Well, if Members aren't aware, I'm responding as Chair of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee rather than in a party capacity.

Well, as Chair of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee, now abbreviated as PAPAC, I must remind Members that the role of this committee is to scrutinise the efficient and effective use and administration of public resources, which cuts across all areas of Welsh Government business. It is practice for committee Chairs to receive Welsh Government responses to committee reports in writing, enabling detailed consideration by the committee. But we only received a written response last Wednesday, and the committee doesn't meet until tomorrow. Furthermore, PAPAC reports, and ministerial responses to them, are not usually debated via ministerial statement. The approach taken by the Welsh Government today is therefore considered discourteous, as is the replacement, only yesterday, of a tabled statement with a title, which included our report, by a generic statement—the statement being debated now.

Minister, do you recognise that this is not the usual way for a committee report to be responded to, and that this does not allow for an adequate debate or discussion on this very important cross-cutting issue? I advise the Minister that the committee will consider tabling a further Plenary debate on this where a previous Plenary debate in March preceded the Welsh Government's response.

The Minister has referred to the three reports published relating to the Act, namely the previous Public Accounts Committee report, the Auditor General for Wales report and the future generations commissioner's report. However, responses to the latter two have not even yet been shared by the Welsh Government. The fifth Senedd Chairs' forum tasked the then Public Accounts Committee to undertake an inquiry into the implementation of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, involving other committees in its work. The subsequent report recognised, in recommendations 13 and 14, that the Business Committee of the sixth Senedd should give consideration to how scrutiny of the Act should be taken forward. The Equality and Social Justice Committee now does have remit for the Act, but, in responding to these recommendations, the Business Committee stated that making one committee responsible for scrutiny of the implementation of the well-being of future generations Act will hopefully ensure it receives focused post-legislative scrutiny, but this need not be done in isolation from the work of other committees. Do you therefore recognise the important point here, that any scrutiny of this Act has to be undertaken collaboratively, and that PAPAC will maintain a key role in this work?

Minister, I only received the Welsh Government's response to the PAC report, as you know, last Wednesday, with its acceptance in principle only of the majority of the report's recommendations directed at the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government explained this approach was taken where they agreed with the recommendations themselves but not their timetable for delivery or the means in which to achieve the recommendation. Why, when the Permanent Secretary previously gave the Public Accounts Committee a commitment, in January 2018, to end the practice, in light of Members' concerns that acceptance in principle did not constitute an adequate response to all but one of your responses, accept in principle only? Further, do you recognise that it is not clear how the Welsh Government has agreed with the recommendations, even in principle? Although many of the Welsh Government's responses suggest there is other activity being undertaken, do you accept that implementation of legislation requires monitoring, evaluation, and a clear timetable, not only for the recommendations you have agreed to in principle, but also for the implementation of the Act? It's regrettable—[Interruption.]