Equality and Social Justice Committee

Thank you, and thank you for the opportunity to talk to the committee. If I may, Chair, I'd just like to go back to first principles, because, of course, I was the Minister for Environment, Sustainability and Housing in the coalition Government of Labour and Plaid Cymru in the period 2007 to 2011, and it is in that period that we proposed legislation to deliver, where previously we'd had legislation in the original Government of Wales Act 1998 that gave us a duty to promote sustainable development in everything we did. The point about moving from a duty to promote to a duty to deliver is there was actually advice to the civil service that indicated that the duty to promote effectively meant nothing in practice, it didn't change anything, and therefore was actually a contributory factor in terms of people having very different ideas of what sustainable development meant, what it should mean in practice and how it should govern the operation.

But if we go back to the original wording, it was about the duty to promote sustainable development in everything that the new National Assembly for Wales did. So, we all treated it as a constitutional framework. I think that's a point that didn't come up in listening to your contributions last time. A constitution values framework for ensuring that the decisions taken in the new National Assembly for Wales, in its progress into Welsh Government, would deliver for current and future generations according to the Brundtland principle.

So, I think that, in the context of how effective it's been in the 10 years, that principle has been not only strongly recognised across the world because the Act itself, by the very use of the United Nations sustainable development goals, by having Welsh Government accountable to the Act, by having the auditor general auditing the Act, alongside the future generations commissioner, all those aspects have meant that the legislation has been seen to be both the foremost piece of legislation in the world in terms of delivering on sustainable development, and in particular on the sustainable development goals, but also it reflects the learning from the decade previously in terms of what was difficult for the incumbents, both politicians and civil servants, in the delivery of the Act.

So, I think that my initial reflection is that actually the Act is opening up imagination across many, many other countries in the world. It's influencing the UN, and Sophie can say a lot more about that because she was heavily involved.

Okay. We'll come onto that later. What I want to know is whether you think the Act passed in 2015 lacked the teeth that you expected—just being an exhortation as opposed to an obligation.

Of course, yes, I would argue that it's not an exhortation, it has a set of obligations within it that I strongly support: the statutory ways of working, the obligations for all public services including the Welsh Government on the seven goals. And of course the auditor general did also say in his report that this will be really helpful, if properly enacted and delivered—really helpful in terms of organisations in Wales delivering to that.

Personally, I have never advocated for there to be more penalties within the Act because I've always seen it as releasing the imagination, and have always assumed that the penalties would come in other Acts, because I cannot see how, if you have a total constitutional approach in a piece of legislation, which is how we saw this at the time, that actually you could have every penalty within that constitutional approach. They would have to be delivered in appropriate legislation, whether that was environmental, economic, health or otherwise.

Okay. Just turning to Sophie, during your term in office you spent a considerable amount of time supporting the Welsh Government on how to deliver on its own Act. I just wondered whether you want to reflect on how they were cascading out the learning needed by all the other public bodies under the Act.

Yes. I think—and bore da, committee, it's lovely to be back with you—the first thing I want to say is that it's completely unrealistic to think that one piece of legislation in its aspirations, which are as broad as the future generations Act, in a 10-year period—and it’s not actually a 10-year period; it didn't come into force until 2016, with a pandemic and all the rest of it in the middle of it—is going to transform the behaviours of the public sector in Wales, or indeed the public sector and government in any country in the world, in that period. If that were the case, we wouldn't be in 2025, having had an Equal Pay Act in 1970, still talking about unequal pay.

So, I think there's got to be a sense of realism in this, and I think Jane is absolutely right in terms of it providing this kind of constitutional framework and so on, and I think that there's lots that we can be really proud of. I can't envisage some of the policy changes that we have seen during these last nine years or so happening perhaps without the future generations Act. So, the big transformation in transport policy, a UBI pilot, the roll-out of free school meals, and then some of the smaller things that perhaps don't get the same sort of attention that are giving permission to these people you've often heard me describe as the frustrated champions in public bodies to do different things.

So, I think it has set an important framework for people to work within. I think the goals, as a kind of north star by which we dock our policies and our decisions, are critically important, and I think we've seen some fundamental transformations there. Have we done what we need to do? Absolutely not. Is the Government doing enough? No, it's not. And having had a look at the updated plan on the section 20 review that I did, which is looking at the Government's own approach to implementing and driving that within Welsh Government, but also in terms of their leadership role elsewhere, I'd say it's vanilla at best. And I'd also say in terms of budget and Treasury, I think we've made little leaps of progress, but I’m really disappointed, for example, to see that in their recent budget improvement plan they haven't got around to doing the work that they planned to do on prevention. Now, that's not good enough, and they really need to up their game there if they are going to set the framework throughout everything that they do for the rest of the public service to be able to deliver on the aspirations of the Act. There's a real balance, however, between saying, 'There's still lots of work to do', and saying, 'Actually, we have achieved quite a lot'.

I don't know if any of you saw breakfast television, but James Corden was on the television this morning, having come back from Los Angeles, talking about, 'If you could see from afar about the UK, what I see—'. And there are very many imperfect things about the UK, but, actually, when I go to countries across the world who are holding Wales up as an example and are absolutely in awe of (1), the infrastructure that we've got, and (2), some of the policy changes that have come from that, then I think there is a reality check there around the progress that we've made, the reality, and being realistic around how long this is going take to achieve, and really trying to strike that balance.

Okay. Thank you. Julie Morgan, you wanted to come in.

Yes, thank you. Bore da, Sophie. I just wanted to follow up what you said about the UBI and free school meals, in particular. Are you saying that you don't think they would have happened if we hadn't had this Act?

I think it's really difficult to say one way or another, isn't it, because, in complex systems, particularly political systems, things change all the time. What I think the Act has done, however, is given this overarching framework for us to test our decisions against. And we're saying, 'Should we prioritise doing this thing or deprioritise doing those things in line with whether they help or hinder us achieving the well-being goals?' And it's clear to me that free school meals helps us to achieve those well-being goals, focuses on prevention, delivering long-term benefit. Even better, as is happening in some places—Carmarthenshire is a really good example—is where they're actually joining the dots, not just in delivering the free school meals, but actually doing that with local suppliers, looking at the carbon pipeline that comes from those free school meals, and so on. Now, I don't think you would get that if you did not have a future generations Act. But it's almost impossible to say because the politics, the budgetary climate, the framework of legislation, the political will and public pressure—all of those—feed in.

Okay. Sioned Williams.

Thank you. I just wanted to come in quickly there on free school meals, because it's an interesting case, isn't it, because it's one that is quite prominent, in a way. You can see how that can stem, as you've just outlined, from the vision of the Act and how it can go a step further in terms of sustainability. But in terms of that example, it wasn't something that was going to be implemented by the Government if there wasn't a need for an agreement to get a budget through. It was for purely political reasons that that was agreed by the Government. Evidently, it was something that Plaid Cymru wanted to do, but the Government refused to do it until they saw that that was the red line for them to get the majority needed to get the budget through. And we've seen something similar with some of the things that Jane Dodds has agreed on in the last budget. So, the evidence, I would argue, in terms of some of the major things—those very obvious and prominent things—is that they're not being driven by the framework; they're being driven by political expediency. So, would you agree that there hasn't been enough of a cultural shift and that we're still relying too much on politics in this context?

Can I come back in there?

Yes, just briefly, please.

I think Sioned speaks to the point that I made in terms of it being a complex landscape that decisions are taken in. I could also, however, point to the decisions on the M4, on the revised transportation strategy, and some really difficult decisions there that have been politically very difficult to do, but those decisions have been taken in the context of achieving the future generations Act. Also, there's the way in which we could have been quite happy sitting on our laurels about us being the third best in the world in terms of our rates of recycling, but we haven't sat on our laurels there. We're saying, 'Actually, this framework requires us to go beyond recycling and move to a fully circular economy'. So, this is what I come back to: you can't necessarily say it was this one thing or that one thing. Do I think that the future generations Act is an important lever in many of the progressive things that have happened in Wales? Yes, I do.

Thank you. Jane Davidson, briefly, you wanted to come back in.

Yes. Just two points, really. The first one is that the Act contains within it a duty for all organisations, including the Welsh Government, to maximise their contribution to all the goals. One of the things, if you look at a list of areas where the Welsh Government, with input from other parties—as politics is, I think, the reality in this space—is that it shows very clearly a very different agenda to any other part of the United Kingdom, and that's one thing that really helps in advocating for the role of the Act. The Act was supported by the Liberal Democrats, by Plaid Cymru, and there's a lot of shared ideas about what needs to happen, and sometimes one party or other will feel that those are affordable or unaffordable in this space, and politics is really helpful in drawing that through. But when it comes through in the spirit of the Act, it's actually, I think, also partly the success of the Act as well as the politics, and that's something about the politics of Wales.

Okay. Thank you. I want us to move on now. Julie Morgan.

Thank you very much. I wanted to ask about developments elsewhere, which we've already touched on a bit, and I wondered what particular elements of the Act have you been proud of promoting? Which are those bits that you think have particularly struck a chord with the different countries that you've had dealings with? I don't know who will start with that. Sophie.

Yes, I can pick up on that. Well, I have to say I'm incredibly proud of the Act in Wales and, just going back to what I said earlier, many countries are in awe of what we've done and some of the policy choices and different decision-making frameworks that are coming from that. I suppose the biggest win, if you like, is that, last year, the United Nations passed the world's first declaration on future generations. Adam Day, who was the senior adviser to the United Nations Secretary General back during my term as commissioner, who we engaged with then, says very clearly that when he built into the secretary general's commitments through his manifesto, if you like—it's called 'Our Common Agenda'—that they will seek to pass a future generations declaration and appoint a special envoy, that was because—he uses the words—he basically pinched the Welsh ideas and put it in that document. So, Wales, as a nation of just over 3 million people who's not even a member state of the UN in its own right, is influencing global policy on that scale. I think we can be incredibly proud.

I just want to give you a flavour of some of the other things, because the UN declaration is up there—it really only matters in terms of how that's changing the decisions that are taken in the multilateral system, but, more importantly, how that is influencing what's happening in member states. So, starting, I suppose, with the next layer down, the European Union, Ursula von der Leyen, from a centre-right party, has just been appointed the first intergenerational fairness commissioner for the EU, again drawing on the Welsh example, and are just in the process of producing their first intergenerational fairness strategy. There has been legislation in the Australian federal Parliament. The Kenyan senate are developing a committee for the future, drawing on some of the examples from Wales. Cameroon has become the first state to introduce the first indigenous populations commissioner—

Sophie, I—

I could go on and on.

No, don't. Why don't you focus a little closer to home about what's going on in Scotland and England.

Well, in Scotland, there's an interesting—. I don't know if I'd call it a race; it's a very slow race, between a Labour MSP and the Scottish Government, who have a commitment to have a sustainable development Act, and the Labour MSP has a similar Bill, but which is probably a bit more progressive. So, that is happening. Whether either of those come to fruition before the election, I think the jury's still out on that. There's been a Bill in the Irish Parliament. In the UK, I've just started re-engaging with a number of MPs who are interested in the scope of this, or the possibility of this, in terms of providing almost like a protective framework, if you like, to less progressive, populist politics, and I think there could be some interesting developments emerging there. It's very early days, but there we are. And then Norway, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Greece—discussions going on there around potential future generations Acts too.

Thanks very much for that. If I could ask Jane—. Do you want to come in on that, Jane?

Yes, because I think there are two key issues here. Sophie and I are in huge demand. I'm not sure the committee members realise. I'm doing at least three events a week from my little attic in which you see me now, and have been since my book came out in 2020, to countries, to policy makers, to Prime Minister's offices, around the well-being of future generations Act. The UK Government Foreign Office says that it is the biggest soft power that Wales has ever had, and it is regularly asked about, the well-being of future generations Act, I think somewhat to its irritation, because it can't say that it's doing that in England. But it does say, actually, as Sophie has outlined, that other parts of the UK are looking at it. I've worked very closely with the social change initiative in Northern Ireland on this as well.

I think the second point about it is that there is an immense pride among people who know about it that Wales has been ready to do this. But there is also the other side of that coin, in that there are many, many, many people in Wales who still don't even know that they have the legislation. So, when people know about it, they really like it. So, there's something very big about making this a major Welsh project, so people know they can slap it down virtually in front of MSs, civil servants, or local government and other officials to say, 'This is what needs to be done in the spirit of the Act', to make that much more a national conversation.

Thank you. And what about the UK? I know that there was a Bill proposed in the House of Lords, but that hasn't progressed any further, and I think you do comment about the Bill in your book. I don't know, do you have any information about what's happening in the UK and how the proposed Bill there was going to be different in any way from what we're doing here, and are there any prospects of this new Government bringing in any such legislation?

Jane.

Jane.

Well, once again, very quickly, there have been a number of presentations. Sophie has been more involved in that Bill. But, in terms of the dialogue with Parliament, there have been a number of requests for presentations, and there is an all-party group on future generations. I think one of the biggest, actually, wins that has come through the School of International Futures has been working with the Liaison Committee—the scrutiny committee that oversees the work of all the parliamentary committees—which has now put foresight and future generations into its term of reference. So, I think there are different ways of doing it, because there is always, otherwise, going to be debate about who is the commissioner of commissioners and those sorts of issues. But bringing the spirit of working within the bringing future generations and current generations together, I think, is really important, and is consistently and continuously being developed.

Okay. Sophie, I'm sure you want to comment too, and then we need to move on as to how well we're implementing this in Wales.

Sorry, comment on that, or on the—

Yes, if you need to—I'm just giving you the opportunity before we move on.

Right. Yes, it was just to say, as Jane said, the Liaison Committee of the House of Commons has made this part of the terms of reference and said that the House of Commons in the UK should be looking to what we did in Wales. There are discussions going on at Prime Minister's office around a long-term strategy for the UK, and there is this emerging interest in picking up Lord John Bird's Bill again amongst a number of cross-party MPs. So, I think, Julie, there's probably nothing solid to report at the moment, but a bit of 'watch this space'.

Thank you.

Thank you. Jane Dodds.

Thank you very much. Just to begin my very short section, relating to implementing the Bill, I just want to ask both of you, if that's okay, just to think about one sentence that you could use for the public to explain to them exactly what the Act means for them. I'll come back to that question, if that's okay, at the end of my section. So, just one sentence—and I ask this to everyone; everyone who comes to this committee, I ask them the same question. Right, thank you very much.

I'll just move on to the implementation of the Bill. I want to concentrate on this, because you've mentioned and you've touched on the fact that there are countries all across the world who have an interest in this Act, but we want to see, don't we, how it works, how it's implemented and what impact this has on individuals and communities here in Wales. So, could you just tell us a little bit more in your view about what the impact has been, especially the balance between the people who are responsible for ensuring that there are outcomes for citizens achieved and then what has been implemented up to now? And Sophie, it would be great to hear from you in particular about your time in the role. Thank you very much. Perhaps, Jane, you could go first, just on the framework question—so, the implementation of the Act.

Jane.

Thank you. Because I'm not a public body, I'm just a person who's more public than I expected to be at this point in my life, I'd just really like to pick up the areas that I think need some intervention. I think that the goals are very well described—the sustainable development goals. So, there's a really solid frame of reference in the context of those. I think that there does need to be some real work on the five ways of working. They are statutory, organisations are required to show that they are delivering on them, but my experience, in hearing both from the auditor general and from the current future generations commissioner, is that they are more recognised in terms of how organisations set their well-being goals rather than as overarching ways of working, common ways of working, as Peter Davies described them, which should be influencing everything that happens in every organisation. And that's what we mean when we're talking about the idea that this is a constitutional values framework, rather than a piece of legislation that should be competing with other pieces of legislation around meaning.

Sophie has already referred to the fact that there are two pieces of legislation that use different definitions of 'well-being', for example: one in relation to social care in terms of the regional partnership boards, and this one in terms of the public services boards. So, I think that the committee could do a really, really important job in unpacking those sorts of elements, just to make sure that the intention of the Act is carried through in its major delivery mechanisms.

The reason that I think that the ways of working are so important is that you could define 'prevention' in a number of ways, and it may need to be defined in a number of ways, but people should not be able to choose any definition of 'prevention', any definition of 'long term', any definition of 'integration'. So, I think there's something really helpful that the committee could do in terms of looking, in particular, at what the question of involvement and collaboration look like. Now, the auditor general has been very clear about this in his report, but the involvement issue is absolutely key. I mean, if we go back to 'The Wales We Want' discussions in 2014, a lot of members of the public felt alienated from politics in Wales, both at the UK level and at the Welsh level. Yet Wales is a small country, has the biggest opportunity, particularly in the mainland UK, of creating involvement mechanisms that can engage regularly with the public to build trust. And I think there's a very good example from Audrey Tang in Taiwan, promoted by the national citizenship project, where her book Plurality tells the story of how, initially an adviser and then a Minister, she was able through digital engagement to engage right across the population and build the trust in Government dramatically as a result, because it was real kinds of involvement.

Thank you. Sophie.

Perhaps I can answer this question, because I think this is what it comes back to, through the lens of what my daughter, who's just turned 11, or anyone's child, might be experiencing. So, we have a long way to go, but just giving you a flavour of some of the things that have changed. So, when she walks outside our house within, hopefully, the next year, when the work is completed, she will be walking along nature corridors, which are about to be installed through sustainable urban drainage. She'll be going to school with a revised curriculum, which is built around the future generations Act, and which does things that many curriculums across the world don't do: focuses on future skills, softer skills, focuses on placing health, physical and mental health, as a core part of the curriculum, and focuses on creating ethical and informed global citizens. She will be learning about black history as part of that curriculum. She might be, as they're doing in Monmouthshire, looking at a chickpea curry, which is all based on learning around deforestation and around being globally responsible. When she's older, she might be able to take part or achieve one of the jobs with some of our renewable energy providers who are basing their whole skills framework and approach to procurement around the future generations Act and the green job creation there, or she might be able to go to cyber security college in Ebbw Vale. When she needs to—. She may not need to buy fast fashion, because she might be able to get that repaired at the local repair cafe that's just opened up in my area as well. And hopefully, she will be able to continue walking and cycling, because her school street has been closed off to traffic, and because it's safer for her to do so in 20 mph zones.

Now, all of those things—. And I suppose I'm really trying to bring this back to your first question that you ask everyone, Jane: what is it that we're trying to do here? We're trying to make sure that Wales is better for your children and your grandchildren. So, all of those things stem from policies and new strategies that have been implemented, where the future generations Act has provided that framework. You know, again, I go back to the point that we can't necessarily say, because we had a future generations Act here, this thing automatically followed. But I think it does create a framework where those things are allowed to flourish.

Are things in some areas still really bad for kids in Wales? Yes, they are. We haven't nailed air pollution, but we have a plan for doing that, and those transport strategies are part of doing that. We still have challenges in terms of particularly this generation of our young people coming into the workforce and so on, making sure that they are well equipped for skills for the future. We still have massive challenges in terms of child poverty, and things like have happened—again, utilising the future generations Act—in Swansea bay health board, where there was reuse of hospital beds for kids living in bed poverty, that's not going to solve poverty for kids in Wales, but it might make things a little bit better.

I suppose what I'm saying is there are a number of things that are happening as a result of this future generations Act, and the politics and the framework and the ways that we believe in doing things in Wales, which are taking us on what, I would say, is the right trajectory, but we still have a lot of work to do, and there is a time period—. If I just give you an example on that time period, when we stop building roads in—. I'm paraphrasing. When we stop building roads, we drastically reduce the amount of money that we're spending on building roads and put that into public transport, because there's been a huge underinvestment in public transport infrastructure in Wales.

What we've just seen in this last quarter is Transport for Wales now having the fastest increase in passenger numbers of any transport body across the UK. Now, that hasn't happened overnight, and it's happened with a lot of pain. I still sat on a train on the weekend and was utterly frustrated by it. But we are on a journey here, we've got to hold our nerve, and I think the future generations Act is a really key part of that vision or of that destination that we're trying to reach.

Thank you very much. Could I just focus now on the Government here in Wales, please? In your experience, or in your view, do you think that this Government in Wales has been successful in leading on this Act? You mentioned countries across the world. Do they see good practice in the Government here in Wales? What kind of changes, in your experience or your view, will be needed in the Government to ensure that we take action on the Act and issues within the Act, please? Could I ask Sophie to answer, first of all, from your experience, if you don't mind going first? Thank you.

Briefly, please, because we're in danger of running out of time.

Absolutely. So, I think that there's something here, isn't there, between the framework and the infrastructure, the legal infrastructure of the Act, the machinery of Government, the processes, the decision-making frameworks and so on, and then people, people who are in our public services. I have seen and continue to see a clear link between the people, these frustrated champions—champions, as I call them—who are using the future generations Act to challenge and to positively disrupt systems that don't work. We can see some brilliant examples across the board of that.

I still think that there are particular challenges in terms of some of the process and machinery, I will call it, of Government. So, I gave that example in terms of Treasury and in terms of the budget improvement plan—not good enough that, nine years on, we're still not doing better on prevention and that you dropped that from your budget improvement plan last year.

The section 20 review that I did, looking at the way in which Welsh Government was seeking to implement this—I'm quite disappointed by the most recent update in terms of what has happened as a result of that. I'll give credit in terms of changes to some of the training programmes, greater support amongst Welsh Government for understanding obligations under the future generations Act. But, nine years on, come on, guys, we'd expect a bit better than that.

The other thing that I want to say is that I see the Government's role, or primary role, as twofold: (1) showing real leadership—so, practising what it preaches. And it's preached the legislation, it's passed the legislation, so, in absolutely everything that it does, it should be communicating through the lens of the well-being goals, the five ways of working and so on. They need to stop reinventing the wheel, calling things slightly different things, because that confuses the system. And the thing they most need to stop doing is adding layers of complexity to an already complex system. Public services boards are a prime example of this. They have not been supported to succeed. I think there have been successes in terms of bringing them together, better collaboration, better understanding of the different issues that wasn't there before. But when you're a beleaguered public servant who's trying to manage more demand with limited resources and so on, you follow a line of least resistance and go to the places where it's clearer what your obligations are and where the money is, quite frankly. So, the introduction of corporate joint committees and regional partnership boards, where those things happen, have dissipated, I think, the ability of public services boards to do the more holistic work that they need to do in terms of joining the dots, and that is on Government.

Government were told this by me. They've been told this by Derek Walker. What Government, if they're serious about this, need to say is, 'We're going to invest in the long term in making this infrastructure work, because it is the right infrastructure if we do that. That will take time, that will take a lot of commitment, that will take us going beyond just having a point of contact in those PSBs to giving someone in the Welsh Government the power to come and shake up the system where it’s interfering with PSBs doing good stuff, or where it needs to get out of the way of PSBs doing good stuff, or where it needs to resource and help PSBs doing good stuff. And I haven’t seen that yet. They’re doing the simple thing where, if they’ve got a problem, they set up another complex layer and that actually only adds to the problems.

Thank you. And Jane, just briefly, please, if you have anything to say on that.

I think what I’d like to do is just make a comparison with the education system, because I was the education Minister who introduced both the pilot of the baccalaureate and also the pilot about the foundation phase. And now, we see both of those incorporated—and I’m really delighted, by the way—in the statutory new system in 2022. One of the big moves in that, of course, was a move from subjects to areas of learning, and I think that what we think about in the context of Government is that one of the big criticisms of all Governments everywhere is that they are siloed. In the work that we did on Wales Net Zero 2035, it was absolutely clear that 90 per cent of our respondents believed that the Government operated in siloes; Ministers only operate in their own areas. In fact, what this whole agenda requires is a systemic approach to delivery—an area of learning approach, rather than a subject approach.

So, it’s about how this is a mindset change, a behaviour change and also a brave reallocation of responsibilities, making sure that there are collaborative ways in which those responsibilities can interact to deliver the greatest number of co-benefits. And I think that that has been one of the big challenges for the Welsh Government. They are still using very linear ways of delivery and old-fashioned ways of delivery in a world where content is easy to acquire, but the frame in which we make decisions is actually open now to what are the best delivery mechanisms in any particular country. There's a huge opportunity for them to make that change, particularly with an election coming up.

Thank you very much. And then, could I just finish, Chair, by going back to that question that I asked you about that sentence? Sophie, you—

I think Sophie's already given you hers, so can we hear from Jane?

Yes. Sophie has said hers. Jane, could I just ask you for that sentence, please?

I always use John Rawls from his 'A Theory of Justice':

'Do unto future generations what you would have had past generations do unto you.'

Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Can I call Sioned Williams now?

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to just pick up a point with Jane Davidson there. You touched upon the importance of not working in silos and collaborating between departments. So, could you give us an example of how effectively the Act has been integrated across the wider legislative and policy landscape? Could you give us specific examples of where this has been done successfully and where it's been unsuccessful?

As I say, because I'm here as an individual and I haven't done any systemic work as I would have done previously into that, I'm cautious about naming good practice. But I think that if you read Sophie's reports and the future generations commissioner's reports and the auditor general's reports, you see many examples of good practice. One of the best resources for people coming into this space from other countries is to use the future generations commissioner's website, in the context of resource.

But the fundamental proposition is that, if you're going to take a systemic approach to something, then you're always looking for co-benefits. And by doing the Wales Net Zero work in the way we did, by creating critical pathways that show you how to deliver an outcome, rather than recommendations where Government then has to work out how to deliver an outcome, by deliberately sitting down with experts across the world, testing them on people as well, in terms of how you deliver an outcome, over what kind of timeline, and who has to get involved in making those decisions, you can immediately see it's never one Minister.

Often individual Ministers will tell you, privately if not publicly, that it's really hard when they want to do something that has an effect on all sorts of other ministries, and then it gets bogged down completely in how you have the decision-making process to get an outcome that is beneficial to all. So, I think there's a real opportunity, even if you keep individual ministries, to then also have a pre-Cabinet-type approach, when all those collaborative approaches are worked through, so what goes to Cabinet is one proposition, which might be for six Ministers. We have to find ways of making the system thinking lean.

Is there any way that we should do that through regulation or by changing the Act, for example?

There is a complete control in the First Minister for how they set those arrangements up. So, in essence, you could have a think in the committee about how you might want to see a future First Minister set such arrangements in place. And I'm sure that, in the period of time before you finally deliver your verdict, those of us who are interested in this could find you some very good examples, maybe not in Government but in organisations, where it's the values framework that leads, the systems framework that drives and it's outcome focused. That's exactly what the auditor general says needs to happen.

Thank you. Sophie, of course, you'll be aware, and you have written about some of the specific examples. Could you just give us some of those examples now—specific examples where there has been interaction and collaboration across legislation and policy, and also examples of where that's been unsuccessful?

I'll talk mostly about my experience as commissioner. What we found is that, in many cases, it did require some level of intervention from a commissioner to facilitate better long-term joined-up Government. You will have heard me in previous committees talk about making connections between the 20,000 affordable homes that we're going to build and the fact that we didn't have a green skills plan at the time, so how are we going to build those affordable low-carbon homes without the skills pipeline and so on.

We have seen movement on some of those things. We do now have a green skills plan, for example. I think things like the transport strategy, which was originally going in one direction, and then there was that challenge and now the whole transport strategy is built around delivering the multiple co-benefits through the future generations Act, is another good example of that, but didn't come initially just on its own.

There are, however, some really good examples where things have come on their own, and I think the 'Beyond Recycling' strategy is a good example of that. But you might argue that that part of Government was already in a progressive zone, if you like, and they were able to shift to this not just delivering recycling or a zero-waste nation by 2050, but doing that whilst also trying to deliver these multiple other co-benefits.

So, there are some good examples there, but I still think there's this challenge in the machinery of Government in terms of how this happens in a really systematic way. That's exactly why I did the section 20 review. I'm slightly nervous about asking my successor to do things, or a Senedd committee—who am I to do that? But if there was one thing that you could both do, I think it would be to go back to that section 20 review on Government, because I really explored in depth there what needed to happen in this, what wasn't happening and what needed to happen in this system, and I'm not sure that there's been adequate follow-up on that, because we're still feeling those problems.

There were some really targeted recommendations there, and when I've read through, as I said, their latest report on that, I'm feeling a bit meh about it. So I think don't reinvent the wheel and do a whole new review on that. The answers are done. I would have Government in regularly, asking them how they are actually implementing those recommendations, really getting into the minutiae of what is happening in the system. Because when you go into the minutiae, you might see that ministerial submissions still have a reference to, 'We've considered the future generations Act’ and ticked a box and missed the point. And that, I think, is the kind of layer that the Senedd, its Members and indeed the current commissioner need to get into.

Thank you. I was going to ask a question about that, because what you're suggesting there is that this approach, with the great many strategic boards, as you've mentioned, the complex network, does undermine the implementation, doesn't it? And you've suggested a way ahead. But how can we ensure through this Act that that does happen? That is, we can scrutinise Ministers and the commissioner can point these things out, but again, we come back to that point about teeth. Do you have any ideas about how we can ensure that this happens?

I think on that aspect it's really difficult, because we're not talking, are we, about—. You know, the legislative framework is there, isn't it? It's how it's enacted. It's the day-to-day interaction of the civil servants and Ministers and departments and so on. So the only thing, really, that I can suggest is just—and I know you do this—to be really robust on exploring—. In this collection of decisions, maybe you randomly pull them in: ‘We want the real minute detail of what was the policy-making process on this, how were different ministries involved, how were people involved in doing that’. I flushed a lot of this out in the section 20 review. That wasn't particularly easy, and there was some resistance to doing that. Ultimately, we did come up with a kind of joint action plan. But I think really opening, getting beneath a layer here of just answers that are given at committees; I think you perhaps need to go really much deeper into that, if you can find a way of doing that.

I was going to ask Jane about your opinion about the strategic boards.

At the risk of labouring the point again, I see this as a constitutional framework, I don't see it as a law with the individual penalties in it. But I do think the section 20 reviews are underutilised. Sophie’s been very clear about underutilisation of the very important one that she did in that context. But I think that they need to be built regularly into the process.

The commissioner is a seven-year role; I could see, for example, the committee might be interested in saying there should be four section 20 reviews in that period of seven years, so they're carried out over a period of 18 months, they do different kinds of organisations, but therefore the messages from them apply to a very large number. And so literally, over one or perhaps even two commissioners, you can actually intervene on the key issues systemically for all the public sector in Wales that is answerable to the legislation, so it becomes a real opportunity.

There do need to also be occasions where there can be almost an emergency section 20 review. If you've done your bit of testing and challenging, and an organisation is really not going to play ball, then they need to be threatened that a section 20 review will expose that, and they will have to react to that publicly. But we hope there'll be fewer and fewer over time, whereas the planned ones, I think, are a real opportunity for learning to be done as a co-production between both the auditor general and the future generations commissioner.

Sophie, you wanted to come back in.

Diolch. Just to add I agree with Jane there. I suppose the approach that I took always was to offer advice and support first. Sometimes, departments or organisations would take up that advice. Sometimes, they'd say they were taking up that advice, but they were really just pretending to do that, and other times they would refuse it. But always to make that offer first, then to see how that advice had been taken on board and what was actually happening. And then there were a number of occasions where if things weren't moving in the right direction, I threatened the use of section 20 review powers. It's not a huge threat, but then nobody really wants to go through the process of it and potentially be named and shamed for not doing what they should be doing. That was actually quite effective in a number of areas. So, the transport interventions, for example, that was a threat that I used, and then we saw the Government respond in a different way, and actually the outcomes were really good.

The final thing I wanted to say about section 20 reviews is that they are expensive. The commissioner has had his budget cut, and that's a problem. At one point, I was in an argument with the Government about having to go and ask them for money to undertake section 20 reviews, which is clearly absolutely bonkers. And I would support Derek, the current commissioner, in saying that maybe we need to look at resourcing directly from the Senedd rather than from the Government, and the extent to which the commissioner and members of committees of the Senedd could work in synchronisation, then, to undertake some of these reviews, using the different powers, capabilities and resources that you both have.

Thank you. Sioned, I think we need to move on now, so I want to call in Altaf Hussain.

Thank you, Chair. Right, my question is on monitoring and enforcement. What are your views on the provisions in the Act relating to monitoring and performance, in particular national indicators? And I know, Jane Davidson, in your book you say that embedding the sustainable development principle is not just about changing the culture of Government, it's also about ensuring that all the monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are also changed to become the foundation of the new approach. How successful have the Welsh Government and other public bodies been in achieving this, and what further action is needed?

Jane, we'll start with you.

Thank you. Thank you for the question. Yes, I think we've picked up on some aspects of those in terms of talking about the section 20 reviews, for example. When, of course, the mechanisms were put in place in the Act, they'd never been tried before because the Act had never been tried before. So, this is a good opportunity to review what is fit for the purpose. I've always had a problem with the notion of the national indicators. As a Minister, I remember having these little booklets published every year, and it used to enrage me that a number of the indicators were not relevant to Wales. We didn't even have the species in Wales that were being counted as indicators, for example.

And I think that you have to, in a system that is actually about driving change for current and future generations, do something more dynamic that is outcome led. So, it may be that there is a small number of indicators, but they are capable of change as they need to change, rather than setting indicators, as it were, in stone, and having many years' arguments about what those indicators should be, which has been the history of that.

I think that if we do get definitions around the five ways of working, so that people are more comfortable understanding what's expected of them in that space, and we have the training opportunity of funded section 20 reviews, you start to create a simpler but more effective system, building on what we know, not least through Sophie's work, works. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you very much. I'll go to Sophie. How effective are section 20 reviews? I liked when Jane said they were underutilised. Based on your experience, do you believe there is scope to strengthen these powers, either through legislation or through guidance, and what specific options could be considered?

So, I've talked a little bit about the section 20—. I did two during my term on a procurement, which most of the recommendations on procurement were then taken forward in the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023. There's a lag, if you like, there, because, okay, those recommendations were enacted, but we want to see what's actually happening now on the ground. Does that transform things? And I'm not sure that we've got that evidence yet, because the Act has not long come in. So, again, I would say that, there, putting in place the review led to putting in place new mechanisms that were addressing some of the issues that I was raising, and we would hope that those new mechanisms are now going to lead to change.

I think in terms of—. There are a couple of factors I think that are really important from my perspective in terms of section 20 reviews. I think they do give the ability to the commissioner, which might not always be in the gift or the time limitations of a Senedd committee, for example, to really get underneath the skin of things. So, I was asking to see ministerial submissions and the intricacies of the decision-making framework and policy-making tools that Welsh Government were using and so on, and so on. Those things, I think, are really, really important. This is where I say that there might be some interesting things in terms of this kind of twin-track approach between the commissioner working very closely with Senedd committees on those sorts of reviews or inquiries. They cost money. There is something—.

I think one thing that I would be interested in, and I'm slightly, again, nervous about saying this, because I haven't given it a huge amount of thought, but my gut says that some sort of requirement around a follow-up of those reviews could be really useful. Because we all know many reviews are published, aren't they, and they become a document and people, or Government, responds to them and says we accept or reject recommendations and so on and so on, and then they kind of get forgotten. I feel a bit, with the section 20 review that I did into Government—. And I'll hold my hands up here in terms of timing—it was in the latter part of my term. Had I had a longer amount of time, I would've definitely been following that up. But I suppose my question is: what happens to that review? Because the work has been done. I know there are regular fairly low-level meetings between the commissioner's office and officials in Welsh Government, but I'm not feeling that it's really being robustly actioned and monitored. Maybe there's something around a requirement to do that. So, the commissioner has a requirement to do that and the Government knows that, in two or three years' time, there's going to be another spotlight on, okay, what actually happened as a result of that? But I do think they're a useful tool, but there's probably a bit more building that we need to do.

Thank you very much. Now, one of the biggest criticisms of the Act is a perceived lack of enforcement mechanisms. What are your views on this, and how can the balance be struck between encouraging public bodies to implement the Act whilst holding them to account?

Shall we start with Jane and come back to you, Sophie?

Yes, sure.

Personally, my view is, as I said at the outset, that if you think about the breadth of the Act, then you could not possibly have enough enforcement mechanisms in terms of literally every single area of responsibility of whoever and whichever party is going to be in Government in Wales. So, you'd almost end up with a situation where people are always going to want to add new enforcement mechanisms for the thing that they were most interested in. That's something that came through very much in the net-zero work, and is part of the reason that the new future generations commissioner is doing some specific work on food, because there hasn't been an overarching public agenda around food in Wales. So, you can imagine that it would always be the Act that people wanted to add some kind of enforcement mechanism into, which would potentially remove its absolute foundation, which is the constitutional foundation of being the way of working in Wales that is as a result of the Welsh devolution project. It was the original proposal to put sustainable development into only the Welsh devolution agreement in the first Government of Wales Act. It was an agreement between Plaid Cymru and Labour in Parliament to make the proposal of the duty to promote sustainable development in everything that the National Assembly did, and the duty to deliver is using the same sort of constitutional framework.

So, I see, as in the discussion we've just had, the section 20 reviews as being very important, definitions being absolutely clear, and not having a set of committee, what has been described to me as 'messes' at the moment in terms of the interrelationship between a range of committees that have different powers and different functions in terms of influencing the Act. So, there's some very easy tidying that can be done that will actually preserve the Act more effectively as the constitutional framework, whereby we all sign up to the idea that we look after both current and future generations in everything that we do.

Thank you very much. And before coming to the last question, how will the enforcement and compliance be considered during the development of the Act, Jane?

Well, I think Jane has probably answered that already. Let's ask that question of Sophie.

So, specifically, Altaf, on that question, in terms of the development of the Act—and obviously, this was before I was commissioner—actually, I think it was the Senedd that added in the section 20 review powers and the powers around monitoring and assessing, which I think was a good addition, and possibly they could go further. In fact, we provided some advice to Lord John Bird in the development of his legislation at a UK level, where we suggested adding in an additional power around making an application to the court. So, if the commissioner had undertaken a review or an investigation and issued recommendations, which the public body was then not complying with, then the court could make an order for that public body to comply.

So, I think that would be a useful addition. Is that a panacea? Absolutely not, because I do go back to what Jane said, which I think is critically important: this is a framework for ways of being, doing and behaving, if you like, and enforcement mechanisms tend to be on very specific, often black or white things. So, taking that example of the section 20 review, would I take the Government to court to say, 'You need to revise the way that you do your policy-making assessment to better embed holistically the goals in the future generations Act and the ways of working'? Well, possibly, but that doesn't stop them, then, just still ticking the box in a more effective way and still missing the point.

So, those enforcement powers don't necessarily get to this cultural behavioural shift and ways of being and doing and thinking that the Act is really designed to achieve, and I think that if I had to leave you with one thing, it would be that we have to hold our nerve on this development of this cultural change around the Act. We have to try and get into the weeds of some of the irritations, the blockers, those sorts of things that perhaps aren't working. But we also can't over-process it, because that would, I think, defeat the whole purpose of it.

My last—

I think we've got to move on, really, because otherwise we're not going to get to the last section.

That's fine.

So, Sioned Williams.

Thank you, Chair. We've mentioned a little, and both of you have mentioned already, haven't you, about looking again at the vision and the general purpose that are represented by the national aims. Are there any specific aims that need to be reconsidered? You've mentioned, Sophie, the resilient Wales goal, for example, haven't you?

Do you want me to pick up on that? So, I think, initially, I did talk quite a lot around some challenges with the 'a resilient Wales' goal in terms of levels of understanding. I can remember in one of my first meetings with the First Minister during my term coming in to the Welsh Government offices in Cathays Park, seeing posters of all the goals, and the 'a resilient Wales' goals had pictures of firefighters and police officers. It was talking about that sort of resilience. And there is the challenge, isn't it, in a way? Have we moved on from that? I think that we probably have. I think that there is a better understanding now, and that 'resilient' word, now, is probably more understood, that actually we're talking about ecological resilience, not other types of resilience.

In a way, whichever word you pick, there are always challenges around levels of understanding. So, I don't think that the issue is around changing the words or the goals, if you like, I think that the issue is around the constant reinforcement: leadership from Ministers; building in to everything that the Government does, from its new strategy on x, y and z, how is that framed around delivering the goal of a prosperous Wales and what that actually means, how is that framed around delivering the goal of a resilient Wales and what that actually means, and so on; and, again, in terms of the decisions that are coming out in terms of budget and so on. I think that, if we continue to reinforce that, that is the best mechanism for bringing clarity, alongside dealing with the complex landscape and certainly not adding to it. I think that that would be most effective, rather than tweaking the words of the legislation, if you like.

Do you agree with that, Jane?

I absolutely agree about not tweaking the legislation on the face of the Act, but there are all sorts of Acts in our lives where we never use the language of the Act. Just a couple of words to give an example. Words like 'cohesive' and 'communities' are great, but actually if we called them 'strong communities', people would understand that more. Resilience is great, but if we called it 'the nature goal'—. So, I think that there is something about, while the Act remains as it is, we do need words that are common parlance with the people of Wales to describe the goals, because otherwise language is one of those things that absolutely separates people. It's a classic technocratic view of the world, to use legislative terms that then don't mean something to people in their lives, or immediately separate you because you're speaking in restricted codes. So, I think that there is something quite exciting—I've often thought that I'd like to get the young people of Wales to actually look and find words that would appeal to them and then for those to be adopted, as it were, in terms of describing what the goals do, whereas in law, what all of the organisations have to do is clearly spelled out on the face of the Act.

How do you suggest that the Welsh Government and other public bodies prepare for updates to the UN sustainable development goals in 2030? Do you think that there would be a need to make any changes to the Act in terms of preparing for that?

I think that we are ahead of the game on the direction of travel towards 2030. The criticisms of the SDGs are that there are too many, they operate in silos and they don't make the connections between each of them, and there are many reasons why they're not being delivered. They also miss culture, actually. There's no reference to culture, heritage, language and so on, which we do in Wales. So, I think, and there's a lot of interest around this internationally, that the way in which we took those 17 SDGs, we had them there but started the conversations at a local level—what is it that's important to you; what is the Wales that you want to leave behind to your children, your grandchildren and future generations to come; what does that look and feel like in Wales, iterated through seven well-being goals, critically with the five ways of working attached to that, so 'this is how you deliver or you get towards delivering that'. I think that that's something that—. I'll just park the multilateral crisis that we're in at the moment and the difficulties that the UN are having in doing anything, but I think that, if they were able to do anything and move, I think that it would actually be towards the direction that we've already set in Wales: smaller in number, more focused on delivery, more focused on joining the dots and picking up some of the things that are, perhaps, absent from them. So, if I was a Welsh politician, I would be saying, and I do say this, 'Look at Wales. We have part of the solution for what the rest of the world should be doing.'

I think, Sioned, the key thing here is I know you've looked at alternatives, but there's nothing similar to what we've done in Wales, because we have the durability of the law and then the commissioner is consequent on the law, whereas in other initiatives there have been commissioners without actually having a law that guides other organisations, including Government, in a country.

We know from dialogue with the general secretary's office in the UN and others that part of the reason that people keep looking to Wales is because we've made this intelligible through this Act. People can see seven goals linked to the 17 SDGs. They can see five ways of working, which, as Peter Davies points out in his evidence, are absolutely critical for any organisation that is delivering for current and future generations.

It enables Wales to stay a front runner if part of the work that you and others do through the committee and the response to the committee from Government ends up being tweaking the things that are not working so well, and celebrating the things that have given us the greatest soft power we've ever had. That is an extraordinary situation for us at the moment.

Is it all right if we extend this by five minutes? I know Jane wants to come in, and I also have a question. Jane.

Just succinctly, please. What other areas should we look at, in particular in this committee, and what else would you like to see in the Act, just to ensure that we implement what you've been working on? So, just two very short questions there, please. Thank you. Who would like to go first? Sophie, would you like to go first? What else, who else, and what, in addition to the Act, would help to strengthen what we want to implement?

I'm increasingly liking this idea of this parallel working between commissioner and Senedd committees in terms of deep investigations. Do you need to amend the legislation to do that? No, probably not. It's, I suppose, a procedural thing, or perhaps a new way of working. But I think it's different to getting the commissioner to come along and give evidence to a Senedd committee. It's a much deeper sense of collaborative working, which would have to be thrashed through.

I think, potentially, the addition of an application to the court, in terms of compliance, could be an interesting thing to see how that played out. But as I said, it's definitely not a panacea. And then something around the follow-up of reviews, perhaps something on does that happen in two years' time, and what does that look like, so that they don't just sit on the shelf.

I personally think that anything that is a critical analysis that can help others is important. So, I'm really interested in building section 20 reviews into the process and the expectation of both the commissioner and the auditor general. Oddly enough, what we've not talked about at all is young people, and I'm not going to start this a minute before the end, but I think that there needs to be some real thought. Of course, you've got opportunities of engagement with a range of young people's organisations, not least the Youth Parliament, to think about how more to involve young people in thinking for the future. Those who've read my book will see that young people's contributions have been fantastic. Sophie wrote the foreword to that.

On the definition on the five ways of working, particularly around involvement, it might be useful to collect evidence from the national citizenship project. So, looking at what some regular, long-term involvement mechanism could look like, for example, rather than ad hoc mechanisms in different places.

My final point, in some sense, is a political one. This is, Jane, another answer to your question, by the way, on the single sentence. When somebody asked me, when first the Act was passed, about what I would expect to see if the Act was successful, I said that the cutting of leisure facilities and libraries would be the last thing local government did, not the first. And I really believed that, because I believe that Government has to look after its people, and those people who need community facilities need to be looked after most. I started my political life in terms of responding to cuts in youth work, as a teacher and a youth worker, and I think it's those sorts of issues. It's got to be real in people's lives, and therefore it's got to be something that enables people to meet and benefit and celebrate community, which is right at the heart of the Act.

I will throw in what I hope is not too large a subject, which is the issue of prevention in relation to health. The health of the nation is really poor. We spend almost none of the allocation of the health budget on prevention. And yet it obviously all falls onto this increased demand because of being a sick nation. Wes Streeting started to tentatively talk about it this weekend, saying, 'Oh, it's costing us billions of pounds to deal with the fact that the food industry just wants to make us all eat food that's killing us', but he didn't present any really credible solution other than begging them to do the right thing. I'm not sure how that's going to work out. So, how do we get the well-being of future generations Act to focus ourselves on the well-being of our populations so that we are a less sick nation? What has gone wrong here?

Can I start on that very quickly? I'm absolutely delighted that Wales is going to become a Marmot nation. Back in 2003, Michael Marmot worked with us all on the very importance of the preventative nature of good public health. Good public health initiatives, 'do no harm', are absolutely in line with a constitutional commitment to sustainable development.

I think that the whole point of the health goal, of course, is not about how many doctors, how many nurses, it's about what are the conditions for good health, both physical and mental health. I think that that is an area that needs to be addressed in every single ministry in Government. We found, through our net zero work, that concentrating on the four big emission reduction areas of food, buildings, energy and transport, health figured hugely in every single one of them, but not the health service. So, I think that if you translate the 'do no harm' into the core element of the well-being of future generations Act, the opportunity to use this and a definition of prevention as one of the five ways of working is enormous in terms of driving this agenda forward.

Thank you for that, Jane. Sophie, is there anything you want to add?

What I would say is that this is one of the reasons why I'm so disappointed that the budget improvement plan work hasn't got towards advancing the prevention work. Because back in, I want to say it was probably about 2019, we worked with Mark Drakeford in his capacity as finance Minister then to develop a definition of preventative spend, and there were some tentative steps to start mapping that and then that sort of fell off—you know, we went into COVID and so on, and it wasn't picked back up. Again, I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel there, perhaps in terms of definitions, at least in terms of spend, but I would like to see that there's real scrutiny of Treasury around, 'So, what are you actually doing on that? And how are you really assessing departmental spending bids and so on around prevention?'

That said, I do think that there are some really interesting things that we are doing in Wales. Transport policy is preventative policy in terms of health, the new ways that we're doing that. Likewise, the reformed 'Planning Policy Wales'. Likewise, the new curriculum. They are all preventative interventions. We do have to find a way of mapping those things as well, and that we're not just seeing it as, 'Oh, it's an interesting, good thing that we're doing over here', or 'We're not doing enough on prevention because the NHS budget isn't shifting that way'. We are doing some really good things on prevention. I think the challenge is, the base that we're starting with is a very poor-health nation—that will take generations to turn around—and I think that there are some things in terms of the spending priorities.

The final thing that I would just say—sorry, two final things that I would say. Poverty, of course, is the biggest determinant of people's health and well-being, and, obviously, that is not—. Well, in terms of the main levers, they're non-devolved, and so things like—. I think the First Minister is absolutely right to call out the cuts to disability benefits, and I'm pleased to see some concessions coming through, albeit I don't think they go far enough. But she's absolutely right to be calling that out. And we need to be really forceful on that, I think. Should there never be any changes to welfare in those regards? I'm not saying that, but, actually, we all need to be working collectively together to get the mechanisms in place to, for example, be really supporting disabled people to be able to work and so on. I don't think those mechanisms are in place at the moment.

And then, the final thing I would say is about the Marmot nation. I'm also really excited by that, but, please, let's not reinvent the wheel and say, 'The Marmot nation now is a whole new thing that we're doing, which is different to the future generations Act.' The Marmot principles are absolutely core to the future generations Act. Let's just do the future generations Act, and then we'll have a Marmot nation.

One small thing, sorry, Jenny, if I can, on the future generations leadership academy. I just want to pick up on the point on young people. One hundred and fifty young people, young leaders in Wales, when I started it back in 2020 or thereabouts, actually, now many of those young people have moved on to middle-management level in organisations in Wales and, indeed, across the world. They are a really brilliant cohort of young people who we want to be the next leaders of Wales. And I think there's potentially something that the Senedd could do with that cohort of young leaders, or the committee could do with that cohort of young leaders, in terms of using them as a sounding board, as a real test and challenge alongside the work that you do.

Thank you very much.

Jenny, can I just add one other very small point, which is that you may also wish to consider that this review is done every 10 years? Because this is so countercultural, it's never going to be finished, as it were. It's going to need a consistent looking at how to deliver it in the context and framing of what society, Government and communities are doing around it. So, something that accepts this always needs to be dynamic and may need to be amended to actually take account of that would, I think, also be an important demonstration.

Thank you very much. Thank you, both, very much for your really stimulating evidence. We will obviously send you a transcript so that you can correct any inaccuracies. Otherwise, we're very grateful for your time in providing us with such rich evidence.

The committee will now break until our next scrutiny session with the auditor general and others, which starts at 13:30. So, I wondered if Members could be back in good time by about 25 past, so we can start that on time. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much to you all.