Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Bore da, pawb. Welcome to the Equality and Social Justice Committee. We're a bilingual institution, so we welcome contributions in Welsh and English, and there is instantaneous translation from Welsh.

We are continuing our inquiry into the workings of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. Our fourth session today is with Councillor Mary Ann Brocklesby, the leader of Monmouthshire County Council; Wayne Tucker, senior policy and partnership officer for Newport City Council; and Robyn Lovelock, insight strategy and delivery manager for Denbighshire County Council.

Thank you, all three of you, for the papers that you've submitted—in the case of Mary Ann, on behalf of the Welsh Local Government Association. I wondered if I could start off by asking you how you think—. In light of the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales's latest report, how well do you think public services boards are moving forward on the intentions of the Act? Mary Ann, could I start with you?

Thank you, Jenny, and I'd like to thank the committee for inviting me here today, on behalf of the WLGA, to give evidence. This is an important area. The way that it defines our nation is very different to the other nations of the UK.

With regard to the PSBs, I think, as the commissioner pointed out, there is still progress to be made. From a WLGA perspective, a number of challenges are being faced by local councils and other public bodies in the way that we partner and collaborate through the PSBs.

The first is the governance structure, which doesn't clearly delineate precisely how to collaborate, and also the relationship with the regional partnership boards or, indeed, the corporate joint committees. We've known for a long time, of course, that the regional landscape is full of different partnerships. That alignment and coalition, or synergy, has not been clarified, either at the beginning or as it has progressed over the 10 years.

Secondly, I think that, within the WLGA, there are mixed views. But there is certainly a view that the prescriptive nature of the PSBs 10 years ago has served, over time, to become more of a way that did not allow for the level of flexibility and innovation for PSBs to organically emerge in a collaborative structure that really spoke about place and identity, which are very different across the different parts of Wales.

And thirdly—a point that has been made across the board, and not just by the commissioner—a key part of the Act is around prevention. A key role of PSBs should be thinking through, collectively, how to be more efficient, effective and more responsive, rather than reactive, to a preventative agenda. This has been problematic because the limited resource flowing to PSBs, and what little there is, is more for administrative and bureaucratic functions, rather than to act towards a preventative agenda that was focused on better outcomes for the people of Wales.

Obviously, Gwent made the decision to come together—the five local authorities—into one board that covers the map of the health board. It also enables all the contributors to agree to bring together budgets for prevention, or anything else. There's nothing preventing you doing that, is there? If there is, we really want to hear about it.

In a local government landscape where resources are severely limited for non-statutory obligations, and the non-statutory obligations are largely within a local authority, although you'll be aware, Jenny, that most local authorities have collaborations going on alongside public services boards, corporate joint committees or regional partnership boards, the preventative work, which is absolutely essential—. Let me give you an example of the preventative work around flood management, which we gave in our written response. That requires a level of resources and a level of partnership that isn't necessarily catalysed through a PSB. If I look at the work that we do in Gwent, you'll know we're a Marmot region, which we take very seriously, the work that we would like to do around social care reablement, prevention, to ensure that people can remain in their homes for as long as possible, living a healthy life, but also, if they go into hospital, can leave as soon as possible, to be supported within the community, the money that is available, the resources that are available for that, are very limited—[Interruption.] Apologies. A difficult choice that we need to make as local authorities, and we make with every partnership—[Inaudible.]—add value. Does it have impact? Will it improve the outcomes for the residents that we serve? PSBs, as they're currently structured, I don't believe always will do that.

Okay. Robyn Lovelock.

Diolch, pawb. Bore da. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Just to go back to your original question, Chair, in terms of the way that the Act is being delivered within Denbighshire, I would say that we are really supportive of the Act. Its integration, its acceptance and support is really evidenced by the links between Denbighshire's corporate plan and the well-being goals, as well as the ways of working in terms of how we set about delivering on our corporate plan. Things like a prosperous Denbighshire, a greener Denbighshire, a fairer Denbighshire really encapsulate the well-being objectives and how central they are to the operation of our local authority.

I do think, responding to Mary Ann's reflections around the PSB, I think there are challenges there in the added value that the PSB is able to offer in addition to the work that's happening in the local authorities. I think there is huge value there, and we are supportive of the PSB. It's the only body that, critically, for such challenging financial times, really brings together leadership and officers across the different areas of well-being around a single table to really consider issues, but the marshalling of funds, despite really collaborative working across the three PSBs in north Wales, remains a real challenge. 

I think a large part of that, for the discussions we've had, is that we can show evidence that we're delivering across a number of cultural, social and environmental aspects of well-being, but there remains a lot of confusion around the aspect of economic well-being. With the CJCs launching in recent years, and both the PSBs and the CJCs having a mandate to deliver economic well-being, but not a shared definition of what that is, or what ‘good’ looks like, is proving a challenge. I think an assumption that economic well-being is going to be taken care of by the CJC, but separate from the PSB, without that holistic systems lens that the PSBs offer, misses valuable opportunities that the PSB can really help the CJC deliver on, particularly when we look at some of the key drivers of risk that are held through economic decision making—so, infrastructure, transport and more. So, really grappling with that intersection around economic well-being, and are we applying the Act as robustly to economic decisions as we are in other areas.

Then I'd also like to add that an area of challenge, really, is around the integration of risk assessment. Particularly as we look at some of the recommendations that the future generations commissioner has made recently, it really raises the question of whether the risks that those recommendations respond to are understood with a shared perspective across PSBs, across local authorities, across all public bodies. The Act requires that the ‘Future Trends Report’ and the climate change risk assessments are considered, but those are only every five or six years, and the risks are changing and maturing and escalating. It doesn't feel that there is a shared understanding, a live understanding of what those risks are across leadership boards in north Wales, and across even services within local authorities. So, I guess in terms of an area where the Act might look for additional clarity, that would be how are we updating those, our understanding of risk, and what sources of risk are we drawing on.

Denbighshire, for example, is working with our insurance company to do risk horizon scanning with the senior leadership team, and the risks that that insurance company are highlighting are not just extreme weather events, but critical changes to earth systems, biodiversity loss and natural resource shortages driving really significant risks. Do we have that shared understanding not just from that insurance company, but more widely across PSBs and local and public bodies?

Thank you for making all those important points. We'll come back to some of them, but I'll start by asking Julie Morgan to come in.

Diolch, and bore da, everybody. Well, I was going to ask about the biggest challenge, and I think Robyn has identified it as risk, and I know, Mary Ann, you mentioned finance when you spoke earlier. So, I wondered if there were any other areas that you saw as being particularly challenging. I don't know, Wayne, whether you had any comments.

Yes, thank you for the opportunity to speak. As you've already mentioned, the biggest challenge obviously would be the risk of financial issues for local authorities, not only generally across the board for local authorities' budgets, but also specifically for public services boards directly, given there's no direct budget specifically for public services boards to help deliver on the work, other than a small pot of money to support some of the workings, and some engagement in relation to that.

I guess the difficulty as well outside of that is generally the challenges faced on a day-to-day basis by local authorities. Often, local authorities are firefighting, dealing with issues, so it's sometimes quite difficult to really consider the long-term impact you're having on your communities, when often you're working towards more dealing with the short-term issues that come forward. It is sometimes very difficult to look at the more long-term impact you're having within your area, both locally and across the region, and that can be quite difficult at times for organisations to manage delivery across the piece and across the different service areas we're facing.

Also, the challenge on a regional basis, because as previously mentioned, across Gwent the five former public services boards merged to form a Gwent PSB in 2021. And the different priorities and concerns for those areas across Gwent can sometimes be a challenge. Within Newport specifically, a city has more potential challenges specifically around community safety, for example. So, that can be a challenge when maybe that isn't the concern or the priority within other areas. That sometimes can cause a challenge. And I know across Gwent, each area has its own local partnership that will help with that, not only for community safety. We have one in Newport, which was the former PSB, and now is a local delivery group of the Gwent PSB, to pick up some of the issues that maybe are not covered across the Gwent PSB remit and the well-being plan. So, that's really helped.

As I said, it's difficult off the top of my head to think of any more specific challenges at this precise moment, but definitely the practicalities of implementing against that financial landscape that's taking place across all public bodies. But as I said, it's not necessarily directly on local authorities solely, but also on the wider collaborative piece within the public services boards directly.

Would you say that bringing the PSBs together in Gwent was the right thing to do?

I think it's definitely moving in the right direction. As I said, there have been challenges within Gwent—I'm certainly not going to deny that—and maybe Councillor Brocklesby may be able to directly speak on that as a member of the Gwent PSB. So, there have been challenges, partly due to the fact it's fairly new. It's the first time across Gwent that we've developed our well-being plan under that remit. And also during that period over the last few years, there have been a number of changes at leadership and chief exec level across different organisations.

So, that's been a bit of a challenge, but yes, I could definitely see the benefit from the at-scale perspective, with potentially dwindling budgets actually delivering on activity at scale across the whole region, rather than individually doing that across the local authority areas. It's definitely of benefit. That's a challenge and we're working towards that, but having that local aspect still within each area definitely helps to bring in partners together in that local perspective to pick up things that are missed, but also support the wider Gwent agenda.

Mary Ann, did you want to come in? 

Thank you. I wasn't part of the local government landscape before 2021, so I do not have any comparison. It's a demonstration, on the one hand, of commitment that all areas in Gwent have to the well-being goals, to the Act, and how by coming together they've been able to identify how that aligns with being a Marmot region. The two together, I think, enable us to have a focus, but also ways of working within the Gwent region. We have within the Gwent region the collaboration between Torfaen and Blaenau Gwent, where they are fully on board to be Marmot councils, but within that context of the PSBs, which enables that cross-learning, that sharing of information, that building on good practice. That is one of the pluses, I think, of being there as a region and identified as a region.

There have been challenges. Some of those challenges the commissioner has picked up more widely on PSBs, and that's regard to the capacity and capability to shift from a protest, output way of working to an outcome way of working, looking forward to impact and sustainability. The mechanisms that we would need to have a more preventative agenda that we could actually deliver are not yet in place. It's not clear to me what guidance the commissioner would give to enable PSBs to have those kinds of mechanisms in place to be more preventative. I do think it's a resource issue, but it's not only a resource issue. It's about ways of working that are clearly laid out by the Act, but challenging to put into practice, sustain, monitor, adjust, and be agile in the current local government environment that we are in now, which is living with dearth, but attempting to be sustainable and promote the well-being for now and in the future. 

Thank you very much. How have you found the process of setting the well-being objectives? Who's going to answer that? Mary.

For the local authority or for the PSB? I can tell you more about the local authority.

Okay. Tell us about the local authority.

It was very collaborative. Certainly, the Act enabled us to coalesce around what we considered in Monmouthshire, from our own well-being assessment and the data we had, as well as our priorities, that it was one of the guiding instruments absolutely embedded in our community and corporate plan. On of the reasons we called it a community and corporate plan, rather than a corporate plan, was to really anchor it in this sense of collaboration and putting our residents first. At the heart of our CCP was tackling inequality, but also addressing the environment and nature crises that underpin the well-being of future generations Act, because without those two pillars, those goals can't be pulled through. So, our own goals are fair, are green, are prosperous—they're all there within our community and corporate plan. It was one of those instruments that was helpful for allowing us to deliberate in partnership across the council.

Thank you very much. My last question, swiftly, is this: how do you think people understand the Act throughout your organisations? Just a short answer, because we need to move on, I think.

I think, within the public sector, it's well thought about and well understood. There has been a wealth of training that goes on. In terms of the membership, we're a new council, with a 60 per cent turnover, and I think the older members have a much better understanding of the Act than the newer members. That includes myself. 

Robyn, I think you wanted to come in. 

Thank you. Just on the last question around challenges, I absolutely agree with Mary Ann that the greatest challenge is balancing the long-term focus of the Act with immediate financial pressures. Obviously, budgets are being set annually, funding—the shared prosperity fund, the levelling-up fund—is in some cases being extended on an annual basis, so that's a real challenge. Prior to joining Denbighshire, I was with Ambition North Wales, and obviously the growth deal funding is 15 years. I think that where we've got a longer time to look at delivery against the Act—. So, I do think there are other challenges to be considered as well.

With the growth deal, we worked really hard to consider the carbon impact and the nature impact of our 15-year investments, but the pressure wasn't so much about delivering on that part of the Act from the Welsh Government and obviously from UK Government involvement as well. But even from the Welsh Government, there wasn't a lot of pressure asking about the low-carbon, equalities, nature aspect of what we were delivering with the growth deal. That was very much coming from Ambition North Wales. We developed an approach that became a UK leadership case study in carbon and infrastructure, but there wasn't really much opportunity to share learnings from those experiences or feed that into wider learning with the Welsh Government or further.

I think the short-term funding is absolutely critical if we want to get a long-term preventative approach embedded in our public bodies. But I think there are challenges around innovation and risks and opportunities. But we need support from regional bodies, we need support from national bodies in being able to pilot these things and then support in sharing the learning, what's working and what's not working, so that when we take those kinds of risks—. We kind of felt penalised in some cases that now that the growth deal is in special measures, if you like, in a red warning, because it's not delivering fast enough, but it was trying to deliver on the Act in taking its time to really consider those issues around equalities and carbon and biodiversity. So, I think there's a balance and opportunity there.

And just with regard to the PSB and challenges there, one of the things that we're really conscious of as officers supporting the PSB is that we only have 16 hours of leadership time per year with the PSB leadership, so we try to maximise the value of those 16 hours, but we really need support for those leaders to be able to apply the sustainable development principles outside of the PSB, particularly—I think we're going to go into talking about wider partnerships—as they move between partnership bodies, how are they taking the well-being Act and applying those principles consistently through those other bodies. Thanks. 

Can I just continue with that, Robyn? You say you've only got 16 hours of leadership time, but that's a self-imposed restriction. There's nothing in the Act, or indeed in anything that the Welsh Government may have directed you to do, to prevent you pooling your budgets or integrating your leaderships. Could you just explain who decided there was only 16 hours of leadership time?

It's before I joined Denbighshire, so I don't know the exact process, but my understanding is that the PSBs are created as bodies outside of the local authority, so in terms of managing resources in financially constrained times, obviously we need to look at how those leaders are spending their time. We're looking to manage Denbighshire, we're involved in supporting the CJCs, and a range of other leadership boards as well. So, I would imagine that that decision was made probably consistent with other boards around quarterly meetings and the time dedicated. 

In terms of pooling funds, we are working with the other north Wales PSBs to pool funds, for example around the climate change risk assessment, and looking at doing the same for the next well-being assessment, and looking at doing those ourselves so that we're using the money not through consultants but through building capacity across the organisation. But with our workforce about a third down, it's really causing huge amounts of capacity pressure. So, it's smaller organisations and challenging workloads.

And with the amalgamation of your PSB with that of your neighbour in Conwy, has that alleviated any of the pressures, or is it too soon to say?

I think that's proving a really effective partnership to be delivering, and there is discussion of merging the three PSBs of north Wales, because we are working collaboratively across a number of projects, as I say. So, those discussions are ongoing. I don't know where they'll end up. But, certainly, in terms of Conwy and Denbighshire, we're really comfortable working together and that is proving a very effective partnership.

Okay. I just want to take you back to the earlier remark you made about the PSBs and the corporate joint committees both having well-being in their objectives. Could you just explain why there's a different attitude in one rather than the other when, in the main, it's the same organisations involved? I appreciate that NRW et cetera are not involved in the CJCs, but, in terms of local authorities, you're all the same people, basically. So, your 16 hours of leadership in the PSBs can be informing your role in the CJC, can't it?

We hope it is. I understand that we have raised the question around what does the CJC consider to be the definition of 'economic well-being', and we've put forward the commissioner's definition that's available on the commissioner's website. And I'm pleased to say that the leader of Denbighshire quite recently said that that discussion is happening. But, when we look at the proposed structure of the CJC around economic well-being, it's not immediately clear how that holistic approach to looking at well-being that we bring from the PSB is going to be reflected in the ways of working for the CJC. Obviously, it's an emerging structure, so these things change week to week and month to month, and I know that there's a lot of thought going into that. But the draft that I saw very clearly set out avenues for the private sector to feed into economic well-being discussions but not really any other well-being perspectives.

From my time in Ambition North Wales, if we had a question around environmental considerations for one of the infrastructure projects, we'd set up a meeting with NRW and talk with NRW; perhaps if there was a health consideration, we'd go and talk with the health board. However, the value that the PSB could bring is that those bodies are sitting around the table and can help to navigate the opportunities and the risks, if that was happening all in one space, rather than one-to-one discussions. And so, whatever that structure is, as both bodies have responsibility for economic well-being, I would just encourage there to be a shared definition and clarity on roles, and to ensure that the structure really does provide for a holistic look at the economic decisions that are being made, because the risks are that the value of the economic decisions is such that they take precedence beyond the other considerations of well-being. 

Mary Ann, I can see you've got your hand up. This is an important issue, is it not? You're all independent bodies in your own right. You're not just passive recipients of what the Welsh Government is recommending. Are you aware of how much discussion was had about the creation of yet another layer of corporate joint committees on top of the PSBs? I appreciate that you're a new chair.

I should declare an interest—not everyone will be aware that I am chair of Cardiff capital region. I would point you in the direction, as a committee, of the Cardiff capital region well-being statement, in which it look at how it aligned with the well-being goals and the ways of working of the future generations Act. My understanding was, with the CJC, because it is now a legal entity and has the same requirements as any other public body, that actually the interrogation that it needs to go through is far greater than a PSB because of that.

I would come back to an earlier point that both I and Robyn have made, which is when, as a leader, but also as a county council, we're looking at partnership and collaboration, we are looking as to where those partnerships will add value not for us, but for our residents in terms of the outcomes and impacts of the work that we do. The CJC, because it was responsible for the regional transport strategy, it will be responsible for the strategic development plan, and, in the case of Cardiff, has had a housing viability gap fund. We can see where it can take up parts of the well-being goals in a way that PSB can't do, and, for me, it's about alignment or really thinking through the space in which the region is operating, and the region is really important because Denbighshire and Conwy may have very different priorities a different sense of place and identity than south-east Wales CJC. And that's fine; the flexibility is there, and the flexibility is there to work with the other regional bodies.

It's a truism, globally, that it is actually quite difficult to work in partnership for a sustained, long-term approach that is focused on outcome, and if it was easy, we'd all be doing it. We don't all do outputs, because we just want to have the easy life. Far from it. My view, having spent three years in local government now, is that the level of commitment that individuals as well as politicians have to the Act, but also to collaboration and partnership, is really strong in Wales, and it's something that we should be proud about, but the challenges of sustaining collaboration in times of high risk, high uncertainty, low resources and short-term settlements make it really difficult—really difficult—particularly when there are statutory obligations that have to be met and where the PSB, the investment of time, in order to get a collaboration in place that would allow for prevention, when staff are already squeezed, and we run on a shoestring, quite frankly. So, to make that space is extremely difficult. Putting our heads up above the parapet, also thinking carefully about how we can reflect and work together and step back from that everyday reaction isn't impossible, and we see good practice all across Wales, as the written report from the WLGA showed, but it's very, very hard work, and I think that does need to be acknowledged as we go forward.

Finally from me, then, part of this is about culture, and we're talking to the voluntary sector later on this afternoon, and the Co-production Network for Wales suggested that local authority culture heavily shapes PSBs due to their role in hosting and facilitating meetings. What action have PSBs that you are involved in taken to ensure that every voice in the room is as important as the other? Shall we start with Wayne first?

Yes, thank you. Obviously I can speak on behalf of the Gwent PSB. Within our area, we have ensured that we have local sub-groups of officers to ensure that any decision being made is supported with evidence across the piece, involving all partners, because, as you're right in saying, often, PSBs, and especially the organisation of PSBs, are driven by local authorities. Specifically across Gwent, obviously, that's a little complicated, because there are five of us.

Initially, it was managed by one local authority. That's recently changed, as to the management, but each of the local authorities do regularly meet together to ensure that the leaders and chief execs from a local authority perspective, but also with a wider organisational perspective, have all the information necessary in order to make decisions. That's, obviously, initially developed through the well-being assessments that are carried out across the area, and the development of our well-being plans and priorities would come out of that.

Within Gwent, we have a number of areas of focus, such as the best start in life and around climate change, so it is showing there's evidence and clear leadership driven by a member of the PSB, supported by senior leadership across each organisation to drive that work forward from a Gwent perspective, from a more regional perspective, to add that value in that respect and not—. In relation to that, prior to the Gwent PSB being in place, obviously, in Newport, I can speak more closely on that. So, in Newport, which was, as I mentioned before, our former PSB, we've consistently had a strong partnership link, approach and representation at our local partnerships. That's even continued moving towards the Gwent PSB. When Newport's continuing to meet on a quarterly basis, our partners have still been involved in that process to support delivery of our local plans, because, as I'm sure any public body will say, we can't deliver on services and supporting our residents on our own; we have to do that in collaboration, as both Robyn and Councillor Brocklesby have already mentioned—so, working together to deliver on the outcomes for residents. That's been clear from our own organisation's perspective, and our chief exec is really clear on what it does mean, where a decision is being made.

I will touch on one fact in relation to something that was previously mentioned around understanding, which is that all our reports that go through our democratic process do include a section on the well-being of future generations Act, and that's part of the process to show how we've used the five ways of working in order to achieve the seven well-being goals, and that's from a report perspective to our council, our cabinet, our cabinet members, our scrutiny committees, or any other committees, but also as part of the fairness and equality impact assessments that were carried out based on those reports. They also have a section on the five ways of working, so authors and people making decisions are clear on the impact it has not only on our own organisation and our delivery, but also from an integrated perspective, thinking about the impact it will have on other organisations' well-being objectives.

Thank you, Wayne. Robyn, the well-being of future generations commissioner talks about the need to rebuild trust in decision making. Thinking about the Conwy-Denbighshire PSB, what's the single most important thing that helps you ensure that the deliberations of the PSB are also those of the communities you serve?

Thank you. So, obviously, the timing of this is—. Where we are, it's about four years into delivery against the well-being assessment and well-being plan, so, when we developed that plan, there was extensive consultation across Conwy and Denbighshire. It was 2021, so not long after COVID times, and so a lot of that was online, whereas normally that would have been done in person, both engaging individual groups as well as particularly reaching out to those individuals and groups who may be harder to engage and harder to reach. There was extensive engagement of young people both in school and out of school, so a real effort to understand opportunities and challenges and build the well-being objectives from that input.

We've done a recent assessment of how we're doing against that with, obviously, a year or so to go in the current period, and generally doing well against a lot of the areas. I think the challenge I've mentioned around who's leading on economic well-being, that's an area that we're picking up with the CJC and Ambition North Wales. But I think, as we look to the next period of planning, both for the PSB and the well-being assessment, as well as our own corporate plan, which derives from that assessment, we are really conscious of a number of trends that we know will make that process harder. We know that the Office for National Statistics are reporting declining trust in national and local governments, so down from 42 per cent in 2022 to 35 per cent in 2023, and also really stubborn inequality across the region, feeding into further distrust. So, we are looking at ways that we can do things differently. We’re still having a discussion with Conwy and the PSB about their involvement, but, for Denbighshire, we’re looking at a long-term visioning process, so looking at least to 2050 and perhaps as far forward as 2100 and looking at exploring a process that co-produces a vision to that point in the future, potentially starting with the visions for young people and then bringing in wider perspectives through a deliberative process, involving Polis, which is an online digital tool, which has proved successful—

Robyn, can I ask you to—? Sioned Williams wanted to just ask a supplementary and then if you could give me a brief answer.

Yes. It's just going back very quickly, actually, to something that Wayne said as well and it addresses the point that Robyn's making about hearing the citizen's voice. What I think leads to a lot of this distrust is that people don't feel that the well-being objectives, the five ways of working, are evident in decisions, and it comes to the part where you've both talked about inconsistencies, I suppose. I was interested in Wayne describing how he feels that the well-being plan is trickling down and the ways of working do trickle down into those decisions brought before council et cetera, and in reports. For instance, in my region, there's been an application to build a fast food restaurant right next door to a comprehensive school, and because the local authority said that they didn't have a planning policy that prevents that happening within their LDP, they couldn't use that as a basis, for instance, whereas they were aware that other authorities did that. And then people don't understand—'Well, hang on. How does this fit in with a healthier Wales? How does this fit in with the best start in life, et cetera, inequality?' So, I'm wondering if you could just give me—. Is that your experience? That's an experience that I've had locally as a representative, and people losing faith, therefore, in the processes that are meant to, and the boards and the committees that are meant to, ensure that this happens. Is that your experience—not on this specific thing, but more generally? 

I was actually in a school recently and just gave a very similar example; young people were being asked what they wanted for Denbighshire, and I was there in a PSB capacity, and I was talking about the role of the PSB in bringing these different perspectives. And some of the young people there were asking for chippies; other young people were asking for more green space. And so I used those two examples. I know it's not quite—. It was young people, year 7. So, I was trying to explain that the PSB brings these different perspectives together around a table, so, looking at balancing the demands of business—to have a chippy—or the demands of children with the health impacts of that, or the demands of construction companies and property developers with NRW's perspective on green space, or the local authority's perspective. So, I do absolutely see that, and I think that's a really live question in our communities.

I think that the challenge that we are experiencing—and opportunity—is that I think the question maybe needs to be slightly different than, 'What do we want in our communities?', which is often a starting point. And what we want to do with the visioning process I mentioned is reflect, 'Well, this is what we understand the future to hold in terms of financial challenges for the council and public bodies; this is what climate impacts we can expect', and then to reflect those wants—'What do we want for Denbighshire, and what do we want for the region?'—against those future perspectives, those future scenarios, and then get to, 'What do we need? Can we get those in place first?', and then build from there.

The tool I mentioned, Polis, does provide an opportunity to really start to get into some of the nuance of different opinions around this and show where there is consensus and where there is divergence of opinion, so that those areas can be better explored through the discussions. So, we're not just having, 'Well, I didn't get what I wanted. I said this and I didn't get it. So, therefore, I feel disillusioned', but to work through the nuance.

We've tried to do that—just a last point—quite recently to some degree through what we've called a citizen's voice report in Denbighshire, where we've brought together—. We asked stakeholders in our annual survey how they're feeling, and the results were pretty bad, pretty negative. But then, when we've asked, for example, about how people in social housing are feeling, they're feeling fairly positive about their housing. But that contrasts with the kind of wider question, and even—. And the same with staff: when stakeholders are asked how staff are doing in Denbighshire, the answer can be discouraging. But, when staff are asked, it's actually a more positive picture. So, trying to really work through that nuance is really where we're at with Denbighshire, and I obviously hope to bring that forward with the PSB and share learning. 

Okay, thank you. We need to move on. I just want to remind us that we were supposed to be finishing in 10 minutes. So, if everybody could be speedy in their questions and speedy in their answers—. We will extend it a bit because we want to cover three more areas. So, Jane Dodds. 

Thank you. It's difficult to say directly about Welsh Government specifically. What I can say is that I know that, recently, they've been going through some changes. I think that the area of the well-being of future generations Act has changed teams and changed Cabinet Secretary in relation to that, which should really help, I think. So, more recently, there's been a little bit of a void, as those changes have been made in relation to that.

But what I would say, from a Welsh Government perspective, is that, around the Act and the guidance that's provided to support the Act, as we've just reached our 10-year anniversary, it would be beneficial for the guidance, especially around the Act, to be revisited and amended, especially given that, in those 10 years, there have been lots of changes—new legislation, new partnerships have come through. So, having a bit more clarity around the links between the different partnerships from the Act's point of view—so, around the PSBs, but how they interact with the RPBs, with the CJCs, which we've already talked about, and other partnerships that are taking place, for that clarity and understanding of where aspects of that work sit. Sometimes, that's fairly easy, but then, sometimes, there's quite a lot of crossover in that period regarding that. So, having that clarity around the actual legislation, around the guidance that really supports the upcoming assessments, the development of our upcoming plans, but just generally around the Act and how it sits in the wider scale, as I said, given that there have been 10 years of the Act—.

Obviously, new Acts and legislation have come in since then, especially the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023. Obviously, the links between them have been clear in relation to that, with, obviously, the change to the prosperous Wales well-being goal, from decent work to fair work. So, that's been shown in that respect. So, yes, I would say that I think it will settle down. Locally, we've had meetings with the Welsh Government, the new Welsh Government team who's responsible for that. Clearly, where it sits now within Welsh Government will help, moving forward, because a lot of the portfolios are now more aligned within that. Because, sometimes, that can be an issue, where different parts of the Welsh Government are not always linking together in relation to that. But I think this will definitely help, moving forward.

Thank you. Just very quickly, I think, first of all, really three asks, I guess: that, where grant funding is issued, can it be more embedded in the principles of the Act—for example, requiring evidence of progress towards well-being outcomes; additional funding to then assess the progress that's being made and share learnings—that the Act becomes more central in assessments, such as Treasury assurance reviews and panel performance assessments, and, thirdly, I know that there is tension between local authority expertise and Welsh Government—there can be tension there—but really welcoming additional challenge, if there is expertise on how to better deliver an economic strategy, or a particular project that Welsh Government stands ready, to really raise the question of, 'Can we raise the bar further in line with what the Act's trying to deliver and provide robust challenge?' Diolch.

Two things. I thought long and hard about, 'Could it do more?' There's the amplification issue—amplification of what is working, what isn't, where the challenges are, that whole issue about risk, and risk in the context of the Act. The second point I would make is: should a legal framework be the driving force, or should it be policy and culture that are the driving force? If it is a legal framework, you are talking about enforcement, and it does risk, therefore, becoming very prescriptive and responding to requirements, rather than the cultural, behavioural and organisational shifts that we have talked about in various ways during the course of this committee. And I think we should ask ourselves that question collectively in Wales.

Okay, fine. I think we're probably going to need to ask for some further evidence in written form subsequently. Could I just call Sioned Williams now to talk about the role of the commissioner and the auditor general?

Who wants to go first? Mary Ann.

I'll leave it to somebody else. Sorry, I had a message come through that I had to look at. I apologise.

Okay, fine. Robyn.

Diolch. Obviously, there's been a quite recent change in commissioner, and, I think, from Denbighshire's perspective, we've really valued the change in approach. I think the first commissioner did a brilliant job of raising the profile of the Act and getting it out there and known. The new commissioner's efforts to provide additional support and delivery have been really well received by the PSB partners. The training, which includes north Wales, and opportunities to send teams on training around that, has been really welcome. There are a lot of recommendations in his recent report, so we're still working our way through those, but the report as a whole has been well received and we're pleased to take the opportunity to respond. So, we're really pleased with the direction of travel.

With regard to the roles, yes, we are clear on the difference between the roles. We would understand that the commissioner's role is about championing the Act, advocating for it both with public bodies and Welsh Government and members, supporting its implementation and delivery, and championing the voice of future generations, where the auditor general is more of an assessor-type role, kind of on the 'How's it going?', looking back kind of perspective. So, yes, I think that's it.

Until this question was asked I didn't realise that people would think there was an overlap between the audit office and the commissioner. They have very clear different remits. Leaving that aside, I think there is a greater role for the commissioner to challenge. If we look at other commissioners in Wales, they clearly do challenge and hold to account the Government around older people and children. I think the commissioner is speaking on behalf of the people of Wales, in a sense, and I think there is an opportunity for that to occur. It's partly a relationship thing, it's also partly personalities, but there's nothing, I think, in the role of the commissioner that doesn't allow for that challenge and accountability function.

Thank you. I just want to echo—I agree with the two panel members—that the support from the commissioner is really vital. What we've really found useful is the way that they're able to bring partners together to discuss specific topics, provide additional training around areas like long term and prevention, and get us to think about that to take it back into our own authorities. I agree on the whole challenge issue, but also the support the office provides to both the local authorities and the PSBs in supporting that work, identifying best practice in relation to that, and also training, bringing people together. That's been really helpful in helping us deliver on the Act back in our own local authority, and also as part of the PSB.

Thank you. Altaf Hussain.

Thank you very much, Chair. My area is really enforcement and evaluation. Many criticise the Act for not being effectively enforced. Do you agree, and how can we encourage public bodies to follow it while holding them responsible? 

Who wants to go first? Robyn.

I think, as Mary Ann said well, around enforcement and the role of the Act, is the role of the Act enforcement? To my mind, I think that there's a high level of synergy across a number of key other pieces of legislation, such as the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, the Planning (Wales) Act 2015, and to my mind those are the enforcement tools rather than the well-being Act, which to my mind is more about a culture change and building behaviour change and providing a north star for where we want to get to. But I do feel frustrated sometimes when we encounter blatant disregard for key elements of the Act, and things like environmental incidents, which these days we would hope to avoid, and we wish there were more tools such as fines or enforcement that could really help dissuade repeat offenders so that they would take seriously those breaches of environment law in particular. I don't think the Act is the right mechanism for that enforcement, but I do think for some agencies, some bodies to take nature seriously, their impact on climate seriously, that maybe more enforcement is needed, and not just more token fines that can be paid without too much thought. So, yes, that's what I think.

Anybody else? Mary Ann. 

I don't disagree with Robyn. As I said earlier, I don't think the Act should be the driver in itself. It's set the framework to allow us to think differently, enact other laws, as Robyn touched on, that could allow us to enforce around environmental but also social issues, as we know.

Thank you very much. Wayne, any addition to that? 

Yes, just a quick one from my perspective. I agree with both the panel members, but what I would say is actually demonstrating the benefits of using the Act, the principles of the Act and the five ways of working in decisions being made, then that really helps drive and change the culture within organisations moving forward, to show actually that utilising the principles of the Act and the five ways of working can really strengthen the decision being made, and also that it doesn't disproportionately impact on certain populations and protected characteristics around that as well. So, yes, that's all to add from my point of view.

Thank you very much. My last question, and last question to the panel probably, is that the Welsh Government is planning to evaluate the Act. Based on your talk today, what are the most important things to look at—effectiveness and impact, impact on stakeholders, implementation challenges, unintended consequences, which you were talking about, data and evidence, future adaptability? Is there a particular aspect of the Act or its impact you would like to explore further? 

I would like to add in about the alphabet soup. Should we amalgamate CJCs and PSBs, and if not, why not?

It's open to you all. Robyn, thank you.

Thanks. I think that honest discussions with our communities around future risks are needed, and the time and capacity to have those conversations in a way that lands will help rebuild some of the lost trust. But we need to make the space for that.

Anything further? 

Given that the Act takes a holistic approach, I think an evaluation has to be holistic in response as well. I'm not sure it would be that helpful to pick and mix. I would want to evaluate against effectiveness and efficiency, but also against equity—how does it play out, not just geographically, but also socially and economically? I would like to evaluate against its relevance now as it was 10 years ago. And I would like to also think about the value added that it has brought to different citizens. I believe the evaluation should not be based on those who are implementing it, but from the perspective of all of us. Because all of us in this room, we may be working in public bodies, but we're also impacted by the tenets of the Act.

With regard to the alphabet soup, I hesitate to say this, because any time we want to kick something into the long grass, we call for a review. I wouldn't want to amalgamate for the sake of it. I would like to step back and ask ourselves, 'What actually works?' Rather than having to collaborate, asking 'What actually works?', and allowing us to collaborate effectively in ways that really shift to thinking about the outcomes and impacts. There are pros and cons. Clearly, whatever we may think about PSBs in terms of how they've supported us, as yet they're unproven in their ability to show impact. As yet they're unproven in their ability to show outcome at a definitive level. So are CJCs, younger bodies, but we also have the regional partnership boards, which do get funding but aren't linked to the PSBs, but are focused on well-being in a wider way. So, I think there is need for a very thoughtful conversation and deliberation around what the regional structure should look like, because one thing I think we all agree on is that there are areas where working regionally is much better in terms of outcomes. I'd like a regional transport strategy, for example. But also tackling the housing crisis, I'm sure people would work with others.

Thank you. Thank you very much. We have run out of time. We very much appreciate your contributions. We'll be sending you a transcript, so that you can ensure that we've captured your ideas correctly, but we may have one or two additional questions that we might want to ask you to respond in writing to. Thank you very much indeed. The committee will now take a short break, and we'll be starting again with our second of four sessions.

Thank you very much, Chair, and committee. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll be starting again at one o'clock, so if we could just be back at five to one, that would be great. Thank you.

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

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

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

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

Thank you. Sumina, or—.

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

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

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

Yes. 

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

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

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

Philip.

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

Thank you. Fen.

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

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

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

Thank you. Sumina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. What about Cwm Taf Morgannwg?

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the process?

Yes, setting the objectives. 

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

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

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

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

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. 

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

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

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

‘increasingly overwhelmed with preventable diseases and accidents’;

‘an act of collective self-sabotage’.

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

Is that for me, Chair?

Yes, to start with.

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

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

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

Indeed. Sioned Williams. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk about PSBs.

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

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

Yes. In some areas, it works well.

Does that help the joining up of dots?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about your sentence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very good.

Thank you. Sioned Williams.

Is there time? No?

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

I missed that.

Who wants to start?

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

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

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

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

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

Fen.

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

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

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

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

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

Does anybody else want to come in?

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

Value for money.

Yes, exactly. But there is that crossover.

Yes. Excellent. Can I call in Altaf Hussain?

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

Who goes first?

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

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

Thank you very much. Anybody else?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. Can I now call in Julie Morgan?

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely. 

Thank you. Philip.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was to Philip, actually. 

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

Thank you. Do you agree with that?

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

Right. And then the last question, really—

Could Sioned just come in first? Sioned Williams. 

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

Shall we go to Philip first?

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

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

Did you want to comment, Geoff?

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

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

Yes, we'll bring something back on that.

Very good. Julie, your last question.

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

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

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

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

Do I feel it's a different organisation—?

Has there been a real impact or not? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thirteen.

Thirteen now. Okay.

They've gone down, thank goodness. 

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

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

Yes, absolutely. 

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

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

Now, I'm calling Jane Dodds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay. Shall we start with Philip?

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

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

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

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

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

Geoff.

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

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

Shall I go first on that one? 

Go ahead.

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

Philip.

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

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

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

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

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

Not as yet, no. 

Okay, thank you. Altaf Hussain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philip, would you like to go first?

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

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

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

Thank you. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diolch.

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

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

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

Hazel wanted to come in, Sioned.

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

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

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

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

There is already—

Diolch, Cadeirydd.

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

Hazel.

Thank you. Julie Morgan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jane just wanted to come in. 

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

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

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

Julie.