National Assembly for Wales

Bore da. Croeso. Good morning and welcome to this morning's meeting of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee in the Senedd. The meeting, as always, is bilingual and headsets provide simultaneous translation on channel 1 and sound amplification on channel 2. Participants joining online can access translation by clicking on the globe icon on Zoom. Do Members have any declarations of registrable interest that they wish to declare at this point?

Okay, thank you for that. And no other Members have any matters? No. Just for public awareness, there is a register of interests on which all Members' interests must be declared, accessible publicly on the Senedd website.

We've had one apology today, from Rhiannon Passmore, but we welcome Alun Davies, who is substituting for her at this meeting.

We have several papers to note, received during the summer recess, the first being a letter from Andrew Slade, director, economy, energy and transport in the Welsh Government, to myself as Chair regarding Cardiff Airport. The director general, economy, energy and transport wrote to this committee drawing our attention to a written statement issued by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning on 9 July. The statement related to the Welsh Government's economic investment package for Cardiff Airport and confirmed that the Welsh Government has received formal notice that Bristol Airport is challenging the decision of the Welsh Ministers by way of an appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. This committee will want to monitor the progress of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, and we note that the date of the hearing of the appeal is scheduled for the week starting 9 February 2026, with an estimated time of two days for that.

Members who have been here previously will recall that we postponed evidence sessions with the Welsh Government on this topic because of the ongoing commercial sensitivities and legal process. I wrote to officials in July asking to be provided with regular updates so that members of the committee are aware of the latest position, and I requested that quarterly updates be provided even if the position is unchanged. I'm sure that Members will agree that we want to understand more about the time frames for the tribunal process to establish whether a scrutiny session will be possible before dissolution of this Senedd next April. The committee may wish to consider writing again to follow up on its previous request, because the letter received does not directly address our queries. Members, do you have any comments on the letter? No indication of comment. Would you support the proposal that we write to follow up on our previous request?

Yes.

Thank you, Mike. No objection to that? Thank you. And are you otherwise content to note the letter? Thank you very much.

In that case, we move on to paper to note 2, a letter received from Manon Antoniazzi, the Chief Executive and Clerk of the Senedd, to the Chair, myself, providing an update on recommendations from the committee's report on the scrutiny of the Senedd Commission accounts 2023-24, and I note the interest declared by Adam Price in this context. The Chief Executive and Clerk of the Senedd has written to provide us with further updates, as agreed in her initial response letter of 17 February this year, to the recommendations from our report on the scrutiny of the Senedd accounts 2023-24. The letter contains some confidential annexes, which we can discuss in private later in today's meeting. I suggest we consider the letter as part of our scrutiny of the Senedd Commission accounts for 2024-25 later this term. Members, do you have any comments on the letter? And are you, therefore, content to note the letter? I take that as affirmation. So, yes, thank you.

The third paper to note is a letter received from Carolyn Thomas, Chair of the Petitions Committee, which was sent to the Chair of the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee, and myself as Chair of this committee, regarding petition P-06-1506, which calls for an end to further public funding for cycle paths and cycle infrastructure in Wales. Carolyn has written to us regarding this petition, drawing our attention, given our current inquiry into active travel in Wales. The Petitions Committee have agreed that, given the level of detailed scrutiny in the Senedd and by Audit Wales of this matter, there was not much more that they could do. They also agreed to close the petition. This committee will be reporting on our inquiry in, quote, 'the near future'. Members, do you have any comments, or are you content to note the letter?

I'm content to note the letter. I like 'the near future' reply, Mark—obviously training to be a Minister. Have we any idea when 'the near future' is going to be?

That's a good question. I think you e-mailed about this during the summer, and you got a similar response. Mr Davies.

A draft report will be coming to you in the next week.

Thank you.

In the next week?

So, a fortnight's time. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Other than that, are you content to note?

Yes.

Thank you very much indeed. Our fourth paper to note has been received from the First Minister, Eluned Morgan, and sent to the Rt Hon Elin Jones MS and the Chairs' forum, regarding the work of Senedd committees. We've been copied into this correspondence between the First Minister and the Llywydd, highlighting the First Minister's concerns about the volume of recommendations made by committees to the Welsh Government. The letter states, and I quote:

'If the current volume continues, the government is likely to need to reject more recommendations going forward to ensure we can continue to focus on delivering for the people of Wales.'

The First Minister also states that she is, quote,

'keen to get to a position where Committees, in carrying out their work, concentrate on fewer recommendations, with a focus on specific and clearly defined recommendations which will have the greatest impact as appropriate to the matter under consideration.'

Do Members wish to comment?

I'll kick off, if that's okay with you, Mark. I've got four comments on this. I think that committees produce far too many recommendations, but it's not for the First Minister to say how many recommendations she wants; that is for the committees. The second point is that I am, the other way around, hugely disappointed with the number of recommendations that actually get both accepted and implemented. I think that perhaps we need a list of what's been implemented from the recommendations. Because the easy answer is 'accept in principle', which means, 'We don't like it, but we're not prepared to have an argument about it.' The third point is that I think there needs to be a meeting with the First Minister and others with the Chairs, who send recommendations, to discuss exactly where the Welsh Government have a problem, instead of saying, 'We don't like all those recommendations.' And fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, the end of 'accept in principle' needs to be in there. I find 'accept in principle' a bit mealy mouthed. If you're not going to do it, you're actually rejecting it. 'Accept in principle', as I said earlier, it's just a reason not to have a row over it, but, 'We're not going to do anything about it.'

Thank you. Alun Davies.

I think it's perfectly fair and reasonable for the First Minister and the Welsh Government to take a view on these things. I don't think there's an issue with that. And it's perfectly fair and reasonable for the Government and the Senedd to have a conversation on these things. Myself, Adam and Mike sit on the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, and many of our recommendations, of course, are correcting the mistakes of Government. If Government made fewer mistakes, we'd make fewer recommendations. So, I think there's a point to be made there, and I think we can push back on that.

But I think Mike's wider point is that it is important that the tension that should and quite rightly exists between Government and the legislature is tested every so often, and that we are robust in making recommendations that we think we need to make, and that will vary on different matters. So, it would be useful, I think—it might be a job for LJC, actually—to take a wider view of the recommendations and what happens to those recommendations from Government, over this last Senedd, for example, to actually inform a conversation about this. We have had conversations about these matters in other committees, and there is a meeting taking place between the Presiding Officer and the Counsel General to discuss some of these matters, but I think that conversation needs to be informed, rather than us working on the basis of what we think is the case. So, it would be useful if we asked, perhaps, LJC to actually do a piece of work on this, which would inform our conversation.

Thank you. Tom Giffard.

No huge disagreement with anything that's been said by either Alun or Mike so far. So, so as not to repeat anything, I won't go over the points that have already been made, but I thought I'd just focus on the line about specific and clearly defined recommendations. I would also apply that to the outcomes of the recommendations then by Government, which are not always clearly defined and focused. And it ties back, I suppose, to Mike's earlier point about the progress against those recommendations. So, if the Government wishes committees to be clearer in its recommendations, it needs to be clearer in its responses to those recommendations about the work it is prepared to undertake, where it accepts them, timescales et cetera.

Thank you. Adam, do you have any comments?

Yes, sure. As Alun has said, there have been parallel discussions on a similar theme, certainly in our committee, in the LJC committee. I think, as the Chair of that committee just said, there is a fundamental principle in terms of, if you like, the separation of powers—that it's not ultimately for Ministers to tell Senedd committees how to do their work in the absolute sense, because we're there to scrutinise Government, not Government to scrutinise us. And I think that's an important principle, ultimately, as has been said. Committees need to make their own decisions about how they fulfil their remit and their purpose.

But I think it works both—. I think dialogue is good, but there's a quid pro quo, because if you go back to the early period of the National Assembly, then committees there, because of the model of governance at that time, were seen as having more of a shared policy development role, and so you had major inquiries that were actually determinative of policy. So, they were looking more at the macro and the big picture, rather than the fine detail of the micro, which many of the recommendations from committee reports currently engage in. Well, if the Government want to go back to fewer recommendations, which are more big picture, then, okay, that's a discussion worth having, but the quid pro quo is that those big-picture reports and smaller recommendations then need to have some effect, don't they? So, it kind of works both ways a little bit.

I also think that the context is different, isn't it? As Alun said, there are some committees who do a valuable role in doing that forensic, almost line-by-line identification of particular issues that need solving. What the First Minister, in the evidence she gave to the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister, was saying was, 'Look, we can't do everything, and many of the recommendations involved additional expenditure, et cetera, and it's not possible for us to accept all of them, et cetera.' But I think it's important to recognise that some of the micro-level recommendations have value, and Government shouldn't see them as criticism always, but actually see them as useful, because committee inquiries can be an additional antenna of information gathering that provides then a channel of information, problem identification and solutions to help with the effectiveness of government in total, rather than seeing it as an additional burden.

So, it does depend on the context, but I think it's certainly worth sitting down to see, ‘Well, look, how do we make governance in total work better?’ But if there's a change in the role of committees as a result of that, then Government needs to honour its implied promise that if there are fewer and more focused recommendations, more of them are going to be implemented.

Thank you. I was party to some of those early inquiries pre 2007, when we were technically a single corporate body, and the relevant Minister and civil servants would attend and be members of that committee. I would suggest that we looked at macro and micro, but the way we did it was different, and of course, we didn't have the full legislative scrutiny that we have now.

A number of formal proposals were made. Mike suggested that we seek a meeting with the First Minister and the Chairs. Alun suggested that we refer this to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for them to consider this in greater detail and advise on, perhaps, a way forward. Do Members have a view on whether we should accept either or both? Obviously, Mike and Alun have declared theirs, but in terms of pursuing—

I don't think these proposals were exclusive, by the way. I don't think these proposals were exclusive. 

No. So, in terms of Mike's proposal that we propose a meeting with the Chairs and the First Minister, are you content, and given this letter was originally sent to the Llywydd as Chair of the Chairs’ forum, to propose that the First Minister attends a meeting with the Chairs’ forum to discuss this? Okay.

And then Alun's proposal that we also then write to LJC on the basis he outlined, are Members content with that proposal? Thank you.

In terms of 'accept in principle', as you are well aware because we've discussed it many times, in 2018 the then Permanent Secretary told the then Public Accounts Committee that that practice would stop after these concerns were raised by members of PAC at that time. Unfortunately, it continues, and as you know, when I've responded as Chair of this committee in the Chamber on some of our reports, I've made that point each time that that term has been used. Nonetheless, I think the point Mike made about the need to establish what actions have actually been taken on recommendations accepted, perhaps that should also incorporate the actions included under the 'accept in principle' responses, when often the reason given is that alternative action is being taken or is planned to be taken. So, what's happened with that? Those are my thoughts. So, if Members are otherwise content to note the letter on the basis we'll take those actions—I suspect, I think, you are—we shall move on to paper to note 5.

I think Members yesterday were circulated with a letter received from the chief executive and chair of Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, sent to me as Chair regarding the governance arrangements at the health board and an update on the accounting issues that occurred at the health board in 2021-22. The health board had previously provided us with information regarding this through written correspondence and evidence provided in attendance at a private session. The chief executive and chair of the board gave us a commitment to keep us updated, and the letter directs us to

'a final summary report on this matter, the context, learning points drawn out and the action taken.'

Before I invite Members to comment, auditor general, do you have any comments you would like to make on this letter?
 

Thank you, Chair. Well, if I start just with one minor point, just to register on the record: we did raise with the board one or two technical observations about how they describe the scope of our audit work. The board accepts our comments, and I understand that will be changed on the record in future. They're not matters of significance that need trouble the committee.

More generally, in fairness to the health board, I think it's worth me registering that the 2024-25 accounts were delivered to us to deadline and to a high standard. We have certainly seen, through our work at the board, some definite improvement, not only in the management of financial matters, but also in some wider corporate governance arrangements and in recruiting to some senior business-critical roles.

That said, of course, there remains a huge amount for the board to do in terms of establishing a stable, high-performing senior team, developing a longer term strategy, an organisational structure, and an operating model that is fit for purpose. And we are, through our wider performance audit work at the board, also seeing some significant ongoing challenges for the board, as we are for the wider NHS.

Thank you. Members, do you have any thoughts or comments?

Thank you. Certainly, we have taken evidence directly in committee from some of the former members previously, in order to gain their perspective at that point. Personally, as an individual, I'd be sympathetic to that proposal. But would committee members be supportive of Adam's proposal? There's no objection to that. Could we approach them and see whether they wish to comment?

We can write to them and I'll invite comment.

Thank you. Do you have any other thoughts or comments, Members?

One point I'd like to make—. I should declare that I've spent many, many, many hours sitting in the accident and emergency department in Wrexham Maelor over the last few months, for various reasons, not always happy reasons. And I’ve noticed, for example, that the screen that tells you how long you’ve got to wait is now permanently switched off, but, to their credit, they’re now coming around delivering sandwiches to people, particularly those who are the patients, who’ve had to wait for long periods, which is something you don’t always get. So, there are some nice touches, but some of the core issues persist.

I’ve had a number of meetings with major third sector providers, who remain concerned that their ability to deliver the services they provide alongside the health board are still being compromised by a failure to secure responses—timely responses—and by, as I say, less favourable funding than in all the other parts of Wales. So, these concerns have been raised by hospices, and I met St David’s who made the announcement on the beds in Holyhead, and had a meeting with some other Members with Adferiad, which, as you know, is the largest social care and support charity in Wales. They run, jointly with the health board, the north Wales detox unit in Wrexham, which is no longer fit for purpose, so they’re proposing to relocate to the former premises used for blind veterans in Llandudno. And they’re unable thus far, or up to last week, to secure the necessary responses from the health board, so they’re considering having to go it alone. And that seems unusual, given that, in Wrexham, they’re working from health board-owned premises.

So, there are obviously niggles in the system that are still strangely compromising vital services that are delivered in parallel with, and sometimes jointly with, the health board. But that’s only an observation as a North Wales Member that I wish to add. So, we’ll attempt to proceed on the basis proposed, and if there are no other comments, and you’re prepared to note the letter, I shall move on to paper to note 6.

This is a response received from the Cabinet Secretary for Education, with an update on the Welsh Government’s response to our report, 'Supply and Demand: Covering Teachers’ Absence'. We received the Welsh Government’s response in February, and although it broadly accepted all our recommendations, some of the responses caused us concern, with many of the timescales for action remaining unclear. Furthermore, several of the actions identified were associated with the new strategic education workforce plan, which had, at the time, only recently been announced by the Cabinet Secretary. There were also several points in the response that committed to providing an update in due course, which we have not received.

Given that a reasonable amount of time had then lapsed since the response was received by us, I requested a full update on the action taken in response to our recommendations, and for that to be received by early September. I also requested that the update should include an explanation in any cases where matters may not have progressed as anticipated, and to provide clearer timescales than in the original response for further action.

The letter from the Cabinet Secretary does not include a full update, or a detailed explanation of where matters have not progressed, and does not provide an explanation of why not. It only commits to further engagement on the development of the strategic education workforce plan during autumn of this year, with an update on proposed plans to be shared with this committee in the autumn.

Given that we previously noted the timescales for action in response to our recommendations were unclear in the original Welsh Government response, Members may wish to hold a short evidence session with officials for an update towards the end of this autumn term, or alternatively early in 2026, to inform our legacy report, rather than just rely on further exchanges of correspondence.

Before, again, I ask Members if they wish to comment, could I invite the auditor general to make any comments he may have? 

I've nothing to add to your own comments, Mark.

Thank you. Members. Tom. 

I think that that letter says absolutely nothing, considering the things that you outlined that you asked for in the initial letter. There's a line about it being 

'important that this work proceeds at pace, but it also essential that we take the time'.

It doesn't mean anything. It does not mean anything, and given the timescales that you've referenced and mentioned, given that we've seen headlines just this week about the decline in the number of Welsh language teachers, for example, there is a clear need to crack on with this strategic education workforce plan, and there doesn't seem to be a timescale whatsoever in the letter. So, I do think that we need further evidence on this. 

Alun.

Tom's reference to the issue of Welsh language teachers is interesting, because there has been a net decline, you're right, but there has actually been a significant increase in the number of teachers recruited. What there hasn't been is the maintenance of teachers in the profession. People are leaving. And that's where you get the numbers from. So, I think that the issue is more profound than simply recruitment, and I think that it's about where the profession is at the moment. And I would suspect that it's not limited to teachers who teach through the medium of Welsh. So, I think that there is a useful piece of work to be done around that. I'm not going to comment on the letter itself, but we've been discussing supply teaching and the rest of it for many, many years, and I suspect that there is a requirement for a solution to the problems that we've been discussing, rather than another report on the problems.

Perhaps I should declare at this point that one of my sons has been a supply teacher and he's just started a new job as a teaching assistant in Flintshire. I'd better put that on the record, just in case. Mike.

My daughter is a teacher of Welsh in north Wales, on Ynys Môn, but she's not working as a supply teacher and she has never properly worked as a supply teacher, so I've got no personal interest in it. I think that supply teachers are being treated appallingly, and I think that it is a social justice issue, to me, as much as anything else. Can we resend your letter with bullet points identifying the questions that you asked last time and ask if they can be replied to?

The proposal was, rather than just further exchanges of correspondence, that we seek to schedule a short evidence session with them.

I thought that we'd agreed that. Yes, I'm happy to do that. 

And would you prefer to try to do that this term, rather than—

As soon as possible. 

Just for clarity, would that session include the Minister?

I think we could invite the Minister, depending on what views you have on that. As you know, our remit allows us to call non-political members of the Government, whereas other committees generally call Ministers. But I personally have no objection to inviting the Minister. Any thoughts from anyone else? No.

I'm happy to invite them, Mark, but it's not traditional for Ministers to attend public accounts, is it?

No.

But, Chair, we are the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee, aren't we? So, we do have that dual role, and public administration committees will invite Ministers. 

Right. Can you proceed on that basis? Thank you very much indeed. And I think as soon as possible, albeit that it has to fit with our timetable as well as theirs. 

We are due to look at the work programme later, so we can have a discussion about where it could fit in.

Yes, thank you. 

We have paper to note 7, which relates to the Financial Reporting Advisory Board's annual report for 2024-25. I'm going to abbreviate that for future reference to FRAB, which is an advisory board formed of relevant experts in the finance profession and representatives of relevant authorities. It's independent of Government and its role is to provide independent advice on financial reporting policy and standards to the UK Treasury, to Scottish Ministers and to the Executive Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly. In doing this, FRAB ensures that Government financial reporting meets the best possible standards by following generally accepted accounting practice, which is also referred as GAAP, as far as possible. In accordance with the terms of reference, FRAB prepares an annual report on its activities, which is circulated to the House of Commons, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, and the designated public accounts committee of the Senedd. Before I invite Members to note, or comment on, the report, could I just confirm that their remit does therefore not extend to the Senedd itself or to the Welsh Government—that it only specifies the Treasury, Scottish Ministers and the Executive Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly?

As I understand, I think the principles do apply. I'm looking to Martin there, but I'm not entirely sure.

I haven't really looked at this.

I know that the Welsh Government have in the past referred accounting issues to the FRAB for consideration, and some of those are related to the qualification of the accounts. I can see Adrian nodding there, I think. So, I think it is definitely a point of reference for the Welsh Government.

Right. I'm just intrigued, because the report itself included that phrase, and you've quite rightly included it in the briefing you've given me, and this Parliament is not mentioned, and particularly the Welsh Government is not mentioned.

I think Adrian does want to come in.

Thank you. Just to confirm that the work of FRAB does extend to the Welsh Government and the Senedd. The Welsh Government, I believe, has a place on FRAB, or observer status, if not a full membership. And we currently have a member of our staff who sits on FRAB as well.

In that case, if nothing else—we don't know what Members might say—results from the discussion we're about to have, could we at least ask them in future to ensure that they correct that and include reference to our institutions in the statement in the beginning of the report? 

I'm happy to drop the committee a note to explain our involvement and the remit of the board. Just in terms of the report itself, as you described, there's a formal requirement for it to be presented to you. It's an extremely specialised technical committee. There's nothing within this report that I'd draw to the committee's attention particularly.

Okay, thank you. Members, do you have any comments or are you otherwise content to note? Adam, yes, please.

Are Members content with that? Yes. If we could please add that as well.

It might be useful for not just members of this committee, but for those of us who are not members of this committee as well, to actually have a briefing on this organisation. Because it appears to me that there's a level of confusion as to what it does—how it's constituted and what its responsibilities are and its relationship both to the Welsh Government and to the Senedd. I accept the point that Adrian made, but it seems to have a different relationship in Wales than it does in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I don't understand why that would be.

It would also be useful if this organisation, which is, from looking at its membership, very heavy on expertise—. I hear Members almost every year during the budget process talking about how poorly the Welsh Government presents its financial information to the Senedd. I don't actually fully accept those criticisms, I will say, but it might well be that this body or another body or the Finance Committee could actually ask this organisation to do some work on that and provide advice to the Senedd on how it scrutinises Welsh Government accounts, if that would be an appropriate role for it. It certainly seems to have quite a number of different auditors and financial specialists on it, and that body with that level of expertise surely should provide greater value to the public than simply us noting a report once a year.

Building on that, if I may, Chair, could we invite them to actually come to the Senedd? An evidence session may not be the most appropriate forum. We could have an informal meeting with them. Because it's a two-way dialogue we need, isn't it? We need to understand what are their best-practice recommendations generally, but also, on the point that Alun Davies was making, we could actually raise their awareness of the kind of issues we've identified in terms of financial reporting, and then there might then flow out of that some kind of commission or piece of work that we could ask them to do us a Senedd for us. So, yes, I think maybe inviting them down and having a conversation in some appropriate format would be a useful next step.

Are Members content with that proposal? Is that something perhaps we could squeeze into one of our additional meetings?

Just about. We can have that discussion under the work programme item.

I'm looking at page 9 of the report, just double-checking, and under 'who we are and our work', there's no reference whatsoever to the Senedd or the Welsh Government, but all those other bodies are named, so it's very vague.

In the first instance, the auditor general has offered to do a note and provide further information about the work of FRAB; would it be helpful if we had that first and have a bit more understanding? Because I confess I don't know enough about FRAB and its operation to advise you in that level of detail. Perhaps if we start there and then see if we need to do something further. Would that be helpful? Adrian, you're indicating.

I think it's sensible, Fay. As I said, a member of Audit Wales staff currently sits on FRAB, so we're ideally placed, I'm sure, to brief the committee on some of those questions you raised as a first step. I'm very happy to do that.

Thank you. I'm mindful that there is precedent where it's not so long ago that in our scrutiny we became aware of a body receiving Welsh Government funding that works for shared governance and bodies across the UK, the existence of which we had not known. That subsequently led to engagement with them, if you recall, and they've gone into overdrive since then to become better known by all of us, including attending, I think, Y Farchnad on a Tuesday morning. Perhaps this might also stimulate them to make themselves better known to the Parliament as well as the Government.

That brings that item to a conclusion, unless Members have any further comments on that. I think that concludes our papers to note.

I propose, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(ix), that the committee now resolves to meet in private for the remainder of today's meeting. Are Members content? Thank you. I note that Members are content. I'd be grateful if we could go into private session.