National Assembly for Wales

Good afternoon. I'd like to welcome Members to this meeting of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee. I'd also like to welcome the Auditor General for Wales, Catherine Mealing-Jones, and her official. to this meeting. The public items of the meeting are being broadcast live on Senedd.tv and a record of proceedings will be published as usual. This meeting is bilingual and simultaneous interpretation from Welsh to English is available. As a member of the Senedd Commission, Andrew R.T. Davies has recused himself from today's meeting, and, regrettably, the Conservative group were unable to provide a substitute, which is why we're one down. Can I ask any Members if they have any declarations of relevant or registrable interests for this meeting?

Former general secretary of TUC Cymru, and so there might be some staffing issues that I might have had some knowledge of previously.

Thank you for that, Shav.

I’d like to formally welcome the Commissioner and officials from the Senedd Commission to today’s meeting. The purpose of today’s session is to hold a scrutiny session on the Senedd Commission annual report and accounts for 2025-26. Could I please ask you to introduce yourself and your officials for the record?

Lisa Bowkett, chief finance officer.

Ed Williams, director of resources.

Thank you very much. I’d like to remind everyone that the meeting is bilingual. Headsets provide simultaneous translation for Welsh to English on channel 1, and sound amplification is on channel 0.

So, moving on to the first question, the Commission has set the strategic aims of the organisation. When will these aims be in place and how do you review and revise your corporate priorities and planning for the current and future years?

Thank you, Chair. The Commission has had an opportunity over the summer to review the strategic goals for the seventh Senedd, taking into account the legacy report of the last Commission, and has decided on a strategic framework. That is going to feed now into our corporate plan, and, from there, it will feed into the annual round of service planning as well. So, annually, these plans are put together and that is how we will report back on them as well.

Okay, thank you very much. I shall come back with loads of questions, but I shall now move to Alun Cox.

Diolch. Last autumn, a risk was added to the corporate risk register around the passing of the Welsh Government budget. I wonder whether that risk has increased or decreased, and, particularly, I think the then Llywydd said, in terms of whether that assessment and what assessment has been in terms of the effect of not passing a budget or delay to a budget—. I think the words were, 'We haven’t even gone there.' Have you now gone there?

I think that we have gone about building the budget in the way that we do every year, which is to only ask for what we believe the Commission prudently needs next year. We evaluate each section of the budget. We’re aware that, if the Senedd doesn’t pass the Commission budget, then we’re down to 95 per cent of that budget.

In contrast to last year, because we’re not looking at Senedd reform between this year and next year, it isn’t quite such an extreme calculation. It would still be extremely painful. We don’t build in contingencies. We already over-programme our project fund and have to manage the budget dynamically from year to year. You’ll notice that in the last year, of course, we did not exceed our target of coming within 1.5 per cent of the operational budget, which is always a bit nail-biting at the end of the financial year. We make sure that best public value is obtained from every last £1 of that budget.

In terms of the Government’s budget, then we’re in the same position as other bodies. Should that not be passed, then, as you will be familiar, we return to 75 per cent of the previous year’s budget, and then that reverting to 95 per cent if a solution is still not found. I think, at that stage, very drastic decisions would have to be made, which I expect we would be coming to talk to the Finance Committee about. It wouldn't be possible to carry on with business as usual under those circumstances.

Diolch. Are you—

Yes.

—happy for me to carry on? Unfortunately, I think we're going to jump around a bit—

—and then we'll, hopefully, cover as much as we possibly can. 

The 2025-26 budget for election costs was almost double that of 2021-22. How do you assess whether that budget has the desired effect and measure that effectiveness?

The election budget—. I'm sorry, could I just check? The election budget for this current year, or—?

Yes. So, it's gone up—it's double what it was in 2021-22, for obvious reasons.

Oh, I see, yes. Five years ago.

Yes, absolutely. 

I understand. Forgive me. I think that the relevant comparator there is that this comes after a very much changed election, an election where we saw a completely new system being introduced. And of course, our aim when we engage with the public about the election is not to urge them to vote in a certain way. I hope that goes without saying. It is a politically neutral campaign, but it's to engage people, educate them about how they need to get involved, how the system is changing. So, there is an element there that is about the public engagement with the election. Clearly, that was a greater task this year than it was last year. The full evaluation of that is still in place, because some of that fell into the current year, as opposed to the year that we're looking at. The large amount of paid-for advertising, for example, was in April, in the weeks before the election. We will no doubt be talking to you about that next year. But I can say that the level of engagement that we had through things like our campaigns, with booths going around public places and using influencers, exceeded expectations and there was a measurable shift in terms of awareness of and understanding of the changes that were being implemented.

And I guess—sorry, Pred—that voter turnout, the 5 per cent increase in voter turnout, was part of the things that we might measure, and, in fact, I guess, with some of the areas around 16 and 17-year-olds voting for the first time, whether there was an increase in those numbers.

Yes.

On that point—. It's great to be with you here today. It's the first time I'm doing this. I'm usually sat—. In the last Senedd, I was sat in a similar position to you, Andrew. But, yes, it was interesting to see some of this in action during the campaign, and visiting Coleg Gwent and seeing every party in the room being able to engage with all of the young people there. Every party was there, so there was no bias. But it was also the working with other organisations like the Electoral Commission to impart information to young people to make sure that they are able to know how to vote, to know that they need to register to vote, and that sort of work. Manon might be able to talk a little bit further on some of that working with other organisations to make sure that best value for money was being ensured, that we weren't duplicating what other organisations were doing, so that everything was being complemented, and trying to make the most of the budget that was allocated to it.

Thank you. We've got a couple of follow-ups before I move on to the next question. So, Cai Parry-Jones, please.

Just going back to Alun's question on the election-related costs, you spoke about that it was double those for the previous election. I wasn't clear on why it's doubled. Why is it not triple or quadruple or 1.5 times?

The proposal we put forward was proportionate to what we thought the increased activity would cost. That was the service planning that we undertook, and it was approved in the context of the budget.

I don't know what that means. Can you just dumb it down, the answer? What makes you decide it's double the budget?

Well, in the context of the kind of campaign, the kind of provision, that we would need—because the election budget included not just the campaign but also the provision that we made to support the organisation moving on, the additional kit that was needed and so on, to get through the campaign—there was a communications strategy, an engagement strategy, developed by us, which pulled together what we thought we needed to spend to achieve a proportional impact, working alongside other public sector bodies like the Electoral Commission and the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru. That is what was approved. That is the level that was approved by the Commission and went forward in our budget.

I understand, but you mentioned there that there was a budget of what you 'thought was correct', and I'm interested in understanding the thought process of how you think that is correct.

It's always a balance. With something like an engagement campaign, there is always more that you can do. We're always balancing what we feel is proportionate, and, indeed, what the Finance Committee and the Senedd feel is an appropriate budget to put on something, with the fact that these are public resources and we want to—. Generally, we keep spending as taut as possible. So, it is—. With communications and engagement—I'm sure you'll understand—there is more that you can do, the greater the budget that you have. But we're quite proud of the impact of the budget that we did set aside for that purpose. We're attracting a bit of attention in the industry. We've had some awards for that campaign, going up against people with much larger budgets.

Thank you.

Shav, you wanted to come in.

Talking about elections, obviously we've moved to proportional representation. The public didn't seem to be clear as to what kind of PR, and having that conversation about what the D'Hondt system would actually look like—. I think there were six different versions of what people believed. Do you think, in terms of that plan, then, that communications plan, that there were gaps in that, and, if you were to go again, is there something that you would do differently to ensure that people actually understood? Because, when I was knocking on doors and I was having lots of conversations with several people, including lots of young people, including here in Cardiff, where you would think people would be more clued in—it's Cardiff Bay and there's always this assumption that when people live in a city they know exactly what's going on—that didn't seem to be the case on the shop floor.

I think that's a fair challenge, and I come back to the point that there is always more that you can do. I think that engaging people, particularly the young people we were looking at this time around, because now that we have an extended franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds as well we needed to pay attention to new voters, as well as introducing these changes to the rest of the electorate as well. It's a massive shared task, I think. Getting people to vote is something that we all need to focus on and we wanted to play our part in that. I do recognise that the levels of public awareness could have been better, but I think, in terms of moving incrementally and doing better than we've done before, we have seen indicators moving in the right direction there. I think the basic principle of moving to a system that reflects in greater granularity the parties that the electorate was voting for—. I'm not going to express a view on whether that is the right or the wrong system. But in terms of promoting it and explaining to constituents what they would be choosing, then I think that we did reasonably with the resources that are at our disposal to work with partners and make a difference in that area. I'm sure there's more that can be done.

I think, going forward, one of the things, as Chair of the Finance Committee in the last Senedd, was setting and scrutinising the budget of the Electoral Commission and the Welsh element of that, and part of the scrutiny in doing and setting that budget was around this aspect of, 'How do we explain to people what the system looks like and that it is, effectively, the same as the regional system as was before?' But people didn't quite understand that, even though it had been around for 25 years. But as part of the joint working, I suppose, between the different organisations—and you've got to remember what the Commission is responsible for and what the Electoral Commission, as well as others, are responsible for—the Electoral Commission did send out a booklet to every single household to explain—

Eventually.

Eventually. But that was part of the distribution of who does what. And I think we've got to be mindful that we don't duplicate in other areas, so if you're delegating that element to other people to do—. But I think, even as candidates, as Senedd Members, the Welsh Government, the broader civil society, it's beholden on all of us to try and explain that to people, as well as the resources that we allocate to the Senedd Commission to do some of its work, to augment some of its work, especially with young people through the Senedd Ieuenctid, through some of the engagement that was part of what, I think, the Commission was trying to do in conjunction with others. So, it's a multifaceted approach. But I take your point, and it might be something that we'll be reviewing on the back of the work that was carried out during the election campaign because, obviously, it spans the two financial years, so the bulk of that spend then came into this financial year. So, it would be probably inappropriate to pre-guess what that review of that whole programme—

I'm conscious that we've got a lot of business to get through today, so I'm sorry to cut you off, Peredur, but we need to get through it. I've got one follow-up from Cai and then we'll move to Carrie Harper.

Just on the elections and explaining how the system works, was there any attempt to alleviate some of the misinformation that was provided from some of the parties? Some parties were saying, 'You have to vote for us to keep Reform out', whereas this was proportional representation, so you could have had an extra Labour candidate in there; you didn't have to vote for Plaid Cymru, for example.

I think that it would be difficult for us to get into conversations with individual parties. What our communications were about was explaining the system.

But do you understand that that confused the system? I was getting leaflets and even I was going, 'Wait a minute, I don't think I even understand the system because this leaflet is telling me something different than your booklet.'

Well, I think I'll just repeat that we had political neutrality. Nonpartisan explanation of the facts was at the heart of our strategy, and we stuck to that. 

Carrie.

Thanks. I've got two key questions, if it's okay to ask those now, Chair?

Yes, that's fine.

So, I'm interested in what assessment there's been in terms of security for Members and staff. I'm aware there have been some issues in terms of Members having pictures taken in the canteen, for instance. I know there have been other issues as well. I was wondering how often security assessments are reviewed because of the new challenges that we're having, particularly online as well?

I know that this is a huge concern for all Members and it's something that's very difficult to get used to as a new Member, and the threat landscape is changing constantly. Security falls into Ed's brief, so I'll invite him to supplement what I'm about to say. We do take very seriously the physical security of Members, and that includes visiting their home, where Members want us to do so and suggesting and implementing additional security measures there, and also in their constituency offices. And that work has been proceeding over the summer.

In terms of the estate, we do have rules in terms of dignity and respect, security, filming on the estate, and we are going to be having discussions with all Members about how those need to evolve over the next few months. As I say, it goes into the area of dignity and respect as well as security, and there's a lot of work that was done by the standards committee in the last Senedd, which we will be taking forward now. To some extent, it needs the current Senedd to engage with that as well, and we stand ready to implement what measures the current Senedd sees fit. Would you like to amplify, Ed?

No, I don't think, but if the Member has further questions—. I mean, just on the core, there is an annual plan for security, so each bit of the security work streams, every element, is reviewed at least once a year, but really it's continual. So, we're working with other Parliaments, we're working with the security services, we have a police unit here as part of—. So, it is a daily, weekly activity assessing threat, assessing issues that Members bring us, assessing intelligence, assessing peer feedback. So, it's an ongoing activity. It's brought together once a year, and then there's a broader strategy over that as well.

Okay. I think Anna may want to come in before I move on to my second question.

Thank you for picking up on this, and the security of Members and staff is something I'm really concerned about, and it feels like this is a fast-moving territory, really, and with links to social media, and you've mentioned—. I understand that there's a monitoring pilot around social media, and I note that there's a previous—. So, there's a family-friendly and inclusive Parliament review that, I think, this Senedd is undertaking, but also there's an ongoing review from the previous Commission, if I'm correct in that. With my questions on that, though, I suppose I feel there's something here about how we are protecting individuals from the abuse and threat, but, for me, this is also about a threat to our democracy, really, that it may intimidate people to even want to get involved in politics, et cetera. So, it's a really key part of democracy, so, yes, I'd be interested to hear what work you're doing on that and when we can expect to find out more.

Yes. I think the family-friendly and inclusive Parliament review was concluded at the end of the sixth Senedd, and the report included a number of recommendations, one of which was that the work might be refreshed in the seventh Senedd. Those recommendations are now being directed to the correct sources to consider them and consider embedding the work carrying forward. It was a very diverse range.

In the feedback that was sourced as part of the evidence gathering for that review, one of the things I thought was most striking was the challenging landscape that there is online for Members, and the threats and the abuse that Members often have to deal with. The pilot surveying these things online concluded, again, at the end of the last Senedd and then was expanded to be an offer for all the incoming Members to sign up to have monitoring of any mentions of them online. That continues, and where there are a number of—. In fact, over 9,000 incidents have been logged and, where relevant, referred to the police. You'll be aware the criminal threshold is quite high for the police to take something forward. But it is something that we're very much bearing in mind, and Ed and the security team, along with the police, are looking at what other Parliaments are doing. It's a societal problem, how we can take that forward and make sure that barriers for people, as you say, getting involved in democracy are minimised.

Thank you.

Carrie.

Thanks. My second question is on procurement. There's a key performance indicator showing that spend with Welsh suppliers was 48 per cent in 2025-26. The new Welsh Government has got a manifesto commitment of 70 per cent in terms of procurement within Wales for the public sector. So, I'm wondering what work, if any, is going on to increase that percentage at the moment. And then, it's a related question to that, but I remember when I was a councillor that procurement accounted for something like 64 per cent of the council's carbon emissions, which I remember surprising me at the time. I don't expect you to have a figure to hand now, but I was wondering if there's been any assessment in terms of the impact procurement might be having on carbon emissions, because it's quite a cross-cutting area, isn't it? I'd be interested if you could send that information on if you don't have it today.

Thank you. An interesting set of issues there. We set ourselves a stretch target in the course of the last Senedd, which was to get to 50 per cent of Welsh spend in the course of the Senedd. It was a stretch target; we stretched towards it and just failed to achieve it. However, I'm happy to say that, in the first quarter of the new financial year, we did exceed it, and we're now standing at 53 per cent of Welsh spend. We were set that target by the Commission in recognition of the social value of spending public money locally in the way that that impacts the economy, as well as, of course, the overriding consideration of value for money for the Welsh taxpayer.

I'm sure that we will be able to write to you with more detail of the exact relationship between that number and carbon emissions, but certainly one of the big elements that's going to impact on our carbon targets, going forward, will be changes to the estate, and you may want to talk about that later. That is the big project there. Again, one of the reasons that we've been able to improve the procurement figure recently has been that we did have a lot of the work on the Chamber that was completed before the election undertaken by Welsh suppliers. One of the ways that we hope we can improve the carbon target in future is that we have become part of the Cardiff heat network, going forward, which means not only that we get lower utility bills, but that the energy is greener.

Okay. No plans to increase above the 53 per cent? 

Well, I suspect there will—. We will probably—. We try to keep a balance with the key performance indicators, from having consistency from year to year, so that you can hold us accountable and track trends, but we do review them as well. I suspect that that is when we're going to have to look for the next stretch now. 

Diolch. 

Thank you. Cai Parry-Jones. 

I'm interested in staffing costs, obviously, because it's the biggest expenditure in the budget we're reviewing. One thing I was surprised to see was the lack of details when it comes to the breakdown of staff. Is it possible to get a breakdown by department, even, of the total staff you have in the Commission?

I don't see why not. We can write to the committee with that. I think we might have provided more outline detail to committees before when they have asked for it. We plan on a service-by-service basis. According to needs, that's refreshed every year. In terms of the increases in recruitment since last year, you'll have seen that that is largely driven by Senedd reform, and we have ring-fenced the expenditure for that so that it is transparent to the committee what we've been doing.

We've also recruited in tranches because we've given undertakings to previous committees until now that we would only recruit staff where there was an evidenced need, and so we haven't recruited ahead of that need materialising. There are still some posts that had been approved in principle that we have not recruited to, because the Senedd hasn't yet quite finalised its weekly pattern and we're waiting to see what the Senedd wishes to do before we complete that.

Great. Just going back to that question of whether it's possible to get a breakdown of roles, I think that was a 'yes'. Do you roughly know what the timelines are, just so that we—? 

Well, we can get it to you straight away. 

Okay. Sweet. That's amazing. Thank you. Another thing I'm really interested in is how much staff are paid. Obviously, in the report we're talking about, they had a greater-than-inflation increase on average, if I'm correct. That's quite impressive, given that doesn't seem to be the case for most of Wales. Have you done any analysis over what is a fair and reasonable salary for Commission staff? For example, does it make sense that the chief executive of the Commission is paid more than the First Minister?

On that question, I am contracted and I didn't set the terms of that contract. My performance is independently assessed every year. Those contracts, the contracts of all the staff here, are benchmarked and they're a matter of negotiations with the unions. They are set within pay remits that actually go beyond our organisation and into other relevant public sector comparators. We are very conscious of the fact that this is the one area that can have a big impact on the budget, because our staffing costs are over two thirds of our operational budget. So, it is—. A lot of work goes into negotiating those pay parameters and making sure that the bands that we have throughout the organisation are comparable with Welsh Government and are comparable with the wider public sector.

I'll let Shav come in, as she's got a follow-up on that question, Cai.

Yes, just on that point, I was just going to say that, obviously, you've had long-standing social partnership tripartite working with trade unions, and that's referenced in the report as well.

It is.

Of course, wages are an element, but, obviously, there are terms and conditions that go into the mix as well. And then, obviously, you need to factor in inflation et cetera as well, and there have been lots of shifts and changes over the years in the Senedd Commission. In terms of some of the wage pressures but also some of the unavoidable costs, how much reflects actual discretionary spending? How much of that—? In terms of the decisions that you take, how much discretion do you have? Are there things that you just have to do, and then there are other elements that you have to factor in at that time?

I'm sorry, could I just clarify: is that in terms of the staffing costs or the wider budget? 

In terms of the—. Specifically in terms of the staffing costs.

Well, we do have discretion in the sense that it is a negotiation. There are proposals that we put forward every year to the Senedd Commission, and they take the decision as to what is incorporated in the budget. But, as you say, salary is only part of that, and there is a wider range of terms and conditions that we take. For a while, we had a multi-year agreement. At the moment, we're in annual negotiations, but we're talking about other elements of pay and conditions as well, as you'd expect. 

So, that's where the discretionary element can come in, because there could be some costs attached to that.

That's right, yes.

Alun's also got a follow-up.

Very quickly, I was surprised that the pay for the lowest paid within our organisation actually went down by down 4.8 per cent over the last year—the median pay for the twenty-fifth percentile went down 4.8 per cent, and everybody else went up 5 per cent. Was there a reason for that, and, if you don't know now, would it be possible to know?

Lisa.

It's a comparison between the top and the median. So, if at a point in time the median shifts slightly because of the profile of staff we have in post, it will change the comparator between year. So, I don't think the median—

Ah, right, okay. So, that's not a—

The salary won't have gone down.

No, the salary hasn't gone down. The bottom pay point is always above the real living wage, and it always goes up.

Yes, okay. [Interruption.] No, no. That's why I was surprised. 

And in the year that's under question, I think there was a taper as well, so the most senior staff of the organisation were not given the same percentage uplift as other bands.

Cai.

[Inaudible.]—all my questions.

Okay. That's fine—

No, I have got other questions.

Oh, sorry.

Have you done any analysis over the services that you're legally required to do, and what are the 'nice to haves'?

What we're legally required to do is provide property, staff and services to support the Senedd. So, what we do is we—. I am delegated authority by the Commission, who are there to represent the whole Senedd in interpreting that and in deciding what property, staff and services need to be required. I think the process of reviewing the strategy that we’ve just gone through with the new Commission is the point at which the new Commission decides whether that is still fit for purpose, whether that is still what they want us to do.

So, in terms of ‘nice to have’, I think that all our work is aligned to that strategy, and, in fact, the refresh you may have seen referred to in the annual report, the refresh of our recruitment strategy in the last year, has been specifically to demonstrate the alignment between the recruitment plans and the workforce plans and the Commission’s priorities.

Okay. Anna.

Thank you, and my question is around governance. So, you’ve got independent advisers as part of your governance that play an important role, and you’ve got some big projects coming up, probably as always, but not least Cardiff Bay 32. I noted that you’d been recruiting independent advisers. I think that was said in June, that there was going to be a recruitment exercise. So, I suppose it’s what are the criteria that you’re looking for from these independent advisers, and what’s the process, I suppose, that you’re going to, to make sure you’re getting the best quality advice.

Yes, absolutely. Our independent advisers are appointed for a set term, so, as it happens, two of them are reaching the end of their terms this year, and three next year, so we launched a recruitment earlier in the summer, to which we had a great response. I can’t comment on the outcome of that yet; it’s still ongoing. It is the Commission that makes those appointments, so a report will be going to the Commission, the Commission having approved the approach to the recruitment as well.

We look for a variety of professional skills. We’ve been very fortunate in our current independent advisers in having people who have advised us, held us to account, provided a level of assurance in advising the Commission about how we as officials are doing, and that includes expertise in financial management. So, we have specifically looked for someone with expertise in financial management to help us going forward.

Diversity and inclusion as well is something that we felt was an important area of expertise, to make sure that we had, going forward, equalities, management of staff, standards issues. In all of these issues—. The two I’ve mentioned were the ones we specifically advertised for, but these are all areas in which people have come forward, and there will be a choice for the Commission to make in due course about the appointments to be made.

On that, I don’t know who is on that list currently, because, as you say, the process is ongoing, but, as a new Commissioner coming in, having independent advisers that have got expertise in the aspects that Manon talked about just now, as well as augmenting the skill set that the Commissioners have and that we have within the Senedd to be able to manage big projects. is something that I’m sure, through the process, will have been reviewed. And when we’re asked to make a decision on those independent advisers, that’s something I’ll be particularly interested in: seeing who can help us to make sure that we navigate a very large project, to make sure that we’re making the right decisions, and that there is adequate governance and challenge there to make sure that we’re able to hold the officials to account, but also to make sure that we’re getting good value for money.

May I just add as well, Chair? I should perhaps have said, in case of doubt, that the recruitment was, obviously, conducted completely openly. The applications were assessed anonymously and according to best practice in recruitment.

That’s good to hear. Thank you.

Okay. Shav.

In terms of your current workforce planning, do you think that, given that the Senedd has got bigger, there are 96 Senedd Members—the staff canteen, for example, is busy, it seems to be, from morning until night—and all the events and everything else that goes on—? Have you conducted an assessment on the impact, now that we are fully operational and all physically in the building, on operational services, including security, catering, committee support, for example, visitor services, but also the building capacity more broadly? And do you anticipate any additional costs that you hadn't anticipated previously?

I think that there are a couple of things to say here. In terms of the impact in terms of our colleagues' stress levels and productivity, there are a couple of ways that we keep an eye on that. We have a staff survey every 18 months—there is one actually open now—and, in between those, we have well-being surveys, so a simpler, sort of pulse survey. We also look at factors such as sickness absence, which has come down, encouragingly, and I think that's probably been helped by the well-being strategy that we have, which involves more targeted interventions and toolkits to help managers, for example, where there are long-term sickness absences—

I saw the graph; you could see that.

Yes, exactly. I would add that the last well-being survey that we did in the spring of this year did show a slight increase in work-related stress, but I think, at a time of such huge change and uncertainty, it would be surprising if that were not the case. But it's something we keep an eye on.

In terms of adjustments to the way the estate is run and any additional adjustments that need to be made, there is a process of settling down that is happening now, as the Senedd, the appropriate committees, think about what the pattern of the week is going to be for normal Senedd business going forward. That hasn't quite assumed its final form yet. And in terms of services, that's where we get into the strategy for the Senedd's long-term accommodation needs. There are some consequential decisions, as you will be aware, that the Commission need to make by the end of the year, driven by the fact that the lease on the building that we're in now, Tŷ Hywel, comes to an end in 2032. And so there is a lot of evidence to assess and decisions to be made on the basis of that. I don't think we'd be changing anything much in advance of that, but that process itself will flush out a lot of our longer term needs.

And one other quick question, Chair, if I may. There was obviously the really big inquiry into dignity and respect that you mentioned earlier that Hannah Blythyn, a previous colleague of mine, was very much heavily involved in. I was reading through the report and her Chair's foreword. There are 20 recommendations in total, some really interesting ones: recommendation 17, which says that the committee recommends that the Senedd—you referred to it as well—in terms of social media monitoring—. We've talked a bit about social media. We know that, particularly at the moment, the use of AI, particularly in deepfakes, is becoming a bigger issue. There seems to be a bit of discrepancy in terms of how you see that risk of AI in the report. I'm assuming that that may change, given some of the evidence that's coming forward at the moment, but there was one recommendation that I found very interesting, which was recommendation 20, which says that:

'The Committee recommends that Party Leaders in the next Senedd consider either jointly or on a party basis, establishing an employers’ forum to facilitate open discussion of employment practices between Members and support staff, and to share good practice. This would allow for more structured engagement with the unions representing support staff and could be utilised to agree an approach to potential recognition and facility time for those representing Support Staff unions.'

Everything that we've been discussing today, and all of these things, ultimately, are very much down to employers or parties encouraging their staff to join trade unions. There seems to be an opportunity here to have created a forum. Has there been any consideration given to the strength of feeling around some of these big issues we've been discussing in the Senedd Chamber as well? Is it not really important now that we establish this forum and perhaps we can hash out some of these issues nice and early?

I'll hand over to the Commissioner to comment on the second point that you raised. As I say, the recommendations are all in the process of coming forward now. There were very many of them from different sources, and some touched on the same themes. The point that you raise highlights an important point, which is that Members are all themselves employers of their own staff, and there's a large cohort of people who work in this building who are not employed by the Commission directly. So, that is definitely something that needs to be taken into account.

Before I hand over to Peredur, can I just say on the AI front that we take seriously the opportunities that are offered for greater efficiency in terms of using AI, but also the danger of using it inappropriately? So, we have two twin work streams. One is an AI governance group that brings together our legal and information governance colleagues and looks at what we need to do to give Members the correct advice and ensure that we have integrity of data here. Obviously, the accuracy of the information that we put out as a Parliament is extremely important. But we also have an AI opportunities group that is about anticipating efficiencies that we can realise through the judicious and careful use of AI, as many other authorities are considering. 

Just following on with the AI aspect, we need the governance to be right, and we need a governance first approach to AI, but there are opportunities as well. So, I think that goes hand in hand, but making sure that we're using it in the way that Manon was explaining there.

On the report that you have there, I sat on that committee, so if you flick to the front page, a picture of me is on there. There's a member of the current standards committee here in this meeting now. The intention behind it was to try and—this is me dragging things up from memory now—square the circle of how you have Commission staff, but then you also have Member support staff, and how do we work as individual employers within a framework that works within this place. Maybe it's something that we as Members might want to ask in our group meetings, to encourage either group chairs or leaders to take up that recommendation, and maybe the standards committee might want to follow up, as part of the legacy report, on that work and maybe write to all groups. But it's something that I'd be keen to encourage, because I was part of the report in the first place.

Thank you. 

Thank you. I want to go back to the budget. Within the Senedd reform budget, £1.742 million was moved from non-staff expenditure to capital. What was the reason for that transfer, who authorised it and when?

The staff budget for the year was predicated on the greatest scenario for Senedd reform, which assumed we'd have three extra committees and one extra Plenary a week. The staffing we put into the budget assumed those staff would be in place for the whole year. Then, as Manon said, we ended up recruiting staff in tranches according to when the need emerged, which created an underspend on the staffing line. It was reallocated to non-staff and capital due to the costs of the Siambr, which increased during the course of the project. Fortunately, we were able to manage within the ring fence as whole, so while staffing costs went down, the costs for the Siambr went up slightly.

Thank you. Whilst we're on staffing—you gave me a nice little segue there to my next question—I understand why the additional staff were required in preparation for the expanded Senedd, and I think that's been explained quite well. We've gone from 490.1 full-time equivalents at the end of March 2025 to 523.1 a year later. What I want to try to understand is where is this going to settle. What's your expected permanent staffing level once the transition to the seventh Senedd is completed?

We're working towards an organisational model to set that, to cap that increase, going forward. We're not quite at that total yet. In fact, it will have gone up from the end of the last financial year, because some of the tranches came about at the time of the election. We were recruiting people and, as I mentioned, we still have some roles that we have yet to fill. Remind me of the number, Ed.

It's 587.

It's 587.

Okay. And that's your expected ceiling.

Yes.

Thank you. And finally from me, Bay 32, which we've not really covered yet. I appreciate that a lot of Bay 32 is going to be for the Finance Committee, because you're talking about it in the budget, but I think that, as a committee, we should understand, before the final investment decision is made and the full business cases are passed: is there a point at which you would conclude that the budget does not represent value for money? At what point would the Senedd Commission say, 'We're going to walk away from this'?

That point is legally possible. If the final full business case demonstrates that another option has better value for money, it is open to the Commission to decide that. The whole process has been very much driven by achieving the best public value for money and making sure that, over the life of the project, assessed according to Treasury guidelines, the Senedd will have a permanent building that it owns at the end of this project and that is fit for purpose, that is modern, that is accessible and that is sustainable. At the moment, a careful process—. The process has been in train for nearly five years now, because it started at the point that was 10 years before the end of the lease in 2032. The process has proceeded carefully, with the best market intelligence and the best professional advice at every point to guide commissioners in narrowing down the options and considering, on the basis very much of consultation with Members, what the aspirations of Members were, what would make the building suit the needs of a modern parliamentary democracy and complement the Senedd building that is, of course, here.

Was there not an opportunity to start considering that when the expansion was happening and you were doing works to the building to take into consideration the additional 36 Members? So, rolling the further expansion into the whole Bay 32 and starting it earlier when you were going to do the works anyway.

That goes back to the staging of the work that needed to take place to establish what the best opportunities were. Do you want to explain that in greater detail, Ed?

There are two separate buildings, obviously, but they're in different ownership statuses. We own the Senedd building—although there is another issue there that we can touch on, maybe—and then we are tenants in this building. At the time when the Senedd building was built, it did anticipate some expansion. I think that that was a live conversation during the passage of the Senedd reform legislation. So, it was known that the Senedd building could accommodate some expansion but not to the extent of 96, and plans were developed to deal with that. We have accommodated the extra Members within Tŷ Hywel now. So, Senedd reform is not a driver for the Bay 32 project; the Bay 32 project is driven by the end of the lease. So, on that project, just going to your question, Chair, if I may, it has been established through the project that 'do nothing' is not an option. We have a lease end date and we need to do something.

There is the option of 'do minimum'. We've been through two stages of an outline business case, and when we come to the full business case, the proposals on the table that are currently being worked up will be assessed against 'do minimum'. 'Do minimum' sounds like doing the minimum, but it has a lot of costs in it. The building is ageing and needs to be upgraded in a number of ways. We would also have a commercial negotiation around dilapidations, which would be substantial, as we've been in the building for a long time now. So, there are a number of costs associated with 'do minimum'. Those will be set out and the proposals will be weighed against that. So, we will see what the best value option is and that will be presented to the Commission by the end of this calendar year. 

Thank you. Cai, you had a follow-up on that. 

I've got a follow-up just on the first question you asked. Are you saying the extra spend on the Chamber was an accident and it was just convenient that the money that was going to go towards new committees and Plenaries—but there weren't those committees—was enough for that Chamber overspend? 

I think it wasn't luck as much as how we managed the budget dynamically in the course of the year created the room for that. 

Reading your budget, it says if the money for the extra committees and Plenary wasn't needed, it would go into the consolidated fund. That's what it says in your budget, isn't it? 

Yes.  

So, why didn't that happen?

We discussed that with the authorities that I report to, with the Commission. I'm not sure that we brought it back to the Finance Committee, but we wrote to the Finance Committee to inform them that we were doing this and it was considered a good use of the funds that had been voted to us by the Senedd.  

I think, just from a process point of view, if you were to give the money back into—. This is the thinking behind—. From memory, the Finance Committee would have thought that if the money goes back to the consolidated fund then there'd be a potential overspend in the Chamber, then you'd have to have a supplementary budget to bring that back out of the consolidated fund back into the Senedd Commission budget. It creates more time, and with timing of budgets it was more prudent to be able to move things within the year to make sure that it happened, rather than to go through a process that is rather convoluted, whereas you get to the same place as you would have in the first place.

And if I may just supplement, going back to the Chairman's point about investment that has a lasting return, obviously we will still have the Senedd building, so the expanded Chamber would have been needed whatever happened to the rest of the estate. 

Thank you. Just one quick last question from me, and it should be a relatively simple answer. Of all the risks that are currently on the corporate register, which one gives you the greatest concern now? And what would be the first sign to this committee that things were beginning to go wrong? 

We review the risks constantly. The risks that have constantly been in the top corner of impact and likelihood are those around cyber security, those around major estate plans going wrong. These change from Senedd to Senedd. I'm content we have a very robust risk management strategy, which means that we review these risks at a corporate level and at service level very frequently. We have a level of assurance from our independent advisers, from our audit and risk committee, that look at these regularly as well. Mitigations are in place for business continuity in various scenarios. We're really not complacent about risks, because we constantly have to keep so many changing threat landscapes under consideration. Last year, we sent a note on cyber security to your predecessor committee, because sometimes there are certain mitigations and so on that are difficult for us to speak about in a public session. But the whole risk landscape is pretty thoroughly surveyed. In terms of where this committee should be looking out for signs, our annual report and accounts gives you a full account of what we've done in the last year. I think if you start sensing that the Commission or the audit and risk committee are sending up flags, then you probably need to call me back in again.

Thank you very much. That brings the session to a close. I thank the Commissioner, the chief executive and clerk, and senior colleagues for their attendance this afternoon. You will receive a copy of the transcript to check for factual accuracy in due course. Thank you very much. 

Diolch. 

I now propose, under Standing Order 17.42(ix), to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of this meeting and proceed in private. Is the committee content to do so? We will now proceed in private.