Firstly, Minister, with regard to the gender pay gap, which you are aiming to eliminate by 2050, the data that is frequently used—and it has even been used in the 'Well-being of Wales: 2021' report—is a measurement based on median full-time hourly earnings. This simple measurement collates the salaries of men and women and divides them by 37 to give an hourly rate. It then adds hourly pay data that is only available for a small number of businesses. By including this data, you then arrive at the median or middle value of the data set.

But, the problem with using this data is that it doesn't reflect the complexity of pay relationships across the employed sector of society. For instance, it does not take into consideration experience, levels of qualification, additional benefit entitlements, pension relationships, and it does not take into consideration the profitability of businesses or even industry standards when comparing pay between company executives.

Furthermore, it doesn't consider gender behaviour. For example, are men more likely to travel further distances than women to access work, and are therefore able to access higher paying roles? What about geographical variance? Do those living on the border between England and Wales travel into England for work and therefore access higher average salaries? Are women more likely to change jobs than men and, as a result, experience more entry-level salaries? The list can go on. But, what we do know is that women are more likely to work fewer hours, to support families, and that taking time out to have children substantially increases the gender gaps. But, what consideration is given as to whether or not this is reflected by men in the family, such as working longer hours, or by changing jobs for higher salaries to support their families? Ultimately, we need to know how this is taken into consideration.

The problem with using this milestone, based upon such crude data, is that the Government and the future generations commissioner are conditioning society—particularly women in society—to think that they are inherently underpaid to do the same job as men. Yet, you have no substantive evidence that understands the complexity of gender pay, from what I can see, to actually back that up. I'm concerned that, in your continued promotion of the gender pay gap without the necessary data to support it, you are actually causing more harm than good, by creating a division that isn't there.

From your very crude analysis, you have reported that women are paid 1.5 per cent more, on average, than men for part-time work, which indicates that there isn't an institutional underpayment of women in the workplace. But, as previously highlighted, there are far more complex factors at play, which need to be understood. Thus, given the continued variance in the data, you may already be hitting your milestone targets, but until you have accurately measured gender pay differences that reflect the complexity of gender in the workplace, you will never know, which ultimately means that including this milestone is pointless.

In my mind, a more meaningful milestone target would be just to have an employment rate of 60 per cent for disabled people. Now, that would be an ambitious milestone. For the avoidance of doubt, I want to point out—and I do want it on the record—that I believe passionately that everyone should have equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender, sex, race, disability or religion. I make these comments because I unfortunately see the potential for this Government to start designing future legislation to meet its targets, which it hasn't properly understood.

Secondly, to expand on this argument I want to very briefly touch upon a point mentioned in the 'Well-being of Wales: 2021' report, under the gender section, concerning education. It's reported that from foundation phase to key stage 3, a higher proportion of girls than boys achieve the expected outcomes. Girls also continue to achieve better educational outcomes at GCSE, and a higher proportion of them, aged 16 to 18, remain in full-time education when compared to boys. This is also the case for those aged 18 to 24.

What concerns me, and I suspect concerns a great many others, is whether or not improving girls' education is coming at the expense of boys' education. In reality, if there was a gender balance, you should always get a slightly higher proportion of girls or boys attaining higher grades in any given year, but over a set period, this would average out. However, the fact that you are reporting this trend means that teaching methods seem to have potentially changed to favour girls against boys. I would personally be interested in seeing an elimination of this educational attainment gap in the second wave of future generations milestones.

Thirdly and finally, I think that it is a very worthwhile target to aim to reduce the number of 16 to 24-year-olds who are not in employment, education or training. I believe that empowering young people with a work ethic is essential in helping them to maximise their potential. As we know, studies have shown that time spent as a NEET can have a detrimental effect on physical and mental health, and it increases the likelihood of unemployment, low wages or low-quality work later on in life. But the target you have set for 2050 is to reduce the number of NEETs to only 10 per cent for 16 to 24-year-olds, and given that this is a 30-year target, this is pretty unambitious, especially given that the current number of NEETs in England is already 10.6 per cent. Minister, having a target of 10 per cent is not really a milestone, it is? It is fairly meaningless, given that the current situation in Wales, as of 2020, is that 13.9 per cent of people aged 16 to 24—