National Assembly for Wales

Can I welcome Members to this morning's meeting of the Public Accounts Committee? Llyr Gruffydd, Chair of the Finance Committee, will be joining us later on. No apologies have been received. Do Members have any declarations of interest they'd like to make at the start? No. We've sorted out our interpretation. 

Can I welcome our witnesses? Thank you for being with us today. We are continuing with our inquiry into the implementation of the Well-Being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and we're pleased that you're able to come and give us evidence today via Zoom. Would you like to give your names, positions and organisations for the Record of Proceedings, please?

And Kath?

Thanks for being with us today. We've got a number of questions for you, so feel free to be succinct in your answers, and if Members can in their questions as well, we can then get through more. I'll kick off with the first one, and in general, briefly, what has been the biggest challenge for your organisation in implementing the Act? Who wants to go first on that? David?

Shall I go first? Thank you. I think that for us, really, it's been the integration of our work with the work across Wales that's been a major challenge, really. And we've had a lot of support from the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales in actually suggesting other potential partners, seeing good practice from across Wales, and to be able to identify ways in which we could actually improve our own practice as well. So, it's been very much a learning curve for the last five years for us, I would say, in this. But there is huge potential for much greater integration of work across sectors, outside culture, with health, learning and other sectors as well, which I think is still to be fully achieved.

Good. Would anyone else like to comment?

Who next? David.

Yes, I think I would very much like to echo what's been said about the future strategic planning. Over the last six months to a year, we've been working on developing a new 10-year strategic plan for Amgueddfa Cymru, and we have worked closely with the commission and got their advice in the processes of doing that. But we've also built in the goals of the future generations Act and the five ways of working into the way in which we have developed the strategy, and also in the primary draft goals that we've put together with the board of trustees and in consultation with staff and across Wales in the framework that we will use for the 10 years going forward. So, in this next phase we will be much, much more closely aligned and integrated with the purposes of the future generations Act as well.

And anyone else? No. Happy? Shall I ask you the next question, then, before we move on to other Members? Obviously, we're in the middle of the pandemic. How has that impacted on the implementation of the Act? Are there any specific challenges that the pandemic has posed for the use of this legislation? David.

I think this has been a significant barrier for us but also a very, very strong spur for us to change the way in which we work. Clearly, we've not been able to work inside our buildings in the way that was very normal and we would have regarded, and still would do, as essential in the long term, so we've had to innovate. We've innovated digitally and we've innovated in terms of working with our partners. One of our strengths as an organisation has been that, over the last five, 10 years, we've built up a huge network of community-based partners both geographically and by different sectors as well—street-level charities like Drug Aid Wales, The Wallich, Llamau, for example. Those networks have been a resource, really, I think both for us and, hopefully, for our community partners, and we've been able to continue our work in very, very different ways, and in partnership with them. So, we have taken the digital route, and we can give examples later on of how we've done that, if that's helpful, but I think we've also been able to continue our work in ways we never would have predicted, say, five years ago in circumstances like this.

Anyone else want to comment? I think you're muted, Pedr. 

David.

Yes, if I could, really, echo what Pedr has said there. I think that what COVID has done is to cast a lightning sheet across the landscape in Wales, of poverty, exclusion, all the social challenges that we're very well aware of, the health imbalances, and it's made it very, very clear that we as a museum—and, I would argue, the cultural sector altogether—cannot and must not go back to the old normal. We're now radically rethinking how we can work. I think we will see the buildings always as being cornerstones for the museum sector, but the digital engagement with the public, which has grown so rapidly in the museum over the last six to nine months, will continue to grow, I think, from here, and also the commitment to working with communities across Wales in a very real, practical and useful way. Philosophically, I think, as well, it's shown us that our first purpose is to support change in Wales for good, and that culture is a very, very powerful mechanism for doing it. It can underpin the support for the health sector, and Kath could say a bit more about the work we're doing with the field hospitals, for example, with different health boards. It's shown us that cultural resources really do enrich the curriculum in ways that we hadn't at all yet fully exploited, and it also shows, too, that with Amgueddfa Cymru's very, very large number of visitors, we can be a very powerful took for public education, around, for example, environmental issues as well. So, there's almost every aspect of public life in Wales, which, in the next Senedd, we very much hope that the cultural sector, united and working together—us with the library, the arts council and others—can actually be a transformational resource, really, for change in Wales. We've been regarded as marginal, if I'm blunt; we have to be central.

That's fine. You've answered that very fully. We need to bring in some other Members now, so, moving on and Rhianon Passmore.

Thank you very much. That was really interesting. I'm slightly at odds in regard to the fact that it's taken COVID for this lightning strike to occur. I mean, in terms of a healthier, prosperous and greener Wales, culture is integral, and you'll find that this politician is fully understanding of that, as are many others. I think it's absolutely imperative that the museum is part of not just that cultural life, but integral to all of those policy objectives, so I'm not going to dig down too much into that, and I'm going to go into my lines of questioning.

I'm also slightly interested, though, if I may, Chair, in regard to the fact that outputs and outcomes, when budget and finance are so finite at this moment, are absolutely integral to the future generations Act in regard to what we want to happen, during that process and at the end of that sausage machine. So, I'll move on. How well is the Act understood? Obviously, you've gone through some of that already, but I'd like a little bit more detail throughout the organisation. And what work have you undertaken to develop and measure understanding corporately, at all levels of the organisation? I remember having these conversations quite a while back and there was very disparate understanding of that direction. I don't know who wants to go first. David?

Yes, I can answer. I think the first thing is that we use this in our discussions with staff about our strategy and about our work. It has been part of the underpinning rationale for the work we've been doing over the last year on strategy. We do briefings to our board of trustees and we give them updates on our progress in implementing the Act as well. We try to ensure that, when we're developing new projects, we are referencing the future generations Act as part of the test, if you like, for the value of those projects as well. I think, particularly over the last two or three years, we've made huge progress, really, on our use of the Act as a primary tool for change.

And can I have some comments from the other members of the panel, briefly?

Yes, if I could add, in terms of the awareness of the Act, I think that that has hugely increased over the last few years, and in terms of the work that's delivered by curatorial and research staff, as David has mentioned, I think the understanding of the Act actually underpins the design of various programmes. It's absolutely central to the way that we formulate our research programme, and I would say that 90 per cent of, for example, the research projects that we're pursuing in natural sciences are all related to understanding environmental change and how we work with communities in Wales to raise awareness. I'd also say that it also underpins the way that we work with communities, and now to the point at which, when we're moving forward with the development of our collections, that is very much done with communities, in partnership with those communities at all levels, so I think that the understanding of the Act has greatly accelerated and does genuinely underpin a huge amount of our work.

It would be really lovely to see that, obviously, in terms of the mandate of this committee. We obviously don't want to stray into the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee's work, but that would obviously be very relevant at the appropriate point.

How well do you think the Act is understood, however, briefly, by your service users and stakeholders? It's one thing corporately having that understanding and then gold threading it through everything that you're doing, as has been said, but how well do you think that that trickles down to service users and other stakeholders? And how have you reached out to them to improve that engagement in relation to the Act?

I think you'll find that that is the picture generically, isn't it, across Wales, and it's something that all public bodies and all agencies of Government and Government are working on, even during this pandemic. So, do you think that public bodies consistently know—the million-dollar question—what good implementation of the Act looks like? What does 'good' look like? And also, do you think that that public knowledge is necessary for effective implementation?

Thank you. And could I just ask David, then, just to dig a little bit deeper then? That's great, but in terms of understanding—maybe you've covered that—do you actually know what good implementation of the Act looks like?

We actively invite the commission to be critical friends for us on major projects that we're undertaking. We know we've got a long way to go yet. We've been identified in the category of believers and achievers, which is very positive. However, we can also see that the gap between what we would aspire to be and where we are at the moment is still large, and some of those things are very much within our control as well. We made a commitment to social justice over some years now. We've made a commitment to cultural democracy over some years. What we are now doing is using the language of the Act and the behaviours of the Act much more explicitly with audiences and with partners and, I think as David Michael has referenced, also in looking at contracts and suppliers as well, and trying to ensure that these are more widely embedded. I think we could do more. Without any question, we could still do more.

For me, the Act is one of the almost unique opportunities that Wales has, certainly within the nations of the United Kingdom, to actually take a much more positive and socially focused direction. We think that our cultural democracy ambition ties so closely with the Act's ambitions for a fairer Wales that it actually will, potentially, work very, very well for us. But I think it would be arrogant of us to say that we feel we're largely there. I don't think that's true, and I think that we still have a long way to go into making ourselves really a model—which we're not at the moment—of the way things should be working.

Thank you very much for that, and the honesty within that answer, and that's very much appreciated.

Finally from me, and this has already been largely pointed to, the evidence that we've received has pointed to a perceived disconnect between the auditor general, the Welsh Government and the commissioner, and that has been pointed to as an illustration of a lack of a unified message and approach to expectations. Do you agree with that and do you agree that there is a disconnect? And if there is, how can that perception, potentially, be addressed? I don't know who would like to take that.

Who wants to come in? Feel free if just one of you does this, because we need to make some progress. David.

Shall I, just very quickly, then? I'm aware that there has been this perception. Our own experience in the museum has been that there's been much closer collaboration between the auditing processes and the future generations commission. In our experience, particularly over the last year or two, and I think that Nia referenced the auditing of our engagement work, for example, as a case in point. I'm sure there's much more that could be done across other areas as well, but I would say the direction of travel is a positive one, from what we can see.

Okay. Thank you very much, Chair.

Good. Okay. Moving on, and Jenny Rathbone.

Thanks very much. It was very important to hear your message about the importance of culture in everything we're doing. We've all seen some of the problems that were created in the United States by the lack of a common culture, and we face some of the same problems here, because multinational organisations are the main source of culture for the majority of our population. So, I think, the importance of our shared story as we face many, many challenges. So, I want to ask about the resources you have, both money and personnel, and obviously skills, to really help this challenge, the cultural challenge that we have, to ensure that we have a collaborative, cohesive and resilient Wales. So, I wonder if you could just touch a little bit of an example of what you've done. I know that, David Anderson, you've spoken about the network of community organisations you've built up, but, between you, what have you done with the resources you've got over the last five years, and how are you going to use them in the next five years, particularly on things like how we combat the aversion to vaccines that is being peddled by religious organisations and such like?

If I may, I'll answer, but I also would like to give an opportunity for both Nia and Kath to contribute as well, because they've both been working very, very hard on the challenges and opportunities of working more deeply with our communities as well. I think, with a specific reference to the exclusion, really, of black communities in many aspects of public and other life in Wales, we've recognised for some years now that this is the case and we have a responsibility as an organisation to try to address that. We have already appointed a black history curator, for example, to help to readdress the balance of the absence of black history in the museum's work over decades really, and its collecting policies. We've now got a decolonisation strategy, which Kath could say a little bit more about. We've set up working groups within the organisation; we've also set up a consultation group with black communities as well. This is an area where I would put our hands up straight away and say, 'We did not do enough.' I as chief executive actually take personal responsibility for that. We did something; we didn't do enough. We are now really, really trying to change that and to make it one of our top priorities. But I'd like to give an opportunity for Kath and Nia just to say a little bit, if I might.

Okay.

Diolch, David. If I can talk specifically about the work we've been doing in response to Black Lives Matter. There are three main areas of work that we focused on over the last year or so. The first area of it, as David has mentioned, is the programme to decolonise our collections. We recognise that there are a number of really problematic collections there, both in terms of visual art and particularly within natural sciences. So, we have developed a six-point charter and we are beginning to work on that. And maybe the key element of that work is that it's very, very much working in partnership with communities who have been affected by the legacies that we're discussing. So, it's very much a partnership project, and we will be guided by those communities as we move forward with the decolonisation.

But there's the other side as well. We're working with those communities about how we create new collections. Many of our curators have actively been collecting items from Black Lives Matter protests that occurred during the summer, and that work is ongoing.

And then the third area is, of course, how we deal with the reframing of Thomas Picton, about which there's been a significant amount of debate. And to deliver that project, we're working with the youth panel of the Sub-Sahara Advisory Panel and, again, they are leading on the new narrative, and they hold the curatorial voice, if you like. So, that piece of work is progressing very positively and we're about to go out this week to seek an artist's commission for a black artist to respond to the Picton portrait, and we'll move forward. And, again, the selection of that artist is guided by the panel from the Sub-Sahara Advisory Panel. And I think that shift has been really beneficial and rich for us as a museum. I think we've learned a lot, and we'll continue to do so. And hearing new voices and new narratives within the museum can only be to the positive.

That's excellent. Nia, do you want to add anything briefly?

Thanks. Just moving on, some organisations have tried to argue that because you only get annual funding budgets it's very difficult to think strategically and long term, but Natural Resources Wales in its written evidence to us, who we're hearing from later this morning, have put their hand up and said that is just an excuse, because even though there are changes in budgets—you know, priorities change—the core budget doesn't change. There aren't that many surprises in any budget. So, this is your opportunity to agree or disagree. Pedr. You're muted, Pedr. Can you unmute?

Can I ask David Michael to come in here, please, and speak on our behalf?

I think it's hard to comment on NRW's position—I don't know what their settlements are—but I think financial constraints are a problem. If you think about the future generations, we need to be collecting for our collections now, and there's a cost to that, so that people are able to look back at a trusted source of information in 100 years' time and see what was happening in the year of fake news. But I think we have, for the first time, seen the Welsh Government appreciate this in this budget round. We've had £0.5 million in our capital budget for decarbonisation, as I said—

You said that earlier on, yes, but I'm trying to understand how you're planning to do things differently, because there is no magic money tree, so it's no surprise if you're not going to get huge amounts of largesse coming through.

We try to integrate the Act into everything that we do, so that, actually, it's not an extra burden on what we do, it's all part of business as usual, as far as possible. So, that's how we're addressing it. There is no magic money tree, we appreciate that, but we're trying to make it so that it isn't an extra burden on top of what we do already, but recognising the things that do need investment. 

Clearly, there's investment needed to fix buildings, but I think it's really more how you think the way you collaborate with other organisations enables you to stop doing things that are duplicating and actually having more impact. 

Who wants to take this? Pedr.

On another day, Pedr, I'd very much like to hear about it. Thank you very much. 

Great. Thanks, Jenny. Vikki Howells. 

Thank you, Chair. Good morning. I've got some questions around the practical support that you've been provided with by the future generations commissioner. Could you outline for us how your organisation has interacted with the future generations commissioner and her office, to start with, and how effective you think that support has been?

Who wants to answer that? David. 

I think we've mentioned already that the 10-year strategy, which is coming near to completion, has really been very much worked in consultation with the future generation commission, and they've been very generous in providing that support as well. They've also given us guidance on many specific projects to enable us to reflect on them and critically look at them as well, and Nia has also mentioned the audit that was done of our engagement work. 

Alongside the practical support we've been given, I think it's worth saying that we have found 'Manifesto for the Future' to be a really powerful and visionary document. We found the advice that has been given around development of a national wellness system, a national strategy for lifelong learning, the green recovery, the circular economy and all those things around social capital and skills to be really inspirational and also very practical guidelines for us in developing our own work. I don't think our work would be as strong and as rich as it hopefully is—we've got more to go, but hopefully it is—if the future generations commission hadn't been there. I think that we could say much more about the work that we're doing to support care homes and carers or to support schools, and maybe there'll be an opportunity for Nia, perhaps, to say a little bit about the work with children and schools that could be an example of that. 

Nia. 

Does anyone else want to come back on that? No. Vikki, any more questions?

Yes. My next question is: what barriers do you think the commissioner and her office face as they look to discharge their responsibilities under the Act? David. 

David.

I think it's been referred to before, but I think it's really, really important; there is a real need for long-term strategic funding around national development projects that culture can massively contribute to. The one-year cycles of revenue funding make it very difficult to take a very broad strategic approach. To give one case in point, the cultural sector could contribute enormously to the content of the new curriculum, but in order to do so, we need to have a long-term plan. We need to have, say, a five-year goal—a three, four or five-year goal—as to what is to be achieved on that, and we need to be able to work strategically across all the different areas of the curriculum; not just art and history, for example, but also the sciences have been referred to.

We need to be able ourselves to plan ahead in that kind of way, in order to put the infrastructure in place, including things like the digital infrastructure within our own organisations that's tailored towards achieving those big national goals. It's very, very hard to do that on a one-year funding cycle; really difficult to be able to be as effective in the use of public money as we should be in doing this. Essentially, this is really about integrating the purposes of the future generations Act with the programme of government that we hope will be coming forward in the next six to nine months. So, I think it's really a plea for strategic funding in all this. We will be able to deliver so much more, and we're really up for it, really committed to it, really believe this is part of our purpose. But we need a change of funding system to be able to deliver it properly. It needs to be collaborative across the sector, not just for the museum and not just for the library.

Any other views?

Thank you. My final question, if there are no other comments on that, is just to ask: as we move forward, do you think that the role of the commissioner needs to change, and, if so, how?

And who—if one of you would like to take that. Who's—anyone interested in that? Or maybe it's a question you don't want to answer. No? David.

I'll put my neck on the line on this one. It's very hard to comment, of course, because we are not involved in other discussions that the commissioner is having with other bits of Government or other sectors. But I think that the integration of the remit letters that we get as organisations and the objectives that each of the different Government department has with the ambitions of the Act would be very, very helpful, and I think there is the potential for there to be more of that. What the mechanism is for that I couldn't really say, but I do think that that integration is vital for us to do our job as well as we can.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay, and Delyth Jewell.

I'll let Kath and Nia speak first, if I may. 

Not necessarily specifically in terms of the boards, but I think on the general issue I would agree that the complexity of the relationship between national organisations like ours and regional and local structures is very, very difficult to navigate. And if there was some way of simplifying and clarifying that, and our role in relation to those, that would be really helpful to us. 

What I did also want to perhaps just stress is—and I may be a little bit out of date on this, but when it comes to things like procurement of energy, for example, it would be wonderful if the central procurement frameworks that we're working with actually do support some of the wider purposes of the future generations Act, for example, around renewable energy. Now, in the last few months, that may have been changed, and in which case I'm speaking out of turn, but it was an example of an area where we very, very much want to work within frameworks around the environment and sustainability, but the procurement processes and what's available to us don't necessarily support us in doing that. 

I think there's a deeper issue here, which is how do we define value, because, very often, if you only go by the financial value test on things, you end up with outcomes that can be counter to some of the other purposes of the Act. Looking at how value can be defined, and how organisations can be funded to achieve value as well, would be really helpful to us. I'm thinking, for example, that we are really—we're a vital support for the welfare state in Wales. We could tell you much more about the work we're doing with the health sector, the education sector and so on. We should be integral to this, and we should be part of the planning and thinking for other departments than the culture department, and it should be possible for us, if we demonstrate success and capability, to be able to get funding, to be funded by health, to be funded by education, to be funded by these other departments of Government. In practice, it's very, very difficult to cross the boundaries in these ways. And—

Sorry, I think—. Rhianon, did you have a supplementary question?

I'm happy to come in at the end of Delyth's questioning, because this is actually pertinent to what I'm going to follow through, and it's interesting. Thank you.

Okay. Sorry, to interrupt, David. Delyth, did you want to go on? Sorry, I'm moving things along, because I know that we're getting short on time.

No, okay. Thanks, Delyth. Gareth Bennett—. Oh sorry, I forgot to bring in Rhianon Passmore. And then Gareth Bennett.

Thank you. We did stray into the territory of what I wanted to ask, so just very briefly, then, in regard to the comments that have been made that seem to be pushing towards either a creative strategy or one framework for public bodies around the future generations Act, it's really more a question in regard to the fact that, no, we don't have that security in terms of funding cycles, and neither does Welsh Government. So, bearing that in mind and bearing in mind that the Welsh Government is actively, and has for some time been, petitioning the UK Government for that security in terms of funding cycles to be able to pass that on, surely there is merit then organisationally even to have that strategic goal planning, both organisationally and, one could also argue, across Wales. And, even without that security, surely it's not a good idea to do that anyway. I don't know whether David Anderson would like to comment upon that, bearing in mind his earlier comments, which have been a theme throughout this session, about how culture, working with health and education, could be bringing about great outcomes and outputs for Wales.

Yes. I think what I would say is that we do really, really need a culture strategy, and I hope that it'll be a very high priority for the new Government coming in to get that in place. In my view, it should be based on the principle that we're an integral supporter of the welfare state. We were left out in 1948, as was voluntary action, and voluntary action, we've seen, has been so vital recently. I think we need to reframe the welfare state's thinking in Wales, if I can be as ambitious as that, to bring in culture and to give us a very clear role around health and around education, and to set us three-year to five-year targets to achieve in these different areas. Therefore—and I'm being tough on ourselves, really, here—we then have to demonstrate value and we have to be funded by value. I feel that the static model is actually not good for us and it's not good for Wales, either. And I know that that's a risk. 

Thanks, David. We need to make some progress, but thanks for making that point. Gareth Bennett.

Thanks, Chair. To what extent are the roles of the future generations commissioner and the auditor general clearly understood, and what role should Audit Wales play in implementing the Act? I don't know who wants to go first. Pedr, do you want to kick us off on this one?

I'm sorry, Gareth, could you repeat the question?

Yes, certainly. To what extent are the roles of the future generations commissioner and the auditor general clearly understood, and what role should Audit Wales play in implementing the Act?

Okay. David, did you want to add something on this?

Yes, just briefly. At the moment, we meet the auditors separately from meeting with the future generations commissioner, and we have, I hope, positive and constructive discussions with both. Just a thought, really, but maybe at least once a year, we should have a meeting where we're meeting with both the future generations commissioner and the auditors together, and that might help us then to focus on the areas of integration that are possible.

Okay, that's a helpful suggestion. Are you clear on what role Audit Wales should play in implementing the Act, do you think?

It would be an unwise person to say that they're 100 per cent clear on anything, really. But I am aware that there is motion in this area, and I think that'll be very, very helpful if we do begin to explore how value, if you like, is assessed. I've touched on that briefly before. I think clarity about value will bring clarity to the role of the auditors and of the future generations commissioner and, hopefully, good use of public money as well.

Okay, thanks. I think Nia mentioned earlier that cultural organisations weren't necessarily represented on the public services boards. So, one issue is, with national bodies like the national museum and the national library, is it going to be possible for those bodies to fit into that structure of PSBs, do you think?

David.

[Inaudible.]—as it was her comment initially.

Okay. That's good to hear. Thanks very much. Thanks, Chair.

Good. Angela Burns.

Good morning and thank you very much indeed for your evidence today. I was just going to ask a couple of questions about what you'd like to see, going forward. What would be your key areas? You've answered a lot of that in the questions that have already been asked. But I'd particularly like to pick on the point made by Pedr when you said that you thought that the biggest threat to the Act is losing awareness of the Act and keeping it in the minds of people and chief executives. I wonder if you might outline what thoughts you may have as to how, over the next five years, we can ensure that that focus isn't lost. And what more could be done to ensure that Welsh Government makes sure that the Act is front and centre of all of its policy decisions and any legislation, going forward—how, if you like, it's the overarching framework? Of course, everybody says they're going to do it, but the devil is always in how do you make sure that everybody actually does do it.

Can I just quickly ask, before David comes in, does the Government pay—? Does it take the recommendations or the discussions of that forum into account when it makes its planning? I've obviously never sat in on that forum, so I don't know what sort of weight it has in terms of influence, going forward.

Thank you. David, you wanted to add something, I think.

I'll be very brief, because I know time is short. Essentially, if we have a cultural strategy, and if we have shared goals across the cultural sector, then I would be very confident that the ambitions of the future generations Act would be embedded in that, and in which case we will have to, as chief executives, take it seriously. I would hope that Amgueddfa Cymru would anyway, but, since the question is the one you've asked, I would say there needs to be a mechanism. At the moment, there really isn't any carrot or any stick particularly beyond a little bit of a public reprimand in all this, and I think it should be more serious.

Nia or Kath or David, do any of you want to come in at all with any comment on that—on the future and just how do really make this resonate in the future? There we are, Chair, I think we've managed to end on time.

Yes, we have. Sorry, I've managed to move my panel, so I didn't know what was happening there. We have, for once, so thanks, Angela. Thank you to all our witnesses for being so succinct. We had a lot of information provided there in quite a short space of time, so thanks. We'll feed your comments into our inquiry, and we'll compile a transcript of today's meeting and we'll send it to you just for you to check for accuracy. Thanks for being with us.

Can I propose we take a 10-minute break? Good.

Welcome back to this morning's meeting of the Public Accounts Committee, and can I welcome our witnesses? [Interruption.] Sorry, I need some water; frog in the throat. I welcome our witnesses to today's meeting. As you'll expect, we have a number of questions for you. [Interruption.] That's no good, is it?

Would you like to give your name, position and organisation for the Record of Proceedings?

I'm Clare Pillman, I'm chief executive of Natural Resources Wales. Siân, do you want to go next?

I'll come in next, in that case. I'm Siân Williams, I'm head of operations for north-west Wales with Natural Resources Wales.

Great, and who else? Mark.

Hello, Mark Bellis, I'm director of policy and international health at Public Health Wales.

And if I go next, I'm Tracey Cooper, I'm chief executive of Public Health Wales.

And who's next? [Interruption.] Sorry?

Sorry?

You just said—. I'm not quite—

I didn't say anything, it must have come through on the recording, I think.

Yes, I didn't see your lips moving.

No. [Laughter.]

There we are. Anyone else left to—?

Yes, I'm Tegryn Jones, I'm chief executive of the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority.

Hello, Chair. My name's Sumina Azam, I'm a consultant in public health in Public Health Wales.

I'm Mair Thomas, I'm performance and compliance co-ordinator at Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority.

Good, thanks. We've clearly got a lot of witnesses today, so don't worry if you don't all get in on each question, obviously. I've just had a message to say that someone is watching Senedd.tv in the background, and I think that's what's providing the feedback, so if someone could turn that off, whoever it is, that would help. Okay, a number of questions for you—thanks to Llyr Gruffydd for joining us as well—I'll kick off with the first one. What's been the biggest challenge for your organisation in implementing the Act? Who wants to take that? Clare, did you want to—

Shall I kick off, and then others can come in? I think the biggest challenge for all public authorities, all the 44 bodies within the scope of the Act and Welsh Government, is really getting the culture change necessary to give life to the requirements of the Act. It is an extraordinary piece of legislation, it is a very powerful piece of legislation, but legislating for culture change is always complex. So, for me, it is getting that consistent understanding of the Act and consistent application of the Act that has been the most challenging thing. But I think we're making good progress. 

One area we find particularly challenging, and this was referred to in Sophie's recent report, is the different ways in which people interpret the resilience standard. And we'll explore that later, but I think that other colleagues have probably got other examples where the interpretation of a particular element can differ from body to body, and that can create challenges. 

Good. Did anyone else want to comment before I ask the second question? Tracey.

Bore da. Thank you, Chair. If I may just say a really big thanks to the committee for being so accommodating for us to rearrange our evidence session. We really appreciate it. 

I very much agree with Clare. I guess, for Public Health Wales, we almost have, a bit similar to Natural Resources Wales, a two-faced approach to this: there's us as a regulated body and, just as Clare said, how we embed the culture and the behaviour so it just becomes the way that we do business in the organisation; and then the second element is, given that the well-being of future generations Act, for us, is the epitome of a population health Act, it's how we really help to support other partners, other sectors and Welsh Government in embedding the Act and informing the decisions that we need to create today in order to create that healthier destiny going forward. And I know we'll come on to talk about COVID, but I think that is a challenge, how we make sure that we exploit the Act to really help us move out of COVID. And I think that will be one of the biggest challenges for us.

You've just led into my second question, because I was going to ask what effect the pandemic has had on the implementation of the Act and whether that's caused any additional challenges. So, would anyone else like to comment on that specific aspect? Or back to you, Tracey.

Sorry. Yes, thank you, Chair. Yes, I think like every organisation, we've had to recalibrate pretty much all of our functions apart from screening to be focused on the health protection response. What we have been doing, though, is really looking at the broader harms. I think, from our perspective, COVID will have a much greater impact on the indirect broader harms of population health, early years, et cetera, than the infection in its own right. So, I think there's a real opportunity to use the Act as the compass that really enables us to focus on that longer term and that prevention and that resilience. So, I think that, whilst it's a challenge, it has to be the way that we galvanise public sector action to really drive through what we need, to create the resilient society that we're going to need in the coming months and the coming years.  

And Mark.

Yes, Chair, just to add to that, this is the real test now, as we come out of COVID. We have impacts, especially on young people and those future generations that the Act has actually talked about. We're doing things to look already at mental well-being, particularly in young people, but across the piece; the impact of unemployment that may come through on families and what that's going to do to this and future generations; and what COVID has exposed about new vulnerable groups, who may be from particular ethnicities or people living in particular ways we haven't focused on before. But it's a real opportunity now to take the Act and utilise that in how we, if you like, respond, come back from, bounce back from COVID and the effects it's had on the country.

Does anyone else want to come in before I bring in other Members? Clare.

Just really to build on that. From our perspective, I think we see the challenges that partners across the public sector are facing because of COVID and I'll perhaps ask Siân just to comment on what it feels like on the ground. But I think we've also seen how society and the public sector can respond in a crisis, and we've talked about climate crisis and environmental crisis before, and we sort of now know what a response to a crisis looks and feels like, and the way in which the Act provides a framework for public bodies and society to work together to do things differently, to think of different solutions, to collaborate in a different way is, I think, really exciting. I do not underestimate how tough it is on the ground at the moment and, Siân, I just wonder whether you might say something about how it feels being part of a PSB at the moment, working with others.

Thanks, Clare. Obviously, I'm here with two hats on; I'm chair of the Conwy and Denbighshire PSB as well as being here to represent NRW, and I think we've all seen the world has basically turned on its axis in the last 12 months, and the work of the PSBs has had to respond to that as well. But, obviously, a large number of the members of the PSBs and the teams that they manage have been involved in incident response and dealing with the pandemic directly, and that has meant that we've had to shift our work a little bit. It's meant delays in delivering some of our priority work streams that we'd had before, whether we're dealing with the front-line issues of COVID or whether we're dealing with staff absences or supporting our staff working at home and home schooling and so on. It's meant that we've had to really think again about what we do.

And one of the things, I think, maybe we've learned in north Wales is that the local resilience forum had directed the PSBs to look at the community resilience aspect of COVID and how the PSBs could support that going forward, and there are things that have come out of that, obviously. We've all seen communities really rally round in the last 12 months to support themselves and support the more vulnerable people within communities, and there's definitely an opportunity there for us as public bodies and as the PSBs to help that, to support that, and to support the third sector who are working with those communities as well, in terms of rather than doing it for people, building on what's already there and how we support that going forward.

One of the things that we have learnt and have picked up on, though, is that the Act doesn't allow very easily for us to change priorities halfway through the cycle. And so this is something that maybe we need to think about going forward; if something does happen—like a pandemic or something else that could cut across our priorities—how do we then rethink when something happens and we need to change tack and change direction of the work that we're delivering. And that's maybe something I'd like to feed back into this process is the learning from our experiences in the PSB.

Good. If I can bring in some other Members, then, and Rhianon Passmore.

Thank you, that's really interesting, actually. In terms of resilience in society, as was mentioned, that obviously means resilience across our public bodies and sectors, and that sufficient capacity of trained and ready workforce at all levels, all operational levels, including leadership. So, do you feel then that this crisis management scenario that we're in now, though, pertaining to capacity, does not allow the capacity for change that the future generations Act has got, particularly at this time, so that will not be extracted at its most maximum? I don't know whether you have any comment on that question before I go into my line of questions. Who would like to answer that? Tracey?

Who wants to come in first?

Yes, I think that's a really, really important question. I think that's what we're living every day at this point in time. For me, my personal view is I think there's a reality that there will be many, many public servants that are just managing to provide a service on a daily basis. The challenge for us all, though, is creating the thinking time, because we are heading into a really—I keep using the word, but an ongoing insult to society. So, from a leadership, senior management, director, cross-sector perspective, it is about creating that space that says, 'How do we imagine two years, three years, four years hence? How do we use the five ways of working particularly so that we are making the decisions that create that more sustainable future, and the investments?' Now, we are still spending lots of money, we are still procuring lots of things, so how do we—? Even running public services today in a pandemic, there are still opportunities to be innovative and to create that paradigm shift. Mark and Sumina may want to come in now or later on, but we're doing a health impact assessment at the moment that brings together EU transition, COVID—because they are compounding, potentially—and climate change. So, it's about how can we create that informed, evidence-based approach that says, 'These are the kind of decisions that we need to make today, but not every public servant's going to be able to do that, because we also have to manage the day-to-day operation'. So, it's about our strategic thinking, and that informed decision making, but it's got to be future focused even now, I would say. I think Tegryn perhaps had his hand up as well.

I think there's a bit of a difference between the formality of the Act and the more informal elements that have resulted from it. Certainly, the architecture is very set in some ways, but I think what we've found over the last couple of months is the fact that people sitting in PSBs—the relationships that have developed there have undoubtedly helped a process of engagement and partnership and responding very quickly. So, I think there are—[Inaudible.]

Are other people experiencing problems?

I can't hear, sorry.

I couldn't hear Tegryn, no.

I couldn't work out whether it was my connection or his. He seems to have disappeared. I don't know whether the—

Shall I move on to the next question? Thank you for both responses, and thank you, Chair. How well, then, is the Act understood by your organisation? What work have you undertaken, briefly, to develop and measure your understanding at all levels of the organisation? Perhaps you could briefly take that in turn, though I don't know about Tegryn.

Shall I pick that up first, then? It is really important that staff at all levels—that it's not just the leadership of organisations. Because it is in every interaction with partner agencies, the third sector, the private sector and with the public that the Act can change the way of working. We've done a huge amount of work in terms of training staff. Obviously, the sustainable management of natural resources, which is set out in the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, is underpinned by the measures in the well-being Act, and we have trained the majority of our staff in the principles of SMNR. I think that has really driven a change in the way of thinking—of thinking in that way that is about longer term, about resilience, about partnership—and that's been good. And then all of those good, basic things of having clarity through your planning documents, whether it's your corporate plan or your individual personal development plans—that all of those are underpinned by the measures in the Act.

Thank you. And the others?

Who else wants to—? Mair.

I think from our perspective, one of the things, since the Act has come into force, that has helped reinforce it with staff is the Audit Wales performance work on the five ways of working. I think because of the nature of how they've changed their performance work, they've been engaging with staff through their fieldwork sessions, through surveys and focus groups, and I think that helps reinforce for staff the relevance of the Act to the day-to-day, but also provides them with an opportunity to reflect on how we actually are performing and integrating those five ways of working into our work.

Thank you. I don't know if Tegryn's sound has come back in. No. Okay, I'm going to move on to my next question. In regard, then, to knowing what 'good' looks like, some of the criticism in the past is that it's ambiguous and nebulous, and that that architecture hasn't been properly embedded. Do you feel then that you as public bodies consistently know what good implementation of the Act looks like? 

Who wants to take that? Tracey. 

I'm afraid I've only got one screen on, so I can't see the witnesses in front of me.

Tracey just indicated.

Thank you, and Sumina may want to come in as well. In the first couple of years for us, we had our well-being objectives and we had separate corporate strategic priorities, and then we undertook a significant review of our long-term strategy and we applied the five ways of working to it. So, we've been fortunate in aligning our seven strategic priorities, and they are as one with our well-being objectives. For us, that means that our performance framework, our integrated performance report, all track back to our achievement against the well-being objectives. So, similar to what Clare was saying, actually—it's how does it become the drum beat of the organisation. It took us a couple of years to get there, actually. 

But I think it's probably easier—I shouldn't say this, should I—for us as Public Health Wales, because this is a population health piece of legislation. So, if we are not developing strategic priorities that are informed by the burden of disease in Wales, international evidence, evidence that we create, engagement with our partners, then we've got it wrong. It is the drum beat for us. We did create a health and sustainability hub a couple of years ago, and I just wondered if Sumina wants to mention that, because I think committee members may be interested in that. 

Thank you, Tracey. As Tracey's mentioned, we have created a health and sustainability hub, which is a team of people that aims to support the organisation, as well as our partners, to embed the Act. I think the important thing is to think about the Act in terms of individuals, teams, organisations and systems. We've done work in terms of supporting all of those. Within the organisation, for example, we've undertaken team meetings, we've undertaken surveys to understand awareness and understanding and action of the Act. We've also developed a campaign, we've worked with partner organisations, and we've developed tools that can be used both at an individual level and as teams. We've also supported other organisations to develop those and adapt them for their own purposes. 

In regard to the actual premise of the question, that's what you have done to implement the Act. It sounds very solid. Do you feel that that is what 'good' looks like because you've invented that wheel, or do you feel that the level of autonomy that there is for organisations to implement the Act is sound enough so that there is an understanding of what 'good' is?

Shall I respond? I think Mark has also got his hand up. With regard to what 'good' looks like, what I would say is I think if we are all working according to the Act and not thinking about it, then that to me feels good. You know, when it's not right at the forefront when we're doing it—without thinking, it's part of our work. And also, I think every member of our organisation understands their connection to the Act. So, their work, the organisation's work—there's a golden thread that runs through. I think that, for me, is what 'good' looks like. 

Okay. I don't know if there are any comments, briefly, on that particular question from others, or if there's disagreement in terms of your organisation as to how you perceive the—

Mark, and then we'll move on. 

Very briefly, Chair, a couple of things are objective. We at the beginning did a series called Making a Difference, which was about pulling together the evidence and sharing that with partners about what works. We've also done work on sustainable development with other universities, getting guidance on what works best, what motivates people and what works best in different areas from an evidential basis. And I think finally, on the question of whether it's just us or not, the well-being of future generations Act in many ways is legislation for the sustainable development goals, or it's seen that way in other countries. And our connections with the World Health Organization show that they utilise what's happening in Wales as an exemplar of how you do this sort of thing. I think they are, in a way, an independent measure, but the trajectory is in the right direction.

Okay. Thank you for that, Mark. Apologies, but I can't see my witnesses in front of me, some I'm relying on the Chair to point the questions in the right direction.

Very briefly—I think you can give a 'yes' or 'no' to this, and if all of the witnesses could give me a response that's brief—we've received evidence that pointed to a potential or a perceived disconnect between the auditor general, the Welsh Government and the commissioner. They point to a lack of a unified message and approach to expectations. I don't know if you agree if there is a disconnect—a simple 'yes' or 'no' would be sufficient at this point.

Who wants to go first? Tracey. 

A simple 'yes' or 'no'? I would say 'no'. 

Thank you. Okay.

That's a new style of questioning, Rhianon.

Well, I'm adapting.

Clare.

I would say 'no', but I don't shy away from the fact that some of the messages are quite complex, and that can sometimes mean that, perhaps, one has to go through them quite a lot before they land.

Okay. I understand that caveat. The next witness.

Mair.

I would say 'no', but I think perhaps Audit Wales and the future generations commissioner had a stronger relationship at the start of the process, so it's something that needs to be reinforced—that joint relationship.

And Mark.

Overall, no.

Thanks. Siân.

I'm not going to add anything too much. I think 'no', and I agree, you know, it is very complex, and given that we all have two roles to play in this as our organisations and as PSB members, and the other PSB members are all members of different partnerships, it becomes a very complex picture as well.

Okay. Thank you very much for that.

Sumina.

I'd agree. It's also a 'no'.

And Tegryn—can we hear you?

Hopefully, you can hear me now—sorry about that.

Welcome back, Tegryn.

Thank you. All I would say is that sometimes, there appears, possibly, to be a greater focus from Audit Wales on the ways of working, while the commissioner possibly focuses on the goals. So, that may well be an agreement between them. Certainly, there have been a number of joint conferences that I think worked well, but they were a fair few years back now, so whether that's something—

That could be repeated. Okay. That's really been interesting. Thank you very much for those responses. Thank you, Chair.

Good. Jenny Rathbone.

Thank you very much. I want to ask you all on what you've said in your excellent written submissions—thank you very much for them. Just starting with NRW, I very much like the way you were quite honest in the way you acknowledged that just moaning about annual funding isn't really sufficient. You say that, as the vast majority of funding is relatively static and long term, long-term planning can be undertaken on that basis if national bodies are genuinely embracing the Act as part of their core business. So, why do you think that other organisations that you're having to work with are finding that so difficult?

I've said this in a number of fora before; I think that particularly at the moment, moaning about funding is not going to help anybody. We're in a really difficult situation and we have to make the best of what we've got. Annual budgets do present problems for all organisations in terms of dealing with some of the systemic long-term problems. Some organisations—and I'd include NRW in this—are fortunate enough to have plural streams of funding. So, we have funding from regulatory activity and from our commercial income, and that does give us a bit more confidence in being able to set longer term budgets. I think that for some bodies that are entirely dependent on grant in aid, it can be much more difficult. It is a problem for us—I'm not saying it's not—but we have a bit more scope for being more confident in setting budgets over a number of years. Welsh Government are absolutely clear that they want to move to multi-year settlements and we welcome that hugely, as I know does the commissioner.

Okay. Just a couple of details, you talk about the pooling of budgets with some of your PSB partners to collaborate effectively. You say that as these budgets need to be held by a host organisation because a PSB isn't a legal entity, that that

'can provide a challenge to joint working putting an additional administrative burden on the host organisation.'

Can I just challenge that? Because any private body or even a voluntary sector body, they collaborate, they have to build in administrative costs into whatever action they agree to do with some other organisation. So, why do you think that's proved so challenging for public bodies in Wales?

I think that there are a number of issues. We had to, for example, reconfigure our grant system to enable us to be able to do this sort of work, and we did that successfully and that is working. I think that one of the problems is that you have a number of different bodies around the PSB table and you are always asking one of them to take a lead. And that can result in good partnership working, it can also sometimes create difficulties and tensions and barriers. I think what we would like to see is PSBs being able to hold budgets and run projects themselves, and I think that would help. Siân, I know you've been very involved with this and maybe you'd like to comment from a PSB chair position.

Yes, I won't repeat what Clare's said, but very briefly, yes, I think it's one of those things where there's a distinction between collaboration and true co-delivery, in a sense. And to achieve true co-delivery is very difficult if we're depending on one organisation to hold the funds and to do the administration on behalf of the group and to lead on a project. So, I think, you know, there's a question there around what's the best way to co-deliver projects when there isn't a legal entity. The PSB can't hold funds or employ people directly to lead on projects, so it's always dependent on one organisation taking the lead on delivering projects and on managing the funding, and that risks then a big dependence on that one organisation to deliver on behalf of several others, which isn't really the true sense of co-delivery of projects.

Okay. We don't have time to go into that and how we might get around it, but thank you for making that important point. Could you just comment on what the NRW paper also says, which is that 

'some of the priorities decided as a PSB aren't every organisation's priority'?

As you chair a PSB, it would be great to hear how you deal with that.

It's taken us a while. Every good partnership depends on good relationships and it's taken us some time for people to get to know each other and for people to understand how we deliver on behalf of the communities that we're working with. So, that, I think, has been the biggest challenge up until now, getting to that stage where we're comfortable with each other. We've got a workshop, as it happens, this afternoon with the PSB that I chair, looking at some of these difficult-to-grasp issues around partnership and how we drive really good partnerships forward to co-deliver. But, yes, lots of discussion happens and sometimes, as I said, things aren't always a priority for every single organisation, but it's evidence based and accepting that evidence to drive forward the work for the communities that we're working with is really important.

Okay. Thank you very much for that. 

Sorry, there's a lot going on here—we've got home school happening in my kitchen. [Laughter.]

Don't worry. We're very grateful to have you with us despite all that. Just turning to the Pembrokeshire national park paper, you acknowledge that a lot of progress has been made on shared budgeting, and that's great, but you then tell us that there's been a specific challenge around the fact that the regional co-ordinator post, which was funded centrally for the first four years, roughly, of the Act, is no longer centrally funded. So, I wondered if you could tell us why you think that was such a disaster. Tegryn or Mair—I'm not quite sure who's—. Tegryn, you're with us still, so shall we grab you while you're still technically connected with us? Did you hear the question?

Yes, I think I did cut off a bit, but I think I caught the gist of the question, which was about the centrally funded co-ordinator. I'm chair of the Pembrokeshire PSB and we worked very closely with Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion on the initial development of the well-being assessment and the well-being plan, and the co-ordinator played a key role in terms of facilitating that work, so it seemed from our perspective that, centrally, in terms of making this process work, it was a reasonably small investment in order for everything to work properly. So, obviously, we're about to restart, or are in the process of restarting, that process, and that possibly will be a bit more challenging this time without that central resource.

Okay. If it's a relatively small sum of money, why is it not possible for the combined elements of your local PSBs to simply put your money in your pocket and jointly fund it?

I think that's a very good question, and it's one where—. We've had discussions as a PSB whether we should all contribute £5,000 in order to build a fund for some work as a PSB. I think the problem we have is the fact that for our organisation and the county council we contribute once. If you go to the health board, they have to contribute three times to three different PSBs. If you go to the fire and rescue service, then it's up to six, and, if go to Natural Resources Wales, it's obviously 22. So, there are barriers there, which I entirely agree should be surmountable, and it's an issue I come back to fairly regularly, but that is the challenge of partnership working and, you know, different organisations have different views on that.

Thank you. Just turning to Public Health Wales, the well-being of future generations Act is like manna from heaven for your organisation, isn't it? Finally, tackling the causes of ill health is now centre stage, rather than spending all this money on the consequences of poor health. So, I wondered if you could tell us how you think Public Health Wales has seized this opportunity to really lead on ensuring that we are doing that. Just leaving COVID, the pandemic, on one side, because I acknowledge they are very special challenges, but, in the generality, how do you think Public Health Wales has really grabbed and run with this agenda?

Thank you for the question. Chair, if I could come in first and then I'll hand over to Mark. Mark mentioned a little bit earlier the Making a Difference series. So, just in advance of the last election, actually, the team identified the 10 prevention interventions, cross-sector, that could drive the biggest improvement in population health, together with what the return on investment would be for those interventions—so, things like early years, things like investing in housing. And then we've set about since then on building that series, continuing that series, and engaging with partners in Wales, in the UK and internationally.

And maybe just to pick one example of that, and it stems from your earlier question about resources, what we have found over the last number of years is if we can present evidence about something that is so key to society in a way that is understandable by many sectors—for example, adverse childhood experiences—we're much more likely to galvanise action against a common goal. On the example with adverse childhood experiences, we worked cross-Government, cross-sector, to set the hub up—the adverse childhood experiences support hub—which was funded by three Government departments, and that has grown and grown and grown and now we've got police and criminal justice involved in that. If I may hand over to Mark, because I think that's quite a nice example of how do we not have to persuade people when the evidence is really simply put within their frame of reference and actually drive some improvements in outcome. So, if I may, I'll hand over to Mark.

Yes. Mark, I absolutely acknowledge the fantastic work we've done on leading on adverse childhood experiences, but we're still the most obese nation in Europe. Obviously, I have a particular interest in childhood obesity. Why do you think we've not really made that much progress on persuading everybody that it's all our business?

I think what we can do, and what we have been doing, and I mentioned things like Making a Difference, and the ACE hub does much of this as well, is that you can provide the evidence, you can show what is capable of being delivered if people change behaviours and culture in a particular direction. Some of it around ACEs has been done. We've seen that in the training in schools, the way that the police have been doing, and there are rewards coming from that. I think, in answer to your question, there are a couple of issues. One is that the systems need to align themselves with rewarding prevention not just throughput, and that's a critical issue. So, we need to say that what is required is the delivery of prevention. The second thing—and we do work on this and put effort into trying to get those messages across—is that looking at the long term does not mean waiting long-term for rewards. I think those things are often confused. ACEs are a good example of that because they show that you can get rewards in a short time period in terms of mental health support, protection of children and, hopefully, impacts on obesity, but you also get long-term rewards as well. So, I think there's a culture issue there around rewarding, if you like, prevention, investing in prevention, sometimes at the expense of other things we're doing, and understanding that doing that doesn't mean waiting 10 or 20 years for success. It means that you get success in 10 or 20 years, but you also get successes in the short term as well.

You make important points. How successful do you think Public Health Wales has been in using its resources, including its staff resources, its financial budget, to drive forward this agenda?

I think we've put a significant amount of money into things like ACEs, into things like the health and sustainability hub, into providing the evidence through Making a Difference, into what creates change and what we know about evidence for change through work with Kingston university. I guess there are some objective measures. We did a national survey at one point, and I think—and by no means can Public Health Wales take credit for anything near all of that—it clearly shows across the Welsh public that there's an appetite for investment in the long term and in prevention. I think it's now addressing that appetite, using the evidence, that needs the whole system to come behind it. 

Okay. Sumina, did you want to add to anything that Mark and Tracey have said?

Thank you, Jenny. I don't want to add anything in terms of what Mark said. I think I would just reflect that, when the auditor did his review of public bodies, one of the things he talked about was building the evidence in terms of prevention, the long term, collaboration, and I think that that's what we're trying to do. That's one of our unique offers as an organisation, so that's how we can really help the wider system.

It's one of the things that, at your organisation, you'd expect you to be experts in, because you're public health people and providing evidence of the causes of ill health is one of your reasons for existing, isn't it?

Absolutely.

Yes, okay. Thank you. Thank you, Nick.

Good. I'm experiencing some broadband difficulties here—it's going in and out. So, if I freeze for any reason, that's the reason why. Vikki Howells.

Thank you, Chair. I've got some questions around the practical way that you interact with the future generations commissioner and her office. Firstly, could you just give us an overview of how you do interact with them and how effective you've found their support to be? 

Shall I go first on that one? We have a close and ongoing relationship with the commissioner and her staff. There are those elements that are the routine things of any regulator and regulated bodies, looking at our performance, looking at ways of improving across the piece, but then there are also areas where we have worked with the commissioner to tease out the relationship between the environment Act and the well-being of future generations Act on things like permitting, so some really good close working on that, and then, actually, most recently, the green recovery taskforce, which was chaired by our chair and involved the commissioner, working on a very specific programme, coming up with recommendations, and now working closely together to see some of those develop further towards delivery. So, I would say a good, strong working relationship that is both challenging in terms of their regulation of us, but also collaborative in the spirit of the Act, working on particular projects together.

Tracey.

Thank you. Similarly, I think ourselves in Natural Resources Wales, as, if you like, all Wales activity organisations, we're very similar around some of the relationships. So, as Clare said, as a regulatory body, obviously we have a regulated-regulatee relationship with the commissioner, but we do a lot of strategic engagement as well with the commissioner, so I think you may have seen from our submission that we have one of our team seconded in to the commissioner's office as a goal convenor around a more equal Wales, and since the start of Sophie's office being set up, we have had a joint appointment, particularly around some of the broader policy areas of the Act, so there is a very strong synergy, particularly around particular elements.

Mark mentioned the shift to prevention; we feel very passionate that, actually, there has to be a managed shift to prevention that creates the architecture across Government, across public services, through the mechanism that exists, so that we can realise the potentials that Jenny was referring to earlier on. On a day-to-day basis, I, pre COVID, met regularly with the commissioner, as did Mark. She's joined our board meeting a couple of times. Operationally, I have Sumina, who heads up our hub and heads up our policy group and works very closely with the office as well, because, as we said, there's such an alignment around population health.

Anybody else? No.

Okay. My second question, then, is what barriers do you think the commissioner and her staff face as they look to discharge their responsibilities under the Act?

Who wants to take that? Tegryn.

I think the commissioner has got a very challenging role, because of the breadth of all of this, and also the different organisations to deal with. Even if you just look at the three organisations here, there's a significant difference in location of working, ways of working and that area. One of the possible challenges—and this is probably as much a criticism of us as it is of the commissioner—is we get a lot of information from the commissioner, and it's quite difficult to digest some of it. Sometimes, we'll end up getting a 20-page letter with four or five links per page, and I almost feel guilty that we're not taking advantage there. So, dare I say, possibly a bit better engagement and a bit more focus, so that the work of the commissioner actually has more of an impact on organisations and PSBs might be beneficial.

Thank you. My final question, then, if there's no-one else who wants to comment on that, and it links in really quite nicely to your comment there, Tegryn, is do you think the role of the commissioner needs to change, moving forwards, and if so, how?

Any takers? No. Mark.

If I can, I'd like to build on your last question and perhaps not say about a change, but just emphasis. One of the things—and it's almost impossible to say anything without saying 'COVID'—that COVID has shown is that we may have seen the acute impacts, if you like, of infection and what's happened in lockdowns, but the virus and the vulnerabilities are targeting inequalities and existing ill health. So, I think, going forward, the well-being of future generations—and not just the commissioner—needs to embrace that and recognise that, while we tackle inequalities and while we tackle ill health and we look at long-term health, we actually protect ourselves more from the acute issues that we may face from COVID or other viruses that might come, and I think that means actually enhancing and building more on the prevention, rather than a knee-jerk reaction that might be more of a focus on the immediate because of what we're seeing happen from COVID.

Thank you.

Okay, and Delyth Jewell.

Whoever would like to go first. Tegryn?

Thank you, Tegryn. The way that particular policy issues have been developed has shown real cognisance and understanding of the Act, and I think there has been some really good progress made in that respect. 

I referred earlier in this session to some of the challenges that we face in terms of ensuring that the understanding and the way in which ecosystem resilience is reflected in policy development really is embedded in Welsh Government thinking, but also across other public bodies too. And I think there is—and the commissioner recognised this in her report—significant distance to travel yet on that. I think that Welsh Government is very much seized of the impact of the climate emergency, but I think sometimes, the environmental loss, the species loss, the biodiversity loss can sometimes take a second place to that, rather than be of equal weight and importance in terms of policy making and policy thinking. 

Thank you, Clare. Tracey.

Thank you. My answer is a little bit more looking to future elements, and apologies, we're all a bit obsessed with COVID, but just a handful of the socioeconomic and well-being impacts that COVID is accruing, as we speak as well as in the coming months and years. I think it really is the opportunity for Welsh Government to drive forward on a number of common priorities, cross-Government departments, cross-sector, and align the planning, the financial flow, the measurement to help start to drive shifts around that, and particularly in my mind, it's about resilience for the nation—nationally, communities, individually. So, back to how does the focus around the Act and the opportunity that it brings drive different approaches, not across multiple, multiple indicators—I don't think that's the way to do business particularly at the moment—it's what are the three or four really big ticket items that we need to galvanise and align action measurement, planning, funding against. 

And my final point on that is: for some things, we asked earlier about resources; I think this should be about how we do business within our current resources, but acknowledging where there needs to be a rapid focus, a momentum built on a couple of priorities. Some beginning, middle and end transformation funding that has to have an end at some point allows you to create that shift and overrun when we're dealing with a pandemic. So, I think that's the area where I think there's some opportunities for Welsh Government, and all of us, actually, to step into. 

Thank you, Tracey. Does anyone else want to come in on this question before we move on? I don't see anyone else's hand raised. 

Diolch, Siân. Clare, you had your hand up as well. And then I'll come to Mark afterwards. Clare.

Just to build on what Siân was saying then, I think we also see some of our older legislation—. So, for example, a lot of what we do is set out in the various forestry Acts, and some of those measures are—not in conflict with, but, sometimes, some of the collaborative approaches that we would like to take, using the well-being Act as a basis, are prohibited by our founding legislation in terms of the forestry Acts. So, I think there can also be issues arising from that sort of route.

Thank you. Thank you, Clare. Mark, you had your hand up as well.

Yes. It was to reiterate, really, in part, a point Tracey made. We've also got the socioeconomic duty coming online. But all of these things have elements around equity, around prevention, around well-being rather than response to ill health or harm, and around sustainability, and I think, if there are three or four key things coming out of the pandemic that are clear from Government and others about what we need to focus on, then it should become easier for the different policies to align behind that and for the different agencies and groups to focus on similar objectives.

Thank you, Mark. Sumina or Mair, did you want to add anything? No. Okay. Actually, my last question, it's mainly already been covered, so if no-one wants to add anything further, that's absolutely fine. It was going to be about the different layers of partnership boards that have been created by various bits of legislation and whether—. Some of the evidence we've received implies that it might be confusing in terms of implementing the Act. A number of you have actually already nodded to this in your previous answers, so did anyone want to add anything to that? If not, and you think it's already been said, that's absolutely fine, but I just wanted to check. I don't see anyone's hand up. No. Lovely. Okay. Well, diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you. Back to you, Cadeirydd.

Thanks, Delyth. Gareth Bennett.

Thanks, Chair. To what extent are the roles of the future generations commissioner and the auditor general clearly understood? I don't know who wants to kick off on that one.

Any takers?

Clare. Clare leaned forward encouragingly.

Yes, I did lean forward. The commissioner is the regulator and the policy engine, in a way, for the Act, and the auditor general and Audit Wales have come in and, I think, done a really useful piece of work looking at how it's working and what the issues are, and I think that level of independent scrutiny and thought was very welcome. So, I would see their roles as being very distinct and very much a relationship that—. We are a regulator too, and we are audited by Audit Wales, so I think that people understand those differences. I think it was a very different sort of audit for Audit Wales to undertake. I think they learned a huge amount in doing it. I think the bodies that were audited learned a huge amount in the process. But I think it is entirely right that, with something of this importance to Wales, there is that independent audit of how it's going, what's working, what's not working, which is different from the regulatory function.

Okay. Thanks for that. Did anyone from either of the other two organisations have anything they wanted to add to that or any other points they wanted to make?

Sumina.

Thank you, Chair. I would just agree, but also say that I think the two complement each other really well. They've recently signed a memorandum of understanding, which, I think, is incredibly helpful to organisations, just in terms of the regulatory burden on us. And when I've been at meetings at an operational level, and when we've had—say when we've had our review by the auditor, we've had colleagues from the future generations commissioner's office there. So, I think there's really good close working between the two.

Okay. Thanks for that. There is another question about Audit Wales; it's just a case of if people have anything to add to what we've said. The other question is: what role should Audit Wales play in implementing the Act? But perhaps we may have covered it, unless someone's got something useful to add to what's been said.

Tracey, and then we'll bring in Llyr.

Thank you. Just one suggestion, actually. Obviously, Audit Wales follows the money and how public money is being spent, and I just wonder whether there is an opportunity, at some point in the future, to pick a particular element, priority—a common priority within the well-being plans or whatever—and just follow the money through and see whether there's been a shift to prevention, to see how that's being spent collaboratively across partners, and you could follow it from a policy through to the regional architecture, through to delivery on the ground, and I think that could be an interesting study review to do.

Okay, thanks for that suggestion, Tracey. Thanks, Chair.

Llyr Gruffydd.

Tegryn.

Well, I'd start by saying we don't see it as a burden, Llyr. We see it as a genuine opportunity and a forum in which we can work with partners to deliver a whole range of good things for people and communities in Wales. We haven't added up the time, but I would see it as absolutely core to what we do, and I think that—. Siân, obviously, chairs the Conwy and Denbighshire one, but staff across NRW are involved with PSB work. And I think it's, for us, an absolutely critical way of delivering for and with partners. So, I think it's almost impossible to disentangle, in a way. The work we've done on area statements—all of that supports the work of PSBs. The work that we're publishing later this week, our second 'State of Natural Resources Report'—a really, really important milestone for us, a requirement in the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. But that evidence—that evidence of what Wales's position is in terms of the state of its natural resources and the challenges we face—all underpins the work that we do in PSBs. So, I think it's part of the fabric, and it'd be quite difficult to disconnect it, in a way.

Yes, I was teasing you slightly in asking the question, of course. But I—. And I can see Siân wants to come in, but I'll just make this point first. PSBs are one part of what is a huge spectrum of organisations and layers of collaboration and partnerships. We made reference to the RPBs; we know the CJCs are on their way, we have the growth deal boards as well in different parts of the country. There are options there in relation to rationalising some of that, potentially, and introducing greater coherence within the whole, as opposed to just looking at the PSBs—[Interruption.] Sorry, I've got somebody throwing—throwing snowballs at the window. Would giving PSBs a larger footprint, for example, mean that you could be more efficient in terms of your engagement, but also maybe trying to encompass more of these levels of bureaucracy that we're currently wading through sometimes, or at least it feels that way?

We've commented on the fact that the landscape is complicated and the requirements on public bodies are difficult, and I think there are issues for, perhaps, some of the smaller all-Wales public bodies in how they engage with PSBs, the regional level and now CJCs coming along potentially as well. So, I think there is something there about whether the landscape is overly complicated and are the demands on all public bodies becoming more than is practicable to deliver the outcomes that people are looking for.

Sure, and I apologise, Siân wanted to come in as well. Sorry—

Siân will come in, but in terms of the sort of—. So, Siân is chairing Conwy and Denbighshire, so that is an example—and obviously it's your patch too—of where two local authorities have decided to work together on this. We're seeing increasingly—and Siân, I'm sure, will mention this—so, for example, across north Wales, we're seeing all the PSBs beginning to work together on things like the response to climate change and the climate emergency. So, we are seeing different groupings emerging, but, Siân, I know you want to come in.

Yes, thank you. I was talking about transformational funding a bit earlier, and of course we know that quite a lot of funding's gone through the regional partnership boards. So, Llyr, your suggestion around bespoke funding for the PSBs: whilst personally I think the well-being of future generations Act is about using the current resources in a different way, I do think that there's a potential benefit, particularly coming out of COVID, to have to think about some specific transformation fund within PSBs that is used not to replace core, but allows a shift to try and create a new way of working in alignment of resources. So, I think there's a potential opportunity for that.

Tegryn.

Diolch, Llyr. Angela Burns.

I thought Jenny wanted to come in. Sorry.

Sorry, Jenny.

Yes, okay. I just wanted to pick up on the alphabet soup of organisational structures. Not many people think that Wales needs 22 local authorities, but turkeys don't vote for Christmas, and we could spend an awful lot of time discussing exactly how we're going to scope the boundaries of responsibility. But, however large or small your organisation is, you still need working groups, so are regional partnership boards now all, if you like, sub-groups of public services boards? Because it seems to me that regional partnership boards are doing a specific job around integrated care, which doesn't need to dominate the overarching agenda, but clearly that work needs to go on to ensure we get those sorts of things right. Could you just—? Either Siân or Tegryn—you both share public services boards—is there now an understanding that it's more about shaping organisational structures to meet the particulars of your local communities?

If I can quickly answer that. The way we've tried to do that is to bring the co-ordinator onto the PSB, therefore, there is a greater alignment there. I assume what you're suggesting is probably there's a barrier there in terms of the legislation setting up the two respective bodies. The other point that I think would be useful would be if there were a much clearer commitment to coterminous boundaries for some of these partnerships. Sitting in Pembrokeshire, in one sense we're looking across to Neath Port Talbot, yet we co-ordinate with Ceredigion as well. Therefore, I assumed it might work easier in north Wales, but certainly in the south-west there. So, I think if you had clearer boundaries and then the partnership mechanisms and the groups were to function within those, I suggest some of the things you suggest, and others have suggested, might become a bit easier.

Did you want to add, Siân?

Yes. I won't add very much to what Tegryn's just said, really. I think one of the things that is complex sometimes is that the geographic areas that some of the groups cover don't all match up. So, when we are evidence based and the work that we're doing locally is driven by evidence, by the well-being evidence that we had right at the beginning, and will be renewed again now, we're doing that on a local level—so, for example, for Gwynedd and Anglesey, or for Conwy and Denbighshire, and then the others are single local authority areas. It's quite difficult sometimes if we are blinkered and just looking at that local area, and not looking much wider. So, I think organisations like ours are in a really good position to be able to spot those opportunities that are happening elsewhere, and we do that, and we do sometimes bring things together. But when the partnership boards are operating sometimes on local geographic boundaries, that can add another layer of complexity to the issue as well.

Shall I fire away, Nick?

Go for it, Angela.

Thank you. Thank you very much for your evidence today. It's quite interesting to first of all see where it ties in to evidence we've received from other organisations over the last couple of weeks, but there's also been some quite distinct separateness today.

I've just got a couple of questions on the future, and what you would like to see. You've talked a lot about what your issues are, you've talked a lot about where you'd like to see changes, but if you could encapsulate some of that. But before I do, because Llyr in particular and Jenny in part touched on one of my real concerns about barriers to the successful implementation and sustainable implementation of the future generations Act, which is this huge complexity that we have at the heart of our local democracy and our organisational, governmental structures. For a little country of 3-odd million people we have an awful lot of layers of various things, whether they start from the PSBs, which I very much see as actually the feet on the ground, the people who seem to be the drivers, and I find there's a slight irony in the fact that the engine of driving this change seems to be the bit that's not got the money to do it, and then we've got all these other layers, and we've got the corporate joint committees coming in, and all the rest of it.

So, actually, I am just going to revisit the commentary that Llyr made, and some of the responses. Do you think that a key barrier to the successful implementation of the Act is this incredibly overly complicated landscape that we have in terms of the governance, the way we hold our collaboration systems together, picking up Jenny's point about we could be more about having working groups, or is that a way of doing it? Or do you think that actually the system is okay, and perhaps a little bit of jiggling around, a little bit of tweaking of legislation and a little bit of coterminousity would actually achieve that objective? Nobody likes answering this question. I ask it in most sessions.

I'll kick off. I think that the complexity of the landscape is undoubtedly a contributing factor to, sometimes, things effectively falling down between the stools. But everyone in the public sector is used to working in complex environments. I utterly agree with you about the PSBs. They're the engine rooms, and I really see them starting to have impact, but I can also see that, for other strands of public policy, there are different administrative groupings and different agency at play. So, I think it will always be a complex landscape. I think it is our duty as public servants to make that landscape work, and that is what I think you see from all of us today.

I think—and it's one of the things that perhaps hasn't come up—you asked about what my ambition or wish or what I saw the future as being, and I think there's something for me about the way in which the Act impacts at the moment on both the third sector and the private sector, and I think sometimes it's almost been couched in the past as that being potentially negative. I think what I see is the third sector really wanting to embrace this and get involved. It sits incredibly comfortably with most third sector organisations but, increasingly—I've been having my annual meetings with the water companies working in Wales—the private sector I think sees the value of this long-term integrated, collaborative way of working. And I think, for me, there's something that, if we're looking forward for the next five years of the Act, is something potentially really powerful as we look for a green and just recovery in Wales, of the way in which the public sector, working with the private and voluntary sectors, can bring this legislation to life, can bring that vision for an integrated, collaborative, resilient, prosperous Wales to life. So, that, I suppose, is what my aspiration for it would be going forward. 

Thank you very much for that. Tracey.

We're at a bit of a crunch in our period at this point in time, as every nation is. To me, it's not so much about the construct of the architecture; it's more about what we do. So, same for us nationally. What are we spending our time doing? What are PSBs spending their time doing? What are organisations likewise? We've mentioned it a little bit earlier in the evidence. We have significant, as we all know, socioeconomic and health challenges that we're facing into as a result of COVID, and whilst we're looking at the numbers, looking at the cases, looking at the tragic deaths, we're accruing such a lot of harms, and we know the impact of unemployment, the impact that that would have on longstanding illness.

So, I guess my point is how— . There are two things I would want: one of the two or three priorities that every part of the system should be focusing on to change a nation, and how do we and other bodies provide evidence and support to help implement change that will generate the outcomes that we need. And then, obviously, there'll be a number of local contextual outcomes. I do believe there are two or three elements that, as a nation, through the mechanism we have, that we've got to be driving through.

And the second thing is the measurement system that aligns to that because, at the moment, we're all reporting on plans that we do but, actually, if we really want to achieve the at-scale change that we're going to need around employment, around the economy, around well-being, et cetera, then we actually need to make sure that the mechanisms are aligned, accepting this complexity but they need to be made simple so that we can pull the levers and start to see those outcomes happening. I'm not quite sure we've quite got that right at the moment. 

Thank you. Tegryn, did you want to add to that? 

Yes, thank you. In the context of COVID, I think we came to the conclusion that the resilience forums are taking the short term, but long-term recovery was going to be led by the PSBs. When we look around the table, I don't think there is another partnership that has as diverse a representation at senior level of the public services. Therefore, if we truly aspire for a unified, one public service driving change across Wales, then probably you don't need to invent something else, because the PSBs exist. I suppose the responsibility is for all of us to make sure it works. 

Actually, that leads me to another question that I just wanted to quickly ask. The one thing the pandemic has done is it's accelerated in some ways and cut through the red tape, and the, 'Should we, shouldn't we? How do we talk to—?' and got people working together at a great speed. Tracey, we've seen this in health massively so across organisations, whilst keeping good governance. It's enabled people to be much fleeter of foot. And that is, of course, part of the Act, isn't it? It's about that collaboration, that working together, that integration of public services for the greater benefit. Are you relatively confident about the fact that we're going to be able to embed that fleetness of foot and that lightness of spirit, that 'can-do-ism' that we have seen in staggering quantities across Welsh public service, going forward? Or do you feel that once the pressure comes off, then that need to start embracing process again, to start making sure that every 't' is crossed and every 'i' is dotted—? And I don't say that in a 'we're skipping the rules' way, but there's definitely been that lightness of touch in the bureaucracy and the governance that's enabled us to make massive changes in some areas, and it will be a real shame if we lose that. I just wondered how confident you are that we're going to be able to capture that and keep it, and enable that to help us drive forward. Tracey.

That's a really good question. We've all seen it. As you say, there has been rapid change. There has been amazing innovation as well across all sectors, within and between sectors, within and between organisations, and we've also, probably, some of us, seen, when things have calmed a little bit during the summer, a little twinkle of people going back to type, and, of course, the Act is about leadership. It's about behaviours, it's about leadership, and so I'm not 100 per cent assured that there won't be pockets of reverting back. What I think we need to do, whether that's perhaps a role for every PSB, for every organisation—maybe something coming out of the committee—is all public bodies should really be actively asking themselves the question, and particular governing fora where public bodies come together, 'Okay, what do we want to leave behind? What are we not intending to switch play back on pre pandemic, that, actually, you know what, we didn't need, because actually we got stuff done much more quickly without it?' But I think it has to be a deliberate decision, because people's comfort zone is far more likely to be doing what they've been doing for the last 20 years. So, I actually think there has got to be a proactive, deliberate discussion: identify and leave behind and then move forward. I think that will happen naturally for some organisations and some PSBs because it is about relationships, and others would struggle.

Thank you for that. Mark, you wanted to come in, I think.

I hope I'm not just rewording what Tracey has said, but I may be. I think one of the critical things here is the ability to stop doing some things, which then creates the space for the other things in the long term—the prevention, the collaboration and the integration—to happen. If people feel they're going to be expected to do those things, they won't withdraw from them. I think part of that is a bit of pump-priming or catalysing, which creates additional resource and space for things to happen. Some of it's about measuring what's happening best, and then some of it is about accelerating that cycle, so you've got some change, you know what's working, and then you deliberately increase the investment in those areas and replace one thing for another. But what really is at the bottom of that is that it can't be both. Some things have to come back for other things to move forward.

Thank you. One of the pieces of evidence that really stuck in my head from a previous session was somebody said that it's all about new ways of working, not additional ways of working, because it's the addition that drowns us all, isn't it? Clare, did you want to pop in as well?

I'm an optimist by nature, and I think what we have seen is how the public sector, the private and voluntary sectors have responded to an emergency. We are facing a climate and environmental emergency. We now know what emergency response feels like, and we need to hang onto that, and we need to hang onto that agility, that innovation, that sense of having a goal and working towards it. All those things, I think, are possible, and we just need constantly to be reminding ourselves that, actually, this is an opportunity when we can move ahead differently and not go back to some of those processes and things that perhaps we have felt have stopped us from delivering in the past.

And, the last question, really, is how do you think that Welsh Government could position themselves to act as the apex leader, if you like, of this transformational change. Do you think that mechanisms such as the public leaders forum might be a place to do that? But if we only use that, would we be in danger of then excluding the third sector and other NGOs that may not sit on that, because we need them to be part of this landscape as well, don't we?

As part of the public leaders forum, I find that a useful place in which to share ideas with colleagues, and there's a lot of talk about green and just recovery. My chair came and presented to the public leaders forum recently. So, it's getting there, but I think it's using all these different groupings—using the relationship with the private sector, using the relationship with the environmental NGOs and the wider NGO sector through the Wales Council for Voluntary Action and things. So, it's using all those networks and encouraging people to come forward with ideas to help those ideas get off the ground.

I think, at the moment, there's that sort of sense that, almost, the scale of the challenge looks so big, how do you start getting some of these steps towards a green and just recovery to move from ideas to reality? And some of the things that we're doing to test projects out, to develop them further, that can really help people—that sort of concrete work of looking at the future of offices and work and how different organisations might share facilities, offices, share staff and things in future. I think there's a great willingness to engage around that. We, as leaders, need to facilitate that and Welsh Government needs to support, challenge, facilitate and enable that to happen. And I think that last bit around enabling is a really important role for Government. If you're going to get innovation, you need, I suppose, the petri dish to be there, through which these great ideas can grow. So, I think that Government as enabler is what we want to see, going forward.

Thank you. Unless anybody else wants to add anything, Chair, I think my session has finished.

Thank you, Angela. Diolch. I think we're just about at the end of our time, so—

Chair, I did say I wanted to speak earlier.

Sorry, Rhianon. I didn't see that.

No, that's okay. It's really important what's just been stated. I just wanted to take the opportunity, really, to pick up on the organisational capacity issue that I raised earlier in terms of realism of the accumulative hits that are being fired at public bodies and across society as a whole in terms of COVID, EU exit and climate change. I just wanted to say, actually, if the Chair will indulge me, that I just wanted to thank the really strong leaders that we've had speak to us this morning in our sessions, because in terms of that unprecedented challenge, alongside the emerging cultural change and values that you are implementing with the future generations Act, it's never been more important.

But just very quickly, if you don't mind, earlier it was said—and I can't remember by whom—that new cultural change will not happen naturally, swiftly. So, without realignment and restructuring of funding cycles, and bearing in mind the UK's position to Wales here as well and the restructuring of those funding frameworks, do you see that transformational change via the future generations Act will be swift? Who would like to go first? Tracey?

Do you know, I think it has to be. Like many of us in this virtual meeting, we can see how things are panning out in the future. If we were sitting here saying, 'What piece of legislation would really help create a healthier destiny going forward for the current and future generations?' you'd probably knock something together a little bit like the well-being of future generations Act. I think all the conversation about reducing bureaucracy is really key. I think we have to find a way. We've got it, I think it's—. From a legislative perspective—parking that obviously it's about human beings and behaviours and leadership—we have to find a way of exploiting that mechanism, because I think if we don't, it's our own fault, because we have got such a lot of challenges. But for me, this isn't about, as I said earlier, ticking the box against multiple, multiple returns. This is about really galvanising action and using the Act to do that. From a Welsh Government—

On that note, Tracey, I'm sorry to interrupt, but we are completely out of time. We're really up against the buffers. I think you've answered the question there quite adequately. So, can I thank our witnesses for being with us today? I know it's a difficult time, so we do appreciate it when witnesses can attend via Zoom. We'll send you a transcript of today's meeting for you to check before it's finalised. Thank you. 

With that, we move on to item 4, which is one paper to note. You'll recall that I wrote to the then acting chief exec at Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board in November seeking her views on the progress made with regard to the auditor general's recommendations from his two reports—on the asbestos removal programme and arrangements for interim senior staff appointments. We've received a detailed response now, and I believe, Adrian, you're going to be maintaining a watching brief on issues with regard to local audit work. 

Yes, Nick, If I could just briefly cover the two elements of the response. Certainly, on the refurbishment of Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, I think the response there is adequate. But, as you say, we'll keep a watching brief there on the board's governance and overall financial management arrangements as part of the work that we do locally. 

On the interim staff appointments response, I think there are a couple of aspects that could have been a little stronger—for example, a bit more detail on the performance and financial returns delivered where the interim recovery director's work was focused. I think also the committee might want to question further whether the daily rate and the overall cost represented value for money. You'll be aware that our work showed that the rate for the interim recovery director post was higher than most of benchmark comparators used. So, a couple of issues there that the committee might want to press a little harder on: clearer articulation of the impact of the interim director, and a fuller explanation of that assertion around the daily rate being in line with market rates. 

Good. Happy to note the paper? Okay. 

Item 5, then. In accordance with Standing Order 17.42, I resolve that the committee meets in private for item 6 to consider today's evidence.