National Assembly for Wales

Welcome to today's meeting of the Children and Young People and Education Committee. The public items of this meeting are being broadcast live on Senedd.tv. A record of proceedings will be published as usual. The meeting is bilingual and simultaneous translation from Welsh to English is available. We have apologies from Vaughan Gething this morning. Are there any declarations of interest from Members? I can see there are not.

So, we move on now to agenda item 2, which is a scrutiny session with Qualifications Wales on their annual report 2024 to 2025. Please may I welcome Qualifications Wales? Can you please introduce yourselves for the record?

So, Paul Bevan, chair of Qualifications Wales.

Good morning, everybody. I'm Philip Blaker, I'm chief executive of Qualifications Wales.

You are very welcome this morning. Members have a series of questions, and I'd like to start. How would you summarise the main achievements and challenges for Qualifications Wales in the past year in terms of meeting the needs of learners and promoting public confidence in the qualifications system? So, if we start with Paul, please.

Thank you very much for the opportunity today. I think, looking back over the year, the two most important points for me to reinforce, our two principal aims, are the shift away from the scaffolding that existed post COVID—so, we had our first exam series, a really successful exam series, outside of any support mechanisms that existed around the marking related to COVID—and the second is, of course, that September marked the start of the new GCSEs being taught. Two really important points in the journey of Qualification Wales, but also two really important moments for the system. For me, they underline the work that we do and the fact that the two principal aims are threaded through everything that's done within QW. There's been a lot of work otherwise, of course. I'll pass over to Philip in a minute so he can talk a little bit, but I'd particularly note our preparation for the VCSEs, which obviously haven't started yet, but all of that work that's in train, working with the awarding bodies and the sector, has been really important over the previous year. I don't know whether Philip wants to add anything.

Thanks, Paul. Yes, I think I agree with everything that Paul said. It's been a very successful year for us. From a regulatory perspective, we have had that first return to full pre-pandemic arrangements without any sort of echo of the post-pandemic special arrangements that were put in place, and we've seen, generally, learner performance look pretty good. So, it has been a successful series from that perspective.

Also, in the 10 years now that I've been doing this job, I think it's the smoothest summer we've had in terms of that, whilst the number of incidents has been quite high, there have been no significant incidents that might have affected learners in Wales. So, a really successful summer series.

There has been an awful lot of work, as Paul said, preparing for the reform agenda. We've got wave 1 of the new GCSEs being taught in schools from September of this year. We've also gone through the approval process for the wave 2 GCSEs, which have now had the specifications released, and WJEC will be starting the professional learning for those and releasing sample assessment materials and the like in the new year. And for wave 3 qualifications, which move away from GCSEs into VCSEs, foundation qualifications and the skills suite, for those qualifications we've put the approval criteria in place. We've also gone through a recognition process for eight awarding bodies that are going to deliver various elements of that wave 3 suite of qualifications, and we're starting to receive the first submissions for approvals for those, and those will be available for first teaching from September 2027. So, from a reform perspective, there's an awful lot going on in that 14-16 space, which we think has been quite successful. We've also been doing a lot of work securing the range of qualifications for post-16 learners, continuing on from the reforms that we set out in sector reviews for land-based subjects, for hospitality and catering and for travel and tourism, and we're working for those qualifications, which will be made-for-Wales qualifications, to be introduced fairly soon.

So, an awful lot going on on the reform agenda, and I think it's probably just worth mentioning the corporate side of things as well. We've had another clean bill of health with our annual accounts, and also, from our internal audit perspective, we've had a clean bill of health through internal audits. So, from a corporate governance perspective, I'm very pleased with the performance of the organisation, and I think all of those things come together to give public confidence about qualifications, because it can be seen that we're well run as an organisation, we're doing a good job, and we're making sure that awarding bodies are doing a good job as well.

Okay. Thank you, Philip. We now have some questions from Russell George, please.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, both, and thank you for your introductory comments. I think my questions follow on quite nicely from your comments now. I noticed in your annual report you say you've been through some of the most turbulent years for qualification delivery ever. So, I suppose the question is how satisfied you are that qualification outcomes are credibly back in line with pre-pandemic levels, and how the qualification system has successfully navigated this turbulence that you mentioned, particularly in a way that meets your two principal aims. I'm not quite sure who I'm directing the question at. Who would like to take that? I probably don't need you both to answer, so who would like to take that one?

I'll let Philip answer, and then I can always add if we—.

Okay. Thank you, Paul. Thank you.

Yes, I'll take that. I mean, it has been a challenging period. Obviously, the arrangements during the COVID period were very, very different to an ordinary exam series, and led to results that were atypical as well, and we saw that increase in results. I guess what we've been very careful to do is to take a gradual approach to returning to pre-pandemic standards. We've taken probably a slightly slower approach than the approach taken in England, but we've been quite confident that it's been the right approach to give enough time for that recovery in performance. We did do a report at the beginning of this year, which looked at that journey of post-pandemic recovery, and we did see that, particularly in core subjects and particularly at grade C, there was a dip in performance in learners, and that led to lower grade boundaries—I wouldn't say grade boundaries that had to be artificially put in place, but they were probably at the lower range, or the lower end of the range, of acceptable grade boundaries. Now, we've seen some of that grade boundary recovery, we've seen learner performance recovery, and there are still some issues in some areas, but we're confident that standards have been reintroduced appropriately in a way that is empathetic with the experience that learners have had over the pandemic. We think that that gradual approach to a recovery has been very successful, and does give public confidence.

I think one of the signals of that is that, after this summer, we would normally receive not necessarily complaints but concerns from individual schools or from teaching unions or various other stakeholders, and this year we've not received any concerns at all. So, it looks like it's been a very smooth implementation of that return journey. We are now confident that we've got that standard back where it needs to be, which is important not only for the integrity of Wales's qualifications, but it's also important for that sense of having a level playing field across the UK and making sure that standards in Wales are comparable with those standards in England. So, we think that it's been a successful recovery, but it's been taking a gradual approach as we do that.

Could I just briefly add two very small points? The first is that that gradual approach really echoes, I think, how I've found QW's approach to the sector: it's always with the sector, and it's moving in a way that we can collectively manage in terms of speed. It was incredibly important that we got the GCSEs right this year, because they form the basis of the 'broadly similar' for the new GCSEs that will move forward. They provide us with that base point this year and next year that we can then map on to the broadly similar outcomes that we're expecting from the new GCSEs. It's important that we arrived with that successful outcome this year. The feedback from the sector—or the lack of negative feedback from the sector—about the process is a really positive sign, I think. What we've taken on board as a board is really understanding that the sector has accepted that we've moved back to normal and then we can move on through the reforms.

Thank you. Just to dig into some of Philip's responses to me, and Paul, if I can ask you as well, I suppose the question I would ask is how satisfied are you that qualification outcomes are credibly back in line with pre-pandemic levels. I think Philip was saying, 'Yes, we are'. I think that's what he said. Is that your position?

Yes, that's right. We are satisfied. Our board committees look very closely at the outcomes to make sure that we've got that level of assurance that we are back in line with where we'd expect to be versus pre pandemic. 

Philip also talked about the grade boundaries around grade C at GCSE level as well. Is there any more that you can tell us about the grade boundaries for this year? Based on what Philip has said as well, are you fully comfortable with the level that was set this year?

We are comfortable. That's obviously something that we work very closely with WJEC on. Probably I'm going to have to defer a little bit to Philip to give any more detail, but from a board level, we've taken assurance that those are well set. 

It is WJEC's responsibility to set the grade boundaries, and they do that through their awarding committees. Their awarding committees look at a basket of evidence in order to establish where grade boundaries are. That includes some statistical information, which might provide some starting points, but importantly it's got the examiner judgment in there. Senior examiners sit in a committee environment and make decisions looking at learners' actual performance—evidence through scripts around where grade boundaries can be. We go and observe those meetings and if there's anything that comes up in any of those meetings, or certainly a sample of those meetings, if there are any concerns that arise, then we would then dig into those with WJEC. We've not had any of those concerns this year.

We've been very confident with the approach that WJEC has taken in terms of awarding grades and setting grade boundaries. Going back to your original question, I'm very confident that we've got to a position where we've returned to pre-pandemic standards in a sensible way. And of course, as Paul said, it's really important that we try and re-establish that, because we're just about to go through a round of change again with the new GCSEs coming in. We want to see outcomes that are broadly similar to current outcomes, because that gives us a measure that that standard is being maintained across from the old qualifications into the new ones, and it was really important to re-establish that baseline as a proper baseline before we move into those reforms.

In terms of the qualifications from summer 2027 onwards, what changes do you anticipate will be or may be needed?

In terms of the awarding approach or in terms of something else?

Awarding, yes.

I think we're reasonably confident with most subjects that the current awarding process can just carry forward. We won't necessarily see a significant change in the approach to awarding. The areas where we are digging in with the WJEC at a very technical level to understand how the award might work are in just a relatively few number of subjects where the construct is changing significantly. Most notably, that's English, where separate English language and English literature GCSEs will come together to the combined language and literature. Similarly in Cymraeg, where there will be the language and literature coming together. And for maths, where there is almost a reunification of maths numeracy and maths, which, prior to 2015, was just a single construct of maths—it's bringing those two back together again. What we're doing there is trying to establish, at a very technical level, how to bring some of those subjects together where the outcomes at the moment might be quite different.

To give you an example, the outcomes in English literature are quite a lot higher at grade C and above than they are for English language, but there are all sorts of reasons for that. For example, not every learner does English literature. It tends to be the more able learners that are doing English literature, so you've got a more able cohort there. There's a cohort effect, there's a construct effect, because the two elements of English coming together are a little bit different. We need to work through that with the WJEC. That's technical work that we're undertaking with them at the moment, but seeking to make sure that there is a safety net for learners that certainly the statistical information that goes into that process is accounting for those differences between the two subjects at the moment. That's the principal change, I think, in those three subject areas where the construct is changing significantly and we have to look at how we bring together the statistical information that relates to two subjects at the moment.

From what you've just outlined, I assume you're confident that that will successfully take place in 2027.

Yes, we are. As I say, we're working through all the technical detail of it at the moment. We've made good progress. We've started with English language and literature and done quite a bit of work with the WJEC on that, because the principles of that will flow through to Welsh and probably some of those principles will flow through to maths as well. So, we're confident that the work is all heading in the right direction at the moment.

Thank you. We now have questions from Natasha, please.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, both gentlemen. I listened very intently to the first question that the Chair put forward to you about GCSEs and the changes that have gone into play, and you answered the question beautifully and pretty much answered the question I was going to ask you. But I will follow it up with something that I have a great interest in: how has your role evolved now that the focus has moved from the developmental stage to the delivery stage? 

I'll let Philip talk a little bit about the detail, but I think it's probably worth reflecting, having come in as a new chair, how impressive the organisational structure that's been put in place for QW is. One of the great things about the organisational design is that it's a people organisation, ultimately—that's where most of the budget goes, that's where all of the work is. Those people are deployed in a way that allows us to flex between reform and regulation. And so, from a board point of view, and from a chair's point of view, what we've been able to see is those plans coming into effect. There has been planning for delivery as we've moved into reform. So, that's just a little reflection on the organisational structure.

The second I'll talk a little bit about is the engagement with the sector. Again, I'll let Philip go into the detail, but what is impressive is to see how we work consistently with the sector: listen, adjust approach, feedback, and build that loop. We've just agreed a new stakeholder engagement strategy, which really strengthens that. That's so important as we move into delivery, because what QW isn't doing is stepping back—we're stepping forward as we move into that more regulatory normalisation phase. Philip will probably be able to talk about the specifics for you.

I guess the starting point for our role as it evolves, as we move into the delivery, is one around making sure that the change management processes are secure. As the regulator, we have a limited role, I think, in terms of the actuality of implementing the new qualifications, but we do continue to have a role in terms of making sure that all of the parts of the system are playing their parts properly and working in the best interests of learners, and also making sure that what is always a difficult change management process is as effective as it possibly can be for teachers in schools.

Just thinking about the different roles, the WJEC obviously play the principal role. They've been undertaking professional learning and professional development opportunities for teachers to understand the requirements of the new qualification, understand the details of the specifications and also familiarise themselves with some of the sample assessment materials. That work is ongoing, not only for wave 2 qualifications, which will start that professional learning in earnest from the new year, but there's also some work going on with the wave 1 qualifications that are being taught now.

The other key partner in delivery is Adnodd, who work alongside WJEC in terms of preparing resources or commissioning resources to support the new GCSEs. We work very closely with them. We have a strategic change management group that also includes the Welsh Government so that the Welsh Government can be sighted on the work and also can play their part in the change management process.

Specifically in terms of our shifting role, we are moving staff. We have what's considered to be quite a flexible deployment model for our staff within the organisation where they can move around the organisation according to business needs. We are moving staff from our reform directorate into the regulation directorate, because there is an increased focus now on almost like early life support for these new qualifications and making sure that we're monitoring the activities of WJEC. That's things like question paper evaluation committees. The question papers are being written for these new GCSEs now. We're going in and monitoring those committees that WJEC runs to make sure that we're comfortable with the process.

We're also keeping in touch with all of the stakeholders that are relevant. We recently met with the e-sgol executive to understand what are the difficulties that schools are experiencing on the ground with the new GCSEs so that we can then work very deliberately with WJEC on what can be done to try and ease some of those difficulties. It's around monitoring the process, making sure that everybody is playing their part appropriately, and, where necessary, intervening to make things better. At the moment, I would say that we are less on that intervening spectrum. All of the partners are working really well together to try and make this as positive an experience as possible in terms of change for schools.

I know my colleague Russell George touched upon it in his question, but I'd like to know how the preparation for the introduction of the second wave of GCSEs for next September is coming along for you. Everything sounds like it's very hunky-dory and it all sounds like a bed of roses for us all, but I just want to know from you does everything seem to be in line for next year.

Shall I pick that up, Paul? I think things are going well for wave 2. Specifications were all published on schedule by WJEC before the end of September, so all of those specifications are there. The next big milestones are really around the publication of sample assessment materials, which will happen either at the end of this month or the beginning of January, so that's imminent. And then there's WJEC's professional learning programme. There are going to be specific in-service training days for schools, where they'll be able to come together on a local basis—[Inaudible.]—to qualifications.

We're very aware of the work that Adnodd are doing and the work that Adnodd are doing in collaboration with WJEC to make sure that there are good resource materials available, and those are all being published as we go along. So, I feel confident that the wave 2 change management process is going well and schools will be well prepared, ready for first teaching in September 2026.

Okay. So, the final part of my question is: what are the main actions that still need to be carried out? You mentioned that some of the reports are going to be published, going to be coming out soon, which is really good to hear, and I'm sure we'll be eagerly awaiting those in this committee. But, what specific—? When it comes to actions, what do you feel needs to be carried out specifically for Qualifications Wales and for the qualifications system as a whole across Wales? What else would you like to see happen?

Would you like me to pick that up, Paul?

In order to achieve wave 2, specifically?

Yes.

Yes. Philip, if you pick up the detail and then just come back to me at the end.

Yes. As I say, I think all of the actions are in hand, really. For us, the big focus area now is moving actually more on to wave 3, because we've already talked about the change management process, which WJEC are sort of primarily leading on.

For us, the big area of work at the moment is around wave 3 qualifications. So, we went through this process of recognising the eight awarding bodies that are going to deliver those new qualifications, and we have got a very busy period between now and the end of summer 2026, when we'll be looking to approve those qualifications. So, for us, the big push is on those, and it's a slightly different task to the task that we've had with wave 1 and wave 2 qualifications, because obviously, with wave 1 and wave 2, there's only one GCSE awarding body that develops and delivers qualifications for Wales, which is WJEC. So, we're just dealing with one awarding body for that. Where we are with wave 3 is we're expecting, as I say, eight awarding bodies to offer qualifications across various elements of that, and that means that we've got a slightly different process and a different task ahead of us in making sure that those qualifications are all being prepared and developed by those different organisations to a standard that we are then confident to be able to approve, so that they can be released for learners.

One of the big challenges there is that some of those awarding bodies are awarding bodies that will not have gone through this approvals process in the past. So, for them, this will be a new experience, and we'll work with them to make sure that we're doing everything that we can to feed back if there are problems that need to be addressed, and obviously to move through the approval process as quickly as possible. But for us, really, the big focus now is on wave 3 qualifications.

Thank you, Chair.

We'll move on to Cefin Campbell now for the next question, please.

Yes, sure. I think I'll start off, Cefin, by just answering your first question: what's different with wave 3 to wave 1 and wave 2? So, I've already mentioned the fact that it's just one awarding body with wave 1 and wave 2, but for wave 3, we've got the eight awarding bodies. The other difference is that the way that we set out the design parameters for new qualifications is through what we call approval criteria. Approval criteria are set and then awarding bodies will come to us with their proposals around a qualification and then we check to see whether they meet those criteria.

One of the big differences with wave 3 is, rather than having quite detailed criteria, like we have with GCSEs, the approval criteria are at a higher level. So, that's allowing a lot more flexibility for awarding bodies to, you know, perhaps have slightly different offers, which will provide that choice for schools, so that they can choose an awarding body that sort of fits their requirements best. That presents a challenge for us because we're also looking for comparability across awarding bodies. So, we're trying to balance having the flexibility to allow a difference across awarding bodies with having that broad level of comparability, because we want to make sure that a VCSE awarded by one awarding body has the same value as a VCSE awarded by another awarding body. So, that's sort of one of the differences.

How we make it made for Wales is that one of the things that we're really looking for awarding bodies to do is to work directly with stakeholders in Wales to develop the qualification and to develop the requirements of the qualification. So, we ask the awarding body to provide us with a rationale for their qualification when they submit it to us, and part of that is for them to demonstrate how they've worked with stakeholders in Wales on the design of the qualification. And I think that, alongside the fact that wave 3 qualifications are highly innovative—. I mean, this is the first time that Wales has tried to bring together a fully coherent suite of qualifications for 14 to 16-year-olds, and actually it's the first time that's been attempted across the UK in the same way. So, in England, you have a range of qualifications that are delivered around the edges of GCSEs in schools. We're trying to bring that down into a much more sort of defined and curated range of qualifications that are made for Wales.

Just that process of putting those different requirements in place in itself creates the space for innovation and the space for things to be made for Wales, as awarding bodies work with their partners, their stakeholders—whether that be schools, colleges or other stakeholders in the sector that are relevant—to make sure that they get qualifications that are right. And we're very keen for awarding bodies to involve further education colleges in that process as well because VCSEs are being developed very specifically to be delivered in schools within the reasonable resources that are available to schools. We're not looking for competence qualifications that would normally be delivered in FE post 16, because we don't believe that those are within the reasonable resources for schools. We want to make sure that there is that integrity between what VCSEs are trying to deliver and what FE are going to deliver post 16. So, we want to see that broad engagement, not only with schools, but with colleges and with other stakeholders that are relevant.

Thank you. We will now have some questions from Carolyn Thomas, please.

Thank you, Chair. I'm going to ask about some subject-specific issues. So, you announced in September that the individual sciences—biology, chemistry and physics—will still be available alongside the new combined sciences, single and double awards, pending further consultation in 2028 after those new qualifications have had time to bed in. Can you explain the background to reaching that decision? And is there a risk of confusion for both learners and schools given the number of science qualifications that will be available at the same time?

I suppose the first thing I should say is that that decision was made before I was appointed chair, but it is an area where I have had lots of discussions with the board members about understanding the decision-making process. I'm happy to happy to talk through some of that. Philip could pick up any of the background before then.

The first thing I'd say is it was a very hard and considered decision. I think it was difficult for three reasons. The first is because the original decision to go for double science was well thought through and considered and difficult in the first place. It aligned exactly with what the curriculum was trying to achieve, it met what stakeholders were talking to us about, and it offered a really strong pathway for learners. It's always more difficult to unmake a decision that was difficult in the first place, because you've put so much effort into it.

The second element that made it difficult was the board were in the knowledge that, even though that change doesn't actually come into place until next year, schools had been doing exactly what we've asked them to do, which was to prepare for it to come in next year. Some schools had moved towards only offering the double science this year, even though they didn't have to, because they were preparing, so that decision really had to bear in mind the impact on those schools, the ones that had really started to move forward towards the double science approach.

The third was making sure that what we were doing was really listening to the actual messages from stakeholders, and not change concerns. I know that the board looked in really deep detail at all three areas there.

We've ended up in a situation whereby schools have all of the choices. That could be confusing, but it does offer all of the learners the best opportunities to move forward. It also doesn't restrict us as Wales from taking any one of those pathways in the future. We now have a spectrum whereby a learner who needs to do an integrated single science is able to take up the integrated single science. There's a really robust double science available, aligned very strongly with the new curriculum. Then, there are still the separate sciences available for those schools that want to offer them separately.

I won't shy away from it, it is a tough decision for schools because: how much of the curriculum time are they going to give to teaching sciences? There's a lot more work that needs to be done in order to do separate sciences than double. One of the advantages of the double was that it created a bit of parity across people, so you didn't feel that you had the very able students doing separate, the slightly less able students doing double, and then the single science available to those that needed it.

So, it was a very complicated decision. I think the board landed in the right place, which is not to exclude options that would prevent learners from progressing, and also to fix some of the challenges that were around transitioning from having separate sciences to a double science award if someone needed to resit. A really complicated decision. The board took a long time to think it through, all of those impacts, with the learner at the front of their minds as well as the sector. I think they've landed in the right place to give us the options in the run-up to 2030. We're going to have to do a lot of talking in the run-up to 2030 and that final decision.

There's also a foundational level combined science as well.

Yes, the single science there, which is there for perhaps those learners who want to continue to do science but would struggle with the level that is there in the double. That's after a lot of discussions that I've had with board members who really spent a lot of time thinking about all of this stuff and happily relayed it to me. I don't know, Philip, if there's any other background you want to bring in.

There was a lot of reaction at the time, wasn't there, and concern? I suppose that had to be taken as a consideration as well—

Yes. There was concern in the run-up to the launch of the double, and there's also been some concern since about the fact that there has been a sort of change in direction. It's really important that we signalled—. I think the communications worked really well across all the stakeholders, but it's really important that we signalled that this isn't backing away from the curriculum approach. This is a specific change in relation to the sciences to meet the clear messaging that was coming through around the need for options in the sciences.

When setting approval criteria for qualifications, how difficult is it to strike a balance between ensuring the criteria span all the important content without overloading the qualification? I want to give you an example of the new geography GCSE, and there's a lack of reference to plate tectonics and ecosystems. We picked this up on a school visit. I've read the letter, the response, and it's been raised with me that there's a natural history GCSE now being introduced in England and why aren't we introducing it here in Wales. And they feel there's a gap, especially as we've got the climate and nature emergencies. I had a look at the response letter from the WJEC and Qualifications Wales, and it says that geography's focusing on place, diversity, and environment. Environment could be quite wide, and so I'm concerned, and others that have written to me—environmental non-governmental organisations—about excluding the natural environment, flora, fauna, biodiversity. We heard from a school that the A-level stays the same, and has that ecosystem and tectonics element in it. So, there's a gap there.

I recently met with a clinical psychologist who was interested in this, and she was saying that when young people no longer connect with nature, they're distracted by maybe phones, social media, other things, they don't return to it, and the impact of being separated from the natural environment can have an impact on them, too. So, the question coming from the ENGOs and young people was about having their natural history exam offer at GCSE here in Wales too. I understand, I've had the responses, but it's something I think that, as people get to hear more about it, that it's offered in England but not in Wales, and there's that gap, might become an issue.

But my initial question was, when setting approval criteria for qualifications, how difficult is it to strike that balance and to make sure you've got the right decisions, going forward?

I'll let Philip talk in a moment about the relationship between us and WJEC, because there's a shared responsibility around the elements that we set and the elements of the curriculum that are reflected in the actual examination that are set by WJEC. There is always a challenge with GCSEs particularly, in that you cannot offer the breadth of the curriculum and the depth that you need for a GCSE for absolutely every element of the subject, and geography is a really good example there, because geography is inherently integrated between people and place, and therefore the environment lives throughout the entirety of the way that the GCSE is created, but also how the discipline operates. And the key with a GCSE in something like geography is making sure we have the hooks to lead into the A-levels, I think. But I'll let Philip talk a bit about roles, and then if we haven't covered in that the natural—. And the selection of qualifications when things become available in England, I think I'll come back to that point as well, because that's something that we do talk about at a board level continually. But, Philip, I don't know whether you want to flesh out some of the responsibilities and the roles between us and WJEC.

Yes, sure. I guess approval criteria aren't intended to specify the detail of content. They obviously provide a shape around that, provide some expectations around what content will be covered, but they don't seek to set the content in detail. That always happens when the awarding body goes into the next step of the development process and takes those approval criteria and looks to amplify them, and to identify the areas that the specification is going to cover.

But, as to 14-16 qualifications, I think Paul's touched on this. It's almost a difficult place, because there's quite a lot of content that will be covered before 14 through those secondary years that lead up to year 10 and year 11. And then there's content that will carry on in the AS and A-levels if a learner chooses to continue with that. I think one of the problems is that some subjects can become quite content heavy, and can become quite unmanageable for schools to deliver if they're attempting to do everything. Certainly, that's something that we've heard previously about GCSE geography from the last reforms in 2015, 2016 and 2017. They were very content heavy in geography and that created manageability concerns for schools because, obviously, they've got a defined curriculum time to be able to deliver all of that content, and the more content you try and squeeze into it, the harder it becomes for them to cover that in the depth that is needed. 

So, my question to you then is: if it's so content heavy, why not have the other qualification as well for the choice of natural history? 

We do have a VCSE in nature restoration that is going to be part of wave 3, so that will be covering the same sort of territory as the other GCSE that's proposed in England. Actually, when we look at the VCSE in nature restoration and we have a look at the GCSE that's being developed in England, if they are not what we call 'same' or 'similar'—so, if they're serving different purposes and the content is different—then we could look to designate that qualification to be made available in Wales, if it meets our criteria for designation.

The principal one there would be whether it was made available in both English and Welsh. So, if it wasn't 'same' or 'similar' and it was available in both languages, then we could look to designate it, but we would only do that if we considered it to be significantly different to the VCSE in nature restoration, which we think will be serving similar sorts of purposes to the purpose of the GCSE. But because it's a VCSE, it will be more practical and potentially more engaging for learners as well. 

I get that. 

Just in general around the designation and when a new qualification becomes available outside of Wales, we have a role as a regulator to offer the menu, I suppose. So, I'm perhaps stepping outside of that a little bit and saying we have to be confident that when we're going to offer a qualification, there is going to be enough uptake by schools. We don't want a small number of schools and a small number of learners adopting something that might be better served—and I completely agree with everything you said about the role of nature in learning—by having nature-based learning across the wider curriculum. So, it's getting the right answer for what our learners need, which is not necessarily porting a GCSE over, particularly if there's significant overlap, or we can deliver the same benefit of learning in a different way. 

The VCSE in nature restoration, I think, would appeal to those that might want to further their knowledge in ecosystems and biodiversity. So, I'd be interested to know more about that. Thank you—if you can send me information. I just want to ask a question about the music GCSE. Again, on the visit, there were concerns that pupils were using technology in the exam that was unfamiliar to them. They had laptops and I think they were expected to use Chromebooks for the exam, which made it really difficult. They didn't have the right technology. So, again, how does Qualifications Wales monitor such issues, and can you provide assurances in this regard that that'll be a consideration?

Shall I—? 

Yes, if you pick that up and talk about the digital support that the teams are given. 

So, two things. I think, with the music GCSE, there was concern around the availability of practice materials digitally and I understand from the Welsh Joint Education Council that those materials are available digitally. I think there's a separate issue around the implementation of more digital assessment that we're undertaking in a very careful way, and one of the concerns that's been raised with us is that schools have invested heavily in Chromebooks. In the post-pandemic period, it's the preferred device for their learners. Currently, as to the assessment system that WJEC uses for digital assessment, there are already some digital assessments there that rely on Microsoft environments, which aren't necessarily supported on Chromebooks. But WJEC is working with their supplier to have a Chromebook version of the software available before we get to the wider implementation of digital assessments. So, at the moment, it does rely on Microsoft technology for those digital assessments, but it will be moving across to being Chromebook compatible over the next year or so.

I hope you feel better soon, from your cough. It's quite good to be able to work remotely if you're not feeling very well. Thank you, Chair.

Thanks, Carolyn. Cefin, please.

Yes, I certainly can. We've recently consulted on approval criteria for A-level Cymraeg and also the Welsh second language equivalent, core Cymraeg. So, in those, we're very sensitive to the fact that we want to make those qualifications as engaging as possible so that they attract as many learners as possible. So, in that, it's been trying to look at a balance of making it more, I guess, relevant to the societal needs—so, more thinking about the communication skills, thinking about the texts that are used—and there's always going to be a balance between traditional texts and more contemporary texts. I think what we've been trying to do is to make a shift more towards more contemporary texts, which we think may be more appealing for learners.

We've also done some structural things, like move from it being a six-unit qualification to a five-unit qualification. So, there are lots of things that are being done, and all of those things are being done with close collaboration with all of the stakeholders that have an interest in that qualification. We've recently published the decisions report on that, which will now mean that we'll be publishing the approval criteria shortly that WJEC will develop the qualifications to.

We've also had a very close collaboration process with WJEC through this process, because we actually want this qualification to be introduced as quickly as possible. We want the new A-level to be there for first teaching from September 2027 so that it integrates with those learners that are coming through the new Cymraeg and core Cymraeg GCSEs, which will be awarded for the first time in summer 2027. So, in order to do that, we've had a more collaborative process, where WJEC have been working alongside us as we've undertaken some of these consultations and developed those approval criteria. So, it's very much a team effort between us and WJEC to try and make those qualifications as engaging as possible and respond to some of the concerns that some stakeholders have raised about the current qualification being less engaging than it might be. So, it's trying to respond to those concerns in a way that balances the need to maintain standards in the qualification and the need to make it as engaging as possible.

Thank you. We now have some more questions from Cefin.

Sure. So, over the 10 years, we've gone through all of the main employment sectors for Wales. We started off with health and social care and childcare back in 2015. And actually, back then this was a very innovative approach, because we decided that there wasn't a single model that would necessarily work for the reform of qualifications if you just looked at age or stage, but actually the need for qualifications would be very sector specific. So, we started off with this very innovative approach and we've worked through all of the major employment sectors. And actually, we also have to sort of realise that once you go through probably about five sectors, the number of learners that are taking qualifications starts to become quite small. So, the level of agency that you have starts to diminish as the size of the sector or the number of learners that are going through qualifications in that sector diminishes.

But we have gone through all of those major sectors and we've had some very significant reforms in areas like health and social care and childcare, where there's a new range of qualifications that we've worked very closely on with Social Care Wales and Health Education and Improvement Wales to get those qualifications in a place where the sector was comfortable with them. And then we worked with FE colleges also on the manageability of those qualifications. We've also done very significant reforms in the area of construction and building services where there's a new suite of qualifications that are available there.

In other sectors, we've taken an approach of, 'Well, actually, if the qualifications are largely meeting the needs of the sector, what do we need to do in a more targeted way?' And that might be looking at specific areas of content or it might be around making qualifications that aren't available through the medium of Welsh available through the medium of Welsh through our grant funding scheme. So, it's sort of ranged from wholesale reforms to quite nuanced reforms.

We've actually been thinking about what we do next. Because as we've gone through those sectors, I think there are some sectors that we might want to revisit and there are some areas where we might want to take a different approach, so not necessarily looking at a sector, but looking at cross-sector themes. So, we haven't confirmed any of these yet, but I think the areas where we might want to go back and have a look at the sector in a more comprehensive way would be around advanced manufacturing, engineering and energy, which is one of our sector areas that we looked at quite some time ago. And the other one that we would probably want to have a look at is digital technology because that area moves so quickly. And, of course, those sectors also tie up with economic priorities for Wales and for the UK more generally. So, we think we might need to have a look at those.

The other two things that we need to think about in relation to vocational qualifications that I think are really important is that if we're thinking about those qualifications that are used on apprenticeships through work-based learning, we now have Medr, which is undertaking reviews of apprenticeships. We want to work very closely with Medr to make sure that the work that they're doing and the work that we're doing is co-ordinated and that we are working effectively together as partners in the sector.

And the other thing that we need to think about is—. You'll be aware that, through the curriculum assessment review and the skills post-16 paper that England has recently published ,they're looking at significant reforms to the vocational sector in full-time education in England, where it will move to a model of there being A-levels, new V-levels, and T-levels. That will have an impact on the range of qualifications that are available in Wales where we're relying on UK-wide qualifications, which are principally developed for England, where the largest market is. So, we'll need to work to understand what the impact of that is, and we're actually looking to develop some options for a new Government, post May, so that we can understand where Welsh Government's policy will be, in terms of the possible directions for how we might respond to that change in the environment.

So, I think there are some sectors that we'll want to go back and have a look at, but we think that's quite limited. From an apprenticeships perspective, we want to work very closely with Medr, and then we want to work with Welsh Government to develop options for how we respond to those significant changes that we're anticipating as a response to policy changes in England.

Thinking about the sector review and the work of the stakeholder group, and you asked yourself a rhetorical question: where do we go next? So, my question is: how close are we, therefore, to being in a position to develop a vocational education and training strategy for Wales, which is what came out of the Lusher review of post-16 and, generally, vocational studies?

From a qualifications perspective, I think there is probably an important choice that Government will need to make, which will need to flow through into a strategy, which I think is principally in response to these changes in England. And broadly, there are three routes that could be taken. One is to adopt a similar policy to England and to use those same qualifications and looking at—. We already have our own made-for-Wales A-levels, but looking at V-levels and, potentially, T-levels. And I think there are probably going to be issues with that approach.

They are also going—. A second option would be to maintain a mixed economy, as we have at the moment, with made-for-Wales qualifications in those larger sectors where it's viable for an awarding body to develop qualifications that particularly meet the needs of Wales, or to adapt qualifications that are available in England or elsewhere in the world to meet the needs of Wales. And that would be those made-for-Wales qualifications, and use some mixed economy of those qualifications that are being developed in England against the V-levels and T-levels policy.

Or, a third option, you go for an entirely made-for-Wales suite of qualifications that provides that distance from the policy changes in England. So, I think, strategically, and this is why it's important that it's decisions that Welsh Government are looking at, there are three broad routes that we could take with vocational qualifications. We want to do work over the next six months to really flesh out what are the pros and cons, what are the consequences, what are the likely resource implications of each of those routes, so that we can present those in the summer. Because, really, we would need to have a decision, probably by this time next year, before Christmas of 2026, on which route Wales wishes to take so that we could pursue that and secure a sustainable range of vocational qualifications.

Your original question was around the vocational education and training strategy and, in a sense, not having that strategy means that we're now looking at the broad spectrum of options in terms of responding to the V-level changes. The hope is that, as that strategy develops and as we provide our advice, we'll then be able to focus the activities—that Qualifications Wales are delivering the right sort of qualifications that are needed to meet the overall VET strategy and Welsh Government policy. But we need to be driven by policy in that situation, which is why the next six to eight months are going to be really important for us.

We talked earlier about the organisation shifting from reform to regulation. There's the potential that there might need to be a shift to more reform, depending on the outcome of the policy. And again, that agility as an organisation is going to be incredibly important over the next two, three et cetera years.

Just one other point, which is that the White Paper and the V-levels was news to us, in a lot of senses. There are a lot of unknowns there that we need to work through in terms of how different those V-level qualifications will be from what's currently offered in BTECs and therefore what's currently offered in Wales. So, it really does feel like we're in the first steps of that journey, but we'll need that policy guide from the Welsh Government.

Okay. Just moving on, then, just a broad question: do you have any thoughts on our recently published report on routes to post-16 education and training? Any comments you'd like to make on that report?

I'll start. I think, firstly, it's an incredibly helpful report and it's a very important area to be looking at. I like the term 'pathways', because I'm not a believer in destinations, because, you know, most of the jobs that I've ever done in my life didn't exist when I started school. I think it provides us with some really useful opportunities to map together across the sector what those journeys or those pathways look like, and for Qualifications Wales, that enables us to see where there might be overlapping gaps. So, it was a very helpful report, and I think if Welsh Government takes forward the recommendations, particularly around understanding the qualifications landscape a little bit better and how it aligns to pathways, that will help us in delivering our job.

We do some work, which Philip might want to talk about—. We've done some work recently in terms of mapping out pathways that exist at the moment, but this is a sector problem, I think, and the role that Careers Wales plays and the broader sector is just so important. We are really providing information into that so that the right advice can be given to young people. And then, if young people are given the right advice, they'll be making decisions that help to reinforce the validity of those qualifications. So, it becomes a virtuous cycle, I think, and that's why looking at it on a pathways basis is just so helpful, in my view. Philip, is there anything you want to add on the report?

No, just to reiterate the work that we've done on publishing pathways through qualifications, which is available on our website. So, for each sector, we've tried to map out the pathways that people might take through qualifications. I think the most important thing here, and it's just reflecting on the conversations I have with my own children, is the importance of advice and guidance, so that people understand that a pathway starts very young, and that it's those choices that people make at 14, or 13 even, where they're making their GCSE choices or what other qualifications they're going to take in that 14-16 space, that then have so much impact on the rest of their lives. And also building that understanding of not only the choices they make, but that how they perform in those qualifications can provide limitations further on in their pathways and their journeys. So, I think that advice and guidance piece of what's needed in the system is so important. And it's something that is very variable, because if you have informed, engaged parents who are giving you that advice, it's very different to someone who's maybe trying to find that advice on their own. So, having that as an equitable provision I think is a really important thing for learners in Wales.

And that's going to be—. The best example of that, I think, in the report is the discussion around the pre-16 vocational qualifications and the fact that the landscape could look very confusing at the moment because there's a lot of change going on and lots of options. Some of that is the nature of the fact that we're introducing VCSEs, so the world is changing and the terminology is changing, but it is a real opportunity there for us as a sector to work to clarify, I think, what that looks like, and for people to understand what leads to what. VCSEs can lead to academic outcomes as well as apprenticeships and, you know, degrees and PhDs, just as much as they can lead to rewarding and successful careers in industry. I think we've got an exciting challenge there, and it's great to have that articulated in the report.

Do you think that VCSEs—? Do you think that they will be looked at with the same parity and weight as GCSEs? They're just a different way of learning, basically. That's my concern, because they're classed as vocational or something light. But some may learn differently—practically rather than by reading. So, your views on that. And when we did pathways, post-16 pathways into employment, we were hearing that there is a lack of career experience as well, going out and actually trying different careers. So, do you think that the VCSEs will help with that, to get that practical experience as well?

To take the first question first, parity is really challenging as a concept. I've met lots of people in my career in the sector who are so proud of their NVQ they put it on the back of their van, they see that as being better than an A-level. I would argue that it probably is better for them than an A-level—better from an earning perspective, certainly. So, for me, it is about equity a bit more than parity, and particularly parents and advisers understanding the right mix. So, the VCSEs are designed to have parity with GCSEs—they’re a similar size, you can take them on other things—and we should be seeing learners in Wales coming out with a mix of VCSEs and GCSEs, with those who learn better through VCSE approaches leaning towards the VCSE, those that learn better through GCSE approaches perhaps leaning towards the GCSE. But the mix of learning styles is a good thing, because the ability to learn is what you really get out of education, rather than just the qualification. So, I think there is the mechanism there to have parity. It is going to be almost brand and PR as much as it is going to be the design of the qualifications, I think, which is, again, a sector challenge that we can take our part in.

Sorry, the second part of your question, Carolyn—.

Work experience. A lack of work experience is mentioned quite a lot. So, do you think that having VCSEs, if they're practical, might help?

VCSEs provide that taster of the sector, just like, when you complete a history GCSE, you don't become a historian. I think work experience is embedded across all of the curriculum now, so there are the opportunities there. I think that VCSEs have the right balance in order that people don't think that, at the end of a VCSE, they are suddenly a vocationally competent, employable hairdresser, or whatever they've studied. So, I think that there's enough in there, but I would be wary of overloading that amount of work experience, and part of that—Philip may want to give a more nuanced view, but part of that—is my own views around the value of apprenticeships, because they are the best way of moving into employment if you want to move into employment early, in my view. And so overloading work experience somewhat diminishes the value of an apprenticeship, because people are then getting time in work—unpaid time in work—alongside their qualification, when perhaps what they should be doing is enough of a taster that they want to then apply for a really good apprenticeship with that employer, rather than them offering a bit of work experience. But, I don't know, that's a non-nuanced, personal view, I suppose, probably. Philip, is there anything—?

,Just to expand on a couple of things, Paul. So, I think one of the main purposes of introducing the VCSE brand is to build better understanding of vocational qualifications in that pre-16 environment. And as people start to build understanding, then I think the value naturally follows. So, at the moment, there's a very broad and diverse range of qualifications that are called different things, and that doesn't help with having that breadth of understanding. So, that's really important, and that comes back to this brand point, and we're going to be doing more work as VCSEs get closer to implementation to build that value around the brand and understanding around the brand.

Explicitly around work experience in VCSEs, we're not having that as a requirement within the VCSEs, which doesn't prohibit a school making work experience available, but we're not having it as a qualification requirement, (1) because we think that that could limit the uptake of VCSEs if it was an explicit requirement and there wasn't availability of work placements in the area, and, secondly, there are so many safeguarding issues associated with under-16s doing work experience that, again, we don't want that to be something that becomes a limiting factor. So, it's not going to be part of the VCSE itself, but it's not to prohibit schools using work experience opportunities if they have them.

Okay? Yes. Thank you. Over to Russell now. 

Thank you, Chair. Roughly, what is the split between approved and designated qualifications?

So, that's a great question, and one of my top questions at the moment, actually, is around making sure that we've got the right balance between designated and approved qualifications. At the moment, the vast majority of qualifications are still working their way through the system in terms of designation. But, as you can see in the annual report, that drops off quite dramatically, because of the introduction of the made-for-Wales GCSEs. So, as they come in, we are then seeing designated qualifications drop off, but you've probably got the numbers to hand.

I haven't, no.

No, Philip probably has the numbers to hand. 

No, I was thinking—. No, I don't know the answer.

Yes, off the top of my head, Paul, I'm trying to pull figures from the back of my brain here.

I did say 'roughly', to be fair, so, just to give us some idea. And I suppose, to expand on the question, what's the journey between the split as well?

So, I think, roughly, we're looking at something like 260 or 200 approved qualifications and nearly 3,000 designated qualifications. And actually the journey over 10 years has been to reduce the number of designated qualifications significantly. And I think what's interesting is, actually, as soon as you approve a qualification in an area, that can take out large swathes of designated qualifications, or it can take out small numbers of designated qualifications. So, for example, I think with construction—again, I'm casting my mind back many years—we introduced 16 qualifications, which took about 400 designated qualifications out of the system. So, that relationship is not a linear one—you're not taking one designated qualification out and replacing it with an approved qualification.

So, I think in the past you've said—I'll come to you next, Paul, yes—that the balance will shift towards the majority of qualifications being approved rather than designated. So, how far are you away from that position, I suppose?

I think that's a factor of time. What I've talked about—in fact, when I was before this committee in the summer—is one of my priorities is getting the right balance. I'm not really willing to put a number on that, because it is about the right balance for Wales. There are some areas where the curriculum is clear and we want to deliver made-for-Wales qualifications, but we also need to be able to offer, wrapped up in an apprenticeship, an international standard of qualifications. So, I'm not sure there ever is a right number; what's clear is that there are too many at the moment. And that is a factor of time, and moving from, effectively, divergence of the qualifications systems, so we're carrying all of that legacy of qualifications that are in there.

I suppose the question is: when will you get to a position that you will feel happy or comfortable with?

So, I think we, strategically as a board, want to feel happy with qualifications where every learner in Wales can learn against the curriculum in the subject area that they need to, and get a vocational outcome that is recognisable and portable. And that would be my benchmark. So, that's slightly different for academic and vocational qualifications.

For academic qualifications, we can measure that relatively straightforwardly against the curriculum. So, when we go through A-level changes and GCSE changes, we should see those numbers drop off.

For vocational qualifications, I would expect to see changes come through. As exciting new disciplines develop internationally, we might designate that qualification, they become the core of what we do in Wales, and so we create a made-for-Wales qualification for it. So, I do think that it's a very different picture within those two. At the moment, it's transitional because of the nature of the reforms. I don't think it will ever be settled is probably the point I'm trying to make.

No. Thank you, Paul. And can you confirm roughly how many qualifications in total are on the QW database and what you expect to happen to that number over the next few years, and what are the implications of this? 

Philip, do you, at the back of your head, have any more numbers in terms of the QW database?

No, but I think we can provide that to the committee separately. We can write back to the committee with that detail. What do we expect to see? I think we will see a reduction in the number of designated qualifications, and we will see an increase in the number of approved qualifications. I think a lot of this will depend on—. We've already talked about the options that are available in response to the policy position in England, and that is going to be very relevant to this, because the three options that I've proposed largely follow what's going on in England, which would mean, if you did that, there would be a higher proportion of designated qualifications; if there was a mixture, it would be a change from what we've got at the moment, but you would still see that mix; or, if you're going principally for made-for-Wales qualifications, you would see a vast reduction in the number of designated qualifications and a big increase in the number of approved qualifications. The big constraint, though, is thinking about the viability of small cohorts of learners for awarding bodies, because awarding bodies need to create, develop and deliver qualifications that are viable for them, because they may be charities or they may be businesses, but they all need to be economically viable.

If you have very small cohorts of learners in areas where Wales simply doesn't have high numbers of learners in those particular qualifications, the impact is that you won't get a market response unless you do something, and to do something you might need to subsidise, you might need to do all sorts of things that incentivise an awarding body to deliver a qualification with a small cohort, otherwise, you would end up with such high entry fees that it would not be viable for learning providers or for Medr or for funding models. So, we've got to balance those things, and that's why we have a balance of approved and designated qualifications, because there's always a balance that's needed at the moment, because, frankly, some of the sector areas are too small to have a viable range of made-for-Wales qualifications.

Thank you. My last question—. I know we're a bit pressed for time as well, but your annual report doesn't really contain much information regarding QW and the Welsh Government's approach to prioritised and restricted qualifications. Are there any developments or issues that you'd like to bring to the committee's attention? I'm just looking for a reasonably short answer to that, if you can.

Shall I pick that up, Paul? So, obviously, that's a legislative requirement, for the priority qualification list to be agreed between us and Welsh Government. That really follows our reform agenda, so, wherever we have a reform that may lead to the need to have made-for-Wales qualifications, which will be approved qualifications, that's where we work with Welsh Government to agree what those qualifications will be and have them on the list, and that process works well.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to jump to Natasha now, because I am conscious that we are very short on time.

I'll try and be brief. Thank you so much, Chair. The number of incidents reported to you by awarding bodies was 258, the highest of any year since the formation in 2015 except for 2022-23—the committee is aware of that. The last three years have seen the highest number of notified incidents since 2015. So, what do you put that down to, and should this committee be concerned?

I'll let Philip talk about the detail. I don't think there is an area of concern. I think there's an element of the seriousness of the incidents, which is really important to understanding this, but Philip.

Yes, I think it's essentially down to better reporting. We've emphasised the need for awarding bodies to report all incidents to us. So, there are many incidents that are reported. We haven't seen anything that has been particularly significant for learners in Wales. And also, because many of the qualifications, including some GCSEs, operate on a cross-Wales basis, because there could be learners in non-maintained settings that are taking GCSEs that are awarded in England, we'll often see incidents that are in England that may have an impact on a very, very small number of learners in Wales that get reported to us. So, we're not seeing anything there that is particularly concerning in terms of the increase of numbers. We want to see the visibility of it because we want to understand, if there is an incident, is that incident being managed properly.

Okay. I'm glad to hear that. The committee's been made aware of a whistleblowing disclosure you received in 2024-25, and I'd like to know, and I'm sure the committee would really appreciate to find out, a little bit more about what monitoring you're going to be doing and are doing in relation to the awarding body in question.

Yes, obviously, because it's a whistleblowing incident, I can't go into detail, but it is being actively monitored. Because it's an awarding body that operates in both England and in Wales, we're working very closely with Ofqual on that as well. So, there is an active monitoring process in place, and we're collaborating very closely with Ofqual on that.

Okay, fine. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you. Turning now to your own budget, you highlighted that staff pay is taking up an increasing portion of your budget, as I can imagine. Also, you previously had to reduce non-pay budgets by around 25 per cent to cover pay cost pressures. How much of a challenge is this and what impact does it have on your capacity to fulfil the organisation's role?

Obviously, it was flat cash over the last two years and we're expecting similar in the next budget, roughly. I said earlier that QW is primarily a people organisation and so the increase in pay reduces our ability to do things. Regulation is not an option, so we have to focus on regulation, and we've got a very full reform agenda. And so the challenge there, despite the agility of the organisation and the organisational structure, is being asked to do more and our capacity to deliver multiple things at the same time.

We approach that, I think, in two ways. The first is by making sure that the structure allows us to move resource around as much as possible. The second is planning. For a small organisation, QW has some really robust planning processes in place. Maintaining those plans in the face of agility and change is constantly the challenge, I think, for the executive team and for the board. So, really, what it's doing is restricting our ability to do more or go faster.

Thank you. Philip, did you want to comment on that? 

Just to reiterate, I think every organisation in the public sector, to one extent or another, is going to be resource constrained. We could do more if we had more resources available to us. It means that we have to focus on the most important things each year. We set out some strategic priorities on a five-year basis and then we have an annual plan.

I think the one thing that's probably worth the committee noting is that, because staff costs are such a high proportion of our overall costs, it means that you have to anticipate the next year's budget very actively, because you can't make recruitment decisions that you would then struggle to be able to fund in future years. So, we're always very carefully balancing the staff turnover and, every time there is a vacancy, making very active decisions around whether we recruit or not, because if we do recruit then we have an ongoing cost into future years for that role. That affects our resource capacity in the future and it affects our spend within year as well.

Okay, thank you for that answer. We do have a very small amount of time left, so I'll go back to Carolyn. 

What is the £250,000 capital budget used for?

Shall I pick up on that? It can be the Qualifications in Wales database. We have a contract with a supplier to—. We have our own in-house development capability, but we do some outsourcing on that as well. We have our offices with capital and we have some IT spend around that. So, it's largely around premises, QiW being the largest part, and some sort of IT replenishment as well. It's relatively limited.

Okay, thank you.

We've finished ahead of time, which is unheard of in this committee, so thank you for keeping your answers really concise. Thank you for your time this morning. You'll be sent a transcript of proceedings for checking in due course. Thank you very much, Philip, and we're wishing you a speedy recovery.

Thank you very much.

I'll now move on to item 3, which is papers to note. We have 17 papers to note today, full details of which are set out in the agenda and in the paper pack. Are Members content to note papers together? Yes. Great.

Moving on to item 4, I propose, 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 can see they are. We'll now proceed in private.