Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru The National Assembly for Wales Y Pwyllgor Plant, Pobl Ifanc ac Addysg The Children, Young People and Education Committee
Dydd Mercher, 20 Mai 2015 Wednesday, 20 May 2015
Cynnwys Contents Cyflwyniad, Ymddiheuriadau a Dirprwyon Introductions, Apologies and Substitutions Ymchwiliad i Waith Athrawon Cyflenwi—Sesiwn Dystiolaeth 10 Inquiry into Supply Teaching—Evidence Session 10 Papurau i’w Nodi Papers to Note Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42(ix) i Benderfynu Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o Weddill y         Cyfarfod Motion under Standing Order 17.42(ix) to Resolve to Exclude the Public from the Remainder of the Meeting
Cofnodir y trafodion hyn yn yr iaith y llefarwyd hwy ynddi yn y pwyllgor. Yn ogystal, cynhwysir trawsgrifiad o’r cyfieithu ar y pryd. These proceedings are reported in the language in which they were spoken in the committee. In addition, a transcription of the simultaneous interpretation is included.
Aelodau’r pwyllgor yn bresennol Committee members in attendance
Jeff Cuthbert	Llafur (yn dirprwyo ar ran Lynne Neagle) Labour (substitute for Lynne Neagle)
Keith Davies	Llafur Labour
Suzy Davies	Ceidwadwyr Cymru Welsh Conservatives
Bethan Jenkins	Plaid Cymru The Party of Wales
Ann Jones	Llafur (Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor) Labour (Chair of the Committee)
David Rees	Llafur Labour
Aled Roberts	Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol Cymru Welsh Liberal Democrats
Simon Thomas	Plaid Cymru The Party of Wales
Eraill yn bresennol Others in attendance
Huw Lewis	Aelod Cynulliad, Llafur (Y Gweinidog Addysg a Sgiliau) Assembly Member, Labour (The Minister for Education and Skills)
Dr Brett Pugh	Cyfarwyddwr Grŵp, y Grŵp Safonau a Gweithlu Ysgolion, Llywodraeth Cymru Group Director, School Standards and Workforce Group, Welsh Government
Zenny Saunders	Pennaeth yr Uned Strategaeth a’r Gweithlu, Llywodraeth Cymru Head of Strategy and Workforce Unit, Welsh Government
Swyddogion Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru yn bresennol National Assembly for Wales officials in attendance
Annette Millet	Dirprwy Glerc Deputy Clerk
Gareth Rogers	Clerc Clerk
Sian Hughes	Y Gwasanaeth Ymchwil Research Service
Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 9.32 a.m. The meeting began at 9.32 a.m.
Cyflwyniad, Ymddiheuriadau a Dirprwyon Introductions, Apologies and Substitutions
[1] Ann Jones: Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the Children, Young People and Education Committee. I’ll just do the usual housekeeping rules. If you’ve got your mobile phones on, can you make sure that they’re on ‘silent’, so that they don’t disturb the proceedings? We’re not expecting the fire alarm to operate; if it does, we’ll take our instructions from the ushers. If we’re able to get out from this side of the building, the assembly point is the Pierhead building. We operate bilingually, as you all know. We’ve got the Minister in today, he’s a regular attendee of this committee, and he’ll know how the translation system works.
[2] We’ve had apologies from Angela Burns and from John Griffiths this morning and there are no substitutions for either of them.
[3] Jeff Cuthbert: I’m subbing.
[4] Ann Jones: Sorry. I haven’t got Lynne down. You’re subbing for Lynne Neagle, aren’t you?
[5] Jeff Cuthbert: Yes.
[6] Ann Jones: Okay. We’ve had apologies from Lynne as well, and Jeff will be subbing. You’re very welcome, Jeff. I think that’s it. We’ll move on.
09:33
Ymchwiliad i Waith Athrawon Cyflenwi—Sesiwn Dystiolaeth 10 Inquiry into Supply Teaching—Evidence Session 10
[7] Ann Jones: This is the last evidence session in our inquiry into supply teaching, so it’s nice to have the Minister back with us—it’s nice to see you, Minister. Will you introduce yourself and your officials for the record and then—you know the format—we’ll go into questions, if that’s okay?
[8] The Minister for Education and Skills (Huw Lewis): Thank you, Chair. I’m Huw Lewis, the Minister for Education and Skills. On my left, I’m joined by Brett Pugh and, on my right, by Zenny Saunders.
[9] Ann Jones: Okay. Perhaps I should tell you that we’ve got several areas to cover: the use of supply teachers, pupil outcomes, continuing professional development and performance management, local authority and regional consortia, supply agencies and then a bit on Welsh-medium. We’ll try and get through those as best we can in the allocated time. So, Aled, on the use of supply teachers.
[10] Aled Roberts: Mae’r Cyngor Gweithlu Addysg yn dweud wrthym bod tua 40 y cant o absenoldeb athrawon yn deillio o salwch. I fod yn deg, rwy’n meddwl eich bod chi yn eich tystiolaeth yn sôn am hyn ac yn dweud eich bod yn derbyn adroddiadau Estyn a hefyd adroddiad Archwilydd Cyffredinol Cymru, sy’n dweud pa mor bwysig ydy bod data yn cael eu casglu. Beth sy’n aneglur i ni ar hyn o bryd ydy natur y data sy’n cael eu casglu ar lefel llywodraeth leol, ond hefyd, pa fath o ddata yr ydych chi’n eu casglu fel Llywodraeth er mwyn i ni fynd i’r afael â’r broblem yma.		Aled Roberts: The Education Workforce Council tells us that about 40 per cent of teacher absence is sickness-related. To be fair, I think that you, in your evidence, discussed this and state that you accept Estyn’s reports and also the Auditor General for Wales’s report, which say how important it is that data are collected. What isn’t clear to us at present is the nature of the data that are collected on a local government level, but also, what kind of data you collect as a Government so that we can tackle this problem.
[11] Huw Lewis: Perhaps, Chair, I could just briefly preface my answer to Aled by mentioning a very, very important point in terms of the way I’m approaching this amongst many other issues. I think it’s important that, when we talk about supply and the historic situation that we’ve inherited in terms of supply cover, we see reform in this area as one element of a bigger picture, which includes the new deal, continuous professional development and so on, includes the way we’re going to be training new teachers through Furlong, and which has to include the new challenges around Donaldson and making sure that supply teachers are plugged into that as well, and you’ve mentioned yourselves the developing role of the workforce council as being an absolutely imperative part of that.
[12] On data, we can have these proportions that are down to sickness absence and all the rest of it, but the truth of the matter is that the picture is not clear to anyone. It’s a very complex situation, and I intend to try and simplify that as much as possible so that we can get clarity around the data. We’ve got variations, for instance, in terms of the collection and reporting of data at the moment, even varying between the 22 local education authorities. We now have the four consortia, which I think gives us a tool in our toolbox that we didn’t have before, so that we can streamline, if you like. We’ve already asked the consortia, for instance, to develop performance data templates for headteachers to use, to include data on several themes, but that would include, for instance, sickness absence. And we do need to improve the reporting of data in terms of the categorisation of sickness absence so we can get a better understanding of what these underlying issues actually are.
[13] We do publish data on an annual basis, and we have committed now to moving to annual reporting of teacher sickness absence data, and that will lock in at local authority level—that’s reporting at local authority level—from July next year. The intention, of course, is to use the data—it’s utterly pointless to just report data and not use them—but that will become an inherent part, then, of the challenge-and-review process that we will go through on a regular basis. So, I think what I’m attempting to put in place is, first of all, better collection of better data, but then immediate and regularised use of those data to keep on interrogating the question of how we can improve the situation for the professional and, of course, for the young person.
[14] Aled Roberts: Roedd gen i gyfarfod llywodraethwyr mewn ysgol gynradd yr wythnos diwethaf, ysgol â rhyw 350 o blant ynddi, a heblaw fy mod i wedi bod yn eistedd ar yr ymchwiliad yma—. Nid oes canllawiau wedi cael eu cyhoeddi gan un ai’r cyngor neu’r consortia sy’n tynnu sylw’r llywodraethwyr at y ffaith y dylen nhw fod yn monitro lefelau absenoldeb. Felly, a ydych chi yn hyderus bod pob corff llywodraethol yn gwybod am gyngor Estyn, sy’n dweud y dylen nhw fod yn cymharu lefelau absenoldeb mewn ysgolion tebyg? Hefyd, beth oedd yn fy synnu fi oedd bod y prifathro yn dweud eu bod nhw’n gyrru’r wybodaeth i mewn i’r cyngor a bod pob rheswm am absenoldeb yn cael ei nodi ar yr adroddiad i’r cyngor, ond nad yw’r meddalwedd sydd gan y cyngor ar hyn o bryd ond yn nodi’r absenoldeb, nid y rheswm. Felly, hyd yn oed y tu mewn i’r cyngor, fydd hi ddim yn bosibl i’r cyngor ddweud pa reswm sydd dros yr absenoldeb salwch. Y rheswm rwy’n gofyn hynny ydy ein bod ni wedi synnu at y ffaith bod yr undebau athrawon yn dweud bod yna gyn lleied o gyfweliadau yn cael eu cynnal rhwng prifathrawon a staff, lle mae yna batrwm o absenoldeb oherwydd salwch, er mwyn i’r ysgol ddeall yn iawn y rhesymau am yr absenoldeb hwnnw.		Aled Roberts: I had a governors meeting at a primary school last week, a school with some 350 children, and if I hadn’t been sitting in on this inquiry—. No guidelines have been published by either the council or the consortia that draw the governors’ attention to the fact that they should be monitoring sickness absence levels. So, are you confident that every governing body knows about Estyn’s advice, which states that they should be comparing absence levels with those of similar schools? What also shocked me was that the headteacher was saying that they would send this information to the council and that every reason for absence would be noted on the report to the council, but that the software that the council currently has only records the absence and not the reason for it. So, even within the council, it won’t be possible for the council to say what the reason was for the sickness absence. The reason I raised that is that we have been surprised by the fact that the teaching unions are saying that so few return-to-work interviews are being held between headteachers and staff, where there is a pattern of absence because of sickness, so that the school can understand fully the reasons for that absence.
[15] Huw Lewis: Well, Aled is quite right to be concerned about these issues, and, as I mentioned, there is that variation across the 22 local authorities. That has to stop. If we’re going to better understand and work with the trade unions and work with local authorities to try and further drive down the absence levels, we have to understand exactly what the absence levels consist of. It is worth saying that the number of sick days taken by teachers in Wales is coming down year on year; it’s actually 25 per cent lower now than it was in 2009. But, Aled’s concerns are valid. As I say, we need to improve the reporting, and those performance data templates for headteachers that I was talking about should break open that problem around the categorisation of absence. But, come July this year, I’ll be publishing guidance—we’re developing this at the moment—and this, I hope, will be a transformative parcel of guidance really, which will be there for governing bodies as well as all the other crucial partners in all this, and should make absolutely clear, and will make absolutely clear, exactly what is being demanded of whom in terms of reporting of data and interrogation of that data. That guidance—and I would appreciate very much the committee’s input and view into what that guidance really needs to emphasise—should, I hope, make clear to everybody, namely local government, consortia, governors, heads, the workforce council, which is coming along now, and the supply agencies that are in picture at the moment, what their responsibility will be on data, who they’re reporting to and what they’re supposed to be doing with the data.
[16] Ann Jones: Suzy, on this point and then we’ll come back to Aled.
[17] Suzy Davies: Specifically on this, as, sorry, I’m just a little bit confused here, because we’ve had evidence as well, Minister, about inconsistent data. So, I’m just wondering what data you are relying on to maintain that the drop in absence due to illness has come down by 25 per cent.
[18] Huw Lewis: These are just—. What we do have is the overall crude figure of how many teachers are absent in a given period of time, and it is just that crude data.
[19] Suzy Davies: So, it’s not necessarily absence due to illness that’s come down.
[20] Huw Lewis: Not necessarily, no. There are all sorts of reasons, as we know—either planned or unplanned absence. But it is true to say, and I don’t think we should poo-poo this in any way, that a decrease of 25 per cent is a very healthy signal about what’s going on in the system. That’s not to say that there isn’t a great deal of work we need to undertake here.
[21] Suzy Davies: Okay.
[22] Ann Jones: Aled, do you want to come back?
[23] Aled Roberts: O ran absenoldeb sydd wedi’i gynllunio, a ydych chi yn ailystyried rhai o’r trefniadau cenedlaethol a rhanbarthol ynghylch athrawon sy’n cael eu galw allan o ddosbarthiadau? Mae rhai enghreifftiau wedi cael eu rhoi i ni gan brifathrawon: CBAC, er enghraifft, yn trefnu bod arholiadau Cymraeg i gyd yn digwydd ar yr un diwrnod, a bod gofyn i athrawon Cymraeg fod yn arsylwyr arholiadau, a bod adrannau cyfan yn cael eu tynnu allan o’r ysgolion. Yn amlwg, ar y dyddiau hynny, mae bron yn amhosib i chi gael athrawon Cymraeg i gyflenwi am eu bod nhw i gyd yn ymwneud â’r un gwaith.		Aled Roberts: In terms of planned absence, are you reconsidering some of the national and regional arrangements relating to teachers who are called out of classrooms? There are some examples that have been given to us by headteachers: WJEC, for instance, arranging that all the Welsh exams are timetabled for the same day, and that Welsh teachers are asked to invigilate at those exams, which means that entire departments were taken out of schools. Obviously, on those days, it is almost impossible to get a Welsh supply teacher because they would all be involved with the same work.
[24] Mae esiamplau eraill lle mae’r rhanbarthau—y consortia, felly—yn cynnal dyddiau hyfforddiant lle mae adrannau cyfan yn cael eu tynnu allan o bob ysgol o fewn y rhanbarth, dywed. Roedd enghraifft o adrannau maths i gyd yn cael eu galw i un lle. Felly, wrth ystyried yr effaith y mae’r holl absenoldeb yma’n ei chael ar gyrhaeddiad plant yn y pen draw—achos rwy’n meddwl mai dyna’n pryder ni, a dyna bryder rhieni—a oes angen i rai o’r strwythurau rydyn ni wedi’u defnyddio yn draddodiadol, hwyrach, gael eu hailystyried, achos ein bod ni’n gwneud pethau am ein bod ni’n wastad wedi’u gwneud nhw yn y fath fodd?		There are other examples where the regions—the consortia, that is—hold training days where entire departments are taken out of all the schools within that region, as it were. There was an example where all the maths departments were called to one place. So, bearing in mind the impact that all this absence is having on children’s attainment ultimately, because I think that is our concern, and that is the concern of parents, do some of the structures that we have used traditionally, perhaps, need to be reconsidered, because we’re doing things just because we’ve always done them that way?
[25] Huw Lewis: You’re absolutely right. Aled’s put his finger, Chair, upon, I think, the critical issue at the centre of all these concerns. In terms of the structures that we have relied upon, where we have, essentially, headteachers and governing bodies having to sort this out, having varying degrees of support from their local authority in terms of doing that—sometimes it’s been done extraordinarily well and, in other places, in a much more ad hoc fashion—that has to go. We are embarking now upon wholesale reform of the system in terms of curriculum, and, critically, the impact of CPD reform on this agenda is a major consideration. That’s what I and my officials are working on at this very moment, as we prepare that guidance, which will be published in July. Of course, we’ll take on board what the committee and other key players in terms of this agenda have to say.
09:45
[26] I’m very much prepared to regard nothing, really, as a sacred cow, in terms of the way things have been done in the past. What we’ll make sure of in the guidance is that we have absolute clarity about roles and responsibilities, so that heads know exactly where they stand, and governing bodies too, and local authorities and so on, as I’ve said. I will then ask Estyn to step in, as this guidance is working its ways through the system, to conduct a thematic inspection of this in real time, so that we will get an early view of how it’s all operating, through Estyn, by the 2016-17 academic year. So, we will interrogate it as we implement it. But, it has to include questions about in-service training, for instance—what is it for and is it being effectively used, and is everybody clear about its true potential, and is it of good quality? Are there innovative ways in which we could look beyond INSET to making it less burdensome, for instance, upon a headteacher if I kidnapped all the maths teachers for a day, as I did do? I can imagine a headteacher having a major headache in that regard. Are there ways in which we can structure regular CPD provision within the school working week, for instance, which might open space for subject-area specialists to go off and do something that they really need to do without destabilising the cover within the school itself? In other words, could a headteacher rely on a regular window that they know they would need to manage in order to do that?
[27] I’ve mentioned before, Chair, although there’s no commitment to this, but I have been impressed at the way some Scottish local authorities have introduced an asymmetric week, which allows a regular window for CPD, but, it’s not just for CPD. In Wales we’re talking about the pupil offer, the broader educational offer to our young people, opening up extra room for that kind of work to be going on in relation to the pupils and staff who are still in the school, which could open up possibilities for the revised Welsh baccalaureate as well to have more elbow room in terms of how it’s done. These things need to be discussed, but the imperative thing in terms of Aled’s question is that everybody knows what their role and responsibility is and who they’re reporting to and the level and quality of data that we need reported by them.
[28] Aled Roberts: Mae gen i jest un mater olaf. Mae bron pob tyst wedi dweud wrthym ni fod athrawon cyflenwi, i ryw raddau, yn syrthio i ddwy garfan: naill ai athrawon newydd gymhwyso neu athrawon sydd, hwyrach, ddim ond eisiau gweithio’n rhan amser ar ddiwedd eu gyrfa, a materion felly. Mae’r dystiolaeth yn awgrymu bod tua 30 y cant o athrawon cyflenwi yn athrawon newydd gymhwyso, ac fe wnaeth NASUWT gyflwyno tystiolaeth yn dweud bod eu harolwg nhw o’r staff yna wedi dangos bod 82 y cant ohonynt yn credu nad oedd ganddyn nhw gymorth o ran sefydlu eu hunain yn y proffesiwn. Rydych chi wedi cyfeirio fwy nag unwaith at bwysigrwydd datblygiad proffesiynol. A oes yna fodd inni edrych ar batrymau eraill o ran athrawon cyflenewi, fel bod athrawon cyflenwi, yn hytrach na’u bod nhw’n ddibynnol ar ddiwrnodau fan hyn a fan draw, neu hyd yn oed cyfnod eithaf byr o ran cytundeb, yn cael eu cyflogi gan un ai grwpiau o ysgolion neu gan awdurdod lleol, ac fel rhan o’u patrwm nhw, neu ran o’u cytundeb nhw am y flwyddyn neu ddwy flynedd gyntaf, fod y datblygiad proffesiynol yn rhan amlwg o hynny? Achos, yn y pen draw, os ydyn nhw’n colli cyfle o ran datblygiad proffesiynol, nid yw’n dweud llawer am y gefnogaeth rydym ni’n barod i roi iddyn nhw, fel pobl o fewn y proffesiwn.		Aled Roberts: I have just one final matter. Nearly every witness has told us that supply teachers, to some extent, fall into two categories: they will be either newly qualified teachers or teachers who want to work part-time towards the end of their career, and so forth. The evidence suggests that about 30 per cent of supply teachers are NQTs, and the NASUWT gave evidence to us saying that their survey of staff had revealed that 82 per cent of them believed that they did not have support in terms of becoming established in the profession. You’ve referred more than once to the importance of professional development. Is there any way in which we can look at other patterns in terms of supply teachers, so that supply teachers, rather than them being dependent on a day here or a day there, or even quite short periods of time in terms of contract, could be employed either by clusters of schools or a local authority, and then as part of the pattern that they have, or as part of their contract for the first year or two years, CPD could be an obvious part of that? Because, ultimately, if they lose out in terms of CPD, that doesn’t say much about the support that we’re willing to give them as professionals.
[29] Huw Lewis: Yes. Aled is sort of stealing my policy platform for the next 18 months to two years. You’re absolutely right. We’re setting in place now structures and ways of working that, I think, enable us, if we get this right, to offer a transformed level of support and challenge to all teachers. I’m looking forward to a very near future when the supply pool of teachers is as much part and parcel of policy developments in terms of CPD, curriculum change, and so on, as any other teacher would be.
[30] What gives us the ability to start constructing that are a few critical developments. First of all, new technology, which enables us to keep in constant contact with people in a way that would have been impossible 10 years ago. I want to be in a position where we, as Welsh Government, consortia and local authorities know the electronic contact details of every single registered teacher in Wales, both to distribute essential information and to ensure that they’re up to speed with what’s on offer.
[31] We also have the developing role of the workforce council, of course, with which all our teachers would be registered. As part of that registration, they’ll have their professional learning passport, for which they are ultimately responsible—a passport that is up to date. You know, I take my car to the dealer garage and I get my book stamped and all the rest of it and it’s my responsibility to make sure everything’s up to date if I’ve got any hope of trading in that car at a reasonable cost when I sell it on. That’s pretty crude. Can we not minute that? That’s awful. [Laughter.]
[32] But the professional, I think, has to shift. They are professionals and the trust has to be there, I think, in terms of saying to them, ‘This is your workforce council, you now have an electronic means by which you can evidence that you’re up to speed with everything that’s going on. In return for that, you will get the proper information and support you need to access all this stuff’. So, the workforce council, I think, is going to evolve into a critical player here in terms of looking after the professional and also making clear to the professional what’s expected.
[33] For this all to work, though—and I stress this in many contexts—I think we will have to shift some form of contributory principle in terms of CPD for all teachers, including supply teachers, and we’re going to have to change the atmosphere around what is expected of whom in that regard. But the prospects, I think, are very exciting.
[34] Ann Jones: Okay. Simon, on this point, while the Minister’s—
[35] Simon Thomas: Os caf wneud un pwynt penodol ar hynny—a diolch am f’atgoffa fod fy nghar yn mynd i mewn i gael ‘service’ yfory. [Chwerthin.] Sydd yn wir, gyda llaw.		Simon Thomas: If I may make one specific point on that—and thank you for reminding me that my car is going in for a service tomorrow. [Laughter.] Which is true, by the way.
[36] Ann Jones:  You have to take the book with you.
[37] Simon Thomas: A fedrwch chi wneud yr hyn rŷch chi newydd ei amlinellu, gan gynnwys symud tuag at beth rŷch chi newydd sôn amdano, sef yr egwyddor o gyfranogiad gan y ddwy ochr, os liciwch chi, yn y cytundeb yma, heb fwy o reolaeth dros amodau gwaith a thelerau’r proffesiwn?		Simon Thomas: Can you do what you’ve just outlined, including moving towards what you’ve just talked about, namely the principle of participation from both sides, if you like, in this agreement, without greater control over the terms and conditions of the profession?
[38] Huw Lewis: I don’t quite follow what you’re asking.
[39] Simon Thomas: The profession, at the moment, its terms and conditions are set by a UK independent body we all know about. You have input into that, but you don’t have control over it. Are you able to move to this different relationship—a contributory relationship—without more control over that?
[40] Huw Lewis: Well, there is this piece of the puzzle that’s missing in terms of the devolved powers that we have here and devolved responsibilities. We’ll have to see how that drama plays out. I’m completely content that if this stuff should come to us here in Wales, we could make very good use of it, but I don’t think that that missing piece is so vital that it stops us from taking huge steps forward in terms of the support network, and the distribution of good-quality information, as well, to everyone within all this.
[41] For instance, I think the technological changes enable us now to move to a situation where there is a much better online offer for CPD, and I’ve been talking to various potential partners about how that might work, how it might connect to the Master’s in educational practice and how we shift to a situation where the piecemeal nature that, quite often, faces a professional in terms of what’s on offer—you know, individual, freestanding bits of CPD here and there, ‘Oh, that looks interesting; that one doesn’t’—. We’ve got the potential to knit this together in the professional mind, if you like, so that they can see, ‘There is a professional journey for me here, and I’ve got good-quality, up-to-date information on it because of new technology’. We would rely on new technology to be delivering a good proportion of this stuff as well. A big advantage to supply teachers, of course, is it wouldn’t necessarily always imply that they have to drive 50 miles to a venue, although, sometimes, people do have to get together.
[42] Ann Jones: We’ve sort of moved into CPD and performance management, so I’ll come back to Suzy on pupil outcomes. David, you’ve got some questions, and I know Simon’s probably got some more as well. Do you want to—?
[43] David Rees: Yes, thank you, Chair. You’ve obviously, Minister, discussed CPD a lot this morning. You’ve pointed to it as being a very important aspect, and, to be fair, I think a lot of the focus actually has been on permanent staff, rather than supply staff, because some of the issues you mentioned have very much focused upon that. I suppose what I want to find out is: how can we ensure supply staff, actually, are able to access it, and not those who are on longer term, fixed-term contracts with schools, but those who are on shorter term contracts and come in on a regular basis? The online learning is one approach, but pedagogy and classroom behaviour aspects are not well delivered, necessarily, through online learning. That’s actually through peer experience and face-to-face work. So, how are we going to ensure that it’s not just provided, which is what your paper says—the provision is there—but, actually, they’re able to take advantage of that and benefit and use it?
[44] Huw Lewis: Exactly so. I mean, you know, every day, tea at the Ritz is provided; it’s a different question as to whether you can access it. I think we’ve got to go through a culture shift here, and the workforce council is central to this in terms of enabling this to happen. Supply teachers, those who opt for it and those who find themselves in it, particularly NQTs, need to be seen as much a part of the workforce as any other teacher. They are 100 per cent part of the professional teaching workforce in Wales, and the workforce council, I think, will be critical in terms of making sure that they have a level playing field in terms of provision, access, opportunity and expectation, because I think, critically, that professional learning passport, which all professionals will be expected to keep up to snuff, will be a challenge that needs to be there in the system to ensure that the professional sets off and continues on a journey of professional development, whether they’re in supply or whether they’re in another situation. I think we need to think carefully about how the workforce council, in particular, is enabled to make that happen.
[45] I don’t necessarily think it’s something that Government could or should direct. I think it should be in the hands of the profession, and, much the same as lawyers and doctors look after this stuff, largely through their own professional bodies, I think we need to move to a situation where a supply teacher, for instance, who is hitting a difficulty in terms of access, for one reason or another, or has a question of any kind in terms of accessing provision, can pick up the phone or send an e-mail to a dedicated person at the workforce council who is there to look after them, in terms of making sure that their professional passport is of good quality and is developing year on year.
10:00
[46] David Rees: The professional passport is very similar to other professions where there’s a need to acquire CPD to keep themselves up to date. I understand that. But, in this situation—you talk about contributory elements to the development—many of our supply teachers, in fact, sometimes, have to find their own time, which is basically a cost to themselves, compared to others. Therefore, it’s more than just contributory; it’s actually a loss of income as well. How are we going to look to ensure that we can support those individuals to be able to benefit from it, so that a teacher who’s permanently in school can access it without additional loss of income and neither does the supply teacher lose out?
[47] Huw Lewis: You’re absolutely right: we have to try and break down those barriers as much as we possibly can. This, I think again, focuses on the role and scope of what the workforce council might become. We will always be in a situation, I hope, where the Welsh Government is putting in resource and investing in professional development for teachers. So, I don’t envisage any situation where teachers are going to be cut adrift and expected to pay for their next tranche of training. But, there is a debate to be had here between workforce council, Government, unions and employers about how the situation of various segments of the workforce is made supportive, is made possible for a supply teacher not to feel locked out. And, of course, cross-subsidy is the obvious thing. It could be, for instance, we could have a future where each individual pays a regular sub to the workforce council that, through agreement amongst the professionals themselves, is then used as a pool to particularly support various sections of the workforce, like returners or people on supply, so that we keep any kind of cost very low for those groups that need it most. Again, I don’t think that should be necessarily an arena for a Government Minister to be dictating.
[48] David Rees: It’s not the cost I was asking about, because obviously I understand the cost; it’s the actual loss of income, because a teacher in a school is on a permanent contract or a longer term contract and actually would be supported and have the time, but a supply teacher will have to take their own time and therefore lose income as a consequence of that. So, how can we support supply teachers who may have a loss of income to undertake the CPD, which may become important to them because of their passport?
[49] Huw Lewis: As I say, we need to have the debate about exactly what that implies about the level of resource that would need to be committed in a pool sense. You could envisage it being pooled at consortium level, local authority level—although I think that would probably be leaving some local authorities with a struggle—or at a national level. In other words, it’s the same principle as national insurance, isn’t it? If there are points in a professional’s career where they need 100 per cent support and their fellow professionals agree that’s sensible, then it should be on offer, in my view. All this underpinned with a good level of Government resource, to make sure that we’re not burdening everyone with the 100 per cent actual cost of the offer. There may be professionals who are at the height of their earning power and at the peak of their careers who may well need less support. But, I think the critical conversation about that needs to be had amongst the professionals and their employer. Can I just bring Zenny in, Chair?
[50] Ms Saunders: Just addressing that particular point, and just thinking about the fact that, even though there’s a fair amount of supply staff going into schools, a number of them will be on contracts that are three months or longer than three months. So, it will be the responsibility then of the headteacher and the governing body to think about the needs of that individual and how they actually build them into the professional development and the training and the professional learning that’s going to take place in that school. That will include things like INSET days and various training courses. If that’s the case, you would imagine that, if they’re on that contract, then they wouldn’t be giving up time to actually attend those courses.
[51] Huw Lewis: If I could just cut in, I’ve remembered that Estyn are going to have a new role in terms of inspecting whether that is being done properly or not.
[52] Ms Saunders: Just thinking about those on the shorter contracts, obviously that is quite difficult because they are only working a day at a time, aren’t they, basically? It’s us working with New Directions to see what can be done in relation to those essential elements of training, and to see whether or not there is some type of blended learning approach. I know that New Directions are actually looking to see whether or not they could hold courses that aren’t in term time. I accept that those people are actually giving up their time, but it’s sort of a two-way relationship, isn’t it? Those individuals need to be supported and advised in relation to how they will increase their employability, I suppose, in relation to supply, so they can get more work. It’s that two-way feedback to see what courses they need, what type of training, what experiences do they need, and trying to manage that effectively to give them a better base in relation to employment.
[53] David Rees: I think the question on supply agencies will come later on.
[54] Huw Lewis: I’m sure it will, yes. [Laughter.]
[55] Ann Jones: We’ve got a section on that.
[56] David Rees: In a sense, the CPD issue is still, to me, important. It’s critical, to me, if you want to help the individual. I’m concerned about the three-month issue, by the way, because how do you assess whether the headteacher actually allocates an individual he knows, or she knows, is not going to be there in three months’ time compared to someone who’s going to be there in six months’ time? That’s another question. Part of that process, then, would be identification of their training needs or development needs, and that’s going to be part of performance management .Your evidence indicates that you expect performance management to be in place, but it seems quite clear from the evidence we’ve received to date that not all teachers are going to be receiving performance management. New Directions actually told us they will not be assessing everybody, only those they think need to be assessed. The question is, how do they know they think they need to be assessed? That’s clearly a question. How are you going to ensure performance management is actually undertaken accurately and effectively, so that people who might be viewed to have that need are identified and are supported under the CPD process?
[57] Huw Lewis: Well, there will be new responsibilities placed upon the people around that individual, so there should be a much-improved system in terms of making sure that a head, for instance, really does understand that they have an inspectable level of responsibility here—which also needs to be part of their school development plan, incidentally. So, there’ll be a new regime around the lead professionals in terms of looking after everyone in the system. I can see Brett is dying to come in, so I’ll bring Brett in if you don’t mind.
[58] Ann Jones: The microphones come on automatically.
[59] Dr Pugh: Yes, essentially, the role of the headteacher under New Directions, in terms of the school development plan, has to be to identify the developmental need of the individual staff within his or her school. That has to be measured on a basis of what are the whole-school needs, because, in the end, the needs of the teachers have to be geared to the needs of the pupils.
[60] David Rees: I understand that, but that’s clearly focused upon permanent staff within a school. [Interruption.] This is what I need to find out. You’re asking quite a large resource and demand of headteachers if you’re going to ask them to assess individual supply teachers coming in on a regular basis. How are you going to ensure that a supply teacher who is not on a longer-term contract is able to receive that assessment, performance management, and support if they’re identified as in need of support? I think that’s the crucial question. We’re talking about supply teachers now. We’re not talking about permanent posts.
[61] Dr Pugh: No, but that has to be part and parcel of the same process with the school development plans, and Estyn will expect to see that in there. Now, what that may lead to is a different model of what we might not call supply teaching, eventually, further along the line. As we start rolling out curriculum changes and the new deal, we may well be looking at clusters of schools—I think somebody mentioned this morning—actually employing teachers. Now, that is clearly how we would prefer to see that, because it is for schools, under local management of schools. Certainly, all the research from the OECD points to us that, when schools are responsible for their own employment processes, they look at it much more closely. That may bring a very different future in three or four years’ time.
[62] David Rees: Is there a likelihood, then, that that could actually result in more teachers being used as supply cover and supervisors rather than teachers, simply because it avoids some of these aspects required of headteachers?
[63] Dr Pugh: I think what it has is a greater chance that what will be happening is these people will be planned into the workforce. They wouldn’t be seen as cover supervisors, as such. They would actually have a role, a little like what happens at the present time, certainly in primary schools, in the planning, preparation and assessment time, the PPA time that goes on. It’s actually planned into the timetable.
[64] Huw Lewis: I think the important thing, Chair, is that we shift away from the ad hoc, traditional nature of how things are done—people trying to manage cover and so on—and shift towards—and this can only be done—above school level really, whether it’s through clusters of schools, or whether a consortium takes on a role and so on. As Brett has said, we all know we’re going to need cover, so why not anticipate this in terms of the way the whole system works? Bear in mind, and I’m coming back to my original comment, that these professionals are 100 per cent part of the workforce and we should not regard them as being in some kind of second-class category. The elements are there in place, and I think, as Brett mentioned, there will be three or four years of developing things like the workforce council, the professional learning passport, the electronic means of making sure everyone is up to date and understands what’s going on and is registered. In three or four years’ time, you could envisage a situation where we don’t have supply teachers anymore; we have a part of the workforce that happens to be mobile, or has chosen to be, and that may not be tied to a particular institution on a long-term contract. But there is a necessary part of the picture to make the system work.
[65] David Rees: Can I—
[66] Ann Jones: Is it the last one, then?
[67] David Rees: Yes, a final point. Just for clarification, the responsibility for performance management then is down to the school and not to the supply agencies.
[68] Ms Saunders: You’re talking about those who are less than three months, then, is it, in relation to their contracts?
[69] David Rees: Yes.
[70] Ms Saunders: Yes. The responsibility is with the supply agency in relation to their performance management, and you’d expect particularly the preferred supply agency that’s been chosen, but you’d expect them all, to be able to be talking to those headteachers, those teachers involved, so that they get that feedback so as they can actually build on that performance management. So, that individual has an idea as to how they are performing, and where they need to improve or where they’re excelling. You want that feedback there.
[71] David Rees: Okay. I’ll stop there.
[72] Ann Jones: Simon. Can I just put the warning on, though? We’ve got about 20 minutes left, and we’re only part way through the second of six areas we want to talk to you about.
[73] Simon Thomas: I think this is plenty for me.
[74] Ann Jones: No, we’re not suspending it for you. You need to have your say, but I’m just reminding everybody.
[75] Simon Thomas: Jest cwpwl o bethau sydd yn aros, rwy’n meddwl. Os ŷm ni’n dodi’ch sylwadau chi heddiw, Weinidog, ochr yn ochr â’r peth a ddywedasoch chi ddoe wrth fy ateb i, ac Aelodau eraill, rwy’n meddwl, ar y datganiad am y cyfnod sylfaen, mae’n amlwg eich bod chi’n gweld y proffesiwn yn datblygu, o ran datblygiad proffesiynol, fel proffesiwn fel cyfreithwyr neu ddeintyddion hyd yn oed, neu unrhyw broffesiwn arall lle mae cadw record o’r datblygiad proffesiynol, a hefyd cadw cynnydd yn y record yna, yn ddau beth sydd ynghlwm ag aros yn y proffesiwn, i bob pwrpas. Fedrwch chi ddim cario ymlaen i fod yn gyfreithiwr oni bai eich bod chi’n dangos eich bod chi wedi bod yn gyson wrth wneud datblygiad proffesiynol. A gosod i’r neilltu am y tro ansawdd y datblygiad yna, beth sydd ymhlyg yn hyn yr ydych chi wedi’i ddweud heddiw a ddoe yw bod gorfodaeth, yn y pen draw, o ran datblygiad proffesiynol i aros yn athro cymwysedig yng Nghymru. A ydy hwn yn gasgliad teg?		Simon Thomas: Just a couple of issues remaining, I think. If we were to place your comments today, Minister, side by side with what you said yesterday in response to me, and to other Members, I believe, in your statement on the foundation phase, it’s clear that you see the profession as developing, in terms of professional development, much like professions such as lawyers or even dentists or any other profession where retaining a record of CPD and also tracking progress using that record are two issues that are integral to remaining in the profession, to all intents and purposes. You can’t continue to practise as a solicitor unless you can demonstrate that you’ve been consistent in carrying out your CPD. Setting aside for a moment the quality of that development, what is implicit in what you’ve said today and yesterday is that there is a compulsion, at the end of the day, to carry out professional development in order to remain a qualified teacher in Wales. Is that a fair conclusion?
[76] Huw Lewis: Well, I don’t know if I’d use the word ‘compulsion’, Chair: ‘expectation’, I think. I think there are ways in terms of the Government setting goals and ambitions that would not involve writing into law some kind of compulsion for a professional to be doing a certain thing at a certain time.
[77] Simon Thomas: Ond mae’n anodd unioni sefyllfa lle gall athro neu athrawes fod am 20 mlynedd yn y dosbarth heb unrhyw ddatblygiad proffesiynol. Mae hynny wedi digwydd yn y gorffennol; rydym yn gwybod hynny. Mae’n anodd i fi feddwl am sefyllfa fel yna yn codi eto o dan y drefn yr ŷch chi wedi’i amlinellu heddiw.		Simon Thomas: But it’s difficult to reconcile a situation where a teacher can be in a classroom for 20 years without any kind of professional development. That has happened in the past; we know that much. It’s difficult for me to think of that kind of situation arising again under the system that you’ve outlined today.
[78] Huw Lewis: Yes. Well, I hope the elements are there to ensure that it can’t. The school development plan, for instance, will demand of the head and the governors that they have a grasp of what the professional needs are for their school, and what the professional needs of the individual professional are, too, and that they annually have to show that they’re addressing this issue.
10:15
[79] If Estyn knocks on their door, they’re going to have to show Estyn that they’re in control of this. So, I think there are sufficient means by which we can incentivise the system to reach a point—and I’ve said this many times in the past, as well—where it reaches a self-improving dynamic, whereby it doesn’t have to have a politician interfering with it all the time and making noises off.
[80] Simon Thomas: Rwy’n derbyn y pwynt hwnnw, ac rwy’n derbyn pam eich bod chi’n gyndyn i ddweud unrhyw beth ynglŷn â gorfodaeth. Ond, wedi dweud hynny, mae’r cwestiwn yn codi, beth wnewch chi o’r 10 y cant i 20 y cant o’r proffesiwn sydd, i bob pwrpas, yn gwrthod cymryd rhan yn y broses yma, ac sydd eisiau ‘easy life’, os leiciwch chi? Nawr, nid wyf eisiau mynd yn rhy bell i lawr y llwybr yna, achos rŷm ni’n edrych ar athrawon cyflenwi fan hyn yn hytrach na’r proffesiwn cyfan, ond rwy’n meddwl bod hwnnw’n rhywbeth y bydd yn rhaid mynd i’r afael ag e, yn enwedig o gofio, fel y gwnes i godi gynnau fach, nad oes gyda ni y rheolaeth dros amodau a thelerau gwaith ar hyn o bryd yng Nghymru.		Simon Thomas: I accept that point, and I accept why you’re reluctant to say anything about compulsion. However, having said that, the question does arise as to what you make of the 10 per cent to 20 per cent of the profession who, to all intents and purposes, will refuse to take part in this process, and who want an easy life, if you like. Now, I don’t want to go too far down that path, because we’re looking at supply teachers here rather than at the profession as a whole, but I do think that that is something that will have to be addressed, particularly bearing in mind, as I said a little earlier, that we don’t have control over the terms and conditions of teachers in Wales at the moment.
[81] Y cyd-destun yr ŷch chi wedi dibynnu llawer arno yn eich tystiolaeth y bore yma yw’r Cyngor Gweithlu Addysg newydd. Rŷch chi wedi sôn droeon am eu gwaith nhw. Nawr, mae dau beth rwy’n ymwybodol ohonynt o ran y cyngor ar hyn o bryd. Un yw y byddan nhw’n dweud nad oes lot fawr o arian ganddyn nhw, a’r ail, yn ôl y Bil y gwnaethom ni ei basio—ac, ar y pryd, roeddech chi’n gwrthod gwelliannau i’r perwyl yma—nid oes llawer wedi’i ysgrifennu ar wyneb y Bil yna, neu’r Ddeddf fel y mae bellach, sy’n sôn am ddatblygu proffesiynol. A ydych chi yn hyderus, os dyna’r gair, fod gan y cyngor gweithlu newydd yr adnoddau i baratoi y math o raglen datblygu proffesiynol yr ydych chi wedi sôn amdani, a hefyd fod gyda nhw ddigon o gapasiti a gallu y tu fewn i’r  Ddeddf sydd wedi eu sefydlu nhw i wneud y gwaith yma?		The context that you’ve depended upon quite heavily in your evidence this morning is that of the new Education Workforce Council. You’ve mentioned their role several times. Now, there are two things that I’m aware of as regards the council at the moment. One is that they will say that they don’t have very much funding, and, secondly, according to the Bill that we passed—and, at the time, you were rejecting amendments written to this effect—there is not much written on the face of that Bill, or Act as it now is, that talks about professional development. Are you confident, if that’s the right word, that the new workforce council has the resources required to prepare the kind of programme of professional development that you’ve outlined, and also that they have sufficient capacity and ability, or competency within the Act that has established them in order for them to carry out this work?
[82] Huw Lewis: Well, no, they don’t. Not at present, no, because there is a great deal of work, I think, that needs to be done in terms of us making sure we get this right. For instance, I’m going on a fact-finding trip to Scotland next month to take a look. Now, they don’t have a workforce council. They lodge these responsibilities in a different way to the way that we’ve chosen to do it here in Wales, but they—
[83] Simon Thomas: They have education bodies though, don’t they?
[84] Huw Lewis: Yes, they do. So, what I’ve been particularly interested in is the evolutionary journey that they’ve undertaken, which, in some ways, is a little advanced compared to ours, and to learn from the mistakes, as well, that they’ve made along the way. I don’t want to sit at this point in time and dictate exactly what the workforce council, for instance, would look like in three or four years’ time. I think it’s important that we have the debate with the professionals themselves and with other interested parties about exactly how that’s undertaken. That will, of course, involve difficult questions around things like resource, although I’ve not yet undertaken the work to interrogate exactly what level of resource might be required under the new regime. It’s going to be enhanced, that’s for sure, and that’s why I’m saying that we do have to face up to the idea of a contributory principle as being part of this. But there are a lot of discussions that need to be had between all of us, and between professionals most of all, if we’re going to embrace a model like this. But I honestly cannot see another way forward that truly does release the teaching profession as a profession and not as some kind of semi-profession, which I think is leaving us with all sorts of difficulties.
[85] Simon Thomas: The implication of what you’re saying—and I’m not putting it in an oppositional way, but the implication of what you’re saying—is that you’re developing this self-learning profession, something that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has also talked about; you’re putting schools at the forefront of this learning process and schools are developing as centres of learning themselves, so they’re not having professional development done to them but they’re actually the centres and the leaders in that; and that that is developed at a national level by a profession that is paying in for its own professional development, in effect.
[86] I’m not saying that the Government doesn’t, in some way, also put in some resources, but the profession is leading and paying in for that. You talk about having a debate around that, but that was opened a little bit when we did the measure on the education workforce council, and I think you closed down that debate at the time, if I remember, and you weren’t very keen to have it. You’re now keen to have it. It is an important debate, and I certainly agree that that is the direction of travel in the kind of economies that you talked about yesterday—the ones identified by the OECD that have this pattern of educational practice. But how can you actually get to that with the resources that we have in the system at the moment? And, particularly related to supply teachers, apart from the cross-subsidy issue, which you’ve already mentioned, there seems to be no entitlement that comes automatically to supply teachers in an environment where it is actually a privatised agency that is, in effect, controlling and regulating that market.
[87] Huw Lewis: Yes, we’ve sort of inherited—. You’re quite right; there are things that perhaps will need to be looked at in this period of three or four years in terms of agencies, for instance. We’ve sort of gone along with an England-and-Wales model for the moment, and we have signed on the dotted line. It will be my responsibility to try to make sure that that system works to its very best in that extended period.
[88] Simon Thomas: How long is that extended for, just to be clear?
[89] Huw Lewis: It’s three years, I think.
[90] Ms Saunders: It’s three years.
[91] Huw Lewis: But I think we can take that opportunity to open up a discussion about what a tailor-made system for Wales actually looks like. I don’t know that we would necessarily have started from here in terms of what’s gone before. We’re going to have a very different institutional set-up around support and challenge for professionals in Wales. We’re going to have to have some way of ensuring supply that fits well with that system, but that’s a debate that we’re—. I’m not afraid of the debate; we need to have it. But at the moment we are, for the next three years, in a situation having to make this particular supply agency-based system work as well as it can.
[92] Simon Thomas: That’s probably another set of questions.
[93] Huw Lewis: Yes, it is, which needs to be asked.
[94] Ann Jones: Right. Okay.
[95] Simon Thomas: [Inaudible.]
[96] Ann Jones: You’ve finished. You’re okay.
[97] Simon Thomas: I’ve finished, Chair.
[98] Ann Jones: Okay. Fine. Pupil outcomes and Welsh-medium, Suzy.
[99] Suzy Davies: Okay. We can keep this one fairly short and sharp, I think, Minister.
[100] Huw Lewis: Right.
[101] Suzy Davies: We’ve got a debate later today about this committee’s report into the attainment gap, effectively, between low-income households and children from better-off backgrounds, if you like. Even though the data that we’ve got regarding supply teachers is incomplete, perhaps—or inconsistent—the data that we do have show that supply teaching is most prevalent in disadvantaged areas. What kind of conclusion should we draw from that when we’re talking about the attainment gap?
[102] Huw Lewis: I don’t know that we can draw concrete conclusions from this. The data are so sparse. I mean, we can make intuitive assumptions here about the impact, but I wouldn’t like to set up any hostages to fortune.
[103] Suzy Davies: No, I would agree with you on that. Sorry, I’m trying to cut this down a bit. When you’re talking about additional research, then—you were mentioning earlier about collecting new data on why teachers are absent—should that research also include investigations into the effect on pupils then of a disproportionate exposure to supply teachers?
[104] Huw Lewis: Well, I’m very happy to listen to submissions from the committee, for instance, in terms of whether that’s a necessary thing. I don’t think it’s the fundamental thing. The fundamental thing is, if there’s a disproportionate level of supply that exists within a particular school, then there shouldn’t be. We need to get to a situation where there is no need for that, and we need to understand, first of all, why that might be the case. We’re in semi-darkness at the moment. This new system will at least give us the data that we need to throw some light upon the subject.
[105] Suzy Davies: Because I think what the research might also show is that we all sort of intuitively—to use your word—assume that a lot of exposure to a supply teacher is bad for pupils, but, actually, we haven’t got any real evidence to show that.
[106] Huw Lewis: We don’t have evidence to show that. In fact, without data, you have to become a little bit anecdotal and within my career—well, previous career—as a teacher, and, before that as a pupil, I’ve actually encountered supply cover that has been inspirational. In fact, I can recall as a 14-year-old having my whole view of a subject transformed by a supply teacher who was only there for a fortnight. So, we shouldn’t make too many assumptions about this. If there’s a disproportionate level of absence within a school, then that’s the issue we should be talking about—why is this a problem?
[107] Ms Saunders: Just thinking about the data we’ve got at the moment, it could be that it’s related to recruitment, for example, couldn’t it, and recruitment in those areas is particularly difficult. But, with the guidance that we’re issuing this summer, the intention, as the Minister has said, is to have that thematic review carried out by Estyn. So, there is potential to look within that review to see how that absence management guidance has been implemented and to see whether or not there is that particular problem in those more deprived areas.
[108] Suzy Davies: That’s what I wanted to hear from you, effectively.
[109] Ms Saunders: Yes. We could pick that out, couldn’t we, in relation to that Estyn thematic review.
[110] Ann Jones: Aled’s got a question on this.
[111] Huw Lewis: Are you trying to say I didn’t answer your question, Suzy?
[112] Suzy Davies: Yes, and in words of 140 characters as well. [Laughter.]
[113] Ann Jones: Aled, and then we’ll move on.
[114] Aled Roberts: A gaf i jest bod yn glir ar hwn? Rydych chi’n dweud nad yw’r data sydd gan y Llywodraeth yn dangos bod yna fwy o ddefnydd o athrawon cyflenwi mewn ardaloedd difreintiedig. Ai dyna beth rydych yn ei ddweud? Achos mae tystion o Brifysgol Cymru y Drindod Dewi Sant yn dweud y gwrthwyneb:		Aled Roberts: Can I just be clear on this issue? You’ve said that the data that the Government has do not show that there’s greater use of supply teachers within disadvantaged areas. Is that what you’re saying? Because witnesses from the University of Wales Trinity Saint David have said the opposite:
[115] ‘from the data that we have, that most supply teacher use is in schools in disadvantaged areas’.
[116] So, a ydych chi’n dweud nad oes data sy’n dweud hynny, neu a ydych yn dweud nad ydych yn deall y rhesymau dros fwy o ddefnydd, ac mai achos problemau recriwtio ydy o? Jest er mwyn i ni gael gwybod yn union beth rydych chi’n ei ddweud.		So, are you saying that there are no data saying that, or are you saying that that you don’t understand the reasons why there is greater use, and that it’s because of recruitment problems? Just so that we can know exactly what you’re saying.
[117] Huw Lewis: The data are not good enough. With all respect to the University of Wales Trinity Saint David, the data are collected in different ways in different parts of Wales. In some places, they’re categorised, in some places they’re not, and in some places the categorisation is different. So, we don’t have a clear picture at present.
[118] Ann Jones: Suzy.
[119] Suzy Davies: Okay, but I think it’s clear that the crude measure is that there’s more use. I don’t think that was in dispute, necessarily.
[120] Just one final question from me: you mentioned your own inspirational supply teacher; what doesn’t help, particularly if you’re in a Welsh-medium school or if you’re a Welsh learner is that your supply teacher turns up and is incapable of carrying out their job through the medium of Welsh, or has insufficient Welsh language skills. I know that the Government has certain incentives in place to encourage teachers to use their Welsh language skills more, but we’ve taken evidence that sometimes really the wrong kind of people are turning up to fill supply spaces. What kind of information is coming back to you about the standard of Welsh language skills that might be required by a particular placement and are simply not being fulfilled?
[121] Huw Lewis: I’ve seen in the submissions that we’ve shared, of course, that this is being reflected as an issue. The data show us that the proportion of supply teachers out there who have Welsh language skills is just about the same as the proportion within the general full-time teaching population. If there are issues around the way the system is working that is causing there to be a lack of clarity about exactly what we need to know here, then I’m hoping that the measures I’ve outlined, Chair, will encapsulate this issue of a reasonable—well, a very good level—of Welsh language capability as something that is a strategic requirement for the workforce and for us as a country. So, again, that would be looked into as part and parcel, for instance, of things like the thematic review.
[122] Suzy Davies: Well—this is my supplementary on that, really—in the Donaldson landscape, where obviously the role of Welsh specifically is going to be very different, the way it’s taught and introduced to young people—you’re not going to be able to do this in 140 characters, but how are you going to include supply teachers in any plans you have for that?
[123] Huw Lewis: Donaldson, as regards the Welsh language, I think—. Donaldson is very general—well, he’s non-prescriptive—in terms of what he recommends. He’s left a lot of room for us as a nation, really, to discuss this, but what clearly, I think, is implied if we’re going to fulfil the ambitions contained within Donaldson, is a huge shift in terms of CPD expectations among the workforce in relation to the Welsh language, and also a lot of other areas too, including modern foreign languages and maths. This knits with the Furlong recommendations, you see, because he’s identified, within the primary workforce in particular, a structural weakness in the system. We have too few subject specialists who are confident in particular subject areas in our primary schools and we have too many generalists. The delivery of a good level of Welsh language acquisition support or whatever—teaching—within a school is part and parcel of that, I think. We’ve got to set a different level of expectation around initial teacher training and we need a new system to address this through the new deal, as well.
10:30
[124] We’re also, incidentally—. I’m also looking at different ways in which we can supply support materials for pupils and there is a whole debate to be had that we can’t have today, Chair, about how online skills delivery could be made quality controlled and delivered unique to our curriculum, relying upon partners to help us with that. So, we need a new regime around it.
[125] Suzy Davies: Okay. Well, we won’t have time to develop that, so I’ll leave it there. Thank you.
[126] Ann Jones: Aled, very briefly, then, because we’re out of time.
[127] Aled Roberts: Rwy’n meddwl ei fod yn gwestiwn priodol i ofyn. Efo’r holl sylw sydd wedi cael ei roi i dangyrhaeddiad plant yng Nghymru ers datganoli, sut ydym ni mewn sefyllfa—efo’r holl wariant sydd wedi bod ar feddalwedd a phethau felly gan y cynghorau, ac, mae’n debyg, gan Llywodraeth Cymru—lle mae’r data mor sigledig neu mor wan?		Aled Roberts: I think that it’s an appropriate question to ask. With all the attention that has been given to the underachievement of children in Wales since devolution, how can we be in a position—with all the investment that there has been in software and such things by the councils, and, it seems, by the Welsh Government—where the data are so uncertain or so weak?
[128] Rwyf eisiau gwneud sylw ar athrawon cyfrwng Cymraeg, achos beth nad yw’n glir, yn bendant o ran yr athrawon sydd o’r asiantaethau—. Nid yw’n glir a ydyn nhw’n mesur athrawon sy’n gallu siarad Cymraeg neu a ydyn nhw’n mesur athrawon sy’n gallu dysgu trwy gyfrwng y Gymraeg. Mae’r ddau beth yn hollol wahanol, o’r dystiolaeth rydym ni wedi’i derbyn gan brif athrawon.		I also want to make a comment on Welsh-medium teachers, because what isn’t clear, certainly in terms of the teachers from the agencies—. It is not clear whether they measure teachers who can speak Welsh or teachers who can teach through the medium of Welsh. The two things are entirely different, from the evidence we’ve received from headteachers.
[129] Huw Lewis: Well, these are things that need to be fixed, you’re quite right. I think what I’ve outlined this morning, in terms of different expectations around data collection and its quality and so on, and who is responsible, exactly, and knowing they’re responsible, will change the landscape there in terms of the incompleteness of the data. There is another debate to be had—you’re quite right, there. If this reform is showing us that we have a structural problem with competence in the Welsh language, not just in terms of fluency, but in terms of professional competence, then I’d be quite willing to open up discussions about how we can better address that. But I think, again, we will get back to the workforce council as having a critical role here. It is not, at the end of the day, for politicians to be telling teachers, ‘You need to go on this course now’; this would need to be structured into the way the workforce council delivers.
[130] Ann Jones: Okay. We’re now into sort of past the time, but I know that we had checked with your office that you could spare another few minutes.
[131] Huw Lewis: They didn’t have a chat with me, Chair. [Laughter.]
[132] Ann Jones: Well, that’s all right then, you see. That might apply your mind next time.
[133] We’ve got local authority regional consortia oversight to do and then we have got to do supply agencies, because I think, with supply agencies, there’s going to be a bit around that. So, can I just—. You know, you’re in your own time now. Anyway, go on then, Keith.
[134] Keith Davies: Ocê. Mae Cyngor y Gweithlu Addysg—. Rŷm ni wedi sôn ein bod ni eisiau athrawon cyflenwi oherwydd hyfforddiant, ond mae Cyngor y Gweithlu Addysg wedi dweud wrthym ni mai 40 y cant o’r amser rydym yn defnyddio athrawon cyflenwi oherwydd salwch. Wedyn, mae Estyn yn dweud wrthym os bydd yr ysgol neu—y cwestiwn sydd gen i yw—yr awdurdod, neu’r consortia rhanbarthol—. Os ydyn nhw’n cynnal cyfweliadau gyda’r athrawon sydd wedi bod bant yn sâl wrth ddod yn ôl i’r ysgol—mae Estyn yn dweud—fe wnawn ni leihau’r nifer o athrawon cyflenwi sydd eisiau. Nawr, p’un a ydym yn derbyn beth mae Estyn yn ei ddweud neu beidio, roeddwn i’n synnu bod 40 y cant o’r gwersi sy’n cael eu cyflenwi oherwydd salwch athrawon. Wedyn, roeddwn i’n cytuno, efallai, gydag Estyn y dylai fod rywun yn rhoi cyfweliadau iddyn nhw pan maent yn mynd yn ôl i’r gwaith. Y cwestiwn nawr yw: ai’r ysgol, yr awdurdod neu’r consortia rhanbarthol a ddylai sicrhau bod hyn yn digwydd?		Keith Davies: Okay. The Education Workforce Council—. We have talked about how we need supply teachers because of training, but the Education Workforce Council has told us that 40 per cent of the time that we use supply teachers is because of sickness. Now, Estyn tells us that if a school or—the question I have is—the authority or the regional consortia—. If they decide to hold return-to-work interviews with the teachers who’ve been away because of sickness—Estyn says—we will reduce the number of supply teachers that are required. Now, whether we accept what Estyn says or not, I was surprised that 40 per cent of the lessons that are supplied are because of teacher sickness. So, I did agree, perhaps, with Estyn that someone should be conducting return-to-work interviews. The question now is: is it the school, the authority or the regional consortia that should be ensuring that this is carried out?
[135] Huw Lewis: It’s worth pointing out that, I think, the average across the board back in 2009 for sickness absence days was 8 days per teacher per year, and now it’s six. So, there’s been considerable forward movement in that regard. I think it’s worth pointing out, coming back to that guidance document that I mentioned coming out in July, that a large part of that will be to set out the roles and responsibilities of all the various bodies and the key stakeholders involved, including local authorities and consortia. We are in the situation, technically at the moment, where it is just the duty of the headteacher to sort this out. I don’t think that’s adequate to the task. Zenny, did you want to add something?
[136] Ms Saunders: Yes, it is the responsibility of the local authorities to have HR advice in relation to the management of absence, and then it is for the school to implement. It will be something that we’ll spell out in relation to the absence guidance that’s coming out. We know that where absence management is dealt with effectively, it can help and it can reduce it and, in certain areas, there is effective management at the moment. But this guidance will try to create that parity across the piece, so that people understand what the general rules are in relation to absence and how they manage it. Then we’ll get the feedback from that guidance and the data so that we can look at any potential interventions that we need to make or at any potential trends, you know, where there are areas of concern.
[137] Keith Davies: Hwnnw oedd y cwestiwn cyntaf. Yr ail gwestiwn sydd gen i yw: mae’n debyg bod 30 y cant o athrawon cyflenwi yn dechrau eu gyrfa fel athrawon. Rwy’n credu mai’r ATL sydd wedi dweud wrthym ein bod, oherwydd diffyg cefnogaeth gyda hyfforddiant ac yn y blaen, yn colli 20 y cant o’r rheini. Pwy sydd â’r cyfrifoldeb i sicrhau ein bod yn gwneud ein gorau dros athrawon newydd, y mae cymaint ohonyn nhw’n athrawon cyflenwi? Unwaith eto, nid yr ysgol—ni allaf weld sut y gall yr ysgol ei wneud—ond rwy’n credu y dylai’r awdurdodau neu’r consortia edrych ar ôl yr athrawon newydd hyn.		Keith Davies: That was the first question. My second question is: apparently, 30 per cent of supply teachers are at the start of their career as teachers. I think that it was the ATL that told us that, because of the lack of support with training and so forth, we are losing 20 per cent of those. Whose responsibility is it to ensure that we do our very best for newly qualified teachers—so many of whom are supply teachers? Once again, not the school—I don’t see how a school could do it—but I do think that the authorities or consortia should be looking after these new teachers.
[138] Huw Lewis: And you’re right. I hope that some of the changes to the system that I’ve described this morning would enable us to do that. Everybody needs to be clear, as far as I’m concerned, that these teachers—. And I did mention specifically the NQT supply workforce as being one that needs tailor-made support and provision. We also need to remember that the situation among schools is going to change as well. As Furlong is developed, we will begin to see the rise of—. I’m still not clear what we should call these schools, but the idea of the training school, which will then act as a hub for professional development within a cluster of schools, and all of this being co-ordinated by the consortia, of course. So, there should be a much more ‘handleable’ system in terms of making sure that, for an NQT who’s in the supply system at the moment, it doesn’t mean that they’re in the doldrums, but that they have a switched-on schools network, which is very aware of its duties to CPD, and for that group of professionals as much as any other.
[139] Ann Jones: On supply agencies, Bethan first and I know Jeff’s got a couple of questions.
[140] Bethan Jenkins: I find it very hard to understand how, as you describe, teachers will happen to be mobile and not be defined as supply teaching for as long as the terms and conditions are different. Because, until they’re treated at the same level in terms of their pension contributions and in terms of the work that they do, where the agency is taking a slice away from them, how are we able to realise that situation? At the moment, with the agencies, there is no obligation, for example, for CPD; some may say that they will do more than others, but until we have a new form of working, how realistic is that? We’ve got this situation of the contract for three years; are you putting work in train for after that, to have a new model such as what we’ve heard from other people who’ve come in today and in the last few weeks, saying, ‘Should there be local authority pools? Should supply agencies be a thing of the past in Wales? Is that a realistic proposition?’ So, you know, the whole debate around that parity for supply teachers when, actually, the reality is not that at the moment.
[141] Huw Lewis: Yes. Without the terms and conditions, no, I don’t think we can fully realise everything we might have ambitions to realise, but I’m not overly anxious about that, because all these systems and reforms that are being put in place at the moment will take time. And as regards the supply agency question, I think whatever system we have after this three-year period, which may or may not contain supply agencies as a feature, it has to answer questions like that question of parity, for instance. I want to move to a situation where the supply workforce is a fully integrated asset within the system and it is truly within the system. So, I don’t want to second-guess what the future might hold, but on the one element of what you said, you said, ‘Are we going to talk about this after the three-year period?’ I think we need to start talking about it very soon, actually; well before then.
[142] Bethan Jenkins: Oh, no, I didn’t mean to talk about it afterwards; I meant to talk about it so that, coming up to that three-year end, we would have—. Would it be more regulation, would it be an accredited system, or would it be a kitemark? Again, the kitemark didn’t seem to be fully operational. So, looking to explore these ideas so that we’re not reaching that time with no alternative provision in place.
[143] Huw Lewis: No, we’ll have to have a consensus, I think. The reason I don’t want to—. You know, I do have a preferred model in my head, and a lot of people wouldn’t be very surprised what it looked like, but I’m very keen that we have a consensual approach towards getting there. And, actually, we will learn a lot through this transformation over the next three years that will enable us to have a system, whether it contains the supply agencies or not, at the end of that, when we get to renew those contracts or not. We will have learned a lot in the meanwhile about exactly what kind of system we will need.
[144] Ann Jones: Okay. Aled looks at me—he wants us—. Are you going to wait for Jeff?
[145] Aled Roberts: I’ll wait for Jeff.
[146] Ann Jones: Okay, thanks. Right, okay; so, it’s Jeff, Aled and David.
[147] Jeff Cuthbert: Okay, thank you. Very quickly. In terms of supply agencies, I’ve had a number of my constituents who are supply teachers come to me, and they’ve raised one complaint about the variations in terms of fees that are paid, which doesn’t help them and doesn’t give them any career enhancement. So, I’m wondering whether there is scope now for some form of greater regulation, so that these things can be standardised in some way. Now, presumably, if we move to a system where clusters of schools are employing, shall we say, temporary staff—call them what you want; and I don’t like the term ‘supply teacher’, but that’s what we have at the moment—then it could be the case, could it not, that the need for agencies diminishes? So, I’m just wondering what your response would be to those and the immediate issue, whilst they still exist, of some form of greater standardisation, particularly in terms of a fee structure.
[148] Huw Lewis: In terms of the fee structure, I don’t think we would have devolved power to alter that situation. I think you’re right to say that there’s an evolutionary pull now, as we move towards the inevitable consequences of clustering schools together, the whole thrust in terms of the new deal, and the Furlong reforms and so on. There is a sort of gravitational pull now towards schools being clear about what they want in terms of professional standards, and that includes what’s on offer from the supply professionals as well. I think it does throw up very profound questions about how supply teachers get together and how schools get together, and if agencies want to remain part of that picture, then they’re going to have some very exacting questions to answer in that regard. Zenny.
10:45
[149] Ms Saunders: Just thinking about the award of the contract to New Directions, and the fact that there were 73 public sector organisations signed up to the National Procurement Service. All 22 local authorities are buying into that and have signed up to it, so you do have a preferred supplier at the moment. They do apply standard fees, and I think the way that their actual funding methodology works is that they talk to the schools about how much they’re prepared to pay, it’s up to the school how much they pay and then they levy a one-off charge on top of that. So, you do have some parity in those fees, but I imagine you’re talking about between the different agencies.
[150] Jeff Cuthbert: Yes, indeed.
[151] Ms Saunders: There is a preferred supplier.
[152] Huw Lewis: A preferred supplier—but there are multiple suppliers.
[153] Ann Jones: On this point, Simon, before I bring Aled and David in.
[154] Simon Thomas: Very briefly on this point. New Directions told us very clearly they won the contract because they were cheapest. In that circumstance, how do you deliver CPD to supply teachers?
[155] Huw Lewis: I think and I hope, Chair, that I’ve described this morning the biggest series of reforms, actually, in terms of how CPD is delivered and our expectations around CPD—
[156] Simon Thomas: I think you’ve described what’ll happen in three years’ time. I’m asking you what’s going to happen for the next few years.
[157] Huw Lewis: We’re doing it now, and the next three years will be that transformational period. For instance, that new guidance will come out in July, which is six or seven weeks away. But, I wasn’t aware of that comment. I don’t think there is a need to become anxious, necessarily, about how we evolve the situation around agencies just yet. I think what we need to be clear about is describing exactly what our system looks like in a consensual way, and then asking ourselves the question: ‘Do agencies continue to fit with this picture, or are there other ways that Wales might want to go?’
[158] Ms Saunders: Can I comment, Minister? I can’t resist in relation to that—the fact that they won the contract based on them being the cheapest. I have to say that we were involved in the sub-tender process in looking at the documents, and it was very important to us in the education department that there was an element of CPD within there and that we felt that they were going to manage and look after the workforce. They were important considerations for us. There’s no doubt, in the overall contract, that the price is obviously considered, but I have to say that we valued a number of things within that contract—it wouldn’t just have been price.
[159] Aled Roberts: Rwyf eisiau eich herio chi ar hynny, achos mae’r Pwyllgor Cyfrifon Cyhoeddus wedi bod yn edrych ar hyn, ac rwy’n meddwl eich bod chi wedi colli cyfle fel Llywodraeth. Nid yw’n fai ar y Gweinidog ond mae yna golli cyfle fel Llywodraeth, achos yn y cytundeb fframwaith gwreiddiol nid oedd sôn o gwbl am ddatblygiad proffesiynol. Cafodd ei drafod fel cytundeb caffael llywodraeth leol. Cyngor Caerdydd oedd yn gyfrifol am drafod, ac nid oedd yn sôn am ddatblygiad proffesiynol. Ac os ydych chi’n edrych ar y matrix sgorio rydych wedi sôn amdano, mae datblygiad proffesiynol, rwy’n meddwl, yn cael 10 pwynt ar y matrix. Hwyrach fy mod yn anghywir ar hwn, ond mae pris yn rhywbeth fel 80 pwynt. Felly, os ydym ni fel pwyllgor yn dod i’r casgliad ei bod yn hollbwysig ein bod y edrych ar ddatblygiad proffesiynol o ran athrawon newydd eu cymhwyso ac athrawon cyflenwi, mae’n rhaid i ni dderbyn—a dylech chi fel Llywodraeth dderbyn—ein bod ni wedi colli cyfle o ran y dair mlynedd nesaf yma.		Aled Roberts: I want to challenge you on that, because the Public Accounts Committee has been looking at this issue, and I think you’ve missed an opportunity as a Government. It’s not the Minister’s fault but the Government has missed an opportunity, because in the original framework contract there was no mention at all of CPD. It was discussed as a local government procurement contract. Cardiff council was responsible for the negotiation, and there was no mention of CPD. And if you look at the scoring matrix that you’ve mentioned, CPD, I think, gets 10 points on that matrix. I may be wrong on this, put price gets something like 80 points. So, if we as a committee conclude that it’s essential that we look at CPD in terms of NQTs and supply teachers, we must accept—and you as a Government must accept—that we did miss an opportunity for the next three years.
[160] A gaf i fynd ymlaen ar ôl hynny i ofyn am y cyfrifoldeb ar yr asiantaeth fel cyflogwr, a gofyn ai New Directions ydy’r cyflogwr? Rydym wedi dod ar draws sefyllfaoedd hefyd lle mae asiantaethau efo cytundeb o ran cyflenwi, ond nid nhw sydd yn cyflogi yr athrawon. Mae hynny er mwyn iddyn nhw osgoi treth. Felly, sut mae’r Llywodraeth yn mynd i fynd i’r afael efo rhai o’r asiantaethau yma sydd ddim yn derbyn cyfrifoldeb o ran datblygiad proffesiynol athrawon?		May I follow on from that by asking about the agency’s responsibility as an employer, and to ask you whether New Directions is the employer? We’ve come across situations as well where agencies have a contract in terms of supply, but they’re not the employers of the teachers. That is so that they can avoid tax. So, how is the Government going to tackle some of these agencies that don’t take responsibility for the professional development of teachers?
[161] Huw Lewis: There’s some very detailed points there.
[162] Ann Jones: You can write to us.
[163] Huw Lewis: And I will undertake to do so. There’s some very worrisome points that Aled has raised this morning, some of which I’m not responsible for directly, and some of which I wasn’t aware of. So, I think we’ll need to go and ponder some of the worries that have been expressed.
[164] Ms Saunders: The contract was awarded by the national procurement service. We were asked to feed in our views as a Government, because they actually host it for us, and that’s what we did.
[165] Aled Roberts: I think that’s the problem. The national procurement service is dealing with these as if they were—. The point was made in Public Accounts Committee that it was dealing with it in exactly the same way as you would look at the supply of agency workers. I think that the point we would make is we’re looking here at the supply of professionals who are responsible for educating our children.
[166] Ann Jones: Last question, David, because we’re now into almost—
[167] David Rees: I think Aled has highlighted many of the concerns I have on supply agencies and some of the working conditions of staff. Perhaps, Minister, you and I may have the same view on the three years’ time, the model being where you want to see it happening, in that sense. But, in between the now and three years, how do we ensure regulation? Because, we did hear that only six are REC registered of the 40 supply agencies, we were told. That means 34 are not. How do we ensure that they’re regulated? So, at least in the interim period, we can be assured that anybody who’s actually delivering supply teachers to schools—. I think, personally, that profit should not be made out of public money for people delivering a service to our pupils. But, how do we ensure that regulation takes place between now and the three years’ time, when you will be looking at reviewing it?
[168] Ms Saunders: The local authorities have a role in relation in this. Obviously, the schools manage the direct employment, but local authorities also have a responsibility in relation to employment and it is the local authorities that have signed up to this procurement by the national procurement service. So, it’s a responsibility on them to be advising their schools as to how they best cover absence, and how they get the best quality teachers and make sure that that’s sustainable.
[169] David Rees: Are you giving guidance to local authorities to make sure they understand that fully?
[170] Ms Saunders: We’re actually developing guidance at the moment in relation to absence and management of absence. It’s not just supply teachers; it’s talking about all aspects of absence. Obviously, as the Minister mentioned earlier, if you can have that cluster of schools and you can employ people on a permanent basis and you can share that resource across the piece, that does reduce your reliance on things like supply agencies. The guidance will actually cover all those aspects and we’d expect those conversations to take place between the local authorities and the schools.
[171] David Rees: One final point, on the procurement, you identified that New Directions won the procurement because of various issues they talked about, including CPD and performance management. But, they’ve actually told us they can’t performance manage everybody. They’ve said that. CPD is available, but it’s on offer only. I think it’s voluntary. So, are you going to be looking at the contract to see if they actually are delivering fully for the supply teachers?
[172] Huw Lewis: Contracts should always be looked at to see if they are delivering properly. Zenny?
[173] Ms Saunders: The contract will be managed by the national procurement service. It’s not managed by us. We don’t own it. But, we’ve already met with New Directions and we will build a relationship with them to make sure that we can feed in and that we can actually complete the loop. So, when they are talking to us about various data they’ve done on performance management, we can find out the richer data, feed back to the schools and feed back to them, so that we can actually get underneath some of that information and try and see where we need to intervene.
[174] Ann Jones: Excuse me for coughing—it’s because I need a cup of tea. Minister, we’ve gone way over time. Thank you very much for that. There’s a number of points that we’ll want to write to you on, just from the last exchange. You did say that you’re publishing guidance in July and you’d be interested in what the committee thought. I wonder if you could share that guidance with us ahead of the publication, because we’ve now finished taking evidence. By the time we look at our key outcomes, our report may not be published in time.
[175] Ms Saunders: We’ve discussed it. I can go back and check—
[176] Ann Jones: Okay, that would be good. We want you to write back to us on the points that Aled was making.
[177] Huw Lewis: Of course.
[178] Ann Jones: And, also you mentioned the Scottish LAs are having an asymmetric week. I wonder if you could provide us with those who are doing that, and perhaps we would take some more information.
[179] Huw Lewis: I mentioned it as an interesting example of how to deal with—
[180] Ann Jones: If we could have those, we could perhaps make contact with them and we’ll have a look at that as well.
[181] Huw Lewis: The example I went to see was Edinburgh city council.
[182] Ann Jones: Edinburgh city council, okay. Thank very much for that. Thank you very much for your indulgence, but we’re well out of time. So, thank you. You know we send you a copy to check for accuracy and that. Then, we’ll publish our report in due course. Thank you very much.
10:54
Papurau i’w Nodi Papers to Note
[183] Ann Jones: Can we just note that there’s a paper to note in the public part of this meeting? So, if everybody’s happy to note that, then we’ll discuss it later.
[184] Bethan Jenkins: We’re going to discuss it?
[185] Ann Jones: Yes, we’re going to discuss it afterwards.
[186] Bethan Jenkins: Alright, fine then, that’s okay.
[187] Ann Jones: You note it.
Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42(ix) i Benderfynu Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o Weddill y Cyfarfod Motion under Standing Order 17.42(ix) to Resolve to Exclude the Public from the Remainder of the Meeting
Cynnig:		Motion:
bod y pwyllgor yn penderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o weddill y cyfarfod yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.42(ix).		that the committee resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(ix).
Cynigiwyd y cynnig. Motion moved.
[188] Ann Jones: If we’re happy, I move Standing Order 17.42 that says we’re going to private, then we’ll discuss that after. Thank you very much.
Derbyniwyd y cynnig. Motion agreed.
Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am 10:55. The public part of the meeting ended at 10:55.