Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Good morning and welcome to this morning's meeting of the Senedd Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee. As always, the meeting is held bilingually. Headsets provide simultaneous translation on channel 1 and sound amplification on channel 2. Participants online can access translation by clicking on the globe icon on Zoom. We've had one apology for absence from Mike Hedges, but I understand he'll be joining us later, so a part apology. Do Members at this point have any declarations of registrable or relevant interests they wish to declare? I see no indication.

So, we will move on to papers to note. We've received a letter from the chief executive and chair of Industry Wales, sent to both me as Chair of this committee and the Chair of the Finance Committee regarding the 2024-25 audit opinion and reflections on the 2023-24 disclaimer. We received this letter on 8 January and it outlines concerns they have regarding the reassessment and reaudit of their 2023-24 accounts following the issuance of the disclaimed opinion by Audit Wales in March 2025. Information about the disclaimed opinion was shared with the committee in correspondence from the auditor general last year. We noted the letter at our meeting on 13 March last year and took no further action. The chief executive and chair of Industry Wales has also shared with us, in confidence, a copy of a letter sent to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning, relating to a decision to dissolve Industry Wales. So, before I invite Members to comment, auditor general, do you have any comments?

Thank you, Chair. Yes, I would just like to respond to a couple of points on the record. The vast majority of the letter I think raises questions for the committee to pose to the Welsh Government, rather than me, but there are a couple of issues that relate to us.

First, the letter describes the issues of concern in our audit as being technical and time bound. I would like to remind the committee that I'd been flagging some pretty fundamental concerns about Industry Wales accounts for several years, prior to the disclaimed opinion, all of which related to the same procurement of a packaging line that it was paying for in a food production company, and it was issues related to that line that ultimately resulted in the disclaimed opinion.

In 2023-24, I disclaimed my audit opinion altogether, due to some fundamental failings in the way in which Industry Wales was reflecting the true value to them of that packaging line and some other assets on their balance sheet. The letter implies that that disclaimed opinion could have been avoided had we extended the time frame for our audit so as to allow them to secure an accurate valuation of that asset. It also suggests that we could have done more to avoid that disclaimed opinion.

It is correct to say that the way to avoid the disclaimed opinion was to have secured an independent valuation, and indeed that's now what the organisation has done. However, at the time, the company told us firmly and repeatedly that it did not wish to obtain that independent valuation of their assets. If they had chosen to do so, then we would have waited for the results of that before concluding our work.

We could not have been clearer with the organisation as to the severity of the disclaimed opinion. It was the first and, so far, the only time that I've issued such an opinion in nearly eight years as auditor general, and we were very clear with them too about the steps they needed to take to avoid it. But it was their decision not to follow that path and, therefore, it was clear to me that I should close the audit, as I did.

Thank you very much. And Members, do you have any comments? Adam Price.

Yes, I do, and they don't relate to the audit matter that the auditor general has just discussed, but to the broader question surrounding the dissolution of the organisation, which the Welsh Government claim was unrelated to the audit matter. And I think they raise quite serious questions for us, which we then should present to the Welsh Government in relation to our broader public administration remit and the impact of the manner in which this decision has been made on, for example, confidence in the business community—this is the umbrella body, of course, that works across different key sectors in the economy—but also, more broadly, in terms of the willingness of people to serve on public bodies. And this has been a bit of a theme, hasn't it, in this Senedd term, in relation to issues surrounding Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board; they've been raised by us in terms of our broader work on public appointments.

My particular concern, I think, piecing together the bits of information—some of it in the public domain, some of it that has been provided to us privately—I think it's fair to draw the conclusion that the chair wasn't informed or engaged before the decision to dissolve the organisation. Certainly, that's my interpretation—that it was announced publicly before any engagement. And that, really, I think, departs completely from the principles that the Welsh Government have set out in terms of public bodies, and particularly in terms of this organisation—the framework document for Industry Wales says this—and I think it's worth putting it on the record in full, Chair:

'All parties undertake to strive for effective communication, to be as open as possible, to share information on a "no surprises" basis and to manage contentious matters through dialogue and negotiation.'

That was signed by both parties, and I challenge anyone—. I'm sorry, Chair, but I do think that this is a very important matter, which is why I wanted to place that on the record. I believe that the Welsh Government has broken both the spirit and the letter of that agreement, based on the evidence that we have to date. Furthermore, we had a written statement from the Welsh Government, which, in announcing the dissolution, did undertake to work alongside Industry Wales in discussing with the sector forums, and to

'actively engage with the forums individually to determine the best approach to continue bespoke sectoral advice.'

And furthermore, the Minister said:

'We will work closely with Industry Wales, the forums and stakeholders to put in place the appropriate support, without limiting options for a future Government',

in terms of what is going to be put in place in the interim. The evidence suggests that that has not happened, and so not only, based on the evidence that we currently have, has the Welsh Government broken its own commitments and the principles in terms of its engagement with this body, it's actually misled the Senedd, certainly in terms of what has happened so far. On that basis, I think it is very important that we, as a committee, take the opportunity to put those questions directly to the Welsh Government.

Thank you. Yes, Rhianon Passmore. 

Thank you very much, Chair. Diolch. These are very serious comments that have just been made. My understanding is that, at this point, with such limited information, bearing in mind the narrative from Audit Wales that this could be conjoined issues or entirely separate issues, there needs to be some clarity given to the committee in terms of these—potentially—two matters, or what the situation is in this regard. I think that that clarity is necessary, and I think that we do need to have more information in terms of Audit Wales's narrative and comment to us about the long journey to get to the position in terms of their functionality and the organisation's functionality and its responsibilities and duties, because that seems to be a rather lengthy journey that has led to that outcome. And then there are the comments that have just been made in regard to responsibilities, clarity and liaison between that organisation and Welsh Government. So, I personally would like to seek more information and more clarity on the entire situation, because at the moment I don't know how many jigsaw puzzle pieces, as was stated earlier, there are in this regard. 

Okay. Thank you. Tom Giffard, do you have any comments?

Nothing further from me, Chair. 

Okay. Thank you. Members, are you content to raise these matters with senior Welsh Government officials during our forthcoming scrutiny session of the Welsh Government accounts taking place on 4 and 12 February, or would you like to take any additional or alternative actions in the meantime?

Personally, I think that it is worth asking Industry Wales to appear before us, because I think that this matter does raise some very serious questions that are broader than just pertaining to this particular organisation. So, maybe that's something that we could discuss further in private, Chair.

Okay. Members, would you prefer to discuss that in private, or do you endorse the proposal by Adam Price that we invite Industry Wales representatives themselves to attend?

I'm not sure whether that should be in private until we understand the full context of what we're dealing with. I'm sure that there will be representations from Industry Wales, and obviously Audit Wales need to be present. That's why I'm saying that there could potentially be two issues here and I think that we need a little bit more information, in a sense, before we can understand the type of questioning that we need, if that makes sense.

Tom, yes.

I think I endorse Adam's comment there, that there are broader implications here and we do need to bring people in, and I think, from our perspective, we're obviously against the clock in terms of how long is left in this Senedd to pull this all together, so I'm not super comfortable with delaying, because we may delay to a point where we're never able to actually do it.

On that particular point, yes, I would concede that, in terms of the time available to us, that may be an additionality. I'm just also conscious of sensitivities in terms of what seems to be an impasse between Audit Wales and Industry Wales, despite the framework around it in terms of its dissolution. But in regard to the point about timeliness of us being able to gain clarity and assess that, I'm content to go along with that, Chair.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, let's invite them, then.

Yes. I endorse, actually, the views expressed as well, so it's a consensus, I think. I know it's another thing to squeeze into the agenda, but there we are.

Well, if we conclude that matter for now—therefore, presumably, we can also still put some questions regarding this on 4 and 12 February—we can go into a temporary break before we invite our witnesses in for our next session. Thank you.

Croeso, welcome, to witnesses who've now joined us for a session, providing opportunity for Members to scrutinise the Welsh Government on progress made against the actions and recommendations in this committee's report on the inquiry into covering teachers' absence, which was laid in December 2024. So, welcome, again, to the witnesses. For the record, I'd be grateful if you could identify yourselves and the roles you hold. 

Bore da, good morning. I'm Emma Williams, director general for education, culture and Welsh language. 

Bore da. I'm Chris Warner, and I'm the deputy director for the school practitioner division. 

Bore da. Georgina Haarhoff, director of education.

Thank you very much indeed. I'll just remind you, as I'm sure you're aware, that the meeting is bilingual and you have headsets which provide simultaneous translation on channel 1, and sound amplification, if needed, on channel 2.

Before I start with the questions, could I please invite you to provide a general update on the work that the Welsh Government has undertaken in relation to covering teachers' absence since our report in December 2024?

Thank you very much, Chair. A considerable amount of work has happened and is ongoing, in particular around the pilot of the national supply pool, but also around wider work, particularly on our education and strategic workforce plan. So, we've made considerable improvements to the framework, and monitored how the framework for agency supply teachers is operating, and updated a number of pieces of guidance and strengthened our approach.

So, a lot of work has been ongoing. I appreciate that we haven't had a formal update on each of the recommendations, and we'd be very happy to provide a summary report against each of the recommendations, if that's helpful for you. We've had key developments as well: reports from the pay review body, which we've looked at very closely, and the work of the workload forum.

I don't know if there's anything particular to add. No.

Thank you. Perhaps at the end of the session, Members, we can decide whether we wish to ask for that summary report offered, based upon the responses we receive to our questions and whether there are any gaps remaining.

So, as convention has it, as Chair, I'll begin the questions, and then we have, as you'll appreciate, a series of questions to get through. So, I'd be grateful if Members and yourselves could be as succinct as possible. With teaching sickness absence rates increasing in 2023-24, for those reporting any absence, what, if any, action has the Welsh Government taken, or is planning to take, regarding sickness absence management?

Okay, thank you. So, yes, you're right that there's been a slight increase in the number of days that have been taken as sick. Although, when you look at the data, what we're seeing is a little bit of a pattern of fewer absences, but those absences being slightly longer each time. So, there are some issues there and we're monitoring it.

We don't collect, at a national level, detailed data on reasons for absence; that's collected at school and local authority level. Although, as part of our strategic workforce plan, we are considering whether there is more detailed data that we ought to collect that would be helpful at a national level. So, that's something that we are looking at. 

In terms of how we're addressing sickness absence, I think there are two strands to this. There's obviously work particularly focused at a local level around reasons for sickness absence and absences themselves, but there's also wider work around making sure that well-being is a core element in all of our policies and practices, that we're making teaching an attractive place to work, and that we're responding to workload pressures. There's quite a bit of evidence at the moment that there are increasing pressures on the school workforce; they're being asked to undertake an increasingly broad range of activities within the school. So, reflecting on how we can look at the workforce as a whole in order to make teaching a good profession, an attractive profession, and to generate the support that is needed. There is quite an amount of support already in the system for teachers, and quite a focus on well-being. But I'll stop there. 

Anyone else? No. Thank you. You've touched in your response on the consideration that’s being given to the collation of information on absence in the future. Obviously, our previous recommendation stated that monitoring and reporting on the extent of teachers’ absence from the classroom for reasons other than sickness should be a matter of priority. I don't know if you could expand on what you said in that context, not just sickness absence, but other reasons that might exist, and consideration of how a central database could also help to identify good practice and areas, perhaps, that need more support, so that appropriate interventions or support could be targeted.

So, you're right, we don't collect reasons for absence, as I say, at a national level. It is collected at a local level and, in a way, that's where it is most useful, in terms of schools and local authorities being able to monitor what's happening and what is underlying any reasons for absence.

The majority of absence is for reason of sickness, so it's a much smaller amount that is for other reasons, and those can be widespread and complicated, including things like compassionate leave and parental leave and the like. As I say, we have recognised that additional data would be helpful, and part of our strategic workforce plan, which will be published shortly, will look at what data we might need to collect on a national level and what evidence base, in order that we can better monitor, because, yes, we are aware that we could do with better data around reasons for absence and reasons for leaving the profession in particular.

Before I just bring Rhianon Passmore in, in terms of sickness, rather than being a single tick, are you considering whether there's any merit in breaking that down a bit further to see whether, for example, it's mental health or pressures that people might be encountering, as opposed to a physical illness or condition?

So, what we'll be considering as part of the strategic workforce plan is what level of granularity is needed at a national level. It's that balance between the burden of collection for people providing the data, and making sure that the right people at the right level in the system have the information needed in order to be able to identify trends and address them if there are policy reasons underlying those.

Okay, Rhianon Passmore, please.

I was just going to follow through on that particular point. In terms of driving policy initiatives, I think, in this particular area, which is a fledgling area that needs to be developed, in terms of supply teachers and availability, I must say, as a former teacher and lecturer who has undertaken supply work—to register that, Chair; I meant to do that at the beginning—that I think it's absolutely essential that there is a better understanding of the retention issues, and I think that granular detail has to be in there for Welsh Government. Whether or not it's fed up at a local level isn't the point; you have to have that information in order to be able to drive policy in this area, so I'm hoping that that will happen. Thank you.

Okay.

We certainly recognise that we don't have as much data as we need at national level, which is why it will be part of the education strategic workforce plan.

Okay, thank you.

That's an appropriate point then to bring Rhianon Passmore in, who has some questions on supply teacher availability.

Thank you very much, Chair. So, can the Welsh Government then evidence any progress in addressing the concerns about accessing supply cover that is appropriate? And that includes the shortages in a few areas and subjects, and of course Welsh medium.

Okay, thank you. So, there had been a slight drop in the overall number of supply teachers registered with agencies. Although we were seeing a bit of a decline, that seems to have steadied off in terms of the numbers at the moment. The vast majority of our supply teachers are employed now through the agencies on our framework, which is welcome for us. There are, you're right, some anecdotal reports of some challenges in rural areas, in Welsh language teaching, but not a general sense that there is a difficulty for schools in being able to access supply cover when they need it.

Overall, we saw an increase in the number of supply days employed through agencies last year. There have been, actually, some anecdotal reports back from teachers on the supply agency framework who are not getting as much work as they would like. So, I don't think there is an overall shortage of supply; there seems to be enough in the system. But you're right: there are some pinch points around Welsh language and in some rural areas. That, to a degree, has been helped by the way that the new framework works, with a larger number of agencies operating within each area. I think we have a minimum of 14 agencies available within each local authority area, giving schools much more choice and flexibility. Of course, some schools are looking, at the moment, at other alternatives to agency, perhaps having supernumerary teachers or using cover supervisors within their school staff as well. So, there's a number of different models, and whilst I'm not saying that there aren't occasions when there are challenges for some schools, in general terms, what we're seeing is a sufficiency of supply cover availability.

Thank you for that in terms of the picture that there is currently now. Sometimes, obviously, it's not just about the number; it is about the quality of training in terms of what is happening in terms of supply cover, and the preparations and reparations that schools themselves are making to assist supply teaching. But my question is going to be based around the recruitment and retention incentives, and the robustness of the information that you have that is being shared between Welsh Government and the Education Workforce Council, in terms of how that is helping.

Okay. So, we have a data-sharing protocol in place with the Education Workforce Council. There's been an exchange of data, and we're just, I think, coming towards the end of the data-matching process. It's been quite a complicated process, it's taken us a little bit longer than we expected it to, but, obviously, the quality of that data matching will underline and drive the quality of the analysis that we get from that. So, that work is coming towards reporting now. I think we're looking to report later this spring. Is that about right?

Yes, that's right. So, just to explain what that data linking has involved, we've provided information to the Education Workforce Council, going back to 2014, on the students that have received one of our incentives, and the Education Workforce Council are now matching that data to their teaching register and sending that data back to us, so that it's matched, so that we can see the effect on retention within the workforce.

As we've mentioned, this is one of the data gaps that we're plugging, so it's really useful to have this data. I'm expecting to receive it within the next couple of months. So, we're nearly there. It's been a very complex process that we haven't done before, but we're close to getting hold of that information.

And, of course, in terms of where that then goes to lead policy will be very interesting, because we need to have that data to be able to decide.

I'm going to move on to commissioning in terms of initial teacher education or, as I say, training. In terms of how far the research that Welsh Government has commissioned into initial teacher training will go in assessing the effectiveness and impact of the various incentives that we now have—the portfolio of incentives, across Wales, which are available—how much is being spent on the incentive packages? Do they collectively remain on track, as you've just indicated for some of them, for completion in summer 2026? Because, obviously, this committee would be very interested in a future Senedd in receiving the outturn data.

Thank you. We're building a picture here through a number of different routes: we've got the data-matching exercise that Chris has just spoken about and we've got the evaluation exercise. The contract is with Alma Economics, I believe, at the moment, and the contract value, I think, is £150,000. That will report in the summer. Its focus will be on impacts, rather than the process or the delivery of the incentives, and it will look at how that operates as a recruitment tool and it will build on previous research. So, that will sit alongside the analysis of data. 

I also think it's quite important, though, that we look not just at the incentives, but how they fit with wider recruitment and retention work. The education strategic workforce plan will have quite an emphasis on this, but it's looking at how we make teaching a desirable profession, have clear career pathways through it, and how we look at the flexibility within the profession and that work-life balance. I think the incentives operate as a key part in what is a wider picture of how we make sure that teaching is a profession that people want to come into and then feel confident and able to follow a career pathway through, alongside their life.

Thank you for that. In terms of the latest data that you as Welsh Government are able to share with us about the uptake of the various available incentives for ITE—I find that difficult; I keep going 'ITT'—and recent expenditure on them—. Obviously, the priority subject initiatives around the Welsh language incentive and the ethnic minority incentive would be of interest. And just to tag on a question: do we have a particular incentive for a vertical supply teaching pathway?

On your final point—while I'm hoping Chris is pulling up some specific data on take-up of the incentives—there isn't a specific supply incentive that I'm aware of, or that we're considering, unless colleagues—.

I think it's absolutely something to explore, in terms of it always being a two-tier approach within schools. I think it's really important that there is some sort of professionalisation status attached to supply teaching work, which is often one of the most difficult jobs within any school, and there needs to be some recognition of that. Sorry, that was a tag-on question; if you could refer to the earlier one. Do you want me to repeat it?

It's an interesting point, though, that you make about supply teaching. One of the challenges that we've had has been around defining the supply teacher role, because there are a lot of different supply teacher roles, whether it be short-time or long-term supply. It is, you're right, quite a different role to a permanent classroom teacher. That's been a little bit of a theme of the work that we've been doing in this area—that difficulty of defining. But on the specifics of ITE incentive take-ups, I'll pass over to Chris.

Thanks, Emma. I've just pulled up the latest data on uptake. Just to contextualise it, the uptake of our incentives, as you would expect, mirrors recruitment patterns more generally, which is encouraging in the sense that there's a link between those two. But, obviously, it reflects the challenges that we have, particularly in secondary recruitment and in areas like Welsh-medium education. For the priority subjects teacher incentive scheme, which was restructured in 2022-23, for the 2025-26 academic year, we've got 175 claimants—

Sorry to interrupt; can you disaggregate between the Welsh language incentive also and the ethnic minority take-up incentive?

Yes, I can. I've got them for all the three incentive schemes. This is the priority subject incentive scheme to start with, and this is 175 claimants for the current academic year. That's broadly in line with the previous years, although there was a dip in 2024-25 to 135. So, it's pleasing to see that that's come back up. The total spend for the last available year, which is 2024-25, was £1.5 million. So, that's—

Okay. Thank you.

Do you want me to go on to the other schemes?

Yes, please. Also, if you could tag on then in terms of uptake and expenditure regarding the additional £5,000 retention payment for Welsh medium secondary teachers who have completed their three years of teaching and have got their qualified status. That would be good.

I'll have a look for that in a second. For the Iaith Athrawon Yfory incentive scheme, for Welsh medium, for 2024-25, which is the latest available year, we had 80 claimants. In that academic year, we paid out £195,000. And then, finally for the ethnic minority incentive scheme, we had 35 claimants in 2024-25, and paid out £87,000. Let me see if I can find data on the retention. 

If it's not at hand, I'm sure the committee would be happy to accept a written note, but it's just a question around the additional £5,000 payment for Welsh-medium secondary teachers. 

I've just found that. I've got the total expenditure on that. Over the three years that it's been available—so, from 2023—the total expenditure is £2.29 million and the number of applications over that period is 299. 

In regard to the impact of those incentives, what is the opinion of the Welsh Government of the impact of those initiatives? Has it been plateau, status quo? Has it helped in terms of recruitment and retention? There must be an overall perspective on that. 

I think in terms of uptake, it's broadly consistent across the last few years. I pointed to a slight dip last year for the priority incentive scheme. Again, these reflect wider recruitment trends. There's mixed evidence on the effectiveness of incentives and their role within the wider package of support, if you like, that we put around making teaching an attractive career. I think it's really important that we have the evidence from the evaluation that we're doing at the moment to really understand properly what that impact is. And obviously, we're looking closely at developments elsewhere in other jurisdictions as well, and comparing approaches.

I think that's something that will need to be followed very carefully in terms of public expenditure as well. Thank you for that detail. I'm going to move on to agency cover within the national framework contracts. What are the most up-to-date figures for spending on agency staff via the national framework contract—in education I'm talking, obviously, about—and the reasons behind any changes, if disaggregated beyond general pay inflation, compared with the £101 million a year reported to the committee for 2022-23 please? I don't know who would like to take that. 

Thank you very much. The most recent figure that we have for spend on the framework, which I think was the 2024-25 financial year, was £137 million or thereabouts, which is a slight increase on the previous year, for a number of reasons. We don't have a set of disaggregated figures to break it down in numerical terms, but there are a number of reasons lying behind that—pay inflation, obviously, but also changes in national insurance contributions have had an impact there, and our expectations on agency. We have put additional requirements on agencies that will have driven some of these costs. And, of course, that increase in absence from schools will have driven some of that cost increase. 

Thank you very much. There is a reported £222,000 difference between the approximate costs that the Welsh Government has reported between the income from the contract rebate and estimated costs for managing that. There is some concern that even though it's a small amount, that schools are, in effect, subsidising Welsh Government costs in that regard. Is there any thought briefly on that?

Yes, you're right—the supply contract generates a surplus, if you want to use that term, but it's important to reflect that it's one of around 30 different framework contracts within a wider programme, and the programme operates as a programme of contracts let on behalf of the public sector in Wales, so it doesn't operate in isolation, if you like. Some of that surplus, if you like, has been generated by the fact that we've been working really hard to increase the take-up of supply through the framework. We've been really successful in that. We're really delighted that we've got—

Sorry to interrupt you. Is that surplus then ploughed back into the incentive packages? What happens to that surplus? Is that what you're saying?

To be clear, each of the 30 frameworks under the programme will generate a different level of income, or not. The programme as a whole doesn't generate a surplus. So, actually, there is an element of Welsh Government funding, public funding, that goes in to supplement the income that the different elements of the programme make. But the supply framework is by far the biggest of the frameworks within that programme, and therefore generates most income, if you like. So, it is generating more income than the others. Does that make sense? I'm happy to drop a note if not.

Yes, if you could, because obviously in terms of it being an area of challenge, it would seem to be a disincentive for it to be moved around into other areas, even though they all collectively assist. I understand that. So, if you could provide us with something that the committee can look at, that would be great.

Absolutely. Yes.

My final question then will be given over to the big question that I think we would all like clarity on, if possible: what is the information that you have as Welsh Government as to the reasoning for schools who are still not using or choosing the national framework and just using, as you say, the over 18 agencies that are out there, which are profit-making, which in itself may not be a bad thing for the economy, but obviously in terms of schools' hard-earned money—? Where would you place that on the dial as to why the framework is not being more fully used?

I think I'd start there by reiterating that we've got 98 per cent of supply cover now being secured through the framework, and that's increased quite significantly. We're really pleased. So, in effect, we don't perceive that there is a significant problem with people going off-framework. There is an exercise undertaken by the procurement team at the end of each year to write out to ask for any reasons for non-framework use. They're just going through that exercise again at the moment, but we haven't heard anything back that indicates that there is a structural problem. We suspect that the tiny amount that is still going through routes other than the framework probably reflects some of those rare instances where, because of rurality or Welsh language, people can't secure the right supply. They will be very varied reasons. But as I say, it's down to 2 per cent of the total supply.

That's very encouraging. Thank you.

And finally, the consideration that you've given that hopefully will provide assurance that supply teachers and cover supervisors and learning support workers are working within their role description. Because I have personal experience—not myself—of those who have been employed in those roles working outside—strategically and considerably outside—those mandates when they've been employed, and been performing duties that they are not essentially qualified to do, or being paid the right remuneration for.

We've had no formal notifications of any such activity in the system, and we're not hearing any noise back from the system. Anecdotal evidence, in fact, probably says that there may be more of an issue the other way, with qualified teachers, perhaps, being offered supply rates to operate as teaching assistants and the like. So, in some ways, going the other way, which is something that we will continue to follow up and look at. We have strengthened our guidance and the framework around this, and there is a very clear expectation on schools, as the employers, that they are not employing people and then asking them to operate outside of role, particularly outside of their training and their abilities. There is no evidence that we have a significant problem in this regard, and our expectation is very clear and set out in strengthened guidance that they should only be employing within role.

Okay. I know that this happens. So, in terms of how you test your theory, how are you assessing that, very briefly?

So, there are a number of safeguards within the contract management. There are regular audits undertaken as part of the procurement exercise, and we've got nothing coming through those audits that raises flags for concerns here. But it's certainly something that we can consider further, and perhaps look to our procurement colleagues to make a more specific reference to. We've also had nothing through the inspectorate—the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate. So, there is nothing coming through those formal routes that gives us cause for concern.

Okay. Thank you very much, Chair. 

Thank you. Given the reference to teaching assistants, perhaps at this point I should declare that one of my children works as a teaching assistant in north Wales, on a local education authority contract. Of course, unlike teachers who are rightly paid for 365 days a year, teaching assistants such as him only get paid Monday to Friday during term time. So, nothing during holidays, weekends et cetera. So, there are supply issues in consequence of that also. This does not necessarily directly fall within the remit of this, but you may wish to comment in your other answers later. Adam Price, can I bring you in, please?

We'll be starting that later in the spring, so imminently.

Diolch. So, considerable learning from that pilot exercise will feed in, but we will also be looking at some of the other models. One of the things that we learnt from that pilot was the huge variation in approaches across Wales. That was one of the big challenges that we had. So, all of that learning will feed in.

We'll also pick up some of the information that we gathered around different approaches that are either in play at the moment or have been taken in the past. And we'll be looking, in negotiating a new framework, to build on the work that we've already done around strengthening support for the supply teacher cadre and building on some of the aspects of our education strategic workforce plan. So, there's a lot of work. 

We've talked about the incentives work that we've got ongoing. All of the evidence that we've got from the various work streams that have happened to date, the recommendations from the pay review body—we'll take all of those into account. And in developing the new framework, I think that we'll still be trying to find that right balance between giving fair work support to our supply teachers while also making sure that the framework remains the preferred route, and the value for money route, to deliver quality support for learners in the classroom. So, it's finding that sweet spot in the balance between the different elements.

Diolch. There is variation within the fees that are charged, you're quite right, although it's interesting to see that the additional transparency that we've required through the framework means that schools can see very openly what the charges are. And if you look at which agencies are getting the most business, it is the ones with the more reasonable fees. I think it's also important to reflect that, actually, within those agency fees, the vast majority—I think it's touching on 80 per cent of the fee received by the agency—is going on direct staffing costs, so pay, employers' national insurance, pension contributions and the like. So, actually, yes, of course these companies are making profit, but in the majority of cases, it's a modest profit rather than an excessive one.

But to your point about looking to the next contract, then, of course, we will be looking at all of these things, but we'll be going into that exercise with an open mind, not having prejudged conclusions, but we will be looking at everything. And I would imagine that the agencies themselves would be looking at the fact that, if they are charging high fees, they are not getting the same level of engagement from schools that others in the sector are.

Broadly speaking, no. The last audit last year raised no specific issues from the employment inspectorate. They're just completing the next round of audit and I believe it's due to report soon. There are no significant issues. What we would hope to get is any of the word on the street, and certainly we'll be engaging very widely with schools and with local authorities to try and get more detailed feedback than perhaps would come through these audits. But certainly, there are no major causes for concern being raised through the audits.

As far as I'm aware, although obviously we would usually reflect on guidance on a regular basis and update it as things change, as I understand it, there was a level of confusion being reported around the calculation of national insurance, particularly where individuals were operating through a number of different agencies, and so the guidance was updated in order to provide additional clarity on that. Is that right, Chris?

Yes.

So, the Teacher Booker platform was procured in order to provide schools with direct access to book teachers, as you say, who were on the payroll of the local authority in that pilot. It's before my time, but it would have gone through a full procurement process, so I presume that they were the successful bidder against a set of criteria, and we contracted for them to supply that technical platform, if you like, with the intention that if we were able to roll the national supply pool approach out on a Wales-wide basis, it would provide a national platform, so a single platform, for all schools to be able to book through. Now, obviously, the pilot concluded that we weren't able to roll it out on a national basis.

I believe that Ynys Môn are still using the Teacher Booker system. They found it quite successful, but that's because it works well with the system that they already had in place. The fundamental challenge that we had with the pilot and that stood in the way of a national roll-out, was more fundamentally about how and who actually employed the teachers in that system. So, if you like, the platform was the successful part of it, certainly for Ynys Môn. I don't know if there's anything you want to add, Chris.

Diolch yn fawr. So, I guess, starting with the pilot in Ynys Môn, you're right, it was broadly successful, but on reflection, with the benefit of hindsight, that was partly because they were already in the place of direct employment of their supply pool, and that was, as I say, the largest sticking point. You're right, there are a lot of different approaches across Wales, different models. Ynys Môn and, I believe, Gwynedd have one that is probably the closest to the national supply pool model that we were looking at here.

The fundamental challenge was the suitable employer, so in order to be able to employ teachers on standard teaching terms and conditions and allow access, in particular, to the teacher's pension scheme, then you have to have a very specific type of public sector employer. That proved difficult for us to establish. So, in looking at options it was: would an individual public body be willing to take that on on behalf of all of Wales? Would an organisation such as the Welsh Local Government Association be able to take it on? I think, fundamentally, there was a challenge for any local authority or the WLGA in terms of the balance of risk, in terms of taking the role and responsibility, where the sector wasn't necessarily signed up in full to all joining this approach.

You mentioned the Northern Ireland approach. They're in a substantially different position, in that the department in Northern Ireland has the ability to direct schools to use the system. Under local management of schools, we don't have that in Wales; schools are rightly able to make their own choices and decisions. So, we needed to have, on the one hand, the systems, but also the willingness and the desire to use them.

Yes, primary legislation could be brought forward to enable that power of direction. It's not something that's been considered. We have a principle of local management of schools and this forms part of that. I think there is something here about the case for change, if you like, and it goes back to the point I was making about trying to find the right balance between promoting good terms and conditions and support for supply teachers versus a sector who are financially constrained at the moment and trying to find the most cost-effective and teaching-and-learning-effective solution to needing supply.

I think there's very much still a firm commitment and a policy drive towards improving the support for supply teaching and those fair work principles. That will absolutely feed into development of the next framework, and we're continuing to look at other models and other ways of achieving the end objective of good-quality support for learners in the classroom. So, the strategic workforce plan will include specific references to continuing this work. We are looking at some of the other pilot models, the cluster models that you mentioned and things like that, and seeing what we can learn from those and how we can promote the very best practice.

Should I come in on that? Yes, so we were grateful for the report and, obviously, it's disappointing that those mistakes were made and my team's now seeking to implement the recommendations from that report. So, that will be done as soon as we can.

My understanding is it was a communication failing between us and the supplier, so I wouldn't want to lay the blame on our supplier entirely, but I think it was a miscommunication between the delivery teams involved.

In terms of vetting, do you mean?

Yes.

I don't know. I can find out how that worked. Teacher Booker had two contracts with us. One was for the software licences for the booking platform and the other contract was for vetting, but I'm not entirely sure—I don't have the details to hand—

I think I'd better just check for you. I just don't have the contract details to hand, sorry.

Just on that issue, two specific points if I may. You previously indicated that there were issues with the payroll platform. Why couldn't they be resolved—and I suspect they were part of the issues you're referring to—and what were the costs of ending this contract, including any compensatory payments made to Teacher Booker?

Okay. So, in terms of the payroll contract, you're right, they're tied up in that needing to have a public sector entity that was the employer, and looking for somebody who was willing to take on that work and risk and the level of resource that that would have taken. So, that proved to be extremely challenging. There were no compensatory payments in relation to the Teacher Booker platform. Chris may know the contract value, but it was a contract that was for a pilot, so there were the appropriate safeguards in there, although I believe that Ynys Môn are continuing to use that, with our support, at the moment.

Yes, that's right. So, Teacher Booker is still under contract with us for a smaller number of licences, and we're working with them and Ynys Môn to continue to support Ynys Môn in this financial year. So, our contractual relationship with Teacher Booker will end on the 4 May this year, and, at that point, the total cost across both of our contracts with Teacher Booker will be £475,500. 

Okay, thank you for confirming that. Could I then thank Adam Price and invite Tom Giffard—

Sorry, can I cut in with a question—

Oh, sorry. Rhianon Passmore has a supplementary—sorry, yes.

—that I did briefly want to ask? It's mildly out of context, but it is relevant to what's just been said to the last-but-one question. In terms of the next iterative framework that's been inferred previously, it has been mentioned that we are looking more widely at other, international systems. Could you clarify which ones we have been looking at? Because, obviously, Australia, Switzerland, even the United Arab Emirates, have some very valid and positive initiatives in regard to provision of teaching and supply teaching.

I'm not sure off the top of my head. Chris, I don't know if you're—.

We've got a range of very strong international networks at our disposal on this, and we're very lucky in that regard. I think, in terms of looking at the international evidence base, it's too early to pinpoint our favourites, if you like, in terms of what we might be wanting to look at, but we're going to continue to engage through our networks to see if there are circumstances that fit our approach. I think the key learning, though, to reiterate what Emma said earlier, from the national supply pool pilot, was that one approach is unlikely to work right across Wales. And what we really want to do is identify the best, most sustainable, and fairest models that we can promote, and some of those will be in Wales, but others will be elsewhere.

Okay, thank you. Diolch, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Tom Giffard, please.

Thank you, Chair. How quickly do you expect Dysgu to put in place mechanisms to monitor supply teachers' take-up of professional learning that's offered nationally? 

Thank you very much. So, obviously, Dysgu is new—freshly formed, but already having impact—and we're hoping that they will be able to start collecting data on learning and development engagement from September 2026. They'll also be looking at the general offer, and indeed looking at how we can make sure that the offer to the supply system is flexible.

Thank you for that. I'd just note that, in your answer, you said that they'd monitor engagement and I asked about take-up—is there a difference?

No, I think they're probably one and the same thing. 

No, I just thought I'd ask; I didn't know if you were being guarded about the semantics there. In the meantime, is there any further recent evidence that the Government can point to regarding the take-up of nationally supported professional learning by supply teachers?

No, we don't have specific data, that's why we're really pleased that Dysgu will be starting to look more closely at that and give us a better indication. We have improved the offer to supply teachers. Agencies are all required to not only engage with the staff on their books and assess professional learning needs—professional learning and development—but also offer a range of courses and offer some mandatory training. There are, of course, resources available to everyone through Hwb, but I think it's true to say that take-up from supply teachers is lower. Although we expect them to have the same commitment to their learning and development, obviously they can't. Particularly if they're on short-term supply, they don't have access to INSET days, so they're asked to do this in their own time, unpaid, in effect. So, that's one of the things that the strategic workforce plan will be looking at, about how we make that offer and working with Dysgu to see how we make that offer more flexible and encourage better engagement, as well as monitoring it so that we can see if that's having an impact.

Thank you. Finally, more generally, what are the Welsh Government's key priorities for the work of Dysgu, and how are they being overseen?

Okay. Thank you. I'll pass over to Georgina, but just say that, with Dysgu, we've given it a large remit and it's hit the ground running and is already starting to have an impact. But, Georgina.

Thank you, yes. So, we established Dysgu formally and legally from September and have been recruiting actively both the chief executive and the staff members, and also the board, which is under active recruitment at the moment. So, it's fair to say that they've had a lot to do just to establish themselves as an organisation. I know that they're working extremely hard to engage with both practitioners and local authorities across Wales just to make sure that they have a really, really good network and can really support the needs of schools, teachers, supply staff, obviously, support staff, as well as other partners across the education sector.

The Cabinet Secretary has been really clear that her priorities for Dysgu are national professional learning around literacy, numeracy, well-being and inclusion, as the key national priorities from her perspective. So, that requires Dysgu to work really closely with Welsh Government to understand the policy and make sure that that policy can be translated into effective, high-quality and evidence-based national professional learning programmes, and make sure that those are available to all schools, and, obviously, local authority colleagues, working with local authority colleagues on a practical and impactful basis. It's a big programme of work to make something available nationally, and Dysgu, as I say, are working very closely with us in Welsh Government, and obviously with Estyn too, as another national body, to effect that.

It will take some time. Dysgu have already established and are running the national professional qualification for headship. So, that's already in train. They have had some very successful cohorts, and those are ongoing on a regular basis. So, they are working, they are doing things, they are making a difference, and they will be taking over the literacy and numeracy grants from Welsh Government, which were procured over the course of the last year. They'll be taking those over from April.

Okay. Thank you. Can I just follow up and ask, on the second part of the question, about the oversight you anticipate to have of Dysgu?

The Cabinet Secretary will meet the new chair, but also meets the chief executive of Dysgu on a regular basis to understand how they are progressing with their thinking. There are a range of different partnership requirements that the Welsh Government has, including around strategic plans and remit letters and funding, so all of those—I'm looking at Chris, because it sits within his team—relationships are already in train to make sure that there is appropriate governance of the organisation.

We will work, as Welsh Government, as officials, closely with Dysgu to ensure that they are delivering what we have asked them to do, and we meet with them on a regular basis—weekly, and, in some cases, daily. It's a really, really important priority for the Welsh Government to ensure that a national professional learning programme is effective and is in line with Welsh Ministers' policy. Alongside that, Dysgu are taking on a number of different types of professional learning support, looking at middle leaders and senior leaders as well. They're taking over responsibility for the diversity and anti-racism professional learning, and there are a range of other programmes that they're doing alongside these national priorities to support teachers, and the work to support supply staff will be part of that as well.

Great, thank you. Can I move on, then, to pay and conditions? What progress has been made working with the pay partnership forum to develop a timeline and implementation plan for the key issues that the independent Welsh pay review body and related reports have raised on pay and conditions for supply teachers?

So, there isn't an implementation plan as such. They are being progressed through a number of routes, not least they'll be picked up as part of the work in the strategic workforce plan. There were a lot of very broad issues raised within that report, which I believe the Cabinet Secretary at the time of accepting that report noted needed a long-term view, and that's why they're being moved forward within the workforce plan.

One of the key things that we talked to the pay review body about and which remains a challenge, as we've mentioned already, is that definition of supply and definition of the different types of supply, which is a kind of fundamental prerequisite of them being able to talk about pay terms and conditions, being clear on what the roles are, what the different roles are and what the difference is between a supply role and a classroom role.

As we've already mentioned, we've picked up some of the spirit, if you like, of the fair work principles through the framework, and we'll also progress, as we move into negotiating the next framework contract, what further we can do in that respect.

It might just be worth offering some context in terms of the work we're doing with our pay partnership forum at the moment. We've benefited from a large number of reports and recommendations from the independent Welsh pay review body, not least through their strategic review but also through their annual pay remit. Clearly, within the system, we only have so much capacity to work through these issues together. That's true in the Welsh Government but also with our partners. So, what we've done with the pay partnership forum is put together a prioritised work plan, which includes further work on supply teachers, but there are other immediate priorities that we're tackling first around things like the work we're doing on moving additional learning needs co-ordinators onto the leadership pay scale. We're looking at leaders' conditions of service and a range of other matters as well. So, this is very much in the work programme, it's just that we have undertaken that prioritisation exercise with our partners to make sure that the forum's work is manageable and sequenced in a sensible way.

Thank you. Similarly, what further consideration has been given to how relevant IWPRB recommendations might be reflected in future within the national framework contract for agency staff?

I think that's something we'll pick up as we review the framework success to date. As I said, we'll be starting work in detail for the next framework shortly, but they will certainly be reflected in our thinking there.

Okay, thank you. Back to you, Chair.

Thank you very much indeed. Moving on again, when do you believe the Welsh Government will finalise its new strategic education workforce plan, and how is the work of the strategic workload co-ordination group feeding into that?

Diolch. The plan is being finalised as we speak. It's very close to publication. I think we're hoping to publish in March, so we're very much in the final stages. It's been a huge piece of work that has involved input from a significant number of bodies and we're really grateful for the level of engagement in this piece of work that we've had. The workload co-ordination group were particularly important. They completed their work, as you'll be aware, and reported in November, and their recommendations have been fed in and considered as part of the workforce plan.

There will be five themes to the plan: the quality of teaching and learning, workload, how the sector can rise to new challenges, how we make attractive career pathways, and that important point about effective use of data and evidence. And we'll be continuing to work with the sector, and with our partners, in terms of developing the detail under that strategic plan and rolling out the improvements.

Thank you. What action, if any, is the Welsh Government taking to ensure alignment between this plan and other strategic planning, including by the Education Workforce Council, Dysgu and the pre-existing Welsh in education workforce plan?

Thank you. So, obviously having had engagement with the majority of those groups in the development of the plan, we've been able to either ensure there is alignment, or identify where we will need to do further work to align. You're absolutely right that the Welsh education workforce plan will need to be updated, reflecting not just the workforce strategy, but also the implications of the Welsh Language and Education (Wales) Act 2025. So, there is additional work to be done there, and we'll be starting that very quickly.

Okay, thank you. In September, the Cabinet Secretary stated that one of her priorities was to, quote,

'develop our proposals for covering teacher absence'.

What options are you considering for that?

So, I think all options remain on the table. As I mentioned earlier, we're looking at some of the other models that are already in place in Wales, and some of the other things that have been trialled in the past. So, cluster models is a particular one that we're looking at. We'll look at the learning from the national supply pool pilot, and we'll look at learning coming from the framework review. So, we're very much in the realms of looking at how we identify and promote the very best practice, and ensure that we continue to have a tight framework that enables schools to find cost-effective solutions to their supply needs, but also looking at some of the in-house models around supernumerary teachers and the use of supply cover within schools and clusters. So, all options still on the table, but a real focus within the workforce strategy around identifying the best practice and making sure that we are sharing it widely and promoting it.

[Inaudible.]—multi-option solution, or picking good practice and focusing on some of those options?

I think what we learnt through the pilot was that it's very difficult to see a one-solution-suits-all model at this stage in Wales. So, I think it is about choosing the best, and then making sure that schools and local authorities have access to good-quality information, so that, within the spirit of local management of schools, they're able to adopt best practice and get good-quality teaching and learning at the best value.

Okay, thank you. And coming towards the end of the formal questioning, why do you believe the strategic workload co-ordination group needed to recommend that workload impact assessments should be a routine requirement for all policy areas affecting schools, including health policy, before changes are introduced? In other words, why has this not already been the case, not least in the context of the ways of working expected under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015?

Thank you. And, yes, I think it was fairly widespread previously, but perhaps not as consistent as we might have liked. The Chair, in writing her report, and her findings, referenced—we were very pleased to see—the improvement within the department on reflection of workload in all of our policies. I think, sometimes, the impact assessment process can help people to see impacts where perhaps they are less obvious, and so it makes sure that we've got a much more consistent and coherent and comprehensive approach to assessing every impact on teacher workload, because, certainly, we're very conscious of the fact that workload implications come from a far broader range of policies than just education policies. 

I think, just to add to that, I'd draw the committee's attention to Anna Brychan's letter to the Cabinet Secretary on the end of the group's work. She talks about workload being more routinely considered, but, in particular, at the start of policy development, and I think, in some cases, probably, that consideration wasn't happening early enough in the process. And so we've taken this opportunity to emphasise the importance of building this in at the very early stages and engaging with our stakeholders to explore that further as policy development continues.

Sorry, can I add another arm to it? We've always thought about workload as a general thing. And I think, in coming up with policies, particularly through regulatory impact assessments with legislation, it covers the same sorts of sets of questions. I think the point that Emma made about it being much more consistent and systematic and being in right at the beginning is really important. But we've got to be really aware that, if we're looking at workload for schools, we need to be asking schools for the information to support an assessment of workload. So, we have to tread quite a fine balance between creating workload in schools whilst trying to find out about what the workload is. So, it's trying to make sure that we progress a workload impact assessment in a sensitive and thoughtful way so that we're not creating additional workload for schools, given the range of ways in which they operate across Wales, to make sure that we do something that is useful and has an impact and helps us as policy officials, and isn't just a piece of paper that doesn't end up having an impact.

Well, I remember workload being referred to regularly 20 years ago, and there was a workload plan then, developed with the teaching workforce and unions. I suppose the question is why it appears to have been reactive, given the ways of working specified in the well-being of future generations Act, and the extent, therefore, to which those ways of working are now embedded in all the work that you do.

I think that the principles are broadly embedded, but improving. There is always room for improvement and, actually, enhancing the way we do these impact assessments is helpful in that regard.

Okay, thank you. Members, do you have any further questions you'd like to raise that we haven't already covered? Mike Hedges, welcome. You joined us some time ago; you've not had an opportunity to raise anything—no obligation to do so if you have nothing pressing. So, I have no further indications to speak. Before we close, then, do you have any further comments you wish to add?

No, just to thank you very much. I hope we've conveyed that this is a very live topic, but that we're taking it forward in the wider context of the whole-school workforce and in the spirit of well-being and balance between the different parties.

Thank you very much.

Well, thank you very much indeed everyone, then, for attending. As always, we will provide you with a transcript of today's meeting for you to check for your accuracy. 

I ask Members to consent, formally, to the election of a temporary Chair for our meeting on Wednesday, 4 February, where it's proposed that Tom Giffard takes that role on that occasion. Are Members content?

Yes.

Thank you very much indeed. 

In that case—technical stuff, so thank you very much indeed—I propose that, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(ix), the committee resolves to meet in private from the remainder of this meeting. Are Members content?

Yes.

Thank you. I see that Members are content. We're grateful if we could go into private session.