring over time, including over these last two years of Welsh Government 2025 as well.

Sioned, you referred to some things that hadn't worked as well as you'd hoped they would. Could you give us a little taste of some of those things that didn't work as well?

Yes, I can. In reflecting on the programme, one of the things that I'm aware of, with my project management background, is that we don't have a robust enough system to track everything that changed during that period and the decisions that perhaps created the reasons why we had to change. I'm confident that there are reasons, and that it is clear, but we haven't tracked it in the way that we could do—we can press a button now and pull together a report that explains everything. So, there is some learning for us there to ensure that, at the beginning of the next programme, we have the right structure so that we can ensure that we capture everything and can learn from the things that go well and ensure that we learn from the things that haven't gone as well.

So, it's to do with the way that the programme was established at the outset, in my opinion. People had a different viewpoint at the time, and that's fine, but I would have done things a bit differently, with more of a structure around how we established the programme.

In his report back in 2022, the auditor general noted some areas in terms of the workforce strategy to focus on. To what extent did this programme, the Welsh Government 2025 programme, follow those recommendations that were made?

I'm not sure that I can answer that at this stage, because I don't remember exactly what he asked. But I'd be surprised if we hadn't taken those forward. Maybe some of those who were on the committee at the time can advise. But, in my opinion, I'd be surprised if we hadn't taken those forward.

Does anyone else want to respond to that?

Yes. Dom, do you just want to reflect on those generally? It may be worth, for example, giving a sense of how the recruitment process has changed in the organisation, which is obviously important. Also, from a workforce perspective, again, if I can remind committee members that, due to some of the budget constraints, we were also going through a period where external recruitment was limited. So, some of the profile of the organisation maybe didn't change in a normal way, given normal turnover and how we would normally recruit as well. But perhaps you just want to give some personal reflections, Dom. Thank you.

Diolch. Thanks, Andrew. The auditor general's report back in 2022 highlighted a number of challenges, including improvements to workforce planning that needed to be implemented. Welsh Government have implemented a delegations framework around workforce planning that provides clarity to directors and to directors general around the opportunities they have to operate within that framework on all resourcing matters. Matters have been complicated over the last couple of years because of the financial constraints we find ourselves in, and therefore we have operated under an 'external by exception' rule. Nevertheless, within that, we have done a number of measures directly linked to the report.

So, for example, we have refocused our work on professions and introduced job families to make it easier for individuals to recruit. We have introduced an agile resourcing bank, allowing us to redeploy staff when they come to an end of a project or where there's another priority. In the last two years, we have redeployed 180 staff. We have regular HR workforce planning processes now through HR business partners, looking at succession planning and other significant issues within individual groups that they respond to. And finally, just last year, we introduced, across the corporate services and inspectorates group, a new pilot looking at posts and roles, so that we have a better understanding of the profile of our workforce. We're then able to use that to determine options going forward around other priority areas. And we're in discussions at the moment with other business areas about rolling that out so we have a more complete picture.

So, despite some of the system constraints that we've been operating within, both financial and technological, we have taken forward almost all of the recommendations within the auditor general's workforce planning review from 2022. As a result, I think we're in a much stronger position now to have a more agile workforce than we've been in previous years.

Just one particular example of how we've had to approach a workforce planning issue and worked our way through it, in the context of the 2024-25 accounts, Members may have spotted, although it doesn't have much attention on it, we came to the close of the Welsh European Funding Office, which had been there for many years—billions of pounds of money coming into Wales. An audit process was required about that, and we were able to confirm, as part of that accounts process, that we've secured 100 per cent of the funding that was allocated to Wales. So, that's a very significant achievement given other comparators across European nations. But from a workforce planning perspective, that also required us to understand that we needed to take 180 members of staff in dedicated functions and find a way of drawing them into the wider Welsh Government organisation. So, there are now no members of staff who are associated with that, but actually even the process of working through how we would choose to handle 180 members of staff, give them opportunities—. Some will have chosen to depart the organisation, but actually a number—we've used their skills in different ways as part of the civil service support and infrastructure.

You referred, Permanent Secretary, to the limitations that related to the cap in terms of numbers and in terms of external recruitment. One of the areas where there has been ongoing discussion in other committees about the impact of this on Welsh Government's capacity is about legislating and the legislative programme. I understand that the Welsh Government has commissioned a review, the Noble review, about the execution of the Welsh Government of the legislative programme. Could you tell us a little bit more about that report and could you tell us whether it's possible to see a copy of that?

In respect of the approach to our workforce, just to say that our responsibility, particularly sitting around this table, is that we have to manage within the resources that are allocated, so Welsh Ministers provide money for the operations of the civil service and we have a statutory responsibility to work within those parameters, obviously, to ensure that the wider Welsh Government budget is delivered, and we do that to the best of our ability on an annual basis. And that is reflected within the annual accounts.

Of course, within that, we have to target lots of different pressures and areas and priorities. And actually, legislation is one of those areas that we have had to target, particularly over the course of the last two years. We're in an unusual position, not least as the Government term comes to the end, in the sense that we've managed to land all of the legislative programme into Plenary, as originally required and requested. We've done that alongside other individual pieces of legislation, so there are areas, of course, including Member Bills that come forward as well, and also recognising the knock-on effect to all parties about legislative consent motions as well, which also occur. So, from the perspective of, 'Have we been hampered in our delivery of the legislative programme?', it remains, obviously, always under extraordinary pressure. It's a primary function of any Government to make laws. But actually, we have been able to have confidence in delivering that, particularly as we've approached the final year of Government. So, irrespective of what's reported in the annual accounts, all other remaining areas, of course, have got to work their way through the final part of Plenary, including over the next few weeks or so.

Yes, an external review was undertaken of our approach to legislation and whether we could make some improvements. That has translated into a legislative improvement plan for the organisation, which is targeting how we can have some better approaches to support legislation. Some of those areas are about capacity and resilience in the organisation. Some of them are actually about processes and procedures. So, as an example, one of the areas that is advice for this Government and any subsequent Government is the extent to which pieces of legislation are targeted and more contained. Perhaps there have been some examples over the years of legislation that has as much as possible included in it under the label, whereas the more we see more precise targeted Bills taken forward, there is an ability to increase the number of pieces of legislation that occurs in any Government term as well. So, there are some quite helpful areas there. There are also some proposals about some centralisation of approaches. As a result of that, we have introduced, for example, a centralised approach to Bill management and we have outstanding proposals for more of a centre of excellence approach for legislation as well. But certainly, the areas that are highlighted under the legislative improvement plan—we're happy to give the committee a sense of what those are about and allow you to be able to see some of the areas that we think will really make a difference. What we're trying to do is to support, obviously, the ongoing legislation that will need to occur through future Governments as well.

And I'm sure that the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee would like to receive a copy of that report, but the report would be of interest to this committee as well, if it would be possible to see that.

Sorry, are there any more questions, Adam, or are you—?

Sorry, I hadn't heard the response there. Sorry.

Sorry, were you happy to share the—

I said I'm very happy—. The improvement plan, I think, is the focus for what we are doing differently, how we are centralising. So, from that perspective, I'm happy to drop a note here. You're right, there are different committee mechanisms as well, but I'm certainly happy to satisfy the public accounts committee requirement.

Sioned Evans referred to the element relating to space. We don't have time to go into this issue in detail, but there was one element that I was interested in. Part of the strategy was offering space in Cathays Park to other bodies. Could you update us about all the independent bodies that are now located at Cathays Park, and because some of them, for example the Welsh Language Commissioner, are regulatory bodies, to all intents and purposes, and regulate the Welsh Government, is there a risk here that these bodies might be perceived to not be independent? How do you regulate this? For example, are there physical walls located between those members of staff of the independent bodies and the staff working for the Welsh Government, in order to ensure that there is physical distance and also perceived distance?

There are different approaches on different sites. Dom, do you want to give a sense of how we've approached that in our different areas?

Yes, just briefly, we have embarked on an estates optimisation plan, which is around making best use of the estate. In Cathays Park, currently, we have the Food Standards Agency, the Welsh Language Commissioner, the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru, Health and Care Research Wales, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and Natural Resources Wales, amongst others. There is a physical separation of space where necessary, including passes that can only access particular areas, as you'd expect there to be.

We are mindful, when we have discussions with tenants, of what the perception may or may not be elsewhere, and if there are any additional measures we need to put in place. As of 31 December last year, we have just under 1,400 tenant staff from across 23 public sector organisations across the totality of our estate, and we have more public bodies that we are looking to onboard. This is forecast this year to generate income of around about £1.8 million to help offset some of the deficit that we have across the central services budget.

Thank you. Could I just turn to one body that is not located there, as far as I understand it, which is the Equality and Human Rights Commission. In November last year, they wrote to you as a Government about the failure to comply with equality law as far as the public sector equality duty is concerned. What action did you take in light of that letter, and how are you going to prevent this from happening again? And because time is scarce, could you also give us a response in terms of the formal enforcement action in terms of the section 23 legal agreement, and how you are going to ensure that the actions that you are taking in that legal agreement have been implemented appropriately?

Thank you for the question.

Thank you very much for the question. So, we obviously received the letter from the EHRC, as you required. Just to state that we take our equality responsibilities very seriously, not least, of course, the minimum statutory expectations, but actually beyond that in terms of the organisation, and I think here there is a balance between our responsibilities for leading and managing the organisation and ensuring that we are able to be compliant. But of course, there is a wider issue of ensuring that the policy outlook of the organisation is also compliant in our support of Ministers. So, the circumstances arose from some concerns that the commissioner picked up. That would have related to some judicial review process that had occurred around a policy area under Government. Of course, that's been addressed subsequently through relevant Cabinet Secretaries. But nevertheless, it left some outstanding concerns and questions from the commission, which I think we have appropriately and constructively worked through. So, we have been able to liaise with the commission to both seek their advice and have the opportunity to give some insight into our wider approaches in the organisation.

There's some very significant work that we have undertaken in respect of our workforce and diversity and equality, for example commitments around anti-racism, expectations for us in respect of our staff networks, and actually a significant external review that has helped us to target further actions within the organisation. Again, some of which are above the statutory minimum and would put us more in exemplar territory, despite the commission concerns at the moment, and I think it's been helpful to show that wider approach.

But your point is also right, that in order to respond to the commission, we have entered into a voluntary agreement with the commission through a section 23 that allows us to agree a fixed action plan with the commission that is reviewed together, but, obviously, under the supervision and scrutiny of the commission over the next 18 months to two years or so. We entered into that with a ministerial agreement on 21 November. I obviously act as a signatory to that with expectations, and in order to make sure that we are very clear about the resources associated with this serious area, we've got a dedicated team in place, although my own expectation is that the answer to how we need to ensure that our policy making and organisational approaches are effective is not just because we have a central team available, it's because we have to deal with it and make sure that it ripples across the organisation as well.

So, there is a clear action plan, there's a robust governance structure that's in place. It allows us to strengthen our approach on equality. We've already had some early feedback from the commission, who seem content with the progress that we're making on that, and I'm satisfied that we should keep it as a very serious issue. And as you would expect, it's under scrutiny of our own risk and governance arrangements, including by the Welsh Government board.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Very, very briefly, obviously, there's a whole suite of actions, monitoring, around this, and, obviously, as you said, you're taking it very seriously in terms of what's been put in place. But is there any clarity on what the actual issue was?

A concern that we had not demonstrated compliance with the statutory requirements and wanting to make sure that that wasn't a one-off in the organisation.

In what area?

This was in the area of free school meals, and when a judicial review took place, because extra support had been provided through the pandemic and then was removed once we were through the pandemic approach, and you may remember the Cabinet Secretary's statement in respect of that—

I remember now.

So, ultimately, the final action did not take place. But that in and of itself was one of the triggers for a concern that in that particular individual example, the impact approach had not been taken forward in the right manner as well. So, whilst we would have hoped to have been able to respond to the individual issue, now what we're needing to do is to make sure that we can give that wider confidence to the organisation.

OK, thank you. Diolch.

Okay, thank you. We've got five minutes left, and I've got three questions for you. So, hopefully I'll ask them quickly, and if you can answer them quickly, that'd be appreciated. In June 2025, you told us you'd disbanded the public bodies unit, which we identified as being at the heart of the failings in the Welsh Government administration on public appointments. But then, in December, you said that you'd reinstated it from September 2025. What was your rationale for that, and what will be different going forward, including the staff capacity of the public bodies unit and their skills?

I'll answer it very quickly. The public bodies unit has remained within the people and places directorate throughout. We changed line management arrangements previously, following a short internal review, and after the committee's reflections, we determined to bring it back together again in order to make sure that we don't lose the external viewpoint that the individuals had.

Since then, we have recruited to additional roles. We have undertaken a number of changes: we have agreed with the Commissioner for Public Appointments that there will be a Welsh code for Wales; we have undertaken a Welsh language audit; we have undertaken a new board member survey; there has been engagement and governance across the wider public sector; there's been procurement capability development, including a new recruitment framework to improve training provision; new web and communications elements; and the commissioner's own report, which was published in December, highlighted that we have now the second-quickest turnaround of public appointments out of the whole of the UK—behind only the Scotland Office, which, last year, did two appointments, compared to our 98 appointments.

The public appointments commissioner also lauded us for our attempts on diversity and inclusion, particularly noting the steps we were taking to improve ethnic minority and gender representation across our public boards. So, the public bodies team is in a much stronger space. We also delivered the first pay review of board members' pay in around about 14 years, which resulted in a 3.25 per cent uplift in board members' pay earlier this year.

Rhianon, very briefly.

Very briefly, you mentioned earlier the WEFO staff in terms of that virement, would those be anything to do with those 98 appointments, or is that separate because it would have been too big?

Despite the separation of WEFO within the Welsh Government, they would still be Welsh Government staff, so we would have accommodated that differently.

Thank you. What were the main findings from the independent reviewer's evaluation of the Welsh Government's diversity and inclusion strategy for public appointments, and how will they feed into your new strategy, and when can we expect to see it?

I'm happy to pick that up. As I promised the committee, we undertook a review of 'Reflecting Wales in Running Wales'. That review is currently with me and the team and we anticipate being able to publish it within the next couple of weeks. The clarity, I suppose, is us needing to really tighten up some of the objectives that we had set. So, the main consideration is around ensuring that, whilst we had the absolute appropriate values and the absolute appropriate ideals, we didn't put in place a strong enough action plan underpinning that.

The principles of 'Reflecting Wales in Running Wales' stand and the Cabinet Secretary has agreed to extend those principles to continue going forward. So, I don't envisage that the principles of the strategy will change, going forward. What we have done is agreed with the Cabinet Secretary, and agreed internally, to have a new steering group to oversee the way that we deliver public appointments, and we're going through the process of getting that sorted at the moment.

Thank you. And finally, do you now have the technical capability to be able to provide complete and comprehensive real-time data about public appointments across all bodies? If not, what do you need to do, and what is your timetable for implementation?

Forgive me for giving a slightly more qualified answer here. We have improved data collection quite significantly, including Welsh language data and the data we're able to supply the public appointments commissioner. For the first time in the report, as a result of this committee's endorsement and support, the commissioner now publishes Welsh data separately to the rest of the UK. That's available to see through the commissioner's own report, and we will continue to provide data in that way.

In order to have a much more comprehensive suite, we need to update the HR system and we need to have a better recruitment system. Currently we use Pobl and Cais—they are our two main systems. This will be part of our approach to transforming corporate services. In the meantime, we'll continue to have more manual interventions. However, the team are now in place to address those manual interventions in a much clearer way than we have done previously.

Thank you very much. We've finished 35 seconds ahead of schedule, so well done to you. Thank you very much for joining us—it's very much appreciated.

Members, I move on to item 3 on the agenda. I propose, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(ix), that the committee resolves to meet in private for the remainder of today's meeting. Is everyone content? Thank you.