Equality and Social Justice Committee

Thank you very much, Chair. Can I say how pleased I am that you are holding this inquiry, and I'm very pleased to contribute to it? In fact, you refer to my written evidence, and in terms of that particular point, we very much saw that the implementation of the Act was going to be long term. It is true that no Governments yet have successfully embedded sustainable development across all policy areas, so that's why it was acknowledged, right from the word 'go', that it would need to be a 20-year programme of work, because of those behavioural and cultural changes. As I say in my written evidence, that's why the Welsh Government's culture change service was established in May 2012. I think it's important to recognise that that was set up in order to try and drive that culture change. In fact, just thinking about this again, in terms of the impact of the Act, it's something where we are drawing, through the Act, on international understanding of the United Nations sustainable development goals, and the views and desires of people. You will recall, of course, the 'The Wales We Want' national conversation to create that framework.

In terms of the impacts, I think in my written evidence paper as well I provide an overview of the findings from almost 10 years of data in the 'Wellbeing of Wales' reports. There are many areas where progress has been made under the well-being goals for specific national well-being indicators. 'Resilient Wales', for example: the quality of our water has improved overall; air quality has improved significantly; and Wales has seen decreases in waste generation, with considerable improvements, as we know, in recycling—second in the world. And if you look at 'A prosperous Wales', the qualifications of people of working age have been improving over time. But it's recognising we have a long way to go. Overall, the data just shows that there's a mixed picture in relation to the well-being goals. Some indicators are improving, others may not be.

But it is really important that we recognise—and I think I say this in my written evidence—that the Act has influenced a change in the way we work in Wales. It's long term, but it has led to more collaboration of the five ways of working and involvement with our partners and citizens in a meaningful and effective way when developing policy and delivering services. But it has to be about driving continuous improvement as to how public bodies and the Welsh Government actually work to take this forward.

Okay. Has the culture change service been working with other public bodies or just with the Welsh Government?

Well, we've only recently published a manual, 'Building culture for co-production', which is one example of the ways that we have to deliver that. I don't know if you've seen that or whether we can share that with you. It's important that we do—from the feedback from public bodies—provide that kind of guidance, manuals on the way forward. I think 'Building culture for co-production' is something that has actually grown in awareness of that's the way we want to do policy in Wales—co-design, co-production. But also, that manual does show the most popular elements of learning in relation to the five ways of working.

In this tenth anniversary, I've had lots of meetings with stakeholders, public bodies, and it's really interesting when they give you examples of how the five ways of working has really made a difference and driven cultural change within organisations. It's hard to provide that evidence of culture change, isn't it? How do you provide evidence, again, of long-term thinking? But I do think the commissioner and auditor general's reports do highlight progress in areas like climate action and in public health planning and in transport. It's harder always to measure the quantitative outcomes.

Okay. I'll move on to the five ways of working, if you don't mind. It would be useful to see the manual for culture for co-production; I don't think any of us have read it to date.

In the context of the five ways of working, one of the most disturbing things about the future generations commissioner's report and the simultaneous report published by the auditor general was the issue of prevention in the context of the commissioner saying that, by the end of this year, we can expect to spend, on average, the last 20 years of our lives in ill health. Obviously, there are huge costs and demands on the health service that goes with that. The auditor general was very clear that the health system itself has some way to go on making the shift to prevention. Given that we spend half the budget of the Welsh Government on the health service, that was something I was pretty concerned about. So, I wonder if you could just tell us why we've made so little progress on this.

Well, yes, prevention is key in terms of the five ways of working, isn't it, and long-term thinking. I mean, I think that's something as well—. I was very conscious of the fact that you haven't yet seen the future generations commissioner's recommendations to the Welsh Government and that this is—

Yes, we have. Yes.

You have seen them?

Yes.

Oh, good. Have you seen our responses?

Yes, we have. They were shared by the future generations commissioner.

Good. Because, you know, I think those are really important points, and how do you measure prevention? I mean, certainly, in terms of continuing concern about ill health, and all the recommendations that the future generations commissioner makes, which cover a variety of aspects of health, particularly, I would say, health inequalities—. And that's why I'm very pleased that there is this recognition of the importance of Wales becoming a Marmot nation, because it's tackling health inequalities.

I'm pleased also that that's come up in your evidence, in terms of the fact that the Cabinet Secretary has now agreed to—well, much earlier this year—really embrace the opportunities for developing Wales as a Marmot nation. But I think it is, in terms of prevention—. Because this is also all the work that's been done to make sure we reduce inequalities and improve the health and well-being of our population. But we haven't really seen an outcome, have we, in terms of the health of people in Wales?

Well, we have seen an outcome, but it's not a positive one.

But I think, in terms of investment in prevention in health, the focus on primary healthcare and public health has been crucial. And, of course, there is recognition that public health has made a difference. But those key health equity indicators—. I think being a Marmot nation will help us with that, because it will be helping to reduce gaps in life expectancy, improve early years outcomes, better access to healthcare, reduce poverty rates, and more equitable employment opportunities.

I remember these discussions 25 years ago when I was the first health Minister, and I feel—. At one point, we had a very good strategy called 'Health Challenge Wales', which was actually about aiming at helping people to live more healthily. And we had a health inequalities fund, which we focused on tackling health inequalities in relation to heart disease. We were doing things 25 years ago in terms of trying to drive the public health route to prevention.

But we've gone backwards now. You've mentioned the Marmot nation twice. The former commissioner, Sophie Howe, has said, 'Why do we need to become a Marmot nation? If we implement the future generations Act, that will deliver us a Marmot nation.'

Well, I don't think there's any contradiction here, really. I think it will help deliver the goal of 'A Healthier Wales'. I think the Marmot—. We can't say that we—. This is the learning from this inquiry, isn't it? We do need manuals, we need examples, we need vehicles that will help drive us, and I think being a Marmot nation will help us. So, I just think it comes together; it aligns very well.

I think some of the issues around defining prevention—. We have a definition of prevention, which has been agreed. But then measuring it in terms of impacts, and obviously health is the one we can do—a Marmot nation will help us in that way, because we will have to demonstrate the outcomes in terms of being a Marmot nation. I'm interested that, actually, Gwent public services board was the first body, partnership, that came together to declare Gwent as being a Marmot PSB area. But I think, in terms of preventative action, also you need to look at budgets and you need to look at that in terms of the Welsh spending review. And that, actually, this Welsh spending review, is exploring how preventative approaches can reduce demand on public services.

I'm aware that you have agreed a definition of prevention with the commissioner, and that's good. But you can see that the triangle is in inverse proportion to where it needs to be. If we're going to become a healthier nation, we'll need fewer ill-health services. So, I wondered how you think the Cabinet is working across portfolios to deliver us a healthier nation that needs less of these medical interventions.

Can I just say that I'm really pleased that you've used the map that we produced? In fact, I can congratulate Juliette on producing these maps, which I think give a real—. They illustrate, don't they, very vividly, as you say. I don't know if you want to come in on this point—

Maps are lovely, but outcomes is what we're focused on. How are we going to turn this around, because we keep on pouring more and more money into the health system, and the problems are just getting worse? I appreciate that some of this depends on the UK Government imposing fiscal measures to encourage people to eat better food rather than some of what I would call rubbish that is promoted by large multinational companies. I'm really trying to find out what is the Government's strategy for turning around what is a public health disaster.

If I just come in—and 'thank you' to Juliette for the mapping—in terms of outcomes, I think there are some really useful recommendations from the future generations commissioner. For example, in terms of the recommendation about ensuring prevention is embedded at the start of all clinical pathways, we're saying that it's set as part of the key deliverables in the remit letter for NHS bodies. All those bodies are expected to demonstrate a relentless focus on primary, secondary and tertiary prevention across its work programme. This is where all the focus goes on the secondary and specialist sector, and we have got to ask the bodies who are spending all the money what their focus is. So, I thought that was extremely useful, for us to be able to demonstrate that.

But the Cabinet Secretary for finance is doing this work, as I said, on the Welsh spending review, to look at how preventative approaches can reduce long-term demand on services. But, clearly, in terms of tackling inequalities, which is at the heart of this, really, I think the Marmot nation will help us, because it'll have to be key delivery for organisations to turn that commitment into action.

Okay, but we have—

And also, perhaps just to say, on that point about how public bodies should include prevention as a core strategic objective, that's now going to be included in the refreshed continuous learning and improvement plan. This shows that the commissioner's report, alongside the auditor general's report, are really important for us, let alone your inquiry, in terms of assessing where we're going. But, obviously, the impact that austerity cuts have—. So, there are UK Government responsibilities, but it is very clear that we've got to take responsibility where we have the powers, policies and levers. But there is a bigger context, and I think that's shown in the maps, as well—the wider context.

Okay. Sioned Williams, you just wanted to come in.

Yes. I just wanted to come in very quickly on that preventative element. You refused the recommendation by the commissioner and the auditor general to earmark or to ring-fence that funding for preventative spend. You described there how you now expect this from the health boards. But knowing that the pressure is so huge on them, why not? Can you explain why ring-fencing specific funding for this, in line with the recommendations to the Welsh Government, would not achieve what you want to see?

Well, it is a really important question, because we've had long discussions and debates about hypothecation, particularly with local government, I'd say, because there is this tension. Those of us who've been councillors know, about what they've been told to do, as to hypothecated funding and policy driving that by the Welsh Government or other Government vehicles, that they lose their flexibility about how they spend their money. So, local government has always made the case for not ring-fencing money, although in terms of policy delivery we've often made that case, and many of us, as Senedd Members and Government Ministers, have said, 'No, I want to make sure that the funding for this particular programme is ring-fenced so that we're sure that local authorities do deliver on it.' The thing is that it is quite difficult to isolate what funding would be for prevention and early intervention without undermining the broader approach to prevention, because a preventative way of working should influence every policy decision that you make.

I don't know if you asked this question of local government, but we are moving to give them more freedoms in terms of the revenue support grant funding, which isn't ring-fenced, but they have got to embrace the preventative way and long-term way of working, as they're signed up to and have duties under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. So, we do try to avoid hypothecation, but I've just referred to the remit letter, which is a really useful route to influence public bodies. I recall, several years back, the then Cabinet Secretary for Education was able to give higher education an uplift in the budget round, but she said that she would link that to higher education then implementing the real living wage. So, there are ways in which you can use your powers and levers in that way. Let's see how the Welsh spending review comes out on this in terms of the preventative approach, because that's the work they're doing.

Okay. We'll certainly keep a close eye on this, because this is clearly quite a significant red flag, I think. So, if we could move on now, Sioned Williams has some questions.

Thank you, Chair. There have been calls for some time now to start the work on the post-legislative evaluation of this Act, but it's not clear to us at present what progress has been made on that. You wrote to us in May, I think, of this year, outlining the work to draw up an evaluation of the Act and to take the first step in what is likely to be a multi-year evaluation. You said you expected to consider a report on this work in the autumn term. Therefore, could you let us know what that work encompasses? Has that report that you referred to been produced and when can we expect it to be published?

Thank you for that. Yes, this is something where, back in September of last year, we did agree to review approaches to an evaluation of the Act, as you say. It wasn't a funded activity, but we'd also, going back to earlier, probably when you were on the public accounts Committee, Chair, looked at whether we needed to consider reviewing the Act. We were able to appoint a fellow from the Economic and Social Research Council, Dr Adrian Kay, who has done some work already to scope an evaluation of the Act. This is something now that is being looked at by our knowledge and analytical service within the Welsh Government. I think it's going to be very helpful, along with the outcome of your inquiry, and the work that Dr Kay has looked at, that we can then take this forward. There isn't a report to publish at this stage, is there, but I'll perhaps bring in Rae Cornish to just update us on where we are with that work on the evaluation.

Thank you, Cab Sec. Dr Kay provided a report to the Welsh Government about the potential scope for a future evaluation and, as the Cabinet Secretary said, this is being considered by the knowledge and analytical service at the moment. What they will be doing is providing options and costs for a future evaluation, and they will take into account evidence given to this inquiry to inform that approach.

Thank you. So, from what you've just said, work has been undertaken and a report has been submitted. However, in your response to the Auditor General for Wales's report, you stated that you would begin to consider options for an evaluation following our inquiry and that the decision to conduct an evaluation would be a matter for a future Minister. Could you, therefore, clarify the purpose of the work that's already been done by Dr Kay, if that's also true?

Well, I think it has been useful that he's identified priorities. I think there's some reflected in the map, so do you want to just say something about how you did the maps but he helped with his report?

The purpose of the work was to understand the broader landscape of the WFG Act, and the maps that are in the evidence paper do describe to some extent the broadness of that landscape. So, for instance, the legislation landscape itself has at least 11 pieces of legislation that interact with the WFG Act. Now, these interactions are quite significant interactions. There are other interactions that are not on here. These are the ones where new bodies are created and where other legislation supplements the WFG Act and where other legislation taps into the operational mechanism of the WFG Act—so, like the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act. For instance, the Environment (Air Quality and Soundscapes) (Wales) Act 2024 interacts, but interacts on a minor level. It requires PSBs and the commissioner to be consulted on a new soundscape strategy, for instance. But this describes, I suppose, or illustrates the scope of the Act, and so every other piece of legislation that interacts with the WFG Act to some extent is implementing the Act even further. So, a future evaluation would need to look at this landscape and say, 'Well, to what extent are all the other pieces of legislation that lend the purpose and intended effect of the WFG Act actually implementing it even further?' And some of the other pieces of legislation, for instance, might have the same, or some of the public bodies already subject to the WFG Act. So, that's kind of an illustration of that existing landscape.

On the duty on public bodies, there are several other duties on public bodies. Public bodies are required to review their objectives as part of the reporting process, and they can amend their objectives. So, every time a new duty is passed—and we have lots of them, as you can see—some of the public bodies under the WFG Act are subject to these other duties. So, you could argue that a public body, in reviewing its objectives, would take into account other duties that contribute to the well-being goals, for instance. So, that would improve their setting of objectives to maximise a contribution to the well-being goals, and that's the key bit, I think, for public bodies—that the drafting of the well-being duty says it's to maximise a contribution. So, they have to set well-being objectives for all of the goals, but, for some bodies, there's a bit of flexibility in the statutory guidance. Each body will do that based on their role and function, but they'll also be reporting on these other objectives, these other duties, at the same time, which would influence how they set their own well-being objectives and how they maximise their contribution to the goals.

The final map—I'll be really quick—is about general powers. In the evidence paper, we say that the kinds of key regulators in the Act, those with the strongest roles in the Act, don't include PSBs. But what's really important about this map No. 3, really, is the the sharing of information—so that third column: recipients, consideration and consultation. So, it doesn't describe what information is being published, but it does show you the flow of information in the Act—so, what information is being created, what reports, who they go to, what those bodies or persons are expected to do with that information. This is really important to understand, with the mechanism around the flow of information under a future evaluation, whether the balance is right in the Act, whether it should be stronger or weaker, or is it actually working well. So, the maps, I suppose, essentially, are about understanding that bigger picture, and part of Adrian Kay's work was to try and scope out the extent to which the Act—. What is the reach of the Act? And that's why we produced these maps.

Thank you. So, to be clear, this work has been done although the Government had said that it would consider options following our inquiry. I'd like to know how this work is going to—. Further work will need to be done if I've understand the Government's intention correctly, therefore, to bring together what we find in our inquiry. Also, I'd also like to hear your response to the commissioner's comments as he said to us that he would have expected to have been much more closely involved in this piece of work.

Diolch yn fawr, Sioned. Really, that's an outcome of some of the work that you've done, that Dr Kay's done with us in Welsh Government, with our officials. So, we've got the whole context set out and we've got the results of your inquiry coming through. We've already mentioned, I won't repeat, that now this has to be considered by our knowledge and analytical services in Welsh Government. But also, I think the future generations commissioner was interviewed, wasn't he, by Adrian Kay during his evaluation. The fellowship is completed now. So, I think the next steps will be—. We can report back to you. But your recommendations, I think, will influence that.

But I would expect, I have to say now, as the Minister responsible, that any future evaluation in its terms of reference and scoping has to meaningfully engage with the future generations commissioner and his office. I think we're in a good place to do that because of the reports that we've got before us now from himself and the auditor general, the report that's led to these context-building maps, the scenarios, and, indeed, a fellow funded by the ESRC helping us with this.

But it is a complex area, and I'm sure that you've identified that. How do we meaningfully evaluate the Act? It's early days. It's a 20-year programme that we set ourselves out to deliver on. But, already, even before we do an evaluation of the whole Act, we're also doing some monitoring and evaluation guidance for public services bodies—I mentioned that in my written evidence—co-producing tools and guidance to help PSBs report and demonstrate how the five ways of working are being applied. That's already here-and-now work to help with strengthening our PSBs.

Thank you. I'll move on because I'm aware of time. In terms of public bodies captured by the Act, what are your views on the scope of that and how do you determine whether new bodies should become subject to the Act? We heard, for example, from the commissioner that a certain public body should have been brought under the Act as it was established rather than later on.

Well, of course, we have added to the 48 another eight. An important question in terms of the test against—. There are four criteria: for example, a body must be over 50 per cent publicly funded, it must undertake actions or functions that impact on the economic, social and environmental well-being of Wales; the authority has to have strategic functions and, of course, the auditor general would have to have the authority to audit it. So, I think this is something that is useful, what's developed.

For example, we've mentioned the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023 and the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017. They need to be considered, they've come—. The impact of that in terms of new bodies, they need to be considered since we've had the Act introduced. So, two of the eight public bodies added didn't exist when we implemented the law: Transport for Wales—that was June 2024—and the Centre for Digital Public Services. So, they do meet the criteria. Not all do meet those criteria that I've outlined, and of course this is something where, as far as the timing of establishing those goes, they had to meet those tests in terms of criteria and we had to see that they could be properly audited.

Do you feel, therefore, that those four criteria that you mentioned are still relevant, or do they need to be reviewed?

The criteria haven't been reviewed, and at the moment, we're looking at one possible new body, the Disused Tips Authority for Wales, being added to the Act—that's going to be added. There may be another body, the new environmental governance body, to be considered. But, no, we haven't reviewed the guidance in terms of the criteria. I think the criteria do stand, but they were reviewed back in 2022 in terms of the review of public bodies and it was agreed that we didn't want advisory bodies, we needed more strategic bodies. It wasn't appropriate to have inspectorates. We can see why: they don't have strategic functions. We don't have higher education and further education because they're non-profit institutions, also RSLs, for example, registered social landlords. All of these have been looked at and not deemed to fit those key criteria.

Thank you. And just finally, your continuous learning and improvement plan states that it will be reviewed in due course, so when will that be undertaken and what specific areas will be looked at?

Diolch yn fawr. This is something where we did look at this and updated the continuous learning and improvement plan. We updated shared purpose, shared future guidance back in July of last year, and I think it's important that it is flexible in terms of the continuous learning and improvement plan, what their objectives are. But I think we're also working with PSB co-ordinators—is that right, Rae—in terms of what we need to do, looking at the plan.

Yes, we are. And we'll be refreshing the continuous learning and improvement plan in light of the recommendations from the future generations commissioner's report to help us form a new continuous learning and improvement plan for the next phase, so we're working on that at the moment.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Julie Morgan.

Diolch. Prynhawn da. I was going to ask you about the partnership landscape. Many of our people giving evidence have said that it's too complex and that is something that the future generations commissioner has also called for. So, we wondered what your views were about that.

Yes, I think this has been a great topic of discussion and consideration, hasn't it? There is work being undertaken to review whether all the structures do appropriately align and whether their functions are appropriate. So, you'll perhaps recall that, last January, Welsh Government produced a report called 'Keeping regional partnership working under review with local partners' and that looked at all these issues, particularly the issue between public services boards and regional partnership boards. It's been raised, of course, here and with the commissioner, I know, and this is an issue we've got to seriously consider if it creates barriers and we need to streamline.

So, we're now looking at ways in which we can streamline approaches and processes for those regional partnerships, because there are overlapping regional footprints, as we know, and membership structures, but we are—. As well as that work last January, we are continuing to look at that, particularly the PSBs and RPBs, in terms of streamlining their functions, and I think that the commissioner's office has been helpful in this respect as well, because they are also looking at this.

So, how does the Welsh Government relate to PSBs?

Well, we have an official sitting on every PSB, which I think has always been a useful engagement. There is a lot of flexibility for public bodies in terms of the Act, and it's important that we learn from the PSBs in terms of the Act and taking this forward. But I think that what's useful is that the commissioner—. Well, both the reports—we've had the commissioner's report and the auditor general's report—do say that the Act is having a positive impact on public bodies' delivery towards well-being, and that PSBs play a role in that.

I can give one example. The Audit Wales report on Powys County Council in 2023 found that, when setting well-being objectives, the council draws on an extensive set of evidence, has a clear process to engage members and officers, and carries out citizens' involvement. I think that that's an example where we would see learning from one PSB that can be applied to other PSBs, and that's where we tend to monitor, advise and engage, in terms of Welsh Government involvement.

And do you think the PSBs have been held back by not being able to have a budget and not being legal entities?

Well, they were set up to be sort of collaborative bodies—partnerships rather than corporate bodies. They bring together the statutory bodies that are so key to joined-up government. No, they don't hold their own budgets or employ staff, but they do bring people together. They do bring strengths and resources.

I always recall when there was a challenging inspection of youth justice in Cardiff and it was the PSB that brought everyone together. And, of course, that membership was very useful in terms of looking at ways, particularly where devolved functions were interacting with each other, to improve the delivery of youth justice.

And I think that others, like Gwent PSB, decided to focus on the Marmot principles in terms of health, and some PSBs have also helped us in looking not only at tackling poverty, but also developing community policies. So, I think that we're bringing officials together, aren't we, who are working with PSBs. Did you want to say anything more about the PSBs?

I mean, I suppose your question, though, is: should they be corporate bodies or have budgets and different functions? But then I think that they would directly be treading on the toes of the regional partnership boards, which actually spend money, don't they? They are the ones that are there on an operational basis, whereas the PSBs are there to be more strategic and collaborative.

But when we introduced the Act, we were encouraged to think that this legislation would lead to the amalgamation of bodies, so we would have fewer public bodies, particularly fewer than the 22 local authorities. This hasn't happened. Is it something to do with the architecture of what we've created from this Act, which hasn't driven the necessary pooling of budgets to get things done?

I don't recall that being a principal objective back when we developed and implemented the well-being of future generations legislation. The PSBs can lead to some strengthening of partnerships, but I'm not sure about the amalgamation of bodies. That's certainly not been on the sort of policy landscape, put it like that, unless you know of anything of that kind, Rae. I don't know if anyone has been to a PSB. I was involved in a PSB when we were working in Ely after the disturbance there. It was so good to have the Cardiff PSB there with all of the colleagues, all of the local authority responsibilities, and also bringing in policing colleagues as well, and the third sector. They had a membership that was absolutely fit for purpose in terms of developing an Ely plan to enable the community to look at solutions following that disturbance. So, around Wales, you will see different outcomes from the PSBs.

That's an outstanding example, isn't it, of how a PSB worked really effectively. But do you see, longer term—? You're saying you're trying to streamline things. Do you still see the existence of RPBs and PSBs in the long term?

I don't think that would just be for me to comment on, really, in terms of those who are engaged and benefiting from them. I think the RPBs have a very distinctive role, as you'll recall from your time as a Minister, particularly in relation to health and social care and the integration of health and social care, and also across geographical boundaries of more than one authority. If your question was about amalgamating PSBs, yes, that happens, and that has happened throughout Wales very effectively. Gwynedd and Ynys Môn is a natural example, and also Cwm Taf, which has expanded. The amalgamation has strengthened them. They're not always aligning with RPBs, or even health boards, but rather with regional developments.

One of the issues I was aware of in the RPBs was that it was quite difficult sometimes for the third sector and the voluntary sector to get a say, shall we say. I wondered if you saw that as being any better on the PSBs.

Again, I think it would vary across Wales, but I think the third sector is involved in virtually all the PSBs. Can we just check that out and perhaps write to the committee? I'd like them to be clearer that they should be. But also, I think the third sector is now mature enough and engaged enough, because we fund them well in terms of infrastructure, to be able to have a role and a place on a PSB. In terms of their evidence, they can be really important in terms of liaison with the public bodies in their areas. We'll do, perhaps, a bit of feedback to you. You've got the information about who's amalgamated. Apologies, Chair, I misunderstood that point.

The final question from me. We've had evidence given to us that to produce a well-being assessment and plan every five years is overly prescriptive for PSBs. I wondered what you thought about that.

This is something that we've consulted on recently with PSBs, the guidance for assessments. We are looking at ways in which we could remove overly prescriptive elements from guidance. The difficulty about changing the timeline is it would require legislative change. So, we're looking at whether we can make the process simpler. But I think there are going to be issues following Senedd reform, when we move from five-year to four-year terms, where we may have to look at this anyway in terms of all public bodies and also PSBs in terms of timelines. But yes, certainly, we are looking to make this less prescriptive and more proportionate in terms of their responsibilities.

Diolch.

Thank you. Jane Dodds.

Thank you very much. I want to ask about performance and monitoring the impact of the Act, and also just a question on enforcement as well. First of all, how are indicators and reports used to inform decisions that the Government is making, and do you have any examples of these? Thank you very much.

Diolch yn fawr, Jane. This is so important, because the fact is that we do use the well-being report and indicators to inform policy and budget decisions. Also, we look to them as part of our continuous learning and improvement plan so that we can raise profile and understand the impact of the national indicators. Of course, we've got our future trends report. That requires direct engagement with all our teams and organisations outside of the Welsh Government who are influential.

We're actually looking at how national milestones and indicators are being used within the organisation. I think this is something where I would say I'm looking at this particularly in relation to, for example, the child poverty progress report, which I'm publishing tomorrow—and I look forward to having scrutiny on that next week—where we've looked to the national indicators and milestones in terms of our monitoring framework to tackle child poverty, as one example.

I think it's something where we do need to raise the profile of our well-being of Wales reports and show the impact of our national indicators so that people can see that this is a way we can deliver on the well-being of future generations.

Thank you very much for that. I don't know if you have examples from the past of how the Government has used the Act in terms of informing decisions. That would be excellent to hear. May I also hear about that? You have touched on the profile that the national indicators has had. How are you going to improve on the fact that the public don't know about these, and how does it affect how the Government can deliver on what you want to do?

I think this is something that is very important in terms of how we demonstrate the importance of the well-being future generations legislation. I have produced some case studies in my written evidence, which I hope you think are useful and important. In terms of my work particularly, there's the ‘Anti-racist Wales Action Plan', the VAWDASV ways of working. But again, looking at the circular economy, looking at the sustainable farming scheme, these have all been very much influenced by not just the ways of working, but also about what our aspirations are in terms of delivering on national indicators.

But we do have to look at this in terms of a review of statutory guidance under the Act. I think this is something where we need to look at how we can profile the information, encourage use of resources with the future generations commissioner's office. We need to make these more visible in terms of value and opportunity for public bodies, so that they can use these more effectively.

Thank you very much for that. You accept that there is a gap, but it would be interesting to hear how exactly you intend filling that gap. How are you going to ensure that there is no gap between what the public know about these and what they should know? So, do you have any ideas in terms of moving that forward, please?

Public engagement is crucial, isn't it, and I'm sure this has been very much part of your consideration with this inquiry. I think it's really important for us to see the awareness of the Act so often in speeches and engagement, and even when we're meeting with children and young people. Part of the Curriculum for Wales now is looking at the importance of being the first nation to have a well-being of future generations Act.

I'm very interested in looking at how the innovating democracy advisory group will work on what are perceived now as low levels of public knowledge. Local authorities now have to produce public participation strategies, which look at how they're making decisions in partnership with people, with the evidence from citizens, but also working with other bodies. And also, we've got the commissioner's comments last month on a survey he undertook amongst civic society looking at the impact of the Act on public sector delivery.

We do need to ensure that there is meaningful awareness of it in terms of outcomes that are very clear. I think that's where this tenth anniversary has been so important. I certainly have engaged in a number of events with a wide range of stakeholders, for them to share with us, public bodies and also citizens groups, the impact of the Act. But also, I think this should be a key point for evaluation, which we've been talking about, in terms of how we can make sure that there is more public awareness of the Act and its impacts.

Thank you very much. And just a question regarding enforcement of the Act. We have heard, and we've been going around this point, that the Act is underpowered. So how can you strengthen the Act to ensure that there is power with the Act? What ideas do you have, or the team, to ensure that this happens? Thank you.

Thank you. I suppose I've been partly reflecting on that in terms of public engagement and how we can improve that in terms of communications. But we've got to recognise that the Act doesn't provide people with legally enforceable rights against public bodies. This is something I recall a long time ago with the closure of a school. The parents thought they could use the Act to perhaps resist the closure of the school in terms of well-being of future generations. It isn't the role of the Act. That was an intentional policy choice, that it couldn't provide those sorts of legal interventions against public bodies. It was much more about how you can promote better, more holistic decision making. That's the purpose of the Act.

A future evaluation should seek to monitor the effectiveness of the Act so that it is not seen to be underpowered. I think what's important is that young people are very engaged in the Act. There's a future generations leadership academy. I don't know if you've met them or got evidence from them, Chair. Members of the Welsh Youth Parliament are very interested in participating in the Act, and are very proud of the Act, actually. They're the voices of the future. We haven't got a regime where sanctions are part of the legislative framework, and of course, we don't want to replace democratic accountability. As we know, the Act is an overarching governance framework for public service. It enables and facilitates sustainable development for the benefit of future generations, and it doesn't seek to control or influence administrative decision making. And I think that liberates the Act, but we've got to make sure it's well used and well understood.

Mick Antoniw.

You're on mute, Mick.

Sorry. Can I, Cabinet Secretary, just follow on from those points? Because the points you make are ones that arose during discussions at the incept of the legislation as well, when it was still being put together, and the question as to what teeth it should have to make it effective. One of the areas at the time that Welsh Government was not keen on was employment aspects, but, of course, that has been rectified now by the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023, which has expanded and focused further on that particular aspect of fair work.

But the other area was that, whereas it was appropriate not to be able to reverse administrative decisions, the ability to require public bodies to at least respond to or to have breathing space to consider representations made by the future generations commissioner was something that might have given it some further teeth. I wonder if any consideration would be given to thinking about how that particular aspect might be taken on, because it is one of the criticisms of the Act that the framework is fine, but the need to respond, the need to make it something more than a tick-box exercise, is something that obviously causes a lot of concern as to the efficacy of the legislation.

So, I wonder what your thoughts are about how the legislation might be strengthened in the enforcement area, without perhaps overreaching the political responsibilities of elected bodies.

Thank you very much, Mick Antoniw, and of course this goes back to the wider framework of building cultures of co-operation—the way we are developing, for example, and growing Hwb Dyfodol, a centre for excellence for futures thinking. We want to be able to ensure that the well-being of future generations Act does provide that kind of value-based way of working, and I think this is something that reflects on some of the other questions that I've had earlier on, but I think that would have to be quite a change in the Act itself to follow through what you're suggesting.

I think, back to the maps that have been produced, the ways in which legislation has come on to the Welsh statute book, even over the last 10 years—. You've mentioned the socially responsible Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023. The section 20 review that was undertaken on procurement did lead to that socially responsible procurement duty in the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act that's coming into force next year. So, I think, in a sense, the ways of working, the indicators and milestones, help then shape legislation, and, in fact, I think Juliette showed that in terms of the map and what we've done.

At the moment, it is true to say that it's the section 20 powers that the commissioner has got that can actually lead to change in terms of delivering on the Act and actually influencing other legislation, but I don't think we see the need for any further change in respect of enforcement.

Okay, I want to come to Sioned, but, Mick, if you can indicate with a hand rather than using the electronic hand. Mick and then Sioned.

Just very quickly. Cabinet Secretary, one of the suggestions made by the commissioner is that the statutory obligation to formally respond to representations made within a statutory time limit would be something that would at least require those authorities that don't respond to do so, which would mean that they would at least have to be seen to be taking account of the representations. Do you think that is something that might be considered?

I don't know if that's been considered. I'll perhaps turn to Rae. It hasn't.

No.

I think the huge frustrations in terms of failures to deliver in terms of those statutory requirements, and responses that are failing—I think we could look at those as part of the scoping of the evaluation. It's just that we can't turn this into a sort of regulatory body. Enforcement is crucial, as Jane said earlier on, and, of course, there are other routes to enforcement, not just through legislation and new legislation, but through regulatory responsibilities. But I can see that is an area where we could at least see whether there could be any levers that we could—. If we're going to do full post-legislative scrutiny and evaluation as a result of your inquiry, the two reports that we've got, and future prospects, then these are issues that could be usefully included.

Very good. Sioned Williams.

Thank you. You mentioned there that the section 20 powers of the commissioner are the strongest in the Act in terms of enforcement. But the commissioner himself has said that, although this is the strongest power, it's not a strong power. That is, it's a requirement for public bodies to respond to the recommendations of a section 20 review, but they don't have to implement those recommendations. So, bearing that in mind, have you considered amending the section 20 powers that the commissioner currently holds?

We haven't considered amending the powers under the section 20 reviews, but there may be adjustments in terms of the process. There may be adjustments, for example, for resourcing and funding, because to do the section 20 effectively you have to resource it. That may not result in any statutory changes, but also you could perhaps, as a result of section 20, have the ability to issue directions or other forms of mandated actions for non-compliance as a result of recommendations in a section 20 report. So, those are the sorts of areas where we think you could strengthen the section 20 duty, the responsibility that the commissioner has, and, certainly, we could look at that in terms of future evaluation, and perhaps the inquiry could reflect on that.

Thank you. Julie Morgan.

In any sort of future evaluation, would you have any thought about any other sort of model that would be effective as a future generation commissioner role?

Not at the current time in terms of any other model. Obviously, section 20 is a responsibility and statutory power that the commissioner has, but I think this is something again where—. How much do you look at the soft power of the well-being of future generations legislation, the commissioner and the Act in itself and the influence it's had on policy? I hope you will be—I'm sure you are—looking at those positive case studies; I've mentioned some and there are some in my written evidence.

I think his role in carrying out examinations of public bodies to see whether they have acted in accordance with the sustainable development principle, that's crucial, that he has that power in terms of well-being objectives. Whether that could be strengthened is a thought, because that's not section 20, that's ongoing opportunities in terms of examinations of public bodies. But I think what's interesting is that the future generations commissioner has had influence in many different ways. For example, we recognise, from the recommendations he's made, that the commissioner has had an influence, in perhaps previous times as well, without having new powers or arrangements. But people have got to be able to see that. I don't know whether the committee's considered any other route or powers for the commissioner at this stage.

Well, we had very coherent evidence from the commissioner's office that this was the commissioner with the least clout to assert citizens' rights, that they had plenty of powers of persuasion, but sometimes they were insufficient, and that, in order to be able to assert the rights of citizens to ensure that the well-being of future generations takes their needs into account in all ways, they would need more powers. The Welsh Language Commissioner has huge powers, and the other commissioners have powers to assert the rights of specific sections of the community. So, I recommend that you have a look at that; I think they made a pretty strong case for change. Moving on, Mick Antoniw.

[Inaudible.]—questions, Cabinet Secretary. You've explored already, I think, a number of the areas I was going to talk about. Obviously, in terms of the Senedd, its understanding and the way in which it monitors the operation of this legislation, we're obviously going to be talking about a very different Senedd, a much larger Senedd, coming into the future. Do you see any impact of Senedd reform on, I suppose, the way in which we promote the legislation and the way in which Senedd Members are prepared for the legislation and how it will operate within the legislative process, and also the administrative processes of the Senedd and Welsh Government?

Well, I have commented on this in that I can see that this is going to require shorter terms for—. The future trends report, for example, will need to be published every four years. So, that's an additional report required in every 20-year period. And also, the fact is that the auditor general will have less time to examine the 56 public bodies subject to the Act. Those issues will have to be considered.

The commissioner will have a shorter period to carry out his or her programme of work engaging with public bodies. So, this is something that we would have to look at in terms of the well-being reports of public bodies and section 20 reviews. But we have embraced this four-year democracy; we've been there before, in fact, probably before we had the future generations legislation. And I think that we now need to start considering that for the evaluation. And also, of course, there's going to be possible additional work with more public bodies coming under the Act as well. So, that's really, really important.

But maybe it gives—. We talked about it being underpowered; maybe this will power up the well-being of future generations office and the power of the legislation as well, because it will be very much, as it always has been, a part of the democratic timetable, and there'll be an urgency about this. Of course, it may have an impact on resources, though.

Yes. Well, listen, thank you for that. I'm not going to go into a number of areas you've already commented on that I was going to ask about, such as public awareness and some roles with the auditor general, because I think you've dealt with those.

Just one final point from me, then, on, really, how the Welsh Government's preparing for the United Nations 2030 sustainable development goals. You'll be aware that the commissioner has made calls to repeat 'The Wales We Want' exercise that was undertaken in 2014 to develop the Act. I wonder if you have any thoughts about that, looking ahead.

Well, I think those of us who were around at the time very much remember 'The Wales We Want' campaign. I do think this is something where that national conversation was really powerful. I want to just think about a Wales of more cohesive communities here, a more resilient Wales, a more equal Wales. These are so key, the key issues that we'll be debating on Wednesday, in terms of your Equality and Social Justice Committee report on social cohesion. I think a national conversation, preparing for the UN 2030 sustainable development goals, will be vital, and we’d want to replicate it. But I know that our officials are also making links with UN partners, to ensure that we’re involved in those discussions at the UN level in terms of SD goals.

What’s interesting—and I think Rae went to a European meeting recently—is that they see us at the forefront of this, because we’ve been trying to deliver on the sustainable development goals. We must remember that our legislation has been regarded as groundbreaking and is being replicated in other parts of the world. We can learn from the different decisions that nations have taken. But I certainly feel that, for the people of Wales, we want the 'The Wales We Want' campaign repeated.

Thank you for that, Cabinet Secretary. Chair, there are no further questions from me.

Thank you, Mick. Jane Dodds.

Thank you very much. Just a final question from me. It's a slightly personal question, and I don't know whether it's entirely fair to ask you, but you've been a part of this Act from the very outset, and you have therefore been aware of it, and the fact that people have criticised it, and that they see good in it also. In your opinion, are there things that would be good to change, in retrospect, things that would improve the Act going forward? Thank you very much.

Diolch yn fawr, Jane Dodds. I'm very proud of the Act. I'm very proud that we have got our well-being of future generations legislation. It's the first of its kind globally. It's inspiring other nations, as I said. We knew it was going to be long-term—that's the first question I had about the 20 years. It has influenced many parts of the public sector. It's influenced Government decisions—not going ahead with the M4. I know the former First Minister cited the Act as one of the main reasons for the fact that we were the first country to declare a climate emergency. I think this was all steered and geared up by us having our well-being of future generations Act.

We've got to see this as a way of driving continuous improvement, because we're not content with the outcomes, we're not content with where we've got to in terms of national indicators. I think learning from the work that's been done—your inquiry, the tenth anniversary and Light up the Future day, which I attended recently and was great—and also the power of having an auditor general and the future generations commissioner and the Welsh Government all responsible for delivering on the Act is crucial.

It does have key accountability mechanisms. Let's make sure they're properly used and they're robust. I think there are things that have come out, even from this afternoon's scrutiny, that I think just point the way. But every child in Wales, I think, will know that we care about their future now, and their future prospects, because we have a well-being of future generations Act.

Thank you. You've just mentioned the overlapping roles of the Government, the commissioner and the Auditor General for Wales. Both the commissioner and the auditor general have suggested that there is overlap and confusion between their respective roles within the legislation. Some of the answers are slightly technical, but I wondered what consideration the Government has given to possibly amending the Act to ensure that the roles of both the commissioner and the Auditor General for Wales are made clearer and that they both feel comfortable with where their responsibilities lie.

It's useful that the inquiry has brought out those kinds of tensions and possible questions about their different roles. The commissioner and auditor general have recently updated their memorandum of understanding—I don't know if you've seen that. That was published back in April. It sets out their powers and roles and how they relate to each other. And of course, their roles and requirements are laid out in the Act, as well as guidance for PSBs and for community councils, which we haven't mentioned, and the roles and requirements of the commissioner. I've found it very useful to see the difference between the auditor general's and the future generations commissioner's reports, certainly from a Government perspective. So, again, we could look at that in terms of evaluation.

We can always write to you, because I think it is fairly technical. I just wanted to finally come back to the issue of prevention. You have rejected recommendation 44 about ring-fencing funding for prevention, and I just wondered what the rationale behind that was. You have told us already that the Cabinet Secretary for finance is looking at possibly hypothecating prevention. Clearly we are failing Wales by not paying enough attention to prevention, and it's certainly ending up with a great deal of pain in our ill health services.

I think I said earlier on, as you recognise, that we have an agreed definition about prevention, but it's still very hard to align that to budget making, I would say, in terms of—

Why is that? You've got this excellent triangle.

—preventative spend. I do think that this is something—. I made the point earlier on about the resistance to ring fencing that comes particularly from local government, because they want the flexibilities of spend. I think that that applies—. In terms of ring fencing, could we ring-fence our funding, for example, for the health service on preventative spend? I'm not sure if that's ever been considered.

The Cabinet Secretary for finance is absolutely clear that we need to look at what this means in terms of preventative approaches. The budget is the way to do it, isn't it? So, if it can come from the Welsh spending review work that's been done—. He's also looking at this from the perspective, as I said, of reducing long-term demand on public services. It makes sense, doesn't it, if we can tackle health inequalities, and prevention is an investment for the future.

The context of it at the moment, I think, is that we've got a definition, it's difficult to apply that, and there's resistance to ring fencing. But let's look at the Welsh spending review for some guidance on the way forward for preventative spend.

Thank you. Sioned.

I'll just come back in terms of the question that Jane raised in terms of the history of the Act, and your unique position, Cabinet Secretary, as you have been there for the whole time during the development of this Act. You spoke there about the M4 case. I remember that the First Minister at the time wanted to press ahead with the black route, and I remember the Government's legal services at the time pushing back against the commissioner at the time and her recommendations that that would not align with the Act.

But then, we had a change in First Minister, and he took a different approach. Don't you see there why there's a need to strengthen the commissioner's powers? There was one Cabinet, and a number of them the same people, and one leader, of course. It was the leader, the First Minister, who changed. But it was the same party, and a number of the same people, who were around the Cabinet table, taking a different view, under the leadership of another First Minister. So, it was just by chance, wasn't it? In reflecting on that, what could we do to stop that sort of situation from arising again? It just happened to be that the First Minister changed.

Of course, I remember those times. I think you could also look at this from the evidence and perspective of the influence of the future generations commissioner on the First Minister and indeed the Cabinet as a whole, and also responding to public opinion, of course, but also looking at this from the perspective of a more resilient Wales, a healthier Wales, a more equal Wales.

The future generations commissioner had a big impact on this decision. I don't know whether giving that commissioner more powers would have changed that. We didn't really discuss it, but you mentioned powers that other commissioners have got. We haven't looked at it in terms of whether our commissioner could have other powers. Maybe that's for evaluation. The fact is that, even with powers, commissioners can say things that aren't followed through by Government. I think the strength and the power of the role has been quite formidable. But they are commissioners, and they have set terms of office, and we have new ones. I do think we've just got to recognise that the influence of the future generations commissioner's role within the legislation has been very powerful.

Looking at the recommendations from this commissioner now, there is so much there that is around new dimensions that are really important in relation to climate and nature. There are excellent recommendations from this future generations commissioner, which we're accepting. We're accepting virtually all of them, all of his recommendations, or saying, 'We're already aligning, so it's not necessary.' There are excellent recommendations on health and well-being. I think it's had an influence on why we're going to be a Marmot nation. Again, there are excellent recommendations. I mentioned the real living wage, co-operative development. There are excellent recommendations on food. We haven't had a chance today to say how important that has been in terms of our commitment to fund local food partnerships in Wales, which are doing tremendous things.

Can I just flag up the fact that he says that the Welsh Government should scale up the Nutrition Skills for Life programme across all schools in Wales? We now have a mandatory health and well-being area, including learning on nutrition and sustainable diets. The well-being of future generations Act, the ways of working and the goals all influence that Curriculum for Wales, which is now being implemented.

Could I just ask you about recommendation 39? Your response there is 'considering positively for the future'. I'm not familiar with seeing that response from the Government to recommendations. Could you just explain to us what that means? Clearly, you are the Minister currently who's responsible for this Act. Why haven't you accepted or accepted in principle? How is that different? What does that mean?

What's interesting about these recommendations is that they are cross-Government. I know, at the moment, the well-being of future generations commissioner is meeting all my colleagues to discuss particularly what it means for them in terms of the delivering on it. I've already mentioned the fact that we've got that mandatory health and well-being area in the curriculum, which means that it's not—. I think this is about scaling it up, probably, in terms of budgets, that we're considering it positively for the future. It's a great recommendation. We're delivering it substantively, but it's also about how perhaps future Governments can really take this forward in terms of commitments. So, I think it just brings everything together, doesn't it, in terms of looking at those recommendations?

I just want to squeeze in one last question, which is probably a fairly small answer: in the context of the commissioner's argument that it's essential to shift resources towards addressing the social determinants of health to reduce the unsustainable demand on health and social services, what consideration has been given to shifting Public Health Wales from health services into local government, to strengthen that preventative approach to improving the well-being of the population?

Well, that's obviously a change in direction in terms of responsibilities. We've had these discussions before. Public Health Wales stands on its own, influencing all: not only the NHS, but local government. I think that's another debate, really, in terms of—

Okay. All right. If there's anything further you want to say on that, obviously we can happily accept a written note.

Thank you very much indeed for your attendance and that of your officials. We'll obviously send you a transcript just so that you can ensure that it's correct.

Thank you very much. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you very much.