Equality and Social Justice Committee

Hello, I'm Marie Brousseau-Navarro, and my role is deputy commissioner and director for health.

Hello, prynhawn da. I'm Heledd Morgan. I'm director of implementation and impact.

Thank you very much indeed. Commissioner, you're not here today to be scrutinised; we're looking at the Act. We'll have a future opportunity, I'm sure, to have that discussion with you and I look forward to that. So, I just wanted to start off by—. In terms of how well the Act is working, there are some concerning things in the Auditor General for Wales's report that was published in April around the need to have prevention much more front and centre of all public bodies' planning. I think what most concerns me about the recent correspondence we've had from the auditor general is that the health bodies, in particular, are very weak on prevention, of all the services. This is very concerning and we do spend at least half our budget on health. So, what is it about the Act that we need to change to really ensure that these ways of working are embedded in all public bodies?

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to come here today. First of all, if I could just say that I very much welcome the committee's attention to undertaking this inquiry into the well-being of future generations Act. As you'll know, it's something that I've called for and I hope the next Welsh Government will give attention to reviewing. And I think this is important overarching legislation that is really making a difference right across Wales, but I think it is underpowered and it could be achieving more impact. You'll have seen in my Future Generations Report 2025, which was also published at the same time as the auditor general's report, that I also highlighted the need to put greater focus on prevention, as well as other areas where I think public bodies needed to give more time.

In my time as commissioner, I have put in place a strategy called 'Cymru Can', and the strategy has taken an approach of very much focusing on implementation and delivery, working with public bodies to support their delivery but also to call it out when it's not achieving progress, and to give more attention, I think, to public bodies, which is what they were looking for, and to support their work, but also five mission areas. Because the Act is so broad, I focused on those five mission areas. In one of those mission areas, the area that Marie leads on, we give a particular focus to prevention, and the need to give greater attention to prevention. One of the—.

Just on the point of prevention, first of all, if I may, I think what we have found, in terms of prevention, is that there's a willingness and a want to consider and to do more in prevention, and there are challenges around delivery of that. So, in line with the strategy, the work Marie has been leading on is working through the definitions that we have for preventative spend—so, working with those who run the finances of our public bodies to understand where our money is going in terms of prevention, and then to take decisions to protect and, if possible, increase the amount of money we spend on prevention.

Just in terms of the Act more generally, one of the reasons that I've been calling for the Act to be strengthened is because I think, after 10 years, it's clear that there are areas where the legislation could be improved and strengthened. One of the particular areas that I talk about in my written response is how we frame well-being objectives in terms of how they deliver on our national goals and indicators. So, there may have been some confusion, I think, in some of the sessions and evidence that I was hearing from others. I wasn't calling for templates—10 objectives from which public bodies could choose—but I was expecting them to be more consistent in terms of how are they going to deliver on the indicators, what resources are they going to use to deliver on those things, how are they going to measure their success, and when are they going to report on their success. So, that type of thing, I think, could be improved.

There are other areas where I think we can make changes to the legislation, and perhaps that will come up through the course of the session. But, through all of this, I think we need to recognise that this has got to be about impact and delivery for the citizens of Wales. The Act has made important progress over the last 10 years—and I can point to many examples, at the Wales level, to the community level, where you can directly see how the legislation has led to positive decisions for the long term. But, as my report pointed out in April, I share frustrations that we haven't made sufficient progress. You only need to look at the 'Wellbeing of Wales' report, published last month, to show where we're not performing well enough against the indicators.

So, I think a review of the legislation by the next Welsh Government is really important. If you want me to, I can perhaps go through some of those areas where I think it could be strengthened, but there are several areas to look at.

Okay. I just think, on prevention, can we really wait that long, before a new Government's elected and gets its feet under the table, when the assessment, in a handy little infographic from the auditor general, is pretty stark? Diabetes is one of them. We ballooned the spending on it by 38 per cent, but I've yet to see many good examples of systematic reversal of incipient type 2 diabetes. Instead, we just let it roll and then, obviously, it's hugely costly to support people.

Yes, absolutely. I think we can't carry on like this, because my assessment was similar in that, when we were looking at some of the public sector funding decisions at a time of cuts, it was often areas that you would categorise as prevention where we were seeing those areas being cut. So, one of the recommendations in my report is that we protect funding for prevention so it can't continually be cut in times of problems, because, otherwise, we carry on on this path of not turning things on their head so that we're investing upfront and, hopefully, realising the savings further down. So, that was one of the recommendations. Unfortunately, it is one of the recommendations—and I think the auditor general too, his recommendations—these were both recommendations that were rejected by Welsh Government. We've just had the responses back to our recommendations. And I'm frustrated by that, because I think it is an important way in which we can protect and then enhance investment in prevention.

Because I don't think we've seen the Welsh Government's response to your recommendations, that would be very useful to see.

We're happy to do that, because we have the deadline of 31 March for the responses from all of the public bodies—October, sorry, not March—for the responses. Diolch, Heledd. And the Welsh Government's one came at the beginning of this week. Our intention, because part of my approach to this role is to be as transparent as possible in our approaches, is to publish the responses we get from all the public bodies, and from those we don't hear of, so everyone can see that. And we'll certainly do that so that you can see the Welsh Government's response.

Thank you very much. Marie.

On prevention, in particular for funding, and using your example of diabetes, there have been lots of pilots that are very conclusive, and there was one recently by Public Health Wales. But all these pilots get seed funding to trial it for a couple of years, and then we don't have the funding to roll them out. I think that's one of the key preventative elements for better prevention.

There was also, for many years, disagreement as to what was meant by 'prevention', hence our agreement with Welsh Government as to what it actually means. We still have discussions on classifications and what it is meant to be. But then you need to not only agree what prevention is about, but you need it to be used through all the corporate areas of change, and in particular the finance departments. So, as Derek was saying, that's why we have really focused, this year and in coming years, on working with directors of finance, chief execs, so they really understand where the investment is. Because, except for Welsh Government in 2017, no-one was able to tell us how much they currently invest in prevention. Then they kept on telling us funding for prevention has been cut over the years. But, again, we had no evidence. We didn't know exactly by how much.

So, now we are baselining with our project the budget and the investment and spending for prevention, with the idea of mapping it year on year, so we can see evolution over time, but also using the information in discussions with the boards and the senior teams to help, as Derek was saying, shift that investment into not only prevention of diseases or them getting worse, but also in promoting community resilience, so, well-being, which is at the heart of our legislation.

In light of Sophie Howe's comments about do we need to become a Marmot nation when we should be becoming a nation that is applying the well-being of future generations Act, how effectively do you think the Act has been integrated across the wider legislative and policy landscape?

I think it's improving over the last 10 years. So, we have—. I think, in the early days, we were frustrated by the fact that you still saw pieces of legislation and policy not reflecting the well-being of future generations Act, but that has certainly improved. One of the things that I think that has helped in recent times is bringing eight new public bodies under the legislation in recent years. In my view, that should have happened as soon as they were set up, not as a mop-up exercise, after they'd been set up for a number of years. But that has improved the way in which this is seen in an integrated way by more public bodies.

I think there's an important point here, Jenny, that I wanted to make in terms of when new public bodies are being set up. These things are happening all the time. You will have seen that the office of environmental governance Wales is a new body being proposed, and there is some discussion about not including that body under the well-being of future generations Act, which is expressed by some people outside of Welsh Government. But I am clearly of the view that the well-being of future generations Act is our north star. It's our overall framework, it's what all our public bodies should be doing to maximise the delivery against the goals, and it should feature across policy and legislative work. I think another reason—. We're not where we need to be, but another reason for the improvement that we've seen is the approach of the Welsh Government team and my team. So, we are seeking—as Marie was just saying—to work with more of the corporate area for change, and, as I was just saying, with more of the public bodies. So, there's perhaps less—. We are still giving a lot of attention to Welsh Government, but there are 55 other public bodies that need support and attention to make sure that they're framing their work through the well-being of future generations Act, and so we spend time upskilling them and supporting them to make sure that they make sure that the Act is framing their work.

Thank you. Lastly from me, before I pass on to other Members, you quite rightly challenge us on the quality of our engagement work with citizens. Later on this afternoon, we are going to be publishing the work that has been done, but, unfortunately, what we found was that awareness of the Act is generally low. We were seeking to reach out to people who wouldn't be the usual suspects, who come to the Senedd and have their say that way, but obviously we should all be concerned if people don't realise that our legislative framework for a more equal Wales and more cohesive, and all the other aspects of it, isn't even on people's radar. Then it is difficult for them to know how they can assert their rights. I wonder what you can briefly say about how we can, collectively, improve engagement with our communities on the importance of the Act.

Yes. I saw that report, actually. I think it has just been published on your website, so I had a quick look at it yesterday. I recognise what it says in terms of public awareness. One of the areas—. When we do our analysis of the work of public bodies and the delivery of the five ways of working, the area we see as weakest is how they involve the public in decision making generally and in terms of the well-being of future generations Act. So, that corresponds to the findings from your research.

I think one thing to say is I wonder how that would—. Well, two things. I think it's very important, and I've grown to understand, in two years in this job, that it is important, that as many people as possible have an understanding of the legislation and what it requires, because that's how we make most impact. So, if people understand what their public bodies should be delivering and they're also holding them to account in the same ways that I'm doing so, we're more likely to see the right decisions and the right action being taken right across the way. So, I give a lot of attention to spending time trying to raise awareness. You will have seen today in the news my call for a deforestation-free public sector; it is Real Living Wage Week, and we have been getting some press attention around my calls for all public sector employers to be real living wage employers. We run events and do a lot of public awareness work, but there's clearly more that we can do.

We haven't published it yet, but we did a stakeholder awareness survey, and that gave me some positive hope. So, these weren't the same people that you were speaking to. These were perhaps those people working in the public sector. Over 200 or so people interviewed, done by Cavendish agency, and we found within that research that over 80 per cent of the respondents said they had a good awareness of the legislation. So, that is a particular group of people, not the public at large, but nonetheless an important constituency for the delivery of the legislation.

So, there's a lot more to do. I think the fact that we had 'The Wales We Want' conversation when this legislation was put in place has meant there's potentially more awareness of this legislation than there is of others. I was around at the same time taking forward the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, and perhaps if we asked people about the social services and well-being Act there'd be even less awareness, but that doesn't mean—. We need to do more. And I think—and maybe this is something that the committee can consider—as we run up to 2030, as we run up to the UN looking at the sustainable development goals, we need to repeat the exercise of 'The Wales We Want' conversation, to look at the Wales we want for 2100.

Thank you. I'd like to bring Mick Antoniw in now.

Thank you for the evidence, and it's clearly very timely that we look at this legislation. I was on the committee scrutinising the legislation when it went through, and I think there was a feeling amongst many at the time that there were areas that they were concerned about not being broad enough, wide enough, and, obviously, the issue of enforcement will be looked at later on.

In terms of the scope of the legislation, and the scope of public bodies captured by the Act, there have been some criticisms. Cwmpas suggest that the role of the third sector is not strongly enough entrenched. What are your thoughts about the legislation and the scope of public sector bodies? How should it be extended? Should it be completely extended, or whatever? What amendments would you like to see take place within this legislation review?

So, I think some of it I've touched on already. So, I think the scope is clearly broad, but this is our north star as a country, this is our vision as a country, so we need to incorporate as many bodies as possible. And I reiterate my point about public bodies. As soon as they are set up in a devolved context, they should be coming under the well-being of future generations Act—not happening in retrospect—from day one, because that's how we embed it from the start. So, that's one point I would make.

I think the points that the third sector and the private sector make are strong ones. If we are to deliver on our well-being goals, for example, in terms of our net-zero targets, we're not going to achieve our targets unless we bring in third sector and private sector organisations as well. So, it's the case, because of devolution, that the legislation applies to the public sector, but we need the third sector and the private sector to be on this journey with us. And isn't it great when we see that they are doing so willingly—the Principality Building Society having its future generations fund, some private organisations like Dŵr Cymru having well-being objectives, third sector organisations like Cwmpas measuring their success—when I was in the role—by the well-being goals and the indicators?

But we need to see more of that, and what I would particularly like to see in this regard is to make sure that, when we are spending public funding with a private sector organisation or a third sector organisation, we are requiring them to demonstrate how they are supporting delivery against the well-being goals, as well as delivering the service or the product that the public sector is specifically asking for. At the moment, this sort of social value landscape is complicated. We've got community benefits over there; we have social value over there. What we've been pushing for and advising on is using well-being outcomes: how, Cwmpas or X organisation, can you deliver on this long-term framework for Wales, should you be successful in bidding for a contract?

The other bit I would say about this is around the public services boards, and that might have come up—well, I know that's come up—through the evidence sessions, and frustrations from organisations at not being part of some of the PSB discussions. PSBs are an essential mechanism for delivering on the legislation. They're far from perfect, but my view is that we need the right organisations around to deliver on the agenda. So, whether it's Gwent looking at Marmot, or Carmarthenshire looking at food, you've got to have the right people around the table, not prescriptive lists that were set in legislation in 2015. And I think it's fair to say, Heledd, that we've seen much more flexibility in recent years about the membership of PSBs to do just that. Form follows function—who are the people we need to deliver on this plan and get around the table? And that is happening to a greater extent than it was on day one.

Can I add, also, a specific example to illustrate what Derek was saying? So, we've written to Welsh Government to ask them to evolve their criteria so that more bodies could be included, as Derek was saying, and to go as far as we can across all sectors. And for example, we can't really understand why inspectorates are not included, like Estyn, or the planning inspectorate under its new name. As Derek said, the new environmental body should come under the Act. Then we thought about the Development Bank of Wales, because that would also have strong benefits in how the funds are awarded and businesses can grow in line with the sustainable development principles. And then we said with organisations that are influenced by Welsh Government through grants, contracts, procurement—we were thinking of the further and higher education institutions, training bodies, accredited bodies. We thought of registered social landlords, some of which are already demonstrating how they are contributing to the goals, as well as the many private organisations Derek was referring to.

Thank you for that. What does seem to be clear is that there's quite a variable approach from public bodies towards the Act and their particular obligations. This was actually one of the concerns that was raised when the legislation was being considered right at the beginning. You've suggested in your own evidence that perhaps there should be a strengthening of the duty on public bodies to send the commissioner a copy of the objectives, the plans, annual reports dealing with the progress and so on. That indicates clearly that this isn't happening in all cases. One of the concerns that I've heard mentioned is that many public sector bodies tend to treat the legislation as a sort of tick-box exercise, and it's quite difficult sometimes to measure or evaluate what, in fact, progress is actually being made, what real practical progress is being made. So, how do you see the Act addressing some of those particular issues, some of which you've identified yourself? What are the amendments you would like to see in legislation that you think would resolve this?

Yes, it's a really good point. I've got some of the data here. We've got nearly 300 different well-being objectives, 2,200 steps across public bodies, 47 objectives within the PSBs, 296 steps within the PSBs. They set different targets. They set different timescales. They don't always explain how they're going to deliver on their objectives. So, it's a very complicated picture and makes it very difficult for the auditor general and myself to assess progress against so many different ways of taking these forward. But we can come onto this, perhaps, about how we do this, I think, in a proportionate way.

I think the key view from me about how we address this is this point that I keep making around how we require, through more specific legislation, well-being objectives to be linked to the indicators and to the goals and to be clearly stating timescales for delivery and what resources are going to be put into that delivery, because, if they're just objectives with no timescales for improvement, then, you know, they don't make the difference that we need them to do. So, I think tightening up that process of setting well-being objectives, reporting on progress and advising me about that in a consistent way is going to be helping, and linking it to the 50 indicators is an important way in which we drive action, I guess; we allow organisations the flexibility to understand the needs of their particular community or service, but also improve the consistency and improve the focus on outcomes and delivery, which isn't always there at the moment.

For example, our advice is always that public bodies should make their well-being objectives their corporate objectives. They shouldn't be a standalone set of secondary objectives that are given less attention. This should be at the heart of their delivery of their corporate strategies; that it's fundamental to how they do things. But, still, we haven't got all of our public bodies taking that approach despite the guidance and advice that we've asked them to do. So, we're also seeing—. The requirement of the legislation is that public bodies maximize their delivery against all of the well-being goals. That's how we see integration; that's how we see the added value, that they're not just sticking in their lane. And we know that, too often, areas such as globally responsible Wales, and culture and the Welsh language goals, are given less attention. So, there are many areas in which we can make improvements. We can make some improvements now, but also changes to the legislation will help.40

Sorry, Marie, you wanted to come in.

And on your point of having well-being objectives separate from corporate ones, health is the sector where we see that happen the most. So, to come back to your introduction, Jenny, on what we could do with the health sector in particular.

Thank you for that. Can I just ask you to expand a little bit more on what you were saying about evaluation and measurement? Because in order to assess the efficacy of the legislation or what changes need to be made to the legislation, evaluating and measuring are really quite key, aren't they, to it? But you're talking about an incredibly diverse variety of functions, with all sorts of different pressures from resource availability and so on. How do you think the legislation might be amended to actually address this?

Well, there are a number of other ways, I guess. I think in the way that the legislation is put together at the moment, enforcement—which may be something we'll come on to in a bit more detail later on—is an area that's very difficult to do, because what we're asking public bodies to do is to make progress towards the goals and apply the five ways of working, and that can be done in a different way, depending on the context and the organisation that you're speaking to. You do want that flexibility, but I think you could potentially go down the road—and I think this is worth exploring—of putting more specific standards in place through the legislation, as you did with the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011, and expectations about what public bodies specifically need to be doing, and then you can use those in order to enforce the action they're taking.

So, I don't want to get away from the fact that the purpose of this legislation, and the history of this legislation, has deliberately been about framework legislation. This is about direction, this is about culture change, this is about supporting our public bodies to take the right decisions for the long term. It was deliberately not prescriptive, and I think that that approach has worked in many aspects, and the flexibility is required, given the diversity of our public sector. But having said that, I think there are ways, as I've mentioned, in terms of how well-being objectives are set, or in terms of considering the incorporation of specific standards, that the legislation could be amended to address some of the issues that we've faced, and create more impact through the legislation.

Will you be setting out more specifically the sorts of amendments you think should be introduced, or is it essentially about just identifying the more general areas where you think Government needs to relook at the legislation?

Well, I've already set out some of the specific areas, but I think in other areas it does require more work, and this does require support from people who have legislative experience about how you might put in place standards, for example, or how you might put in place enforcement mechanisms. So, I do think that should be considered.

One of the things Marie was going to come in on is how we've looked at the other commissioners and how they work, and whether there are any lessons for this legislation for us. But I think the key thing is that there are other areas that need to be tidied up, for example, as well, in terms of my role compared to Welsh Government's. In terms of providing advice and guidance, there's a lack of clarity on where certain things sit, and we saw that with the introduction of the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023 and support to public bodies to engage their workforces in setting well-being objectives.

So, there are a number of areas in which the legislation can be strengthened. I've put forward specific areas where I think either they should be changed or we should consider changing them. But in the spirit of this legislation, this requires a number of people and organisations to look at it together and involve the people of Wales in those discussions as well, not just my view. So, I've presented some of my views; should Welsh Government agree to a full review of the legislation, of course that will lead me to put even more specific points on the agenda. But those are some of the areas I'm flagging for now and I'm hoping that the committee will call on the next Welsh Government to undertake a full post-legislative review.

And then very quickly, how effective do you think the Welsh Government's statutory guidance is? What are your comments on that in terms of any changes that need to take place to that?

Yes. I'll perhaps bring Heledd and Marie in on this one as well. I think there is value in updating some of the statutory guidance since it's been produced, not just in terms of how well-being objectives are set, but also in terms of how the ways of working are implemented and how the public services boards are operating. But perhaps I could bring Heledd in to give a few points on that.

Yes, I think, certainly—

Okay, thanks.

Sorry, Mr Antoniw.

No, no. Please carry on.

I think, certainly, 10 years in to the well-being of future generations Act's implementation, as the committee has already heard from other witnesses, there are a few things that we've learnt naturally about the practical implementation of the Act. I work most predominantly in supporting the public bodies and the public services boards. The Welsh Government civil servants who now work with the public services boards have already done some review of the guidance relating to PSBs, for example, and the idea that perhaps well-being plans and well-being assessments are occurring too frequently and distracting from the need for public services boards to collaborate and do what they were set up to do, which is work together through the ways of working to improve well-being for people in their area. So, we've certainly had feedback, as a collective group of national organisations supporting those public services boards, that they'd like to see the statutory guidance under a new Government being looked at again.

I'm working with a group, as I mentioned, of national organisations supporting the public services boards with Welsh Government officials and other organisations to look already at the non-statutory guidance for the next round of public services boards' well-being assessments and how we might be clearer in that guidance that public services boards should be looking to integrate the work that they're doing through other pieces of legislation, like, for example, the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 puts a requirement on regional partnership boards to produce a population assessment. In some areas, like in north Wales, regionally, they're looking at producing that data once together and sharing that with the corporate joint committee. That's the sort of thing that we'd like to see clarified in guidance in future.

Okay. I think this is a good moment to bring in Julie Morgan. I'll come back to you, Marie, afterwards. Julie, because your work is on partnerships.

Yes, I'm going to ask you about partnerships. So, in your report in 2025, you said that the Welsh Government should review and streamline partnership arrangements. So, what has led you to call for that?

So, in this job in the last two years, I've done two rounds of meetings with public sector leaders—56 public body meetings, twice around. Often, in those meetings, without me putting on the agenda, the public body leaders will point to the mess and complexity of partnership arrangements that they say are getting in the way of delivery. So, I'm reporting on what I'm hearing, and I also know that some of the PSBs are a mixed bag. Some of them are delivering, and they're delivering well, and you can see strong partnership relationships. Others are not much more than organisations coming together ensuring updates about what they're all doing together, which has some value, of course, but that wasn't the purpose of the arrangements when they were set up.

We haven't got the time or the capacity in Wales, with all the cuts that we've faced and all the demands that we've got, to be spending time on partnership arrangements that are not delivering. My perspective is that we've been adding structures—recently the corporate joint committees—without taking structures away. We have different footprints, which we all know, for these structures, so the other challenge is that the public struggle to understand where decisions are being taken. And then we have overlapping agendas. You might have a PSB looking at Marmot and then you've got the RPBs looking at their health work. So, it's not in a great place. That's not to say we don't need partnership working, of course, and that’s not to say we don't need collaboration, but this complexity is getting in the way of impact and delivery, so we need to sort it out.

Two final points I would make on this: first of all, some of this is in the power of public bodies, local authorities themselves, so it's not good enough for them just to complain to Welsh Government. Welsh Government has said to them, ‘You've got some discretion over this and how you arrange yourselves’, and so when you see some of that being reorganised and reconsidered, you see improvements. So, in your own area, actually, in Cardiff, we've seen the council lead a review of its partnership structures and understand how they connect with each other and what's needed and what isn’t, and that has improved things. No reason why we can't do that right across the country.

And I guess the other point around the partnership arrangements is that we need someone independent to look at this. It's very difficult, if you speak to public bodies, to understand which one they would agree to get rid of. It needs independent scrutiny. I'm not putting my hand up for it necessarily, but someone like me, who has got no skin in the game, could take a fresh look at how partnership arrangements could be put in place to good effect and become much more efficient in our decision making. It's an issue raised with me constantly.

Yes, and the Welsh Government's response was to say it should come from the ground up, wasn't it, any rearrangements?

I think it's got to be a bit of both, really, because some of the things are being put in place from the top, but I do think there is something to be said for other stuff being rearranged from the bottom up as well.

And what about like in Gwent, where the mergers have taken place? What do you think of that?

I think that's welcome. When you see that happen, I think it's welcome. I think we're now at 13 PSBs. Gwent is probably, I think, the biggest, with five counties coming together to deliver on their partnership arrangements. I was at that PSB not too long ago. Their focus on a particular issue around Marmot is welcome. So, I think the merger of PSBs where it makes sense is a welcome step forward. But I'm not saying that's without its challenges, because part of the way in which we get delivery by PSBs is by proper scrutiny of their performance, and if you've got five councils scrutinising the performance of the PSB, that could be diluted, or it could be strengthened. So we've got to think about how all that works. But I welcome mergers, and in north Wales there is much more of a neat system. We've got two counties coming together for a PSB, so three PSBs across the six counties, and you see the benefits. We were talking about it. There's real potential for us to consider doing well-being assessments—I think they're looking at this—across the whole of north Wales, which all of the public bodies could benefit from, and looking at how they do that in a way that integrates with population assessments, which is what I think the RPBs have to do. So, these assessments are being done together in a joined up way, rather than separately and in silos. We need to see more of that stuff, but where it is happening, I think it's a positive change.

Right. So, how does your office actually engage with the PSBs?

We spend a lot of time with the PSBs, and I'll bring Heledd in here, because this is her area. I do say, if you didn't have the PSBs, you'd want to create some similar structure for delivery on the well-being of future generations Act. We spend a lot of time supporting them in focusing on delivery. Partly, we do it around scrutiny of their performance. That's part of my role—to make sure that they are delivering. But we also provide a lot of support around training. Sometimes, you might see someone chair a PSB or join a PSB, they've been given the role, they've got no understanding of what the PSB is there to do. We can provide some support in that area. But it is something we give an increasing amount of attention to in my time. Heledd, do you want to say something?

Yes, just to make a couple of points, really, which is how we work with them, but also how I think, if I may, their role could be strengthened. Firstly, I mentioned we have a more formalised arrangement, now that the responsibility has changed Cabinet Secretaries and is in the sustainable futures division within the Welsh Government, as civil servants are helping us to support public services boards. With that arrangement now, we've set up a national strengthening PSB progress group, which we sit on, and the Welsh Government of course sit on.

The Public Health Wales Shaping Places for Well-being programme has been really instrumental here, because they have Health Foundation funding to work with public services boards. They also contribute to that work, as do members of the voluntary sector, such as the Co-Production Network for Wales, because they've had National Lottery funding to work with PSBs. And then we have PSB representatives on that group as well.

We're a collaborative group of national organisations that come together to look at how the delivery of public services boards can be strengthened. We're quite new as a group, but we've got an action plan to look at things like the non-statutory guidance, to look at things like accountability arrangements, which brings me on to my second point, which is I think there are a couple of things for me that are fundamental in how public services boards could have a strengthened role.

The first is their local accountability. At the moment, under the Act, they are held to account and scrutinised by local government scrutiny committees, normally. Some public services boards have set those up in a way that means they have multi-agency membership, which I think is brilliant. Even better would be to have citizen involvement within those scrutiny committees. Therefore, PSBs would have a bit of a stronger accountability mechanism. Those committees are meant to send correspondence to the future generations commissioner whenever they make recommendations to the PSB. We don't get those letters very often, because I don't think they're working very effectively at the moment.

And then secondly is, I suppose, the way that they're held to account nationally. The system works against public services boards at the moment. Welsh Government officials could be putting more of their attention towards them in the way that we organise public sector funding, for example. Why can't we say, 'In giving you this funding—local government, health boards—we'd like you to work with your public services board, we'd like you to look at collaboration'? I recognise that there's not more money in the system to give directly to PSBs, but we could encourage collaborative working through those important structures.

I think that would solve a lot of the issues that Derek gets told about when he visits public services boards and speaks to senior leaders, which is that they lack resources, they lack capacity for implementation.

Thanks very much. And just my last question: in terms of the different tiers of membership of public services boards, do you find that creates a problem?

I think it's creating less of a problem. I know there are concerns around the full members and the invited members, and so forth. It goes back a little bit to my point previously about we're seeing more flexibility—people bringing organisations on, representatives on more often, depending on the issue that's being focused on and the need for partners around the table.

I do think there's an issue—and you would have heard this from the third sector—around status, with the third sector often feeling like they're not given equal status. I hear that because I think the third sector, in particular, is so essential for the delivery of this agenda—for involving people, for hearing people, for finding solutions, for being innovative. Clearly, that isn't a satisfactory position, but I think we have seen more flexibility and that has got better.

The other thing you may be alluding to in terms of the different tiers of membership, and this is an issue, is senior representation. We need the decision makers around the table here, and we're not always seeing that. We're seeing maybe apologies given by some of the senior decision makers, not giving it the attention and the priority it deserves. So, that's an area I think we need to see some more improvements on.

Thank you very much.

Before I hand over to Jane Dodds, I just want to pursue you a little bit on this idea that we need somebody to look at this alphabet soup before we do anything. Because I can remember the Williams report—2015-16, or thereabouts—yay thick, had lots of interesting proposals about how we can improve efficiency and also hack away at this alphabet soup of—. If you think about it, we have a population of 3 million, roughly the same size as Birmingham City Council and greater Manchester. So, can we really afford all these different institutions, and how are we going to advance on this? Because we could have some future Professor Williams look at all this and they'd come up with a similar thing. If we don't have the political will, is nothing going to happen?

I agree that you need the political will. I certainly wouldn't want to take this on if you didn't have the support of the Government to implement your recommendations, or consider seriously your recommendations and take forward changes, because no-one wants to write another report that's not considered and implemented. So, that has to happen, absolutely. But I go back to the other point: there are things that we can do now, that public bodies can be doing now, in the here and now, with their own powers, and not just waiting for the Welsh Government, but making changes now. Some of them are doing; others could do more.

Okay. Thank you. Can I now call Jane Dodds, please?

Thank you very much. Good afternoon to you all. I'd like to ask about how you monitor the Act. We've heard, and there has been previous mention made, about the public bodies and the public services boards too. Could I just touch just a little more on that, if I may? Aside from including them in the Act, do you have any other ideas about how we can monitor what they are doing in relation to the Act, please?

In terms of the public services boards specifically and what they could be doing in relation to the Act? Yes. I think we have covered a lot there. The barriers that we see in terms of the PSBs are these issues around focus, representation, resources, being given attention by the Welsh Government, and being supported to succeed through the attention that they're given. I think addressing those kinds of issues bit by bit is going to be at the heart of how you improve the delivery of some of the PSBs' performance. I think Heledd has already talked about some of the actions that we've been taking to improve the PSBs and to support them with their delivery. I think where you see most impact, you see work done by public bodies to really consider their relationships, their shared priorities, and building trust in their relationships. You also see them focus; so, they're not trying to do 101 different things, but they're focusing on a few areas.

The other area that I would recommend to you today is the time periods for well-being assessments. Well-being assessments are now taking place every five years. You might know from your own experience in Powys—. I'm actually going on Tuesday—tomorrow—to work with Powys on their climate risk assessments. What we see is a lot of energy put into putting the well-being assessments together and not enough energy being put on in terms of the delivery. So, one of the recommendations I would make in any review of the legislation is that we put these well-being assessments in place every 10 years, not every five, they're reviewed in line with the future generations report, or following local government elections or Senedd elections, but we take out some of the bureaucracy and the administration around this legislation and give much more attention to outcomes and achievements. That's one of the ways in which I think we can achieve that with the PSBs.

That's exactly the point I wanted to make earlier on when we were asked what changes would we make to the statutory guidance. There's too much focus in the statutory guidance on the processes, and that has had a detrimental effect, distracting from the outcome-led action we want to see. That's where we can bring the two together.

Thank you. My second question has already been answered, but thanks for that. Could I just return to how you can monitor what the public bodies and the PSBs are doing? How can you monitor that and ensure that they're on track in terms of the Act? That's what I wanted to focus on.

It's a very good question, and it's a real challenge, given the number of objectives and steps that I've mentioned earlier on in the process. The approach that I've taken in this role is to look at how you take a proportionate response. I could spend all my resources doing this work, so you have to focus on those areas where you can really get a sense of achievement and you can make most impact.

I think there are probably three ways in which this is being done. We keep coming back to this, but it's not just my job. There's an internal scrutiny function here, a monitoring of performance that we need to strengthen within the public bodies themselves. And that's important, because you're never going to have an office that can do everything with every public body on every objective. So, that could be strengthened.

An area I've really tried hard to give more attention to is the national scrutiny. We've got 50 indicators of success, we've got 17 milestones. Each year, the Welsh Government produces a really good 'Wellbeing of Wales' report, produced a month ago. Very few people look at it. This is a national state-of-the-nation report letting us know where we're doing well and where we're not. Giving attention to the performance of the country as a whole through that report and what the indicators are telling us is key.

Perhaps the third layer is the work that the auditor general does and that I do through our work. We do a number of different things. We look at well-being objectives at least once a term. We've just recently put in place a self-evaluation exercise called 'the ways of working journey checker' so we can see how public bodies assess themselves, and we can understand where they see their performance as being good or less good, and take action as a result of that. I can undertake section 20 reviews—and we may come on to this later on as well. Where we're understanding there are particular issues, we can give them more attention. And the auditor general—and I know he's given evidence on this—has a role through the investigations that he undertakes on public bodies. So, there are a number of different ways in which we assess performance.

I guess the other way is I meet regularly with the leaders of public bodies, and I hear from them about where they are struggling, and we seek to help them to implement solutions. I haven't covered everything in that list of things, but we take a range and mix of approaches that I think are proportionate, but do help us to get a sense of where performance is good and where we need to do more work.

Thank you. My final question, because you've answered a lot of the questions I wanted to ask. In your experience, how effective are the national indicators? You've mentioned a little about them. Do you think that there are too many indicators? Thank you.

The indicators get raised with me quite a lot, actually. Just last week, people were saying to me, 'This indicator is not good enough. We need to change it.' And I do hear that, but I'm reluctant to encourage the Welsh Government to move the goalposts too often, because we've got to—. You know, again, we'd be into the process and not into the delivery and the implementation. So, I think the indicators are pretty good. They need to be given more attention. There are certainly improvements that you'd want to some of the indicators. I've got my own views—and you might agree with this because I know it's a priority for you—but I don't think we give enough attention to food and what we eat within the indicators. So, there are certainly ways in which they can be improved, but let's do that periodically, not on a rolling basis because, otherwise, we'll just keep moving the goalposts and we won't be able to assess progress and impact, and we won't be able to compare like with like.95

But I do think the time is coming for a proper review. As we approach 2030—and maybe the committee could give consideration to talking about this in its report—I think there's a need for another national conversation. The United Nations will be looking at its sustainable development goals. This is why we brought in our Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act in 2015, so we also need to be thinking about how we measure our success and how the legislation should change. And so, the next few years is a critical time to be doing that. So, they're not perfect, but they're good enough, and let's focus on delivery and not changing them constantly. But, certainly, there can be improvements.

Thank you very much. Back to you, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. Altaf Hussain. Altaf, are you able to—?

Thank you very much, Chair. Yes.

Would you like to pursue the issues of enforcement and compliance, please?

Absolutely. Thank you very much. Derek, it was great to see you in the morning on BBC Wales. Now, coming to the question, how do you balance the need to encourage and support public bodies to implement the Act whilst holding them to account? Do you believe enforcement and compliance mechanisms should be strengthened, or could this lead to negative consequences?

I try to do both, in terms of advising, encouraging and supporting and holding public bodies to account. So, I know that a lot of impact can be had, because I think many public bodies and their leaders are very supportive of the legislation and want to do the right thing. So, working alongside them in the context in which they're in, suggesting solutions, finding ways through, is critically important. I just sat down last week with a council who wanted to become a real living wage accredited employer. By bringing them together with Cynnal Cymru to overcome the barriers to getting accreditation, I think we'll see that delivery. So, you see that kind of stuff all the time.

But it is also my job to hold public bodies to account and I do that constantly. Sometimes, that might be done—. Just today—going on to the real living wage—we're talking about how only 17 of our 56 public bodies are real living wage accredited employers. So, we need the others to catch up. And so, whilst congratulating those that have done this since I asked for it in April—and there are four of those—where are the others and when are they going to be implementing their recommendations?

The future generations report is one of those reports that's holding public bodies and the Welsh Government to account for their delivery and showing where performance isn't satisfactory. I make public statements all the time in terms of calling out inaction or lack of progress—for example, fairly recently, around the water quality summits led by the Welsh Government, which weren't, frankly, delivering. But sometimes I do this behind closed doors because what I try to think about is what's going to make the best impact. So, it's not about me necessarily getting a headline; it's about what is the way in which we are going to get impact and delivery by our public bodies? And so, as part of my regular meetings with public sector leaders, I will look at their ways-of-working journey checker, self-evaluation score, I will look at their performance and what they've told me against the future generations report recommendations, and I will ask them why they have not done certain things and push them to deliver on some of those things. So, a lot of it is done in public, some of it is done in private, but what we're always thinking about, as a team, is what are the ways that are going make things happen, get stuff done, and make further progress towards our goals.

I think the second part of your question was around enforcement. I guess I've talked a bit about this already this morning. Primarily, with the current legislation and the way it's deliberately drafted as framework legislation, there are no specific enforcement mechanisms. There are other ways in which things can be enforced, but there are no specific enforcement mechanisms that have been put in place through the legislation itself. I think this does need to be looked at and considered. We've talked already about the various ways in which that could be incorporated into the legislation. Drawing on experience of the other commissioners and how they work is one way in which this can be done. But let's not lose the intended spirit of this legislation, which is about direction, culture change, a framework for decision making, and supporting, pushing, calling out and encouraging action, because I think that is still a critical way in which we make progress.

Thank you very much. You mentioned earlier section 20. So, coming to the legislation, what are your views on your section 20 power and how it has been used to date? What scope is there to strengthen this power, and should this be done through the legislation or through guidance on its application?

It is the strongest power of the commission, but I'd hesitate to say it's a very strong power. Effectively, it's an ability to undertake an investigation, and public bodies are required to take part in that investigation, provide me with evidence, and then, when I make recommendations, they're obliged to respond to those recommendations. They're not required to deliver on those recommendations. So, it's not a strong power, but it is the strongest power that I have within my armoury.

Having said all of that, where the section 20 power has been used previously, it's been effective. So, there have been two section 20 reviews: one on procurement, which is very much about processes; and one on the Welsh Government's delivery of the Act, and its leadership role and performance in terms of delivering the Act. In both cases, the response from the public bodies involved has been positive. They've accepted the recommendations and they've worked with my office and my predecessor's team to deliver on those recommendations. So, I think it is a force for good, and it can be used more effectively.

There is quite a drain on resources. To get it right, you need a lot of time. I think, as I said at the very beginning, my office and the legislation is underpowered. One of the ways in which you'd power it up is by enabling more of these investigations to drive change, and that requires resources. I am about to, soon, announce a section 20 review that I will undertake. But, as I'm looking at options at the moment, I've been listening carefully to what people have said, through the course of this inquiry, to inform what that section 20 review might look at. Also, I'm clearly very interested in the views of committee members to inform that announcement. So, it's an important power. It's making an impact. If I had the resources, I'd be doing them every six months. But they're not there. A couple of years ago, I lost five members of my team. A lot of the public sector, of course, faced similar experiences, but that means these things can't take place every six months, because what do we stop doing in order to make room for these things to happen?

Thank you very much for that. Earlier, I think you mentioned, in your response to Mick, the other commissioners. How do your powers compare to those of other commissioners in Wales? And what specific examples are there of powers that may also be appropriate for your office?

I think—

My question, really, is: what assessment have you made of the impact that increasing your powers would have on your office?

Yes, we've done some thinking on this, and, luckily, I have a lawyer in my office—Marie—and she's looked at it, and at the other commissioners, in some detail. So, I'll bring Marie in, if I can, to give her feedback. But the overall statement, I would say, is that the future generations commissioner is probably the weakest of the commissioners in terms of my powers, and it's underpowered in terms of resources, and given the scale of this agenda, given the importance of this agenda, given the fact that we are running out of time with many of the issues that I'm having to face, that's clearly not satisfactory. But there are lessons from the other commissioners, and I'll ask Marie to come in, if she can.

So, there are three types of commissioners. We have the promoter model, which is ours, where we can promote, encourage, advise, where we are like a coach to organisations to implement legislation. So, that's the weakest model.

Then, the next model is the model of champions, and champions are like the older people's commissioner or the children's commissioner. There, their role is to support a specific group of the population with their rights. So, it's enabling people to get their rights protected and upheld. So, that requires starting with a declaration of rights. We don't yet have a declaration of rights for future generations, or a declaration of rights in the present that would work with this model. Having said that, the UN has recently, as part of the pact for future generations, adopted a declaration of future generations. So, I'm quite interested in that, and, again, research needs to be done on how that could, potentially in the future, give us a basis for that other model.

In that second model again, you have what's called a 'casework function'. That means a commissioner can help individuals with their cases and their problems. That's not a power that a promoter would have as well.

The final model, which is the strongest, is one of a regulator. A regulator will then set standards—legal minima—and then can check enforcement against it, and give consequences for not meeting these standards. So, that's the model of the Welsh Language Commissioner. Very importantly, in that model, there is a tribunal created to hear the appeals of the commissioner's decision. So, that could have huge financial implications. They, too, can support people with their work. So, to me, when we talk about how to help with enforcement, I hear questions of redress of individuals. Can we help people get access to a redress mechanism? And that's really complicated in Wales because the justice system is not devolved. So, giving direct rights to people might be problematic.

Then, it's the commissioners—we have them already in Wales, so we know we can do them, and the furthest one is the Welsh Language Commissioner. So, we don't yet have standards for the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, so that would be one of the first asks if the change were to be made—that we create standards, working within the framework of the legislation, in order to base the rest of the system. But, as Derek has said, our legislation has been delicately balanced, if you want. It is, as we said, about promotion, raising the bar, encouragement. It's not designed for enforcement. So, if we bring the enforcement element into it, it has to be done carefully, so as to not to disturb the balance too much, and also to ensure it doesn't drain all the resources into that sanctioning enforcement to the detriment of the advice, supporting and enabling.

So, I often use the image of the complexity of the legislation we are given. It's not an easy thing to do to apply five ways of working and to seek to achieve these global goals to tackle what are called the 'wicked issues' for the planet. So, I often say, 'It's not like you can read a manual, like you do with Ikea furniture. You read the manual, you can build any type of furniture'. With the well-being of future generations Act, it's more like swimming. Only exceptional people can read a manual on swimming, go in a pool and do it. Most people will need really strong support next to them either with them in the pool or next to it, and they will need to practise it over time before they are able to actually swim on their own and swim well. I'm not even talking about butterfly swimming. [Laughter.] So, it's the same thing with our legislation. We really need to give strong support to enable people to do really complicated things, but which are so worth it, to enable us to get to a place where we do the present and the future at the same time.

Thank you very much. So, what are your views on the suggestion by Climate Cymru that citizens should be able to challenge public bodies' decisions that they believe undermine the interests of future generations?

I've got a lot of sympathy for that. It goes back to my point that, to get delivery and more delivery right across the board, we need to do a better job of involving citizens not just in understanding what the issues are and finding the solutions, because often they will know them, but also in scrutinising performance. And that can be done in various ways: better involvement, as Heledd was talking about in terms of the scrutiny of performance and the processes within our public bodies. It is a challenge to do that under the current legislation because of the way in which it's drafted. We don't have those specific standards, for example, that the Welsh Language Commissioner has, which would enable citizens to do that. And we've seen that where the legislation has been challenged in court, citizens haven't been able to get very far with it, for this very reason. So, it's not possible, or it’s extremely difficult within the current legislation, but the conclusion that we've come to is that, if the legislation were to be changed, one way in which you could do that would be by incorporating to some extent some type of standards within the legislation—not the number that you get in the Welsh language standards, but a number on which you can say, 'Is this being done or is this not being done?’—and then citizens will be able to challenge that. And some of that goes back to the points that I keep making around how well-being objectives are set and reported on and delivered upon.

Can I come in on that really quickly? We've mentioned a couple of times in this session already, and it's in our written evidence, the idea of a common framework, and I think Derek said it in his introduction. I think that was somewhat misunderstood in other sessions, that we're not talking about a set of objectives and steps that public bodies would have to choose from. A one-size-fits-all approach wouldn't be appropriate for the 56 different—very different—public bodies and 13 public services boards, but it makes accountability and transparency and the measurement of progress very challenging without some kind of common framework to help public bodies set and measure their progress towards well-being objectives.

This framework should be something that's collaboratively co-produced with the people of Wales, with all of the people involved. It would not be something that this Government would certainly have time to do, but it's something that I think we'd like to see in future, because that would help public accountability of how public bodies are meeting the Act. It would help our role and the auditor general's role, who's made recommendations about performance management as well, and how we see progress being made towards objectives. And as Derek's already mentioned, that would have to link very strongly to the national indicators and milestones as well. I just wanted to make that related point. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Thanks, Chair.

Thank you. Before we move on, I just wanted to ask you, commissioner: your predecessor did a section 20 review of the Welsh Government; what was the outcome? What was the headline outcome of that?

We're still working with them, and the headline outcome is basically that Welsh Government could be doing more to implement the well-being of future generations Act and play more of a leadership role to the rest of the public sector about their expectations of the wider public sector and—

It sounds a bit woolly, though. I'm not decrying what you're saying, it's just that there's nothing measurable there, is there?

There is, actually. So, we have something called the CLIP—it's the continuous learning and improvement plan. So, there are specific things that the section 20 review required of Welsh Government, and we still work with them to deliver on those specifics. So, it's not something on which we just said, 'Get on with it.' We work with them and we meet with them quarterly, maybe every six months, to sit with the sustainable development team to deliver on that. So, actually, Marie is better placed, because Marie was involved in the review.

Okay. Briefly, Marie, because I know that Sioned Williams—

Very briefly. So, for me, the first achievement is that, as we said earlier on, we have seen much more improvement in inserting the well-being of future generations Act in new legislation, new policies, new areas. So, for me, that's a definitive win. And, as we said, this procurement legislation was so important. And the other thing we are seeing is that now that the sustainable futures team is really increasing in size and volume, there will be much more internal support and, again, the enabling of upskilling of Welsh Government, thanks to the review. So, for me, that was really the important thing—it was jump-starting something.

Okay—excellent to know that. Right, I'm going to bring in Sioned Williams now.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to return to that team, to be honest, because the Cabinet Secretary wrote to us in May, welcoming this inquiry, and she said that she was preparing to evaluate the Act and that there was someone from the Economic and Social Research Council who had become part of that team—that division in the Welsh Government—to design an evaluation of the Act. And she told us, the Cabinet Secretary, that we would receive a report about this piece of work during this term—the autumn term. Well, we haven't seen anything, so I just wanted to ask you: do you know of the progress on that work?

Yes, I'll bring Marie in, actually, but just to say, we would have expected to be much more closely involved in that piece of work. I think I was asked to be interviewed in the last week of the researcher being in post. So, this has definitely been something that's been done within Welsh Government and we're not partnering in the delivery of that. Marie.

And I think we definitely share some frustration as well. I remember the committee asking for that review years ago and we've been waiting. And then the scoping of that review, we are not too clear about either. We heard about the intention at the beginning, which we thought was too close to what the Public Accounts Committee had already done before. We were promised that we would see a report and we still haven't seen it either, so we totally share your frustration on this. It's a great opportunity and something that should have happened normally, the review comes before the post-legislative scrutiny, and I can see that it's really difficult for your committee to hold this inquiry when you don't have the review concluded before.

Thank you, that's useful information. Thank you for that. I just wanted to raise a few points that arose in the evidence that we received. You mentioned in your response to our consultation that there was perhaps sometimes confusion and overlap in terms of your role and responsibilities and those of the auditor general. So, I was just thinking, in terms of the possible changes that might be made to the Act in terms of that, what would you like to see in that regard?

This is an issue that people bring up and I think the legislation could certainly be tidied up in this respect. Fortunately, because of the good relationship I enjoy with the auditor general, and my office, and similarly with Sophie, we work it through and we were in regular communication on joint pieces of work and on the results from their investigations and whether we conduct a section 20 review. We work very closely together.

I was interested that the auditor general did mention the idea that maybe the sort of roles that I have around monitoring could be something incorporated into the investigation work that the Auditor General for Wales undertakes. I'm certainly open to looking at that. But similarly, I mentioned earlier on, there's overlap between my role and the role of Welsh Government. This issue came up during the implementation of the social partnership and public procurement Act, and who was going to support public bodies around the new responsibilities. It's messy; it requires good relationships and good communications and there's an opportunity with the revision to the legislation to sort this out.

So, it's not an issue that's on fire, in the sense that we work it through through great relationships, but should there not be good relationships, or different people in the role, you can see that there's the potential for problems. So, yes, that is the type of thing that I think needs looking at, yes.

Thank you. And both of you also highlighted the fact that the Act was drafted based on cycles in line with Senedd elections, and we know, of course, that that is going to change from next year onwards. So, what assessment have you made of the wider impacts Senedd reform will have on yourselves and on duties relating to public bodies, and the auditor general? How can we address this in reforming the Act?

Yes, so it does complicate things a bit, but there are benefits too. So, the timelines were quite neat previously in terms of the five-year cycle. I will have to produce now a future generations report every four years, which I welcome, but the PSB assessments, unless we make changes, are every five years, and we're required to comment and advise on the well-being assessments. So, there will be years now when those two bits of the process come together, creating quite hectic programmes of work for my team, when they were more easily managed previously.

And there is an impact on resources, of course. If I'm doing a future generations report every four years, there's more to do. If there are more Senedd committees, there are more opportunities to give evidence. I'm doing three this week; this is the first of them. That all has an implication for our resources. There'll be more direct enquiries from Senedd Members as well, because there'll be more Senedd Members asking for my advice or my view and my commentary on different things. So, this will add to the volume of work for the office, and I think that needs to be considered in budgetary decisions going forward.

But on the positive side, the Senedd will have more capacity to scrutinise public body delivery of the well-being of future generations Act, which I welcome. It can't just be a job for the commissioner—and I know you don't see it that way—it's a job for all of us to hold public bodies to account, Welsh Government to account for its own legislation, and make sure we see impact and delivery towards our well-being goals and indicators. So, that will enable, hopefully, more scrutiny and attention by the Senedd.

How you respond to this: I've got to just focus on impact and implementation, so I'll keep making the case for more resources, as everyone does, but within the envelope I've got, where can I make the most impact with the resources that I've got, and keep having that in mind as I take decisions. So, that might mean doing more one-to-many pieces of work with public bodies, rather than one-to-one stuff, as we've already started to do. Those are the decisions that leaders need to take all the time, and that's how you respond to that. So, I think there are some challenges that we can manage, but there are also some opportunities, I think, through the increased scrutiny of the legislation.

Thank you. And then one other specific thing that you mentioned in your written evidence related to the membership of your advisory panel, and of course this is provided for in the Act, isn't it, in a statutory way and in a very specific way. You mentioned that you wanted more flexibility in terms of that. So, what changes do you think are needed in the Act in order to allow for that?

Well, ultimately, the change that I think is needed is that I have the ability to appoint people to my advisory panel, because the advisory panel is full of very experienced people, working for important stakeholder organisations, so it serves the function of hearing from them, communicating with them, hopefully identifying areas where we can work together. But different commissioners will have different priorities, and, when I was running a third sector organisation, you'd bring people on to your board who had the skills and experience related to the work that you wanted to do. And at the moment, we've got people put onto the panel who don't necessarily have the skills and experience aligned to my missions. So, I want the ability to put more people on there who will have the experience that will help me deliver on my mission areas. At the moment, there's a workaround, so we have an ARAC, which is—

Audit and risk.

—audit and risk—sorry, I had a blank then—an audit and risk committee, which is looking for assurance about how I do things, but they have a session whereby they provide advice as well. So, we stop the meeting and start the advisory work. So, they provide an advisory role to my work as a way of plugging that gap. But ultimately the change that I would like to see is for me to be able to appoint members to my advisory panel who would support delivery of my strategy and missions.

Thank you. And just one final question to end with. We have discussed a lot of things that perhaps need to be reconsidered today, but what you have called very specifically for is a review of the Act, especially thinking about 2030, so are there any other aspects of the Act that haven't already been covered today that you think need to be reconsidered?

Yes, I think that is key. I guess a lot of it I've been able to cover. So, perhaps you'll forgive me if I just go through a few of those things. I think, 10 years on, it's a golden opportunity to review the legislation and strengthen it. It's been a force for good. Let's not let go of it, but, certainly, there are things that we can do differently to improve on our performance.

I think we need to have a much bigger focus on outcomes, so this framework for putting well-being objectives in line with indicators and the goals would help create that better focus on outcomes. I believe, given the breadth of this agenda, that it's underpowered in terms of the resources that we give to it—and I'm not just talking about the commissioner's office; I'm talking about the resources that we give to the delivery of this legislation across the piece. I think we need to cut down on the bureaucracy and focus—. It goes back to the outcomes point. I think there's a lot of admin around this legislation that we could probably slim down to give more of a focus on delivery. So, let's take that opportunity to do that too.

And I guess, finally, we've talked about improving guidance and other things that we can do, but let's not forget the origins of this legislation. This came about through 'The Wales We Want' conversation. I think it's the largest national conversation that we have had as a country, and we haven't had one since. It has meant that this legislation has foundations in place that other pieces of legislation have—. It has people rooting for it, talking about it in a way that—clearly, we need to see more of that—we don't see for other pieces of legislation. So, the other thing that I would ask the committee to consider is that we need to do that again. It needs to be an ongoing thing through the principle of involvement, but, as we head to 2030, as the UN will probably be doing something similar, we need another 'The Wales We Want' conversation, perhaps looking at deliberative democracy methods, to engage people in this important agenda.

As we see, you know—. The consensus around climate is breaking down, we're seeing growing mistrust in people like me and people like all of us, our decision makers and our politicians and our leaders of public bodies. It was the biggest theme of my future generations report. We have to give much more attention to speaking to the people of Wales, hearing their concerns and involving them in the decisions that we need to take for the long-term benefit of Wales. So, another 'The Wales We Want' type of conversation is also something I think would be very important. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch, Cadeirydd.

Thank you. Obviously, we are going to be very interested to read the Welsh Government's response to your future generations report. A lot of it will be issues that we'll be able to raise in the scrutiny of your office, which will be early next year. But if there are things specific on the review of the operation of the legislation, we may need to have some written correspondence with you just to get your view on specific aspects.

We thank you very much indeed for the incredibly important contribution to how we can improve on the outcomes of this important legislation, which obviously is one of the things that Wales is famous for, and we should all be very proud of it.

Absolutely.

We will be sending you a transcript. Clearly, you can amend it if there's anything we haven't captured correctly. Otherwise, we thank you all for your time this afternoon.

Diolch yn fawr. Thank you.

Thank you.