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 Welsh Parliament. The meeting is bilingual; 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. We've received apologies from Adam Price and from Rhianon Passmore, but I welcome Hannah Blythyn, who is joining us remotely in her place this morning. So, welcome and thank you, Hannah. Do Members have any declarations of registrable interests they wish to declare at this point? I see no indication, so that will not be the case.

Sorry, Mark, if I can come in—just on the item regarding the Porthcawl maritime centre, I'll just declare the interest I declared previously and say I personally do know some of the cast of characters involved.

Okay, thank you. And Hannah Blythyn. You're on silent, Hannah.

I'm not sure whether it's a declaration of interest, but in the interest of transparency in relation to item 2.1 in papers to note, the letter from the First Minister regarding the ministerial code, I just wanted to put on the record that I have written in a similar vein individually to the First Minister about strengthening the code and an independent adviser. Diolch.

Thank you very much.

Mark, can I declare a general interest as chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union cross-party group?

Okay, thank you very much.

Moving on from declarations, we have a number of papers to note, the first being a letter received from the First Minister, the Rt Hon Eluned Morgan, regarding the ministerial code. She's written to us with further detail in response to suggestions we made regarding changes to the code. She's expressed gratitude to this committee for the consultation that we undertook and for our suggestions for possible changes to the code.

Having considered all our suggestions, she published a revised ministerial code on 12 September, last month, confirming her intention to appoint an independent adviser on ministerial standards. In her letter, she also explains how she's taken account of our recommendations, and where she's not felt able to take on board fully a recommendation, she's set out the reason for this. Members, do you have any comments on this letter? I see no indication from Members. Do you want a minute?

Still no indication, so I'll move on to our paper to note 2 and just note that letter for the time being. This is on a related matter, a letter received from FDA Cymru, sent to David Richards, director of governance and ethics in the Welsh Government, again regarding the ministerial code and in relation to our work on Cabinet manuals and the code. Given that the Welsh Government, as we've just highlighted, has recently updated its ministerial code, the FDA has felt it timely to provide us with a letter sent by them to the Welsh Government's director of governance and ethics in May of this year.

Perhaps for the record, I should say I think the FDA is the senior office-holders' union. Would that be a fair way of describing it? Yes. This letter was also mentioned when the FDA gave evidence to the Senedd Standards of Conduct Committee in June, and that committee was also provided with a copy following the evidence session. I'm not clear myself—they've been prompted to send this to us, as indicated, following the Welsh Government's recent update to the code. Is that simply so that we're aware of the evidence they submitted, or do they still have concerns about matters omitted? Do we know, or is it just for information?

I assume it's for information, because there was a copy of evidence submitted to the standards committee earlier this year.

Okay. Members, do you have any comments? No, not that I can see. Would Members like us to ask the FDA if there are any matters arising from the correspondence? No comment.

Mark, I'm aware that I'm not a regular member of this committee, but I would say 'yes'.

Yes. Well, to all intents and purposes, today you are a full member of this committee, so please feel free to speak at any time. So, yes, if we could do that—just a very short clarification. Thank you. We will otherwise note the letter.

We have a third paper to note, which is correspondence between the Chair of the Finance Committee and Mark Drakeford MS, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language, regarding planning for census 2031. The correspondence has been brought to our attention as it relates to matters falling within the committee's remit. It is likely that our successor committee will be interested in these matters in the next Senedd, and I therefore propose that we include a reference to this in our legacy report. Do Members have any comments, or are you otherwise content with that suggestion? I'll take that as a 'no comment' response. So, are Members content to note? The non-response suggests they probably are. Are you content to note the letter? Yes, thank you.

We move on to paper to note 4, which relates to the Audit Wales report on 'Temporary accommodation, long-term crisis?' published in July. The report sought to identify opportunities to improve the value for money of councils' approaches in responding to the demand for temporary accommodation. The audit work also sought to explain the cost and increase in demand for temporary accommodation, and local authority plans to deal with those challenges. At this point, could I invite Audit Wales to speak to their report?

Thank you, Chair. I think we'll go into a bit more detail later in the meeting, and colleagues will be joining to answer any particular questions that you have on the report. This is a report focused on councils in particular, but obviously in the context of wider Welsh Government policy and funding interventions for temporary accommodation.

You may recall that, about a year ago, we also published some work on affordable housing, so this is part of a series of pieces of work on the housing policy arena. With its focus on councils and the recommendations focused on councils, I don't think we'll be suggesting later any specific action by this committee in response. I'm aware that it's also potentially of interest and relevance to the ongoing work of the Local Government and Housing Committee. Indeed, I think the committee mentioned this report as part of its scrutiny of the Homelessness and Social Housing Allocation (Wales) Bill a couple of weeks ago as well. So, it may be that you want to, again, refer it back to that committee as well, but there's already, clearly, some awareness within the LGH committee about this work as well. But we'll perhaps address any more detailed questions Members have later in the meeting.

Thank you. And as indicated, we will be discussing this report in more detail in the private session later and agreeing on any next steps. Members, do you have any comments, or are you content at this point just to note the report? I take it you're content. Thank you very much indeed.

We have a fifth paper to note. In August 2025 Audit Wales published their report on 'Welsh Government funding for the failed Porthcawl Maritime Centre'. The report considers whether the Welsh Government managed its funding support for the centre project effectively and focuses on the Welsh Government's actions in approving the funding, handling claims and payments and monitoring project progress. Again, could I invite Matthew Mortlock from Audit Wales to introduce the report?

Thank you again, Chair. Again, we'll perhaps return in more detail later in the meeting. This has been a fairly long-running piece of work for us. You may recall that earlier this year, in the spring, we updated you and explained that we'd be bringing forward a report on this topic.

The issues that we look at in the report first came to our attention four or five years ago. Indeed, the events that the report describes date back nearly a decade now, in terms of grants management. We'd been restricted in our ability to report on this topic until recently, because of matters that we'd referred to the police for investigation. The outcome from that investigation is set out in the report. No charges were brought as a result of those issues. Nevertheless, we felt that the issues that we'd identified merited reporting on.

As the auditor general's quote in the report explains, in our view, there were some basic failings in the Welsh Government's approach to their management of the funding for this project. Had they managed that funding better, we think that some of the loss that they have now had to recognise and write off, to the tune of around £1.6 million, could have been avoided.

You may recall that predecessor committees had taken a keen interest in issues around grants management, back in the period between around 2012 to 2018. We'd heard about improvements that the Welsh Government had been making in grants management during that period. Obviously, that coincides with some of the events around this particular case as well. There will be an opportunity, I think, to pick up some of the issues from the report with the Welsh Government, perhaps as part of your account scrutiny later in the year.

Okay, thanks very much indeed. Again, we will have an opportunity to discuss this in more detail in private session later and, again, agree on any steps that we may wish to take in relation to the report. So, are Members at this point content to note the report? Thank you very much indeed.

That takes us to a temporary break. If we can please reconvene at 9.35 a.m. Thank you.

Croeso. Welcome back to this morning's meeting of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee. I'm pleased to welcome our witnesses, Manon Antoniazzi and colleagues. I'd be grateful if you could begin by just simply stating your names and your roles for the record.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. My name is Manon Antoniazzi, I'm Clerk and Chief Executive.

I'm Elin Jones, I'm Chair of the Commission and the Llywydd of the Senedd.

Lisa Bowkett, chief finance officer.

Ed Williams, director of resources.

Thank you, and thanks very much for attending committee this morning. As you would expect, we have a number of questions, therefore I'd be grateful if both Members and yourselves could be as succinct as possible to enable us to cover as many of those and the topics generated as possible. As convention has it, I will start the questioning, before handing over to colleagues.

In May last year, 2024, your audit and risk assurance committee noted that officials had researched how your accounts were accessed online and stated that, for the 2024-25 accounts, you were going to offer a simplified version online to improve accessibility and accountability. Please could you therefore tell us what the research showed and what you've done differently in consequence?

Thank you, Chair. We're constantly trying to make sure that our annual report and accounts fulfil their statutory purpose, but also are as accessible and user friendly as possible. We routinely look at web analytics, and that is the research that was undertaken—the research that we routinely do internally every year to see how people access the annual report and benchmark with best practice in other organisations. So, the kind of changes that we have undertaken this year to further streamline the report have included simplifying graphics, simplifying language and continuing to incorporate hyperlinks within the online text. So, rather than just putting a PDF online, we make sure that people can navigate the document easily and incorporate little videos and so on to make the information as accessible as possible.

Okay, thank you. And are you content—? Oh, Mike. Mike Hedges.

I was going to ask, is it 'read only' to people accessing it online, even staff who access it online?

It is.

Thank you. And as far as you're concerned for the future, is this continuous work in progress?

Absolutely, we will continue to review every year, and we welcome feedback. We did have some positive feedback from the audit committee, as you referred to earlier. And if this committee has any suggestions or feedback, we'd be delighted to take them on board.

Thank you very much indeed. The 2024-25 accounts are, as I'm sure you'll know, a lengthy document with, dare I say, a degree of repetition. They're 220 pages long, with particular repetition regarding the Commission's transformational change programme. What plans, if any, do you therefore have to review this ahead of preparation for the 2025-26 accounts? 

We will continue to try and strike a balance between best practice in the production of annual reports, which we understand to be a section on performance, a section on governance and accountability and then the financial statements. So, we will continue to try and be as comprehensive as possible and include all the information that enables us to be held to account by this committee and more widely, but streamline, as I say. Certainly we will take that feedback on board. If you feel there is a little duplication, we will look out for that next year.

To what extent, moving on from that, do you think that the governance structure for your transformational change programmes and the interdependencies of the various groups or boards, their hierarchies, as well as related roles and responsibilities are made clear in your annual report?

We think they have been set out in narrative form. That section is possibly not the most eye-catching section, but, as you say, we have done that in some length because we feel it is important to explain exactly how our decision making and our strategic decision making happens. The aim of that is to encourage and foster a positive and accountable culture within the organisation, but also explain how, for example, the executive board took on, during the year—we're looking at—the function of a change board as well, having oversight of delivery of our Senedd 2026 change strategy, and then explaining how the operational delivery was then the responsibility of programme boards beneath that, each one looked after by a senior responsible officer in terms of one of the directors. That structure isn't fixed and immutable. We have refined that structure, even since the end of the year we're looking at now, in order to make sure that, as we move into the delivery phase of Senedd reform, the change board has a strengthened terms of reference and a direct oversight of the various work streams that it needs to have to deliver successfully.

Okay, thank you. Nothing from Members that I can see. You refer to Senedd reform, and clearly you've been managing significant change, with a number of projects related to that. You also experienced a number of changes in staff, at both director of Senedd business and chief financial officer, including temporary staff arrangements. How did you manage the change of senior personnel accordingly for projects, such as, for example, the future accommodation project for 2032 and the planning for expansion of the Senedd next year, to ensure that progress was not adversely impacted?

I think the first thing to say is that there were no issues with the leadership transitions, so the continuity of governance arrangements was secured. That is why we articulate our governance arrangements very clearly, because then colleagues and the central change management bodies are able to support the new incumbents in getting up to speed and making sure that there is no interruption in progress. We were fortunate that the two new incumbents were, ultimately, after a process, promoted from within, so they were very familiar with the arrangements that we have already and were able to occupy their roles quickly and seamlessly.

Okay. So, are things now as they need to be, and hopefully you're looking to stability for the next change period?

Yes. By and large, we have had a high degree of stability in the senior structure for many years now, if you look at the statistics of changeover. It's good that people feel they want to continue their careers here, and that obviously has an advantage in terms of the retention of institutional knowledge and continuity. But there’s always a balance, and you always have to make sure that there is robustness within the system to deal with that, and I think we have demonstrated that.

Okay. Thank you. Your accounts report that the Commission made an exit payment of £41,830 to the former deputy chief executive and clerk and director of Senedd business, who left on 10 January this year. How was this payment sum derived and what were the related approval and governance arrangements behind it?

The assurance I can give you, Chair, is that the circumstances of the payment and the amount have been fully scrutinised by Audit Wales, and Audit Wales was satisfied that the appropriate governance steps were taken.

Okay. Thank you. Prior to referral to Audit Wales, were there any further internal steps, or what further internal steps were taken before referral to Audit Wales?

I think what I'm saying is that all the circumstances were disclosed to Audit Wales and they looked at all the steps and gave that assurance to me, which I can pass on to you.

Okay, if you would, that would be helpful. Thank you. Do you wish to comment or not? 

Only that I'm aware that we looked at the issue as part of the audit of accounts, and it would have been a regular part of our coverage of remuneration reports and things. So, it's a standard part of our audit process, I think, to look at these sorts of payments as well.

Okay. Thank you. Hannah Blythyn.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Just on the point of the exit payments, and taking on board what the chief executive said with regard to the assurance that is in place for that, just a question around how that is derived: are there set criteria and parameters that the Commission must follow in determining exit payments or is there flexibility around what that would look like? Diolch.

We have a set of processes and the auditor general has confirmed that they were followed.

So, would that apply to any person at any grade, any level, in the same circumstance? 

There are policies, yes, relevant to all the different grades.

Okay. What assurance did you receive? Well, you've already explained what assurance you received from Audit Wales regarding the exit payment, but regarding temporary cover arrangements and whether they provided value for money also. 

Yes, we were able to make appointments to cover those duties very successfully. 

And value for money? I'm glad it worked successfully, but—

Yes, it did. 

—in terms of effective and efficient use of resource, was value for money delivered, and how is that evaluated? Or, again, is that a matter for Audit Wales? 

Ultimately, they will scrutinise the decisions that were taken, but I can only repeat that there was assurance that the processes were followed properly.

Do you wish to speak here?

Only to emphasise, I think, our focus would be on the Senedd Commission's established processes and whether those were followed. I think our understanding is that those were followed appropriately, and the disclosures were made appropriately in the accounts. Obviously, the accounts audit process has a limited focus and so wouldn't necessarily get into the detail of the value for money, but we'd be focused within the context of the policies and processes that the Senedd Commission was applying to that process.

If I can perhaps give you some further assurance—

Yes, please. 

—given the nature of this role as the deputy chief exec, this was a matter that I had active interest in, and the Commission also. The process was reported to the Commission, and the Commission gave the necessary assurance and has agreed that the processes in place were robust and that the payment could be made in this context, given the seniority of this post.

In terms of the business continuity during this process, then, of course, the role is a role that, as Chair of the Business Committee, I'm actively involved with. That process was continued, and, in the end, following an open process of recruitment, an internal appointment was made to the role of director of business. So, business continuity was assured, in a period, of course—. You've already reflected on the change programmes that we are undertaking as a Commission, in light of Senedd reform in particular, and therefore the continuity of work was very important and the leadership that was necessary for that work was very important. I think we've continued that and it's been an effective transition process.

Thank you. Members? No further indication. What update can you provide us with regarding the structured dialogue that's been taking place between the Commission and the independent remuneration board? To what extent is that building trust, and how is that demonstrated?

Thank you, Chair. Members of the Senedd Commission and the independent remuneration board have met four times now, most recently in June. The Llywydd may wish to comment from her point of view, but, from our point of view as officials, they have been constructive and informative meetings and provided opportunities to share information. The interconnected nature of the decisions that are being taken at the moment were complicated and they needed to be mapped out so that each decision-making body could take decisions in the knowledge of the context of matters being considered by other relevant bodies. From that point of view, there wasn't, I don't believe, an issue of needing to build trust, as such, but sharing information constructively. That has happened on the various issues that fall to the independent remuneration board to consider: exit payments, start-up arrangements for incoming Members, the budgetary cost implications of the independent remuneration board's decisions. As accounting officer, I am responsible for making sure that the independent remuneration board is using resources effectively, in terms of supporting itself, but the nature of its determination, of course—as I don't need to remind this board—is that it makes independent decisions about the terms and conditions and the payments that are made to Members. So, there's a fine line between influencing that and exchanging information, so that decisions are made in an informed way.

Just to add to that, I think the nature of the change that the Commission is undertaking in order to prepare for the seventh Senedd and the increased number of Members is quite significant. Therefore, there was a need to ensure that every aspect of preparation for that seventh Senedd was working together effectively, and independently, of course, but understanding the component parts of the decisions that need to be taken in preparing for the resources and budget to be available for the seventh Senedd. So, it seemed appropriate, then, that we had a process of engagement with the chair—between me and the chair of the remuneration board—in order to ensure that there was at least an understanding of the implications and the processes of the bits of work that we were both involved and engaged in, so that, I guess, there were no surprises in any of that and that everything worked as seamlessly as possible and that we shared information, but respecting each other's independent roles in the work that we all do to prepare for the seventh Senedd in particular.

Okay. Thank you. At this point, I'm pleased to hand over to Mike Hedges, who has a few questions for you. So, Mike Hedges, please.

Thank you. Diolch, Cadeirydd. Can I, through you, say to the Presiding Officer that if, on any of the questions I ask on risk you wish to go into private session, I'm quite happy for you to do so, and I'm sure Mark Isherwood as Chair would be quite happy for you to do so. I know discussing risk in public is itself a risk.

I've got some questions on risk, and the first one is about the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee saying that three of the 10 corporate risks at the year end had a red severity rating. Was that red severity rating driven by likelihood, effect, or both?

May I, Chair?

Yes, please.

I think the short answer is 'both', in the sense that we look at the inherent risk, and that calculation is made by looking both at the impact of the risk crystallising and the factors that propose the threat. And then, obviously, the point of the risk register is that we're able to think through the mitigations that we can put in place to try and lessen the severity and plan for what might happen, and then the residual risk rating is arrived at. Our overall risk environment is very high at the moment. We're delivering, as officials, several major changes all at once against a backdrop of constrained public finances and a sensitive political backdrop, of course. So, when certain risks are very impactful and the nature of the risk is adapting and evolving all the time, meaning that we're having to calibrate our response continually, then I don't think we'd be doing the job properly if we didn't recognise that some risks remain high.

I'm going to talk about something I know about here: ICT. A number of organisations have been attacked and held to ransom, and that is something that is both possible and highly destructive to any organisation, and when you see some of the largest companies in Britain being affected by that, then you must feel that's a serious possible risk. How are you ensuring that your security is such that you're not going to be hacked into and affected by a denial-of-service attack, and how are you going to deal with it immediately, because those are risks that are ever present? I'm sure that if I'd been a non-executive director of the Co-op or Marks & Spencer and had raised it, they'd have said, 'Well, we've got all possible defences in place'. I think we discovered they didn't.

I see the wisdom of that, Mike, and I would certainly say that this is not a risk we're complacent about, and I recognise all the threats that you mention. We did go into this a little bit at the Finance Committee yesterday, and we've agreed to send a note outlining our mitigations in more detail. We can also, I think, circulate that note to this committee.

One of the major investments—I think I can say this—that we have made recently is the establishment of a security operations centre, which runs 24/7 and which is monitoring and dealing with risks and dealing with the hundreds of thousands of attacks that we routinely get, as most organisations get. But we recognise that, as a Parliament, we're a high-value target, and we certainly are not complacent about that risk.

Thank you. Possibly the biggest high-risk targets are banks. I mean, that's what people would really like to get into, move money around. Part of the bank's security process is that if you get your password wrong three consecutive times, then they throw you out, they don't let you keep on trying. Do we, or do you, do anything like that?

Ed, you are—

Yes, we do have measures like that in place to detect unusual activity trying to access our system. Again, we could go into more detail in the note, Chair, if that would help. It may be something not to discuss too openly, but we do have measures in place if we're to pick up unusual and repeated activity.

Yes, please.

From the same account, yes?

Yes.

As I said, if you want to talk to us about this in private, I'm sure the Chair would be quite happy for that to happen, and I would be quite happy for that to happen as well.

The last thing on security is that we've got AI at the moment, which is both something that is really wonderful and a curse, like a lot of major technological changes are. Are you concerned that AI could lead people to a backdoor into your system?

AI certainly poses a new set of challenges not just to cyber security, but also to data protection as well. So, it's certainly something that is on our radar, but we look forward to discussing it further with this committee.

Thank you.

Mike Hedges, before you move on, can I just ask one supplementary, if I may? It's in relation to Mike's earlier questions to you. As you'll know, the audit and risk assurance committee stated that three of the 10 corporate risks at year end had a red severity rating. Which were those three, please?

I can answer that.

Yes.

So, they were data protection, cyber—cyber threats, as we were just discussing— and the Senedd reform programme.

Okay. Thank you. Mike Hedges.

May I—?

Sorry.

Just to reinforce what Ed said there, I would just stress that these are operational risks and, therefore, the fact that Senedd reform is a risk represents our concern to make sure that we are able to support the seventh Senedd. You know, it is a question of the risks of us, for example, not getting the right resources and so on, rather than anything else.

Yes. I'll try not to delve back into what we talked about yesterday, but, on your risks, there are financial risks, which you can try and control, and there are external attack risks, which you can try and defend, and from what you've just said there, I see two of your risks as external attacks and one as internal management. Is that a fair analysis?

Yes, although there are external drivers that could inhibit our ability to support the Senedd as well, so it's quite a broadly drawn risk.

I think that risks are something that all organisations have to deal with. I remember once somebody in a conference saying, 'I can solve all problems of external attack,' and he pulled the plug out, which, actually, is 100 per cent success, but it doesn't necessarily achieve what you want to achieve.

I'll just talk about the budget. You report that £0.7 million or 1.4 per cent less than the revised budget was spent, and, separate to that, the underspend on Members' salaries and related costs was £0.3 million underspend, which equated to 1.6 per cent of the budget. First of all, I will never criticise anybody for underspending. I worked in an organisation once where the biggest task you had in March was to make sure you spent all the money. It didn't matter what you spent it on, you just had to get it spent. Can I, first of all, congratulate you on coming in under? And does that mean that you have full control over your expenditure?

The Commission budget is made up of three tranches. So, we have the determination and then there's the non-cash items, and then there is our operational budget. So, it is that third element, the operational budget, that we have full control over. The determination, you will remember, Mike, not least after scrutiny from this committee, we, as it were, ring-fenced that so that any money that is surplus in that budget is handed back. We don't use it for operational purposes. Although, it is one controlled total that, you know, obviously, we must not—and I am personally responsible for making sure that we do not—exceed.

In terms of the operational budget, we have explained to the Finance Committee that we have actually incorporated a lot of savings into the baseline before we even asked for it. So, in fact, we have lots more projects that we could be doing than those that we have prioritised for delivery in any given year. So, our aim is always to come in very close to budget, but, obviously, critically, the right side of that budget. And thank you for your comments on that.

We do manage the budget very closely and dynamically in the course of the year so that we spend the funds for the purpose for which we have been voted them by the Senedd.

Okay, thank you very much.

Can I just, in that context, clarify the extent to which the savings target of £315,000, included in the budget, related to costs being delayed or avoided rather than actually saved?

I'll bring my colleagues in on this as well if they want to elaborate, but two thirds of that, more or less, was achieved by managing churn of staff, so delaying start dates. So, there are some opportunity costs in there, but it's not a cost deferred to the following year. And then the rest was done by looking at the project fund, using analysis of historical trends to look at budgets that had been traditionally slightly underspent and reprofiling those in a more efficient way. Lisa, do you want to add anything?

No, I think that's all.

That's it.

Okay, thank you for clarifying that.

Well, thanks, Mike Hedges, and, if I can bring in Tom Giffard, please, who has some questions for you.

Thank you. Well, going back to projects then, in terms of the project fund, how are you managing the delivery of projects across years, particularly where projects get delayed, as obviously you have no ability to retain funds between financial years?

Thank you. I'll invoke, probably not for the last time, the medium-term resourcing framework, which is the mechanism by which we look forward and plan for the next three years on a rolling basis, and that enables us to foresee challenges and pressures and decide on mitigating strategies. Ed, would you like to talk a bit further about this one?

So, we establish our resource base, as our chief executive has said, and, within that, we then set a portfolio strategy for our projects—so, that's the spend outside of our business-as-usual services. The portfolio strategy is a prioritisation exercise, indicating the areas where, under our corporate plan, we want to see that spend prioritised, obviously. There is then a group that has been established, called the portfolio management group, which is chaired by Lisa, our chief finance officer, who's here today, to assess the business cases and to make recommendations to the executive board based on our strategy. So, I can ask Lisa to give a bit more detail, but those are the controls. So, we have a strategy, and we have a body to implement that strategy, advising the ultimate decision-making board.

From a more practical point of view, the portfolio management group meets a number of times a year. The first tranche is early before the start of the financial year, where we ask services to make their bids, effectively, for the project fund. There will be a mix on that list, so you'll have repairs, if you like, or one-off items of expenditure, and then your more traditional projects, where you might be replacing software, something which might take a longer period of time. So, our estates team maintain a 10-year forward work programme, and IT a three-year forward work programme, and within that we understand the lead times of each item as well. So, if projects are delayed later in the year and we know spend is going to be delayed into the future financial year, we're able to bring forward spend from the next year so that we balance it across financial years. So, it's quite dynamic. We meet during the year just to assess if priorities have changed, where delivery is at, so we can make sure we make the best use of the project fund and not store up problems for future years.

Thank you. On some specific projects, then, how is work progressing on projects in this financial year regarding the Siambr and preparing Tŷ Hywel offices before the election?

Before I hand over to Ed, I would just like to say that the work is proceeding on time, and we have seen a tremendous amount of work take place over the summer, which is credit to the estates and facilities management team and the contractors. Ed.

I absolutely echo that praise to those undertaking the work. The Tŷ Hywel project is in its final delivery phase on the second floor of the building now. The other parts of the building have been adapted. The final suite of offices is being created on the second floor of the building, and should be completed by the end of this month. The Siambr project is on target to meet its deadline, to ensure that the Parliament can sit in the adapted Siambr Senedd after the February recess. It is a challenging works project. It's a small space, relatively speaking, but a highly complex environment, with many parts to that project, but we are on track to meet the deadline.

Thank you. You mentioned meeting the timing deadline. Are you on track to say within financial parameters?

In terms of the Siambr project, I can advise. So, this is coming into the current year. We are within the Senedd reform programme budget's ring-fence. The costs of that particular project are higher than originally estimated. That follows the competitive tendering process. But, as I say, we are within the overall ring-fence for the programme of work. 

Okay. Do you have an update on plans for the Pierhead building?

So, that is a longer-term piece of work, where we are going to undertake some soft market testing, following some professional advice, around how to approach our longer-term management of that asset. That hasn't been undertaken yet, but it's due to commence in the next couple of months, I would say.

Thank you. Can I just move on then to the corporate key performance indicators? So, you didn't meet the target to reduce the carbon footprint for the six months to March 2025, and you say this is due to preparing the estate, given the change in the size and the shape of the Senedd, and an increase in business travel. Can you expand on that a little bit?

Thank you. You're quite right to say, Tom, that some of the major infrastructure changes that are mentioned in the carbon strategy are awaiting decisions on the future of the estate. However, we did press on with life cycle replacement of lighting units with LED, and most of the estate is now served with LEDs. 

It was obviously disappointing to be over our carbon KPI in April, but that includes, and is due to, a number of factors. The estate is now, in the year that we're looking at, being more intensively used again, after a period of disruption during the COVID lockdown. There were adjustments to thermal comfort, and then there's the impact of business travel, as you say, by officials and by Members. 

Okay. There are some projects in the carbon reduction strategy that are dependent on the Bay 2032 accommodation decision. So, how will the different approaches impact on the delivery of your carbon reduction plans, and the timing of any investment?

Sustainability is a really important dimension that has been fully integrated into the Bay 32 project. Ed is the expert on that.

Just to say, we're anticipating, within this financial year, setting the strategic direction for the Bay 32 project. After that, investment decisions can be made, based on where the future accommodation solution is going to be.

Also, just to add, at the same time, there's ongoing dialogue around the district heat network with Cardiff City Council, as a key part of our sustainability strategy and the targets. And that network is due to go live in the wider Bay area, again in the next few months, and we are having active conversations with Cardiff City Council about that, and that's a key part of the strategy. And that has been affected—not in a negative way, but the context for that conversation has been affected—by the Bay 32 project as well. So, that's one example of where the decisions about the future office accommodation and our sustainability strategy are interacting.

Thank you. Can I just clarify? I asked about the timing of the decisions that are being made, and how they're being made in relation to the carbon reduction plans. Can you speak about whether those sorts of considerations would have an impact on the timing of any decisions or expenditure? 

Just to say, we are at the midpoint of our sustainability strategy, and, broadly, we remain on track to meet our longer-term strategy, which runs until 2030. So, we've had an increase in the year that we're discussing now, in terms of the reporting, but, overall, with the plans that we have in place, we're still anticipating meeting the strategy. Some key decisions do need to be taken within that—Bay 32, the heat network and some other projects—but we anticipate making the decisions in a way that will allow us to meet our overall strategy, goals and targets.

Thank you. In terms of meeting that target, how will the expansion of the Senedd impact on the longer term ability to meet carbon reduction targets by 2030, given, obviously, that more people are going to be using the estate?

Yes. We've adapted the Siambr with a lot of attention being paid to sustainability, to the materials, to the way that the works are being undertaken, and the same is true for the adaptations to Tŷ Hywel, and, again, in terms of Bay 32, where we are beyond the lease—the current lease—for Tŷ Hywel, sustainability is fundamental to that project. So, that takes account of all of our estate needs and the estate use as we're modelling them from 2032 and beyond. So, again, we believe that the way we're approaching Bay 32, with sustainability at the heart of it, will allow us to deliver our strategy and our goals.

Okay. And finally from me, in 2023-24 you identified the KPI for the spend with Welsh suppliers as a stretch target. Why is this no longer the case, since your performance in 2024-25 showed a decrease compared with 2023-24?

It's perhaps relevant just to state that the stretch target was one for the whole of the Senedd term. So, 50 per cent is the stretch target that we want to achieve by the time we get to next spring. As you say, it was 42 per cent. It was slightly down at the end of the year that's reported on in the annual report. Since then, we've seen some recovery; it's up to 46 per cent. It remains finely balanced as to whether we will hit that by this time next year, as we had hoped. Obviously, we have to work within the procurement framework; we have to comply with the law in that case. But it is something that is very much integral to decisions that we make about procurement.

Sorry, I don't know if it was just me, but I lost you there in the middle of the answer. I don't know if that was the same for others online. So, apologies if you did answer this and I didn't hear it, but what do you put that decrease down to, in this last financial year?

Well, Ed, feel free to contribute, but I think that there were—. Some of the things that put pressure on our ability to reach that particular KPI included getting the right professional advice for some of the portfolio that we have of capital projects, some investment in broadcasting infrastructure, ICT licences, that sort of thing, where we just weren't able to source the products from Welsh suppliers.

Those are the main areas.

Thank you.

Thank you. Back to you, Chair.

Just one supplementary on this set of questions before we bring Hannah Blythyn in. Given the complexity of your projects linked to Senedd reform and finding accommodation from 2032, how are you managing the classification of your capital and revenue expenditure for accounting purposes?

That is a very relevant question, which we've spent quite a bit of time discussing, but I will hand over to Lisa, as our chief finance officer, to talk about that.

Yes. In terms of the Commission, we're not held to resource and capital totals in the same way as the rest of the public sector. We're held to one overall resource total, which we're audited against. In terms of capital spend for Bay 32, to date there hasn't been any. The spend to date has been on professional advice, legal advice—the kinds of skills we don't have in-house to deliver a project of this complexity. As we move forward and have a solution that we work to, then we will start to incur capital expenditure. We have a joint assurance board with Welsh Government. We meet with their finance colleagues as well, and they're aware of the upcoming likely capital call on the budget. So, we're just trying to keep them as best informed as we can and budget accordingly.

Okay, thank you very much indeed. Hannah Blythyn, can we hand over to you, please, for your questions?

Thank you, Chair. I'm going to turn to a few questions around staffing and workforce. The number of employed staff increased in 2024-25. How are you ensuring that you have the resources and skills in the right areas, particularly in the lead-up to Senedd reform, but at the same time being very mindful of increases in headcount and the related costs incurred as part of that?

Thank you. I come back to the medium-term resourcing framework, and that has a financial plan within it, but it also has a workforce plan. The aim of that is to strategically align staffing with available resources and Commission priorities. For example, we have targeted start dates for new staff so that vacancies are filled at the right time with people who have the required skills and experience through competency-based selection processes, as you'd expect. And then we also plan learning and development opportunities on an ongoing basis so that staff with the proper skills are available to the Commission.

Are there any areas within the organisation where you are seeing headcount reducing, and are there any concerns around that?

At the moment, we are holding our operational budget, our business-as-usual budget, to an establishment number. We're distinguishing, when we put forward our plans, between that establishment, by which I mean the number of posts, and the Senedd reform growth, for the purposes of transparency. The growth is happening in the ring fence that is related to Senedd reform, as opposed to the core operations. But at a time of such change and growth, we're not seeing reductions either at the moment.

Thank you for that. Again, in 2024-25, the Commission, as we've heard, has used specialist consultants, commissioned external support and been advised by project partners. How much in total has the Commission incurred in 2024-25 on third parties, including consultants for services such as these, and how does that compare with that incurred in the last three years?

I think we may need to write to you with those exact figures just to make sure that we get them right, Chair. But in terms of the expenditure, as Lisa mentioned earlier, the main reason for incurring expenditure on consultants is if we don't have the required specialist skills in-house. There are some occasions where we do have to—. For example, in translation, it is more economic for us to buy in services to top up the staff that we have, because of competing resource demands internally. But it's mainly acquiring and having at our disposal skills that are specialist in nature. We will certainly get back to you with those exact numbers.

Thank you. Just on the point you made, taking up what Lisa said earlier, particularly in terms of the Bay 32 project, there are times when external expertise and challenge is appropriate and necessary; if it's a time-limited project, obviously they're very different circumstances. But are there any areas that the Commission have identified where, perhaps, over the years that expertise needs to be developed so that it can be done in-house in the future?

Sustainability is an area where we've got excellent resource already, but managing these kinds of projects, we've identified that as an opportunity, if you like. But just thinking of the Bay 32 and the Siambr projects in particular as complex projects, they aren't really the kind of skills where we would need to have dedicated architectural services as an organisation, say with dedicated mechanical and electrical engineering services. Those are relatively expensive and specialised services that we wouldn't need on a 24/7 basis, based on our current workforce planning.

Thank you. Chair, just turning to a slightly different question now, around pay, again, during 2024-25, you identified a pay lag at the lower grades against comparable grades in the Welsh public sector. The committee is aware that the Commission implemented an uplift in consolidated pay as a result of it. Are you able to share more details with the committee about what prompted the review? Against which public bodies did you compare the salaries of the Commission's lower graded staff? Is there an assessment of the current position?

I'll hand over to Ed in a second, but I'll just say that, in the course of negotiations with trade union colleagues, we certainly undertake benchmarking exercises and we compare with comparable institutions, particularly the Welsh Government,as well as looking at a data set that enables us to analyse our own staff in terms of protected characteristics and so forth. Ed, would you like to add? 

That basically covered it. But, yes, just to say that the specific issue that the Member raises was to do with the Welsh civil service and comparable grades. We have a statutory requirement to be broadly comparable, and in the productive negotiations with our trade union partners, some particular issues and data were provided that we looked at positively and the Commission responded positively to make its decision. It's part of a wider set of negotiations. There's a lot of data, and a lot of benchmark examples are used, but that was one where all parties, with a small 'p', agreed that there was an issue that needed to be looked at.

I think you partially answered the supplementary question I was about to ask with regard to the role and engagement of trade unions. Is it common practice for the Commission to fully engage with trade unions as part of the process on these areas?

Yes, absolutely—we have a strong and active partnership agreement and a partnership forum with our trade unions. We have regular informal meetings and also, as we came out of a multi-year pay agreement, we've then, on top of those active and productive frameworks, had a pay negotiations round as well, and you referred to one of the outcomes of that in terms of the catch-up payment where we identified a pay lag. And there have been many other elements to those pay negotiations as well. So, as I say, there's the day-to-day interaction, which is strong within the Commission. There's a partnership forum, which is really productive, and there have been pay negotiations with the union side as well.

Can I come in with a supplementary very briefly in relation to your previous point about external commissioning? It's a very particular point. In consequence, primarily, of the proposed British Sign Language (Wales) Bill, which I'm sponsoring—so I declare that for the record—you've had to increasingly commission external BSL interpreters, particularly for Plenary, but also for committee. If the Bill completes, progresses, becomes an Act, you can anticipate that that would become a regular feature of the work. What consideration are you giving to either increased external commissioning or possibly direct employment of interpreters as that will then presumably direct?

I'm aware of the conversation going on about the potential resource requirement coming out of that Bill. I'm happy to get back to you in more detail on where we are with that, but I'm certainly aware that there is a conversation happening, and planning under way.

We're enjoying working with the BSL interpreters. We will have to take a view then as to what the best value solution is for the Senedd in the longer term.

And just for me to add, there have been challenges within the system where we have been wanting to have BSL interpreters for various debates in the Senedd, and possibly committee work as well, where we have found it difficult to timetable debates at a particular time when an interpreter has been available to us. That is not an ideal situation going forward, especially with the legislation that could come in, as you say, Chair. So, this needs to be reviewed and we will need to look at the various options available to us to make this more resilient and robust going forward so that the next Senedd will be served in a way that reflects what, possibly, a Bill will require of us, but also what probably the people of Wales want to see us doing. So, there needs to be some work on this, and workforce planning around this is an issue that I'm keen for everybody to be actively involved in.

Okay, thank you. Sorry, Hannah Blythyn, back to your questions.

Thanks, Chair. I just had a quick follow-up on my previous question. I gave way to the Chair, as should be the case, especially as a visiting member of this committee. But just on the point that Ed made around the partnership agreement and the forum with the trade unions, those negotiations apply just to representatives of Commission staff, just for clarification. 

Yes, that's the Commission trade union side and Commission officials and Commission staff pay negotiations.

Thank you. And just very briefly, my last few questions around sickness absence rates. We've seen the staff absence rate has decreased from 8.6 days lost per person in 2023-24 to 6.6 days lost per person in 2024-25. Do you have any rationale as to why that is the case?

We're obviously glad to see the sickness statistics going in the right direction. As of July, it's actually now 6.4 days, which compares very favourably with the civil service benchmark of 8.1 days. I would say that, in terms of the wellness strategy that we launched three years ago, that has helped us develop a proactive strategic approach to prevent absence from occurring in the first place and then manage it when it does. We have new policies just agreed, which distinguish more clearly between short-term and long-term absence; that has helped us address problems that we looked at a few years ago when we identified that there were an uncomfortably high number of long-term absences. I think in 2023, it was 53 employees; that has been brought down now to 33 employees.

Analysis enables us to pinpoint the reasons why these absences are happening, with the aim, of course, of training managers and applying policies and providing support that can help get people back to work. We're also cognisant of the element within that of people who are absent because of mental ill health. We take some comfort in the fact that within that total—. 'Comfort' is the wrong word. We note that within that total, a decreasing amount is due to stress at work as opposed to stress of other factors. It is equally our job to try and help our colleagues be resilient and robust and deal with that. And so we put measures in place that help colleagues to continue working at their best, whatever the circumstances are.

Diolch. Just finally from me, Chair, I think the chief executive partly answered my next question in terms of absence due to mental ill health. We see the percentage of sickness absence due to mental health has increased. I think you did allude to some other things; you note that the data you have is that it's not due to stress at work. Given the information the committee has, you note the biggest cause is 'personal reasons', but you don’t have a complete data set. Can you expand any further or give reassurance to the committee about any further work that's being done in this area?

The reason why there isn't a complete data set is that, obviously, we rely on colleagues voluntarily disclosing the information, and for a variety of reasons they might not wish to. But I think the main thing is the improved analysis that we're putting behind our approach to sickness absence and then the training and the support that we're providing to managers to intervene positively in cases where something can be done to help.

Just on that, Chair, you talked about the work that's been done to prepare for the seventh Senedd and the expansion of the Senedd with increased Members and the staff that will be needed in order to support and enable that. Are you confident that the Senedd has the right systems and support in place to be able to best support that amount of staff?

It is certainly something that we have factored into our workforce planning. I can only say that we will continue to survey staff regularly. As well as the big annual staff survey, we undertake pulse surveys to look at staff well-being on a more regular basis. We will certainly be keeping a close eye on developments there, and taking steps to address any issues that arise.

Thank you. Sorry, Chair, I forgot I do have a couple more questions I need to ask, don't I? I thought I was finished in my set, I think.

Well, I'd be grateful if you perhaps developed some questions around the diversity of the workforce.

Just on the diversity of the workforce, the percentage of applications for externally advertised jobs from candidates identifying as ethnic minority increased significantly in 2024-25 compared with the previous year. Are you able to expand today for the committee on how you've achieved this, and also any insight you have as to why increased applications haven't translated into an increase in the percentage successful at sift or with offers of employment?

I think that's an important point. I would say that we are very aware of our need to monitor conversion rates as well, from application to offer. Some of the things that we're doing to increase the diversity of our workforce include a talent management strategy, and that's supporting the development of existing staff that we have from ethnic minority backgrounds, but also reviewing our recruitment processes to look for potential barriers. We make sure that panels recruiting are balanced in themselves. We also operate a name-free application process in case there is unconscious bias at play. We've also developed Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development-accredited inclusive recruitment training, and that training will be mandated now for all those recruiting to make sure that we are aware of the dangers of falling into unconscious bias, and that we always have our eye on the best skills for the roles.

Thank you. What reasonable adjustments are made to ensure that Commission processes for applications, interviews and assessments are more inclusive for neurodivergent candidates?

For neurodivergent candidates, we certainly offer reasonable adjustments. The nature of those reasonable adjustments depend on the individual applicant. So, we will seek advice from the applicant on what support they need, given their circumstances, whatever the nature of those special needs might be, and we will offer appropriate adjustments to that.

Thank you.

Okay. Can I just clarify on that point, because I'd just say everyone's an individual? Some people will be happy with face-to-face, some people won't. Some people will be happy online, some people won't. Some people will be happy in writing, some people won't. Some people will be comfortable in certain environments, others will be overwhelmed in certain environments, particularly strange environments. So, having established the individual's needs and stimuli, particularly communication-sensitive processing needs, are you able to adapt to that in order that they may then genuinely share their suitability for the job with you?

That's the philosophy underlying our approach, that we will tailor it to the individual needs and not make assumptions.

Thank you. So, you would go into that degree of granular detail to ensure that you're then agreeing with them the appropriate manner for their assessment?

That's right.

Okay, thank you. So, have you concluded your questions, Hannah Blythyn?

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much indeed. The concluding set of questions relates to workforce surveys, and around half of the respondents to your well-being pulse survey indicated they'd experienced stress related to their job, with the primary cause of the stress being workload. I think you made some reference to this in a previous answer. So, what follow-up work have you carried out to better understand this, and what have you learned from that?

Thank you. Yes, that is a worrying statistic. The latest survey that we have shows a slight, but encouraging, improvement, down to 47 per cent, but it has been a stubborn one to shift. I think one of our avenues to explore has been to work with heads of service, of course, to work with their teams to talk about these issues, to make sure that factors affecting well-being, like workload, are addressed promptly and are properly understood.

Service areas have well-being plans for their services, for their particular teams, which, where appropriate, include consideration of workload and the impact on stress. So, we develop targeted guidance for services that are struggling at any particular time, but there are lots of measures that we just operate across the board, supporting individuals with flexible working options and working within our staff networks to really get to the root of and understand what are driving these numbers. And we will continue, as I said earlier, to keep an eye on the developing picture with surveys from time to time, going forward.

Again, what are your thoughts on the extent to which your approach to savings and to delaying recruitment to vacant posts, for all the reasons we've discussed previously, may be contributing to the workload pressures on staff?

Yes, I remember talking about this last year with the committee. It is a fine balance, and when we are making recommendations to the Commission, this is always a subject for discussion at the Commission as well, whether we have balanced properly the needs for prudence and restraint in terms of the resources we ask for versus the well-being of staff and their consequent productivity. So, we are very conscious of that interaction and we do our best to strike the right balance.

Okay. And the final, formal question: you made some reference to ICT earlier, particularly in relation to cyber attacks and so on, but in relation to staff, what information, if any, do you have regarding inappropriate behaviour or abuse online, and what actions are you taking to support staff who are or may be subject to this in the lead-up to the election?

In terms of our staff's own behaviour, we have the staff code of conduct, but in terms of inappropriate behaviour that staff might encounter, we have a working group set up at the moment that is working on clarifying existing policies to make it clear to any visitors to our estate, anybody interacting with us from outside, online or by e-mail or face-to-face, what our expectations are of appropriate behaviour and what steps we will take if we feel that a line has been crossed there. So, that working group includes various teams represented, including security and legal and our trade unions as well. And once we have a report from that working group, we will be taking that through the usual approval channels and we'll end up at the Commission, no doubt, with that.

I would just say that, in terms of our communications teams as well, we're conscious of the impact that it can have on our colleagues of even monitoring the information that is put online, the comments that are made sometimes about this institution and the Members of it. And we see the monitoring as a shared responsibility; it's never just one person. And we offer regular resilience training and well-being support, so that the teams can support each other and interventions can be staged if necessary.

Okay, thank you. Well, that brings us to the end of our formal questions. Before I conclude matters, Members, do you have any further matters you would like to raise? In which case, I'll ask our witnesses: do you have anything you'd like to add that we haven't covered so far?

Thank you, Chairman.

No, in which case, thank you very much. A copy of today's proceedings will be copied to you for you to check for accuracy before they're published, as is always the case. And otherwise, just thank you very much for being with us and may the rest of your day go well.

Thank you.

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