Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee

Croeso. Welcome back to this morning's meeting of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee in the Senedd for our second evidence session with Dr Andrew Goodall, Permanent Secretary, Welsh Government, and his officials, in terms of the Welsh Government's annual report and accounts for 2021-22. I invite committee member Mabon ap Gwynfor to take up the questions.

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you for coming in this morning. Apologies beforehand that there may be some technical difficulties. I'm going to look at the consideration of conflicts of interest, if that's possible. What were the main findings of the internal audit review of the conflicts of interest policy and procedures? What changes are you planning to your policy and procedures as a result of this and what specific risks will these mitigate?

Diolch. Tim.

Thank you, Andrew. I think the main findings of the review were a need to really review the policy and a robust review around that to take account of other changes that had gone in place, especially around the wider civil service; definitely to update the guidance and information for staff to make it easier to understand the requirements around that and make it clearer, giving examples of what this means in practice; and also to look at better ways to help staff to comply with the requirements there, especially around, maybe, a digital tool to help with it. So, they were the main things that the review asked us to look at.

In terms of progress and things we've done on the back of that, the policy has been thoroughly reviewed. A lot of that involves quite significant consultation with our trade union colleagues and partnership with groups, and also to take account of wider changes in civil service policy in this area as well; we're aware of things that have happened in this space.

Also, a change in emphasis in terms of rather than having a conflicts of interest policy, it's around declaration and management of interests, with the emphasis on, actually, it being around how we declare and how we then look at and manage those things; I think it's an important shift in emphasis for the policy. So, the changes around that will include that all staff need to do a declaration, even if that's a nil return, to ensure that, actually, we can look at that, and very much to look at the improved guidance, especially around examples around how you manage and look at maybe, sometimes, mitigating factors for these things, and make sure that everyone understands the things that are going on and the requirements around that.

Also, we're looking to do pre-employment checks. In fact, one of the things I was asked to do as part of my employment was to fill in a form before I joined, and that's now part of the way we do things. So, in all of that, it's looking to make sure that we get a much more consistent approach across the organisation, but also we're looking to make sure that people understand the requirements and the importance of this. Also, importantly, I think, once we've moved forward with a digital tool, which is currently in development, that will help us to get much better management information and, also, look at ensuring that we are being consistent across the organisation. So, a lot of progress in this place, and the aim is that the new policy will be implemented in the first quarter of the next financial year.

Thank you, but what risks will you, therefore, mitigate as a result of this work?

The risk that you're mitigating is the risk around inconsistency in terms of understanding of conflicts of interest and what needs to be declared, and I think, if we've got much better at managing information, we'll be able to see what that looks like across the organisation and, hopefully, be able to understand where the potential issues may arise. So, I think, better information and a better understanding of that will help us to ensure that we're managing the issues where potential conflicts could arise and minimise any risks associated with that.

Thank you very much. You mentioned in your response the declaration of interest. Well, a register of interests for senior officials would be available on the Welsh Government website, and it was last updated in October 2021. Why is that? And do the declared interests differ for some senior officials included on both this and the civil service register?

The registers we have, both the civil service register and the register of interest, serve different processes and there are different timetables associated with that. There are a number of registers—. The register for special advisers was updated in September. The one for senior officials will be updated by the end of the month. It's been slightly delayed in terms of getting it out there, but that's just down to the individual involved and some of the workload issues around that. I think the difference between the registers, both in content and timing—. The civil service register is updated in July, and that one very much focuses on board appointments and panels for all employees, whereas the one for senior officials is a much broader category. The senior officials—it covers company directorships and any other matters of significant interest in that space, and also, not just around things that directly affect the individual, but also maybe wider ones in terms of family and involvement. So, they serve very different purposes, and so, that's where some of the differences can arise in the difference between the registers, but the aim is to get the transparency. I would say, coming into the organisation, in comparison to previous organisations, the level of transparency, certainly on the senior officials register, is much greater than I've seen elsewhere, and so, I think, it demonstrates some of the transparency that goes on within the organisation.

Before you carry on, Mabon, can I invite Mike Hedges to ask a question on this?

As you know, Chair, we've got 28 days to update ours, in which case, we end up in serious trouble if we don't. I'm not sure why civil servants can't work to the same rules as we do, and ours is much more complicated. I'm not sure anybody really wants to know that I'm president of Ynystawe cricket and football club, or that I'm a chair of the Welsh Fabian Society, but those are matters in there, and I'm sure, Chair, you've got the same long list of 20 or 30 organisations. So, I'm not quite sure why, if we're expected to do it in 28 days with serious repercussions if we don't, senior civil servants don't have the same rules.

Just to clarify, in our case, we are referred to the police if we fail to ensure that our interests are declared within 28 days.

I think we should say that, as part of the policy, the aim for everyone is that you declare interests as and when they arise and within the organisation. There's a difference between when we publish it as an organisation and the requirement around that. So, the aim within the policy is if circumstances change, that will be discussed with the line manager, and things will be recorded as and when they arise. Obviously, the publication is a separate issue.

Sorry, Chair. I'm just telling you things you know, but perhaps others in the room don't. We've got 28 days to declare it. Once we declare it, it will be on the website within 48 hours, normally within 24 hours, and not unusually, within three hours.

Can I make a further point on this?

Yes, Mabon.

Is it, therefore usual to wait a year and a half before this register is published? And how do you expect someone to scrutinise that register, to ensure that the public has confidence in it, if it takes so long to be published?

It's not the usual deadline. We will rectify that. We will ensure that that is kept oversight of, which I know Tim will do in his role, and we'll make sure that that is dealt with. And, also, we will just accommodate how that is updated as well, as Tim says, as individual things, inevitably, change during the course of a year, as appointments take place as well, but I apologise for the delay. That is not the normal process, and we'll make sure that we actually ensure that it's in the public domain, as required.

In terms of the scrutiny element, there are clear responsibilities within the line management chain and with directors and directors general in terms of any potential conflicts that exist within their areas. There is internal scrutiny, and then there is external publication as well. So, just to give you the confidence that, as I said, as part of my pre-employment checks, that was one of the things that I was asked to do straight away. That was part of, then, the process of me joining the organisation to review anything around that. So, there are the internal processes as well as the external ones around scrutiny.

Thank you very much. Perhaps the committee can come back to this and ensure that that is done consistently. But thank you for that response. If I may move on to internal audit reports, you note that Welsh Government internal audit services issued three limited assurance reports during 2021-22. To what did the reports relate and what assurance can you give that the weaknesses identified have been addressed?

Yes, there were three areas of limited assurance, as you said. Perhaps, just in context, I could say that that was three of limited assurance out of 44. I would like to ensure that, when we are using our internal audit, they are intending to make sure that they find areas that we need to address as well. I think it's really important, in discharging my principal accounting officer role, to ensure that there are areas that are to be addressed.

One of the three areas was some of the support that was provided to bus companies through the pandemic. I would reflect that a lot of the internal audit areas were simply about the speed of response needed at the time, and that those actions and the response, although they were exceptional in terms, were being addressed, and the actions actually taken forward with the help of the report, if I could put it in that way. In terms of the two other areas, one was on agency workers and another one was on secondment and broader arrangements, which we were touching on in one of our previous committees as well. Sally-Ann, you might just want to outline some of the work that you've led on in those two areas as well.

Yes, of course. As Andrew said, we view the internal audit process as a really important part of our continuous improvement, so the HR team proactively worked with the internal audit team to generate that audit, because we knew that there were likely to be areas that we needed to improve. It was a very proactive approach on our part, as well as being part of their audit schedule as well, so we brought those forward as priorities.

In terms of some of the key areas, again, we focused on the areas that were causing us most concern from the report. For example, on the secondments area, contracts was something that was really important to get right, so we've introduced standard contracts, which just gives us that assurance that they're legally sound, they meet all the GDPR requirements and so on, and a lot of the other improvements fall out of that. Secondments are a really important part of our resourcing approach—it's one of our key tools. We see secondments as an area where we'll increase over the coming year and beyond, particularly around the 'one public sector' ethos. It's really important that we get that right, so we saw it as a really good opportunity. There is good progress across the actions. Our new systems that I've previously updated the committee on will be a really important part of our data improvements. That will come as we move through that work.

Similarly, on agency, I think our concern as a HR community was that they were often looked at as a contractual arrangement. Our agency workers are a really important part of our temporary workforce who are valued, and we need to make sure that they get a good experience, as well as, obviously, good governance. We're working through the improvements there. We've agreed that we will have HR oversight centrally of all our agency workers, because that's something that was quite crucial in the internal audit report. So, we've tackled, or started to tackle, the bigger things, and we're continuing to work through some of the other areas within the reports as well. But that's something that we're keeping a regular oversight of and we'll be reporting on that through our reporting mechanisms internally as well.

We commissioned the internal audit work programme, and I just want to say, maybe just on the governance process as well, irrespective of other responsibilities and where they report in the organisation, our head of audit meets with me routinely, as a minimum on a quarterly basis, through the year, so I have the opportunity for impartial views and advice on the organisation. I'm really pleased with the work that they do, because whilst a lot of reassurances are given through the work, they do help us to address issues across the organisation.

Thank you for that response. I agree; it's a sign of success that the internal audit process does work, and when there are weaknesses, that the internal auditing is finding that. So, that shows that that internal system does work.

If I can just go off piste a bit and think about something else that's happening at the moment, we've seen stories in The Daily Telegraph about Matt Hancock, about how he's been using WhatsApp messages during the COVID pandemic et cetera, with agreements being made. Can we be confident here that agreements between senior officials haven't been done through WhatsApp and that everything is on record, and that we know that the proper process and systems have been followed? Are internal audit looking at WhatsApp, for example?

As a general point, we have actually done some internal audit approaches on our response to the COVID inquiry, and also during the COVID pandemic itself, and they have needed to look at the kind of governance mechanisms and give us assurances as well. Actually, it was a very helpful reflection, and important that they didn't happen at the end.

On our general use of mechanisms, I'm really clear that advice that has been going in to Ministers during the pandemic was driven by the ministerial advice process, which is the standard kind of mechanism. And whilst I know the reporting is talking about WhatsApp approaches, certainly—and I speak from my personal perspective—the decision making was driven by our internal mechanisms; it's really important to do that. There was Cabinet oversight and processes that were in place. Of course, we'll need to respond to the public inquiry itself. We are, of course, going through a range of submissions to the public inquiry at the moment, with statements both at a personal and a corporate level, and I'm sure all of those matters will be handled in that. But what I recognise is the ministerial advice process and the decision making that took place collectively and collegiately across the Welsh Government.

Thank you very much for that answer. As well as the limited assurance reports that we've mentioned, the internal audit service issued two summary reports in 2021-22 as well that did not provide an assurance opinion. Who commissioned those, and what did they relate to?

Diolch yn fawr. They were actually related to the matter that we have just touched on. We had executive committee arrangements in place that were targeted towards the pandemic response, ex-COVID. It met on a weekly basis. We wanted to ensure that whilst there were a range of decisions and information exchange overseen through that mechanism, there were various moments where we paused and reflected on our experience. As you'll recall yourself, there were various moments and phases of the pandemic that I just think acted as natural points to sort of ask questions about whether the organisation could do better.

The previous Permanent Secretary commissioned two pieces of advice, not for assurance purposes, but for allowing us to understand the kind of governance implications in the organisations, the first one of which was a review of COVID and lessons learnt and reflections—really important that that was an open reflection across the organisation—and then secondly, an internal audit on COVID-19 governance arrangements, which actually was able to give us, I think, pretty positive reflections on the series of mechanisms that we put in place, from the sort of star-chamber arrangements on financial arrangements, through to generally how decision-making worked in the organisation.

They were both very helpful to us. They didn't just happen at the end of the pandemic; they were during the pandemic, deliberately, so that we could adapt and change around it. And as you would expect, they will also be documents that will be part of submissions that are made to the inquiry, because they are there for a purpose and they certainly helped us as an organisation.

Thank you. And therefore, in thinking about Westminster, and the mess, or the wild west, there, in terms of purchases of PPE and Michelle Mone and so forth, could you give us an assurance that there isn't a similar situation that existed in Wales, and that we can be clear and certain that the processes were followed when it came to ensuring the purchase of PPE and public expenditure during the COVID period?

I'm sure the inquiry absolutely will discharge its process. We've been liaising on that. It's certainly a reminder to me—and if you'll forgive me for slightly reverting back in my role through the pandemic response as well—that it was really important that we continually kept ourselves under review and scrutiny. We attended a number of committees, both from a Public Accounts Committee perspective, through to health committees, to actually make sure we're able to work through areas.

We were able to access reports that were done independently of us through Audit Wales, which actually looked at reviewing a whole range of areas, from test, trace and protect, vaccination programmes, through to the PPE. We also were able to discharge internal governance through risk committee arrangements, and I know a very strong assurance approach was taken by my group's risk committee at that time. I'm pretty confident that whilst, of course, there were issues about global supplies of PPE, we were able to steer ourselves through the support that was needed through the whole passing of the pandemic and were able to access appropriately PPE at different phases and stages because of the approach that we took through the NHS Wales shared service area.

Colleagues may recall that there were times, even, where we were able—because of shortages elsewhere—to give some of our PPE supplies, because we were able to demonstrate that national approach that was in place for us and liaise on it. I'm sure that there are some predecessor committee reflections that may be helpful to Members, but I certainly remember being under scrutiny myself, including on matters of PPE supplies and availability.

If I can just intercede at this point, if I may, just on a point of clarity on PPE, as it has been raised. My recollection of that period, in those early months after the initial lockdown, was debates, which I participated in here amongst others, calling on the Governments to fast-track PPE because of the desperate shortages then being encountered, and the Governments agreed to put aside or fast-track normal procurement processes to meet those calls. Although the Welsh Government was accessing some PPE directly, primarily it was receiving UK Government supplies, and then it was responsible for the distribution of those within Wales.

I think it probably worked a little bit differently for us. So, of course there was liaison, and I think there were some very constructive and good relationships right across the UK with colleagues; it's why some of that reciprocity certainly happened along the way. We had really clear national arrangements in place for our sourcing and the supply of PPE through our NHS shared services. And of course, whilst they would access contractual arrangements, working with colleagues across the border, and there were exceptional moments definitely to ensure that there were supplies available to the UK, I think a lot of the approach that we had was in place because actually we particularly wanted to develop our approach in Wales and we just had long-standing commercial and NHS shared services experiences in place to absorb those contracts. Most of what we were able to supply was because we were able to use our own expertise, if I could put it in that way, because there were long-standing relationships and colleagues across Wales with real skills and expertise in this as well. But, yes, of course we needed to enhance it through those relationships with other organisations across the UK, and work very closely with Northern Ireland, the Scottish Government and also with the UK Government as well.

And what, if any, temporary changes were introduced to procurement processes to speed up that process?

It was important, on the economy side, that we were able to expedite some of those areas. But certainly, if I look at it through, again, a traditional lens—and I don't want to steer away from the annual accounts process directly in my Permanent Secretary role—yes, we were able to ensure that there was a level of scrutiny that was applied to offers that were made. I think we were able to discharge that really well. We were able to be transparent about those arrangements and put them in the public domain. I think the team clearly leaned into the fact that we were often providing responses in hours and days, rather than maybe the usual contractual process, which would give you months or weeks instead. I'm pretty confident that NHS Wales shared services did a really great job, I would say, from a team perspective, including how they expedited those types of decisions and made judgments. We certainly, as I recall, covered all of the appropriate governance decisions as well, particularly where some of the spend was obviously over local limits and where we needed to give that support on a national basis. I remember giving some of those particular agreements myself in my previous director general role.

Well, we'll leave that to the COVID inquiry. Perhaps if we can get back to the subject of today's questions.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the answers as well. In terms of risks, you describe the Welsh Government's risk profile as extensive and varied, but you only include information about four new risks on the corporate risk register during 2021-22, and your COVID-19 register as well. Could you summarise the risks on the corporate risk register that are most likely and have the biggest potential impact and how these risks have changed during the year?

Yes. Just to reflect back on my earlier conversation with one of the Members, the risk register process is really important to us in Welsh Government. We deal with it at different levels, from group to corporate. It guides our agenda. It makes sure that we ensure that we are responding and addressing those areas. There's probably a technical issue about why we have only got those four areas highlighted on the report, because the statutory requirement is only to put the four new risks in, and I think we just need to pause and think about that, about whether there is an improved way in which we can reflect that, again recognising some of the sensitivity but within a risk section.

The main area of concern that was expressed in 2021-22 in respect of the areas, the highest scoring concern, was actually about workforce capacity. That probably isn't a surprise to us all, if you think about what we'd been living through at that time. The last six months of 2021-22 also were dominated by omicron. We even were manoeuvring into the first-step responses on Ukraine. And I think the organisation has gone through a really extraordinary set of changes over the last two years, with lots of agility and lots of flexibility from staff to move to new priorities. And you know, at various points, we probably had four fifths of the organisation simply pointed towards the pandemic response, particularly through 2020 into 2021. But workforce capacity was the highest scoring risk.

If I was looking at the next level of risks, without going through all aspects of the risk register, there would be areas around well-being of staff; some issues around legislation, tied into the workforce capacity, because we actually deferred legislation through the pandemic beyond the Government intentions, because of course we were using all of our legal resource to guide some of the regulations that were in place; the worries about the impact on schemes around inflationary costs in 2021-22; cybersecurity, again going back to one of the earlier, maybe more obvious, risks; preparations for the public inquiry for COVID; and also still recognising, although I think in our last committee meeting we could actually see some progress on equality, diversity and inclusion, but we were still giving that quite a high risk score because of lots of expectations, including some of those that were revealed in intentions for Wales around the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan'. The final area that we've highlighted with some more work to do, and I will be utilising, certainly, internal audit in this respect, will be around major projects and programmes as well.

So, just to give you a feel that in a very comprehensive list of different risks, some of which are mitigated and at a very low level of residual risk. They were some of the ones currently that we are handling on our broader risk register.

Thank you. I want to just ask you to expand on part of that answer. You talk about your concerns about well-being in the workforce, and the work pressures when it comes to drawing up legislation. Do you think, in your professional judgment, that the work of the Government in terms of creating legislation is restricted because of a lack of workforce capacity, that you don't have enough staff in those departments to carry out those duties and to do that work, and so that restricts the Government's work? Is that what you're saying?

There will always be some limits on that, and there will always be areas of resource. I was alongside the Counsel General in committee recently, just talking about some of these issues around available capacity. I mean, certainly, it would be true that during the pandemic we diverted so much of the organisation to the more immediate responses, and that was a factor that affected 2021-22. I don't think it's ultimately a constraint about what we want to do. It's really important that we make sure that we discharge good law. I don't think it's just about what Welsh Government does in its organisation. We obviously have to make sure that we're able to link that into the Senedd and the Plenary mechanisms. We need to look at the way in which the scrutiny works. It's a lot of individual work and expectations for Ministers who are leading legislation through, and obviously there are the four stages that have to be accommodated on that. So, I wouldn't put all of those things down to workforce capacity.

I would say that from a programme for government perspective, delivering legislation is actually at the top of the responsibilities and the functions of Welsh Government. That ability to discharge those law-making powers is really important. But I have been able, even in difficult budgetary terms, to put more resource towards our legal areas, whether that is Bill managers, whether it's on the policy side, or indeed whether it's some of our legal teams as well. I've been able to address, maybe, some of the residual concerns around that, but I don't see the capacity issues as a constraint. I still think we are a maturing Government in respect of the legislation and law-making powers, and certainly the real key thing to do is to make sure that we produce good and effective law.

Mabon, have you lost contact? In that case, we'll move on, perhaps, to the next set of questions. Shall I take those up, or would you like to, Mike?

You take them, if you want to, Chair.

Okey-doke. If Mabon comes back, and he has any further questions on that section, I'll invite him to ask them.

It'll be easier to control it that way.

Did I hear a voice?

Yes, mine. I said, if you take the questions, it will make it easier to control what's happening.

That's great. Thank you very much indeed. How are you using the performance framework to improve the organisational effectiveness of the Welsh civil service, and what are the key performance indicators telling you so far about its performance?

I think the performance framework that we introduced, which we have tried to build out from the civil service effectiveness index, I think that allows us to go back to the earlier part of this session when I was talking about being clear on our organisational performance issues. So, just to declare, in my director general role previously, I was part of the development of this alongside other colleagues on the board, when we were taking a different view to performance. I think it does provide us with a really wide range of information to tell us about the characteristics of the organisation. So, from a reporting process, we make sure that it can be looked at at a higher assurance level by the board, from a decision-making perspective, our executive committee, and, if I can put it this way, in the engine room of the organisation in the committee that Tim chairs around our resources—so, really helpful to see it through that sort of area. I mean, I have a particular interest, to be honest, in this arena about organisational performance because I'm a former information manager and a former director of performance and improvement. So, it's inevitably an area of interest. What I really like, though, is when we can move on from just individual years of assessment to actually looking at the longer term trends. I think that allows you to both pause and celebrate some improvements along the way and also to recognise that there are some areas that are going astray and we need to do something about them as well.

Maybe my final point, Chair, just on your general question, is to say that it's really important to make sure that beyond the performance framework itself, which we tend to receive twice a year, although some of the measures are on a longer term basis, a lot of the information supporting it is actually driven through other reporting mechanisms. So, as an example, some of the source information in our performance framework is derived from the staff survey, but, in fact, in the Welsh Government board on Friday, we're spending a good amount of time looking at everything about the staff survey, what we need to do, how we respond to staff concerns and views, and how we make ourselves a better organisation as well. So, it's not only driven by those two moments in the calendar year; again, it's to try to make sure that there is genuinely a continuous improvement approach.

Okay. Thank you very much indeed. Before I continue, Mabon ap Gwynfor, you're back with us. Do you have any further questions in the section of questions you were reaching the conclusion of?

No further questions on that section, no.

Do you wish to continue with the questions in the section I've now begun, or would you like me to continue?

I'm afraid I'm having some difficulties with technology here at the moment, so can you continue for now until this is resolved?

Absolutely, yes. That's fine. Thank you very much indeed. To what extent do you think the information in the 2021-22 accounts communicates any improvements in organisational effectiveness? And what plans, if any, do you have going forward to change the reporting about how the Welsh Government uses the framework?

So, I do think it helps us. It was a really important development. I actually like the way in which we use our knowledge analytical services to produce it independently within the board. So, rather than us feel that we use the data to only present the things that we want to look at, I think just having that kind of level of independence, even within the organisation, helps. I think there were three examples of areas that I think have moved on as a result of it, or maybe three or four.

Firstly, we'd had quite a lot of feedback over the years through the staff survey, and one of the key measures is about employee interaction. In fact, we've been able to get much higher levels achieved on our employee engagement. I think, actually, the pandemic helped in this respect, because we had to revert to different ways of working. So, we have what we call 'let's talk live' mechanisms; it allows us to remotely have a contact with the organisation. I think the highest number of staff we had in an individual session listening to the previous Permanent Secretary or myself is about 2,500—that's about half of our staff able to join because we're using the remote technology. I hope that we'll maintain those high levels, because we're trying to talk very visibly and personally to our staff and to the organisation.

A second area that's been improved and I think comes through the performance framework is actually around technology and the way in which that, again, has been so important in our use over the last two years, but people actually recognising that we have been putting in place actions to underpin that, from smart working through to actually the pieces of kit that we have.

The third area, which we're tracking, is actually around our environmental outlook and our estate, and if you look back over the last three years on the performance framework, we can see that our carbon emissions have reduced by 15 per cent. I think what is more telling, if you actually take the data back 10 years, we've actually reduced by 75 per cent in our carbon emissions across our Welsh Government estates over that period of time, and I think that, again, fits with our outlook as an environmental-supporting organisation as well.

And then the final area, and I think we were able to, I hope, give a bit of confidence on this in our last session, but there's also been progress around equality, diversity and inclusion as well, and having that more detailed opportunity to talk about some of the progress and measures in our last workforce planning session hopefully conveyed to you some of the data that we're actually looking at in terms of the performance report.

I've revealed to you my background, Chair, which means I kind of love data and could talk about it all of the time; there are so many other things that I could mention. It means that we know that 91 per cent of our staff feel that they've got the skills that they need to discharge the role, it means that I know that about 12,000 contacts have been made around individual learning and development activities, which is three times higher than just three years ago, so there's lots of useful information about the things that we're trying to do.

Well, thank you. In that response, and your previous response, you've indicated that the previous Permanent Secretary was right to state, in October 2021, that you would want to consider whether to continue with the performance frameworks she'd started to develop. Beyond the issues you've indicated, because you refer to many matters that had already been going on for two or three years before you were in this role, and some more recent ones also, but are there any other changes to your approach that you've introduced?

Yes. So, it's really important to have a set of measures that are broadly fixed and that we can track them, as I said. The trend, for me, tells as much as an individual in-year performance. But I think there are two things that are important for me to look to capture in, and I'm asking Tim to take a look at that, and I know, Tim, you might want to comment on this in a moment.

The first one is, beyond the equality and diversity measures that we have, there is a significant set of expectations on Welsh Government as an employer in the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan', and I think because of that profile and because of our status as an exemplar organisation, I just want to make sure that we're able to translate that particular ask into the performance report, and I think we'll be able to accommodate that.

The second area is an area that I was exploring in previous sessions, where we're using Welsh Government 2025 as our organisation development and change programme, and I think there are some milestones and actions and measures that we're using under that that respond to the question about whether we are changing as an organisation and how would we know. And I just think that there are some useful outcomes that we can draw across to the performance report from that as well. But, Tim, you might particularly want to comment on Welsh Government 2025, of course.

Yes, thank you, Andrew. I think, for me, there's a really good framework in place and, as Andrew said, it's great to have some measures that you can then monitor over time and look at the trends, but, actually, as things change, how do you then continue to develop your key performance indicators and performance monitoring? So, with it being Welsh Government 2025, with the five work streams that we identified and we talked about in the last session we were at, what are the key measures, what are the key deliverables, what are the milestones we're looking to achieve and how are we monitoring performance over time? One of the other examples—again, another piece of work I'm leading on—is around our progress to net zero and, again, as things develop over time, you want to change and look at developing your measures as well, and although the overarching trend in terms of carbon emissions is key, some of the individual measures will need to adapt as we go through. So, I think it's both having those long-term trends, but also then, on a regular basis, updating and making sure your KPIs are relevant to the work you're actually doing.

Okay. Thank you. Well, in order to fit in as much as we can today, if we can write to you with perhaps some further questions on this matter, and I'll move on to inviting Mike Hedges to pick up the questioning on losses, write-offs and special payments.

Yes. On losses and write-offs, I'm going to put this question in two parts. You do have write-offs, how do you ensure that you're aware at the earliest opportunity, and how much do you think is a reasonable amount? I mean, it's easy to have zero write-offs for investment—you don't invest, and you will make mistakes. But if I say Admiral insurance, that's a great example of an investment that paid off manyfold. So, I think that you've got to be prepared to take risks. The problem we have is that if you invest £10 million, make a £100 million success, and it's £1 million lost, we'll have an hour-long debate in the Senedd about that £1 million loss and why did the Government get it wrong. What is your belief in risk, and how do you know when things are going wrong?

So, just to your risk point—and, Gawain, you might be able to help me technically, because there will be a threshold of some kind that declares these issues financially—but we absolutely raised our risk appetite through the pandemic response—completely necessary. I know we've had to talk through some of the decision making in here that we made—if you think back to the business grants—but these were essential decisions to allow the survival of companies at that time. I think it's really interesting to reflect on what is the risk appetite in more normal times, although I think the definition of 'normal' feels rather different these days. And I'm not sure we've really adjusted to that at this stage.

I do think there is a danger of applying a 100 per cent perfection to judgments that we make, and normal life, normal businesses and normal organisations all have a level of failure, almost, that they would expect in terms of where they look to deploy areas. But there are mechanisms in place to highlight where organisations may be struggling and we may have given them money. So, we have Welsh Government relationship managers who are part of that; they feed in. We've got the economic futures fund with protected mechanisms on it. Going back to the economic resilience fund, which we discussed at a previous committee meeting, we used the post-completion monitoring to throw those areas. But, ultimately, it does convert to a technical assessment as well, Gawain, so any thoughts from you?

Yes. Apologies, I'll take these off. We don't actually have a de minimis in terms of investment, because, really, what it comes down to is the type of organisation, the type of activity, and then in relation to the due diligence that we undertake. And that's one of the things we've introduced fairly recently, is that we now have a due diligence team to support policy officials so that, when they're looking at organisations, the team produces, effectively, a financial check list. And they also now go beyond that in that, if there are any particular issues that are flagged, they suggest how we could mitigate those risks going forward.

One of the ways we mitigate those risks is that any organisation that receives grant funding from the Welsh Government—and most of our money goes out through grants—they have to sign up to the terms and conditions of our mandatory award letters. Now, those terms and conditions are put in place to try and protect the public purse and protect the investment. One of those aspects and one of those terms and conditions is notification events, for example. So, the emphasis is on the organisation, so if—. A notification event would include, for example, if they stopped paying debt, if the value of their assets dropped below their liabilities, if they didn't comply with statutory reporting. That all has to be reported through. If it's not, or the notification event is triggered, then that gives the grant manager the opportunity to come back and review that position.

Can I ask I think an incredibly difficult question, so I accept that you will feel that? How do you balance getting money back for the Welsh public purse with the effect of you having the money and small companies who have done work for that organisation, who may be lower down in the order of being paid, not getting that money, putting many of them also very close to receivership or into receivership? How do you balance that out? Because it's easy to say, 'You should get every penny for the Welsh public purse, because that's what you're there to do' but it can have a very serious effect on a number of small subcontractors who will just be unable to continue afterwards.

I think, Gawain, you'll probably want to talk about the technical aspects and how we test ourselves on these various areas. And as you would expect, we have processes in place. I think if I drive it from your starting point on these questions, how do you decide what the threshold is? Is it a financial one? Is it a percentage time? A 1 per cent error fraud rate—we'd probably all celebrate that as a pretty low rate. It's probably lower than would be expected; it's to be tolerated. If the error rate is on £100 million, it's £1 million. So, it sounds as though it's much more material than probably it does in those percentage terms as well. But we do have processes in place, Gawain, to balance what we do with businesses, I know, so—.

And where we do look to recover any funding, which I think is your point, we do have a debt team that advises policy officials on that. And the debt team—. One of their responsibilities is to hasten when money is owing to the Welsh Government. In extreme cases, if necessary, we'll take organisations to court. But also the Welsh Government, as you say, could be only one organisation, and sometimes we have to accept that the way that we've contracted with another organisation means that perhaps we're not ahead of some other organisations. We're not always the prime organisation in order to receive the money.

But, even if we are ahead, let's talk about £50,000, which to most of us on this side of the room is quite a large sum of money. To a number of small businesses, £50,000 is a large sum of money. To the Welsh Government, investing, it isn't. If you're ahead of ABC Plumbing, who are owed £50,000 by this contractor, who will then go into administration themselves if they don't get that £50,000 back, whereas it would be annoying and a problem for the Welsh Government, it would not affect your ability, I'm trying to tease out from you how you decide, 'Well, we might be ahead of ABC Plumbing, but, if we do this, there won't be an ABC plumbing next week.'

I think there's a balanced view that is taken on it, and I do think we don't just pursue a technical expectation—I think we try to base it on the particular circumstances at the time. There's also something on the debt recovery process, where how much time do we end up spending ourselves? I think, as you said, trying to find a way, or what's the magical formula or the answer on it, I'm struggling with a little bit. I'd be really prepared to go away and just think about it and maybe come back to you with a couple of reflections on our processes and how it works, but we try to be quite rounded.

I'd like you to go away and think about it, because it's very easy to be technical and say, 'We are ahead of ABC Plumbing; we should have that £50,000', without giving any thought to the consequences. I think I'd like you to go away and think about the consequences of us ensuring we maximise what we get, and £50,000 takes ABC plumbing and its four employees into redundancy and into closure.

I think there is an outlook—. I'm certainly, Chair, very happy to maybe just outline how we do approach it, because I do think we try and provide some balance in it. I think another example where we try to help is our general approach to making sure that we do pay invoices—again, we're pretty effective, Gawain, aren't we, on our targets there—which also helps the flow of money out to businesses. And maybe the other area that ties with this is some of the work that we've done to allow Welsh companies to be able to access more of the contractual arrangements in place. That's another part of this factor as well, which is a tone issue, about our approach as a Government.

I'll finish on this question. I think the other questions that are down in my list are factual ones that could be answered in writing, if you're happy with that, Chair. The question that probably does need a proper answer is the £9 million write-off relating to the costs for junctions 14 to 16A of the A55. Has that been reported? And have residual benefits come out of it? One of the best things the Welsh Government has done financially is buy that land and housing around Monmouthshire, which will almost certainly have increased in value substantially even though the M4 relief road hasn't been built. Probably, when you go and look at what you can sell some of those properties and some of that land for, it will be substantially more now than you paid for it at the time. So, how do you balance these things off against what you paid and how much that land becomes worth afterwards?

Well, you're right to say that there is an assets approach generally, and Welsh Government will hold a number of assets. Maybe, Gawain, you can help just describe that more broadly. Just on the roads review that you referred to, I'd have to check. I know that, obviously, there was a statement at the time that was made that probably would have described the amount because of the cessation of the scheme. I'm not sure whether technically we did that or not; I think that was probably via the ministerial arrangements, I'd suggest, so I think that is known and around.

On the benefits side, though, definitely the way in which broader assets are used in the organisation is a factor, and we report it, of course, as part of the annual accounts.

Any of the losses we report are actually the net figure, so, with the example you've given there, even going back to—committee members may recall—the M4 relief road, where we published the loss there, what we need to do at every position is we go through, effectively, the costs that we've incurred, and we will look at those that give residual benefit to the Welsh Government. As you say, land would be an example, property would be an example, and what we then do is we identify those assets, we give those a market value—because, obviously, going forward we might have a different purpose for those particular assets—and then, as I say, we net that off from the total costs we've incurred to give the actual loss figure.

Sorry, going into the technical level, there are losses and there are losses, aren't there? I mean, £100,000-worth of civil servant time is a loss—it's an opportunity loss, but it hasn't actually cost real, new money. Did you differentiate between buying and selling on the one hand and the use of Government officials doing one thing or not doing another thing? You lose the opportunity cost—that's obvious—but the civil service would have been there, would have been paid and would be doing something. So, although that's a cost and you count it as a cost, it's not a cost that is in addition to what you were going to spend anyway.

We just deal with it in a definitional approach in the annual accounts, so it's just—.

Yes, we would consider the costs that we've incurred outside of the Welsh Government when arriving at that loss figure. As you say, we would incur civil service costs regardless, so this cost would have been money that we've spent, whether it be with design teams or whether it be, as I say, purchasing property or things like that.

Thank you. We have some other questions, Mark, or Chair, but, if you're happy, I think those are questions that could quite easily be answered in writing.

That's fine, I think, yes. Going back to the earlier point about business finance, I wonder if you could clarify—not now, but when you look at this further—how that may differentiate between grants and loans, and the extent to which the obligations imposed by the contractual terms on both parties limit your ability to consider the position of creditors or enable them.

Yes, indeed, we're very happy to outline that in responding—that's fine, Chair.

I should declare that in my previous life I have worked in corporate finance. Right, if we could move on, then—Natasha Asghar, please, to take up the questions.

Thank you so much, Chair. I'd just like to ask our panel today, in relation to core expenditure on grants, which come to the sum of £20.8 billion of the Welsh Government's operating expenditure of £21.4 billion for 2021-22, do you think that this balance is reflected in the accounts, and how do they provide sufficient information about grant expenditure and the expected outcomes and/or what has, indeed, been delivered?

Yes, grants management and oversight is a really important function of us and we have lots of assurance mechanisms in place around that, and panels et cetera, but, on the specifics, Gawain.

Okay, thank you. Yes, grants, obviously, are a large proportion of our expenditure. Within the grants we have, effectively, two types of grants; we have unhypothecated and hypothecated. The unhypothecated funding will go directly to health bodies and local government, and that's all part of the budget negotiations and, obviously, information around the budget is published in our budget documentation.

On the balance, what we try to do with the—. So, on the hypothecated grant funding, essentially, which is about £6 billion, within part 1 of the accounts we do produce a report around how that money is distributed between different sectors, and then that element of the accounts also goes into how we manage the process and the grants team that we have centrally looking at those policies. Obviously, that has developed over time. If the committee has views about perhaps what more we can share on the way that we manage grants, then we're more than happy to look at that for part 1 of the accounts.

Obviously, when it comes to the performance, particularly performance against the programme for government and the well-being outcomes, that's published separately. In terms of performance there for the Government, that's published separately in the Welsh Government annual report. But, as I say, going back to part 1 of the accounts, where we have that ability, really, to publish what people want to see, then, if there are any recommendations, we're more than happy to take those on board.

Okay, great. You provide narrative but do not include a breakdown of the Welsh Government’s other financial assets. Can you tell me why that is the case, please?

Yes. I think when it comes to the notes in the accounts, as you will have seen, part 3 of the accounts, which is the financial statements, is quite a hefty document already. So, what we try to do is balance between the streamlining exercise we went through a number of years ago and then providing sufficient information. So, in this particular case, what we look to do is—and I'll have a quick look, because I know it's note 6; it's 6.3—what we've tried to do is add a narrative below that to explain. So, rather than put in extra tables within the note itself, we've added, as I say, note 6.3, which provides that description around what those financial assets would be.

But, again, I mentioned earlier, in terms of working with Audit Wales, when it comes to those specific notes, rather than the actual format of the accounts, then we are able to tailor those. And, again, any recommendations from the committee we can take a look at.

Okay. What is the Welsh Government's policy about the cash and cash-equivalent balance it holds at the end of the financial year? Have you set any particular threshold for this, moving forward, or not?

Right, okay. I wouldn't as much call it a policy; I'd call it goals. And what our goal is that we want to be in the top quartile of the cash management performance league table. There's a league table for devolved governments and Whitehall departments. It's 20 organisations in total, and our goal is to be in the top quartile of that, and so, effectively, the top five. We aim to have a variance on our cash forecasting—and perhaps I can say a little bit more about cash forecasting et cetera—of less than 5 per cent. So, our actual outturn for the cash we use should be within 5 per cent of our forecasts, and, obviously, at the end of the day, we need to make sure we have sufficient cash to meet our obligations.

Perhaps I can just explain that cash forecast and where that comes into it, if that's okay? So, we don't hold significant sums in commercial bank accounts. As a devolved Government, we have to use the government banking service. So, we have to forecast our daily and weekly cash requirements at the start of every month to the Treasury, and that cash is then put in the government banking service. It's ring-fenced for Welsh Government use only, but it's put in the government banking service. Now, I mentioned this league table. So, what the Treasury does is it takes all those forecasts, it compares that to the cash we actually draw, and it produces this league table of how well devolved governments and departments have performed during the year. And, given what I've said about our goals, it was really pleasing that, for 2021-22, we were, indeed, fifth in that league table. So, we just made our top quartile, but I think what really shows the effort that we put into the cash management, particularly in 2021-22, was the fact our variance, between what we were forecasting our cash requirement would be and the actual sums used, was only 1.5 per cent as an average for the year, which I think was a tremendous result for the Welsh Government.

Okay, thank you. You mentioned the league table—and congratulations on making it to the fifth on there—and pardon me if I didn't hear you earlier, but how many organisations are particularly in this league table that you came fifth out of?

Twenty. There are the devolved governments—so, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—and then it's made up predominantly of Whitehall departments and the Treasury itself.

Okay, thank you very much for that. I'll move on to my next question. With an increase in the provisions for NHS clinical negligence and personal injury claims, which I understand are taking money from other Welsh Government priorities and public services, what are you specifically all going to be doing to limit the growth of these liabilities?

I'll pick this up in part again, just with an interest in the past on this, but also because I was part of the arrangements looking to limit clinical negligence when we did the Evans review back in 2014, and there is a framework in place for the NHS, which is called Putting Things Right. So, we've always been mindful over the years that it looks as though the level of clinical negligence feels like it will just continue to increase, and there were a number of actions that we took, basically to allow more flexibility for resolution with complainants, with patients, who may have had adverse experiences, in order to, hopefully, start to limit perhaps those that emerge more on a national basis, where we start to make provision for it. Actually, when you look at the case numbers involved, I think we actually already have signs from events that were happening a number of years ago that started to show that case numbers are dropping. So, we were at 514 cases, compared with 549 the year before. So, I think that shows a stabilisation of the actual case numbers.

One of the problems we have, though, is that some of the costs around both provisions and the way in which we account for these things are actually changing for different reasons. So, there is, inevitably, going to be an impact on the way in which future accounts reflect inflation, because these are judgments and financial calculations that take place over many years and with lots of technical formulae in place, and inflation is going to be a driver of extra costs. The cost of an average case to settle is already twice what it was, going back a number of years or so a go. So, actually, the more complex cases that are emerging at this stage also lead to some of those areas. But what is quite interesting, though, is that, actually, the amount that is paid out in revenue terms for clinical negligence claims, despite the provision that is made available, stays quite static. It's usually somewhere between about £100 million and £120 million a year. So, I actually think we've now got some evidence showing that some of the actions that the system took to try to mitigate on a local basis some of the cases that would emerge into the Welsh risk pool mean that the numbers are actually not just stabilising, but have actually reduced between the two annual accounts periods as well. But I do worry that this still remains a really significant resource, but it's not money that is generally available for us to deploy for other purposes. There are some specific accounting mechanisms around clinical negligence that mean that it's like a draw-down. It is what it is in a year, and you just make the money; you can't suddenly decide to spend it somewhere else, and it's actually drawn through a very particular technique—a particular technical accounting treatment, I should say, sorry.

Dr Goodall, just following up on that—pardon me, because the signal went slightly; technical issues, I should say—with regard to what you said when you just draw down for that specific purpose, that money that's not used, for example, from this particular pot that you say is for clinical negligence, it can't be used anywhere else in the Welsh Government, I take it, for any other accounting purposes.

It's from our AME budget, which Gawain will explain, which is contained, so, yes.

With the risk pool, as I said, the change was about £300 million. When you create, increase or reduce a provision, it actually scores at that point to a budget called annually managed expenditure, or AME, and so, where we have these increases in something like the risk pool, that doesn't reduce our spending power on revenue or capital. That's partly because of the way that we have to produce these estimates, because they are, at this stage, only estimates. Our provision is simply—. We know there's a future liability, but there's some uncertainty over the risk or the timing of that, and that's why the increases or decreases report to or fall to annually managed expenditure. As the Permanent Secretary was saying, in terms of the actual cost to the Welsh Government, that's only realised at the point that you actually pay out, if you have to pay out on a particular claim, and that has been fairly steady over the last few years at about £100 million.

Okay. Thank you very much. I only have two more questions to go, Chair. I promise I'll be quick. You've actually said, and I quote,

'In special circumstances, the Welsh Government acts as guarantor for its sponsored bodies or in relation to public infrastructure works. None of these guarantees are material.'

So, I'd like to know in what circumstances have you provided guarantees. Personally, I'm quite suspicious of anyone giving guarantees, because they can go very badly when things do go very badly. How many has the Welsh Government provided and what is the aggregate value of them all combined together?

Gawain, do you want to pick up the guarantor response?

Okay, yes. There are three, two of which are, actually, historic, and the Welsh Government has effectively inherited them. They were guarantees given by the National Assembly for Wales for the national museum pension scheme and the National Library of Wales pension scheme. So, in effect, as I said, we inherited those, and potentially they're £57 million and £32 million, but we do treat these as, effectively, remote, so the chances that we'll have to pay out on these we consider to be remote.

The third one is a strange one. It's actually with Dŵr Cymru and local authorities. It was all to do with the fact—sorry, I don't know much about house building—but it's all to do with the fact of the timing of when you're designing and building a property and when Dŵr Cymru and the local authority take on responsibility for the sewers, the drains and the roads. What we found was there was this period that, effectively, was holding up the development of social housing because no-one would actually provide a guarantee about that time period if something was to happen. Now, again, we've never paid out on that, but it was just a guarantee that we felt was important to put in place. It is only for registered social landlords; we don't provide that guarantee for private developers. The estimate on that could be up to £40 million depending on the value of, obviously, the schemes that are going on, but, again, we've never paid out on any of those.

And can I ask when this Welsh Water and local authorities guarantee began, please—this guarantor—when it was signed or sealed? I know you said you inherited two of them, but this one clearly was under your discretion, I believe.

Sorry, I can't remember off the top of my head. Would it be okay if I came back to you on that with the date?

Absolutely, yes. Just out of curiosity—I guess I like dates, so therefore it would be nice to know just when that started, that's all.

Yes, sorry, I don't know that date, but I'll come back on that. Thank you.

No problem. Just my final question now—

Can I cut in here?

Yes, of course, Mike.

Why is it not the responsibility of the registered social landlord?

I'd have to provide more information from the time on why that decision was taken, but, as I say, it was holding up development of social housing projects until the Welsh Government stepped in. But, again, I can provide more information on that as well.

Thank you very much. My final question now is that you note two Transport for Wales subsidiaries have been included in the group accounts following the Office for National Statistics classification exercise. Do you think that you have sufficiently explained the impact of this and other changes to the Welsh Government group on your reported transactions for 2021-22?

I think the inclusion is definitely part of this complexity and the breadth of areas that we are drawing into these aggregated accounts. But, again, on the technical side, Gawain? Thank you.

Right, yes. What we try and do when we have additional bodies—in this case, obviously, Transport for Wales—we have a category called 'newly consolidated bodies', and that appears within the accounts. It's an approach we agreed with our colleagues in Audit Wales. If you look at the accounts, there are a number of places that the newly consolidated bodies will appear. For example, in the notes to the accounts on property, plant and equipment, there is a separate section that says 'newly consolidated bodies'. There is information in other notes. So, if we, for example, have financial commitments, then again we'll include the number specifically for those. And in part 1 of the accounts, what we've tried to introduce is a bit more information around the type of bodies that we do consolidate within the accounts, and any new bodies absorbed during that accounts period will be highlighted in that as well.

Again—sorry, I've said this a couple of times—obviously, with the notes to the accounts, we try and provide as much clarity as we can, but if there's any particular circumstances where perhaps we think more clarity could be provided, then, again, we're happy to take on board those recommendations.

Okay, great. Thank you so much, Chair.

Okay. I've only got a couple of quick questions to conclude. The Welsh Government said it would publish the outturn report for the 2021-22 accounts within three weeks of the accounts being laid. Why have you not done so, and when do you expect to publish?

So, there was a knock-on effect of just our timings around the submission of the accounts, and a bit of a roll-over of it, but the real issue that's got in the way of staff who would normally be associated with doing the outturn report was that we've just, from a Government perspective, had to support Ministers with a very significant budget round, which has been very difficult, with the decisions being taken, I know, as, obviously, part of the Plenary discussions that will emerge on the budget as well, and we simply had to prioritise that work at that time. Having said that, we were able to re-engage staff back on that kind of process, and you may have picked up that it was issued earlier this week by the finance Minister. So, with my apologies, I just think the detail we had to go into in the budget process just means that we had to divert staff to discharging that, to make sure that could keep up with the Senedd timetables on the budget as well.

You may say that this was in the document that was published earlier this week, but what was the balance on the Wales reserve at 1 April 2022 and was this within the £350 million threshold set out in the fiscal framework?

Gawain, you can answer that one. Thank you.

It was; it was £304 million.

Okay. Thank you. Well, that brings the questions for the day's session to an end. We're only seven minutes over. I thank Sally-Ann Efstathiou, Dr Andrew Goodall, Gawain Evans and Tim Moss for being with us today and answering our questions. As always, a transcript of today's meeting will be published in draft form and shared with you for you to check for accuracy before it's published in its final version. So, diolch yn fawr. Thanks again for being with us.

Thank you, Chair.

Members, we have papers to note. Very briefly, a letter from the Chief Executive and Clerk of the Senedd—you can relax; it's not you—on the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee report on the scrutiny of accounts for 2021-22. Members will note that the Chief Executive and Clerk of the Senedd's letter was in response to the recommendations in our report on the scrutiny of accounts 2021-22. The Commission noted that the report highlights the progress that is being made in making the Senedd a more diverse representation of modern Wales and acknowledges that, whilst they're proud of the work so far, there is still some way to go. An assurance has been provided that the Commission will remain as committed as ever to providing greater clarity and assurance through external scrutiny and audit as well as through their internal governance framework. They've committed to a review of the Commission's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and will share a copy with the committee once available. Members will note that the committee's recommendations concerning the Commission have been accepted, and the details can be viewed in annex 1 to the letter provided. Do Members have any comments in relation to that letter? Mabon, I don't know, if you're with us in sound at least, whether you have any comments.

No comments, thank you, Chair.

No. Mike Hedges, anything?

No.

Natasha, do you have a comment?

Yes. I'm happy to note the letters, Chair. My only thing was, in relation to the chart that was provided, can we just, in future—? It's nothing, I would say, that has an air of urgency, but just as a form of caution, a lot of money is clearly being spent on various things, as we've seen in the chart, such as visits, social media, et cetera. It would be good just for the committee if we can keep an eye on how much is being spent on these things, because a lot of the figures, actually, are zeros, unfortunately, for some parts of Wales when it comes to the influence and impact it's having. So, I just think, going forward, just as a form of due diligence, it would be good to keep an eye on how much is being spent if it's not actually getting any gains at the end of the day. That's my only suggestion.

Thank you. That sounds a pertinent point. No doubt the clerking team have made a note accordingly.

Well, at this point, then, I propose that, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(ix), the committee resolves to meet in private for items 4 and 5, for the remainder of today's meeting. Are Members content? I trust that Mabon—[Interruption.] Yes. In which case, I'd be grateful if we could go into private session. Thank you.