Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister

That done, we now move on to the focus of today's meeting, which is the evidence session with the First Minister. Can I welcome the First Minister to the meeting this morning? We will focus upon delivery of your four priorities you identified in the first few months of your position. But before we do that, would you perhaps like to introduce the officials for us and put it on the record, First Minister?

Thank you very much. I am accompanied today by Emma Williams, who is the director general for education, culture and the Welsh language; by Andrew Jeffreys, who is director of the Welsh Treasury; and by Peter McDonald, who is director general for transport.

Thank you. Let us move into questions then, and I will start with the first one before my colleagues will move on. As I said, we are here to look at the four priorities you identified, which were a healthier Wales, green jobs and growth, opportunity for every family, and connecting communities. Colleagues around the table will obviously explore some of those in more detail during the session, but perhaps I’ll start with a very simple one.

On a healthier Wales, we still have waiting times where people are waiting over two years. On green jobs and growth, in particular for me, for example, we saw jobs lost in the steelworks, and there are no green jobs or growth there immediately to replace those jobs lost. Families are still struggling with social rent, and we also have the bus Bill going through, but nothing has changed in the buses. I have not seen any changes in the buses in my area. In fact, I have seen bus routes close rather than expand. So, how well are you doing in delivering your four priorities?

Thank you very much, and thank you for the opportunity to come to talk to you this morning about what we are doing on delivery.

When I came in, I was very focused on trying to get things done, very aware that there is only a year until the next election, and I knew there was a short time frame. So, as far as I was concerned, the most important thing was, ‘Right, what can we do within that time frame?’ It is not ignoring the fact that there are long-term issues, but how do we land things. Because that certainly was what came across to me.

We're trying to do that in the face of quite tough conditions. If you think about what's happened during the Senedd term, we've faced significant global instability. We're recovering still from the pandemic. We've had 14 years of austerity. We've had huge inflation rates, and we've had chronic underinvestment for 14 years. I think despite all of that, we have made real progress on the things that really matter to them. Those four areas are areas that we have focused on.

If you just look at what we've done, we've had 44 million additional school meals delivered. We've got a national forest for Wales spanning 130 sites. Fifty-seven thousand young people have been supported through our young person's guarantee. We've opened a new medical school in north Wales. We've legislated to end profit in the care of looked-after children, and we've invested over £100 million in making our coal tips safer.

The first thing I did, as you know, when I was elected was I went out and I listened to people, and it was a genuine exercise. I wanted to just get a sense, raw and unfiltered, of what people on the streets wanted us to focus on. There were very clear bread-and-butter issues that came back. That's why what I wanted to do was to make sure we focused in on those things, and make tangible progress in the time that I had before the next election.

So, I set out those four clear priorities. Some of you might have noticed that we've changed the wording around some of those. We started off with 'iechyd da' and 'connecting communities' and things. We just tried to simplify it a bit by saying it's about more jobs, better health, more housing and better transport. It's the same thing we're focused on, but we're trying to make it as easy as possible for people to understand what we're doing, so we've sharpened our focus.

In terms of delivery—and I think this is important—I have tried to be really clear with officials that how we do Government has got to change. I don't want to be spending the entire time on policy development. It is as important for us to focus on delivery and progress on the ground. I appointed Julie James as the Minister for delivery. Her job is to work alongside departments, the Cabinet office and our team of delivery associates to make sure that we are on track.

I will come round to the delivery aspect shortly in a second, because you have mentioned the Minister for Delivery. I suppose to go back to my original question, I appreciate what you've just said, but I asked the question as to we still have people waiting over two years, there are many jobs that have been lost and green jobs are not coming in at this point in time. So, I suppose, in a sense, what I am asking is if you were marking yourself out of 10 on progress as to your aims and your priorities, what mark would you give yourself.

I'm not going to start giving marks to myself; I think it's for other people to do that. But I think what is important is if you look at delivery, if you look at things like jobs, for example, the fact is that we have just seen a 30 per cent increase in the number of jobs compared to last year as a result of inward investment. That's significantly better than the rest of the United Kingdom, so that's an example of where things are doing better. We have delivered I think it was 40,000 jobs over the course of this Senedd term, so that's not an insignificant number. So, there's progress. Of course I understand that jobs are created and jobs disappear, but our job is to make sure that they are created, that we stand by organisations, by businesses, and give them the support they need.

When you come to more generally in relation to health, the fact is that we've seen an 86 per cent reduction in two-year waits since the pandemic. That is a significant change compared to where we were at. We were restricted before, because of financial constraints. We have had additional money as a result of a UK Labour Government, and that has meant we've been able to plough resources into bringing those longest waits down. I'm not going to apologise for focusing on the longest waits. The easy bit is if you just churn people through and get the waiting list down quickly, but I think it's absolutely wrong to allow people who've been in pain to suffer for a long time, and because it's more complicated, there's a danger that you leave them on the list for a long time.

I made it clear when I was health Secretary, and we're making it clear now: that is not acceptable. We've got to get those people seen. Actually, there are lots of health boards now in Wales that have no people waiting for over two years for treatment. There's a long way to go. Betsi in particular is still an issue. We're really focused on what we can do to improve the situation in Betsi, which is definitely where the biggest problem is. But, actually, some of the others have done tremendous work, and I'd just like to pay tribute to the health workers who have really, really focused and have come in on weekends, working late into the evenings. We've been able to do that because we've had that additional money that we didn't have before.

We'll come on to health in a short while, but a focus now on how you monitor delivery. Adam.

Diolch. Bore da, Brif Weinidog. I was wondering if the renewed focus on delivery that you've set out there is a tacit admission that that's something that the Welsh Government has struggled with in the past.

No, I don't think it is. I just think there's a sense of urgency, as you get to the end of term, to make sure that we focus. We've got a very clear plan in terms of what our programme for government looks like, and actually, one of the things I'm really proud of—and it's not just this term, but in previous terms—is we've made it clear in our manifesto what we want to deliver and, actually, our record on delivery is really very good. I want to make sure that we deliver on those manifesto commitments in the way we have done in the past. It has been more difficult, I think, this term, because of things like coming out of a pandemic, massive inflation rates, instability in terms of global affairs—all of those things have made it more difficult.

If you just take something like our housing targets, the inflationary effects and the impact on the housing market has been huge, but our 20,000 target is still there. That makes it much, much more difficult for us to achieve a target when your inflation rates have gone through the roof, which means we've had to find additional money, which we've done. But it has been more difficult. So, it's not that there hasn't been an attempt to do it in the past; it's just been that the headwinds facing us have been significantly greater, I think.

I don't know whether First Ministers have the time to listen to podcasts, let alone the podcasts of ex-Ministers, but, certainly, Lee Waters's contribution has been very interesting for those of us who don't have a pass to the fifth floor. He set out—and, indeed, other former Ministers and former serving officials, et cetera, interestingly have set out—some of the challenges in translating policy and strategy into delivery and change on the ground. Did at least some of that analysis resonate for you as a Minister in various departments, et cetera?

I haven't listened to the podcast, but what I have done is to really try and make sure that we strip away and we focus on what the barriers are. So, Lee, for example, did quite a useful piece of work for us in relation to housing, just getting into the weeds of, 'Right, what are the things? What are the barriers here that we can take away? Are there some simple things?' I think data benchmarking: why is it that a consultant in one hospital can do six cataracts, and another one can do eight? What's going on there? So, it's that kind of benchmarking, I think, that's really important. Why is it some local authorities are able to get planning permissions through much quicker than others? So, it's just getting underneath the bonnet of some of these things. We've brought some external support in as well to just make sure that there's a fresh pair of eyes on how we do things.

You've set up a delivery unit in the Cabinet office, I believe, and there's been reference to a delivery methodology that has been adopted, and you've maybe said a little bit about it there. There was a delivery unit before, wasn't there, under Carwyn Jones between—when was it—2011 and 2015? It was disbanded; it was generally seen that it didn't really deliver, no pun intended. How is this delivery unit going to be different? How will you learn from the failure of that unit to effect the step change that it was charged with initiating?

Well, I think having a specific delivery Minister has been very helpful, and also making sure that that delivery Minister comes to Cabinet quarterly and sets out where we're at on the core four areas that we're focused on. So, everybody in Cabinet then is involved in looking at the data, working out what's happening, challenging what's happening, taking responsibility not just for their own area, but across Cabinet. This is a new approach that hasn't been done before.

We've also, as I say, got some external support in to look at how we're doing it: is the methodology that we're using correct, using up-to-date techniques and making sure that we are data driven? I think that's the other thing. I'm really keen to see that we are much more data driven, that we use all of the kind of modern technology that we can, and that we maintain those links with the delivery partners who are responsible for making things happen.

One of the points that were made as a result of the analysis that Lee Waters and others conducted was that sometimes the problem is that the infrastructure of delivery is so distributed and sometimes confusing. So, there is a delivery unit in the Cabinet office now; there is an NHS delivery unit—in fact, there are two—there was certainly a finance delivery unit; there's the Burns delivery unit; there's the office of project delivery as well in Government. That's a lot of delivery units that kind of criss-cross each other. I mean, how do you make sure that the Cabinet office delivery unit is effectively the prime driver across these different missions?

So, I've asked the delivery Minister to focus very much on the four priorities that we've set out, because I think that's part of the other problem in Government—sometimes, you're just stretched too thin, and everybody asks you to do all kinds of things and you lose focus. So, I'm really keen to make sure that we maintain the focus on those four priorities and that we set out, 'Right, this is where we're at, this is where we want to be. How do we get there? How are we monitoring it?' Now, it's up to individual Ministers to do that in their own departments for specific areas. So, the health Minister will call the health board chairs in to hold them to account. You know, that doesn't cross over. But what we've done with the delivery unit is bring in a fresh pair of eyes from the outside to kind of have a look and say, 'Well, why are you doing it that way? Why are you counting in that way? Why are you using that methodology?' And it's that fresh pair of eyes that's come in via the delivery unit central approach, which is working with the relevant Ministers, that I think has been quite an enlightening process for the Ministers that are involved as well.

You mentioned the quarterly ministerial stock take, which I think was first created by Michael Barber in the Prime Minister's delivery unit in Westminster. Is that the external expert that you're using?

We've brought delivery associates in to help us advise on some of those areas. That methodology is something that we are using, and it's been quite effective. I don't know if Peter—

Are we allowed to know which external consultancy that's from? I mean, is it Michael Barber's—

It's the delivery unit.

Oh, it's their company. Just finally, one of the people who have adopted this approach has also talked about having public dashboards, that actually having external accountability is also key to keeping you on track. Are we allowed to see some of those? I don't know whether you're using RAG ratings or some other similar—. Can we see some of that data that Ministers are using to make their decisions?

So, we're in a—. They've come in and they're looking at—. They bring in their own data approach, which I think has been very helpful. I think we're still in the process of making sure that we've got everything lined up. So, if you let me make sure that we embed everything first and we know where we are—. I wouldn't necessarily want that to be real-time data that is public. But I read Michael Barber's book very carefully when I came into office, and I think transparency, as a bit of a light of day on performance, is actually quite helpful. So, it's not something I'm averse to at all. In fact, certainly in some areas, I think we need a lot more. What I don't want to do is to rush things. There is a systematic approach that they're bringing to it, so I wouldn't want to jump ahead of the particular methodology. I don't know—. I can see Peter—.

Just to add very briefly that this already happens in some places. So, for example, Transport for Wales will publish monthly KPIs on rail performance. That has got more detailed over time. So, where we have that capability that's gone back in the medium term, that has already started and we can build on that.

I'd just like to ask as well, one final—

One final one, because we do need to move on.

Yes, one final question. One of the lessons, maybe, of Deliverology 101 is that the delivery unit has to be sufficiently resourced to be able to do its job. Maybe one of the weaknesses of the former delivery unit I referred to was that it only had seven civil servants. How many people are working in the Cabinet office delivery unit? If you can give us a rough figure, or if you can write to us and let us know.

I'll write to you and let you know, but we've certainly expanded the team. But some of it is also about actually—. What I don't want is to have a group of real experts on a deliverology approach that doesn't then get embedded within the departments themselves. So, I think the win here is to make sure that we get that unit to work with the relevant departments. Otherwise, it means that we'll have to constantly be having external advice, and I don't want that to happen. I want it to be embedded. That's the way we're working at the moment. We're getting the Cabinet office delivery team to work with the relevant departments, so that they are taking on board this new approach.

Okay, thank you. Diolch yn fawr.

I want to move on to the four priorities per se, and we'll start with health. There are many Members who want to speak on this particular priority, but we'll start off with the Chair of the health committee, Peter Fox.

Thank you, Chair, and good morning, First Minister. You said we're making real progress in many areas and you cited health as an area of real progress, but I don't know if the people of Wales see it that way, and I don't know if the data actually shows it that way. We've seen 800,000 patient pathways that are waiting to start treatment. We've seen an increase in the number of people waiting more than two years over the last month, it's gone up some 500 to 9,500; we see 160,000 patient pathways with people waiting more than a year; we're seeing cancer services with 2,000 patients who started treatment in April, which was way behind the performance that we were expecting, and we can go on, can't we? Ophthalmology has a long waiting list; mental health, serious conditions, still a long waiting list, even though progress has been made on the shorter term things.

We hear that more money is being spent, and again we heard Jeremy Miles say that there's another £120 million going in to reduce waiting lists, but I think that what many of us struggle with and the public struggle with is: how will we see that money translate into a reduction in waiting lists? We've been saying these things for the last four or five years, and we put more money in, we put more money in, always more money in, but how do we know that that money is delivering what it should do? What are your reflections on that?

Well, thanks very much. Just to be clear, we know that there's more work to do. There will always be more work that we have to do in relation to health. The demand is absolutely colossal. Just to give you a sense of where we're at, we give 2.75 million appointments a month in a population of 3 million people. So, the health service is working for a hell of a lot of people in this country. And I think it is important, because I do think that you've got to remember that there are over 110,000 people working in the health service, and to constantly be running it down is quite demoralising for the people who work in it. So, I do think that it's important for us to recognise that, actually, there's a huge amount of work being done and we have been on a journey where we're trying to shift support into communities and into the prevention space to stop that constant demand coming in.

If you look at what we have been able to do because of the additional funding, an 86 per cent reduction in the number of long waiters is not an insignificant number. You asked specifically about the extra £120 million and what we can expect to see differently. We will reduce the overall waiting lists by 200,000 as a result of that additional money. We're going to eliminate all two-year waiting lists and we're going to restore the maximum eight-week waiting time for diagnostic tests. So, those are three specific things.

I think, just in terms of planned care—so, you can pour the money in, how do you make sure it works? So, obviously, the health leaders are held to account by regular sessions with the Cabinet Secretary responsible. Some of the things that we're going to be doing, we're going to be doing a little bit differently next time. So, for example, the plan includes the fact that we're going to deliver 20,000 cataract operations. So, that should bring the big numbers—. So, these are easy operations, where you can say, 'Here's the money, go and do that', and it's an exchange, it's a service delivery thing. And some of that will be in the private sector, because I think that we just need to get on with things.

In the next nine months, we're also going to offer an additional 200,000 out-patient appointments, because a lot of the people on the waiting lists are people waiting for out-patient appointments who may not need additional treatment after that. So, that's an easy way to bring the numbers down. But I've been unapologetic about the fact that we wanted it to focus on the longest waits. It just pained me to meet people who were living in pain for a very long period of time.

I thank you for those answers, and I don't think that anybody has any criticism of the health system. We certainly wouldn't want them to feel that our challenge and scrutiny of the health system is any criticism of them. I've been a beneficiary of the system and it has been great. They've helped me massively. But I think that there is deep concern that we are so far into this term and whilst we're making some, some people would say, small gains, even though perhaps you're measuring them as large gains, we’re not really getting to the nub of it. When I talk to health professionals at all levels, there seems to be a feeling of system failure, a disconnect in many areas. I was with GPs yesterday, starting an inquiry on GPs, and the disconnect, it would seem, between general practice and secondary care is quite evident. The lack of communication across many areas of the health service leads to poor patient outcomes or can extend the issues; the challenges around the contracts and how we’re going to iron that out to make better issues.

Now, you said that the new system of analysing data, which we've started embracing with the new delivery Minister, is a good thing and it’s allowed you now to get under the bonnet. Why hadn’t we got under the bonnet four or five years ago to understand the driving issues? When we see £450 million going into health, or £120 million extra, how do we know that that is the right figure? Has there been an audit to understand would £100 million have done what £120 million does? Because we pour the money in, but we don’t always have the outcomes we expect. As a past leader of a council, it was very important for me to make sure that every £1 delivered an outcome, and I want to be able to monitor those outcomes. How do you hold your Ministers to account to make sure that they are getting every benefit out of every £1 that they ask you for?

I think efficiencies are critical, and I think this is where benchmarking comes in, and I think this is where a bit more transparency is useful, and certainly something that I used to do when I was health Secretary was I’d call people in and I’d run through with them what is going on, why have we still got people waiting for five years, what are they waiting for. I got into real granular detail: why is it that, in some hospitals, they can carry out three operations at the same time as another can carry out seven? So, I think that kind of driving performance, it’s not that we haven’t been doing it, but the accountability mechanisms always need to be tightened up further, and I think a little bit more transparency and light on who’s doing what is always useful.

Can I bring in Jenny Rathbone on this particular point?

Can I ask Andrew to come in for a sec?

Yes.

Just on the £120 million, that is a very specific programme of activity that was discussed in great detail between the Cab Sec for finance and the Cab Sec for health in terms of what that level of investment this year could deliver. The product of that is a very detailed, delivered quarter by quarter, plan that the health service is now following through on, and there are milestones along the way there that we’ll be able to look at as we go along and assess whether the progress that was anticipated at the outset is being delivered in practice.

So, is—

I want to bring Jenny in, because she's saying she wants to ask about consistency across that—

I just want to look at the planned care system and the frustration that I have that best practice just doesn't travel very well. So, for example, pre-operative screening assessments as soon as somebody’s identified that they need an operation. We then need to—. They eliminate 15 per cent of the waiting list, because they’re either no longer needing it or are no longer fit for an operation, so—. Otherwise, we have them coming into hospital and then going out again. So, why are those simple ‘Getting It Right First Time’ procedures not common practice? Because I’m told it’s really only Aneurin Bevan and the Prince of Wales in Bridgend. No, sorry, the Prince of—. Anyway, one of the hospitals. And that should be just routine for getting planned care organised more efficiently. Working hard’s one thing; working effectively in a multidisciplinary way is quite another and there’s a lot of resistance in the system going on here.

It is something that we’re asking them to do: adopt best practice, or explain why you're not adopting it. There's still way too much variation in the system. This is something that was highlighted by the ministerial advisory group's report recently, and the recommendations of the Sloman review were very clear on this. What's been good about that review is that, again, we've got some external people in who are real experts—so, one of the people who set up the GIRFT system was part of that review. What was interesting there was that they've set out now, 'This is what needs to be done to ensure consistency', to do that adopt or review. It's been set against a set time frame, so we're expecting health boards to work according to the time frame that's been set by experts who are saying, 'You should be able to do this. This is what is expected in other areas.' So, I know that the Cabinet Secretary for health is going to hold them to account in relation to delivering on the time frames that have been set out in the Sloman review.

You mentioned ophthalmology earlier on. We had a hell of a battle in Cardiff to get the ophthalmologist to trust the optometrist to do the post-operative reviews. We've won that battle, but where else is that battle going on?

Well, I mean, there's—. Trying to get people to shift a culture is not easy. It's not straightforward. What you need to do is to demonstrate to them best practice, and to—. Peer pressure and getting clinicians to convince clinicians is probably easier in terms of getting people to do the right thing, rather than politicians coming in and saying, 'We think this is a good idea.' You have got to bring people with you and convince them, which is why we need this to be clinically led if we can, as well.

We'll go back to Peter.

So, the delivery Minister—Cabinet Secretary—will have a specific set of challenges she makes to a Cabinet Minister then to make sure that they are holding to account, because the trouble is, with health boards and hospitals, we ask them to explain why and they always have an explanation and then another one and another one. But how do we get really underneath that? If we're only looking at them quarterly, that isn't enough. Do they—? Should they be providing regular monthly updates on where they're meeting their targets and giving clear explanations of why they haven't got there and what are they going to do to remediate that position to bring us back on target? Performance management—it seems like there's a lack of performance management in many areas, which leads to us not reaching targets or having the wrong targets in the first place and not meeting objectives. I think reassurance that we really have got under the bonnet is going to be fundamental, because until we understand what's broken under the bonnet, we're never going to fix it. So, I don't know if you'd want to reflect on that a little.

Well, look, I can assure you performance management happens very, very systematically and very regularly. So, there's not a lack of performance management; it's a lack of delivery that is the issue, by the health boards themselves. That's particularly true for Betsi, which is why it receives this additional support when it comes to special measures. We've got a tailored recovery plan for them. We've literally sent people in there from Welsh Government to do things with them. So, this is not a lack of clarity or intervention or lack of performance management. It's just when you say, 'Do this' and they don't, that becomes an issue. So, you then get into a position where you say, 'Well, what are the sanctions? What are the incentives?' We've been having those conversations for a long time.

But, just to be clear, Peter, I just think you've got to bear in mind what we're talking about when it comes to health is a £10 billion-a-year system. You're not going to be able to fix it all, which is why what I've done in terms of delivery is to say, 'Let's focus on the longest waits, women's health and reduction in care delays.' I'm saying we're not going to be able to fix everything before the next election. Those are the things that really matter. Let's get those things sorted. There is, of course, a host of other things, and it's not that we're not doing the other things. They are doing the other things, but the delivery unit is focused on those specific things, working with the health Secretary and then, consequently, working with the health boards themselves.

Yes. Thank you.

Peter, I want to move on in a second, because you're quite right, you’re here to look at the overall policy, not the specific details of the health sector, that’s for the Cabinet Secretary for health. But I think Peter’s raising—. I’ll give him one more go in a second, because social care and delivery of that is an important issue. But, Peter.

Yes. Social care is a huge issue. There seems to be, still, a real mismatch in what we need and what we’ve got—a disconnect, if you like. And that leads to, again, this systemic issue that we haven’t got quite to the bottom of yet, and I just wonder: how are we going to really close this loop? How are we going to make sure that we have a sustainable social care system in the future? How far off are we from achieving that, so that—? Because, if we can unplug that, I think a lot more will start flowing through the system. I think we can all see that, but we don’t seem to be able to get underneath the answers of how to put that right. So, are you confident that we can make real headway on improving the access to social care, the quantity and capacity of social care, so that we can get under it a bit more?

We spend a lot of time addressing this issue, and, there is no question about it, there’s a lot of fragility in the social care sector, and that fragility was emphasised as a result of the Brexit vote—a lot of people went home. We, obviously, this term, have been paying the real living wage to care workers, which is not something that happens across the rest of the country, because I do think that this is about making sure that we’ve got enough people to support people in our communities. And, Peter, you’ll be aware that, in rural areas, that’s even more of a challenge.

So, what we’re trying to do is to get more efficiency into the system. We’ve improved our pathways of care discharge data. You’ve got to remember that there is this very close link between hospital delays and support in the community, which bungs up the ambulances—all of that is all interrelated. So, we’ve focused in on, 'Right, what is it we can change? What is it that we can do?' So, the pathways of care, we’ve seen a reduction in total delays, as I say, by 13 per cent, so I think that is definite progress. Some of that is about honing in on things like: how long does it take to get a social care assessment? Why does it take so long? Is it only council staff workers who can do that? Why can’t we get trusted assessors to do it? So, we’ve introduced a whole new system with trusted assessors, for example, and all of that has improved the situation. Delays in the allocation of social workers, we’ve seen an improvement on that as well, and we’ve seen a reduction in delays, in waits, for starts of new care home packages—they’re down by around a quarter. So, we’re seeing improvement, but we’ve got an ageing population.

One of the biggest assets we’ve got for social care is, obviously, unpaid carers, and some of the messages we’ve heard recently are that unpaid carers aren’t really cared about or not cared about enough, so they’re not having their own needs assessed and met. Do you recognise that? How are we going to start addressing that, because to not address it actually just puts more pressure on the system?

Look, these are the real unsung heroes of Wales. These people are holding our communities together, they are looking after their loved ones and they’re supporting them, and, without them, we’d be in deep, deep trouble. So, it’s absolutely right that we stand with the unpaid carers, which is why we’ve actually plied quite a lot of money into supporting unpaid carers; we’re making sure that they get relief quite frequently. There’s always more we can do, but I think if you compare it with some of the other areas—. This is something that’s been massively championed by Julie Morgan; she was an absolute champion for these, and Dawn Bowden is also now doing the same thing. So, there is no question about it. I’m going home today to be an unpaid carer; there are armies of people out there who give their all, and, if they weren't there, we would be in a much more difficult place as a community.

You've highlighted the delays of transfer and the implications they have for a variety of waiting issues. Adam has one specific question on one of those points, and then we need to move on, because we haven't touched on women's health yet and we've still got a fair bit to do.

Yes, when you were Minister for health, you were very candid, I think, in acknowledging the problem of ambulance handover delays and the failure to meet the 15-minute target. I know that very recently you've had a 'prevention of future deaths' report from the coroner for south Wales central. I don't expect you to respond to the specific case, but the coroner raises the general point, having actually consulted with coroners across Wales, that this remains an intractable problem, I think. Do you acknowledge that, and are you considering the request for a more general review of why, after many years of this being acknowledged, we don't seem to be any further forward, which has very serious consequences in many cases?

Well, I think that case was quite a few years ago now. It was a tragic case, and it's not the first case. We have to learn lessons from every one of these cases, and it's important that we listen to what coroners are saying. It is a systems issue, and I think that is something that needs to be acknowledged. So, it's not about ambulances alone; it's about how you get people out of the back door, and it's about making sure that those trusted assessors are in place.

We've actually brought in a huge raft of new measures since that case. So, we've had the six goals programme—you know, people have been coming from England to look at what we're doing in the six goals programme to improve what we're doing in relation to ambulance delays and what we're doing in emergency departments. There's a huge amount of work being undertaken there. We've poured money into the ambulance service, and we're trying to do a lot more triaging so that people don't come into hospital in the first place unless they absolutely have to. So, there's a huge amount of work being done. I'm more than happy to write to you to list the comprehensive work that has been done.

Is it enough? Look, the demand is never ending, so what we're trying to do is to get into the prevention space. How do we stop people from coming in in the first place? How do we make sure that people are triaged so that you can send an ambulance, it's assessed and they say, 'Right, you don't need to go; go and see your GP tomorrow?' We need to do a lot more of that, rather than just assuming that people are going to be transported to hospital.

So, just to be clear, when the coroner, in the very recent report provided to you, says that he has seen evidence that the target is only being met across Wales around 10 to 20 per cent of the time, you don't think that that data reflects the current situation.

What I'm saying is that a huge amount has been done to try to improve the situation.

But has it worked?

Well, I think what I'd say is if we hadn't introduced all of these new things, it would have been a lot worse. So, is it enough? I think we constantly need to be looking at the systems approach, which is about making sure we pay care workers properly and that we can recruit enough care workers, because all of those systems are interrelated. You can't just fix one part of it without looking at the entire system.

Perhaps you could write to the committee to highlight those points, but perhaps also—

I'm more than happy. We've done a huge amount of work on this.

But also for us to see an answer to the question as to whether there's any data that supports any improvements.

Sure, yes.

I want to move on to women's health, because we've used up almost half of our time, and we're still on health, out of your four priorities. Before I move on to women's health, one question we're asking here is about the data, which goes back to Adam's point—it's the data collection. You mentioned yourself that there's always been a lack of data, and you'll know Tassia Haines's campaign. One of her campaigns was data collection. Are you, as a Welsh Government, now improving the data collection for a variety of things? For many cancer considerations, there's been a lack—. One of the themes coming through is a lack of data to actually move things forward and to give evidence to support. Are you now actually collecting more data as a consequence of some of these challenges, so that you have the evidence, you have the information you can use to analyse where improvements can be made and how you can make things better?

Well, I think we collect massive amounts of data, the NHS executive. There are tons of data there. The issue for me is: what do you do with the data? That is more of a challenge for me. There's no point collecting the data unless you do something with it. And this is something that came across in the ministerial advisory group's analysis. They were saying, 'Actually, you've got quite a lot of data here, it's actually quite comprehensive, but what are you doing with it?' I think that's where we need to make sure we focus now, to make sure that we're using the data to drive productivity and improvements, and, again, a bit of transparency for clinicians about, 'How do you compare with other areas? Why aren't you performing as well as others?' I think all of that is quite useful.

Jenny.

On women's health, if men had babies, we wouldn't be where we are today on all this. Thirty-five per cent induction rates—up. Thirty-seven per cent caesarean section rate—up. All these have huge implications on the whole of the service, and also the future health of mothers or people who have gone on to have another baby. There are massive workforce issues, particularly the maternity support workers who are available to give support to mothers with breastfeeding. As one of the researchers at Swansea University said, 'Everybody that goes in aims to breastfeed, and they come out of hospital not breastfeeding.' There are clearly some massive problems all over this service. How are we going to see that improvement on such a fundamental part of women's health?

Jenny, you'll know that something I'm very wedded to is improving women's health. The fact that I've committed now to making sure we have women's health hubs across Wales before the next election will be tangible evidence of that.

Could you give us a little bit more detail, though, on what these health hubs will do? The cross-party group on women's health has had two meetings on this, and we don't really understand exactly what they're going to do or how they're going to collaborate with all the other bits of primary and community care.

We're being driven by the discovery exercise that was done, where thousands of women participated. I think 4,000 women took part in the discovery phase, and that builds on the quality statement for women and girls in terms of what the expectation is from the system. In terms specifically of the women's health hubs, what we're trying to do is to make sure that it focuses on, in particular, menopause, menstrual health and contraception as a minimum. That's where they'll start, and then we'll build from there. So, the scoping work is being done. That community engagement is already happening. But what we'll need to do then is to build on that, to make sure that we get specialist training for clinicians, in areas like endometriosis. All of that will come later, but we're starting off. I think it's really important to get those hubs up and running in those specific areas. This was a very comprehensive exercise, as you know. It was done with the NHS. It wasn't imposed on them, because we wanted them to own it. Sometimes, if you get a diktat from Government, it doesn't always work. Whereas, if they feel a sense of ownership of it, and we develop it with them, then it's more likely to be delivered, which is what we did in this instance. So, I'm really confident that we're going to be moving on with that, but, obviously, this is something that I hope will build in time.

Okay. But is that £3 million going to be spent on staff, or is it going to be spent on renting rooms in buildings?

I can give you a breakdown of exactly how that £3 million will be spent. Obviously, some of it will be spent on the hubs. Some of it will be going into buildings that already exist, so you won't have to spend any money. So, it'll be different according to different areas, depending on what facilities they have in those areas.

Okay. We also need to focus on maternity and breastfeeding. At the moment, most people have to rely on the voluntary sector for getting any breastfeeding support. There is very variable performance amongst the Flying Starts. Who is focusing on why it is that one Flying Start is doing so much worse than an adjacent Flying Start?

My understanding is that our breastfeeding rates are up.

That's not what the statistics show.

Okay, well, let me come back to you on that and just make sure that I give you the most up-to-date figures.

There's a lot of concern about the failure to appoint key people to drive this forward. Lives are saved by this.

I'm happy to write to you. Obviously, you will be aware that the benefits of breastfeeding are there for all to see, which is why we have got breastfeeding support in our hospitals. So, I’d be very happy to write to you to bring you the most up-to-date figures. My understanding was that, actually, they are the highest rates we’ve ever had.

We only even collect the first 10 days. We know nothing about what goes on after people leave hospital.

Well, let me come back to you on that.

We'd be happy to receive that correspondence from you with that information. We're halfway through and I've got one more area on health. As I'm sure you'd understand, we could spend the whole session just on that priority, because in your casework, like all of ours, health is a major issue for many of our constituents. But we do have to move on. Mark, do you want to raise a point on the health priority?

Yes, please. Thank you very much indeed. Just a very brief comment: as a performance management practitioner in my previous employment with my managers and teams, I know that performance management is directly linked to delivery, and I’m very concerned to have heard you refer to them as separate issues. However, prior to the UK Government's autumn statement last year, 14 Welsh hospices operating in Wales said that cost-of-living pressures were highly likely to result in them having to reduce the volume of services delivered. You may be aware, for example, another announced, confidentially thus far, services being removed yesterday. You and I can't identify that until next Monday.

At the time of the Welsh Government budget, the sector, providing key health and care services, warned that because of costs imposed because of Government budgets being frozen or reduced in real terms, they were facing the probability that they would be reducing services and letting staff go. We saw Tenovus Cancer Care charity, we saw Adferiad mental health and addiction, Shelter Cymru housing support and homeless prevention, we saw Carers Trust, we saw supported living providers, we saw hospices across Wales and many more giving that warning. Now we're a few months down the road, we are beginning to hear about these services being withdrawn. What assessment are you making of that? Are you actually monitoring to establish which services are disappearing and what impact that will then have on the NHS and social care statutory providers, where it's highly likely that the additional costs incurred because of this by the statutory sector will not only ruin lives, but more than swallow the increase in the NHS budget announced earlier this year?

Thank you very much, Mark, and I am more than aware of the massive contribution that hospices make to end-of-life care and in particular the value that is put on them by people who are facing that difficult position, which is why we've put an additional £3 million into hospice care this year. What I recognise is that, if they're not there, then the pressure will mount on our hospitals, which is not where people want to end their days. But also, they want to have that wraparound care service that that these hospices give. So, we have tried to give that additional funding, Mark. If you look at the number of people dying, because of the ageing population, it's going up and it will continue to go up for another 20 years or so. So, this is an area that we're very aware where there's going to be increased pressure.

The £5.5 million only ran to the end of the last financial year. The £3 million, they made clear, wouldn't even cover the additional costs incurred because of the autumn statement, and they warned that there would be this impact. But it's not just them; I indicated it's cancer services, it's mental health services, it's substance misuse services, it's care services, it's residential provision, supported living and so on. These should be considered as part of overall health funding, should they not? And for a tiny amount of the increase to the NHS budget, they could have helped the NHS save far more.

Instead, we're going to see additional cost pressures swallowing the NHS budget, and when winter pressures hit us, seeing those reductions you referred to earlier compromised. Again I ask you: what evaluation, consideration or assessment are you making of whether the warnings have borne fruit, whether key services are disappearing and, if so, what impact is that going to have on NHS services and what are you going to do to mitigate that?

Thanks. I'm happy to write to you in terms of if we have seen a change. Sometimes, the way we measure things and the way we look at things is changed because of structures and things. For example, I've seen GPs say that lots of GP services have closed and, actually, what's happened is there's been a consolidation. It's not about 'closing' the GP surgery; they're consolidating because they want to work together. So, I wouldn't mind having a look to see to what is going on in this sector.

I can't say that I'm aware that I've heard of any of the major hospices saying that they're going under, but obviously I would be concerned if I heard about that, which is why we are making sure we've got that £3 million, which is ongoing support, to recognise the challenges that they're facing.

I want to move on, Mark.

I was just going to say the Welsh Government has been pre-notified confidentially that there will be an announcement on Monday of further hospice bed losses, but neither of us are allowed to say any more about that at this time.

Okay, I want to move on. But before we move on, I don't want an answer to this, First Minister, but, clearly, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill links into this, because one of the arguments is that we need to have the palliative care agenda addressed, which links into social care as well as anything else. No comment, but I just wanted to highlight that point that you should be looking at.

Sure, I'm aware of that.

I want to move on now to the green jobs aspect of your priorities, and I will ask Adam to raise some questions.

First Minister, in your opening remarks, you referred to focusing the priority language in a bit more of a targeted way, and you referred to more jobs rather than green jobs. The original priority had reference to balancing that with action on the climate crisis and nature restoration. Does that focused language represent a little bit of a strategic shift as well, or is it just using different words to mean the same thing?

I'm just keen for people to understand what we're trying to do here. I think there is a bit of confusion about what green jobs actually means, so I think it would make sense for us to broaden the language. We are absolutely committed to delivering green jobs in Wales. The fact that even today we've seen the announcement of three new onshore wind developments, which are going to power up to 350,000 homes in Wales, is not insignificant. The great thing here is that that's going to be done on Welsh Government land, so it will be the Welsh purse that will benefit as a result of that. I just want to be absolutely clear that our commitment to developing green jobs is there, but I didn't want it to be restricted to green jobs.

Sure. There was an interesting discussion, wasn't there, following a report from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, that some view an over-reliance or an exclusive emphasis on green jobs as questionable. To an extent, playing back what you've just said, is that consistent with your view, that green jobs is an important component, but there are other sectors that also have potential in terms of delivering jobs and growth to the Welsh economy?

Totally, which is why we'll be hosting this investment summit in December, and we've got key sectors that we're looking at there. Green jobs and clean energy will be one of the sectors, but the other ones will be tech, life sciences, compound semiconductors, creative industries, advanced manufacturers, and capital investment. So, it's a broader base than just green jobs.

You've emphasised throughout your evidence this morning the importance of data and KPIs, et cetera. In this context, which are the key headline targets? Is it the employment rate? Growth is emphasised by the UK Government in terms of its economic objectives. Is raising the economic growth rate in Wales, closing the gap between per-capita income in Wales compared to the rest of the UK—? Do you have a target figure in those areas as well?

Clearly for me, the reason I want to see economic growth is so that we can use that money to improve people's lives and to create better public services. The growth agenda, for me, isn't just about growth; it's about why you want the growth. It's got to be driven, for me, from an ideological perspective about why, what's the purpose of the growth. It's not just to make profit for people.

I think there are lots of areas where we're still very challenged. Productivity is a real issue, I think, in Wales, and it's an area that I'm really concerned to focus on, which is why you'll have heard me talk recently about my real ambition to grab the AI agenda and the opportunities, I think, that that could bring in terms of improving productivity rates.

If you look at what we're managing to do in terms of foreign direct investment, the fact is that we've seen something like a 26 per cent increase in the number of investors in Wales in the past year—30 per cent more jobs. This is bucking the trend that's happening across the rest of the UK. So, I do think that sending out very clear messages that Wales is open for business, that we're streamlining planning, that we're trying to make it easy for people to invest in Wales, whilst getting them to understand that we have a social justice agenda, and we work in social partnership here—I think all of those things are really important.

We have an economic strategy that's set out, and the goals are set out clearly in there. I think the key thing now, of course, is to marry up our strategy with the industrial strategy, and what's good is that, actually, there's a massive amount of overlap between them both. Because there's quite a lot of additional money in UK Government pots to drive the industrial strategy and—

Before I ask Adam to come in, can I ask on that particular point, because I think this is important for us to understand? You've identified growth as a factor. Adam's highlighted that it's a UK Government agenda, even though we saw a 0.1 per cent decrease in GDP today. What discussions are you having at that level to ensure that your policies, your economic growth, can be delivered? Because some of those levers are with the UK Government. Therefore, there is an important need to look at how you not just marry up, but also how you influence the structures in London, to allow you to deliver your policies here.

We've had extensive engagement in the development of the industrial strategy with the UK Government. If you look at the priorities in terms of the industrial strategy and the investment summit, we were very clear: 'These are the things that we want you to focus on', and they've more or less come out exactly where we wanted them to come out. We were very clear about where we think our strengths are, and I think you have to try and understand that the world is a pretty unstable place at the moment, so where is it that you can have a unique contribution? Some of that is about focusing in on, perhaps, where you do have natural resources, where you do have a particular skills base, where you do have particular expertise, for example, in compound semiconductors, and building around that. So, we are definitely influencing the UK Government, and that relationship is much stronger than it's been for years and years and years, and we're speaking to them very regularly.

I'll bring you, Adam, back in now. But the term 'marrying up', to me that seems to imply we're fitting ours into them.

No. We influenced. We were very much involved in influencing the industrial strategy.

Most economists would say that the two key drivers of long-term economic growth are human capital—skills—and infrastructure. Infrastructure investment has the dual benefit of it drives economic growth in the short term directly, and then it creates a platform for long-term economic growth. Are you making the case in those discussions with the UK Government that where they have funds, for example through the national wealth fund, the old infrastructure investment bank and all their different programmes, including in rail, which we'll come on to later—. If we're going to close the economic gap, we shouldn't just receive a population share. In many areas, we don't even get that. We need to be getting a higher share—and indeed those other parts of the UK that have an economic gap—in order to close that gap. Are they receptive to that argument, if you're making it?

We've just seen that happen with the replacement of EU structural funds. So, we're getting 20 per cent. If we were doing a Barnett share, we'd be in a different place. So, that's an example of where there's a recognition that, yes, we need more support. I think there are other examples where what I'd like to see more of is, 'If there are pots of money, like there's a big pot of money in research and development, how do we get our fair share of that?' It's one of the things that I'm asking to be done: rather than just look at our £26 billion, there are some big, hefty pots of money over there. Let's go and grab some of that. I think we probably need to resource up a bit internally to make sure we're landing some of that. Andrew, would you like to come in on that?

A very key point there about the importance of influencing UK Government investments, because obviously they have a lot more of the levers in terms of the macro economy in particular, but also certain aspects of public investment. I think it's worth noting in this part of the discussion the work on reviewing the way the Green Book operates. The Green Book is—. I'm trying to think of the right way of describing it, but it's a handbook of how you're supposed to do economic appraisal of potential projects. It sounds a very dry and technical issue, and I guess it is in many ways, but the method you'd use to assess the value of investments has a big impact on what choices are then made about which investments go ahead.

It's very encouraging that the UK Government has been looking at the Green Book in the way that it drives investment decisions in the UK Government, and across Government UK-wide, actually. So, we've been working with the Treasury on that, and there are some positive developments there in terms of the way in which—. The traditional way of appraising economic investments is you kind of just maximise growth, not so bothered about where that growth happens. In the new approach to the Green Book, that regional distribution of the growth is something that can be given more prominence in the assessment of the investment. So, that's a positive step, we think, in terms of the way those decisions are made in the future.

I know we're short of time, Chair, but just staying with the focus on green jobs, in the rural context, there was much anticipation that jobs would flow from the very ambitious tree planting targets that were set. I think it's fair to say that the achievement has been disappointing. In the most recent years, about a third of the target—or less, actually, possibly, because there needs to be a catch-up now—. Do you accept that the 2030 target, which, I mean, from memory it was something like 40,000 hectares of new woodland or something like that—? Do you accept now that it's pretty much going to be nigh on impossible for you to reach that target, given the underachievement in preceding years in this decade, or do you still hope to ramp up significantly, so that that sector will achieve both its environmental and its economic goals?

The national forest for Wales now spans 130 sites already. Yes, I think we've still got challenging targets ahead of us. I think that next week the agricultural Secretary will be coming out with his suggestions in terms of where the contribution may come from the agricultural community to try and drive up the tree planting. Obviously, there's been a lot of discussion about that, to make sure that we bring people on board and on side with the opportunities that may be available there. So, look, it is a very challenging target. It was a very stretching target. I think you probably need to remember that we've planted—what are we on now—20 million trees in Uganda.

Twenty-five million.

Twenty-five million trees in Uganda. We're doing better in Uganda than we are here. We do need to ramp that up. There have been challenges around that, but I'm hoping that some of those conversations around where we land in relation to agriculture next week may help to move that on. But it won't be the same place as it was before.

Thank you, Chair.

On green skills, Carolyn.

Yes, I was really pleased to hear the announcement this morning about the Welsh Government-owned Trydan Gwyrdd Cymru investing in three windfarms, with one in North Wales, and that it's in an existing windfarm area, which I think will make it more acceptable to the local people as well, because it's very difficult getting planning, and working in partnership with the Urdd, so that young people will learn about green jobs. Also I think it will help ensure that young people have a summer holiday as well, it looks like, reading more on it, which is really exciting news.

We've got the new maintenance engineering unit opened at Coleg Llandrillo in Rhyl. It was officially opened last year to train people in wind turbine maintenance. I know that it could expand further, so how are we going to ensure that people know what jobs are out there, that they're trained and retrained as well? People might have to retrain as well, as technology changes. And there's just a note here on the question: there was a recent caution to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee about not wanting to go too early regarding green skills, so could you expand on that a little bit?

Sure, yes. We're taking this really seriously, and we've had the ministerial round-table on the built environment skills forum, and that's come up with some recommendations, which are now being considered by the Cabinet Secretary for the economy. That will be done by the end of this term. The other thing is that we've got a meeting—I think it's being held on Monday—with about 60 different partners who are going to be there to look specifically at green skills and what's going to happen and what does it need, to get a sense of the pace and scale of change that we need to introduce in relation to the Welsh economy. The other thing is Medr. We're trying to make sure that they're involved in terms of qualifications and skills in the system. Careers Wales is there to signpost people to what's available. But I think there are real opportunities here.

But just in relation to what I said at the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, if you look at something like floating offshore wind, we're starting on that journey now. It's not the journey—. You're not going to switch this on quickly. What I don't want to see is people being trained up and being put into a college with expectations that, in three years, they're going to come out and they're going to have a job. If there's a gap, I think that would be massively demoralising for these people. There may be other things they could do in between. So, it's not to say we shouldn't be training people up, but it may be that they wouldn't be going straight on to offshore wind turbines. There are lots of different things that they can be doing. There are lots of basic skills that people could be doing that don't sound very much like green skills, like welding. There is a particular need for welders when it comes to that kind of development. Is there anything to add to that?

Thank you, First Minister. The only think I'd add is that there was a workshop held last week with Medr, starting to explore some of these issues and looking at the improvement needed in our labour market data, so that we're sure and clear on what it is that employers, both now and in the future, need and how we can respond as quickly as we need to. Particularly with qualifications, there's a lead time, and we need to try to make sure that we can be responsive as a sector to the growing and changing skills needs. But, as the First Minister references, some of the skills that are needed in the green economy are existing and long-standing skills, they're not necessarily new skills. So, identifying those and how we can ensure that we've got a pipeline of learners coming through and engaging with those is key.

The Children, Young People and Education Committee are doing an inquiry into pathways into post-16 education. Work experience, it's really important to get that back on track, maybe with a little bit more investment in Careers Wales and stability there. And very often parents are the ones that really push the children on to different pathways, so making sure that parents also understand, as well as the young people, as early as possible to create that pathway into what's available in the future is really important.

Great.

Thank you.

Before we move on, you will know, First Minister, that floating offshore wind is important to me in my own constituency. And, as you highlighted, it's not now, it's down the line and the skills development is part of that. But also how do we ensure, or how are you ensuring, that the Welsh Government is putting things in place so that we don't lose out to other competitors at that point in time, so that we are ready to attract investors to come in to Wales? I know you've had an investment summit, and I'll come on to that in a second, but how do we ensure that Wales will be the place that floating offshore wind business and industry will come to, so that we don't just end up having them offshore, but that we actually benefit from the development, construction and maintenance and everything of them? It's about putting things in place now so that that can happen. So, how is the Welsh Government doing all of that?

So, we set up the task and finish group specifically for that reason, and we got all of the key players around the table to say, 'What do you need us to do and by when?', and to set out a framework so that everybody's clear who is responsible for what. They've now reported with the very specific requirements of people within a time frame. So, all of that is now being enacted. They've only just reported very recently, but I think that that's the big opportunity.

We've only just had the announcement of the two developers, but already we're in touch with the developers to say, 'Right, let's engage. What do we need to do to make sure that the investment is here?' So, we're trying to get in as early as possible, and I'm sure that you'll be very relieved that, with those two developers, Port Talbot was named as a place where we may see developments. We're in touch with Associated British Ports. It is a fantastic opportunity, I think. There aren't many places that have the expanse of land that you need that is available at Port Talbot. So, we're already in touch with them. And, obviously, the £80 million that has recently been announced by the UK Government to develop the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme in Port Talbot is very welcome, and that will hopefully help to generate some drive and investment into that area.

So, just for clarity—and you haven't got to answer this question—from what I understand, there is a clear consideration that the Welsh Government will invest in the areas that it identifies through the taskforce to develop for those opportunities in the future. You're not going to just say, 'The taskforce has said this', and then we don't do anything with it; we will be looking at investment to deliver what the taskforce requires to ensure that those jobs come. I'll just leave that thought with you, okay?

Mark will come in in a minute, but on the investment conference that you're going to have—the summit, I couldn't think of the word—at the end of the year, what percentage of that investment summit do you think will be focused on green jobs compared to other types of industry across Wales?

What I'm trying to do is to make sure that what we don't do is just invite people without a serious conversation with them before they come. So, it depends on a lot of timing. There's going to be another announcement in terms of development in the Celtic sea at some point. Will that be ready in time? We don't know who that's likely to be. So, I think some of it will be time dependent in terms of when people are ready to invest, but I've made it clear I don't want that to be our first contact with people who are invited to the summit; I want this to be quite a long way through a conversation with them to deliberately be able to land the investment.

Mark, do you want to ask a quick question?

Yes. How will you ensure that environmentally sensitive areas, particularly those that are crucial to species recovery programmes such as the curlew recovery programme, are protected from inappropriate development in the wrong place for the counter nature recovery agenda? How do you propose to address widespread public concern about associated infrastructure ranging from pylons to battery storage?

And finally, it wasn't in the statement this morning, but how can we better help the public understand that, for decades to come, this technology onshore is going to rely on essential back-up from gas power stations such as those in Connah’s Quay?

Thanks. Look, we’ve got to get the balance right, and it is a difficult balance, and different parts of the country have had to deal with a different balance over years. You think about the way that coal has scarred communities in south Wales for a long time, and you had slate quarries in north Wales, and so there's always a balance in terms of how you make sure that we're able to drive the economy. And let's face it, we are expecting a tripling of demand in terms of electricity in our country by 2050, so where's it going to come from? So, we can't be naive about where that's going to come from while we've got an energy challenge as well and the climate change crisis. So, all of these things will have to be balanced. We will have to take the temperature of people in their communities, but we also have to understand that energy poverty is a real issue for people in our country and that getting that balance right between energy poverty, security of supply and carbon reduction is really crucial, and that will be a political call as to where we land that.

Adam's going to come in. As soon as I heard 'pylons', I knew you were going to ask a question.

Somebody mentioned pylons so—. The announcements that were made today or yesterday in relation to Trydan Gwyrdd Cymru, the grid connections associated with them that have been announced are wooden poles, not pylons. Was that a deliberate choice? And if Trydan Gwyrdd Cymru can do it, surely other developers can bring forward investments without necessarily relying on pylons too.

I don't know the detail about the particular announcements today in terms of—I haven't gone into the detail of poles or pylons. There are some wind turbines that require bigger pylons, 400 kV ones require bigger pylons, so it depends on the size and all kinds of things, so I don't know the detail of that, but I'm happy to look into that.

I'm sure we'll have several Members looking into that over the summer.

I want to move on to the connecting communities agenda—your priority—and I'll pass over to John Griffiths to start.

In terms of social housing, First Minister, the housing situation in Wales isn't what we would want it to be, and there are many pressures, from rough-sleeping and homelessness up to quality issues and affordability, and key to making the sort of progress required is ramping up the number of affordable social homes for rent. So, in that context, the Local Government and Housing Committee that I chair has said that we need to move up from 16 per cent to 20 per cent in terms of those low-carbon, affordable social homes for rent. That would involve something like 60,000 extra being built over the five years or so following this Senedd term, and, of course, we have the current target of 20,000. So, there's a lot of progress that needs to be made on this front, and it's very important to an awful lot of people. In terms of that 20,000 target that you're working towards at the moment, First Minister, I think the latest stats at the end of last year showed the figures at something like 9,000. What can you tell us today about how realistic that target is, how likely it is that those 20,000 will be built or required?

I think it's probably worth saying that this is the most ambitious housing target in our nation's history, and that what we've done is we've then backed up that target with £2 billion-worth of investment this Senedd term. So, this is a lot of money that we've done. As you say, in the first three years, we've delivered nearly 9,000 of those homes. Some of those are our highest annual delivery rates since 2008, and we are confident that that progress is continuing.

I think it's probably worth setting out again the context in which this—. When we set the targets, we weren't in a position where we had a war in Ukraine, inflationary targets [correction: inflation increases]. We had the Liz Truss budget that crashed the economy, sent up interest rates. There's been a massive shortage of products, a shortage of skills. All of those things were things that were not in the equation when that target was met [correction: was set]. But I've got to tell you that the pipeline is really strong. We know there are thousands of homes on their way. Now, getting everything done this Senedd term is going to be a stretch, but I can tell you this, we are going to absolutely stretch every sinew to try and deliver as much as we can. We think we're going to have this year the best year we've ever had in terms of numbers of houses built.

One step that Welsh Government has taken, First Minister, to try and speed up progress is to set up the affordable homes taskforce, which Lee Waters headed up and has reported. Could you tell us what you will be doing differently in the light of that report and how effective you expect that to be on this agenda?

Thanks. I think there are something like 41 recommendations in that report, so that's quite a lot of recommendations. What that tells you is that this is quite a complex picture and it's not just one lever that you can pull, but there are lots of small things you can do to inch things along and to change things. It's taken a really pragmatic approach. I know that the Cabinet Secretary herself has met an implementation group. She's chairing the meeting, and that first meeting has already been held. Again, this is about delivery. What will it take? How do we make a difference here? It's this kind of practical approach that is the approach that I'm trying to instil within Government.

John, do you want to move on to rail?

Yes, diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. Moving on to your priority of connecting communities, First Minister, and our railways, Transport for Wales, their performance, are key to much of this. You identified transforming their railways as one of your priorities. So, could you tell us what specific steps you've taken to improve the performance of Transport for Wales since you identified that priority?

Well, look, I'm not going to pretend that I'm responsible for all the changes, because anything to do with rail takes years and years and years. And I think the fact that we are in a really good place today when it comes to what we are responsible for, when it comes to rail, is testament to the sticking power of former transport Ministers who've actually just held the line on something that is very expensive and very difficult. What we're now seeing is the fruits of that approach. We've invested £800 million to transform our rail network. We've committed £1 billion to core Valleys lines. We've seen new trains being delivered. Seventy-seven per cent of the new carriages are brand-new; you can see them all over the country. This is visible, it's different. We've seen an uplift of about a fifth of [correction: of about a fifth in the number of] passengers. And people are only just clocking this massive change that's happening. So, I don't know—. Peter is an expert on this.

I'm happy to add a bit, but I will keep it brief, because I know we are subject to time. I would say that the performance story is an example of the delivery focus that we were discussing earlier in this session, the understanding of the causal link between inputs, outputs and outcomes, and focusing on performance above other things. We have kept Transport for Wales's remit very singular on performance over the last year. We had far more, and understandably so, difficult committee sessions on TfW performance a couple of years back. We were in a very difficult place in 2022 and 2023, and that was when the majority of the new trains were coming in. Unfortunately, the best way to run a reliable service on the railway is never to change any of our rolling stock. And we are changing the majority of our rolling stock. We are now through that trough, and we are on the upside now, but we do need to keep Transport for Wales very focused on delivery and not on any other extraneous things. What we're trying to do is strike the right balance between close partnership and scrutiny, and we don't think that those are inconsistent things—we try and do them in tandem.

Okay, John?

Yes. If I could move on, in terms of investment, we know that it takes massive investment to improve railways and Wales has been historically underfunded for an awfully long time. So, there's a huge job to do in terms of catching up. I really want to ask you, First Minister, whether you believe you are being sufficiently ambitious for Wales, in terms of that huge investment and the underfunding and the catching up that's required. Because we heard, following the comprehensive spending review, Professor Mark Barry say that, in the light of that CSR, on rail funding for Wales, Wales seems grossly underfunded and Wales Fiscal Analysis called it 'underwhelming'. I think, since then, we've had the announcement of some £200 million in expected consequentials from rail projects in England. But, as I say, given the huge amount of investment that's required, is Wales being sufficiently ambitious, given that the Chancellor said in relation to the CSR that she'd given Wales everything the Welsh Government had asked for?

We have been underfunded for years and years and years. There has been recognition for the first time of that underfunding. We will always be asking for more. Let me just be absolutely clear about that. We will be asking for more. I'm going to ask Peter, because there's a lot of smoke and mirrors around rail funding—. It is quite complicated. I'm going to ask Peter to help me out on this.

Of course. So, the first thing to say is that rail is, rightly or wrongly, a very long-term industry. So, we were just discussing rail performance. That is coming good as a result of investment that was announced many, many years ago. And so we need to apply that perspective to the spending review. What the UK Government have done is two things. One, they have acknowledged explicitly for the first time that Wales is structurally underfunded, and we have that on the record. And that is a new development. And the second thing is that they have funded the most shovel-ready schemes in Wales. So, the things where we are most ready to crack on have been explicitly funded by the spending review. What we need to do in parallel to delivering those most shovel-ready schemes is ensure that there is development work on the next set of schemes to come after that. Now, some of those may begin towards the end of this spending review, some may be for the next spending review, and that comes back to this point about rail being long-term investment. But what we need to do is ensure that there is that pipeline of schemes always ready to go. That is the only way that you bring the most investment possible into Wales, and turning on the tap of this investment is, as I say, rightly or wrongly, not a quick fix. It is something that's going to many years to come on-stream.

Jenny Rathbone, and then I'll have Adam Price.

The £445 million that was allocated to Wales in the spending review is a welcome down payment. It's five years since we accepted the Burns report for the south-east Wales metro. We've been held up by the failure to repair the lines. So, what evidence is there that this is now a priority for the UK Government? Because we need spades in the ground to convince people that anything is going to change, because we've been talking about it for a long time, and now we have some money, or rather Heidi Alexander has some money. Can we ensure that she is focused on this particular project?

Those conversations are very active, as you can imagine, but I'm going to ask Peter to come in again, if you don't mind.

So, the two most significant rail investments in the Burns report are in the UK Government list of schemes to be funded by this spending review, and they are the upgrades to the south Wales main line relief lines and the stations. And actually, Lord Burns made a statement in the House of Lords, following the spending review, to welcome that and to support the UK Government. That will implement the rail backbone of the Burns commission in the south Wales corridor. There is then a need for the Welsh Government—and this will be for after the election, for the next Welsh Government—to do the complementary investment in bus and active travel in that corridor to make the most of that rail investment, because we will have the best outcome if both Governments work in partnership and jump together, and then you will give people the genuine transport alternatives to roads.

So, can we ensure that the spades are in the ground on 1 April, because it's obviously in the next financial year that this needs to happen?

I can reassure you that the relief lines will be started first, and the development work on the relief lines is largely complete—

The improvement of the lines, yes?

Yes. You can't build the stations until the relief lines are upgraded.

I'm very happy with a ticket office and a turnstile. It's getting these lines fixed that we can't do, or shouldn't be doing, because it's somebody else's responsibility.

Okay. I think the answer has been given to that one. Adam.

I was wondering if you could just give us some indication of the next wave of projects that you referred to that the Wales rail board are already considering, whether it's station projects like St Clears. Where are we on electrification further west of Cardiff? Is that still there, and other investments?

In 2020 you produced your own assessment of the historic underinvestment levels in Wales in rail—2021 to 2029. I was wondering whether you've refreshed that to reflect the spending decisions and commitments that have now been made, so we can have a new assessment of where we are now, to help your discussions with the Government.

And finally, on the east-west project, which was reclassified, are you able to say now—? Before the reclassification, we were entitled to a consequential, and that's acknowledged, I think, by all sides. Have you been able to identify now the actual figure that we have been allocated, or we will be allocated, prior to reclassification?

I think you're talking about the Cambridge-Oxford line there, are you?

Yes, that, otherwise known as the Oxford to Cambridge line.

I'll ask Peter to start on that, and then Andrew will come in on the reclassification bit.

Just briefly on the schemes that could come next, some examples are the north Wales main line, Chester station, the Swansea metro, things in the south-west of Wales. And the challenge for the Wales rail board will be to come up with the next set of development priorities to come in the next spending review in parallel to holding the Department for Transport's feet to the fire on delivering on this spending review. That's the exam question for the Wales rail board now. But I'll hand over to Andrew on Barnett.

We're going into the more complex end of the way the Barnett system works, but at the moment there is a programme in the Department for Transport departmental expenditure limit plan called East West Rail that is, in the comparability factors, identified as a comparable programme. So, that has been the case for a number of years, and, in the comprehensive spending review just completed, that programme is still in the DfT DEL as comparable, so there's not actually been any change in that. But, as you were saying, the UK Government has said that it shouldn't be identified as a comparable programme, because it's a heavy rail enhancement thing, which is done on an England-and-Wales basis rather than an England-only basis, and that will change going forward. So that potentially will affect our settlement in future years, but, in terms of the spending review that's just gone, it hasn't had any impact.

Right. So, despite all of the media discussion, that project is currently still comparable and we're still entitled—

In the way the Barnett formula is calculated, yes. But it's probably worth noting that, actually, in the numbers, it's a very small programme, because it's based on the funding level back in 2023-24, when it was still—[correction: back in 2023-24]. There's a big investment planned in the Oxford-Cambridge line over the next few years, but the funding in the baseline at the time these numbers were used was only £150 million. Obviously, that's a lot of money, but, one way or the other, it actually wouldn't have made a big difference whether it was in or out. So, the things that really determine comparability—. The big spending areas are HS2 and Network Rail. Those are the two very big ones that affect on comparability, and those are both non-comparable, and those are the things that push our comparability down to about 33 per cent.

But the future Oxford and Cambridge programme investment is much bigger.

Yes.

We need to move on because we've got eight minutes left. John wants to come in—a quick one, John—and then we need to go on to buses, and we haven't even touched education yet.

Yes, very quickly, just in terms of spades in the ground, I was wondering whether anything could be said in terms of those five Burns stations in south-east Wales, as to whether we might see any spades in the ground quite quickly, and, if so, when?

Stations are one of the hardest things you do in rail, and they will require the planning. We are dealing with a part of Wales that has poor ground conditions. I mean, the Gwent levels, it's called Marshfield for a reason. So, I need to manage expectations on spades in the ground on the stations specifically, not least because the relief lines work needs to be completed first. We will certainly be pressing for work to begin as quickly as possible but it needs to be sustainable work and we wouldn't want nugatory expenditure, because that wouldn't make an ongoing case for investment in Wales.

Carolyn.

The investment in rail has been really welcome, the £800 million. You can really see the benefit now, but it's taken a few years to get here. We've got the bus Bill going through and people are desperate to see improvement in buses. How are we going to manage expectations? Also, regarding the funding, it's great to get the pipeline in place. You've only been in place since September, we've got a year left, and the Bill's going through. There's not so much on the face of the Bill; the rest is to come. So, we need to—. I want to make sure that we've got things in place as much as possible and there's funding going through into the next Senedd. We need that continuity there.

Yes. Look, we've increased funding this financial year from £123 million to £140 million, and that's helping, because what's good is that people are using the buses more. It has taken a long time to get some of the pensioners back on the buses after COVID and things. Yesterday I was really delighted to be with Ken Skates announcing that £1 scheme now being extended beyond 16 to 21-year-olds, to from five to 21-year-olds. That's something that I hope people will really welcome, and will make a difference in terms of the cost of living.

But we always knew that—. Getting the Bill through is the first bit, and then obviously we will need to work with Transport for Wales to get that configuration of where we want those routes to be connected. Is there anything you want to add to that?

No, that's spot on.

Okay. Can I just touch on roads briefly? Our road network, there's a £3 billion backlog because we've had many years of cuts—15 years of austerity cuts. I'm really pleased that you've put money into the strategic road network, but also the local road network, to deal with those policies, those things that really matter to people. I'm glad you made that one of your priorities after having that listening round during the summer. Going forward, though, I want to make sure that there is still that funding, that continuity. There's something in place for two years. Is that enough? How can we make sure that, going forward, whatever Government's here—I hope it's you again—we've got that money going into that local road network, as well as the strategic road network?

Look, this is something that came up very loudly and clearly. People want to see their roads fixed, and I think it was in your constituency we heard quite a lot about it. So, it's been really great that we've been able to put that money in. We will be seeing around 700 km of improved roads, around 200,000 potholes fixed or prevented from getting worse. So, I think that's major, a major transformation. That is something that has come directly from the public. Obviously, political parties will want to reflect on what they put in their manifestos in relation to that.

Okay, thank you.

Can I ask a question on that, then? How are you as Welsh Government ensuring that the money is spent on that repairing, and that it's an effective and efficient form of repair? We've often seen holes filled with a bit of tarmac and that's considered done. Well, that's not the way it works. Within a very short space of time, that pothole comes again. How are you ensuring the value for money and effectiveness of the delivery of ensuring that the roads are repaired to a level that people expect? I can give you an awful lot of potholes in my area.

Yes.

Just two very brief remarks: the first is that each local authority has to report to us on what they are doing with the expenditure, and we will both review that for financial audit reasons but we will also share that with our strategic roads network team, just to ensure it reflects engineering best practice, which takes me to your second point. And you're completely right. That is why we are using this funding, actually, technically for more pothole prevention, as well as potholes in their own right, because the best way to fix potholes is to ensure they don't come to the fore in the first place. That means that, technically, some of the funding will be used for a wider range of defects, because that is the most efficient way to maintain the road network.

That is also why, again a bit like rail, you would ideally not turn the taps on and off every year. That's also not the best way to prepare the supply chain, or indeed to minimise disruption to the motorist. If, to the extent that financial pressures allow, some of this funding could be maintained, then that will both allow for that prevention approach, the efficient supply chain, and also dealing with the widest range of defects, albeit we are not looking to gold plate in all regards; we want to do the right things on the right roads, and that's something else we've learnt over the years.

Can I just say? Councils have a highway asset management programme, so to know that they've got a two-year funding window helps them to plan and prioritise which are the most in need. That's the way of addressing the failing so potholes don't occur. But we have got the Pothole Pro in Flintshire as well, which is a lot more efficient than having to do it by manual means, so it's good.

Peter.

One of the best things, I think, that was announced this year by the First Minister was actually using local government borrowing powers and funding the revenue costs of that. That was a sensible initiative, one I advocate for. Will you be doing more of that? It makes absolute sense to use the tools that are at the disposal of local government, but they haven't got the revenue to use those tools. It's an excellent way to drive infrastructure improvement. Will you be doing more of that?

I wouldn't be averse to it. If they've got facilities to borrow, I think that is certainly a conversation we'd be willing to have with them.

Great. Thank you.

First Minister, we've got seconds left before we're due to finish, and we haven't touched an important area, of education, yet. I'm not going to have time to do that, unfortunately. We will write to you about some of those points, but I think it highlights the importance of all four areas of prioritisation how much time we need to spend on all of them, to be honest, because boosting educational standards and attainment in Wales and across Wales is a critical element of how we develop our economy and how we develop our future opportunities, and even workers in the health sector and care sector. It's something we just haven't had time to do this morning, but, please, for those watching, it's not something we think is less important than all the others—it just simply highlights the time we really need to go through in depth on some of these issues.

So, I will have to say thank you for your time this morning, because I know you are committed elsewhere at the moment. You will receive a copy of the transcript, and your officials, and therefore, if there are any factual inaccuracies, please let us know as soon as possible so we can have them corrected. So, thank you and your officials for your time.

Thank you very much. Diolch yn fawr.

For Members, under Standing Order 17.42, I now move, propose, that we resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of this meeting. Are Members content to do so? They are. Therefore, we will now move into private session.