Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee

Croeso. Welcome to our witnesses, who have now joined the meeting. Thank you for being with us this morning. As you'll expect, we have a number of questions, so I'd be grateful if both yourselves, in your answers, and Members, in their questions, could be as succinct as possible to enable us to, hopefully, get through them, or certainly cover as wide a range of these as we possibly can. But before we begin, could I ask the witnesses, for the record, to identify themselves and their roles, please?

Bore da. Thank you, Chair. Tim Moss, chief operating officer and director general, Welsh Government.

Good morning. I'm Dominic. I'm director of people and places in the Welsh Government.

I'm Dom Houlihan, I'm the director of people and places for Welsh Government.

Diolch yn fawr. I'll begin, as usual, with the first set of questions and then colleagues will take up further questions, as we proceed.

The evidence you provided to us ahead of this session states that the public appointments team has moved to the expert resourcing hub. Why has this move taken place, and what is the public appointments team relationship now with the public bodies unit and partnership teams?

Okay. Well, thank you, Chair. Maybe I'll just start with a little bit of context around this and then Dom, who has been heading up this work, I'll allow him to come in with some of the detail on your question there. I think this whole piece with the public appointments team is part of the journey that we're on in terms of improving the way that we do public appointments, but also, some of the work that we're doing to improve the way we do recruitment more generally within the organisation. And, hopefully, from the evidence that we've presented, you'll see that some progress is being made, especially around things like the quality of data, and some encouraging signs. But there's lots more to do, and that's part of the work, then, that Dom's been looking at; he has been with us 10 months and is now looking at the whole work of the public bodies unit, the work of HR, recruitment and resourcing, et cetera, and so is looking to make some changes. I'll hand over to Dom to maybe provide some detail around that.

Diolch, Tim. Thank you very much. Good morning. Bore da, bawb. So, if I begin by saying, I think, joining Welsh Government 10 months ago, it was clear that the chief security officer was not a natural home for the public bodies team, which comprises three different units, it comprises engagement and governance, resourcing, and pay. Some of the challenges, in particular around recruitment, are similar to those challenges facing civil service recruitment; we are both on the journey to try and make sure that we reflect the population that we serve, that we improve our diversity outreach, that we improve the process for candidates and applications, and actually, we have a common system alongside that.

So, as part of my wider review of my directorate, the people and places directorate, I've taken the decision to move the public appointments team into what will now be a new centre of recruitment excellence, an expert resourcing hub. This allows us to provide synergy between the quality of service that candidates can expect to receive, whether they're applying for a civil service role or whether they're applying for a public appointment, underpinned by a common set of principles around open, fair and merit appointment. Although, I will state—and I think it's important to clarify—there are different mechanisms of engagement and different controls over civil service recruitment, as opposed to public appointment recruitment. There are different commissioners, for example, involved in both elements. However, there is a commonality in the recruitment stage, there's a commonality in how we plan for a vacancy, how we look at the outreach and promotion of those roles, there's a commonality in how we support individuals to sift, interview and evaluate and then onboard, and there's a commonality now with the system, with Cais being the predominant recruitment system that we use across all recruitment.

So, in our effort to try and ensure we reflect Wales across our appointments, there is a huge amount of commonality in creating a centre of excellence for recruitment and resourcing, so that we can streamline more effectively the resourcing and recruitment services for our customers. This doesn't mean that the public appointments team has been subsumed; they are still headed up by a head of public appointments team, alongside a head of Welsh Government resourcing, reporting into an overall lead for recruitment, who reports into a deputy director and myself. So, there is still very much clarity around roles and responsibilities there, but by bringing the teams together it allows us to broaden the knowledge base, share best practice and deliver my ambition, which is more innovative solutions, so that we can start to continue the progress, I suppose, that we've made with some of the appointments.

If I may, just very briefly, on the remaining teams, we had a public bodies pay team, and that now sits within our pay hub, so it's part of the Welsh Government pay hub, public bodies pay hub and our payroll services. This allows us to more effectively look at what payroll support to provide to a number of our arm's-length bodies, as well as make sure, when we're considering the Welsh Government pay remit, we also look at the arm's-length remits for our public bodies, so there's a closer synergy there. And the public body engagement and governance team, who do a lot of work with outreach, engagement, the chair's forum, the non-exec forum et cetera, that is now a part of Academi Wales, which has come under the people and places umbrella, so that we can start to bridge the gap a little bit more closely around some of the development, mentoring, buddying support that we provide to those arm's-length bodies. That might sound fragmented, but it's all under one umbrella, which is the people directorate within Welsh Government, so all roads point to my senior leadership team to make sure that we've got clarity on our approach.

Related to this, in your evidence to us on 14 December last year, you said that the public appointments team had just moved into the chief security officer's division. Why was this second move made so quickly after the first? And what, if any, impact has this had on the work of the team?

Maybe if I start, I think the move into the chief security officer—. When the deputy director came with me in December last year, Kath had helped to develop the team and, in terms of the overarching structure, provided some key leadership to that group at the time. As Dom said, there isn't necessarily a natural synergy with the main focus of Kath's role, but it did provide us with some stability from a leadership structure perspective, which was much needed at the time, and was helping to lead the restructuring and the work of PBU following the review that we'd had internally. Since Dom's come on board, he's been able to take a much more strategic view of the whole people and places structure and is putting a new structure in place that meets the needs for the organisation going forward, but also looks at the resources that we've got and making best use of those. Yes, in an ideal world, you wouldn't do two, necessarily, shifts in structure, but it does make sense in terms of where we're at and the work that Dom's been leading to provide that more strategic approach to our people and places agenda.

And how seamless has that been? Because change is aways disruptive, no matter how effectively managed it is.

Change is always disruptive, but, I think, the most important bit is whether the team can see why we're doing it and the purpose behind it. And I think, as Dom's explained, looking at the centres of excellence or bringing key skills together, whether it be internal recruitment as well as public appointments, there are huge synergies between the two. It provides additional resilience for the team, as well as sharing of skills and good practice. So, I think, there's a very clear rationale for what we're doing going forward, and I think that helps in terms of explaining to the team what we're doing. But, as you said, change is always difficult, it depends on individuals and the roles they're in. But I think it's really important to set that clear strategy for the future, which Dom has done coming in.

Okay, thank you. Evidence provided to the committee and to board members surveyed identified concerns about the visibility of the public appointments team and about a lack of clarity about its role in the public appointments recruitment process. What action, therefore, if any, have you taken to address that? And how will the movement of the team to the expert resourcing hub improve this in your view?

I think there are a number of things that we've done in terms of building the stronger networks around this linked to the public bodies team. There's the work that we're doing internally with the public bodies reference group, which is where we link the public bodies team with the key sponsorship teams, and that's a meeting that I chair; it meets on a quarterly basis. Then, we're also strengthening it through the work we're doing with the different forums. So, we have the public leaders forum, which is chairs and chief executives, which meets twice a year. Again, the public bodies unit helps to organise that. And then we also have two other groups, both of them ones that I chair. One is a slightly more informal network, but one for chief executives, and also one with chairs. And again, it's all about trying to make sure we've got the right links and that the public bodies unit is well understood in terms of their role.

I think, as we said when we were here last time, the public appointments process is, really, a collaboration between the public bodies team, who are really looking at the process and running the system; you've got then the sponsorship teams and the organisations themselves, who are then heavily involved in the recruitment of those appointments; and obviously, for a number of those, that also links into these are ministerial appointments, and how they work with the Ministers to ensure we get the right people in the roles.

And you, I think, described how you're seeking or generating better linkage within the different departments and units in Welsh Government. In terms of reaching out and ensuring better understanding amongst those who might be engaged in the process, how confident are you that the changes you've made will facilitate that better external understanding and engagement?

I think there's always a job to do in terms of the outreach side, because there are different roles that those different groups play within it. But certainly I think the work that the team has been doing over the last year, whether it be in terms of feedback to candidates, whether it be training of those that were in near-miss situations, the talent bank, the board apprentice scheme that we've done, there are a number of things that are starting to have better impact in terms of the outreach that the team have been responsible for.

There's lots more to do. As I said, this is very much work in progress. I think there are one or two signs where we're starting to really move in the right direction, but there's more we can do. They're doing some work currently on things like the webpages—they're not ready yet, but will be, I think, early into next year—again, trying to ensure that we get the right information out there to prospective candidates, and to boards as well.

Okay, thank you. I'm going to bring in Rhianon Passmore, who has some questions for you.

Diolch. Thank you very much, Chair. There seems to be a plethora of initiatives and suites of ongoing activity. If I ask the first question, if I may, Chair, in regard to the evaluation of the 2022-23 action planning around the strategy, is there a reason why we don't have any evaluation ongoing in terms of where we are in this coming year, or is that incorrect?

I think you're referring to the 'Reflecting Wales in Running Wales' report—is that correct? The 2022-23—

And in terms of your—. Yes.

That plan was running for a period of three years. There is a plan to evaluate that. There's some cross-over between the 'Reflecting Wales in Running Wales' work and also the work that was done, and is being done, under the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan'. They're very closely aligned, and there's currently been a review of all the actions under the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan', and we're due to publish, I think, a new document in the near future. One of those key actions is a formal review around the 'Reflecting Wales in Running Wales' report, but, as I said, there's a lot of cross-over between both of those key pieces of work. They're very closely interlinked. I wasn't around for the history, so I don't know how they are specifically linked, but we've made some progress against all the actions that were within that initial report, as well as other ones under the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan', and we're really keen to take those forward. But there will be a formal evaluation, and that's a key action as part of the new 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan'.

And to be clear, there will be evaluation around the 'Reflecting Wales in Running Wales' strategy independently.

That is a specific action that we're committing to in the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan'. That will also involve some engaging with external groups, to see the impact that that's had, and that will help inform future work that we do.

I was speaking specifically to the 'Reflecting Wales in Running Wales' strategy—there will be an evaluation in terms of that year of running. And I take what you say about the anti-racist action plan, but I'm talking about the reflecting Wales strategy here. Will there be an evaluation around that in terms of its annual progress?

The period has to come an end, so there will be an evaluation of the 'Reflecting Wales in Running Wales' strategy, yes.

Okay, thank you. In your evidence to the committee on 14 December 2023, there were 25 actions included in the diversity and inclusion strategy, which you've just referenced, for public appointments. Nine of those, at that point, had been completed or closed; 16, I believe, were still ongoing at that point. Could you provide us with an update on the progress of that? How many have now been completed, and what are the actions that remain outstanding? Thank you.

Our internal analysis says that, I think, around about probably 19 of the 25 have been completed, or significant work on it. There are six that are ongoing. Of some of the ones that we haven't completed, there were a couple that related to specific targets for boards and things like that. We've not set targets for boards, although again, coming into this, the whole basis of ‘Reflecting Wales in Running Wales’, for me, the obvious target is that our boards should be reflective of the people in the communities that we serve. So, in terms of targets, that would be the principle that we would be looking to go for, but we haven't actually completed that in terms of setting specific targets.

There's further work that needs to be done on outreach. There were actions around outreach, but I don't think that is ever completed. There's more we can always do in terms of outreach. There are some actions that have happened, but there is a lot more we need to do to make sure we're reaching out to the right communities. There's some of the work we've done around analysis of boards. We've done some of the work, but we haven't completed it. I think there was also—what I referred to in terms of things like the website—a bilingual one-stop shop. That hasn't been completed, but there is work going on on that. And there was another action that was around evaluation. And as I said, that's something that is ongoing. So, I would view that there are probably two thirds to three quarters of the things have been completed. Others, there is work in progress around them. So, there is progress. But, as I said, we can't sit here and say everything's been done and everything is fine and wonderful. No, it's a journey we're on, and we're making some progress, but there is more that we need to do.

Thank you. I'm slightly confused in terms of you've got a target that's not a target in terms of make-up of diversity within boards. So could you just give me a little bit more information about what you're aiming to achieve and how you evaluate that?

The actions were having specific targets for boards. Well, part of that also links into the work that was done to analyse where boards are currently at. And that work hasn't been completed. We have a lot of the data, but we haven't finalised the report around it. So, until we know the baseline, it's very difficult to set a specific target. What I was referring to, though, just from my more personal reflection, is there is a principle here that sits underpinning ‘Reflecting Wales in Running Wales’ and also the ‘Anti-racist Wales Action Plan’, which is that, in essence, our boards and the organisation should reflect the people that we serve—

I'll interrupt you to save time. We’re all cognisant of the need to reflect that principle. But, without a specific target around that, how are you aiming to develop that diversity across the boards? I mean, surely there should be a target attached to that specifically in terms of a key performance indicator.

The action there is about setting some more formal targets, and, until we've got the baseline, we can't set those targets for boards.

Okay, so, there's no improvement in that regard. When will that be delivered, then, in terms of your audit, as stage 1 of that really important—

The report, which will give us the analysis of boards, we're looking to publish early into 2025. As I said, that has been delayed from where we were hoping to get to, and that's been down to some resourcing issues. But we have got all the data. It's a case of pulling the report together. But, as I said, it doesn't stop the work that we're doing, which is looking at how we drive forward improvements in diversity of appointments, and, as you will see from some of the data we've presented from Cais over the last year, there have been some steps forward. But, obviously, that's just the current appointments, and there's a lot of history here in terms of the original make-up of boards. And so, once we get that data, we can get a better view to look at saying: what targets should be set?

Okay. But you said you've got the data, you've just got to pull it together.

We have the data.

I think I'll move on, if that's okay. The strategy covered the period 2020-23. Can you outline when the strategy will be evaluated—I did touch upon this earlier—and how and when the results of that evaluation will be published? So it’s a broad brush. Thank you.

The current plan is to do evaluation into the spring next year, and complete that evaluation there. As I said, we haven't finalised plans around how we'll publish that, but that's the commitment that we're having within the ‘Anti-racist Wales Action Plan’ that revises that we will do that evaluation over that period.

So, I'm still slightly confused, because I'm speaking to the strategy in terms of ‘Reflecting Wales in Running Wales’, and you're talking to the action plan. So, is that correct?

Sorry, I apologise if I'm not making it clear. The ‘Reflecting Wales in Running Wales’ report, running from 2020-23, is very closely linked to the work that is done under the ‘Anti-racist Wales Action Plan’, and, as part of that refresh of the ‘Anti-racist Wales Action Plan’, there is a specific action to evaluate the ‘Reflecting Wales in Running Wales’ report, and we're looking to do that by spring next year.

Okay. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Natasha Asghar, you have some questions.

Good morning, gentlemen. In my questioning, it's going to be a bit more about the future of the strategy itself, if that's okay. We have heard on many occasions that the diversity of public appointments remains a ministerial priority, and you're both nodding your heads so I take it that that's a given. But, if I take you back in time to your evidence session on 14 December, you said that the strategy is, and I quote,

'very clearly a ministerial priority, especially around improving the diversity of appointments to boards.'

End quote. Does this still seem the case today?

Yes.

Okay, fair enough, all right. And what measures and things are you doing to ensure that that is driven through and comes through?

I think some of the key measures come back from some of the data that we've got and, as I said, the improvements we've put in place with the new recruitment system that's been in place for over a year now is starting to give us really good and rich data from which we can then look at how we're performing, and actually what are the steps we need to take, going forward. It also ties into the work that Dom's been referring to around looking at creating a small centre of excellence around appointments and recruitment, and looking at good practice and building on that. As I said, there is more we need to do; there are some encouraging signs, but lots more we need to do to make sure we really do meet the principles, the conclusions and the outcomes from 'Reflecting Wales in Running Wales' and also the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan'.

Okay, great.

I'll bring in Adam Price.

Yes, of course.

I want to take us back to the original strategy, so if Natasha wants to finish her questions about the future, and then I'll come back on my issue, Chair.

I'm a person who loves spoilers and I appreciate what you've mentioned to my colleague Rhianon Passmore about the data being collected, it's not just been put in form. Is there any insight that you can give us as to some of the data that you've collated so far as to what we should be expecting, going forward?

I haven't got that data, no, sorry. I was asking similar questions when we were doing some preparation for this in terms of what are the initial results that are coming out from that, and I'm really keen to see that, because, as I said, that combined with the data we're now getting out of Cais helps to give us really rich data to then plan the actions and where we need to go, and the focus and the priorities.

Okay, fair enough. Given that the time period originally covered by the strategy was between 2020 and 2023, can you give us any clarity on the current status, as it stands?

I'm happy to offer a few thoughts, if I may. So, there are two or three key themes here. The first is we need to, obviously, review the strategy; we've committed to review the strategy and we will do so by spring next year, working in conjunction with the race, disability and disparity evidence units of Welsh Government. There are key opportunities here to make sure that we align some of the data that we've gathered with some of the wider work that we're looking at across Welsh Government around how we promote an anti-racist organisation, which is why we keep coming back to the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan', because there is a lot of overlap here. So, the first element is looking at the data.

The second element, then, is addressing the remaining goals outlined within the 'Reflecting Wales in Running Wales' report, so there are six goals under way. One of those absolutely is looking at the possibility of committing to targets, going forward. That will be a ministerial decision. We will also need to build into this our thematic review of the public body board recruitment, which happened last year. That outlines five key areas around how we build a diverse talent pool, how we make our recruitment practices more inclusive, how we train and support, how we get more consistency in practices, and how we pay and reimburse individuals as well. We'll need to align those five elements to think about, 'Well, what does the next step look like in terms of the future of any further strategy?'

What Tim has outlined in terms of the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan' is a refreshed approach where we are clear about what is our obligation as an employer within Welsh Government, what is our obligation across the public bodies with whom we work and whom we support, and then what's our wider public sector leadership. The second of those three elements speaks very clearly and has a lot of synergies with the work that we're trying to do to make sure that our public body approach is as diverse as possible.

So, what does the future strategy look like? To be determined, however, it will be aligned to making sure that we finish the goals that we've set out, making sure that we've got the evidence underpinning that baseline and having the discussion around what do any future targets look like, addressing the thematic review, the five key areas that came out of the thematic review, and then pulling that together in the context of wider Welsh Government policies, including the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan'.

Okay, thank you so much. I appreciate you have a lot on your plate in relation to everything you've just stated to the committee, but can you set out a timeline for the production of and consultation of a replacement strategy?

I'm unable to commit to that today, but what I would absolutely reaffirm is our commitment to make sure that we undertake the review of the strategy by next spring, working in conjunction with colleagues, and that will then inform what are the next steps. It may be, without me speaking on behalf of policy officials elsewhere across Welsh Government, that, actually, the steps that we take in the anti-racist action plan, which closely align to many of the key themes coming out of here, could save us from having an additional strategy on top of a current strategy. So, without getting all Tolkien about it, I rather prefer one ring to rule all rings and to have a clear guiding strategy rather than having independent mini ones. This is incredibly important, because we need to make sure that the public bodies serve and reflect the public of Wales. That's also a key theme from the leadership chapter of the anti-racist action plan.

Okay. Great. Thank you so much, Chair.

Adam Price.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Gan fynd nôl, felly, at y strategaeth wreiddiol, 'Adlewyrchu Cymru wrth Redeg Cymru', cam gweithredu 1 nod 1 y strategaeth oedd casglu data gan holl aelodau presennol byrddau Cymru i sefydlu llinell sylfaen er mwyn dylanwadu ar gamau gweithredu y dyfodol. Os ydw i'n deall yn iawn beth ŷch chi wedi ei ddweud y bore yma, dŷch chi wedi casglu'r data yna nawr, ie. Dŷch chi ddim wedi ei asesu fe yn llawn, dŷch chi ddim yn barod i'w gyhoeddi fe tan y flwyddyn newydd. Ond, jest i fod yn glir, mae'r data yna ŷch chi wedi ei gasglu ar gyfer y gwaelodlin yn cynnwys nid yn unig data ynglŷn â hil, ond mae'n cynnwys data ynglŷn â'r holl elfennau eraill yr oedd y strategaeth wreiddiol wedi cyfeirio atyn nhw, gan gynnwys iaith, ardal ddaearyddol, ac yn y blaen ac ati. Ie?

You're correct in terms of there have been two surveys that have been carried out, one focusing on board member diversity and another on the workforce data collection that's gone on. I haven't got the detail in terms of the specific questions that were asked, so I can't give you a specific answer to, 'Does it cover every single characteristic within the strategy?', and I would need to come back to you on that, and I apologise for that.

But the strategy was quite clear, wasn't it? There was an entire paragraph emphasising the need to have the data relating to things like language, socioeconomic background, and geographical area, and we had a discussion about that, and we've corresponded with you about that. Can you still not confirm this morning that that baseline—? That is, this is the first action point of the first objective in the original strategy. Now, five years later, we haven't seen it and you still can't confirm today that that information has been gathered.

I'm not in a position this morning to be able to say it, because I haven't got the detail around what was in those surveys. So, as I said, I apologise for that. I haven't got that and will very happily write to the committee with what is the specific data that was captured as part of those surveys. What I can say is that, linked to the data, the new recruitment system we have is now capturing all of those data elements, and this was evidenced in some of the material we gave to you. The baseline position on boards, I haven't got all the data fields, so I can't confirm what was covered from that, so apologies for that. But we are now collecting that data and it is giving us a rich source of information, going forward.

So, at best, delivering action point 1 of objective 1 is going to be done very late. At worst, it perhaps hasn't been delivered at all, but we'll have to wait for the answer on that. But, even at best, this is not a good delivery record, is it, against that baseline action point in the strategy. What accounts for the lack of delivery here? That is, to be more specific, was there a decision made by a Minister that this wasn’t a priority, that there was no need to deliver against this objective? Was it a decision at a lower level, made by an official within the Government, or was it just maladministration? Or what accounts for the delay, at least or, perhaps, the lack of any action on this issue?

I think, in terms of the action on this specific one, obviously, there were a number of issues during the time period that this existed. More recently, as I said, the more recent delay that we’ve seen, in terms of the report, there have been some resourcing issues within the team to finalise the report, and that’s why there’s been a delay, I think, from when I was last here in the committee talking about this. We were hoping to have published that within 2024, and it won’t now be until early next year.

I think, as with a number of these objectives, as I said, we haven’t completed all of them. There is work that—. Progress has been made against all of them. Those are some of the practicalities of delivering a strategy. It’s not been a ministerial decision not to do a piece of work; we’ve looked to do the work here. As I said, I can confirm, and I will come back to the committee, in terms of which actual data fields have been asked for from the surveys that went out, and there will be practical issues in terms of how those surveys are done.

So, the intention has always been to deliver against the strategy and the items there. There have been operational reasons why we haven’t completed everything, but the intention has always been to deliver what we can against those things, and progress has been made against the vast majority of the strategy. And, as I said, we’ll come back around those surveys and the data fields that are being collected, and, if we’re not collecting against all of them, why that hasn’t been possible.

There was a section about the governance of the strategy in the document, and it said this:

‘There is a need for a governance approach to ensure ownership of the strategy, to ensure scrutiny and support and to hold the leadership to account. And this needs to include a full range of senior leaders and key stakeholders within the Welsh Government and beyond’.

In hearing that there is a lack of delivery in terms of some of the baseline objectives of the strategy, do you think that that clause, in terms of scrutiny and holding the leadership to account against the strategy’s objectives, has been delivered, in accordance with that paragraph?

I’m sure some of this will come out when we do a formal evaluation of the work around this. I think I go back to—. We have achieved a number of the objectives within that; we haven’t achieved everything. And, so, we need to understand why not everything has been achieved, and were there things that we could do better from a governance or delivery perspective to help with that.

As I said, there’s been a lot of work that has gone on in this space. As we mentioned earlier, it does link very closely with the work we’ve also been doing in terms of the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan'. There are a lot of synergies between the two, and, as I said, progress has been made. It’s always good to learn lessons as to why you haven’t completed everything, and what you can do to improve delivery, going forward, and that’s something that we’ll need to do as we look to evaluate the plan.

There was detailed information in the strategy about the diversity and inclusion governance group in public appointments. There was information about the proposed membership and the terms of reference. Was that governance group established?

I can’t comment on some of the early history around that. What I can say is, over the more recent times—and, as I said, there are huge synergies between this work and the work on the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan'—I’ve been involved in leading a group looking at the leadership chapter around the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan', which involves members from the external accountability group, as well as internal members across the organisation, looking to say, ‘How can we drive some of these really important areas forward?’ And as I said, I think, when we come to review the plan, we can look at whether there are things that could and should have been done differently that we can learn from to improve delivery, going forward.

But, as I said, we have made progress against a number of the elements within the strategy. We’d always like to do more, but we need to understand what were some of the issues in terms of why we, maybe, haven't got as far as we should have done.

But it is true to say, isn't it, that the governance group that had been set out in the strategy was never established, was it?

I don't believe it was established, no.

Why, and who made that decision?

So, I'm afraid I don't have that information or detail. My understanding is that it was a product of circumstance, closely linked to the organisation co-ordinating efforts to other matters, including COVID, for example. Now, that doesn't excuse that the group wasn't established. However, I will make sure that we find out the reason why that wasn't the case, and as we do a lessons-learnt and as we review the strategy and the efficacy of the strategy and what we've delivered, this will clearly be a key point that we will want to focus on.

Do you think that the failure to establish that governance group was a contributory factor to the lack of delivery against the strategy's objectives?

To me, that would be one of the things we need to understand when we do the evaluation of this, as to, where we haven't made the progress that we would have liked to, what were the reasons behind it and whether the governance played a role within that. As I said, that will be part of an evaluation.

Was the Senedd informed about the decision not to establish the governance group, do you know?

I don't know and, as Dom has said, this is something that we will look into, as to whether there was a formal decision around it, or was it a circumstance of events that meant that that wasn't set up. But I would reiterate that there are huge synergies in terms of this and other work that's been taken forward, and ultimately this is about how we deliver the outcomes, and the governance mechanisms are there as a route and a process to help deliver the outcomes, of which, as I said, a number have been delivered, and we have made progress in a number of areas. There are some, obviously, that we haven't completed, and we need to understand why.

Okay. I have no further questions. Thank you.

Okay. Just developing on that, my understanding is that the purpose of strategies and outputs is to deliver outcomes, but, of course, things change sometimes, and you mentioned some of the outliers that have come in, including the pandemic. So, when the things you look at change, you should change the way you look at things, but there should be systems in place—monitoring and evaluation, routinely—to establish and agree what's working, agree what you need to do differently, including pausing, perhaps, because circumstances have changed, but that should be documented and recorded within an evaluation process. So, is there not an evaluation process? You said this will be evaluated, but surely, routinely, every strategy should have a timeline for interim evaluation, and if things change, then that should be documented.

I would agree. That's just a standard process that we follow. As I said, that would be part of the evaluation as to what's happened here in terms of the way some of these things were delivered, but also how it crosses over into things like the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan'.

Yes, absolutely, and, as we review the strategy, one of the things that we are keen to do is absolutely to explore what's gone well, and there are some elements that have gone well. There is some progress that's been made, if you look at the number of female appointees, or ethnicity appointees over the last year, for example, with the period that's been provided to the committee, but clearly there are also some areas of weaknesses that we need to strengthen. Part of the approach of moving to a new centre of excellence within the HR structure is that it allows us to have greater clarity and support on some of these areas. So, this is about futureproofing our processes as we go forward, because in the same way that with Welsh Government recruitment data we are seeking to regularise the data and to explore what it means and report on it on a regular basis, we will be able to do so with public appointment data as well. Our approach is to strengthen the process, going forward, whilst recognising that there have been some weaknesses over the last couple of years.

Rhianon Passmore.

Thank you very much. Obviously, in terms of any appointments, specifically public appointments, via the public purse, all of our processes need to be as strong and as rigorous as possible, and nobody is saying any different. But how would you react to the fact that there seems to be little pace or energy to any of these processes that we've outlined today? It frankly seems slightly disappointing. How would you react to that?

My reaction would be, going back to what I said at the start, that there has been some progress. Some of the outcomes that we're now seeing on the basis of a number of the actions that have gone on within the strategy are starting to bear fruit. So, if you look across the five goal areas, whether it's the data stuff and the work and the richness of data we're now seeing through Cais and the implementation of that system, or whether you look at the work around building a robust pipeline, the public leaders programme, the board shadowing pilot that has been running, where we've got 26 people who have been through that and have got board experience who would never have had that board experience, the talent bank we now have—we have 20 people on that currently who haven't quite made it onto a board but are being looked at for other appointments—there are a number of really good things that are happening. Yes, pace could always be better. You can look at improvements in governance and things like that, but we are moving, I believe, in the right direction, but there is so much more we need to do, because this is such an important area, and there's the real commitment to do that.

Natasha.

Thank you. Just following on from what Rhianon said, I totally appreciate the pace that you've got, the programme that you've got with people trying to learn more about the system, but I think, as a committee, we want end results. And I think having the right people in those positions is, for us, a success story. That's what we are all going to be marking you on, basically: how many people, having gone through the academy, having gone through the process, having gone through the training—. I appreciate all of that, and I think all of us can say, 'Good for you', and it's good to see that action is being taken, but, for us, we want to see the end result. So, when it comes to that level of fruition, when it comes to that success, that I think is what Rhianon is trying to emphasise. The end result is what we want to see as being the success story for everyone.

I completely agree. It's all about outcomes, and I think I would draw you back to the data, and I would say that we would caveat that by saying it was one year's-worth of data that we shared with the committee. It's applications, not applicants, so there could be some dual things. So, it's early days. I wouldn't read into it hugely on things and trends, and when you do more data—. But, when you look from a gender perspective, from an ethnicity perspective, there are some really great strides forward from where we were, I think, particularly from an ethnicity point of view, at 20 per cent, or over 20 per cent, with the population at 7 per cent. So, that's the sort of level we need to get to to really change boards, going forward.

So, limited data sets, but there are some encouraging signs around outcomes and we now have all the information, whether we have a postcode, about Welsh language skills, et cetera, and again we need to really understand that, how that links to what are the population norms and actually if we are moving in the right direction. So, I completely agree that it's all about outcomes—that's why we're here. We're starting to see some positive steps forward, but I'm not complacent about this. This is a small data set, it's early days, but, for me, the proof of this is in the outcomes. Everything else is just the feeder and the input into it, and that's what really matters.

Sorry, Chair, if I could ask a supplementary question to that. I'm all for diversity—it's kind of a given here—and I think everyone else on the committee is equally of the same thought process. I'm a proud Member for south-east Wales. I love my region. I know there are many colleagues from around the room who represent different parts of Wales. But, having noted some of the stats that have come from Cais—I hope I've pronounced it right. Cais, my apologies. Sorry. One of the areas within Wales with the lowest number of applicants who made it to regulated bodies was, indeed, mid Wales. I know there aren't many Members here who have links to mid Wales, but still I'm going to fly the flag for them now. It's 4.3 per cent of the 391 applications that came from mid Wales, and 16.4 per cent of those applications were made by individuals from outside Wales, and, of those, 7.3 per cent were appointed, and 11 per cent preferred not to say where they were located. I'm a huge believer in meritocracy when it comes to being the right person for the right job, regardless of gender, regardless of skin colour, regardless of religion. Do you feel that the system in place at the moment is catered towards making sure that there is diversity and that people aren't feeling disadvantaged from being outside of Wales? And the secondary question is: what are you going to do to address the shortage, because I'm sure mid Wales has some really clever, intelligent, capable people who may be suited perfectly well for these jobs? How are you planning to entice them to try to take up these opportunities that are available to them?

I would say that we've only recently had some of this data and, as I said, I'd caveat it by saying it's a small data set and so I'm just cautious of making big decisions around it. But, it's taking the learning from this. Part of it is also asking how does that compare to the population norms. I was doing a quick Google search last night, actually: for north Wales, it's 16 per cent of the population, and broadly speaking, 16 per cent of the applications. Mid Wales is the smallest area population wise, so it would be the smallest percentage. Are we at that point—are we reflecting Wales in running Wales? We need to do some comparisons as we develop the data and get more data going forward, and then where there are anomalies, that's where we then need to say, 'What do we need to do to address it? How do we then understand it?'

So, the data is the starting point. That can be the evidence base around, 'Okay, what do we need to do?' How do we understand the problem? So, if mid Wales is under-represented, what more do we need to do? And I think that will be the plan for what we do, based on having some really good data. And I think it's fantastic that we're now starting to see some of that, which will help us very much in the future.

So if, for example, we're in a situation six months, a year, down the line and we say, 'Okay, there is a massive issue with regard to knowledge', for example, of people in mid Wales not being aware of the opportunities available to them, what would you do?

I'm happy to come in. So, the thematic review of the public body board recruitment highlighted that there's a lot more we need to do in terms of training and support, including increasing training to help candidates navigate the recruitment process and advertise and share what's available et cetera. So, there's a huge amount of effort that we need to do in terms of outreach, particularly across different communities in Wales, to make sure that individuals are keen and eager and willing to apply.

This isn't a public appointment, but if I look at the recent recruitment campaign we had in Welsh Government for a team support campaign, we deliberately wanted to do something different under the new hub. So, we reached out to local communities, we held drop-in sessions, we held sessions with local job fairs, with local schools, local universities et cetera; we reached out to key businesses and other contacts, and we had a fantastic success rate across the whole of Wales.

In fact, the team support campaign recruited—. Of those who were successful, 34 per cent had a registered disability, 19 per cent were from a black, Asian and minority ethnic background, 66 per cent were female et cetera. We hit pretty much every target that we needed to hit because we want to, because it's the right thing to do, through having a different approach to outreach. So, the benefit of us being part now—or the public appointments team being part—of that wider recruitment hub is that we can now take advantage of some of those things that we are doing to make sure that we do reach out to areas like mid Wales, west Wales, so that we try and get more interest and build that diverse talent pool.

So, I would be looking over the next six to 12 months for us to have more opportunities to do those activities because they are proven and tested to work, as demonstrated, albeit in a different field, by some recent recruitment campaigns we've led.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. I believe Rhianon Passmore wants to come back in.

Very briefly and just for clarity, Chair, if I may. I think I heard—and obviously, that's encouraging in terms of what's just been shared with this committee—that in terms of the shadowing, the diverse panel that you have shadowing other board members, if I'm correct, I think you said that there was no individual that was board-ready. So, I would actually be questioning the value of that programme. Obviously, it's a known device to be able to grow and develop individuals to help with the skills necessary, if they're not already there, but I'd be questioning why there wasn't anyone on that panel that was able to move forward. Because, with the best will in the world, I've worked in the public body sector now for 30 years—it's not rocket science, it's just a matter of confidence and the ability to speak your mind independently, as well as the specific skill sets that you've got within it. So, I just wanted to double-check that I heard you correctly.

Apologies, I wasn't saying that they weren't board-ready; I think what I was meaning to say was that a number of these people were people who had applied to go on boards, hadn't been successful—they'd been near-misses, maybe hadn't had some experience around boards—so they then were able to go into the shadowing scheme to give them some of that experience. So, I wasn't commenting on any of the candidates specifically in terms of the fact that they weren't ready or suitable to be on boards, it was that they hadn't been successful and so this was a way to—

Sorry to interrupt you. I realise that you weren't intending to imply that, but what I'm saying is that, as a scheme, that doesn't seem to be very successful, if there was no outcome at the end of it.

Well, no, the scheme has been running—I think we had funding for six months as a pilot scheme. That is just coming to an end. I'm aware that there are six boards where they've kept their board apprentices on for a little bit longer as well, and then there's an evaluation of that to say, 'What's the outcome from it? Was it successful or not?' So, that's something that we'll be doing over the next few months to evaluate that scheme and see is it a sensible thing to carry on, and has it helped those individuals to then be more successful in terms of getting board roles in the future.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Before I bring Mike Hedges in, I've got one supplementary question myself. What, if any, learning is there from the Senedd Commission's experience in exactly the same area? In their evidence to us previously, they said that although on balance the data they held on disability was poor, and they were—like yourselves—now collecting data relating to social mobility, they're also using, for example, gender-neutral candidate packs, refreshing their websites to use peer-led stories with real-life case studies, using bilingual advertising agencies and advertising on Women on Boards, a website for women interested in the public appointments process. It could be you're doing some of those things independently, but do you look at good practice in the Commission or elsewhere that you could emulate where it works, or fill gaps if it's not working as well as it could?

I'm happy to pick this up. We do look at best practice; I confess, perhaps not directly to the Senedd Commission. That's not to say there aren't lessons from the Senedd Commission we can learn, and I will personally reach out to the head of HR here at the Senedd Commission to understand further the processes they undertake. However, supporting the public appointments team are a number of individuals with expertise elsewhere across the English and Welsh public sector. In particular, we've been working with colleagues who are supporting our health team with the workplace race equality index. There's a lot of work on the workplace race equality index—WREI—that's been undertaken looking at appointments and how do you make appointments more diverse, so the team has been taking best practice from colleagues elsewhere. So there is a—albeit an informal—panel of individuals who we refer back to and have conversations with to look at where do we improve our processes.

Some of the things, for example, that we've been looking at include streamlining our public appointments process so that there is a rolling programme, so if an individual passes the board but perhaps isn't the appointed candidate because there is another candidate who is perhaps higher, they could then be considered for the next appointment without having to go through another process. So, there are mechanisms that we've been exploring.

Part of the challenge about implementing it straight away is that I'm very keen that we understand the baseline data, and I appreciate this morning there's a lot that we are reviewing, and I appreciate that will be frustrating to colleagues, because clearly, it's action, not review, that's needed. But I am keen, as we take the public appointments team and our wider centre for recruitment excellence into their future position that it's based on a very clear baseline position, so that we can evidence the outcomes that we've achieved. So, we will benchmark, we continue to benchmark, I will reach out to the Senedd, but we are feeding in continuous best practice to the process as we go through.

Okay, thank you. Can I bring in Mike Hedges, who has a line of questions on a related but separate matter? So, Mike Hedges, over to you.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. On 8 August, the findings of a thematic review of recruitment to public boards was published. Can you tell us what actions the Welsh Government has taken in response to the review's findings, including that application forms need to be more user-friendly, there's been a lack of disability access support, and that more needs to be done to diversify boards?

Thank you. There's a whole range of actions. I think what we see with a number of these areas, whether it be 'Reflecting Wales in Running Wales', the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan', the thematic review, the work ongoing in terms of the appointments process—they're all closely interlinked, and a number of the things that we've talked about are linked to the actions that take in building a diverse talent pool and all the work that's gone on around training and development, looking at streamlining the processes, whether it be the work that we've kicked off and we spoke about last year when I was here around the forward look and being much more proactive around the process, the good practice work that Dom's just been referring to, linking into things like WREI, outreach work that's gone on as well, and looking and at how we can improve information for candidates. So, there's a whole range of things linked to it, and some of the things that came out of the thematic review linked to work that's ongoing, and there are other areas we're looking to take forward.

Can I perhaps add one final point to that? The key themes of the thematic review, the five key areas, closely align to another internal review that we've had commissioned of Welsh Government HR policy and practice that's been led by a company called RedQuadrant. The RedQuadrant review has highlighted very similar challenges in terms of the way that recruitment and progression look across the wider Welsh civil service in the Welsh Government. So, there are a lot of overlaps between the lessons learned through the RedQuadrant review—albeit it is an internal civil service matter, it's not a public appointment matter—but key themes around how we ensure that there are diverse and fair appointments, how we ensure that there is training, how we ensure that there is outreach, how we ensure that recruitment processes from the forms to the words that we use absolutely are accessible while still adhering to the respective governance codes of public appointments and civil service appointments. So, our response to the thematic review, whilst we haven't written a detailed response yet, has been informed by some of the wider work that we're doing around the RedQuadrant review, recruitment and other issues.

Can you just write to us and say, with each part of the thematic review, whether it's completed, give us the completion date, or whether you're not going to do it?

I think, as you just said, that this is part of ongoing work. Some of the things around building a diverse talent pool—I don't think we can say, 'Right, we're going to have it complete at this point.' This is about how do we ensure there is a really good pipeline of talent to meet public appointments going forward, and I think there are some key themes that we want to develop. One of the things I'm wary of is having lots of different action plans that are all interlinked, and so I think what we really need to do is say, 'What are the key elements here from the thematic review, the ‘Anti-racist Wales Action Plan’, the learning we're getting from evaluating 'Reflecting Wales in Running Wales', the work we're doing internally through the RedQuadrant review around appointments?' There are so many synergies here, and saying, 'Actually, how do we develop clear plans and actions that will deliver the outcomes that we want, which are really diverse public appointments that reflect Wales? But likewise, internally when we're doing recruitment, that we reflect Wales internally within the Welsh Government.' And so I think rather than having multiple action plans that are much harder from a governance and delivery point of view to keep hold of, it is to say, 'Actually, what are the key actions that we need to do to deliver those key outcomes that we've got?' So, there's definitely work gone against those areas. A lot of it is ongoing; as we said, there are a number of things that we've already done, but this is a journey we're on to achieve those outcomes, and I want to really focus on how we get to those right outcomes.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I don't want an action plan. I just want you to tell us—you've identified five areas—which have been completed, and when you expect the others to be completed. I would be disappointed if whoever replaces me is sitting here in 20 years' time asking the same questions and the answer we get is the standard civil service response, 'It's ongoing.'

I'd be disappointed if, in 20 years' time, that was the result as well, because as I said, this is about the outcomes, and we need to ensure that, actually, we have diverse appointments and we've got the recruitment right for boards over that time frame, and the time frame is much sooner than that. I think all I was saying is that where you've got those five areas, you're being really clear what are the outcomes that we want that will help us to achieve the end point. So, I'm happy to come back with what we're looking to do against those areas and to maybe give a bit more detail around your question.

Thank you. The answer to my question was 'no'. A lot of words, but the answer was 'no'.

Moving on, we know that the public appointments team has now moved to the expert resourcing hub. Can you clarify who will now be responsible for the delivery of those actions?

The public appointments team retains responsibility for the day-to-day recruitment of public appointments. That then reports into a deputy director of HR, who then reports into me. So ultimately I am, as the director of people and places, responsible for making sure we deliver against the targets and against the objectives set within the public appointments remit.

One of the actions set out in the thematic review is that the public appointments team is working on a pilot to streamline the public appointments process to improve diversity. Can you set out further details on this pilot and when it will be completed?

Yes, happy to do so. The pilot that was referenced within the thematic review, I believe, reflects the comment I just made around wanting to move to an ongoing recruitment process—so, rather than have individual appointments at moments in time, we seek to get fields of candidates who can then be moved to whichever post is required, et cetera. So, in effect, we end up moving to a list of appointable candidates that may be considered, rather than having to look at a post-by-post situation. I have paused that particular campaign, and deliberately so, because I wanted to understand what the baseline position was. My anticipation is that, in the spring, we'll be able to pick that up again. So, I anticipate that, next March or April, we will start to move forward with that particular pilot and then we will measure that against a full year's worth of data that we have across an annual basis, to see if it makes any difference.

Thank you very much. The thematic review says that the public appointment webpages will be redesigned. When will this happen and when will the new webpages be available? And just a general view on Welsh Government webpages: most of them are impenetrable.

The plan is that the webpages will be updated by February next year—that's the work that's ongoing at the moment. I take your comment and we'll need to make sure, as part of that review, that the language is easily understandable. So, thank you.

I don't think it's necessarily all the time the language. There is a major retailer whose website is incredibly difficult to make your way through, there are others whose are very easy to make their way through. The Westminster Government has got a much easier means of making your way through their website, if only because a lot of it is collecting financial information. I think, really, it's about learning from others, keeping it simple. It's not so much about the language, it's the ease of making your way through—when you're on the ninth different page and you've made a mistake and you should've gone to a different page at that stage, that you can actually just go back one page rather than 'Go to start'.

From some of the work I did in the past, especially at Companies House, the work involved in the move from Business Link and direct.gov to gov.uk and some of the principles around the work around that, absolutely you're right: user feedback is key, and making sure that you really understand the user journey—so, what's the information people need to access and how can they do that as simply and quickly as possible. They're some of the principles I would hope we'll build into that work.

Thank you. And finally from me, can you set out how the findings and actions identified by the thematic reviews will be reflected within the evaluation of the existing strategy and in the design of any new strategy?

As we look to evaluate the 'Reflecting Wales in Running Wales' strategy, having had this thematic review now, it will be part of our approach to—. Sorry, this sounds like gobbledygook, doesn't it? Apologies. But what we will need to do is to overlap the outcome and outputs and the actions from the 'Reflecting Wales in Running Wales' report and that review with the five key areas of the thematic review to make sure that we have cross-referenced and ticked those boxes. So, that is absolutely something that we will be doing and we will try to do it a lot clearer than the way I've just phrased that.

This is not a question, it's just a comment. I think the simpler the better on any of these things. When it gets complicated, that's when the problems occur.

Yes. I agree.

As someone who also gets lost on the Welsh Government website, it's a barrier to access; you search for a subject area and you get a long list of correspondence and statements over a long period of time, rather than being taken to the relevant document or what have you. I will also add a comment. As someone who was a member of the then Assembly audit committee 20 years ago, Mike's question about whether we'll still be doing the same in 20 years' time certainly resonates, because I'm certainly still hearing things today that we heard 20 years ago. Adam, do you have any further questions?

Yes, Chair, if that's okay. I'd like to return to some of the questions with regard to diversity data that I touched on earlier. With the 'Reflecting Wales in Running Wales' report, the first intention was to collect and share data, and then there were five action points under that aim. We've already touched on aim 1, and you said that you couldn't confirm whether that has been achieved yet. That's with regard to collecting data from the current boards. But just to get on the record, if you find that you haven't collected the data with regard to other elements, such as socio-economic groups, linguistic ability, geographic location et cetera, can you, therefore, commit to ensuring, if you haven't yet collected that data, that you will collect that data from the boards in line with the current strategy? Can you confirm that you will be collecting that data?

Yes, we do collect that data, and we will be collecting that data.

Okay, thank you. Can you, as well as you can, confirm what your understanding is with regard to where you had reached with the other steps, because we have a specific interest in the data? The second step was to establish a robust system for collecting data, so not just going back and getting the baseline, but to collect data continuously. I take it that you, on the basis of the information that you've given in your paper, are now collecting data regularly. Would you say so? Do you feel that you have established a robust system for collecting data? And the third was working with disability organisations in terms of allowing people to self-report on their status in terms of their disabilities. Have you achieved that goal?

We now have a much more robust system for collecting data through the Cais system. As I say, that covers gender, ethnicity, Welsh language skills, postcode, socioeconomic data, sexual orientation, religion, age and whether an applicant is disabled. So, we do have that now, and we are collecting that for all those appointments that go through the Cais system. So, we've got that and we're now building that body of evidence going forward, and we'll then be using that to inform our work as we go forward. So, I do believe we have a robust system in place for that.

But, if I'm right, this action point was specifically with regard to working with bodies and organisations that work with people with disabilities in terms of self-identification on disability matters. Are those conversations ongoing with disability bodies specifically?

They are not ongoing at present, but they are on my radar to do. We originally procured a contract with Chwarae Teg and Deep Insight to provide advice, support and diversity and inclusion training, which we did promote to our networks, and that included disability organisations. In terms of the current work on capturing data and making sure that colleagues can self-report on their status with greater confidence, we do work with the internal Welsh Government disability and race disparity unit, who have expertise in how we look at statistical matters and how we report and gather data on that. I appreciate that's not quite the same, but there is more work that we need to do in this area, and that's absolutely something that we will return to.

Can I just intervene on that point? Amongst other things, I chair the cross-party group on disability in the Senedd, and this is a recurrent issue. As you know, employment of disabled people is well below the level for the population at large, and the employment of neurodiverse people is even lower than that, and people encounter different barriers. Everybody says, 'Well, I understand the barrier for a wheelchair', for example—they don't. But there are hidden barriers constantly raised by people like Guide Dogs Cymru and RNIB Cymru, and then there are the barriers encountered by neurodiverse people, which are things like individual communication and sensory processing skills, and only people with the relevant expertise and understanding in those areas would be able to inform your recruitment processes, in order to identify their needs in the process and ensure the barriers are removed or reduced. So, will you be doing that, not just in the generic, 'We understand disability', but recognising different conditions bring different barriers, and each person is an individual?

Yes, absolutely, Chair. In the Welsh Government HR equality in the workplace team, we've just had a new expert joining the team, who is an expert in the social model of disability and supporting organisations and individuals on how we can remove barriers and make sure that we are an organisation that is fully embodying removing any barriers. So, we have started to address that. I will be pointing that resource into this space, to make sure that we address any concerns there.

I was also just going to mention that one of our staff networks is a neurodiverse network, and they've been hugely influential in terms of helping to shape some of the things we do internally, as well as our disabled colleagues network as well, which covers a whole range of impairments that people have, and, as I said, our commitment to the social model of disability really underpins what we're doing. So, we really understand the points you're making about the whole range of impairments that people have, and ensuring that our policies and procedures et cetera reflect that and make it as easy as possible for people to go through appointment processes.

I would just add that our social partners and our trade union colleagues also provide a huge amount of support in this space as well, which I'm very grateful for. So, yes, it is a very much a priority for us.

I noticed Tim there using social model language, which wasn't used earlier. Thank you. Adam.

The fourth action point was to do with commissioning the evaluation and monitoring work, on the basis of the quantitative and qualitative data, with regard to progress against the different elements, and to introduce an annual report on that basis. Am I right in thinking that that hasn't happened?

The evaluation was one of the areas that I said at the start is ongoing; we've done some. We work with our—

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about a plan for evaluating across the whole strategy. I think this action point is to do with commissioning an assessment, at least on an annual basis, against progress, and then publishing that assessment. That hasn't happened, has it?

We certainly, as a Welsh Government, have an annual report around our work on diversity and inclusion, and that comes to the board. I'd have to check whether that gets published, but that's certainly a document that we have and is reported to us annually in terms of the work that we're doing in this space. I'd have to check on whether that actually gets published, but that's certainly a report that we get to the Welsh Government board.

But does that report focus on this work in public appointments, and does it provide data? Are you commissioning work in order to assess that progress?

I'd have to check on that.

Okay. And finally, then—you've already mentioned this broadly—the final step was to consult on targets in this area in terms of the different groups, and how they're reflected in appointments, and to set targets then if a Minister decides to do so. You've referred to the fact that it would be a ministerial decision to set a target, but the consultation in terms of target setting hasn't happened. Am I right in thinking that?

You're right. We haven't done that, because we're waiting to finalise the work on the baseline, and once we have the baseline information, then further work on targets can take place in the future.

So, you will be consulting on those targets.

In looking to set targets, yes, we'd want to get input from a range of people in terms of what's appropriate for that. We certainly link to the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan'. We have a very broad external accountability group, and a lot of experts are on that. And we'd then have to look at other groups as to who we would need to consult with in terms of setting any specific targets. But I go back to, for me, the underpinning principle is do we reflect the society that we serve, and so that's where we need to get to, that no group is under-represented or has outcomes that are below what would be the norm, and, hopefully, for many they might exceed that.

Okay. So, in your previous correspondence in terms of collecting data, you referred to the pilot surveys of public boards, and I don't think that the findings of those pilot surveys have been published. Perhaps you can answer that in a moment. But, in your paper to this committee now, we've received a summary of the data that you're collecting as people apply for a year, but those pilot surveys, they haven't been published, no? And are you going to publish them, or are they now a part of the data that you referred to previously, which aren't pilot surveys, but they're surveys across each board, which you have done and you're in the process of assessing before publishing? I just want to be clear on those different steps.

That's correct, those surveys are part of that baseline work, which we'll look to publish early next year and will give us that key information in terms of setting those baselines for boards.

And in looking at the linguistic element, the information that you published in your paper with regard to the Welsh language skills of people who have applied and who have been appointed during the year, in the year that you mentioned, between July 2023 and July 2024, it shows that 27 per cent of people who were appointed had higher Welsh language skills as you define them, or advanced skills. But, in a written response you provided over the summer to Siân Gwenllian, you provide information that refers back over a period of four years. So, you're using information from the previous appointment system, if I'm right, the one before Cais. And you note that, since 2019, 41.8 per cent of applications for regulated public appointments were made by people who had Welsh language skills, and that includes advanced and foundational skills, I assume. But, from those applications, 12.5 per cent were successful, and, as a percentage of all the appointments that were made, those who had Welsh language skills only made up 5 per cent. So, in the figures extending back over a period of five years, only 5 per cent of those appointed, according to your response, had Welsh language skills. During the last year, if you include those with advanced and foundational skills, the figure is 60 per cent. So, you don't need to be a statistician to see that there's a difference between those two sets of figures, and it's huge: 5 per cent over five years with Welsh language skills at any level and 60 per cent in the last year. Has there been any analysis made of the reason for that huge difference? Is the data correct? Has there been a specific intention to increase the number of Welsh speakers during the past year? That's also a possibility, I guess. But—

We're very short on time, so if that could be your last question, and if you could be as succinct as possible in your answers. Thank you.

Diolch. Mae yn gwestiwn eithaf pwysig, achos mae'r gwahaniaeth yn eithaf syfrdanol, a dweud y gwir.

I absolutely recognise the difference in the data. I think one of the problems we had with the old system was that it was purely voluntary reporting. There was no requirement for people to fill in the fields, and so there were big questions as to the validity of the data. What we do have now in the current system is that all those fields are mandatory, so everybody has to fill in those fields. So, the quality of data that we've got over the last year is a lot more robust. We have not done any analysis of that historic one, but that was one of the big problems with the previous system, that you could enter some of the data but there was no requirement to do it, and a lot of people wouldn't have. I think we can look into that a bit further, but that, to me, is one of the big issues with that historic data and one of the reasons why we were so keen to input a new system that then ensured that these fields were mandatory, and that we've got good data, going forward.

Jest un peth yn olaf, sori. A ydy'r data dŷch chi'n ei gasglu yn cynnwys penodiadau rheoleiddiedig, y rhai sydd ddim wedi eu rheoleiddio a'r trydydd categori o benodiadau sydd ddim o dan unrhyw fath o weithdrefn o gwbl? A ydych chi'n ei gasglu fe ar draws pob un o'r categorïau hynny?

The data that we collect through the Cais system is for the regulated appointments and also the non-regulated ones that go through the system and follow the code, so that's the organisations that do it. It doesn't include every single organisation that Welsh Government is responsible for, but it does include those that fit within those categories.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you. I'll try being succinct in my questions as well. What criteria are used by Welsh Government Ministers to decide whether a public body should be regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments and added to the list of bodies included in the Order in Council for public appointments?

Ministers are responsible for that. That's in conjunction with advice from the public bodies unit and also guidelines from the Cabinet Office around that. That takes in a number of factors around any organisation that's being set up, such as its status, whether appointments are ministerial ones, the legislation that underpins it. So, if it ticks all these boxes, it must be that. There is some guidance around it that is reviewed whenever a body is being set up and looking at its role.

Is there a set of criteria that could be shared with us, or is it—?

I don't believe there's a set of criteria; there is some internal guidance from the Cabinet Office around some of that because, obviously, the Order in Council goes through to them and to the Privy Council, and there are a range of elements that are taken into account in terms of assessing whether a body is one that should be regulated.

Are those listed, or is that discretionary?

It's a discussion with Ministers based on the guidance that we have.

Okay, thank you. In practical terms, what is the process for adding or removing Welsh devolved public bodies from the Order in Council works?

The process is one that's laid out through the Cabinet Office. I think the list is updated once or sometimes twice a year and it involves, obviously, going through to the Privy Council. So, it's a lengthy process, but, as I said, the list gets updated once a year, sometimes twice.

So, that's a document, is it?

What—the process?

When you say it's updated once a year.

Yes, there's a website and there's a process that we have to go through to get this updated.

That's accessible to committee, is it?

The Orders in Council, yes, there's a website list where the link can be shared.

How does the Welsh Government communicate any proposals to amend the Order in Council to citizens, public bodies and the Senedd?

I'm not sure in terms of any plans ahead of it. Obviously, once that's made, that is a published list through the Orders in Council, but, in terms of any proposals to do that, I think part of that is part of the discussion when setting up a body as to whether it is regulated or not. But we'd have to come back to the committee if there is a process in terms of before that actually happens.

Thank you. Specifically, any proposals to amend the Order in Council, so if you could come back to the committee, I'd be grateful for that. What oversight role is there, if any, for the Senedd in deciding which public bodies should be regulated?

I think that the decision as to which ones are regulated is a ministerial one, and so that decision is taken by Ministers. That's the clear process in terms of making those decisions, so I would have thought any normal Senedd process around ministerial accountability.

Okay. The Permanent Secretary told us on 15 April that only some of the unregulated public bodies in Wales follow the governance code on public appointments. Welsh Government's evidence paper for this session states that Welsh Ministers are responsible for making appointments to 52 non-regulated bodies that voluntarily adhere to the governance code on public appointments. What, if any, clarification can you provide on whether all 52 non-regulated bodies follow the governance code?

The main way we do that would be that those ones that voluntarily follow the code are the ones that then also go through our Cais system and the processes that we have around that, and managing that process, and the public bodies unit are involved within that, looking after those appointments. So, they follow the standard process that we'd have for regulated and unregulated, because they voluntarily adhere to it.

Precisely. Voluntarily adhering to it doesn't mean they necessary follow it.

But they're part of the system that we have. So, the forward look that the public bodies team will have will include those unregulated bodies that are saying they will comply with it, as well as the regulated, so they're built into the system then that we have for managing public appointments.

Yes. So, those unregulated public bodies—and, again, just to clarify that regulated and unregulated status only refers to public appointments and not the scrutiny and the accountability for the performance of those public bodies—unregulated public bodies would still need to go through the usual decision reports, public appointment scrutiny by officials, such as myself and others, and then signed off by the relevant Cabinet Secretary. So, there is still a huge degree of regulation around that. They voluntarily comply with the code, as set out by the office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

Okay. Thank you. Well, amazingly, we've come in on time with a couple of minutes to spare. Do Members have any—? Yes, Rhianon Passmore.

Just to clarify and to declare an interest. I'm not sure if it's valid as a former—[Inaudible.]

I think we're struggling to hear what you're saying.

It's just to declare an interest as—[Inaudible.]

No. Sorry, we're not hearing what you're saying. It's breaking up.

Okay. I will have to write to you, Chair.

Thank you. Your sound was fine earlier, so I don't know if the gremlins are in the system. Adam. Adam Price.

Jest un cwestiwn sydd gen i i gloi, byddwch chi'n falch o glywed, Gadeirydd. Ydych chi'n gallu cadarnhau a oes gan y Senedd—? Wel, ym marn Llywodraeth Cymru, oes gan y Senedd gymhwysedd deddfwriaethol i greu deddfwriaeth gynradd i sefydlu trefn Gymreig o benodiadau cyhoeddus, hynny yw, lle y byddai corff, wedi'i leoli yng Nghymru o dan oruchwyliaeth y Senedd, yn cymryd lle'r comisiynydd ar draws Cymru a Lloegr, yn debyg i'r system sydd yn yr Alban, er enghraifft?

I'm sorry, I'm not an expert in that area, so I can't comment on that, but I'm sure we can get an answer to you on that.

Chair, can you hear me now?

Yes. Adam can finish and then I'll bring you in.

Yes, fine. Great.

Dyw Llywodraeth Cymru byth wedi—. Hynny yw, o fewn y tîm penodiadau cyhoeddus, dŷch chi ddim erioed wedi gweld unrhyw gyngor gan eich tîm cyfreithiol neu'r tîm polisi ar hyn? Hynny yw, does yna ddim unrhyw drafodaeth wedi bod ynglŷn â chreu system Gymreig, felly dyw Llywodraeth Cymru ddim wedi edrych arno fe.

It's not one that I've seen any advice on in the period I've been involved, but it's something that we'll need to take away and come back to the committee.

Thank you. And Rhianon Passmore, finally.

Thank you, Chair. It’s just housekeeping, just to declare an interest. I think you mentioned RedQuadrant, and I’ve been commissioned by them in the past to write policy. I’m not sure if it’s a report that you’re mentioning, or the company, but just to put that on the record. Thank you.

Thank you very much indeed. You’ll be very sorry to learn that we’ve reached the end of our questions. [Laughter.] So, thank you very much for attending. As you’d expect, we’ll send you a draft record of the proceedings for you to check before it’s published. Otherwise, again, it just falls to me to thank you and hope the rest of your day is not quite as stressful. [Laughter.]

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, Members, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(ix), I propose that the committee resolves to meet in private for the remainder of today’s meeting. Are all Members content? I can see that all Members are content, so I’d be grateful if we could be taken into private session.