Equality and Social Justice Committee

Welcome back to the Equality and Social Justice Committee. We're continuing the second of our four scrutiny sessions on the functioning of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. In this second session, I'm very pleased to welcome Fen Turner, who is the team leader for integrated approaches to natural resources and climate change for Natural Resources Wales; Philip Daniels, executive director of public health at Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board; and Sumina Azam, national director of policy and international health for Public Health Wales. Thank you very much, all of you, for coming along, and we very much appreciate your contributions, and thank you very much indeed for your written evidence. What is your overall assessment of the progress in light of the comments from the well-being of future generations commissioner in his most recent report? Who would like to start? Fen.

I'll give it a go. Yes, I think, coming from the environment sector, where we're experiencing first-hand the difficulty of a different future. in terms of nature collapse and climate change, that there are a lot of synergies that we're noticing in the environment sector that were picked up by the commissioner's report, specifically in the climate and nature mission. Yes.

Okay. So, do you think that the Act is addressing this—

In terms of action, no. I also would agree that we've had some incremental changes but not transformational, and I think that there's more work to be done to meet those transformational aspirations. But there are pockets of good practice. There are champions of the Act that are using it to work in new and different ways and to deliver better things and to look to the future, but that's not across the board. I think it's quite varied, that practice, and so, yes, there's still an awful lot more to do.

Thank you. Sumina, or—.

Thank you, Chair. So, I think that there's huge potential with the Act. So, it's absolutely transformative, it's pioneering. I think we all agree—my colleagues certainly agree—with that. But it's very much something that brings us together, it's a collective commitment. And for me, from a public health background, it embodies, the Act, public health principles. So, it mandates what we need to deliver better outcomes for our population, such as collaboration. It very much enables prevention and a sustainable approach. So, for us, prevention and public health go hand in hand. It also very much helps us prepare for the future. So, those are the great things about the Act.

We have made progress, as my colleague has said, but it has been incremental, and I don't think we've quite got the system-wide change that we need. So, we've not quite met the potential that's there. But there have been barriers in the way, which I'm sure we'll come to, and I do think that the direction is right—the strategic direction set out by the Act is right. It enables conversations, it enables us to work together, and it puts us on the right path, and there is other legislation in place that help us to really get down to the detail of what we should do to improve health and wellbeing.

Okay. Philip Daniels, clearly one of the major issues is the unwellness of the population.

Yes.

So, is it down to the way the legislation was drafted, or what are the reasons why we remain so impotent, it would appear, in the increasingly unhealthy country we live in?

I don't think you can put that all down to one piece of legislation, in fairness. I think health is determined by a diversity of determinants. Some of those are within the scope of the well-being of future generations Act: we talk about housing and we talk about education. We have got an ageing population. We've got a population with historic deprivation. We've got a population that has health behaviours that are being tackled by other pieces of legislation and other work as well. There's a lot of good that has come out of the well-being of future generations Act, as Sumina said, in terms of that cultural shift and that explicit engagement with the language of sustainability; I think that is all for the good. Again, as has been brought up in the auditor general's report, that hasn't translated to systemic change, but what it has done is, things like the socially responsible procurement duty, for example, within health organisations, we're now utilising that. That's brought us together in terms of PSBs, as part of the public services board. Now, that has brought us together, and clearly we are undertaking a needs assessment, a well-being plan. It's the implementation gap that's tricky: how do we step out of our wheelhouse as a health board to work directly with local authorities, Natural Resources Wales et cetera? Some of that work's historic, but it's about, yes, how do we actually turn that into reality in terms of a small number of things that we collectively are going to deliver on. I think we're still working through that process.

Okay. We're going to pursue this further. Jane Dodds, you wanted to come in first.

Thank you very much. Could I just ask all of you, please, about your organisation? Where has your organisation made the most progress since the Act was passed? Thank you. I don't know who wants to go first. Philip.

Philip.

Yes. Apologies for the English. So, as Cwm Taf Morgannwg, we’ve got a strategic plan, and that strategic plan is about building healthy communities. Speaking directly to Jenny's point about that it's not just about hospitals, it's not just about the health care that we deliver—how do we help populations stay healthy in the first place? So, there are four elements to that, and those elements are: improving care—so that's the care that people experience when they go through the gates; it's about securing our future, and that's both environmental sustainability and financial sustainability; it's about inspiring our people—80-odd per cent of our staff come from CTM, right, so, how do we support those, not only in terms of whilst they're in the gates, but also using them as ambassadors outside the gates as well in terms of promoting health? But we've also got an area we've termed ‘creating health’, and that is about how we mainstream prevention throughout all the work of the health board, how we pull together the diverse bits from primary, secondary and tertiary prevention. So, that's preventing the risk factors, stopping the risk factors, stopping that turning into disease, stopping disease adversely affecting people's lives. And that speaks directly—the overall strategy speaks directly—to the well-being of future generations Act. It's what comes first, really. Would we have come up with those four areas had it not been for the well-being of future generations Act? I can't know, that's a counterfactual, but certainly those elements have become a key part, and so the work that we're doing around reducing carbon output, for example, explicitly references the well-being of future generations Act. Obviously, we have our well-being standards, or well-being objectives, across the organisation as well, and the ways of working have been embedded in how we operate as an organisation, both within ourselves, but also in terms of engaging our communities as well.

Thank you. Fen.

I'm happy to answer. Three things I'd focus on: the first is our strategic evidence, so our SoNaRR reports. We're just about to publish our third 'The State of Natural Resources Report’, which assesses the extent to which we are managing our natural resources sustainably. There are a number of indicators associated with that report that, since the Act happened 10 ago, we've really matured in that. We've now got four long-term aims within SoNaRR that help us measure that progress, and so I think we've advanced quite a lot there, in the environment sector, to keep up with the Act.

I think, in terms of us as an organisation, our corporate plan is a good example of us trying to embed that approach to systems change within our organisation. The three well-being objectives of climate, nature and pollution really help the organisation take a systems approach to addressing some of the challenges that the natural environment faces. But I think maybe the biggest contribution that we've made as an organisation is through our public services boards. Natural Resources Wales sits on all 13 public services boards, and, although they're all different and varied, there's been some really, really positive local action so that operational officers have been able to deliver different and better things with partners at the local scale, and that's been quite impressive.

One example is the work that we've done with Public Health Wales, actually, strategically, to develop the local climate change risk assessment guidance for public services boards, which all 13 have now committed to undertaking ahead of their next well-being plans to really understand how climate risk will impact the well-being of communities in an integrated way. So, I think what we've done locally has been really quite impressive for quite a small organisation.

Thank you. Sumina.

Thank you. So, I think for us it's been a learning journey, and it's actually been really interesting just in terms of how we embed within the organisation. This is very much about language, culture, behaviours, and that's required real input in terms of deliberate thinking about how do we do this, not assuming we do it, but rather thinking about, 'Well, how do we demonstrate to our staff that this is why we're doing it?' Actually, within public health, we use the same language, so sometimes we assume we're thinking about the future generations Act, whereas that may not be obvious to all our staff. So, we've had to be really deliberate about that.

The other thing we've done within the organisation is embed it in systems and processes, and that's actually what the guidance tells you to do, as a first off, to then put you on the right footing. So, for example, if we're doing performance reporting, we think about it in terms of, 'Well, how does this link to the future generations Act?' I think a significant example for us is our planning. So, we have a long-term strategy. We had one in 2018, and then we refreshed it post COVID in 2023. For us, it's a long-term strategy—it takes us to 2035—aligned with the Act.

The priorities in there align with our well-being objectives; they are one and the same. For us, it's been very much that the Act has been helping us to do that strategy in the best way we can, so involving our staff, talking to our stakeholders, thinking about the long term, so using tools like backcasting: we're in the future, how do we reach where we need to using steps? We published our long-term strategy in 2023, and that very much requires us to think across the well-being goals and think about them in an integrated way.

I think the other thing that the Act has enabled us to do is our partnership working. So, we've provided written evidence, but I think that is just skimming the surface of what the Act does in terms of the partnerships it's opened up for us. For example, we work closely now with Transport for Wales, we have a post funded by them sitting with us, and that's to help us both think about how can we embed behavioural informed approaches into transport, how can we get people doing more active travel using public transport. Our tackling diabetes programme, for example, is very much about partnership working. A lot of these may or may not have happened with the Act or without the Act, but I think it’s certainly helped us in shaping it. I think the Act isn’t just about looking back and going, ‘Oh yes, that was the Act’, it’s actually thinking about things upfront and thinking, ‘How does it help us to do things better?’

Thank you. That's excellent scene setting. We now need to look at implementation. Julie Morgan.

Diolch. What I want to ask you about is what have been the difficulties, what has stood in the way, what has been the greatest challenge to your organisation in order to bring in this Act. I don't know who'd like to start. Do you want to start?

Yes, I'm happy to, thank you. I mentioned culture, and actually culture is really difficult because it’s so ingrained and it’s part of who we are, and it’s difficult to evidence. And culture change also takes a long time. Within Public Health Wales, the Act absolutely aligns to public health principles and we have to make a deliberate choice about, ‘What difference does this Act make to us?’ So, I think demonstrating the impact of the Act on our culture is actually really difficult.

I think one of the things is also about partnerships, and just about how we have different things in place, like governance mechanisms, funding, different streams in terms of accountability. One of the other key issues for us, I’d say, is the long-term nature of the Act, so we need to think intergenerationally, or certainly beyond three, five or 10 years, and that doesn’t quite align with a lot of the funding streams we get, with the accountability mechanisms that are in place. And also, the partnership model requires us to do things together, and that’s actually really difficult if you want to join funding or join posts or have joint mechanisms in place.

I think one of the other things is just about demonstrating impact. So, the Act has got national indicators and they’re really good, high-level indicators, and actually, one of them, a healthy life expectancy, is our overarching goal—we want to improve healthy life expectancy for our population. But actually, that is not something we can achieve on our own, and the indicators are something that require multiple organisations working together as a system. It’s actually really difficult to show what difference we’ve made as an organisation on that indicator, and I think that’s really problematic, in a way, because it’s difficult to see our impact and demonstrate our impact. So, I think while it’s really aspirational, there’s something we could be doing just in terms of thinking about what indicators, what outcomes are we actually achieving because of the Act.

The other major challenge for us as an organisation—and I think Philip touched upon it—is the environment that we have. The Act was introduced at a time of austerity and there are still significant financial challenges for public services and for the country. We’ve had a pandemic, we’ve had a cost-of-living crisis and that has very much got long-term impacts on our population's health and well-being. And it is a difficult place to be in, with all of those things very much pushing in the opposite direction of where we want to go. So, it feels like it's sometimes uphill.

Thank you. Diolch. Philip, do you want to add anything?

Yes, certainly. The No. 1 is that there's conflict for resources. Within a health board—I work within a delivery organisation—the need and the demand always outstrips the resource that's available. So, we're making dynamic choices based upon what is the best use of money as is our legal duty. That having been said, what we're held to account for as a health board—. So, if we look at our joint executive team meetings, for example, we're held to account on how well we're managing within our budget, what the ambulance waits are, what the waits for procedures are, et cetera. The attention on our long-term aspirational goals around sustainable development, for example—. They may come up, but they'll be a question at the end of the presentation. It's not held throughout.

We do work closely with local authority partners. For example, with the floods that happened in Pontypridd last year, we worked closely with NRW. The way that we as organisations are funded and held accountable differs among those organisations, and so the opportunity to work truly in partnership is complicated. We have got different governance structures completely, and so it's harder. I think that the big one for us—. I talked about how we pivot in terms of the use funding, but our funding allocation is always short term. It's always a year. We are asked to project 30 years into the future, with a budget that needs to be accounted for today, with demand that is far outstripping available resource. So, it doesn't lend itself to that long-term—. Obviously, we do strategic planning, but that certainly hinders what we can do within our envelope.

I'd echo a lot of what has already been said. The primary thing is the stretch for resources when you're working in crisis, and that's the same for my organisation, especially with regard to climate change. We're experiencing the impacts now, and so being able to take a step back and work on preventative approaches upstream, when you've got such accountability and budget scrutiny—. It's an easy sentence, but it's a hard thing to do in practice, and I think that we've definitely experienced that. The shortage of resources means that we have to concentrate on immediate pressures.

So, yes, there's moving to the preventative model. Working with others also takes a lot of time and energy as well. We recognise that it's important, but it's it's resource intensive. There's something as well around legislation. So, the environment Act, like the future gen Act, is a framework piece of legislation, which is a different type of legislation for us to be working with.

I think that, culturally, we don't really yet know, across the board, how to use framework legislation in a way that we can adapt and learn. It's that area—where we can be more adaptive, innovative, and learn by doing—that we're often unable to resource. But actually, that's exactly the space that we need to be in, if we're going to adapt to the risks of the future. So, in terms of culture and resources, that's a struggle for us, I'd say.

Also, with existing legislation, we're a regulator and an enforcer of, and an adviser on, environmental regulation, and some of it is post-war. The health of the environment underpins well-being in a way where, maybe, we do need to look at legislative reform in some of the environmental protection legislation that we have, to make sure that it's suitable for us to actually do our job in that respect.

Thanks very much. You've all said things that are challenges in order to follow the Act. Do you feel that it is understood within your organisations? Do you want to start this side this time?

I'd say it's varied, the understanding of the Act. I think that there are—and I've mentioned them already—some folks in operations, some folks embedded in policy, who have been in this space for 10 years and have used the permissions of the Act, with partners, and have had some great results from that. There are some people in my organisation who, although contributing to the well-being goals, won't realise that they are and don't don't know the thread back to their own role.

All of our board members get training in the Act and the synergy that there is with the understanding of sustainable management and environmental well-being. So, it's part of our purpose, and it's part of the policies that relate to our purpose. But it's understood to a varying degree.

Thank you. What about Cwm Taf Morgannwg?

We employ 13,500 people, from ground staff to nurses to doctors to execs. As Fen said, I think that people may not know that they are engaging with the Act. I don't think many would disagree with it, if we were to have that discussion with them. Certainly, at a corporate level, it's very well understood. We've obviously had that 'CTM 2030: Our Health, Our Future' strategic plan, which has the Act running through it. We have that Creating Health board, as I said, to oversee, co-ordinate and report against efforts to improve population health, and a building healthier communities steering group, which looks to develop, support and work with communities to build capacity within communities. We've got the Sustaining our Future pillar of the health board as well, which is about financial sustainability, but also about our carbon neutral status, our recycling, et cetera. So, I think it does vary. There are people that would know that they are speaking directly to the Act, and there are other people who might not know, but will still engage with it actively.

A similar pattern, then. So, what about Public Health Wales? Is that the same?

I would echo some of the experiences of my colleagues. In the past, we have done surveys of our staff to get a baseline understanding of where they are, and then we did a repeat one as well, because in-between those two periods we supported staff in terms of training, in terms of advice, in terms of awareness. That was all pre COVID.

Post COVID, we have done an awful lot in terms of trying to work with our staff and embed it within the organisation. A while ago, we set up something called the health and sustainability hub, very much with that in mind, and that has been one of their roles. And one of the things that we have found very helpful is, actually, the work from the commissioner's office. We've recently used their maturity matrix to understand and check where we are. And I can see my colleague nodding their head. Tools like that help you step back and reflect.

I would also say that with our staff, many will know about the Act. Some may not, but it will link to their work. For example, we've done a lot of work on decarbonisation and reducing single-use plastics within our laboratories. Will everybody in our lab know the connection back to the future generations Act? Perhaps not. Some may, and some may not. But I think there is absolutely that thread between our actions and the Act. In the main, I think staff do know, but I do think we've got further to go.

Thank you. The last question from me is this: how have you found the process of setting well-being objectives, as required by the Act? I think the commissioner did say that he thought a lack of a common framework for setting objectives does make it more difficult. Do you want to start, Philip?

On the process?

Yes, setting the objectives.

Obviously, this was hand in glove with setting 'CTM 2030'. Clearly, we could refer back the documentation. It was about owning it ourselves. Our well-being objectives are currently embedded throughout the 'CTM 2023' work, our strategic plan, and they're reviewed on an annual basis. In my role as exec director of public health, I undertake an annual review as part of the intermediate medium-term plan for the organisation. This year, we added an additional well-being objective with regard to the Welsh language. Once these objectives are set, they're reviewed, they're ratified and approved formally through our internal governance process. We've also, obviously, undertaken iterations of this, looking towards other health boards as well and seeing what is done there. I personally have not had difficulty in terms of setting those objectives.

I'll have to apologise, I'm not from the corporate planning team, but I can take that away, specifically around use of the guidance. I don't know much about the process. I can talk about the outcome of the corporate plan. And I've already mentioned the opportunity to pick up the systems approaches with the objectives that were developed. But I'll take that away and I'll give you a fuller response from our corporate planning team.

I think further learning about setting well-being objectives would be helpful. So, for us it has been a learning opportunity, I think. Back in 2018, when we set our first long-term strategy, we very much thought about it in terms of the five ways of working, involving our public, our staff, stakeholders, but we had separate well-being objectives and strategic priorities. And when we reflected and updated our long-term strategy, we realised that was making things really difficult for us, and then unified them. And I think that has made a huge difference for us in terms of knowing exactly where we're going, and everybody having that common aim.

I think it would be really helpful also because we've had to do it through learning, in terms of setting our well-being objectives, because this is very much in the future. There are tools out there that can help us do it better, and sometimes sharing those amongst other organisations, understanding how they've done it, I think I would find that very helpful.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. So, Philip very clearly described how sustainability came very low on the list of the health board's priorities in terms of describing the immediate issues that needed to be—

I would challenge that. I think it's one of our four corporate objectives. It's the external scrutiny that I questioned rather than the priorities of the health board.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Just picking up on what the future generations commissioner said, the NHS is

‘increasingly overwhelmed with preventable diseases and accidents’;

‘an act of collective self-sabotage’.

We continue to treat the symptoms rather than addressing the root causes. So, how are we going to get around this? I mean, Public Health Wales is constantly providing learned research papers that tell us about going backwards on the amount of healthy life, important things like breastfeeding, and obesity. With all these things, unless we address them, the NHS is going to collapse. How do you, as somebody who is represented across these PSBs, think we can actually get the prevention agenda much higher on the list rather than just being the afterthought?

Is that for me, Chair?

Yes, to start with.

Thank you, Chair. Public Health Wales, per se, isn't a member of PSBs. The local health board is, and I know that our local public health colleagues very much do input to that, and I'm sure Philip can provide further information. But I do think Public Health Wales has a key role in terms of working closely with our health board colleagues and our local public health colleagues as well. And yes, absolutely we do provide evidence—that’s our role—but we also have a role in terms of delivery. So, we have screening services, we have health protection services, and, for us, that is very much about making sure we do that in an equitable way, making sure that those who need services most get them.

But we are very much also about working with our colleagues on the prevention agenda, and I think the thing about the Act is that it has very much put prevention at the forefront. So, in all the meetings I've been at, prevention comes up. Everybody knows it is the core thing that we need to do. I haven't heard a disagreement on that. It is that constant firefighting, as Philip has described, that makes it so, so difficult. We all know we need to do it, and we are seeing steps in that direction. For example, I very much welcome a recent piece of work, or ongoing piece of work, by the Welsh Government to understand prevention spend, because I think that's really important in terms of understanding the balance of how we prioritise our resources. Within Public Health Wales, we've also produced evidence that we want to be used. For example, we've done work on return on investment. If you put x amount into a certain public health intervention—and by that I don't mean just strict public health interventions like vaccines, as important as they are; I mean the broader determinants, such as education, good housing—the evidence we've provided very much talks about, ‘Well, this is what you get back for society.’ And what we want is for that to be used and to be a helpful tool. So, that is just one example of how we want to support and work with our colleagues locally.

The other thing I would add is that parts of the organisation, such as my colleagues in primary care, work with partners to support across the system. So, my colleague who heads up health and well-being—who's the director of health and well-being, should I say—has led a programme on diabetes prevention. And that has been very much about working with colleagues across the system in local health boards to try and embed prevention in diabetes pathways to prevent people from developing diabetes, but also to live well. So, yes, we do have a role in terms of evidence, but we also have a role in supporting and enabling.

Indeed. Sioned Williams.

Thank you, Chair. I just want to go back there to something that Public Health Wales was supposed to do, and something, in my view, that is well aligned with the Act, and that, of course, is helping public bodies to become part of creating and using the health impact assessments. They were in the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017, but we still haven't seen them implemented. So, I've just got an interest in that. They're such a big part of the preventative outlook, so I just wanted to ask why that hasn't happened, for example. As I was saying, it's something that you'd imagine is core to operating in accordance with the future generations Act.

Thank you. I absolutely agree. I think a health impact assessment is a really good tool to embed health into all policies, and I think it's an enabling tool for the Act. We do have a key role in terms of health impact assessment implementation. At the moment, the regulations are being laid down [Correction: 'the regulations are due to be laid in September'], is my understanding, and they are in train, and we are working closely with the Welsh Government in terms of the implementation of the regulations. We have a team called the Wales health impact assessment support unit, and they are currently working closely with the Welsh Government in terms of producing guidance ahead of the introduction of the regulations. We're also developing our model in terms of training and support, and trying to absolutely embed health impact assessment into strategic decision making in Wales.

Clearly, it's eight years, isn't it, since the 2017 Act, so the delay has come from the Welsh Government, would you say, in terms of not setting these regulations?

There has been a delay, but I'm not sure as to the reason. I'm sure COVID has been causing significant difficulties with all of it. It has diverted our efforts from many, many things, including the regulations, I would imagine.

So, how are we going to move forward on this collective act of self-sabotage? Should we be top-slicing budgets and giving the prevention budget to the PSBs to get on with, because we're just not doing it at the moment? There may be individual projects that are, obviously, good in themselves, but given the state of the challenge that faces us, how are we going to turn this tanker around?

Part of it is money, but much of it isn't money, I think. Clearly, there's that point about identifying what we're spending on prevention that Sumina's spoken about. Definitions are key there, because if we start measuring something that doesn't read across multiple sectors or organisations, then we're going to be comparing apples with oranges—that point I made previously in terms of structured monitoring, in terms of what we are measuring in terms of the long-term development. What data do we have in the first place that's meaningful that can be scrutinised with sufficient periodicity to make us know if we're moving in the right direction or not?

Fen alluded to the fact that some of this is about the wicked issues. We can't solve the fact that we've got hospital beds filled up with people that shouldn't be there in the first place. We need to work with local authorities to do that, but, going back to that, how can we be helped to work with local authorities around these really crunchy, wicked issues? I think there's a job for you guys in terms of health in all policies—making sure that education, social services, transport, economy are just as important as health in terms of the—. So, how do we ensure that it runs through, like a stick of rock?

The key thing, I think—. We talked before about how well is it known within your organisation, the well-being of future generations Act, and I think it is pretty well known. I would say also, if you speak to young people out in communities, they would know about climate change, they would know about inequality, they would know about Welsh culture, et cetera. Are we collectively tapping into the nascent social capital that exists in our communities, in the same way as we did with the formation of the national health service? That came from a groundswell; that came from people coming together. It did have central organisation, but it was pushed forward. So, I think, again, it's multifactorial. I don't think it is simply a case of throwing money at PSBs. I don't think it's a case of just top-slicing and saying, 'Do what thou wilt'. I think we need to know, clearly, what we are going to do, and I think, personally—I'm speaking as a consultant in public health and a public health practitioner, not just an executive—we need to have a clear idea of a few things that can be delivered, and deliver them, if that makes sense, rather than a broad brush that will just be infinitely consuming resource.

No, we definitely don't need to be broad-brush. There are very specifics that I'm sure we'd all be able to agree on. Fen Turner.

I've mentioned already there's talk about the wider determinants of health. Within sustainable management, they're the wider determinants of sustainable management, and there's a lot of cross-over, when you take that step back, with the wider determinants of health. We have the same drivers, we have the same pressures, we don't share the same budget, so that might be something that could be considered. I think, with these complex, wicked issues, there's often not one silver-bullet answer. This is a trial place, so taking a lab approach and working out what works, and then scaling it up, I think, is a good idea, and to have some space to do that. You could say the PSBs could do that, but, of course, they're not funded. I don't know if we're going to go on to PSBs a little later, so I won't talk too much about that.

Talk about PSBs.

On the relationship between the PSB and the RPB, for instance, there could be a closer relationship there with the funds that the RPB has and the knowledge that the PSB has. The PSB has really good knowledge and awareness of community well-being, from undertaking the well-being assessments, well-being plans, but they don't have budget. They could, of course, redirect their budgets if they had the luxury of being able to do so, but there could be something more specific around PSBs commissioning RPBs to do work, and to do it on a trial basis. I'm just trying to think of the mechanics to make it work.

Well, in some PSBs, the RPBs are a sub-committee, formally, of the public services boards.

Yes. In some areas, it works well.

Does that help the joining up of dots?

I think it works well when they share priorities, but when it comes to implementation and doing together, that's less clear. There's no co-delivery, necessarily, but there are shared priorities across boards. And nobody measures prevention. We don't have to report on how much of our budget goes towards prevention, so that might be something that the committee might like to look at.

We certainly measure lots of things that tell us things are getting worse, though, so, clearly, it can't be too difficult for us to devise things to try and reverse those figures.

I'm going to move us on. So, Jane Dodds, would you like to come in?

Yes, thank you very much, and thank you to our witnesses for coming here this afternoon. I would like to ask you all, before I start, to think of one sentence, please, that, in your view, encapsulates exactly what this Act is aiming at. I've asked almost everyone who's come before the committee so far this question. I'll come to that towards the end of my questioning, so that's just to give you an opportunity to think of just that one sentence on that.

But I would like to ask, please, about the Welsh Government and how, in your view, they are leading on this Act. In your view and in your experience, how successful has the Welsh Government been at leading by example in embedding this Act, please? I don't know who would like to start on this. I can't seen in the room, but perhaps I'll ask Fen to start.

Diolch. Yes, I think that Welsh Government—. We have a really good relationship with Welsh Government. We cross a lot of areas as Natural Resources Wales. We have a lot of responsibilities and we have lots of links into the Welsh Government in evidence and policy with the civil service and we work very well together. There are challenges, though, and I think that there are challenges for Welsh Government, like any organisation. Our organisations here have explained that this cultural shift is hard to bring to a whole organisation, so awareness of the Act, like in any organisation, is patchy. Some areas are better than others. And you'll find that some Welsh Government officials really understand the Act and some, maybe, have never read it. I think that the previous commissioner did a section 20 review on the Welsh Government's embedding of the Act, and I think that there are some really good recommendations within that report on that basis.

For us as a sponsored body, we have a remit letter from Welsh Government, and that often drives what we do. Having looked back at previous remit letters, the well-being of future generations Act isn't always explicitly mentioned. I think that that would be helpful, if it was in there more often. We get a lot of our funding from service level agreements, which are quite distinct, project-based work as well. So, that drives a lot of what we do, and so a lot of the WFG work is in our grant in aid budget, which is often under pressure. So, that's the resource aspect of it.

In terms of direction, I think that if you don't have the resource then we could do with the direction, and that should be coming through in our natural resources policy, and we don't have an up-to-date one of those at the moment. However, Welsh Government has laid before the Senedd the Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Bill, which is really welcome. And so, with the work that's being put into that, we see absolutely direct synergies with the well-being of future generations Act and the global biodiversity framework that can help to bring some of this together, and we hope that it will do that. And that will enable us to hold to account in a way that the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 has done with decarbonisation. Part 1 of the environment Act now is about to get targets, so that should help to drive delivery there as well. So, that's really welcome. So, it's a mixed picture, I think.

Thank you very much. Who would like to go next?

What about your sentence?

Sorry. Yes, I think that the well-being of future generations Act gives leaders the permission to view a different future, to envisage a different future—not just the permission, but also the ability to bring that future into view. And I think that leaders should use that permission, because when they're talking to their grandchildren or their great-nieces and great-nephews in the future and they're asked, 'What did you do to safeguard my future?', people can have something positive to tell them about how they acted, and this Act gives you the framework to do that.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Pwy sydd eisiau mynd nesaf? Philip, wyt ti eisiau mynd nesaf?

I don't mind going next. Thank you. I'll go to the sentence at the end. In terms of how effective it has been in its implementation, I think that, remembering that Wales is the first country in the world that has an Act of this type and it's always hard to start with a blank piece of paper—they weren't comparing to elsewhere—I think that we can highlight where Wales has been praised for that as well. And certainly, under the last commissioner, a lot of work was undertaken in promoting this, both within Wales and outside of Wales. I don't think that we can rest on our laurels there, because the question is 'How do we implement it?', not 'How did we write the actual document?'

But I think, going back to Fen's sentence at the end there, it certainly shaped culture and shaped how we talk about sustainability within public bodies, I can say. So, we had this shared language, and I don't think that's descended to the point of jargon. I don't think it's just a bingo card that people read out; I think people genuinely recognise that it is as much about Welsh language and culture as it is about the economy, as it is about health. So, it sets a scene amongst organisations, and all public bodies under the Act have well-being goals. I think the challenge now is taking it that step further, so it's a lived reality in communities like Penrhys or the Gurnos, which I serve—does it feel real there? And I do think there's still some way to go.

In terms of a sentence, a single pithy sentence, I think I'll go back to the definition in terms of a more resilient, sustainable Wales. And my background as a consultant in public health—I've worked internationally—is around resilient health systems. Resilience isn't something that individuals have, it's something that systems afford people, right? And it's not about piling more and more grief on top of people and seeing them cope with it; it's actually how we operate as a system to meet challenges, to keep the lights on, to keep the day-to-day business going, but to learn from that as well, and I think this has to be a process of learning. Thank you.

Just in terms of Government, I think a lot of the communications, a lot of the examples we see very much talk the language of the Act. So, when I look at policies coming through and strategic documents, they very much speak the language of the Act, and I do think they have a key role in enabling us as organisations to deliver. So, for me, a few things come to mind. One is making sure that the different policies we have, the different legislation we have, are coherent, that it all joins up, and I think it's worth stepping back and considering that. I mean, some key pieces of legislation predate the Act. So, we mentioned RPBs and the social services and well-being Act, and that predates the WFG Act, and I think it has caused complexity in terms of the partnership arrangements. But there's also something about subsequent policies and just making sure that they are delivery mechanisms for the Act.

I think Welsh Government has a key role in a number of practical things. So, simplifying governance arrangements, simplifying partnerships, things like long-term funding, long-term planning, enabling us to do that, because we all know that's what you need to do to get to 2050 or the future that we are aiming for. And I think the other thing that Welsh Government is absolutely key for us is that shift to prevention. And that's very much the conversations we have with them, but it's a difficult, knotty, difficult problem.

One of the things that comes to mind when I think about, 'Well, what would have happened without the Act?', there are things like, you know, that we declared a climate emergency in Wales before any other nation. I think that actually sends a strong signal to people like me who work in public health, who work in the public sector, about where we need to prioritise, where we need to put our energy, and that has been followed by really good guidance, really good policies about where we should be focusing as an organisation, what we need to be doing.

I think there are still many, many further opportunities with the Act and the role that Welsh Government have, and there are some really complex problems, such as child poverty, health inequalities, and we've got quite high economic inactivity rates in Wales, and these are complex, multifaceted issues that no one organisation can address. And this is exactly what I think the Act is about, bringing together partners and thinking, 'What are your relative contributions?' So, I think maybe looking at those complex issues through the lens of the Act would be really, really helpful and help us move in that sort of positive direction.

Very good.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Sioned Williams.

Sorry, there's one other question. Is there time, or not?

Is there time? No?

Well, it's certainly very—. We've got five more minutes. Is it something that we could write to people about? Okay. Sioned Williams.

Thank you, Chair. Could you tell us if you think there’s a need to change the role of the commissioner and his office, and if so, how and why? Who'd like to go first?

I missed that.

Who wants to start?

Shall I? Thank you. We have a really positive constructive relationship with the commissioner, they’ve been really helpful in terms of our organisational response to the Act. There are many areas of the commissioner’s work where there are overlaps with public health. So, for example, 'Cymru Can', their recent priorities are very much aligned with where we are as an organisation and we are thinking about how we contribute to the commissioner’s agenda and vice versa. So, I think there’s a huge opportunity for us as an organisation and also from a public health perspective in terms of the role of the commissioner.

With regard to changes, I think there’s something that we can all do in terms of understanding how we maximise the impact of the recommendations that the commissioner makes. So, reading his most recent report, there are some really, really helpful, constructive things for public bodies, for us as a system, to take forward. And I think there’s something that we could be doing in terms of thinking about, ‘Well, how do we make sure that these recommendations are implemented, that they’re monitored so that they actually have the impact, and that we see the potential?’

Just in terms of the commissioner, I do think that they cover a legislation that is so, so broad, and it’s a really difficult role, but I think that they’ve had a really positive impact in terms of the support and the enabling environment that they have provided us.

Thank you. Does anyone else have any comments or any suggestions?

Thank you. I think it will change. I mentioned before that we’ve moved from developing this document from a piece of paper through to something that I think has currency throughout Wales and further afield. There is something now about implementation, about how it actually moves to changing the lived reality of people’s lives and meaning something to people across diverse communities in Wales. It’s challenging, isn’t it, because once you move to that implementation—. The skills required to dream, if you like, and to imagine are very different to the skills that you need to do the job and ensure that there is change being made. So, what that looks like—. If we are going to move—. And how—. Sorry, I’ll finish that thought. Potentially, there’s a need for skills change then, within the office of the future generations commissioner, because this is not just about promotion, this is actually about a deep understanding of sectors and holding people to account. So, I think these things will change over time. I think we have seen a big difference just in terms of the different personality of the commissioner, for example, and how that's brought a different element to the work that we're undertaking, and clearly the legislation is the same.

So, I think there will always be a need to change. We mentioned before about austerity, we talked about climate change, we talked about x, y and z. I think the fact that everybody now has a mobile phone in their pocket that's linked to AI, that kids have grown up with this stuff, that the way that they engage with Government and with public sector organisations has changed radically, we need to change with that as well. And the idea that the way in which politics is operated within this country is changing, and so there will inevitably need to be a change in how we engage with our ideas of sustainability.

Fen.

Diolch. I do want to say something quite specific around climate change. So before the WFG Act, there was the Climate Change Commission for Wales, which fostered collaboration on climate action and developed Wales's first climate strategy. It also provided a forum for collaboration and support of delivery of climate action with a wide range of organisations. While we welcome the well-being of future generations Act and the much more integrated approach that that brings us, we do feel as an organisation potentially that that forum for collaboration has been lost. So, the committee might want to look at that.

The functions of the previous commission weren't passed on to the office. Also, it's a very small office, and they pack an enormous punch with the staff that they have got. But with regard to climate change specifically, and the technical requirements and the collaboration that's needed—the cross-sector collaboration—we feel that that's a gap in Wales at the moment, and that that needs to be looked at. Efforts are fragmented, specifically around climate adaptation.

Thank you. Just one quick question and a quick answer. Perhaps you don't have a comment to make. Does anyone have any comments to make regarding the different roles of the commissioner and the Auditor General for Wales? Are those different roles clear, in terms of the Act and how they are implemented on a practical level in relation to your organisations? Does anyone have any view on that?

If I can come in very quickly. I think that, when you read the guidance, it sounds very simple, and it reads very clearly, but when you actually come down to implement it, it can be confusing. So, I think that it would be helpful just to clarify and simplify the difference between the two.

We know that the auditor general very much looks at the five ways of working and the sustainable development principle in terms of setting well-being objectives, and then the organisations carrying out those well-being objectives meeting those well-being objectives. But then the future generations commissioner is very much about, 'Well, how are you meeting your well-being objectives?' I think that there is a little bit of overlap there.

But in reality, our conversations with the future generations commissioner have been very much in the enabling space. So, we haven't focused so much on us as an organisation meeting our well-being objectives. We've very much talked about, 'Well, what can we do collectively with our partner organisations?' Absolutely, we need to meet our well-being objectives. That's a requirement. But it's been more about, 'Well, what are the big issues that we need to tackle with our partners?' That's been a really helpful conversation for us.

Does anybody else want to come in?

Just to agree that, on paper, they are very clear, in terms of the auditor auditing public sector accounts, managing spend and value; and the future gens commissioner overall is about considering the unborn generations, isn't it, really. So, while it has got a longer term view, one's about immediate spend and resource—

Value for money.

Yes, exactly. But there is that crossover.

Yes. Excellent. Can I call in Altaf Hussain?

Thank you, Chair. The area is enforcement and evaluation. One of the biggest criticisms of the Act is a perceived lack of enforcement mechanisms. What are your views on this, and how can the balance be struck between encouraging public bodies to implement the Act while holding them to account?

Who goes first?

I can have a go at that. Thank you, Altaf. We are an enforcement body. The Act is about cultural change, and the spirit of the Act is around collaboration, and that is really, really valued. I will say, from our perspective, that trying to juggle enforcement and collaboration is tricky, in terms of prioritising what you do when you're stretched for resource. Quite often, that could lead to unintended consequences in decision making around what the commissioner focuses on.

I think that enforcement—or the teeth of the Act—from a climate and nature perspective actually sits in other legislation. That's why we welcome the new environmental governance principles and targets legislation. So, the enforcement sits elsewhere, and it's about bringing legislation up to the level of where we would hope the Act to be. That would be my response there.

Thank you very much. Anybody else?

You don't have to respond if you don't have anything to say.

I would agree with my colleague. Just to add, I do think this is very much enabling legislation. If we look at it from a perspective of compliance, then I think we might get a different set of behaviours than if we're using it to promote collaboration, using it to shape your decisions, using it to shape your partnerships, using it to shape and direct our response to very difficult situations. I just think that we need to consider, as Fen has said, the unintended consequences of going down a compliance route. And it is very difficult to show compliance with culture, to show compliance in terms of the good things that the Act is trying to do about collaboration. So, I do think there's a balancing act to be made here. I do completely agree in terms of the point you are making about the impact. We have to show impact. That is absolutely important, and we're all committed to that.

Thank you very much. Chair, I know time is limited, so I'll go to the last question. The Welsh Government is planning to evaluate the Act. What are the key areas the Welsh Government should look into in this evaluation process, based on our discussion today, like effectiveness and impact, impact on stakeholders, implementation challenges, unintended consequences, data and evidence, future adaptability, prevention, et cetera? Is there a particular aspect of the Act or its impact you'd like to explore further?

Recognising that you were formally an NHS consultant, and so you will understand—. The thing that strikes me often is that, when we go to those joint executive team meetings, and we go to the integrated quality, planning and delivery meetings, for example, we're not quizzed on this. These conversations are taking place across different areas of the public sector within Wales, and, indeed, with the community and voluntary sector as well, but it's understanding that read-across. Are we being monitored on a regular basis with regard to our sustainability intentions within CTM, and our prevention? Certainly, that's the direction of travel in terms of the discussion, but it's the extent to which this is baked in to our monitoring processes. That would be very useful. Because what gets measured gets done.

I would say maybe some more guidance on measuring impact. We've spoken about how we demonstrate that, and looking at that would be helpful. Also, like I said at the beginning, we've had 10 years of this Act now, and I think, in terms of understanding what environmental well-being means, and the synergy there with sustainable management, sustainable development, sustainable use of our natural resources, it's much clearer now than it was at the beginning. So, there's some bringing together and tidying up of the guidance and secondary legislation around the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, the future gen Act and, in fact, the Planning (Wales) Act 2015, which was the other Act that came in at the same time that needs to come up to speed. So, primary legislation is good, but the secondary legislation does, I think, need tidying up and bringing together, especially now we've got the new environmental governance Bill on the horizon as well. We need to avoid duplication where we can, because we don't have the resources to do things twice. Those, off the top of my head, would be the three things that I would say.

Thank you very much. Sumina, do you have anything to add?

Just a few things, thank you. Firstly, I think it would be really helpful to understand how much the Act has actually changed our thinking in terms of the long term. Are we really moving in that direction? So, I think an examination of that would be helpful.

Secondly, partnerships. We can't do public health on our own, we rely on partnerships, and I think the Act is very much about partnership working. So, I think it would be helpful to understand how much has this Act enabled partnership working and what the barriers to that are. What can we do about it? We've talked about the very complex partnerships that colleagues and everyone face. What can be done to simplify and help that?

Philip has already mentioned accountability. Does accountability follow the spirit and the requirements of the Act? I think that would be helpful. And finally, are we using the Act in terms of really honing in on the complex challenges we're facing across the system. So, not just an individual organisation, but ones that we all need to come together on.

Finally from me, I think, Philip, you said earlier that we're not measuring prevention, but I wanted to really explore that, because we are, in a sense. We're measuring prevention if we're measuring breastfeeding, we're measuring prevention if we're measuring how children get to school, we're measuring prevention if we catalogue the number of 18 to 24-year-olds who are not in education, training or work, and we're certainly measuring prevention if we're assessing the numbers of social prescribing rather than pharmaceutical prescribing.

Yes, I agree, but is that given as much credence as how many ambulances are outside the back of the hospital?

Okay, so that's 'no', absolutely not, but perhaps that's a discussion we need to have with other bodies if you agree that that's a possible way forward.

Yes, absolutely. That parity between—. We talk about not sacrificing the future generations for the needs of today; are we actually doing that? I would argue that the spend that we have on prevention is far less than acute services, and probably will continue to be, and the attention that is paid to it is far less as well.

Thank you very much indeed. I don't think we've got time for any more, but I welcome your written comments if you want to add anything. We will send you a transcript to ensure that we've accurately captured what you've said. Thank you very much indeed for your excellent evidence today. We could have done with a second hour. We'll now take a very short break to enable the next group of speakers to settle in, so if we could try and come back and start as soon after 2.15 p.m. as possible.

Welcome back to the third session today of the post-legislative scrutiny of the future generations Act, and we have Geoff Ogden, chief transport planning and development officer for Transport for Wales, and Natalie Rees, the head of sustainability and climate change, also for Transport for Wales. Welcome, both of you, in the room. And online, we've got Philip Blaker, the chief executive of Qualifications Wales. So, welcome to all of you. I just need to get my thing. I think, Sioned Williams, you were going to start off the—. No, that was—. Sorry, I beg your pardon. Okay. So, I just wanted to start by recognising that you've only recently become subject to the Act's requirements. Could you tell us how well you think the public services boards are working to enable you to deliver our collective objectives, or join in? Geoff Ogden, do you want to start?

Yes. So, you're right in that we've only recently become named as one of the bodies under the Act. But, prior to that, we were already working with the sentiment and the ethos of the well-being of future generations. Obviously, our core purpose in terms of public transport and active travel and supporting Welsh Government in the development of policy is really closely aligned to the ambitions and objectives of the Act. In terms of the working with the public services boards, I might actually ask Natalie if you'd like to make a few comments on that.

Yes, sure. So, we were quite proactive a few years ago in approaching the public services boards that had transport objectives to ask them how we could align better and integrate our objectives with theirs. So, we attend the Vale of Glamorgan, Cwm Taf Morgannwg, and we had a role on some of the sub-groups of Cardiff and of Wrexham as well before they merged. So, that's been really useful. As a new public body, we don't have a requirement to sit on the public services boards as a member, but having the opportunity to take part has been really important to us in the development of our objectives.

Well, certainly, if we're going to meet our sustainability objectives, we're not going to be able to do it without addressing the mode of getting around. So, just a rather different perspective on it is how we use the education system to ensure that everybody understands that, whilst we're on this planet, we need to ensure that we're thinking about the well-being of future generations. So, I wondered if Qualifications Wales has got any reflection on what role you think you can particularly play, beyond the obviously important subject of the lifelong education of all our citizens.

Certainly. Well, as with Transport for Wales, we became subject to the legislation, to the future generations Act, last year, but, similarly, it's been part of our ethos and way of working from the very beginning, really, and we adopted many of the principles of the Act from establishment.

There are lots of ways that we can influence the education system to further the aims of the Act, but it's interesting that, as a qualifications regulator, you've only got so much impact on the education system as a whole. And, actually, that's one of the reasons why the partnership-working element of the Act is quite important, and that process of collaboration with other bodies. So, if I give you a couple of examples to start with, in terms of the skills agenda, we work with regional skills partnerships, and we involve lots of other people—not public services boards, so we don't have that direct relationship with them, but we do have direct relationships with other representative bodies to try and understand the skills landscape. And, actually, as we come to the end of our 10-year vocational qualifications strategy, at the moment, we're actively engaging with regional skills partnerships to understand what does the future look like for them, where might the priorities be for us as a qualifications regulator, where might we focus some of our efforts in the future in terms of reform of qualifications, or even around sustainability, in terms of preserving the range of qualifications that are there. So, there's one example of working with others, and that's trying to make sure there's a good range of qualifications, particularly for post-16 learners.

Another area where we can do work is—. We've been through major reforms for 14-to-16 education, introducing a new range of national qualifications, so new general certificates of secondary education that are starting to be implemented from this year—so, for first teaching from September of this year—a second wave of GCSEs next year, and then a broader range of qualifications, including things like vocational certificates of secondary education and skills qualifications. In all of those, we're very active in terms of working with subject experts, school representatives, various groups, to try and bring together a sense of cohesion around those qualifications so that they're meeting the needs of future learners, and also, where appropriate, including specific content around things like sustainability so that those can be integrated as part of the education. Because what we do know is that, if they're part of the assessments, they're more likely to be taught by schools. So, trying to integrate those sorts of things into qualifications is very important.

So, what conversations might you have had around how we help children stay healthy, understand how their body works, what healthy eating looks like and their relationship with other human beings? I mean, those are—. The others are really important, but, equally, these are just as important, aren't they, particularly in the context of young people's mental health.

Yes. Thinking about that, there are things like GCSE food and nutrition, which can look at healthy eating. There's a GCSE in physical education, which is obviously looking at health elements of it. Now, obviously, not every learner will choose to take a full GCSE course that is aligned to one of those things, and that's actually where the skills suite starts to come into play, which is one of the final components that will be for first teaching from September 2027, because, as part of that, we've got skills for life and skills for work, and some of those things around healthy relationships, understanding how the political system works and good citizenship and other things that relate to the well-being of future generations, but also to the four purposes of the new curriculum, all start to come together in the skills suites. Those will be combinations of units, so schools will be able to pick small parts, around 10 to 20 guided learning hours, that will cover various aspects of things that align to the Act and which align very closely to the four purposes of the curriculum, which allows some learning in those areas. So, there are definitely things that we're doing to try and engender a better understanding of these things, notions of well-being.

Thank you. Can I now call in Julie Morgan?

Diolch. Obviously, it's only been since July 2024, so it's a very short period of time, but what have you seen so far is going to be the biggest challenge for your organisation in implementing the Act, or what do you anticipate it will be? Can I start with you, Geoff?

Yes. So, from my perspective, you can put lots of the mechanics in place but it's definitely around the culture of the people and the behaviours of the people in the teams. One of the big challenges, I think, is always that it's not seen as a bolt-on or an add-on in terms of decision making. So, weaving the well-being of future generations and the objectives that we've established and the Welsh transport appraisal guidance well-being ambitions into decision making and the changes that we're seeking to make is really important. So, making sure that we've got a balanced scorecard that supports our decision making and helping our people to understand the whole context of decision making, the difference they can make when they are making decisions, or supporting papers for decision making, is really important. So, we have woven it into a number of our processes, but we continue to support with training, with engagement and also with testing and challenging the things that are coming forward.

And how far would you say that the people in your organisation understand the Act? How far has it permeated?

I think my own perspective and perception would be that lots of people understand the principles behind the Act, but again it comes down to the practical way that it can be woven into decision making and that people can really make a difference, and I would say that that varies across the organisation. There are parts of it that are very much attuned to it because of the processes that they're doing, the business case development that they're doing for future schemes et cetera. It may be more challenging where you're on the front line making decisions, thinking in that way. So, we need to work to help everybody come on the journey and make a difference in whatever role they've got.

I’d say we’re taking a very top-down, bottom-up approach to educating our senior leadership team, our executive leadership team. We’ve held lunch and learns, and training, and those sorts of things. But, also, we’ve put six young people in the organisation through the future leaders academy, from across the organisation, and that gives them the opportunity, then, to go back and embed what they’ve learnt into their directorate. So, that’s been key to really helping us in making sure that future generations know how it is that the organisation will be moving forward.

Absolutely.

Thank you. Philip.

Yes, I think I agree with many of the things that Geoff said. Certainly, it feels very real and very authentic to us as an organisation. And we’ve done a lot to weave the future generations Act into the ways that we work. So, our corporate plan is now sort of formed around our well-being objectives. So, that is a golden thread that sort of goes through our five-year plan, our annual plans, our business plans and the like. So, there’s definitely that golden thread that’s going through.

It is a mindset. So, it’s a bit of a mindset change. And I think one of the things for us is that we’re moving from a position where it’s sort of been implicit in the way that we work for many years to a place where it needs to be explicit in the way that we’re working and the way that we’re thinking. So, I think one of the challenges is moving from that implicit to explicit. And some of that comes out in things like the way that we think about things. So, we tend to think about things in five to 10-year cycles, because that’s about as far ahead as it’s easy to see in our world. It gets much harder to think longer term, like the Act is looking for you to look beyond that sort of 10-year term, and look much, much further into the future. But, of course, in the skills landscape, that’s quite a dynamic thing, and it will change over time. An example is AI. We know that AI is going to be pervasive across many areas of the way that we operate as a society. But that evolves very, very quickly. So, you can see so far into the future, but you can’t see really, really long term for some of those things. So, I think one challenge for us is trying to move from a five to 10-year horizon, into things that are longer term. And there we’ve been thinking about things like: an ageing population—what does that mean in terms of adult education, what does it mean in terms of reskilling of individuals; and people swapping from one sector to another—what does it mean in terms of things that are broadly considered to be green skills, what does that mean in terms of qualifications. So, there are all those sorts of things that we’re working on at the moment.

The other thing that I think is a challenge for us is that, over the last few months, we’ve been thinking about, 'Well, how do we conceptualise the notion of prevention?', because prevention can be conceptualised in lots of different ways. So, if we think about prevention in terms of the NHS, it’s around acting to prevent illness, rather than acting on illness, so to speak. So, acting before the event. For us, our regulatory work is all about that, because we’re trying to set up a regulatory environment that means that awarding bodies are delivering safely, securely for the value of qualifications to be preserved for learners. So, we’ve had to think about how we conceptualise some of the concepts within the Act and some of the aims of the Act, to make it more specific for our work. And I think that’s probably one of the challenges for the Act more generally as it expands to include more bodies that are quite diverse in nature, because if we think about even things like guidance, a lot of the guidance or tools that the future generations commissioner might be generating to look at how people are doing, or to help them, a lot of those relate to bigger bodies than us, maybe with broader remits than us as well. So, it’s thinking about how some of those things can be applied to our work, and it takes a little bit of flexibility of thinking to do that.

Thank you. Thanks very much for that. And how have you found the process of setting well-being objectives, as required by the Act?

Perhaps if I let Natalie talk about the process we went through, and then I'll reflect on where I came into it, because I came in part way through it, in terms of my role.

Yes, sure. So, the process of setting well-being objectives was, for us, first looking at aligning priorities and integrating across other plans, strategies and policies that we had to deliver against, including Welsh transport appraisal guidance and the Wales transport strategy priorities and ambitions. So, our well-being objectives settled on meeting the four pillars of sustainability, in terms of enabling people and communities, benefiting the environment, supporting local areas and the economy, and elevating Welsh culture and language. Our process began in May 2024, and we used the future generations commissioner's ways of working checker to benchmark our progress towards embedding the ways of working. There was extensive desktop research undertaken. We looked at data from the well-being of Wales reports and the future generations reports, and we held several engagement events within our head office in Pontypridd, and also, at the Eisteddfod in Pontypridd last year, we trialled a number of statements with members of the public. Over the autumn and winter, we worked closely with colleagues to refine the well-being objectives, and the future generations commissioner's office worked with us throughout. They met with our leadership team throughout early 2025. And I'll hand over to Geoff, who will explain the rest.

Okay, so Natalie and the team came into my team in about September, I think it was. I started to see the work that they'd been doing and was reassured by the engagement they'd been having and the process they were going through. I guess one of the challenges that we did see, also, was that we had been redeveloping our vision, values and purpose across the organisation, and there was a bit of a challenge that these objectives would be seen as something else—a bit like I was saying earlier—that they could be seen as a bolt-on rather than something that's intrinsic. What was reassuring was that they are extremely close to the wording of the well-being ambitions that are set out in the Wales transport strategy. I don't think that's any fluke, from what Natalie has just said. But that's reassuring because there are some significant portions of our team that are already working in that space and understand that agenda. So, it wasn't like something coming in from left field and disrupting everything else.

But we did some work with the future generations commissioner and his team. We engaged on that as a bit of a challenge, because we want to make things as simple as possible for the people that are working for us, in terms of decision making and doing the right thing. And, actually, we worked together and we did a session with our executive leadership team where we landed the objectives, and since then we've been working to them, albeit, as I say, they were already very attuned to what we were doing anyway. So, I think it was a really good process and I was reassured that it ended up with the objectives that we've got.

Thank you. What about you, Philip, in terms of reaching the objectives?

Yes. It was actually a very thoughtful and a very useful process to go through. We started off back in April 2023, talking to staff. It was an all-staff day, and we had a representative from the commissioner's office come and give a background to the Act and the aims, and ways of working and the like, and that got the ball rolling for us in April 2023. We then had a workshop again with the commissioner in September of that year. Then we started talking to our trade unions, so that we were working within social partnership, talking to the trade union representatives and starting to build that into place and getting that loop working. And once we had something that we were ready to test, we then went out and tested it with various stakeholders. The things that have been useful to us during that process were the reflections of other bodies that are under the Act already and how they had developed their objectives. That led us to the belief that we wanted to have the objectives at the core of our corporate planning, alongside our equalities objectives, so that we could, in essence, have that as the golden thread that then goes through all of our plans. We think that will help us with reporting later on, because if we're tying everything back to the well-being of future generations Act and back to our well-being objectives, we hope that that'll make things easier, because each of the actions that we have within our annual plan will relate in some way to the well-being objectives, and therefore we can have that traceability, which we think is important.

I think it's probably worth saying that it's important for efficiency. One of the things that we're very keen on is trying to be as efficient as we possibly can in our governance structures, and with there being lots of reporting requirements around progress against well-being objectives and other things like the anti-racism plan, carbon-reduction plans and the like, the more that we can integrate things into one line of sight, the more efficient our reporting can be.

The other thing that we did, because we were including equalities objectives, is that we did quite a bit of work with various groups to just get their views on things before we published them. We had interactions with the commissioner's office after we published our objectives, and that was a very positive experience as well. So, we felt very supported by them through the process, and, obviously, this year we'll be going in to an audit process with Audit Wales, who will be looking at the process that we went through for establishing our well-being objectives.

Thank you. The commissioner did say to us in written evidence that he thought it would be good to have a common framework for setting objectives and he thought it would be easier then to note progress. Have you got any comment on that?

Is that to me? Sorry, I thought you were looking at—

It was to Philip, actually.

Okay. I think that the devil would be in the detail there, because it goes back to my earlier comment around the diverse nature of bodies that are covered by the Act. So, I think that a single framework always implies a lack of flexibility and, therefore, it could constrain people. I think that flexibility is important if you've got a diverse range of bodies and different contexts that they're working within. And I can see where the commissioner's office would want to look at some sense of, I guess, consistency between bodies, but there's a danger that that can become overly prescriptive and then may make things harder for bodies. So, I think it's something to consider with caution.

Thank you. Do you agree with that?

I agree. I agree with the challenges of it. I think that some analysis would be quite useful to see what those common objectives might look like, because the danger is—. I think of this as lots of organisations with a Venn diagram of their own interests and lots of overlapping bits between them all. What you don't want to do, necessarily, is to try to tie all of that into one framework. You want to try to find the real key nuggets that provide the benefits, and I think that's worthy of some analysis, because I think it would have such benefits if you could find it.

Right. And then the last question, really—

Could Sioned just come in first? Sioned Williams.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Yes, I just quickly want to go back to what Philip said around the whole concept of mindset, and just thinking as well about what you said about the equalities piece. You said that you are tying that closely together with your plan, with your well-being objectives—[Inaudible.]—so, thinking about that more equal Wales, inclusion and exclusion, which leads to the inequality, quite often, thinking about, for instance, the decision to stop work on the GCSE British Sign Language and thinking about how not creating those BSL signers, through the GCSE, is going to lead down the road to exclusion. The same for Transport for Wales, thinking about the decision, for instance, to go cashless on your trains, with refreshments, et cetera, how that is exclusionary—the things we've heard about in this committee. So, I'm just wondering, under the Act, and thinking about the auditor general's work next year, how you're going to reconcile some of those decisions, or how do you reconcile some of those decisions with the well-being objectives.

Shall we go to Philip first?

Yes, shall I pick up on that? The example of GCSE British Sign Language is a really interesting example. I guess that the reasons why we have suspended, rather than absolutely ruled out, the development of a GCSE in British Sign Language are for very practical reasons. We've been worried about the number of teachers that would be able to teach it in school settings. We've been worried about the size of the qualification being 120 to 140 guided learning hours, and the number of learners that might take a course of that length, because if they're taking a GCSE in British Sign Language, they're not taking a GCSE in something else, because it would be one of the two or three option choices that most learners have within their curriculum, so they would have to make a choice to not do something else, probably. So, it's been for very practical reasons, but we definitely want to further the inclusion element of British Sign Language being more pervasive across society, so instead of going down that quite large qualification route of a GCSE—. I talked about those skills for life units earlier; we are going to have skills for life units in British Sign Language, which will allow smaller units of study for learners in British Sign Language, to give some of the basics. And we're following the development of the GCSE in British Sign Language in England very closely, because if that is developed, then we would be able to designate that for learners in Wales so that it would be available as well to learners in Wales.

So, it's not that we are wanting to exclude a part of society nor to further the aims of equality through there being a broader range of BSL users, we're just trying to further that aim through different and more proportionate and pragmatic routes, I think, but it's not ruling out the thought of a GCSE in the future. And I think that sort of comes back to the well-being of future generations way of working, in that we're trying to think more deeply about some of these things and trying to think about the best routes forward and how we can further the aims of inclusion and well-being in a way that has the most impact.

Did you want to comment, Geoff?

Yes, I'm not sure if I can speak to the cashless one. Did you know anything more about that particular example?

I know there's a move towards more cashless opportunities, such as the pay-as-you-go tickets, which are a lot cheaper for our customers. But I think it's a good challenge for us to take back to our commercial team, and our value of 'we challenge ourselves', so we'll do that.

Yes, we'll bring something back on that.

Very good. Julie, your last question.

Yes, it's about your performance framework. Have you brought the principles of the Bill—? Have you been embedding those into your performance framework?

So, there are a number of areas where we have started to have our performance framework now aligned to the well-being of future generations Act and our naming within it. But from a wider point of view, in terms of transport, we've got a number of things that form a core part of measurement against the Welsh transport strategy, 'Llwybr Newydd', and indeed active travel as well. So, there are a number of areas where we are building more evidence around our performance framework that will support the well-being of future generations. Is there anything you particularly want to pick up on?

I think it's just the integrating of the objectives into our corporate plan and also into things like our investment business cases, so investment decisions consider the Act now. So, it's important that we can take the opportunity, where we can, to look at how the Act is built into corporate processes and procedures.

Thank you. And before I go on, do you feel that it's a different organisation than it was 12 months ago?

Do I feel it's a different organisation—?

Has there been a real impact or not?

So, I think it is having an impact, but I think we were already on that journey prior to that. We weren't surprised to be named as a body, so we had been doing preparation before then, albeit we didn't kick in the formalities of establishing the objectives until that stage. But if I remember right back to the early days of Transport for Wales, when we were establishing the new franchise and the way of developing a south Wales metro, it was very much from a well-being of future generations Act ethos and principles—. So, I would say it's an evolution, and we're continuing on that journey. It gives us, now, a platform from which to build into the future, rather than it being a complete revolution from where we were before, I would say.

Thank you. And Philip, what about embedding the principles within the performance framework?

Very similar to Transport for Wales, really. I think it is an evolution from these things being implicit to explicit, and you do lots of small things to do that. And I think all of those things are helpful in changing the mindset and embedding the principles behind the Act into the ways that you work. So, for example, we now have, in decision-making papers, a section on strategic alignment, which would look to things like the well-being objectives to make sure that there's strategic alignment either through to our five-year strategic priorities or to our well-being or our equalities objectives. So, I think that all helps with a line of sight.

I think also the decision that we made to have the well-being objectives as the core of our corporate planning processes—. I've already touched on the fact that that helps with reporting. Now, if we're thinking about performance in our context as, 'Have we done the things that we said that we were going to do?', we track those through operational planning and reporting on a very close level of detail. Actually having that mapped through to these objectives does allow us to understand what our progress will be in very tangible ways. So, I think it gives us the right performance reporting structure for us as a qualifications regulator.

Thanks very much. We need to try and speed up a little bit. I just wanted to ask you about the partnership landscape, because, for a start, the commissioner is saying that the Welsh Government must review and streamline partnership structures to improve efficiency and reduce bureaucracy, and at the same time, some of those who have been more involved prior to yourselves joining as a named organisation under the Act—that many of the aspirations of the Act haven't gone as far as we would have liked in the first 10 years. So, I wondered, given that, as you're newbies, you're not wedded to things, if you've got any thoughts on how we could become more effective in the practice of public services. Because some people say, 'Oh, we've got to go to so many different meetings'—well, you're not obliged to do it that way; everybody is an actor in this space. Have you got any recommendations that we could put to the Welsh Government as to how we can be more efficient and effective in driving sustainable development?

So, in terms of the transport context, there are other organisations out there that now exist, like the corporate joint committees, and that's probably where we're doing most work in terms of our longer term planning, supporting them with evidence and development of projects. And clearly, from a rail point of view and with the upcoming bus franchising, all of that is playing into that. So, that is where most of our engagement, I would say, plays out, and then with the local authorities.

Okay but if people are always going to put business parks and housing where there are no public sector connections, we're clearly not making good decisions in line with the Act.

But the corporate joint committees are now remitted with doing the strategic development plans as well, and so that stream of work also sits with them. So, I don't think that that necessarily disrupts the thinking in terms of engagement with the public services boards. I've looked at some of the other evidence that you've got and I would say that one of the challenges I would see of us engaging—and we are engaging with public services boards—more is actually the resource point of view that you mention. I think there are—are there 17 public services boards now?

Thirteen.

Thirteen now. Okay.

They've gone down, thank goodness.

Yes, okay. So, engaging with those requires some good skills and effort to get the best out of it, and we wouldn't want to do something that wasn't the best effort that we could make. So, I know that the team and Natalie are looking at how that could be realised. But I've always been a bit cautious in that space, that, actually, we don't—. Right from the early days, we were thinking, well—. I think there were probably 22 public services boards, back in 2017/2018. We're just going to get overwhelmed if we start to engage too much with this, and that's always a bit of a challenge for me, in terms of how do we, as I said a minute ago, really make this a positive thing for us to engage with and do it. Having seen the other evidence that's come forward, that does play on my mind a little bit about how you could make it much leaner and more efficient. But I would go back to—. The corporate joint committees and the local authorities are really where we are seeing that longer term planning playing out in terms of it being a real tangible opportunity.

Okay. He's also got some pithy remarks to make about important things, like food resilience plans and culture being protected, so you can see how you have a role to play in all those things—

Yes, absolutely.

—but they're not your day-to-day job. So, Philip, have you got any thoughts on how we could try and improve effectiveness without undermining subsidiarity, the ability of local communities to feel that decisions are not being taken without their say-so?

I guess you can only talk from your own experience, can't you? We've got various partnerships around specific things or ways of working where we involve people. I don't see any of those as being particularly problematic or burdensome at the moment. I think there are some areas, though, where there are opportunities for people to work better together, and we're trying to do some of that by drawing the right parties together ourselves. So, if I give an example: in the reform of GCSEs, thinking long term, we would like to see more digital assessments in GCSEs, because they provide resilience, they provide more engaging methods of assessment, and they can be much more interesting. So, for example, in something like drama, actually being able to see something in video, rather than just responding to something in writing, could be much more stimulating for individuals, and, actually, provide a much more valid assessment. So, we're very keen on those sorts of things. But you then start trying to work out—. So, if schools have got problems with infrastructure, who's responsible for that? Local authorities, Welsh Government—you know, there are lots of people that might have some engagement with that. So, I think, in terms of partnership working, the only problem that we have at the moment is trying to pin down who's responsible for what sometimes, and then thinking about how you can work with them to make the situation better. So, systematically, I don't see a big problem, but on specific issues we do find it sometimes difficult to pin down parties to work in partnership and do the things that we would like them to do to make the situation better.

Now, I'm calling Jane Dodds.

Thank you very much. And thank you for coming here this afternoon as well. I'm going to ask my questions in Welsh. My first question is something that I just want to give you the opportunity to think about first, and I'll come back to it after my questions. Could you just suggest, in your opinion, in one sentence, please, what the Act means, in your view? And I'll come back to that at the end of my questioning.

So, I just want to ask you some questions relating to the role of the Welsh Government and how they are leading in terms of the Act. Could you just give us your view on the Welsh Government's leadership here in Wales? In your experience, are they leading by example ? And can you think of any examples or things you can think about that have helped you form that view, please? I'm not sure who wants to go first. Philip, would you like to go first?

Geoff's got his hand up. Go for it, Geoff.

I certainly can. So, are Welsh Government leading by example? I think they've been very good during the early phases of us establishing our well-being objectives and coming under the Act, in terms of their leadership there. So, from that perspective, alongside the commissioner, I think their work has been very useful.

Thinking more broadly than that, I guess there are some problems that Governments always face, and I don't think it's just Welsh Government, I think it's across the board, in terms of being joined up themselves across the different components of Government. It can sometimes appear to be quite siloed. If you're in an organisation that is cutting across those silos, it can sometimes be difficult to make the right connections with people. That said, I think those things improve over time, because you start to build those connections and relationships as you come across a problem. But, the Act in itself is not going to overcome those sorts of issues, that's just a complexity-of-Government issue.

I guess the one thing that we would be keen for Government to do is not to abdicate its responsibilities for developing policy to the notion of the well-being of future generations Act—everybody coming together to try and work things through. There is a leadership role that Government needs to play in terms of having good policy direction, because I think that good policy direction then provides a pillar that others can come around, in the spirit of the Act, to actually develop plans to deliver those policy aims.

So, I think probably the main thing to think about from a Government perspective is that there is still a need for good policy. So, if we're thinking about, again, in our context, something real at the moment, from the review of vocational qualifications that was undertaken by Sharron Lusher a couple of years ago now, one of the things to come out of that was a vocational education and training strategy. That strategy is going to be really important for providing a basis upon which partners can come together in the spirit of the Act, even if they're not covered within the Act, to work together to fulfil those aims. So, I think that's an example of where Government still needs to do things above and beyond the Act in order to push forward the right agendas.

Thank you very much. And then in the room, please.

Prynhawn da. Diolch. I think, from a transport point of view, if we look at the decisions that have been made and the policy framework that we've got, it's fairly mature now. I would say it's pretty well aligned with the well-being of future generations Act, in terms of developing an integrated transport network and the sort of investment priority that we see—the sustainable transport hierarchy. That policy framework is a key action that I would say demonstrates the benefit of the Act, and it's something that is looked at from beyond Wales with some envy, I would say—actually having that and that rigour in what we've got there.

If we then look forward at what's happening now, referring back to what I was saying a minute ago about the CJCs and the local authorities, there's a big devolution agenda in terms of actually helping with local decision making, which again, in my mind, supports the agenda, with Transport for Wales playing a role in terms of supporting evidence, et cetera.

The one challenge, which I don't think we can solve here today, which I think we still could do with grasping, is: how do we get into longer term funding arrangements that would help with more sustainable decision making? Because a big part of what we're talking about really, in my mind, when we are making transport interventions is whole-life costing and looking at how an intervention will perform over the longer term. That does then mean that you are very much moving from the here and now and tactical decision making, very firmly into the camp of long-term thinking, fit for the future.

Thank you. Just one final question from me, please, about the guidance in the Act. Could I ask you to tell us, in your view, how effective the statutory guidance is that was issued by the Welsh Government under the Act? Does that guidance include everything, in your view? Are there any gaps? What are those gaps, in your view, if so? Thank you.

Okay. Shall we start with Philip?

Sure. I think the guidance is useful under the Act. I don't see anything particularly problematic with this. I guess the main thing is, just going back to that point, there are lots of different bodies that have got different contexts that they're working in, different scale, different problems. The more specific guidance becomes, the less applicable it may be to some, and we already see that as a relatively small body with quite a niche context ourselves. Some of the guidance is maybe not as applicable to us as some others might be. And I guess that, if we're thinking about application of the Act, you want to have confidence in application of the Act, so you want to know that you're doing the right thing relative to the guidance, and there is a danger, if it becomes too specific, it doesn't become real for you. So, that would be my perspective. It's probably better at a higher level, so that you can then contextualise it for yourself.

Thank you. Have you thought about that sentence, just to finish?

Well, first of all, shall we just hear from Natalie Rees about your previous question?

The statutory guidance provides a good framework for implementation, and it clearly outlines the sustainable development principle and the five ways of working, whilst encouraging integration of the well-being goals. But we feel that there's opportunity for more practical sector-specific examples and templates, and it's not clear what the uptake of the guidance has been. It's fairly aged now, and it may need a refresh in light of a number of environmental and social situations that have happened since it was published in, I think, 2016. I think there's also the opportunity to provide training or some education around the use to create more consistency. There are organisations out there, like Academi Wales, who would be great at providing this sort of support.

Very good. Right. Your sentences, please. Shall we go to Philip first?

I think the power in the Act for me is around the five ways of working. So, my one sentence is: the five ways of working are better ways of working. The problems are always in things like thinking long term. I think Geoff touched on funding decisions. Obviously, funding decisions on an annual basis limit your ability to think long term and to have really long-term planning. Those are things that there are no panaceas for. But, overall, I think the five ways of working are the strength of the Act.

Thank you very much.

Geoff.

Mine is pretty much textbook, I think, in that it's meeting current needs without affecting future abilities to meet needs, but building on the cultural, environmental, social and economic pillars. And the reason that I use that is the needs bit. We've got to think about the future, okay, but also the here and now. I think that wider context of understanding across those four pillars is an important challenge for us, coming back to some of the things about commercial challenges, affordability challenges versus social benefit, economic benefit, which are much wider than you can necessarily put a measure on.

Okay. Could I now call in Sioned Williams, please?

Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of brief questions from me in terms of the role of the commissioner and the office. How would you describe how your organisation has co-operated and worked with the commissioner and the office so far? How effective is the support you've received? And do you think the role needs to change at all, and, if so, how and why?

Shall I go first on that one?

Go ahead.

We've had a really positive engagement with the commissioner through the development of the objectives, and the commissioner's team on that and more generally. I have heard some of the evidence that you've been hearing about whether the role needs to change, and I've also seen some of the evidence that you've been taking around the role between the commissioner and the auditor general. I'm not sure I'm in a position to be able to talk to any of that at the moment, but our relationship with them has been very supportive—critical friend type of activities.

Philip.

Can I just come back quickly there, Geoff? Sorry. So, are you clear in terms of the difference of role between the commissioner and the auditor general? Are you clear in terms of the difference?

We were talking about this earlier, and Natalie thinks she's clear on it. Do you want to say what you think?

Sure. For me, both roles assess progress of the well-being of future generations Act. However, one is advisory and supportive and the other is from an audit perspective, so more sort of regulatory. That's my determination of their roles.

Okay, thanks. Philip.

I should say, just as a matter of interest, we have actually got Audit Wales with us at the moment, auditing us on our work to develop the objectives. So, we are working with both organisations.

Excellent. Philip, how are we doing at Qualifications Wales?

For the sake of brevity, I'll agree with everything that Geoff said. We've found it to be a very effective and collaborative—as you would hope—relationship with the commissioner's office. We found them very, very helpful indeed and we're probably soon after you in the queue for audit, Geoff. But, yes, we've had a very good relationship with the commissioner's office.

So, so far, you haven't seen any need to change or improve that relationship, or you haven't seen any gaps in terms of support?

Not as yet, no.

Okay, thank you very much.

Okay, thank you. Altaf Hussain.

Right, thank you very much. My area is enforcement and evaluation. The Act is often criticised for weak enforcement. What's your take, and how can we get public bodies to comply without letting them off the hook?

I completely take that. I think there's a balance between enforcement and—. There's a carrot and a stick, isn't there, and a lot of it is about collaboration. So, I can't see a world where you'd be saying, 'You will collaborate or else.' That seems a little bit against the spirit of the Act. But actually having rights and responsibilities, so setting some expectations of organisations and then holding them to account against the expectations that they've set between them would seem appropriate to me.

Very good. Qualifications Wales, have you got anything you want to add?

I think I agree with Geoff again on the carrot and stick analogy. I was probably going to go down a similar route. The Act is all about a mindset and it is a positive mindset that people are trying to establish, so I think enforcement is a difficult issue. I think enforcement is difficult also just because if we think about—. You know, we as a regulator regulate in a very specific environment with an awful lot of knowledge in that environment. If we're thinking about the scope across all of the organisations that are covered by the commissioner's office, I think that becomes harder as a regulatory activity because the breadth would be so great. There is a danger that enforcement activity may be inappropriate or could be poorly targeted if we're thinking about the principles of regulation.

I think there is also something about things that the commissioner's office can do that go beyond formal enforcement activities. So, there are examples in the regulatory environment where just having a voice about something and having a public voice about something can have a big effect. I don't want to go into the details of it, and it's not from my own organisation or another qualifications regulator, but talking to another regulator some years ago, they were talking about a case where they were considering enforcement action against quite a prominent organisation, but knew to do that would probably take about a year's worth of enforcement action. Instead of that, they went public with their concerns about something. That publicity was very negative for the organisation and they changed what they were doing within a matter of three days. So, I think there are things open to the commissioner beyond enforcement action that can have the same effect without having the stick element of a regulatory enforcement regime.

Thank you very much. Chair, could I ask a last question? I know about the time—we're running out. We understand the Welsh Government is preparing to undertake an evaluation of the Act. Based on our discussions today, what key areas do we suggest for the Welsh Government to consider during its upcoming evaluation of the Act? Is it effectiveness of the Act, its impact on stakeholders, implementation challenges, unintended consequences, data and evidence, future adaptability, prevention—although, about prevention, I didn't ask it to the NHS people, I would like to have your opinion about that—prevention of preventable diseases we have not addressed, like obesity, diabetes et cetera? How about waiting lists or other health areas that are not evidence based at present, but could help depending on our investment et cetera? Is there a particular aspect of the Act or its impact that you would like to explore further?

Philip, would you like to go first?

Yes, can I offer something? So, I think impact is really important, because we want the Act to be outcomes based and we want it to make a difference. I was thinking about this in the context of what might the big changes be. I think it's an Act that works through incremental things. So, I think, if you're looking for one big impact, it's quite difficult to find one big impact, but, if we're thinking about lots of small things that have changed as a consequence of the Act, I think you could probably find those.

The area that I think would be most interesting to look at is what are the barriers that organisations face in implementing the Act. I know people talk about short-term funding decisions as being one of those barriers, because it's harder to think long term. And if we think about the context of the last five years, which is half the life of the Act, they've been a difficult five years for all sorts of reasons for society.

So, I think, for me, the big thing to look at would be: 'What's the impact? Why hasn't it gone further? What have the barriers been?' so that you could look at removing those barriers, because I'm not seeing anything fundamentally problematic with the legislation itself, but it's the implementation of it that seems to be the thing that has held it back, to some degree.

Thank you.

I think Philip makes an excellent point about impact, so I would go with that. And Natalie, do you—?

Yes, certainly. I've been involved with the Act for a long time; I worked on the Act when it was being developed 13 years ago, and I think, when I stepped out and came back in, I expected radical change; I was really excited, and was quite surprised that—. Philip was talking about the slow implementation in pockets. What I'd be really interested in is looking at how people are at the heart of the decision making, whether that's still the case, and the opportunities that we have to really involve the community in governance so that they have trust in the decisions that public bodies are making.

Thank you very much. Both of those are things that I'm sure we can pick up. Thank you very much indeed for your evidence today. We'll send you a transcript to ensure that you can correct it if we've misheard something. Otherwise, we thank you very much indeed for your presence today. We'll now take a very short break in order to set up the fourth and final session for this afternoon, which will start on time at 3.30 p.m.

Welcome back for our fourth session this afternoon on post-legislative scrutiny of the future generations Act, and, in this session, we have Dr Lindsay Cordery-Bruce, who's the chief executive of the Wales Council for Voluntary Action, Rachel Wolfendale, the programme manager for the Co-production Network for Wales, and Hazel Lloyd Lubran, who's the chief officer for Ceredigion Association of Voluntary Organisations and chair of the Ceredigion public services board and the west Wales regional partnership board. Welcome, all of you. I wonder if Sioned Williams would like to ask the first questions.

Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon to you all. Before asking some general questions, I'd like to ask, first of all: Dr Cordery-Bruce, the WCVA, in its written evidence, said that there was a danger, in continuing without any significant changes, that the Act would not be able to deliver its aims. Can you briefly summarise the main issues that have raised that strong response and what changes are therefore required to the Act?

Diolch yn fawr iawn, and thank you for the invitation to give evidence this afternoon. The key issue for us and our members of the voluntary and community sector is the way that services are funded. The short-termism of charity sector funding is literally the antithesis of what we are trying to achieve with the future generations Act. We want to strategise long term; we want to take a longer-term view; we want to be responsible ancestors. But, if you don't know whether you're going to be here within six months' time, it's really, really difficult to do that, so that's at the core of the strength of our response.

Thank you. And Hazel and Rachel, do you share the same concerns regarding the impact of short-term funding?

You don't need to touch the microphone. Go ahead.

I'm happy to contribute, and thank you for the question. Indeed, the short-term funding does raise concerns, in particular when it comes to looking at well-being or welfare services for people and looking at that preventative element to healthcare, preventing public health problems. But, for me as well, personally, there is an aspect relating to engagement with the public and that relationship now between public bodies who provide services to the public and the public themselves, and also the commitment of partners to partnerships and to being part of the boards and part of the work of boards across Wales.

Diolch.

I agree with my colleagues. I've nothing further to add. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is the public's awareness of the Act something that's grown over time, and is this needed in order for us to see it being implemented effectively?

I'm happy to begin responding to that. Over the past 10 years, I think there's been quite a bit of work left to do. Interestingly, it seems as if the public agree with the foundations of the Act and the content of the Act, but perhaps there isn't enough awareness of the work that is done and what we need to do with the public, with our communities, in order to realise what we want to do and what we need to do across Wales as part of the Act.

I think it's hard to ascertain just how much the public understands, but what we do know from the commissioner's report is that public trust is declining, and that is a threat both to communities and to the delivery of the Act. If the public don't feel like they are truly included in decision making, then that can contribute to what we're seeing in terms of fractured communities, and the voluntary sector, as we know, is pivotal to getting this right and to making sure that communities aren't overlooked. Part of the solution that we're calling for is for the co-production of a communities policy, which would include four principal areas, looking at community resilience, community cohesion, community services and the use of community assets. And we'd like the commissioner to perhaps have greater oversight of the way that public bodies have linked with the general public.

I would agree there, and I'd also like to add that I think it's less important about the general public knowing the ins and outs of the Act, and more about them seeing the ways of working in terms of involvement in how public bodies work with them as community members.

And clearly, you all feel that there's a need to improve that, and Dr Cordery-Bruce has suggested some ways. Are there any other ways that we could ensure that public bodies do include communities in the process of implementing the Act?

Hazel wanted to come in, Sioned.

Perhaps there is an opportunity happening at the moment.

We might have an opportunity, now that we are looking at revising our well-being plans as public services boards. I think we're early enough in the process to really be thinking about how we can better co-produce those plans with the public and also look at ways of co-delivering the change that we need to see locally. And maybe the focus of our next well-being plans should change to better include and better reflect that so that there's more purpose to engaging communities and the public in our work.

I think the voluntary and community sector needs to be recognised as the conduit to public engagement. At our flagship event just last week, we had diverse ethnic communities telling us that they don't feel seen and they don't feel heard and they don't feel like this belongs to them too. I'm wondering about how we can use the existing networks and partnerships that are already there to make sure that this belongs to everyone.

Yes, certainly. I think, from a public services board perspective, when third sector organisations are more influential in those spaces we do see more of an engagement with communities and that those participatory approaches are adopted a lot more widely.

Thank you. Do you feel there's a need for any legislative changes to achieve that?

I think an update to guidance in terms of delivering the Act, particularly from a public services board perspective, which is what I can speak to. I think the current guidance is well-intentioned, but it's misaligned with what public services boards are experiencing now. And I think it influences that work more towards short-term thinking and it minimises the possibility for involvement. So, we'd like to see a simplified guidance in that respect, and one that's developed alongside stakeholders. So, yes, communities, but I think PSB co-ordinators, officers, who are delivering this work on the ground, they need to be involved in that development—so, practical guidelines, case studies—and for the PSBs to be able to define their own success in this, but with appropriate scrutiny to hold them to account.

There is already—

Diolch, Cadeirydd.

Sorry. There is already the 'National Principles for Public Engagement in Wales' document, so some of this guidance is already there. How well that is implemented and utilised remains to be seen.

Hazel.

Personally, I would prefer not to see legislation in this area. I would prefer it if our partners in the public sector and our partners around the table or the board would see the benefit of closer collaboration with our communities and with our individuals, in particular through the third sector, and see the benefit of that, rather than it being that they have to do it because it's part of legislation.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Julie Morgan.

Diolch. This is carrying on with the same sort of theme. We've obviously got a huge amount of expertise and knowledge in the voluntary sector. Do you feel that, under the Act, that experience and knowledge has been effectively used?

Not as much as it could have been. For the capacity and the expertise of our sector to be fully recognised by all public bodies, it would need to not be there, and then, I think, everybody would get a very sobering surprise. For me, the ask of the voluntary and community sector isn't clear. We know that this Act applies to public bodies, but there are 46,000 organisations that want to get involved. We want to support our public bodies in delivery of this, but the ask of us isn't always clear. So, I think my answer is: not enough, more needs to be done. We are very well positioned to link with grass-roots organisations and public involvement, to make sure that those diverse voices aren't lost.

If the sector does need to do more, however, we can't do that for free. Our sector is stressed, and if there are further asks of us to support delivery of the Act, that is going to have to come with some resource. There are a few glimmers of hope, though. I don't think this is all bad. We've got the new funding code of practice for third sector organisations. At the moment, they're great words on a page and they've had the backing of Cabinet—thank you—but we need to bring that to life in real terms. There's also the new approach for volunteering in Wales. It was launched just last week. So, I feel like the chess pieces are there, but it really is a time for action.

Thank you. Have either of you got anything to add on this?

From a PSB perspective, the work we've been doing at the co-production network, coming off your comment about funding, is externally funded through the lottery to support PSBs to do more and better co-production involvement. Some of the learnings that we've had from there have been how the distinction between the statutory and the invited members at PSB level is certainly creating a hierarchy, and that is damaging some of the insight that we could be getting from grass-roots organisations through that strategic board.

I'm aware, from a previous role of going around a lot of the RPBs, that the voluntary sector on the RPBs felt very much that they were an add-on, but I think that did begin to change. Do you think there ought to be something done about the structure of the PSBs? I know, Hazel, you chair one, don't you? So, you couldn't say the voluntary sector was left out there, it's obviously very prominent. But I don't know whether you've got enough knowledge to say how that is over Wales.

I think it varies greatly over Wales, and I think that could be a very interesting piece of work. I think there's an appetite to conduct that piece of work to try and map that, not just the engagement. Having a chair around the table is one thing, but, actually, contributing to change is another. And for me, it would be more about the function of that input into delivering the Act and into that partnership space, rather than obsessing too much about the form that should take. One of the things that I'm always conscious of when it comes to the public services board and the regional partnership board is that our task is huge. We tend to develop plans and strategies that try and include everything that are all-encompassing, whereas I think we need a clearer route-map of priorities.

The third sector across Wales is a complex beast, but has so much to give. If we were clearer on a partnership level, in terms of the change that we want to see locally and regionally, it would be easier maybe to have more purposeful engagement with the third sector. We would know which experts we need to be bringing into that space, we would know what existing resource and additional funding we need to realign to help us achieve that vision. I'd like to see us in a space where we have a handful of clear priorities that we want to deliver and can only deliver better in partnership.

Conversations that we've had with our members and our partners really back that up. We're seeing a broad inconsistency in approach across Wales. We're seeing some PSBs where there's great engagement—we've got Hazel around the table—they're involved in loads of different things. But we're also seeing PSBs where third sector partners feel that they have to sit back while the big boys have their conversation, while the public bodies do business, and don't feel like they've got that equity in the room. The general feel is that we're just not seen as equal partners.

I also think, from what I'm hearing from our members, that some of them go to the meetings and feel, 'Well, how did the world change today, as a result of these meetings?', and are unable to answer that question. If they'd just invested the time back in their services, they could see a very clear change in the world, from what they're doing. So, I think there's an opportunity for the commissioner, perhaps, to get behind sharing examples of great practice and making sure that the partners really understand the five ways of working, the seven missions, and what their role is, and being able to go back to that question, 'So, what changed?'

Jane just wanted to come in.

Just a very short question, please. You spoke there about the fact that, in your experience, you're not on the same level. We are very interested as a committee in looking at recommendations that we could make. So, in your view, if there was one thing that we could say, that would be strong and would strengthen your situation, what would that be? Something to ensure that there would be a more level situation for you. Do you have any ideas on that?

'How long have you got?' is my answer to that.

Just one thing.

I think to ensure that the funding code of practice is implemented. Because that includes all the recommendations about early and continuous dialogue, about having an equal place at the table. It's all in there, but I'd like to see the Welsh Government and local authorities leading by example on that implementation. That would make the world of difference to us.

I agree completely, and I think not just in terms of third sector funding but also in terms of PSB funding as well. So, that regional engagement fund—in terms of the Welsh Government's role, they've been on their own learning journey in terms of how they fund and support PSBs—that's moved to a three-year funding cycle, which has been greatly received, as opposed to a one-year. But there is a lot of uncertainty in terms of that. That funding is coming to an end next March, and the PSBs are having a real difficulty in terms of implementing long-term strategies and involving communities when they're not able to make the commitments with that kind of uncertainty hanging over them. So, yes, very much in terms of the third sector perspective, but from PSBs in general as well.

Hazel, do you have anything that you would like to see?

One additional thing for me is purposeful engagement. I don't think there's a need for somebody to be around the table to have an impact on the work that needs to be done to realise what we want to see through the Act. I don't represent the sector on the Ceredigion board—it's impossible to represent everything that's happening across the county in terms of what the sector's doing—but I am a representative of the sector. I think that's important, that boards and partnerships don't see that the sector's there because one person is sitting around the table. We need to engage better so that we hear the voices of the rest of the sector, but also that we draw those in as experts in their field to support specific areas of work.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

Julie.

In the position that you're in, you obviously see how different sectors are applying the Act. We're told by the auditor general that there is variation. Have you got any comments on that? Do you see examples of where one particular sector may be really taking it on and doing very well in adopting the principles of the Act?

I don't have a specific example of any one sector, but I think, certainly, when public bodies are working to the five ways of working and prioritising that, that is where we're seeing the most success. We're seeing more awareness and willingness to work in a co-productive way and in an involving way, and that's really supported those cultural shifts that we need to see in public bodies if we're going to achieve the aims of the Act.

An example that I could cite is from Swansea and Neath Port Talbot. There was a review commissioned into substance use-related deaths. The way that that work was conducted and the work that's going to continue from it, I would say that is an area of good practice. But I'm happy to follow up in writing, if you would like more information.

Yes, I think that would be useful, if you had some examples of where in public bodies it does really seem to be working, and where maybe it isn't working, if you wanted to venture into that. Jenny, I think that's it.

That's great, thank you. You've already given some clear information about things that need to change. Rachel, the co-production network has suggested that local authority culture heavily shapes PSBs due to their role in hosting and facilitating meetings. That shouldn't necessarily mean that they aren't engaged with the public, although having been in Cardiff nearly 20 years, I was surprised that so few residents were taking up the opportunity to ask questions in public at council meetings. Is it as much about the culture of some local authorities, or is it more to do with, 'We're the people with the money, therefore we've got to be in charge of how we spend it'?

I think part of it is down to where the money is hosted. In terms of the regional engagement fund, it's always hosted from a local authority. I'd just like to say I've got the utmost respect for local authority staff. They're doing some incredible work under a lot of strain and always expected to do more with less. I think the real message around this Act is on the strength of doing things differently, in enabling sustainable and more agile thinking.

When you look at what PSB structures look like, it looks a lot like a standard local authority committee. I think in taking that approach, we're not going to achieve the aims of the Act, especially if that same way isn't being scrutinised effectively. When it comes to PSB make-up, we're looking at decentralising that power away from local authorities. Maybe there are changes around funding. Maybe there are changes in terms of the make-up of PSBs. I've already talked about that statutory versus invited members. Maybe there's a need to make the third sector a statutory member and give more of that power away.

Also, to come on to scrutiny a little bit, to have a more diverse scrutiny panel, to have more participatory scrutiny available. I think PSBs should be enabled to take those risks as well. To enable that innovative practice, they should be able to break outside of the mould. Maybe it's from a meetings perspective, maybe it's break outside of the mould of running quarterly meetings. Maybe they do an annual meeting, and a lot of the work happens in sub-groups that are enabled through PSB officer work. It's just an example, but I think that PSBs need to be given that freedom to do what matters to their community.

Newport, in their evidence, said that they use participatory budgeting. Is that something that you looked at in the research you did?

Yes, I did look at the Newport written evidence. I couldn't be sure if that was just the local authority, or if that was through the public services board. That's a really good example of bringing community into decisions, having an impact on that level and supporting people to be part of those decisions.

We can probably delve a little deeper into that, because we didn't have much evidence on that. But I suppose it's also about how much the public wants to get engaged at all in local authorities. When elections come round for local government, in some cases there will be no candidate to fill a space. There were particular problems up in Gwynedd a few years ago. So it is a complex picture, isn't it? The voluntary sector is fantastic, and the conference I attended on Wednesday, I think it was, was a really good example of the vibrancy of the voluntary sector. But, nevertheless, there will be some parts of the voluntary sector who aren't in the room, particularly those living in the most deprived areas, because we know that there's always that inverse law going on there. So, it is a more complicated picture than just, obviously, sharing the responsibilities and, indeed, the funding out. So, I just wondered if you could say a little bit more about the scrutiny arrangements, really, because that's one of the ways in which we can change things on the ground. You were saying you were a bit concerned in your research, Rachel, about that. Who gets involved in the scrutiny? Do they invite voluntary sector organisations to sit on the panel? If they're looking at older people, do they bring older people in?

I haven't seen evidence of this. From the work that we've been doing, we've been working in depth with a select few PSBs, and of the ones that we've been working with, some of them have brought in other public sector bodies, so, those that are represented on the PSB. Others are only scrutinised by county councillors, which is a concern in terms of that representation. I was really pleased to see that Audit Wales, in their lessons learned, also recommended more participatory scrutiny when it comes to PSBs. The current scrutiny is more procedural rather than purposeful, and that does reinforce some of the power imbalances that we've been talking about. From what we've seen, there's a real limited focus in terms of progress, or even the applications of the five ways of working. So, we'd like to see scrutiny models that reflect bringing in more people, bringing in people from the public, and even just looking at open meetings or specific youth engagement, and really reinforcing the kind of collaboration and partnership ethos that is at the heart of this Act when it comes to scrutinising PSBs.

Hazel.

Can I just come in and support Rachel's point there? I think, as you said, there's no evidence yet. We can go back and ask, but there's no evidence yet of really robust scrutiny arrangements around the Act and around the work of public services boards. We're asked to attend local authority scrutiny in Ceredigion, which is fantastic—really good conversations with some amazing county councillors involved in the process who are interested in the work that we do. But that's one partner in a whole partnership.

And what's really interesting, I find, as well, around the scrutiny process, whenever any other partners need to take an update about the work of the public services board to their own organisations, they ask the PSB teams for a paper. Now, they're partners on that partnership. Their representatives should be able to go to their own internal structures and through their own internal structures to promote and support what we're trying to do as a partnership. We are very lucky that we have small but amazing PSB teams that support our work, but there's a certain level—. I think this is one thing that we've picked up from the feedback that we've had in preparation for today, that we're noticing maybe a delegation of representation around our partnership tables. So, when it does then come to decision making, we haven't necessarily got the right people in the meetings to make those decisions, particularly if we want to see that shift to longer term thinking, longer term planning, and really working together to address some long-standing challenges that we need to be thinking about.

It's interesting that you mention participatory budgeting. We've considered the same approach. There are interesting discussions with some town and community councils at the moment, actually. But we're trying to shift from that budget focus to resource focus so we can look at what we can do through volunteering, through community effort, through the resources that we already have. Is it more of a shift to make sure that we're making a difference in the areas that we need to see, and an alignment of any new investment, any new funding that might come onstream? So, it's not just about money. It's also about what people can give and the difference that people can make in giving their time.

But that participatory budgeting approach, I think, is a step in the right direction to build that trust and that openness again, because our public sector partners are in increasingly difficult financial positions, and there's a fear in terms of consulting and engagement. There's a fear that the public will ask for things that can never be delivered or are unaffordable. So, it helps sometimes, doesn't it, to control that narrative, but we're controlling that too much and we're losing that public trust. So, participatory budgeting could be a bridge in the right direction, but some kind of participatory resourcing approach can move us closer to that co-productive, co-delivery space where people and others can be part of the solution, with the resources and the expertise that they have.

I always find it useful to point out to the public who moan about the council that it's not them that chucks the litter—it's the public. It's just the council's considered to be the vehicle for clearing up other people's mess. But, equally, I think the point you're making is important in relation to some public bodies saying, 'Oh, but the PSBs aren't properly funded'. But you guys in the room, you all have budget. It's about how we decide to collaborate together to meet the objectives we think are important.

And, as well, it's how we use new investments to help us meet the requirements of the Act. Was it Swansea that was saying that—? Colleagues in Swansea were saying that, for this next round of shared prosperity funding, they're using the future generations Act to actually help them prioritise what they spend the money on. There's more that we can do to align funding, investment, programmes of work to help us deliver on the Act.

Okay. As my last question, really, the WCVA evidence says that you want more formal scrutiny of partnership forums like PSBs and RPBs to ensure they're working effectively. It partly depends on how well the backbench councillors are doing their job, because they should be scrutinising, surely, the executive members. And, equally, the staff should be having a say in how decisions are made, because that's what social partnership is all about.

We've lost the sound.

Sorry, what's happening? We've lost the sound.

It's back.

It's back.

Okay. All right. Perhaps it's because I sat on my—. No, that can't be right. [Laughter.] That can't be right because it's in front of me.

Okay, just briefly, if you could say what we need to do to improve scrutiny, because, as to the example that Hazel was giving about how the officers are asked to write a paper instead of the person who was representing that organisation at the body, don't they ever feed back to the rest of their council? Is it about local authorities just being a little bit more focused on what their role is, or is it about them opening the door to what you were describing earlier, which is the public being much more involved in the parameters of any decision-making body? You know, we haven't yet invented machines for printing notes.

Well, it's not just PSBs, if that gives any assurance. All partnerships are suffering from exactly the same thing. What we would call for is a carrot-and-stick approach, so a real celebration of where it's working well so that people can learn from others' practice, but also where's the accountability for PSBs, and what happens if they don't do it. I think it was Greta Thunberg that said, 'Why aren't we acting like the house is on fire when it comes to climate emergency?' Are we? Are we, in our PSBs? What happens if we don't? Well, if we don't, the consequences are unimaginable. So, it's those sorts of things that we would like to see a tightening of. Our hard-to-reach communities are right there if we just go and engage them. They don't always have to be hard to reach, and they want to get involved, but what a privileged position it is to be able to get involved. Because, if you're doing this, you're not raising money for your organisation, and some of them are on the verge of closing.

Very good. Okay. Thank you. Hazel.

Can I just clarify that, in terms of papers for boards and internal structures, that wasn't about the local authority. That was about other partners around the partnership table—health boards, Natural Resources Wales; all the partners are in the same place. I think it goes back to Lindsay's original point about the 'what?'—what have we achieved in that partnership space? I think it's hard for us to represent that because we're not outcomes focused. If we shifted to being more outcomes focused, it would be clearer for that—to take advantage of that scrutiny process.

We had a really interesting meeting as part of our last public services board meeting in Ceredigion. We started to talk about engagement and the process to develop our next well-being plan. We are already engaging with a number of older people through our age-friendly communities work. We have a disability forum. Most organisations around the table have youth councils, or youth fora, or youth boards. So, why are we not using those structures? We're conscious that we're not reaching everybody through those channels, but, at the moment, we're not even using those channels effectively as a whole board to make sure that our next well-being plan is familiar to people and actually reflects the change that people want to see.

So, we are already engaging with people quite effectively, but we need to make sure that we're using those structures more effectively to hear the voices of people and to get people on board. Change is difficult, and there will need to be a lot of public service change in years to come. We need people to be part of that journey and championing some of that change, rather than opposing at the moment, because the communication hasn't been there, or there isn't that trust, or they haven't been told the full picture. So, that shift needs to happen. I think we've got some of that in place, and we need to champion some of the good practice, where it is happening well, more, because I think, again, there's an appetite to share some of that best practice, and that we might be missing some of those stories. We need to really champion what's working well, and then encourage others to improve and make that difference.

Thank you. Can I call in Jane Dodds now, because we need to move on?

Thank you very much. I can see that time is short, so I'll just ask two questions, please.

First of all, and I ask this question to everyone who's come before the committee, could you just give—and you'll have time to think about this as well—just one sentence that, in your view, encapsulates the point of the Act, or says what the Act means to the public? So, just in one sentence, and, if you could just think about that, I'll ask another question and then I'll come back to that, please.

I would like to ask a question about the Welsh Government and how they are leading on this Act, and how perhaps they are leading by example. Could you just give us, in your view, or in your experience, a view on whether that is happening? And do you have any examples showing exactly how that has happened? And could I ask you also about the guidance in the Act? Is that guidance enough? Are there gaps in that, and what kinds of gaps are there? And what should we be doing about the guidance in the Act at this point? I'm not sure who would like to go first. I'll come back at the end about that sentence. Lindsay, would you like to go first?

I'd be delighted. Thank you. Generally, we're seeing a good commitment from the Welsh Government in relation to the Act. Our third sector unit in particular deserve a special mention. They're really trying to put the building blocks in place to safeguard the future of our sector, the future of the infrastructure that we've built, for instance, which is the envy of the rest of the UK, I might add. The challenge is making sure that those frameworks are across Government and not just isolated within our third sector unit and the wider directorate.

I think, in terms of guidance, we would like to see further clarity on the definition for 'prevention'. That was something that we called for strongly in our evidence. We know that there could potentially be ring-fenced funding for prevention, but we don't yet know what sorts of things we could spend it on. At the future gen summit, I was really interested to hear from the Auditor General for Wales about how we evidence prevention, which could potentially be as resource intensive as the preventative intervention itself. So, there's a word of caution as well from WCVA. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Sometimes, it's really difficult to evidence something that didn't happen as a result of something that the sector did.

Who wants to go next? Hazel.

I think the funding code of practice is probably a good example as well, where we are thinking about relationships, trust, longer term, making sure that we've got the environment to plan longer term. The area that we do want to see change—. Just picking up on the preventions point again, that definition needs to be clear, and that definition needs to be shared, that it's not up to interpretation. We've got an example with the regional integrated fund, where 20 per cent of that funding that comes through regional partnership boards is meant to be spent on the social value sector. I don't think we've ever got to the bottom of understanding where exactly that funding is being spent and what difference that money is making. So, there's more that we need to do. We're also in a position where that 20 per cent is seen as a maximum, as a goal to achieve, rather than a minimum that we should all be doing. So, again, caution, I guess, when it comes to placing some kind of percentage on how much funding should be invested in preventions. Because we do need to see that shift. That is the future, and that should be our future focus.

We're tackling ill health and we're stopping people from getting to that hospital setting or needing that care as much as possible. But all the health programmes that we're involved with as part of the regional partnership board are still about discharge. It's still very much hospital focused rather than genuinely looking at preventions and genuinely looking at communities, helping individuals to take control of their own health. The rhetoric is there, we're really talking about it, and there's a commitment, but we're not seeing that actual financial shift to invest in that space.

I'd also like to come in on this briefly and refer to my previous comments in terms of the guidance, but I'd also like to reiterate the work around Welsh Government and their contributions. I think that question around the regional engagement fund is one that needs to be addressed in terms of how Welsh Government are putting the Act into practice, in terms of how they fund long-term work. Because that funding is really essential if we're to meet that involvement principle.

Also, in response to your first question, I really appreciate my colleagues here talking about prevention, but I'd like to throw my hat in the ring in terms of talking about the involvement principle. For me, certainly, when it comes to the Act, it's about people in Wales being meaningfully involved in the policies and services that affect their lives.

Thank you very much. Are there any other sentences that anyone would like to share?

For me, act today for a better future for everyone—not just our own organisations or agencies, but for the public. What we do now is for a better future for everybody.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Diolch.

Yes, I would like us to be the ancestors that take 'Cymru Can' to 'Cymru did'. Enough talking: let's put the fire out.

Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Diolch, Gadeirydd.

Thank you. Sioned Williams.

Thank you, Chair. One simple question from me. What are your views on the commissioner's role as set out within the Act? Are any changes required? If so, what changes? Why? Why is there a need for those changes? How should we change the role, if at all?

We've been working with the future generations commissioner's office quite closely when it comes to our work with PSBs. We've got a good relationship with them and, when we see positive relationships between them and PSBs, we see a lot more confidence in PSB officers and how they can go about the work that they have to do. I think, in terms of the relationship and the role of the commissioner and his office, we'd like to see that collaborative and enabling relationship with a focus on shared learning, on capacity building and to provide that supportive oversight.

We really value our role with the commissioner and his office, but I don't think we've quite got that right. We do have regular engagement between the commissioner's office and the third sector partnership council, for example, but it feels like we're holding him to account and we give him quite a lot of a hard time when actually he is one of the people who do value us as equal partners. So, I think there's a bit more that we can do together to take a more collaborative approach, so that we are equal deliverers in that Act.

I would like to see more powers. I don't think the commissioner has the powers needed to actually make this work and to make it stick. I think more guidance from the commissioner's office as well is needed, just for how we all get involved and what it is that is being asked of us. So, yes, whatever it is that enables action, as well as a rich conversation, would be really welcomed by us.

When you talk about powers, what sort of powers are you talking about? Because those would be statutory powers, wouldn't they? You've mentioned in one of your previous answers about enforcement powers, for example. Is that what you mean there?

I think enforcement is a powerful tool in a plethora of things that encourage motivation. Sometimes that has its place as part of a suite of options, so, yes, that is what I mean: if people aren't backing this Act, what happens? Actually, it's our unborn children that are going to face the consequences.

Thank you. Hazel.

And a good relationship with the team. But perhaps that would be more through the third sector work, rather than my role as chair of the board in Ceredigion. The team supports the team that supports the partnership, and they support that team well—a very good relationship with some individuals—but perhaps that connection with the partnerships themselves isn't as strong as it could be, because there is so much emphasis on supporting the partners individually. So, perhaps some of the partners who sit around the table don't have the same sort of relationship with the team, but the team is a small team and it's got a lot of work to do, so it's difficult to realise everything. But there is something about sharing good practice here as well. Perhaps we all need to support the team in doing more of that, and the commissioner's team as well.

Diolch. Diolch, Cadeirydd.

Thank you. Altaf Hussain.

Thank you, Chair. On my area of enforcement and evaluation, critics say that the Act is not enforced enough. Your thoughts, please? How do we balance and create compliance with accountability?

I think this is the endless challenge, not just with this Act, but also demonstrating how the Act links to all the other Welsh Government strategies that we're all equally committed to, but, if they don't happen, what are the consequences of that? What we want is for everyone to be so motivated and thinking so long term and so strategically that we want to do it and that we do this stuff because we want to, not because somebody is putting the thumbscrews on and telling us that we have to. So, as Hazel has already alluded to, the secret for me is in engagement. That's always going to be priority one, but what if that doesn't work? I'd really welcome further discussions about that.

Thank you for that response. Any other thoughts?

Nothing.

Nothing to add.

No. Well, my next question is on that the Welsh Government is planning to evaluate the Act. What are the key areas the Welsh Government need to consider, based on our discussion today, like effectiveness and its impact on stakeholders, implementation challenges, unintended consequences, data and evidence, future adaptability, prevention et cetera? Now, by focusing on these areas, the Welsh Government can conduct a comprehensive evaluation that provides valuable insight into the Act’s performance. So, is there any particular aspect of the Act, or its impact, that you would like to explore further?

Do you want me to start again?

Yes, okay.

I would like us to learn the lessons from COVID times.

[Inaudible.]

I was working in homelessness then, and I just saw the system get out of its own way, and the people were prioritised at the top of the list. And, actually, we were all equals, because we were all at risk of the same thing. I think those lessons are starting to be lost. We saw innovation. We saw fewer meetings and more action. If we could go back to those times and not squander that learning, I think that that’s pivotal for what we need to do next under this Act. It’s an emergency, and we’ve got to treat it like one.

Yes.

And in line with that, I think we do need a simplification of the partnership structure, because, interestingly, during COVID, the regional partnership boards, and the public services boards, I think, mostly across Wales were stood down, and, obviously, we acted through our local resilience fora. So, there does need to be something around simplification, so that we are better using the spaces and that we do have the right people in those spaces to make change happen.

Engagement—you’ve heard us speak a great deal in the last hour about more effective engagement when it comes to involving people in setting the priorities, but also in delivering the solutions. And some of that as well is: if we’re moving more to outcomes and change, then how do we tell that story better, how do we bring people along with us? So, we need to be capturing that. So, there’s a simplification of that partnership space, and, as a result, there could be better communication in terms of the change we need to see and the change that we’re making.

I would agree. I would also reflect in terms of the ethos of the Act being really around culture change, and that huge change required of all public services in Wales. And that’s really long term, and that takes a lot of time. And 10 years may seem like a long time in some spheres, but, I think, when it comes to this Act, we’re really in the early stages. And, yes, we do need to be treating it like a crisis, and we do need to be treating it where we need to be taking action. But I think we also need to give respect to the people that have been working with a lot of passion and a lot of pride on this work, and continue to focus to put efforts on the willing and the people who really want to push this work forward.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. I just had a further question for Rachel, because Project Dewi was, I think I heard you say, with five PSBs. Is that right?

So, we’re working intensively with the cluster of PSBs across north Wales, a cluster in west Wales, which is Ceredigion, Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire, and with Cwm Taf Morgannwg PSB.

Okay, fine. So, that’s a large chunk of—.

It is a large chunk, yes. [Laughter.] We try to find a way to work with as many as possible by clustering them.

Okay. So, the intention was to obviously make your input efficient, so that—. You didn’t want to work with everybody—

Exactly, yes. So, we’re funded through the National Lottery Community Fund to do that work. And as part of our proposal, we said three, or clusters of—. We were really hopeful to maximise that impact, and we find that there are various clusters across west Wales and north Wales where they do work quite closely together, purely because of the similar representation that they have in terms of health board footprint, fire and rescue et cetera.

Very good. And is that work ongoing or is it—?

It is ongoing, yes, until February of next year.

Okay, and at the end of the research period, are you going to be presenting your evidence to the relevant PSBs or organisations?

So, we are currently undertaking—. We've got an external evaluator working at the moment in terms of gathering that evidence that we'll be able to report on at the end of our funding, with the hope to influence change from then on.

Right. Just finally, I wanted to ask about the Newborough community hackathon—

Yes.

—because that just sounded very interesting.

It was a great event. It was organised through our work but it was delivered by Cwmpas. They're really good, they're experts in terms of running hackathons as part of their 'Start Something Good' work, but as that would imply, that's just the beginning. That was the beginning of the conversation with communities. As you said, Newborough is with Gwynedd and Anglesey PSB. They're making good progress on that, so that community conversation was over a year ago, and they are continuing to work with not just PSB members but non-PSB professionals, as well as local communities. They're hosting regular drop-ins to update communities on plans and involving them in some of the solutions to the overtourism in Newborough.

Great. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you very much for your contributions this afternoon. We'll send you a transcript of your contributions, so that you can correct them if there's anything we've incorrectly recorded. Otherwise, we hope to be able to take forward some of the really interesting comments that you've made.

There are three papers to note. Are Members content to note them before we go into private session? I see no dissent.

Therefore, under the Standing Order, we will now move to private session.