1

THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALESAUDIT COMMITTEE

Report presented to the National Assembly for Wales on 2 March 2004 in accordancewith section 102(1) of the Government of Wales Act 1998

The Disposal of the Mid Wales HospitalContents Paragraphs

Introduction 1-6

The adequacy of guidance applying to NHS property disposals 7-8

The adequacy of record keeping 9-13

Risk management 14-16

Maintaining a demonstrably level playing field in dealing with business counterparts 17-20

The proper roles of NHS Chairs and senior officials 21-25

The importance of notifying potentially novel and contentious transactions to theAssembly’s NHS Department 26-27

Our overall view on the value for money of the disposal and decommissioning process 28

Recommendations 29

Concluding comments 33-31

AnnexesAnnex A – Relevant Proceedings of the Committee - Minutes of Evidence (Thursday 24 October 2002 and

Thursday 15 January 2004)

Annex B – Letter from Ann Lloyd, Director of NHS Wales of 30 December 2002 setting out how new

guidance has addressed issues raised in the Auditor General for Wales report of 16 October 2002 and the

Committee evidence session of 24 October 2002.

Annex C – Letter from Ann Lloyd, Director of NHS Wales of 10 February 2004 on further actions being

taken by the Assembly’s NHS Department to improve the handling of disposal and decommissioning of

NHS property

Annex D – the Audit Committee

2

Introduction1. In this report, we examine the disposal of the Mid Wales Hospital at Talgarth by the Dyfed Powys

Health Authority (the Health Authority), together with the subsequent leasing of part of the site by

the Powys Health Care NHS Trust (the Trust). The Mid Wales Hospital was a substantial mental

hospital, built at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, that became surplus to NHS

requirements in the 1990s because of changes in the provision of mental healthcare.

2. On 24 October 2002, on the basis of a report by the Auditor General for Wales on the disposal of the

hospital1, our predecessor Committee took evidence2 from Mrs Ann Lloyd, Director of NHS Wales,

Neil Jones, Principal Estates Surveyor in the Assembly’s Estates Division and Nigel Towns, Acting

Chief Executive of Dyfed Powys Health Authority. During that evidence session, certain statements

were made by the witnesses regarding the role of a retired official in relation to the documentation of

the disposal3, the changes in land-use planning criteria affecting the site4 and the purchaser’s fax to

the Secretary of State of 17 May 19995. The Committee wished to follow-up these points. The

Committee also received detailed allegations concerning the disposal process in extensive

correspondence from members of the public, both immediately before and after the 24 October 2002

evidence session. These included an allegation that the purchaser had received improper rental

payments of £80,000 from Powys Health Care NHS Trust in respect of the Trust’s lease of part of

the site immediately following the sale.

3. In the light of this situation, the Auditor General for Wales suggested that he should extend his

review to address additional points of concern to the Committee. The Committee welcomed this

proposal. Drawing on further examination work by staff of the National Audit Office Wales, the

Auditor General for Wales presented a memorandum to the new Committee on 8 January 2004.

4. On the basis of this memorandum, on 15 January 2004 the Committee took further evidence6 from

Mrs Ann Lloyd, Director of NHS Wales, Andrew Williams, Chief Executive of Powys Local Health

Board (successor body to Powys Health Care NHS Trust) and Allan Coffey, Chief Executive of

Monmouth Local Health Board and former Director of Finance and Acting Chief Executive of

Powys Health Care NHS Trust.

5. The Auditor General had concluded in his report of 16 October 2002 that the Health Authority’s

handling of the disposal was regular, was proper in so far as evidence was available and that overall

it was conducive to achieving good value for money. However, he also found there to be certain

1 Auditor General for Wales (AGW) report, The Disposal of the Mid Wales Hospital, presented to the NationalAssembly for Wales on 16 October 2002.2 Annex A, 24 October 20023 24 October 2002 Q264 24 October 2002 Qs 105-1195 24 October 2002 Qs 42,43, 45, 46, 60, 67 and 686 Annex A, 15 January 2004

3

departures from good practice in terms of ensuring propriety, failures to keep records to demonstrate

proper practice and omissions that could have jeopardised value for money in other circumstances7.

In his memorandum of 8 January 2004, the Auditor General found that, despite some additional

explanations for the absence of documentation, the further work confirmed his original conclusions

on the Health Authority’s handling of the disposal. He also concluded that the Trust’s handling of its

lease fell short of good practice in a similar manner to the Health Authority’s handling of the

disposal. In particular, the Trust kept inadequate records of decisions and negotiations. Overall,

however, the Auditor General was satisfied that, throughout the disposal process, officials of both the

Health Authority and the Trust pursued the best interests of the NHS, and secured value for money

without jeopardising the well-being of patients8.

6. This report sets out our main findings arising from our consideration of the evidence presented to us

in the Auditor General’s 16 October 2002 report, his 8 January 2004 memorandum and by the

witnesses appearing before us on 24 October 2002 and 15 January 2004. We have also taken full

account of the matters and views put to us by correspondents. We consider five major themes that

run through the disposal and decommissioning process:

� the adequacy of guidance to NHS bodies concerning property disposals;

� the adequacy of record keeping by the Health Authority and the Trust;

� risk management issues;

� the need to maintain a demonstrably level “playing field” in dealing with business counterparts;

and

� the proper roles of Chairs and senior officials.

We also consider the importance of notifying potentially novel and contentious transactions to the

Assembly’s NHS Department. Finally, we give our view on the overall value for money of the

disposal and decommissioning process. Throughout this report, we set out our recommendations for

the NHS Wales Department and individual NHS bodies across Wales.

The adequacy of guidance applying to NHS property disposals7. We are pleased that, since our first evidence session on this matter, the NHS Department has issued

new guidance regarding the disposal of the NHS Estate9. The new guidance has endorsed the

application of the Estatecode to all NHS bodies, as recommended by the Auditor General in his

report of 16 October 200210. The new guidance has also set out the detailed requirements on NHS

7 AGW 16 October 2002 report, Executive Summary paragraphs 4-118 AGW 8 January 2004 memorandum paragraphs 51-549 WHEL (02)09 and WHC(2002)130 (see Annex B)10 AGW 16 October 2002 report, Executive Summary paragraph 12

4

bodies handling property disposals, such as the need for them to acquaint prospective advisers from

the private sector with public accountability requirements, so as to ensure regularity, propriety and

value for money in such transactions. It therefore also assists in addressing the Auditor General’s

eleven other recommendations. We strongly recommend that NHS bodies should adhere rigidly

to the requirements of WHC(2002)130 on property disposals.

8. During our first evidence session, we became concerned that explicit guidance was not available to

NHS bodies on ensuring that disposals were conducted so as to promote sustainable development,

despite the requirements placed on these bodies by the Government of Wales Act 1998 (which came

into force in January 2000)11. We were particularly concerned that this requirement was paid lip

service but was not being fully met. We note that Mrs Lloyd, the Director of the Assembly’s NHS

Department, confirmed to us that future property disposals would fully take into account sustainable

development factors, and that sustainable development would be included in new guidance that was

to be issued12. We also note that the new guidance13 issued by the Assembly’s NHS Department

refers to a full examination of sustainable development issues to be undertaken as part of the revision

of the Estatecode for Wales by summer 2003. We seek confirmation from the Assembly's NHS

Department that, following this latest revision, the Estatecode for Wales now fully addresses

sustainable development issues. We also recommend that the Assembly’s NHS Department

should review the efficacy of its guidance to NHS bodies on sustainable development and

ensure that it is being properly adhered to.

The adequacy of record keeping9. We were most concerned at the Auditor General’s finding in his report of 16 October 2002 that there

were four instances of the Health Authority not keeping records documenting major decisions

regarding the disposal process. These were the decision to proceed with a split conveyance, the

consideration and rejection of advice to obtain an independent valuation, the informing of potential

purchasers of changes to land-use planning criteria since October 1998 and the consideration of

clawback14. We were unimpressed by the Acting Chief Executive of Dyfed Powys Health

Authority’s reference to a meticulous former member of staff15. Likewise we were hardly reassured

by his explanation that all records were kept in storage as secure items along with other records such

patient records16. We find the explanations, such as there are, identified in the Auditor General’s 8

January memorandum plausible17. Nevertheless, we do not consider the explanations provided to us

by various NHS officials to be justifications for these failings, and we view it as a dereliction of duty

11 24 October 2002 Qs 3-1212 24 October 2002 Q313 WHC(2001)130, see Annex B14 AGW 16 October 2002 report, paragraph 2.4015 24 October 2002 Q2616 24 October 2002 Q136 and 13717 AGW 8 January memorandum, paragraphs 9 to 15

5

that the Health Authority was unable to produce adequate records for review by the Auditor

General's team18.

10. The Auditor General reported in his memorandum of 8 January 2004 that Powys Health Care NHS

Trust did not retain a full record of a formal risk assessment to establish the cost of its early

surrender of its lease on part of the hospital site19, and that negotiations with its landlord to secure an

early surrender of that lease were not fully minuted20. These findings have deepened our concern

that poor documentation of estates business may be endemic in NHS bodies across Wales. The

documentation of business demonstrates the awareness of risks, gives assurance on probity and gives

protection against subsequent allegations of impropriety. It is in the interests of both NHS bodies

and individual members of staff to keep full and proper records of their actions. We therefore find it

appropriate that that the Assembly’s NHS Department’s recent guidance (WHC(2002)130) reminds

NHS bodies of the requirement under the Estatecode for all decisions and matters relating to property

disposals, including telephone conversations and discussions at meetings, to be fully and clearly

recorded21.

11. In the case of the costing of the early surrender of the lease, we note that District Audit retained a

record of the Trust’s estimates of the cost of surrendering the lease. Had District Audit not retained

such a record, we would have had concerns that that these figures might have been invented by the

Trust after the event22. However, we view such reliance on the records maintained by external

auditors as inappropriate. The proper role of the auditor is to provide independent assurance on the

accounting and use of public money; it is for the Trust to maintain adequate records of the basis for

decisions taken.

12. Turning next to the lack of full minutes of the negotiations between the Trust and Chancefield

Estates Ltd to surrender the lease on the site, we note the explanation of the former Finance Director

of the Trust that this was because some of those meetings were of an informal nature23. However,

we do not find this explanation acceptable. We cannot see how it could ever be appropriate when

dealing with public funds to take such an informal approach to recording negotiations with a third

party. We recommend that the Assembly’s NHS Department should make it explicit in

guidance that meetings to negotiate commercial transactions should never be regarded as

“informal”, and that such meetings should always be minuted.

13. In addition to our concerns at these failures to provide a full account of decisions for accountability

purposes, we are also concerned that the inability of both the Health Authority and the Trust to

18 24 October 2002 Q8219 AGW 8 January memorandum, paragraph 3920 AGW 8 January memorandum, paragraph 4121 15 January 2004 Q3 and Annex C22 AGW 8 January memorandum, paragraph 47 and 15 January 2004 Q3823 15 January 2004 Q44

6

produce records of key decisions, or records of the fate of such documents, indicates that NHS

bodies in Wales may find it difficult to comply with their obligations under the Freedom of

Information Act 200024. We therefore recommend that the Assembly’s NHS Department and all

NHS bodies should review whether they have made adequate preparations for the

commencement of the general right of access under the Freedom of Information Act in

January 2005. Where they conclude their preparedness to be inadequate, they should take

remedial action as a matter of urgency.

Risk management14. All NHS bodies are required to have robust procedures in place for the identification, assessment and

management of risk. For the most part (and notwithstanding the documentation failures referred to

above), we are content that both the Health Authority and the Trust managed the risks associated

with the disposal of the Mid Wales Hospital appropriately. However, we do consider that there were

some significant risk management deficiencies at both organisations.

15. In respect of the Health Authority’s disposal of the hospital, we appreciate that a valuation for

disposal purposes is an estimate of market value and is not a substitute for actual exposure to the

market25. We also recognise that market valuation will be difficult where there is a lack of

comparable market information. However, we consider that obtaining an up to date valuation

specifically for the purpose of disposal is a useful safeguard against the risk of selling property at

substantially below market value, or later being accused of doing so. We therefore welcome the

specific reference in the Assembly’s NHS Department’s recent guidance on disposals to the

requirement in future to obtain formal and up to date valuations26.

16. On the Trust’s agreement of its lease of part of the hospital site from the eventual purchaser, we note

that photographic records may not capture underlying structural conditions27. We also accept that

there are differences in professional opinion regarding the efficacy of photographic records as a

means of preventing excessive claims for dilapidations28. However, we note that the Trust had

prepared a photographic survey for its “own records”29, and we therefore suspect that there is less

disagreement on this point in reality than was apparent amongst the witnesses at our evidence session

on 15 January 2004. We therefore recommend that NHS bodies that lease property should

make use of schedules of condition, or at least visual records of the property, and in the case of

the latter, where possible, agree them with their landlords, as a means of managing the risk of

excessive claims for dilapidations.

24 24 October 2002 Qs 84 - 8625 24 October 2002 Qs 21-25 and 32-3726 WHC (2002) 130, Annex B27 15 January 2004 Q3428 15 January 2004 Qs 29 and 3029 15 January 2004 Q28

7

Maintaining a demonstrably level playing field in dealing withbusiness counterparts17. We were concerned at the absence of comprehensive documentary evidence to show that the Health

Authority’s agent had fulfilled its undertaking to inform all potential purchasers of proposed changes

to the local land-use plan30. We are reassured that prospective purchasers were encouraged to contact

the local planning authority regarding planning matters31. We also acknowledge that it is not

practicable for NHS bodies or their agents to be conduits for all matters relating to planning, or to

undertake to inform purchasers of every possible planning change (particularly in relation to

proposed, as opposed to adopted, land-use planning criteria), as such representations may create

considerable potential liability to the public purse. However, we remain concerned that, as with the

handling of bids, the processes for communicating changes that are likely to affect value should

ensure a “level playing field” and that they should demonstrate that this is the case. We consider that

the best way of achieving this is to communicate such changes in writing to all prospective

purchasers and to retain a full record of such communications. We are therefore pleased that in its

recent guidance32 the Assembly’s NHS Department has required NHS bodies to make such

communications in writing. We recommend, for the avoidance of doubt, that NHS bodies

handling disposals should retain full records of their communications with prospective

purchasers of any changes likely to affect value.

18. We were astonished to learn that the elementary precaution of requiring sealed, unmarked bids, to be

opened in the presence of a witness, was not employed in the Health Authority’s final attempt to sell

the site in May 199933. We found this departure from best practice especially surprising given that

such procedures were used by the Health Authority in the first informal tendering process initiated in

July 199834. We have no doubt that an informal tendering approach was itself appropriate, given the

modest commercial potential of the site35 and the element of uncertainty regarding the time needed to

relocate the remaining patients36. Also, in the light of the details of the bids received in May 1999,

we find that there is no credible evidence to support the allegations of improper disclosure of bids37.

However, we consider that it was wholly inappropriate to omit a precaution that would have

safeguarded not only against improper disclosure of the details of bids but also substantially reduced

the risk to the Health Authority of subsequent allegations of impropriety.

19. We recognise that it may be necessary for public sector bodies to explain to private sector agents that

these precautions are necessary when dealing with public sector assets, as the particular expectations 30 AGW 16 October 2002 report, paragraph 2.3031 24 October 2002 Q106 and AGW 8 January 2004 paragraph 1232 WHC (2002) 130, para 17 (Annex B)33 AGW 16 October 2002 report, Executive Summary paragraph 5, and 24 October 2002 Q54 to 5534 24 October 2002 Q19 and AGW 16 October 2002 report, paragraph 2.3435 24 October 2002 Q3836 24 October 2002 Q43

8

of public sector propriety do not necessarily apply within the private sector. We welcome the

inclusion of a requirement in the Assembly’s NHS Department’s recent guidance on disposals38 that

NHS bodies ensure that all prospective private sector advisers are fully acquainted with public

accountability requirements. Nevertheless, we recommend that NHS bodies should draw the

particular attention of private sector agents to the specific requirement for the sealed bids

procedures when undertaking informal tenders.

20. We became concerned during our evidence session on 24 October 2002 that the handling of bids had

potentially been undermined by the receipt on 17 May 1999 of a fax from the eventual purchaser to

the Secretary of State requesting an extension to the deadline, which was on that day39. The Director

of NHS Wales assured us at our evidence session on 15 January 2004 that this had not been a late

bid, in the sense of being received after the deadline, but rather a request for an extension of time for

the submission of supporting information40. Although the purchaser made no actual use of the

twelve-hour extension that was granted to her—the information was supplied on time—we consider

that it was inappropriate for that extension to have been made to only one of the prospective

purchasers. We therefore recommend that the Welsh Assembly Government should draw to

the attention of all public officials dealing with disposals the need to maintain and demonstrate

a “level playing field” in their dealings with prospective purchasers.

The proper roles of NHS Chairs and senior officials21. With regard to Powys Health Care NHS Trust’s surrender of its lease of part of the hospital site, we

consider that the attendance of the Chair of the Trust at negotiations with Chancefield Estates Ltd

was most unwise41. We note and concur with the Director of NHS Wales’ helpful exposition to us of

the proper respective roles of the Chair and Chief Executive of an NHS body42.

22. We emphasise the Chair’s role in scrutiny. The primary role of the Chair is to lead the Board, which

in turn scrutinises the decision-making of the executive managers and ensures that they are

conducting the organisation’s business with probity and proper governance. The Chair has to ensure

that the information and the issues discussed by the Board are appropriate and well-informed. As

Mrs Lloyd put it to us, Chairs have to be the “conscience” of their organisations; they have to able to

assure themselves and their Boards, and the general public, that the business conducted by their

organisations is open and above suspicion. Therefore, Chairs must not involve themselves in day-to-

day executive operations. If they do so, they inevitably prejudice their ability to reach judgements

with their non-executive Board colleagues about the actions and recommendations of executive

managers within the organisation.

37 AGW 16 October 2002 report, paragraph 2.3538 WHC (2002) 130, para 9 (Annex B)39 24 October 2002 Qs 60-8040 15 January 2004 Q5

9

23. By contrast, the Chief Executive is primarily responsible to the Board for the operations of the

organisation and for the establishment and maintenance of robust management systems. As the

Accountable Officer, they have the additional duty of making sure that adequate internal controls are

in place, and making sure that the whole of the resource over which they exercise stewardship is

used effectively. In this capacity of Accountable Officer, they are accountable directly to the

Director of NHS Wales and to this Committee.

24. We note that over the past 18 months the Director of NHS Wales has taken action, through

appraisals, and training and development activities, to make clear the proper roles of Chairs and

Chief Executives43. We are pleased to have learned that in the past 18 months there has been no

confusion of role on the scale that occurred at Powys Health Care NHS Trust in relation to the

surrender of its lease of part of the Mid Wales Hospital. We also note the Director of NHS Wales’

specific assurance to us that, where some minor confusions have arisen, she has dealt with them

quickly44.

25. We were alarmed to learn from the Trust's former Finance Director and Acting Chief Executive his

reasons for not informing the Auditor General of the payment of £120,000 for the surrender of the

lease when given the opportunity to comment on the factual accuracy and completeness of a draft of

the Auditor General’s 16 October 2002 report45. In particular, it was most worrying to hear his

statement that, having contacted District Audit in 2000 about the transaction, “in my mind I had

already involved audit”46. In our view, this comment betrays a lack of understanding on his part of

the role of the Auditor General in the audit and accountability processes of NHS Wales. In light of

this, we recommend that the Director of NHS Wales should use the appraisal process to ensure

that her Accountable Officers have a proper understanding of the respective distinct roles of

NHS appointed auditors and the Auditor General for Wales.

The importance of notifying potentially novel and contentioustransactions to the Assembly’s NHS Department26. We note the failure of Powys Health Care NHS Trust to notify its proposed lease surrender

transaction in accordance with the December 1998 guidance on novel and contentious transactions47.

Such a referral would have helped the Trust to obtain appropriate guidance, as well as providing

assurance to both the Trust and the Assembly’s NHS Department on the propriety of the transaction.

We recognise that the requirement to notify the Department of such transactions did not form part of

41 15 January 2004 Q6842 15 January 2004 Q6743 15 January 2004 Q6944 15 January 2004 Q7245 15 January 2004 Q1746 15 January 2004 Q1947 15 January 2004 Q98

10

the Trust’s standing financial instructions of the time.48 However, we entirely agree with the Director

of NHS Wales that it would nevertheless have been wise for the Trust to have notified the NHS

Department of the proposed transaction. We recommend that the Director of NHS Wales should

ensure that the standing financial instructions for NHS bodies place emphasis on the

requirement to notify the Assembly’s NHS Department of novel and contentious payments.

27. We appreciate that the decision whether to notify the Department of a transaction requires the

exercise of judgement by senior managers and, ultimately, by Accountable Officers. However, we

recommend that NHS bodies should err on the side of caution in deciding whether to refer, or

inform, the Assembly’s NHS Department of unusual transactions.

Our overall view on the value for money of the disposal anddecommissioning process28. We sought to establish whether the Trust’s payment for the surrender of its lease of part of the

hospital site effectively represented an unwarranted discount from the sale price49. We note and

entirely accept the point made to us that the difficulties of achieving an orderly decommissioning

process, which took proper account of the over-riding importance of safeguarding patients’ needs,

would have applied irrespective of the identity of the eventual purchaser and the level of sale

proceeds50. We also recognise that maintaining the vacated site was a drain on resources and that, in

being vulnerable to fire and vandalism, it presented a potentially very large financial risk to the

public purse. We are therefore content that, taking these factors into account, and notwithstanding

the poor documentation and handling of certain aspects, which left much to be desired, the overall

disposal and decommissioning process was conducive to achieving value for money.

Recommendations29. In the light of these findings, we recommend that:

i. NHS bodies should adhere rigidly to the requirements of WHC(2002)130 on property

disposals;

ii. the Assembly’s NHS Department should review the efficacy of its guidance to NHS

bodies on sustainable development and ensure that it is being properly adhered to;

48 15 January 2004 Q9949 15 January 2004 Q1750 15 January 2004 Q16

11

iii. the Assembly’s NHS Department should make it explicit in guidance that meetings to

negotiate commercial transactions should never be regarded as “informal”, and that

such meetings should always be minuted;

iv. the Assembly’s NHS Department and all NHS bodies should review whether they

have made adequate preparations for the commencement of the general right of

access under the Freedom of Information Act in January 2005. Where they conclude

their preparedness to be inadequate, they should take remedial action as a matter of

urgency;

v. NHS bodies that lease property should make use of schedules of condition, or at least

visual records of the property, and in the case of the latter, where possible, agree

them with their landlords, as a means of managing the risk of excessive claims for

dilapidations;

vi. for the avoidance of doubt, NHS bodies handling disposals should retain full records

of their communications with prospective purchasers of any changes likely to affect

value;

vii. NHS bodies should draw the particular attention of private sector agents to the

specific requirement for the sealed bids procedures when undertaking informal

tenders;

viii. the Welsh Assembly Government should draw to the attention of all public officials

dealing with disposals the need to maintain and demonstrate a “level playing field” in

their dealings with prospective purchasers;

ix. the Director of NHS Wales should use the appraisal process to ensure that her

Accountable Officers have a proper understanding of the respective distinct roles of

NHS appointed auditors and the Auditor General for Wales;

x. the Director of NHS Wales should ensure that the standing financial instructions for

NHS bodies place emphasis on the requirement to notify the Assembly’s NHS

Department of novel and contentious payments; and

xi. NHS bodies should err on the side of caution in deciding whether to refer, or inform,

the Assembly’s NHS Department of unusual transactions.

Concluding Comments30. We are satisfied that the disposal and decommissioning of the Mid Wales Hospital was regular, and

that it was conducted without impropriety. However, there were several important departures from

good practice, such as the failure to use sealed bid procedures in the final sale, the failure to keep

12

records of key decisions and actions, and the attendance of the Chair of Powys Health Care NHS

Trust at negotiations to terminate the lease on part of the site. We are content that, despite these

failings, both the Dyfed Powys Health Authority and Powys Health Care NHS Trust in general

conducted this business in a manner that was conducive to obtaining value for money and which

took due account of the needs of patients.

31. We note that the Assembly’s NHS Department has already taken the important step of issuing new

guidance on the disposal of NHS property and that the expertise of the staff of Welsh Health Estates

will in future be drawn on more extensively by NHS bodies. Public perceptions of the actions of

NHS bodies are important, and we consider it crucial that the Director of NHS Wales continues to

instil in all NHS staff a greater awareness of the need not only to act with propriety, but to be seen to

do so.

Cynulliad Cenedlaethol CymruPwyllgor Archwilio

The National Assembly for WalesAudit Committee

Gwaredu Ysbyty Canolbarth CymruThe Disposal of the Mid Wales Hospital

Cwestiynau 1-149Questions 1-149

Dydd Iau 24 Hydref 2002Thursday 24 October 2002

24/10/2002

2

Aelodau o’r Cynulliad yn bresennol: Dafydd Wigley (Cadeirydd), Eleanor Burnham, AlunCairns, Janet Davies, Jocelyn Davies, Janice Gregory, Alison Halford, Ann Jones, Val Lloyd.

Swyddogion yn bresennol: Syr John Bourn, Archwilydd Cyffredinol Cymru; Lew Hughes,Swyddfa Archwilio Genedlaethol Cymru; Ceri Thomas, Swyddog Cydymffurfio CynulliadCenedlaethol Cymru; Mike Usher, Swyddfa Archwilio Genedlaethol Cymru.

Tystion: Ann Lloyd, Cyfarwyddwr, Cyfarwyddiaeth GIG Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru; NeilJones, Prif Syrfëwr Ystadau, Is-adran Ystadau Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru; Nigel Towns,Prif Weithredwr Dros Dro Awdurdod Iechyd Dyfed Powys.

Assembly Members present: Dafydd Wigley (Chair), Eleanor Burnham, Alun Cairns, JanetDavies, Jocelyn Davies, Janice Gregory, Alison Halford, Ann Jones, Val Lloyd.

Officials present: Sir John Bourn, Auditor General for Wales; Lew Hughes, National AuditOffice Wales; Ceri Thomas, National Assembly for Wales Compliance Officer; Mike Usher,National Audit Office Wales.

Witnesses: Ann Lloyd, Director, NHS Directorate, National Assembly for Wales; Neil Jones,Principal Estates Surveyor, Estates Division, National Assembly for Wales; Nigel Towns,Acting Chief Executive, Dyfed Powys Health Authority.

Dechreuodd y sesiwn cymryd tystiolaeth am 2.05 p.m.The evidence-taking session started at 2.05 p.m.

[1] Dafydd Wigley: Byddwn yn derbyntystiolaeth ar waredu Ysbyty CanolbarthCymru yn ystod y sesiwn hwn. Mae hyn yndeillio o geisiadau gan aelodau o’r cyhoedd.Bydd gennych gopi o’r adroddiad, ‘GwareduYsbyty Canolbarth Cymru’, a baratowyd ganSwyddfa Archwilio Genedlaethol Cymru arran Archwilydd Cyffredinol Cymru ac agyhoeddwyd ar 16 Hydref. Croesawaf eintystion gan ofyn iddynt gyflwyno eu hunaini’r Pwyllgor.

[1] Dafydd Wigley: We will be takingevidence on the disposal of the Mid WalesHospital during this session. This arises fromrequests from members of the public. Youwill have a copy of the report, ‘The Disposalof the Mid Wales Hospital’, prepared by theNational Audit Office Wales on behalf of theAuditor General for Wales, which waspublished on 16 October. I welcome ourwitnesses and ask them to introducethemselves to the Committee.

Ms Lloyd: I am Ann Lloyd, the director ofNHS Wales.

Ms Lloyd: Fi yw Ann Lloyd, cyfarwyddwrGIG Cymru.

Mr Jones: I am Neil Jones from the EstatesDivision at the National Assembly for Wales.

Mr Jones: Fi yw Neil Jones o Is-adranYstadau Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru.

Mr Towns: I am Nigel Towns, acting chiefexecutive of Dyfed Powys Health Authority.

Mr Towns: Fi yw Nigel Towns, prifweithredwr dros dro Awdurdod Iechyd DyfedPowys.

[2] Dafydd Wigley: Yr wyf yn ddiolchgariawn ichi am ddod ger ein bron i ateb ycwestiynau sydd gennym. Gofynnaf ycwestiwn cyntaf i Ann Lloyd, gan gyfeirio atbaragraffau 2.14 i 2.17 yn yr adroddiad. Aoes gan y cyrff hynny a ddaw o fewn y

[2] Dafydd Wigley: I am very grateful to youfor appearing before us to answer ourquestions. I will ask the first question to AnnLloyd, referring to paragraphs 2.14 to 2.17 inthe report. Do those bodies that come withinthe national health service have clear

24/10/2002

3

gwasanaeth iechyd gwladol arweiniad cliri’w ddilyn ar gyfer gwarediadau?

guidance to follow on disposals?

Ms Lloyd: At the moment, the situation thatis outlined in those paragraphs still stands. AWelsh health circular is just about to beissued that brings together all the latestguidance available to the NHS in Wales toensure that there is a consistency of approach.As you will be aware from reading theAuditor General’s helpful report, NHS trustsare already bound by Estatecode, but that wasnot applied consistently to the residual estateof health authorities. I expect that we shall beable to issue the complete guidance in thenext six weeks.

Ms Lloyd: Ar hyn o bryd, mae’r sefyllfa aamlinellir yn y paragraffau hynny yn dal ynwir. Mae cylchlythyr iechyd Cymru ar fincael ei gyhoeddi sy’n dwyn ynghyd yr hollganllawiau diweddaraf i’r GIG yng Nghymrui sicrhau bod dulliau gweithredu’n gyson. Fely byddwch yn ymwybodol o ddarllenadroddiad defnyddiol yr ArchwilyddCyffredinol, mae ymddiriedolaethau GIGeisoes wedi’u rhwymo gan Estatecode, ondni weithredwyd hwnnw’n gyson i ystadweddilliol awdurdodau iechyd. Yr wyf yndisgwyl y byddwn yn gallu cyhoeddi’rcanllawiau cyflawn yn y chwe wythnosnesaf.

[3] Janet Davies: I am coming in early witha question that I realise has policyimplications, which we cannot look at. I fullyaccept that. However, it also has financialand social implications. As I understand it,the health service is bound by Treasuryrequirements to get the best price for anyproperty that is sold. It seems to me that, ifthat is a requirement, it is a very formalrequirement and demands absolute, down-the-line, strict adherence to recorded andformal procedures—which I am sure we willgo into later on—including formal tendering.However, there is also what I would call,perhaps, some moral issue of benefit to thecommunity arising out of the disposal ofproperties. Of course, these two clash prettyfundamentally. I accept the difficulties forDyfed Powys Health Authority, in particular,on this. However, I have to ask whether thereis a case for looking at the issue ofcommunity benefit. It is, perhaps, somethingthat this Committee might possibly wish tothink about recommending to higherauthorities at the end, when we are producingour own report. I wonder, Ms Lloyd, if youwould like to comment on that.

[3] Janet Davies: Yr wyf am ofyn cwestiwnyn gynnar yn y sesiwn, a gwn fod ganddooblygiadau polisi na allwn eu hystyried. Yrwyf yn derbyn hynny’n llwyr. Fodd bynnag,mae ganddo oblygiadau ariannol achymdeithasol hefyd. Fel y deallaf, mae’rgwasanaeth iechyd wedi’i rwymo ganofynion y Trysorlys i sicrhau’r pris gorau amunrhyw eiddo a werthir. Os mai dyna’rgofyniad, mae’n ymddangos i mi ei fod ynofyniad ffurfiol iawn ac yn gofyn amymlyniad llwyr, manwl gywir, caeth iweithdrefnau ffurfiol a chofnodedig—ybyddwn yn eu trafod yn ddiweddarach mae’nsiŵr—gan gynnwys tendro ffurfiol. Foddbynnag, mae yna hefyd yr hyn y byddwn i’nei ddisgrifio, efallai, fel mater moesol buddi’r gymuned hefyd yn codi o waredu eiddo.Wrth gwrs, mae’r ddau beth yn gwrthdaro’nsylfaenol. Yr wyf yn derbyn bod hyn ynanodd i Awdurdod Iechyd Dyfed Powys ynbenodol. Fodd bynnag, mae’n rhaid imi ofyna ddylid ystyried mater budd cymunedol.Efallai y gallai’r Pwyllgor hwn ystyried eiargymell i awdurdodau uwch ar y diwedd,pan fyddwn ni’n llunio ein hadroddiad einhunain. Oes gennych chi sylwadau ar hyntybed, Ms Lloyd?

Ms Lloyd: You will be aware that, under theGovernment of Wales Act 1998 and sinceJanuary 2000, the whole policy of sustainabledevelopment applies to the NHS as well.From that time, we have had to consider thebenefits of our actions on the whole of thecommunities that we serve within the specific

Ms Lloyd: Byddwch yn ymwybodol, o danDdeddf Llywodraeth Cymru 1998, ac ersIonawr 2000, fod yr holl bolisi o ddatblygucynaliadwy yn berthnasol i’r GIG hefyd. Ershynny, yr ydym wedi gorfod ystyried lles einholl waith i’r holl gymunedau yr ydym yn eugwasanaethu mewn lleoliadau penodol. Felly,

24/10/2002

4

locations. So it is one of the tests that have tobe applied and will be included within theguidance that is issued. Some long time ago,back in 1984, there was also a requirementthat consideration should be given in regardto disposals of the impact on the communitybut that guidance was repealed in 1985. Thisparticular transaction has fallen within thatbarren period. However, it is certainlysomething that is picked up in the guidance.

mae’n un o’r profion sy’n rhaid ei weithredua bydd yn cael ei gynnwys yn y canllawiau agyhoeddir. Beth amser yn ôl, yn 1984, yroedd hefyd ofyniad i ystyried effaith gwareduar y gymuned ond diddymwyd ycyfarwyddyd hwnnw yn 1985. Mae’rgwerthiant hwn yn perthyn i’r cyfnod llwmhwnnw. Fodd bynnag, mae’r canllawiau ynsicr yn rhoi sylw pendant i hyn.

[4] Janet Davies: Right. So you are actuallyconfirming that any future sales of propertywill have the sustainable development issuefully considered?

[4] Janet Davies: O’r gorau. Felly, yr ydychyn cadarnhau y bydd datblygu cynaliadwy yncael ei ystyried yn llawn wrth werthu eiddoyn y dyfodol?

Ms Lloyd: Yes. Ms Lloyd: Ydwyf.

[5] Alison Halford: First of all, was MrJones around in 1997 to 1999 when all thishappened?

[5] Alison Halford: Yn gyntaf oll, a oedd MrJones o gwmpas yn 1997 i 1999 panddigwyddodd hyn oll?

Mr Jones: Yes. Mr Jones: Oeddwn.

[6] Alison Halford: You are the one personthat we can lay hands on—feel your collarsort of thing. So, you were using the 1984national health service handbook. I have anote here that slightly contradicts what JanetDavies is saying. It says that, where thedistrict health authority decides that there isno further NHS use for land or buildings, itshould consider how the disposal of theproperty will give the greatest benefit to itsarea. Well, that does not always meaneconomic benefit, does it?

[6] Alison Halford: Chi yw’r unig un ygallwn fynd i’r afael ag ef, fel petai. Felly, yroeddech yn defnyddio llawlyfr 1984 ygwasanaeth iechyd gwladol. Mae gennyfnodyn yma sy’n gwrth-ddweud i raddau yrhyn y mae Janet Davies yn ei ddweud. Mae’ndweud y dylai awdurdod iechyd dosbarthystyried sut y bydd gwaredu eiddo yn rhoi’rbudd mwyaf i’r ardal pan fydd yn penderfynunad yw tir neu adeiladau o ddefnydd pellachi’r GIG. Wel, nid yw hynny bob amser yngolygu budd economaidd, nac ydyw?

[7] Dafydd Wigley: I think that Ann Lloydreferred to a change that took place in 1985,that overrode the 1984 guidance. Is that thecase, Mr Jones?

[7] Dafydd Wigley: Yr wyf yn meddwl bodAnn Lloyd yn cyfeirio at newid addigwyddodd yn 1985, a ddisodloddgyfarwyddyd 1984. A yw hynny’n gywir, MrJones?

Mr Jones: I understand that that is true, yes. Mr Jones: Yr wyf yn deall bod hynny’n wir,ydy.

[8] Alison Halford: So what happened? The1984 guidance went to 1995, and now it haschanged again, in effect?

[8] Alison Halford: Felly bethddigwyddodd? Parhaodd cyfarwyddyd 1984tan 1995, ac yn awr mae wedi newid eto, ibob pwrpas?

[9] Dafydd Wigley: No. It went to 1985; itonly lasted for a year. May I take this on? Itis an important consideration. Are there anycircumstances in which it is permissible to

[9] Dafydd Wigley: Na. Parhaodd tan 1985;dim ond am flwyddyn y bu mewn grym. Agaf i barhau â hyn? Mae’n ystyriaeth bwysig.A oes unrhyw amgylchiadau lle y caniateir

24/10/2002

5

accept a lower price because the offer may becontributing to the wellbeing of thecommunity, or to the needs of the localcommunity, or towards other public policieswhich would not be achieved if just thehighest price was accepted? Are there anymechanisms up to 2000—the period underconsideration here—that could have beenconsidered in making a decision on thisproperty?

derbyn pris is oherwydd bod y cynnig obosibl yn cyfrannu at les y gymuned, neu atanghenion y gymuned leol, neu at bolisïaucyhoeddus eraill na fyddai’n cael eu cyflawnipe derbynnid y pris uchaf? A oes unrhywfecanweithiau hyd at 2000—y cyfnod sy’ncael ei ystyried yma—y gellid bod wedi’uhystyried wrth benderfynu ar yr eiddo hwn?

Mr Jones: My understanding is that, in orderto do that, it would have to come before theAssembly for the Assembly to give itsapproval to a sale at less than the best price.

Mr Jones: Er mwyn gwneud hynny, o’r hyna ddeallaf, byddai’n rhaid iddo ddod gerbrony Cynulliad i’r Cynulliad roi sêl ei fendith iwerthu am bris is na’r pris gorau.

[10] Dafydd Wigley: Or before the Secretaryof State for Wales up to July 1999, when theAssembly took over his powers?

[10] Dafydd Wigley: Neu gerbronYsgrifennydd Gwladol Cymru hyd Orffennaf1999, pan drosglwyddyd ei bwerau i’rCynulliad?

Mr Jones: Yes. Mr Jones: Ie.

[11] Dafydd Wigley: It was on that basis thatyou were acting?

[11] Dafydd Wigley: Ar y sail honno yroeddech chi’n gweithredu?

Ms Lloyd: Yes. Ms Lloyd: Ie.

[12] Dafydd Wigley: May I therefore askwhether the situation today, as referred to byAnn Lloyd a moment ago, is somewhatdifferent? Is it the situation that theguidelines under which Welsh Health Estatesis working are clearer today and that therewould not be any room for the uncertaintythat may have existed in the 1990s to beexperienced in any disposals today?

[12] Dafydd Wigley: A gaf fi, felly, ofyn ayw’r sefyllfa bresennol, y soniodd Ann Lloydamdani ychydig yn ôl, rywfaint yn wahanol?Ai’r sefyllfa yw bod y canllawiau y maeYstadau Iechyd Cymru yn eu dilyn yngliriach heddiw ac na fyddai unrhyw gyfleam yr ansicrwydd a allai fod wedi bodoli ynyr 1990au wrth waredu eiddo heddiw?

Ms Lloyd: As I said, Chair, the formalcircular will be issued in approximately thenext six weeks. Certainly, it has to take intoconsideration the issue of the WelshAssembly Government’s policy onsustainable development since January 2000.This would be one of the considerations thatwould have to be given. The trusts werebound by the Estatecode, and allmanagement of the disposal of their residualproperty is now handled by Welsh HealthEstates, which has very clear guidance andprocesses in terms of the way in which itconducts its business.

Ms Lloyd: Fel y dywedais, Gadeirydd, byddy cylchlythyr ffurfiol yn cael ei gyhoeddi ofewn y chwe wythnos nesaf, fwy neu lai. Ynsicr, mae’n rhaid iddo ystyried polisidatblygu cynaliadwy Llywodraeth CynulliadCymru ers Ionawr 2000. Dyma un o’rystyriaethau y byddai’n rhaid eu gwneud. Yroedd yr ymddiriedolaethau wedi’u rhwymogan yr Estatecode, ac Ystadau Iechyd Cymrusydd bellach yn rheoli’r holl broses o waredueu heiddo gweddilliol, ac mae gan YstadauIechyd Cymru ganllawiau a phrosesau cliriawn ynglŷn â’r ffordd y mae’n cynnal eifusnes.

[13] Dafydd Wigley: Would you say that theguidance and processes that now exist—

[13] Dafydd Wigley: A ydych o’r farn ybydd y canllawiau a’r prosesau sy’n bodoli

24/10/2002

6

whatever may happen over the next sixweeks to develop these—will lead to aposition where there is less risk ofaccusations being made of decisions beingtaken on bases that are not as acceptable, asappears to be the case in this instance?

erbyn hyn—beth bynnag a all ddigwydd drosy chwe wythnos nesaf i ddatblygu’r rhain—yn arwain at sefyllfa lle mae llai o berygl ogyhuddiadau’n cael eu gwneud bodpenderfyniadau’n cael eu gwneud ar seiliaunad ydynt yn dderbyniol, fel yr ymddengyssy’n wir yn yr achos hwn?

Ms Lloyd: Since disposals have beenmanaged by Welsh Health Estates, that givesus, and me in particular, a more powerfulscrutiny role. Therefore, I would feel in abetter position to be able to judge whether ornot all due process had been undertaken indisposing of a property than I think anybodyin my position was in 1999.

Ms Lloyd: Ers i Ystadau Iechyd Cymruddechrau rheoli’r gwaith o waredu eiddo,mae gennym ni, a fi yn benodol,swyddogaeth archwilio fwy pwerus. Felly,byddwn i’n teimlo fy mod mewn gwellsefyllfa na rhywun yn fy sefyllfa i yn 1999, fegredaf, i allu barnu a ddilynwyd y drefnbriodol ai peidio wrth waredu eiddo.

[14] Dafydd Wigley: In other words, you areidentifying that the situation in 1999 was nottotally satisfactory?

[14] Dafydd Wigley: Mewn geiriau eraill, yrydych yn dweud nad oedd y sefyllfa’n gwblfoddhaol yn 1999?

Ms Lloyd: Well, as we have public scrutinyof this, and some very helpfulrecommendations about how we tighten ourprocedures, then it was not as perfect as weintend it to be.

Ms Lloyd: Wel, gan fod archwiliadcyhoeddus o hyn, a rhai argymhelliondefnyddiol iawn ar sut i dynhau eingweithdrefnau, nid oedd pethau mor berffaithag yr oeddem ni wedi’i fwriadu.

[15] Dafydd Wigley: I am grateful. [15] Dafydd Wigley: Diolch yn fawr.

[16] Ann Jones: You have mentioned havingthis new scrutiny role, or more of a scrutinyrole. What other actions will the NHSdepartment and Welsh Health Estates take inorder to ensure that public accountabilityrequirements are made quite clear to anyprivate sector advisers?

[16] Ann Jones: Yr ydych wedi sôn am gaely swyddogaeth archwilio newydd hon, neufwy o swyddogaeth archwilio. Pa gamaueraill y bydd adran y GIG ac Ystadau IechydCymru yn eu cymryd er mwyn sicrhau bodgofynion atebolrwydd cyhoeddus yn cael euhegluro i ymgynghorwyr o’r sector preifat?

Ms Lloyd: Well, there are a number of thingsthat we can do, and the recommendations ofthe National Audit Office are very helpful inthis respect. First, we have to ensure that theguidance is absolutely clear, so that all NHSbodies disposing of property understandexplicitly what they have to do in order toeffectively dispose of their property. Thereare a whole host of issues about making quiteclear the requirement to keep scrupulousrecords, to test the market effectively, toensure that valuation is up to date and ispractical and can be implemented, and thatyou start to market the property at the rightlevel without undue aspirations. Also, it isimportant that my department—Mr Jones ispart of my department—and Welsh HealthEstates work very closely together to ensure

Ms Lloyd: Wel, mae nifer o bethau y gallwneu gwneud, ac mae argymhellion y SwyddfaArchwilio Genedlaethol yn ddefnyddiol iawnyn hyn o beth. Yn gyntaf, mae’n rhaid i nisicrhau bod y canllawiau yn gwbl glir, felbod pob corff GIG sy’n gwaredu eiddo yndeall yn glir beth sy’n rhaid iddynt ei wneuder mwyn gwaredu eu heiddo’n effeithiol.Mae llu o faterion ynghylch nodi’n glir ygofyniad i gadw cofnodion manwl, profi’rfarchnad yn effeithiol, sicrhau bod y prisiadyn gyfredol, yn ymarferol a bod modd eiweithredu, a’ch bod yn dechrau marchnata’reiddo ar y lefel gywir heb ddyheadaugormodol. Hefyd, mae’n bwysig bod fy adrani—mae Mr Jones yn aelod o’r adran—acYstadau Iechyd Cymru yn cydweithio’n glòsi sicrhau bod yr holl weithdrefnau wedi’u

24/10/2002

7

that all the procedures are properly outlinedand that all partners understand what theirrole is, so that we can be quite clear that thecodes of conduct and governance underwhich NHS organisations in Wales have tooperate can be effectively operated.

hamlinellu’n briodol a bod yr holl bartneriaidyn deall beth yw eu swyddogaeth, fel ygallwn fod yn glir bod modd gweithredu’neffeithiol y codau ymddygiad a llywodraethuy mae’n rhaid i sefydliadau GIG yn Nghymrulynu atynt.

[17] Ann Jones: Many thanks. How do yousee that fitting in with chartered surveyorsand the private companies and bodies thatyou will have to look towards? Do you feelthat perhaps the less rigorous openingprocedure adopted by the agent in May 1999,in this case, indicates that private sectorprofessional advisers may not be as familiarwith public sector accountabilityrequirements as we expect public bodies tobe? Do you think that there is a problemthere?

[17] Ann Jones: Diolch yn fawr. Sut ydychchi’n gweld hynny’n gweithio gydathirfesurwyr siartredig a’r cwmnïau a’r cyrffpreifat y bydd yn rhaid i chi droi atynt? Aydych yn teimlo bod y weithdrefn agoriadollai manwl o bosibl a fabwysiadwyd gan ygwerthwr ym Mai 1999, yn yr achos hwn, ynnodi nad yw ymgynghorwyr proffesiynol ysector preifat mor gyfarwydd, o bosibl, âgofynion atebolrwydd y sector cyhoeddus agy disgwyliwn i gyrff cyhoeddus fod? Aydych chi’n credu bod problem o ran hynny?

Ms Lloyd: Well, I cannot answer for thewhole of the private professional practice, butcertainly we will be making sure that theorganisations that are disposing of theirproperty give very, very clear guidance to theprivate contractors about what they expectfrom them. In particular, in terms of thewhole tendering process and the opening oftenders, it is routine in the NHS that tendersare opened as described within this documentin terms of the first time that tenders weresought. We would not expect anyprofessionals hired by us to undertakeresponsibilities on our behalf not to operatethose procedures, and I think that it has beenhelpful actually that it has been highlightedhere, because we can reinforce that guidance.

Ms Lloyd: Wel, ni allaf ateb dros yr hollsector proffesiynol preifat, ond yn bendantbyddwn yn sicrhau bod y sefydliadau sy’ngwaredu eu heiddo yn rhoi canllawiau cliriawn, iawn i gontractwyr preifat ar yr hynsy’n ddisgwyliedig ganddynt. Yn benodol, oran y broses dendro gyfan ac agor cynigiontendr, trefn arferol y GIG yw agor cynigiontendro fel y disgrifir yn y ddogfen hon o ran ytro cyntaf y gwahoddwyd tendrau. Ni fyddemyn disgwyl i unrhyw weithwyr proffesiynol agyflogwyd gennym i gyflawni cyfrifoldebauar ein rhan i beidio gweithredu’rgweithdrefnau hynny, ac yr wyf yn credu bodtynnu sylw at hyn yma wedi bod ynddefnyddiol, gan y gallwn gadarnhau’rcanllawiau hynny.

[18] Ann Jones: Okay, thanks. [18] Ann Jones: Iawn, diolch.

[19] Dafydd Wigley: Were you surprisedthat that process was not followed the secondtime around?

[19] Dafydd Wigley: A gawsoch chi’chsynnu na ddilynwyd y broses yr ail waith?

Ms Lloyd: I have not known a process not tobe followed in that way before.

Ms Lloyd: Ni chefais brofiad tebyg o beidiodilyn proses.

[20] Dafydd Wigley: That is unique in yourexperience?

[20] Dafydd Wigley: Mae hynny’n unigrywyn eich profiad chi?

Ms Lloyd: Well, I fortunately have alwaysworked in the NHS, and we have alwaysfollowed a very tight procedure. Certainly,from the point of view of a chief executivewithin the NHS, one would have expected the

Ms Lloyd: Wel, yn ffodus yr wyf wedigweithio yn y GIG ar hyd fy oes, ac yr ydymbob amser wedi dilyn gweithdrefn dyn iawn.Yn bendant, o safbwynt prif weithredwr yn yGIG, byddai rhywun yn disgwyl i’r

24/10/2002

8

private contractors to operate to our givenstandards.

contractwyr preifat weithio i’n safonaupenodedig ni.

[21] Janice Gregory: I will address myquestion to Nigel Towns, if I may, MrTowns. I refer to paragraph 2.21 of thereport. The report suggests that everyonefollowed the appropriate legal andprofessional advice and yet, if you read onfurther and look at the disparity between thefigures, it would appear that a formalvaluation for disposal purposes was notsought. Are you able to tell us what were thereasons for that?

[21] Janice Gregory: Yr wyf am ofyncwestiwn i Nigel Towns, os y caf fi, MrTowns. Cyfeiriaf at baragraff 2.21 yn yradroddiad. Mae’r adroddiad yn awgrymu bodpawb wedi dilyn y cyngor cyfreithiol aphroffesiynol priodol, ac eto, os darllenwchchi ymlaen ac edrych ar y gwahaniaethrhwng y ffigurau, ymddengys na ofynnwydam brisiad ffurfiol at ddibenion gwaredu. Aallwch ddweud wrthym beth oedd yrhesymau am hynny?

Mr Towns: As you are probably aware,Chair, the person who dealt with this is nolonger employed by us and has actuallyretired. We have been through the recordsand I think that a valuation was taken, in theoutset, from a district valuer. I think, if theproperty had been on the market for aconsiderable amount of time, you would havebeen testing the market to make sure thevaluation had not changed. We were in touch,obviously, with the agents who wereappointed, who are expected to get the bestprice for us—in fact, it is in their interest todo so because they are paid commission onthe sale price—and our organisation was alsoin touch with Welsh Health Estates. So, Ithink in this instance—and I think that isborne out by the eventual sale price and theoffers that we had—that the valuation, whichwas around about the £350,000 mark, wascurrent and valid. I think, if you were goingfor a long period of time, that you wouldkeep testing the market. The other thing tobear in mind is that the site is sort ofunattractive; I think it has been described ascommercially unattractive. It is not in a largeconurbation, where property values mightchange dramatically in a short period of time.

Mr Towns: Fel y gwyddoch mae’n siŵr,Gadeirydd, nid yw’r sawl a ddeliodd â hyn yngweithio gyda ni mwyach ac mae wediymddeol. Yr ydym wedi bod drwy’rcofnodion ac yr wyf yn credu bod yr eiddowedi’i brisio, ar y dechrau, gan brisiwrdosbarth. Pe bai’r eiddo wedi bod ar yfarchnad am beth amser, byddech wedi bodyn profi’r farchnad i sicrhau nad oedd yprisiad wedi newid. Yr oeddem mewncysylltiad, yn amlwg, gyda’r gwerthwyr abenodwyd, yr oedd disgwyl iddynt sicrhau’rpris gorau i ni—a dweud y gwir, mae hynnyo fudd iddynt gan eu bod yn cael comisiwn ary pris gwerthu—ac yr oedd ein sefydliadmewn cysylltiad hefyd ag Ystadau IechydCymru. Felly, yn yr achos hwn—a chredaf yradlewyrchir hynny yn y pris gwerthu terfynola’r cynigion a gawsom—credaf fod y prisiad,oedd oddeutu £350,000, yn gyfredol ac ynddilys. Credaf, pe byddai hyn yn parhau amgyfnod hir, y byddech yn profi’r farchnad ynbarhaus. Y peth arall i’w gofio yw bod y safleyn eithaf anneniadol; yr wyf yn meddwl eifod wedi’i ddisgrifio fel safle anneniadol ynfasnachol. Nid yw mewn cytref fawr, lle gallgwerth eiddo newid yn ddramatig mewncyfnod byr.

[22] Dafydd Wigley: Before you come backin, Janice, can I just press you a little furtheron what you said, Mr Towns? You said that,by virtue of the fact that the price obtainedwas of the order of the valuation, thatindicated that the original valuation, severalyears before, was more or less right. Would itnot have been the case that if guidance wasbeing given that that was the ball park inwhich offers were invited, it was hardlysurprising that the offers came in somewhere

[22] David Wigley: Cyn i chi ofyncwestiynau pellach, Janice, a gaf i bwysoarnoch chi ymhellach ynglŷn â’r hyn addywedasoch, Mr Towns? Dywedasoch,drwy rinwedd y ffaith bod y pris a gafwyd ynganlyniad i’r prisiad, fod hynny’n dangos body prisiad gwreiddiol, sawl blwyddynynghynt, fwy neu lai yn gywir. Onid yw’nwir dweud, os oedd canllawiau wedi’u rhoiynglŷn â’r rhychwant cynigion oedd yndderbyniol, nad ydoedd yn syndod o gwbl

24/10/2002

9

in that ball park? bod y cynigion a ddaeth i law o fewn yrhychwant hwnnw?

Mr Towns: I think that you could draw thatconclusion, but there was very little interestin the site other than by the people who areoutlined in the report.

Mr Towns: Yr wyf yn meddwl y gallechddod i’r casgliad hwnnw, ond ychydig iawn oddiddordeb a oedd yn y safle ac eithrio gan ysawl a amlinellwyd yn yr adroddiad.

[23] Dafydd Wigley: I am sure we will comeback to that. Sorry, Janice.

[23] Dafydd Wigley: Yr wyf yn siŵr ybyddwn yn dychwelyd at hynny. Mae’nddrwg gen i, Janice.

[24] Janice Gregory: May I press you a littlefor the benefit of those who do not perhapshave the report in front of them? What wasthe original valuation you were discussing?

[24] Janice Gregory: A gaf fi bwyso arnochchi rywfaint er mwyn y rhai nad oesganddynt o bosibl gopi o’r adroddiad o’ublaenau? Beth oedd y prisiad gwreiddiol yroeddech yn ei drafod?

Mr Towns: I think that it was £348,600— Mr Towns: Yr wyf yn meddwl mai£348,600 ydoedd—

[25] Janice Gregory: Right, £348,600. Andwhat was the actual sale price, at the time ofthe sale?

[25] Janice Gregory: Iawn, £348,600. Abeth oedd y pris gwerthu, ar adeg y gwerthu?

Mr Towns: It was £355,000. Mr Towns: Y pris oedd £355,000.

[26] Janice Gregory: That was the price atthe time of the sale? So you are content, then,that everything that could have been donewas done? I appreciate that you were notparty to it at the time.

[26] Janice Gregory: Ai dyna’r pris ar adegy gwerthu? Felly yr ydych yn fodlon bodpopeth y gellid bod wedi’i wneud wedi caelei wneud? Yr wyf yn derbyn nad oeddech yngysylltiedig â’r mater ar y pryd.

Mr Towns: I think, as the reportrecommends—there are changes that itrecommends and I think that we need to takethose on board. Again, knowing theindividual concerned, I cannot understandwhy some of these things were notundertaken. The individual concerned wasmeticulous and thorough and I cannotunderstand why some of these things werenot recorded. Perhaps we cannot find thedocumentation for it. However, I think thatwe need to follow the recommendations tomake sure that we do get the best value.

Mr Towns: Credaf, fel y mae’r adroddiad ynei argymell—mae newidiadau y mae’n eiargymell a chredaf y dylem dderbyn yrargymhellion hynny. Eto, o adnabod yrunigolyn dan sylw, ni allaf ddeall pam nawnaethpwyd rhai o’r pethau hyn. Yr oedd yrunigolyn dan sylw yn drwyadl a thrylwyr acni allaf ddeall pam na chofnodwyd rhai o’rpethau hyn. Efallai nad ydym yn gallu dod ohyd i’r ddogfennaeth ar ei gyfer. Foddbynnag, credaf fod angen i ni ddilyn yrargymhellion i sicrhau ein bod yn cael ygwerth gorau.

[27] Dafydd Wigley: Alison, you wanted tocome in before we go on?

[27] Dafydd Wigley: Alison, yr oeddech chiam ddweud rhywbeth cyn i ni symudymlaen?

[28] Alison Halford: I hope I am not cuttingacross somebody else’s questions. I foundthis whole situation exceedingly complicatedso please bear with me if I ask silly questions.

[28] Alison Halford: Yr wyf yn gobeithionad wyf yn torri ar draws cwestiynau rhywunarall. Mae’r holl sefyllfa hon yn gymhlethiawn i mi felly byddwch yn amyneddgar os

24/10/2002

10

Surely, Mr Towns, the site became muchmore attractive sometime in June 1997, did itnot?

ydwyf yn gofyn cwestiynau twp, os gwelwchyn dda. Afraid dweud, Mr Towns, i’r safleddod yn fwy deniadol rywbryd ym Mehefin1997?

Mr Towns: That was with the planning? Mr Towns: Gyda’r caniatâd cynllunio yrydych yn ei feddwl?

[29] Alison Halford: Yes. [29] Alison Halford: Ie.

Mr Towns: I think that the planning waschanged. We—both the Powys DistrictHealth Authority in 1995 and the DyfedPowys Health Authority in 1996—objectedto the local plan of the Brecon BeaconsNational Park. A Welsh Office inspectorrecommended changes to the planning inFebruary 1998 and that was notified to us inOctober 1998, by the national park, to sort offree up the planning. What it was not going todo, as I understand it, was to make it a sort ofwholesale development, like we have had onsome hospital sites, where the whole site hasbeen redeveloped and a considerable numberof houses have been put on there. But the—

Mr Towns: Yr wyf yn meddwl i’r caniatâdcynllunio gael ei newid. Fe wrthwynebomni—Awdurdod Iechyd Dosbarth Powys yn1995 ac Awdurdod Iechyd Dyfed Powys yn1996—gynllun lleol Parc CenedlaetholBannau Brycheiniog. Argymhelloddarolygydd o’r Swyddfa Gymreig newidiadaui’r caniatâd cynllunio yn Chwefror 1998 achawsom ein hysbysu o hynny yn Hydref1998, gan y parc cenedlaethol, er mwynllacio’r caniatâd cynllunio. Yr hyn nad oeddam ei wneud, fel y deallaf, oedd ei wneud ynfath ar ddatblygiad cyfanwerthol, fel ygwelwyd gyda rhai safleoedd ysbytai, llemae’r safle cyfan wedi’i ail-ddatblygu a nifersylweddol o dai wedi’u codi yno. Ond—

[30] Alison Halford: So what was theplanning permission?

[30] Alison Halford: Felly, beth oedd ycaniatâd cynllunio?

[31] Dafydd Wigley: May we come back tothat? There is a later section on this. It doeshave a bearing, clearly, on the valuation and Iaccept that. I will call you back in when wecome to this point a little later on. I want tostick to the valuation for the moment becauseI think that Val has a point that links intothat.

[31] Dafydd Wigley: A gawn ddychwelyd athynny? Mae adran ar hyn yn ddiweddarach.Mae’n dylanwadu, yn bendant, ar y prisiad acyr wyf yn derbyn hynny. Galwaf arnoch iofyn cwestiwn pan ddeuwn ni at y pwynthwn maes o law. Yr wyf am aros gyda’rprisiad ar hyn o bryd gan fod gan Val bwyntsy’n gysylltiedig â hynny.

[32] Val Lloyd: I think Ms Lloyd or MrTowns would be best to answer this. Do youconsider that not having a formal valuationexposed the authority to accusations ofimpropriety?

[32] Val Lloyd: Yr wyf yn meddwl mai MsLloyd neu Mr Towns fyddai’n gallu ateb hynorau. A ydych yn ystyried bod peidio â chaelprisiad ffurfiol yn golygu y gellid bod wedicyhuddo’r awdurdod o weithredu’namhriodol?

Mr Towns: I think that that is an accusationthat people could make. However, once theyhave read the report, it says that things couldhave been done better, like the recordkeeping, but the conclusion of the report doesnot suggest impropriety.

Mr Towns: Yr wyf yn meddwl bod hynny’ngyhuddiad y gallai pobl ei wneud. Foddbynnag, unwaith y byddant wedi darllen yradroddiad, mae’n dweud y gellid bod wedigwneud pethau’n well, fel cadw cofnodion,ond nid yw’n dod i’r casgliad bod yrawdurdod wedi gweithredu’n amhriodol.

[33] Val Lloyd: No. I very much hear what [33] Val Lloyd: Na. Yr wyf yn

24/10/2002

11

you are saying but, of course, that is withhindsight, is it not? I suppose the whole oftoday’s session is about hindsight, to someextent, but clearly there have been allegationsmade in the press that the hospital was sold atless than its market value. Do you feel,perhaps, that not having a formal valuationhas meant that you have not been able torefute those allegations?

gwerthfawrogi’r hyn yr ydych yn ei ddweud,ond wrth gwrs, onid yw hynny wrth edrychyn ôl? Mae’n debyg bod yr holl sesiwnheddiw yn ymwneud ag edrych yn ôl, i rywraddau, ond fe wnaed cyhuddiadau yn y wasgfod yr ysbyty wedi’i werthu am bris is na’iwerth ar y farchnad. A ydych yn teimlo,efallai, bod peidio â chael prisiad ffurfiolwedi golygu nad ydych wedi gallugwrthbrofi’r cyhuddiadau hynny?

Mr Towns: I do not think so. Mr Towns: Nid wyf yn meddwl hynny.

[34] Dafydd Wigley: May I press you furtheron that? Had you had valuations thatconfirmed the value or, indeed, set a newvalue, would that not have been a sounderbasis on which to justify and defend theposition?

[34] Dafydd Wigley: A allaf eich pwysoymhellach ar hynny? Pe baech wedi caelprisiadau a oedd yn cadarnhau gwerth yrysbyty neu yn wir, yn pennu gwerth newydd,oni fyddai hynny wedi bod yn sail fwy cadarni gyfiawnhau ac amddiffyn y sefyllfa?

Mr Towns: Of course, the valuations couldhave been lower as well.

Mr Towns: Wrth gwrs, gallai’r prisiadau fodwedi bod yn is hefyd.

[35] Dafydd Wigley: They might well havebeen lower, but in that case at least—thepeople had the right to know what the marketvaluation was. Do you want to come back inon this, Val?

[35] Dafydd Wigley: Efallai’n wir eu bod ynis, ond yn yr achos hwnnw o leiaf—yr oeddgan y bobl yr hawl i wybod beth oedd pris yfarchnad. Ydych chi am ddod i mewn ar hyn,Val?

[36] Val Lloyd: No, I was going to say moreor less the same thing.

[36] Val Lloyd: Nag ydw, yr oeddwn ynmynd i ddweud mwy neu lai yr un peth.

[37] Dafydd Wigley: Right. We come backto you, Alison, in that case.

[37] Dafydd Wigley: Iawn. Deuwn yn ôlatoch chi, Alison, felly.

[38] Alison Halford: Thanks very muchindeed. Could you, for my benefit, andhopefully for the benefit of others, explain—Ido not care who does it—what the differenceis between a formal tender, an informaltender, a best and final offer and whateverother little jollies we have had in the AuditorGeneral’s report?

[38] Alison Halford: Diolch yn fawr iawn. Aallwch, er fy mwyn i, ac eraill gobeithio,egluro—nid oes wahaniaeth gennyf pwy sy’ngwneud—beth yw’r gwahaniaeth rhwngtendr ffurfiol, tendr anffurfiol, cynnig gorau atherfynol ac unrhyw bethau difyr eraill anodwyd yn adroddiad yr ArchwilyddCyffredinol?

Mr Jones: If I may just try to explain someof those, at least, the formal tender is a tenderwhich, when accepted, has to be followedthrough. So if a purchaser puts in a £350,000bid, and it is accepted, he has to then goahead. So he has to be very certain of thevalue of the property to him in that situation.That would mean that he would have toprobably go through asbestos tests, andground tests, and all the tests that wouldsatisfy him that he could use the property for

Mr Jones: Os caf geisio egluro rhai o’rpethau hynny, o leiaf, mae’r tendr ffurfiol yndendr sy’n rhaid ei ddilyn trwodd ar ôl cael eidderbyn. Felly, os yw prynwr yn gwneudcynnig o £350,000, sy’n cael ei dderbyn,mae’n rhaid iddo fynd ymlaen â’r gwaithwedyn. Felly, mae’n rhaid iddo fod yn sicriawn o werth yr eiddo iddo ef yn y sefyllfahonno. Byddai hynny’n golygu y byddai’nrhaid iddo, mae’n debyg, wneud profionasbestos, a phrofion daear, a’r holl brofion a

24/10/2002

12

his purposes. That comes at considerable costand there are circumstances where it iscertainly very appropriate. If you had a 100-acre site that had full residential developmentpotential on it, it would cost a very smallproportion of the value of the site toundertake all those tests.

fyddai’n ei fodloni y gallai ddefnydio’r eiddoi’w ddibenion ef. Mae hynny’n gostsylweddol ac mae amgylchiadau lle maehynny’n briodol iawn. Yn sicr, pe baigennych safle 100 erw â photensial llawn iddatblygu cartrefi arno, cyfran fechan iawn owerth y safle fyddai’n rhaid ei thalu i wneudyr holl brofion hynny.

An informal tender is one where someonecan put in a bid in which, if it is accepted, thepurchaser can then go through all those testsand possibly negotiate his way out of the bidat the end of the day. Quite often, informaltenders, when accepted, do not reach aconclusion. That is the risk that we take whenwe offer a property on the market underinformal circumstances. It is my belief that ifwe had offered this particular property on themarket on a formal basis we would not havehad any bids at all.

Tendr anffurfiol yw un lle y gall rhywunwneud cynnig, ac os yw’n cael ei dderbyngall y prynwr wneud yr holl brofion hynnyac, o bosibl, dynnu ei enw o’r cynnig ar ôltrafod yn y pen draw. Yn eithaf aml, nid ywtendrau anffurfiol sy’n cael eu derbyn yn caeleu cwblhau. Dyma’r risg yr ydym yn eigymryd wrth roi eiddo ar y farchnad danamgylchiadau anffurfiol. Yn fy marn i, pebaem wedi cynnig yr eiddo hwn ar y farchnadar sail anffurfiol ni fyddem wedi cael unrhywgynigion o gwbl.

[39] Alison Halford: So which one did youactually end up with then?

[39] Alison Halford: Felly, pa fath o dendr agawsoch yn y pen draw?

Mr Jones: With an informal tender. Mr Jones: Tendr anffurfiol.

[40] Alison Halford: Okay. [40] Alison Halford: Iawn.

Mr Jones: You asked about best and finalbids. If we have an informal tender which hasa clear leader, which is substantially aboveany other bid, then we would not go to bestand final bids. If, however, there are severalbidders in the same ball court and we thinkthat, with a little persuasion, they might offermore, or a more conclusive bidder mayemerge, we can ask them for best and finalbids.

Mr Jones: Gofynnoch am gynigion gorau atherfynol. Os oes gennym dendr anffurfiolsydd ag arweinydd clir, sy’n sylweddol uwchnag unrhyw gynnig arall, yna ni fyddem ynmynd at gynigion gorau a therfynol. Foddbynnag, os oes sawl cynigydd yn debyg i’wgilydd a’n bod yn credu y gallent gynnigmwy, gydag ychydig berswâd, neu y byddaicynigydd mwy pendant yn dod i’r fei, gallwnofyn iddynt am gynigion gorau a therfynol.

[41] Dafydd Wigley: May I just ask you—sorry to cut across, Alison—how that restswith Ann Lloyd’s earlier comments withregard to the formal system, which you quiteclearly advocate?

[41] Dafydd Wigley: A gaf i ofyn i chi—mae’n ddrwg gen i dorri ar eich traws,Alison—sut mae hynny’n cyd-fynd âsylwadau cynharach Ann Lloyd ar y systemffurfiol, yr ydych yn amlwg o’i phlaid?

Mr Jones: No, I do not think so. I think thatthe previous question still referred to aninformal tender, but in sealed envelopes.

Mr Jones: Na, nid wyf yn credu hynny.Credaf fod y cwestiwn blaenorol yn dal igyfeirio at dendr anffurfiol, ond mewnamlenni wedi eu selio.

Ms Lloyd: You still have to go through theprocess.

Ms Lloyd: Mae’n rhaid i chi fynd drwy’rbroses doed a ddêl.

[42] Dafydd Wigley: Right. So you accept [42] Dafydd Wigley: Iawn. Felly yr ydych

24/10/2002

13

that there could be informal tenders in sealedenvelopes, and that the system could havebeen worked sealed although it would still bean informal—

yn derbyn y gallai fod tendrau anffurfiolmewn amlenni wedi’u selio, ac y gallai’rsystem fod wedi gweithio dan sêl er ybyddai’n dal i fod yn dendr anffurfiol—

Mr Jones: Absolutely. However, if I maymake the point, in this case, we would nothave had the final purchaser if we hadinsisted on it being in a sealed envelopebecause she approached us by fax.

Mr Jones: Yn hollol. Fodd bynnag, os caf iwneud y pwynt, yn yr achos hwn, ni fyddemwedi cael y prynwr terfynol pe baem wedimynnu cael y cynnig mewn amlen wedi eiselio gan ei bod wedi cyflwyno’r cynnigdrwy’r ffacs.

[43] Dafydd Wigley: By fax? Right, so thequestion of how one handles fax in this dayand age is something that is no doubtexercising you. Would you like to commenton that, Ann Lloyd?

[43] Dafydd Wigley: Drwy’r ffacs? Iawn,felly mae sut y mae rhywun yn trafod y ffacsyn yr oes sydd ohoni yn rhywbeth sy’n eichpoeni. A fyddech yn hoffi rhoi sylwadau arhynny, Ann Lloyd?

Ms Lloyd: Yes, that is exercising us and thatis why we are trying to ensure that we can getaround that problem. There are ways of doingit, because it happens occasionally, but westill require formal or informal sealedtenders. May I just add something that didnot come through in the Auditor General’sreport, which might help this situation? Aformal tender is binding on both sides, and itmust be remembered that when this propertywas offered for sale, there were patients inthere. Although it states in figure 2 thatPowys District Health Authority had said thatthe site would be vacated in 1997-98, it wasnot in fact—there were still 70 patients livingin this hospital, and obviously our firstconcerns were for them. So we could notoffer a formal tendering process because itwould be binding on our side to remove thepatients for completion of the sale. Therefore,I can imagine that the thought process was—Icannot say whether this is true or not; it is notdocumented—that you would go for aninformal tendering process knowing that anyformal tender would have to be binding oneach side, and we had patients to look afterthere.

Ms Lloyd: Mae hynny’n destun pryder i ni adyna pam yr ydym yn ceisio sicrhau ein bodyn gallu datrys y broblem honno. Mae ffyrddo’i wneud, gan ei fod yn digwydd weithiau,ond mae tendrau ffurfiol neu anffurfiol wedieu selio yn ofynnol o hyd. A gaf i ychwanegurhywbeth nad oedd yn eglur yn adroddiad yrArchwilydd Cyffredinol a allai helpu’rsefyllfa hon? Mae tendr ffurfiol yn rhwymo’rddwy ochr, ac mae’n rhaid cofio bod cleifionyn yr ysbyty pan roddwyd yr eiddo hwn arwerth. Er ei fod yn datgan yn ffigur 2 fodAwdurdod Iechyd Dosbarth Powys wedidweud y byddai’r safle yn cael ei wacáu yn1997-98, ni ddigwyddodd hynny—yr oedd70 o gleifion yn dal i fyw yn yr ysbyty hwn, ahwy oedd ein blaenoriaeth wrth reswm. Felly,nid oeddem yn gallu cynnig proses dendroffurfiol gan y byddai yn ein rhwymo i symudy cleifion er mwyn cwblhau’r gwerthiant.Felly, gallaf ddychmygu mai’r proses feddwloedd—ni allaf ddweud a yw hyn yn wir aipeidio; nid yw wedi’i gofnodi—y byddech ynmynd am broses dendro anffurfiol gan wybody byddai unrhyw dendr ffurfiol yn gorfodrhwymo’r ddwy ochr, a bod gennym gleifioni ofalu amdanynt yno.

[44] Dafydd Wigley: That helps to clarifythings.

[44] Dafydd Wigley: Mae hynny’n gymorthi egluro pethau.

[45] Alison Halford: I am not sure that itdoes for me, Chair, but thank you. So youhave the informal tender and we think thatthe deadline was 17 May in some particularyear. Is there any good reason why thesafeguard of unmarked bids, simultaneously

[45] Alison Halford: Nid wyf yn siŵr ayw’n egluro pethau i mi, Gadeirydd, onddiolch i chi. Felly, tendr anffurfiol ydoedd acyr ydym yn credu mai 17 Mai o rywflwyddyn oedd y dyddiad cau. A oes rheswmda pam na ellid gweithredu’r mesur

24/10/2002

14

opened, should not be applied to best andfinal offer invitations? What is your answerto that, please? Here we have some peopleallegedly doing it the way that they think isthe proper way, and then it would appear thatsomebody at the eleventh hour can fax theSecretary of State for Wales, and that is thebid that is carried. That strikes me asexceedingly odd.

diogelwch a ddefnyddir gyda chynigion hebeu marcio, sy’n cael eu hagor ar yr un pryd, iwahoddiadau cynnig gorau a therfynol?Allwch chi ateb hynny, os gwelwch chi’ndda? Mae gennym ni yma bobl sy’n gwneudpethau mewn ffordd sy’n briodol yn eu tŷbhwy, ac yna mae’n ymddangos y gall rhywunffacsio Ysgrifennydd Gwladol Cymru ar yrunfed awr ar ddeg a bod y cynnig hwnnw’ncael ei dderbyn. Mae hynny’n fy nharo i ynrhyfedd iawn.

Mr Jones: Yes, it is certainly very unusualfor any bid to go to the Secretary of State forWales. We had no control over where thebidder sent her bids, but we were prepared toaccept her offer.

Mr Jones: Ydy, yn sicr, mae’n anarferoliawn i unrhyw gynnig fynd at YsgrifennyddGwladol Cymru. Nid oedd gennym reolaethdros ble yr oedd y cynigydd yn anfon eicheisiadau, ond yr oeddem yn barod idderbyn ei chynnig.

[46] Alison Halford: Were you not a littlesurprised by that? An agent was workingwith this, the health authority was workingwith this, and then somebody fires off a faxto the Secretary of State.

[46] Alison Halford: Oeddech chi ddimwedi’ch synnu i ryw raddau gan hynny? Yroedd gwerthwr yn gweithio ar hyn, yr oeddyr awdurdod iechyd yn gweithio ar hyn, acyna mae rhywun yn anfon ffacs at yrYsgrifennydd Gwladol.

Mr Jones: It is most unusual. Mr Jones: Mae’n anarferol iawn.

[47] Alison Halford: How would they findout the number? In my world, I would noteven know how to fax a Secretary of State,quite frankly.

[47] Alison Halford: Sut y byddent yn dod ohyd i’r rhif? Yn fy myd i, ni fyddwn i hyd ynoed yn gwybod sut i ffacsio YsgrifennyddGwladol, a dweud y gwir.

[48] Alun Cairns: I want to press this pointfurther. If I am buying a house through anestate agent—I am simplifying this so that Ican understand it—the estate agent is usuallyquite strict and says that all offers must bemade through the agency. Why was itdifferent in this example?

[48] Alun Cairns: Yr wyf am wthio’r pwynthwn ymhellach. Os wyf yn prynu tŷ drwywerthwr tai—yr wyf yn symleiddio hyn fel ygallaf fi ei ddeall—mae’r gwerthwr tai felrheol yn eithaf llym ac yn dweud fod yn rhaidgwneud pob cynnig drwyddynt hwy. Pam fodpethau’n wahanol yn yr enghraifft hon?

Mr Jones: You are testing my memory. Iknow that she got in contact with theSecretary of State. I do not think that that wasthe bid that was accepted; the bid thatreached us was accepted.

Mr Jones: Yr ydych yn profi fy nghof. Gwnei bod wedi cysylltu â’r YsgrifennyddGwladol. Nid wyf yn meddwl mai dyna’rcynnig a dderbyniwyd; y cynnig a’ncyrhaeddodd ni a dderbyniwyd.

[49] Alun Cairns: Yes, but still, should it nothave gone through the agents that were beingused to sell the property?

[49] Alun Cairns: Ie, ond yr un fath, oniddylai fod wedi mynd drwy’r gwerthwyr aoedd yn cael eu defnyddio i werthu’r eiddo?

Mr Jones: When I say ‘us’, I mean thedisposal team, if you like, which included theagent.

Mr Jones: Pan yr wyf yn sôn amdanom ‘ni’,cyfeiriaf at y tîm gwaredu, os mynnwch, aoedd yn cynnwys y gwerthwr eiddo.

24/10/2002

15

[50] Dafydd Wigley: Am I not right insaying that the approach to the Secretary ofState was to get an extension of the time andthat, in fact, she may have put the applicationin on the previous day—the day before thefinal extension that was sought—but was itnot surprising that an approach would bemade to the Secretary of State for anextension of the time?

[50] Dafydd Wigley: Onid yr wyf yn iawn iddweud ei bod hi wedi mynd at yrYsgrifennydd Gwladol i gael estyniad ar yramser a’i bod, o bosibl, wedi cyflwyno’r caisar y diwrnod blaenorol—y diwrnod cyngofyn am yr estyniad terfynol—ond onidoedd hi’n syndod bod rhywun yn mynd at yrYsgrifennydd Gwladol i gael estyniad ar yramser?

Mr Jones: We were very surprised. Theapplication would normally have come to us.

Mr Jones: Yr oeddem wedi ein synnu’nfawr. Byddai’r cais wedi dod atom ni felarfer.

[51] Alun Cairns: Is it usual for theSecretary of State to receive bids on othersorts of issues?

[51] Alun Cairns: A yw’n arferol i’rYsgrifennydd Gwladol dderbyn cynigion arfaterion eraill?

Mr Jones: Not at all. Mr Jones: Dim o gwbl.

[52] Alun Cairns: Did it surprise you thatsomething might—

[52] Alun Cairns: A oedd hi’n syndod i chiy gallai rhywbeth—

Mr Jones: It surprised us, yes. Mr Jones: Yr oedd hi’n syndod i ni, oedd.

[53] Alun Cairns: Did you think that theremight be some—

[53] Alun Cairns: A oeddech yn credu ygallai fod rhyw—

Mr Jones: I would say that the person inquestion seemed to know quite a lot ofpeople, and was frequently in contact withmany people during this disposal. However,we actually took no notice of those contacts.You have a record of it, but we took nonotice of it.

Mr Jones: Byddwn i’n dweud ei bod ynymddangos fod yr unigolyn dan sylw ynadnabod llawer o bobl, ac mewn cysylltiadcyson â llawer o bobl yn ystod y gwareduhwn. Fodd bynnag, ni wnaethom gymrydsylw o’r cysylltiadau hynny. Mae gennychchi gofnod ohono, ond ni wnaethom gymrydsylw ohono.

[54] Janet Davies: I have to say that I findthis absolutely amazing. I have a fair bit ofexperience of being involved in openingtenders at two different levels—one at a verylow level in government in Wales, which ismy local village community council. I feelthat Dyfed Powys Health Authority was quitea way up the hierarchy—if you are preparedto admit that such a thing exists—above alocal community council. Yet, if we went outto tender for something of quite a small sum,and did not do it right down the line, withsealed bids, marked on the outside of theenvelope as tenders so that they would not beopened by accident, we would be in deeptrouble with the district auditor. I find itdifficult to believe that the Government ofWales, whether as the Welsh Office, or later

[54] Janet Davies: Mae’n rhaid i mi ddweudfy mod i’n gweld hyn yn hollol rhyfeddol.Mae gennyf dipyn o brofiad o fod yn rhan odrefniadau agor tendrau ar ddwy lefel—un arlefel isel iawn o lywodraeth yng Nghymru,sef cyngor cymuned fy mhentref lleol.Teimlaf fod Awdurdod Iechyd Dyfed Powysyn eithaf uchel ar yr hierarchiaeth—os ydychyn barod i gyfaddef fod y cyfryw beth ynbodoli—uwchben cyngor cymuned lleol. Eto,pe baem yn gwahodd tendrau am rywbeth oswm cymharol isel, a heb wneud hynny’ngywir, gyda chynigion wedi’u selio, a’umarcio ar y tu allan i’r amlen fel tendrau felna fyddai neb yn eu hagor drwy ddamwain,byddem mewn trafferth mawr gyda’rarchwilydd dosbarth. Mae’n anodd gen igredu fod Llywodraeth Cymru, boed yn

24/10/2002

16

as the National Assembly, seems to haveskipped that. It seems to have escaped notice,both at the Welsh Government level and atthe health authority level, that there weresuch legal requirements. To be perfectlyhonest, I am gobsmacked.

Swyddfa Gymreig, neu’r CynulliadCenedlaethol wedi hynny, fel pe bai wedihepgor hynny. Mae gofynion cyfreithiol o’rfath fel pe baent wedi’u hanwybyddu ar lefelLlywodraeth Cymru ac ar lefel awdurdodiechyd. I fod yn berffaith onest, yr wyf yngegrwth.

Mr Jones: I cannot speak for the healthauthority rules, but I understand that it wasacceptable to the health authority rules.

Mr Jones: Ni allaf siarad am reolau’rawdurdod iechyd, ond deallaf ei fod yndderbyniol i reolau’r awdurdod iechyd.

[55] Dafydd Wigley: So you were a littlesurprised—

[55] Dafydd Wigley: Felly yr oeddechwedi’ch synnu fymryn—

[56] Janet Davies: Perhaps Nigel Townswould like to come in on that.

[56] Janet Davies: Efallai y byddai NigelTowns yn hoffi siarad am hyn.

Mr Towns: We have standing orders thatstate the tendering process. In fact, myunderstanding is that in July 1998, when thebids came in, they were opened—this is fromthe file records—as per our standing financialinstructions, which state that they must berecorded in a book and that there is a divisionof duties and so on. That is the way in whichit was done. When we got to the later datesand had the other bids in, that procedure wasnot followed.

Mr Towns: Mae gennym reolau sefydlogsy’n nodi’r broses dendro. A dweud y gwir,yn ôl yr hyn a ddeallaf, pan ddaeth y cynigioni law yng Ngorffennaf 1998 fe’u hagorwydyn unol â’n cyfarwyddiadau ariannolsefydlog ni—daw hyn o’r cofnodion—sy’ndatgan bod yn rhaid eu cofnodi mewn llyfr abod dyletswyddau wedi’u rhannu ac ati.Dyna’r ffordd y gwnaed pethau. Pangyraeddasom y dyddiadau diweddarach ac i’rcynigion eraill ddod i law, ni ddilynwyd yweithdrefn honno.

[57] Dafydd Wigley: So you acknowledgethat procedures were not followed and, MrJones, you recognise this as being a highlyunusual way of dealing with things?

[57] Dafydd Wigley: Felly yr ydych yncydnabod na ddilynwyd y gweithdrefnau a,Mr Jones, yr ydych yn cydnabod hyn felffordd hynod anarferol o ddelio â phethau?

Mr Jones: It was unusual, and certainly theapproach to the Secretary of State was veryunusual.

Mr Jones: Yr oedd yn anarferol, ac yn sicr yroedd mynd at yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol ynanarferol iawn.

[58] Eleanor Burnham: So let us get thisright then, because I am obviously learninglike many of us. Mr Towns, you mentionedthat you had bids in June, did you say?

[58] Eleanor Burnham: Felly gadewch i nigael hyn yn iawn, gan fy mod yn amlwg yndysgu fel llawer ohonom. Mr Towns, fesonioch eich bod wedi cael cynigion ymMehefin, ddywedoch chi?

Mr Towns: July. Mr Towns: Gorffennaf.

[59] Eleanor Burnham: I am looking atfigure 2 now. Does that coincide with whatyou have just said?

[59] Eleanor Burnham: Yr wyf yn edrych arffigur 2 yn awr. A yw hynny’n cyfateb i’rhyn yr ydych newydd ei ddweud?

Mr Towns: They were asked for in July;they came in in August.

Mr Towns: Gofynnwyd amdanynt yngNgorffennaf; daethant i law yn Awst.

24/10/2002

17

[60] Eleanor Burnham: Right. When didthis bidder bid to the Secretary of State byfax?

[60] Eleanor Burnham: Iawn. Pryd ygwnaeth y cynigydd hwn ei chynnig dros yffacs i’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol?

Mr Towns: That was on 17 or 18 August in1999.

Mr Towns: Ar 17 neu 18 Awst 1999.

[61] Dafydd Wigley: Are you sure of thosedates?

[61] Dafydd Wigley: A ydych yn siŵr o’rdyddiadau hynny?

[62] Eleanor Burnham: I am just getting thedates right. Is it all right to ask that, Chair?

[62] Eleanor Burnham: Yr wyf am sicrhaubod y dyddiadau cywir gennym. A yw hi’niawn gofyn hynny, Gadeirydd?

[63] Dafydd Wigley: Was it not May 1999?Am I not right in saying that?

[63] Dafydd Wigley: Onid Mai 1999 oedd ydyddiad? Ydw i’n iawn yn dweud hynny?

Mr Towns: Yes, sorry, it was May 1999. Mr Towns: Ie, mae’n ddrwg gen i, Mai 1999ydoedd.

[64] Eleanor Burnham: So there is aconsiderable time gap, apart from anythingelse. This is quite incredible.

[64] Eleanor Burnham: Felly mae bwlchamser sylweddol, heblaw unrhywbeth arall.Mae hyn yn eithaf anhygoel.

Mr Towns: There was a change in therelaxation of the planning rules, which camethrough in October 1998.

Mr Towns: Cafwyd newid o ran llacio’rrheolau cynllunio, a ddaeth i rym yn Hydref1998.

[65] Dafydd Wigley: We will undoubtedlywant to come back to that, but there are otherquestions. Do you have anything else beforewe move on, Alison?

[65] Dafydd Wigley: Byddwn yn sicr amddod yn ôl at hynny, ond mae cwestiynaueraill. A oes gennych rywbeth arall i’wddweud cyn i ni symud ymlaen, Alison?

[66] Alison Halford: We need to clarify this,Chair, if you will bear with me. You go downthe informal tender route, which means thatall bids should be opened at a particular time.Do you agree with that?

[66] Alison Halford: Maddeuwch i mi,Gadeirydd, mae angen i ni gael eglurhad arhyn. Yr ydych yn dilyn y llwybr tendranffurfiol, sy’n golygu y dylid agor yr hollgynigion ar adeg benodol. A gytunwch âhynny?

Mr Towns: Yes. Mr Towns: Cytunaf.

[67] Alison Halford: Quite suddenly, theofficials receive a fax from the Secretary ofState?

[67] Alison Halford: Yn sydyn, mae’rswyddogion yn derbyn ffacs gan yrYsgrifennydd Gwladol?

Mr Jones: No. Mr Jones: Na.

[68] Alison Halford: So how do you knowthat the Secretary of State has been faxed?

[68] Alison Halford: Felly sut yr ydych yngwybod fod yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol wedicael ffacs?

Mr Jones: I think, if my memory serves mecorrectly, that we were advised by theSecretary of State’s office that a contact had

Mr Jones: Yr wyf yn credu, os y cofiaf yniawn, i swyddfa’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol roigwybod i ni fod cyswllt wedi’i dderbyn, er

24/10/2002

18

been received, much to his embarrassment aswell.

mawr embaras iddo yntau hefyd.

[69] Dafydd Wigley: Was that a request forthe time to be put back?

[69] Dafydd Wigley: Ai cais i gael mwy oamser oedd hynny?

Mr Jones: No, it was advice that that contacthad been received and that it was for ourconsideration and no-one else’s.

Mr Jones: Nage, yr oedd yn datgan bodcyswllt wedi’i dderbyn ac mai ni a neb aralloedd i’w ystyried.

[70] Dafydd Wigley: So the question waspassed over to you, although it was notadvocated?

[70] Dafydd Wigley: Felly trosglwyddwyd ycwestiwn i chi, er na phlediwyd drosto?

Mr Jones: Absolutely. Mr Jones: Yn hollol.

[71] Alison Halford: Has thecorrespondence between the successfulpurchaser and the Secretary of State beenmade available to the Auditor General?

[71] Alison Halford: A ddarparwyd yrohebiaeth a fu rhwng y brynwraiglwyddiannus a’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol i’rArchwilydd Cyffredinol?

Mr Jones: I think that the answer is—I amreceiving a nod—‘yes’.

Mr Jones: Yr wyf yn meddwl mai’r atebyw—yr wyf yn derbyn cadarnhad—‘do’.

[72] Dafydd Wigley: Yes, I believe it has aswell, from an earlier discussion.

[72] Dafydd Wigley: Ie, yr wyf yn meddwlhynny hefyd, o drafodaeth gynharach.

[73] Alison Halford: So the informal tenderis—can we say—rudely, crudely, ratherthrown out of the window because theSecretary of State steps in, or is that far toocritical?

[73] Alison Halford: Felly, os cawn niddweud, mae’r tendr anffurfiol yn cael eidaflu’n ddiseremoni ac yn ddi-sut allan o’rffenestr gan fod yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol yncamu i mewn, neu a yw hynny’n llawer ynrhy feirniadol?

Mr Jones: I think that would be actually thewrong conclusion.

Mr Jones: Credaf y byddai hynny mewngwirionedd yn gasgliad anghywir.

[74] Alison Halford: Right, so what is theright conclusion?

[74] Alison Halford: Iawn, felly beth yw’rcasgliad cywir?

Mr Jones: That we were invited to accept alate bid and agreed to do so.

Mr Jones: Ein bod ni wedi ein gwahodd idderbyn cynnig hwyr ac wedi cytuno i wneudhynny.

[75] Jocelyn Davies: May I ask if this bidderknew the Secretary of State, or was just incontact with him? The reason that I amasking is that, surely, if you are in contactwith a lot of people and you are in a processlike this and you know people, you actuallytake more precautions to make sure that it isseen as being clean.

[75] Jocelyn Davies: A gaf i ofyn a oedd ycynigydd yn adnabod yr YsgrifennyddGwladol, neu ddim ond mewn cysylltiad agef? Y rheswm yr wyf yn gofyn yw, ybyddech, mewn gwirionedd, yn cymryd mwyo ofal i sicrhau fod popeth yn cael ei weld ynddilwgr os ydych mewn cysylltiad â llawer obobl ac mewn proses fel hwn ac yn adnabodpobl, siawns.

Mr Jones: The answer is that I believe that Mr Jones: Credaf ei bod o bosibl wedi

24/10/2002

19

she may have shaken hands with theSecretary of State on an occasion but I do notbelieve for one minute that she knew theSecretary of State.

ysgwyd llaw â’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol arryw achlysur ond nid wyf yn meddwl ameiliad ei bod hi’n ei adnabod.

[76] Dafydd Wigley: That is a matter that isdifficult for us to know one way or another.There is an open question there: the degree towhich she was acquainted with the Secretaryof State.

[76] Dafydd Wigley: Mae hwn yn fateranodd i ni wybod ai’r naill neu’r llall sy’nwir. Mae cwestiwn agored yma: i ba raddauyr oedd hi’n adnabod yr YsgrifennyddGwladol.

[77] Alun Cairns: Did you feel pressured toaccept the advice given by the Secretary ofState?

[77] Alun Cairns: Oeddech chi’n teimlo danbwysau i dderbyn y cyngor a gafwyd gan yrYsgrifennydd Gwladol?

Mr Jones: Not at all. Mr Jones: Ddim o gwbl.

[78] Alun Cairns: Did you feel that youwere giving fair play to the other informalclosed bids then?

[78] Alun Cairns: Oeddech chi’n teimlo eichbod yn deg â’r cynigion caeëdig anffurfioleraill felly?

Mr Jones: Yes, I did. Mr Jones: Oeddwn.

[79] Alun Cairns: But you still persisted incarrying on because you thought, ‘Well, theSecretary of State’s office has given it’, butyou were not pressured at all?

[79] Alun Cairns: Ond fe fynnoch chi ddalati gan eich bod chi’n credu, ‘Wel, mae hynwedi dod o swyddfa’r YsgrifennyddGwladol’, ond nid oeddech dan bwysau ogwbl?

Mr Jones: Not at all. Mr Jones: Ddim o gwbl.

[80] Dafydd Wigley: But, in fact, the bid didcome in on the day, despite the fact that therequest had been made for a day’s extension?

[80] Dafydd Wigley: Ond, mewngwirionedd, fe ddaeth y cynnig i law ydiwrnod hwnnw, er gwaethaf y ffaith fod caiswedi’i wneud am ddiwrnod o estyniad?

Mr Jones: That is quite right. Mr Jones: Mae hynny’n wir.

[81] Dafydd Wigley: May I therefore ask MrTowns particularly, bearing in mindeverything that has been said this afternoon,and what, indeed, you have indicated, whatreasons or even mitigating circumstances arethere for the authority not to have recordedall the decisions in relation to the disposal indetail?

[81] Dafydd Wigley: A gaf i felly ofyn i MrTowns yn benodol, gan gofio’r holl bethausydd wedi’u dweud y prynhawn yma, a’r hynyr ydych chi, yn wir, wedi dweud, paresymau neu amgylchiadau lliniarol hyd ynoed sydd yna i gyfiawnhau nad oedd yrawdurdod wedi cofnodi’n fanwl yr hollbenderfyniadau ar waredu?

Mr Towns: I think that, again, withhindsight, Chair, we normally would havedone that. I find, again, with this—I was notinvolved myself with this but I do find itextremely worrying that this individual,whom I know as being meticulous, wasinvolved and yet this was not recorded. Icannot believe it really.

Mr Towns: Unwaith eto, o edrych yn ôl,Gadeirydd, fe fyddem ni fel rheol wedigwneud hynny. Unwaith eto gyda hynhefyd—nid oeddwn yn rhan o hyn ond yr wyfyn teimlo’n bryderus iawn fod yr unigolynyma, sydd fel arfer mor drwyadl, yn rhan o’rmater ond na chofnodwyd hynny. Ni allafgredu’r peth a dweud y gwir.

24/10/2002

20

[82] Dafydd Wigley: It was a dereliction ofduty not to have recorded this?

[82] Dafydd Wigley: Oedd peidio â chofnodihyn yn esgeuluso dyletswydd?

Mr Towns: I think that all these things—there must be an audit trail, and these thingsshould have been recorded.

Mr Towns: Yr wyf yn credu y dylai’r hollbethau hyn—fe ddylid cael llwybr archwilio,ac fe ddylid fod wedi cofnodi’r pethau hyn.

[83] Dafydd Wigley: Indeed. [83] Dafyd Wigley: Dylid.

[84] Jocelyn Davies: It was on that pointactually, Dafydd, that I wanted to ask somequestions. Now, of course, very shortly therewill be the commencement of the Freedom ofInformation Act 2000, giving the generalright of access to information. Does thatcause you any concern?

[84] Jocelyn Davies: Ar y pwynt hwnnw,Dafydd, yr oeddwn i am holi cwestiynau.Nawr, wrth gwrs, bydd Deddf RhyddidGwybodaeth 2000 yn cael ei gweithredu ynfuan, a fydd yn rhoi hawl cyffredinol i boblgael mynediad i wybodaeth. Ydy hynny’ndestun pryder i chi?

Mr Towns: No, not at all. Mr Towns: Na, dim o gwbl.

[85] Jocelyn Davies: Of course, you can onlyhave access to information if it has beenrecorded, and it is a long-establishedprinciple, I think, of public boards stretchingback probably more than 20 years, that publicbodies should give reasons for the decisionsthey have made. How can a public bodysatisfy that duty if it did not record thedecisions in the beginning? How do you thengive reasons?

[85] Jocelyn Davies: Wrth gwrs, dim ondgwybodaeth a gofnodwyd y gallwch gaelmynediad iddi, ac mae’r egwyddor y dylaicyrff cyhoeddus roi rhesymau dros eupenderfyniadau yn egwyddor sydd wedi’i hensefydlu ac yn ymestyn yn ôl dros 20mlynedd. Sut gall corff cyhoeddus fodloni’rdyletswydd hwnnw os na chofnododd ypenderfyniadau i ddechrau? Sut ydych chiwedyn yn rhoi rhesymau?

Mr Towns: I think in this case it is extremelydifficult, but we have got the AuditorGeneral’s report before us, and theconclusions he has drawn. We do need topick up these recommendations. I am anaccountant by training so I do understand theneed for an audit trail and I am extremelysurprised, as I said, and repeat, knowing theindividual concerned—and people have goneback through the records—that this was notrecorded.

Mr Towns: Yr wyf yn meddwl ei bod hi’nanodd iawn yn yr achos hwn, ond maegennym adroddiad yr ArchwilyddCyffredinol o’n blaenau, a’r casgliadau ydaeth iddynt. Rhaid i ni ystyried yrargymhellion hyn. Cefais fy hyfforddi felcyfrifydd felly yr wyf yn deall yr angen amlwybr archwilio ac wedi fy synnu’n fawr, fely dywedais ac yr wyf yn ei ddweud eto, oadnabod yr unigolyn dan sylw—ac mae poblwedi mynd yn ôl drwy’r cofnodion—nachafodd hyn ei gofnodi.

[86] Jocelyn Davies: I think you would haveto agree with us, though, would you not, thatthe failure to record the reasons is bound tolead to the public saying, ‘this stinks’? It isbound to. If you cannot give the publicreasons for decisions you have made becausethey were not recorded at the time, then thepublic is bound to create its own reasons, andI think it is perfectly reasonable that it woulddo so.

[86] Jocelyn Davies: Yr wyf yn meddwl ybyddech chi’n cytuno â ni, serch hynny, onifyddech chi, bod y methiant i gofnodi’rrhesymau yn siŵr o arwain at gyhuddiad gany cyhoedd fod hyn yn drewi? Mae hynny’nanochel. Os na allwch chi roi rhesymau i’rcyhoedd am benderfyniadau a wnaethochoherwydd na chofnodwyd hwy ar y pryd, ynamae’r cyhoedd yn siŵr o greu eu rhesymaueu hunain, ac yr wyf yn credu ei bod hi’nhollol resymol iddynt wneud hynny.

24/10/2002

21

Mr Towns: I think that is why we have hadan Auditor General’s report.

Mr Towns: Yr wyf yn meddwl mai dynapam y cawsom ni adroddiad gan yrArchwilydd Cyffredinol.

[87] Jocelyn Davies: But how could theAuditor General investigate when there wereno recorded reasons for decisions?

[87] Jocelyn Davies: Ond sut y gallai’rArchwilydd Cyffredinol ymchwilio pan nadoedd cofnod o’r rhesymau dros ypenderfyniadau a wnaed?

Mr Towns: He has reported and he hasdrawn his conclusions and there arerecommendations in the report which wehave to take on board to make sure that thisdoes not happen in the future.

Mr Towns: Mae wedi cyflwyno adroddiad adod i gasgliadau ac mae argymhellion yn yradroddiad sy’n rhaid i ni eu hystyried isicrhau nad yw hyn yn digwydd yn ydyfodol.

[88] Jocelyn Davies: Well, Dafydd, I find itvery difficult to believe that the AuditorGeneral had a very easy time investigatingthis when there were no reasons recorded fordecisions that were made; even if, onoccasion, he has concluded that the outcomewas arrived at fairly, we have nothing toprove that those decisions were properlytaken.

[88] Jocelyn Davies: Wel, Dafydd, yr wyf ynei chael hi’n anodd iawn credu bod yrArchwilydd Cyffredinol wedi cael amserhawdd yn ymchwilio i hyn pan nachofnodwyd rhesymau dros y penderfyniadaua wnaed; hyd yn oed os daeth i’r casgliad, arbrydiau, bod y penderfyniad wedi’i wneud yndeg, nid oes gennym ddim i brofi fod ypenderfyniadau hynny wedi’u cymryd ynbriodol.

[89] Dafydd Wigley: Quite so. The AuditorGeneral obviously can only act within theinformation that is available to him and histeam, and that may lead to an unsatisfactoryposition where questions may be unansweredand allegations unproven and still hanging inthe air. That is the nature of theunsatisfactory position arising from a lack ofdetailed recording. I think that you are right.Janet, do you want to take on the aspects ofvalue for money, which I think is a veryimportant aspect of this whole inquiry?

[89] Dafydd Wigley: Yn hollol. Yn amlwg,ni all yr Archwilydd Cyffredinol ondgweithredu ar sail y wybodaeth sydd ar gaeliddo ef a’i dîm, a gallai hynny arwain atsefyllfa anfoddhaol gyda chwestiynau heb euhateb a chyhuddiadau heb eu profi yn parhau.Dyna yw natur y sefyllfa anfoddhaol sy’ncodi o ddiffyg cofnodi manwl. Yr wyf ynmeddwl eich bod yn iawn. Janet, ydych chiam drafod agweddau ar werth am arian, syddyn fy marn i yn agwedd bwysig iawn ar yrholl ymchwiliad hwn?

[90] Janet Davies: Right. If we turn to theissue of preparing a business case—it is inparagraph 3.5, if it helps to go through it—Iwould like to ask Nigel Towns about this.Could you tell us what reasons the authorityhad for not preparing a business case fordisposal, other than the big, high, strategiccase?

[90] Janet Davies: Iawn. Os edrychwn ni arfater paratoi achos busnes—paragraff 3.5, osyw hynny o gymorth i ni fynd drwyddo—fefyddwn i’n hoffi holi Nigel Towns am hyn.Allech chi ddweud wrthym pa resymau oeddgan yr awdurdod dros beidio â pharatoi achosbusnes ar gyfer gwaredu, heblaw’r achosstrategol mawr, pwysig?

Mr Towns: The Powys District HealthAuthority actually produced a business casewhen it was deciding on the future directionfor mental health services. So, when itdecided, and that went out to publicconsultation, and everything was agreed on

Mr Towns: Lluniodd Awdurdod IechydDosbarth Powys achos busnes pan oedd ynpenderfynu ar gyfeiriad y gwasanaethauiechyd meddwl yn y dyfodol. Felly, panbenderfynodd, a phan oedd hynny’n destunymgynghoriad cyhoeddus, ac y cytunwyd ar

24/10/2002

22

how the new services would be, on that basis,it then declared, according to the rules andregulations, that property to be surplus torequirements. So the business case wouldhave been done as part of the strategicdirection of the mental health service, in linewith the then Welsh Office and Governmentpolicy.

y gwasanaethau newydd, ar y sail honno, aethymlaen i ddatgan, yn ôl y rheolau a’rrheoliadau, nad oedd angen yr eiddo bellach.Felly, byddai’r achos busnes wedi’i wneudfel rhan o gyfeiriad strategol y gwasanaethiechyd meddwl, yn unol â pholisi’r SwyddfaGymreig a’r Llywodraeth ar y pryd.

[91] Janet Davies: Yes, but that does notactually look at the details of the disposaldoes it, as an individual case? For example, ifit had been decided that demolition was themost cost-effective option, the authoritywould have spent a year pursuing the wrongoption, would it not?

[91] Janet Davies: Ie, ond nid yw hynny’nedrych ar fanylion y gwaredu fel achosunigol, ydy e? Er enghraifft, ospenderfynwyd mai dymchwel yr eiddo oeddy dewis mwyaf cost effeithiol, oni fyddai’rawdurdod wedi treulio blwyddyn yn dilyn ydewis anghywir?

Mr Towns: Yes. Mr Towns: Byddai.

[92] Janet Davies: If you look again, if therehad been a decision to sell in separate lots—although it comes over very clearly in thereport that there would then have been, orcould have been, difficulties in disposing ofthe main building—from information that hasbeen coming through it would appear that, inparticular, three houses were sold for£55,000, and two of them have then beensold on for a great deal more than that,leaving, I accept, the main building.However, it does seem to me that there was aneed for an individual business plan fordisposal to actually deal with and record thereasons for the way in which the propertywas disposed of.

[92] Janet Davies: Os edrychwch chi eto, oscafwyd penderfyniad i werthu rhannau arwahân—er bod yr adroddiad yn nodi’n glir ygallai neu y byddai anawsterau wedyn o rangwaredu’r prif adeilad—o’r wybodaeth syddwedi dod i’r amlwg byddai’n ymddangos bodtri thŷ yn benodol wedi’u gwerthu am£55,000, a dau ohonynt wedi’u gwerthuymhellach am lawer mwy na hynny, sydd yngadael, derbyniaf, y prif adeilad. Foddbynnag, mae’n ymddangos i mi fod angencynllun busnes unigol ar gyfer gwaredu iddelio mewn gwirioendd â’r ffordd yr oeddyr eiddo’n cael ei waredu, ac i gofnodi’rrhesymau dros hynny.

Mr Towns: I understand that, at the time, thedecision was taken to sell the property as awhole and not to split it up because it wouldachieve a better price overall. That is myunderstanding, and, again, the site itself wasregarded as being commercially unattractive.It was not in an area such as the sites of someof the other hospitals in Wales that had beendisposed of, on which there had beenconsiderable development. It was in anational park, where there are strictdevelopment rules, and the other thing, whichAnn Lloyd has already mentioned, is thatthere were patients in the hospital—in fact 70patients were in there until six months afterthe hospital was sold. We had to put theirinterests first. We needed to resettle thesepatients—elderly patients—and, therefore,their considerations came first. Therefore, the

Mr Towns: Deallaf fod penderfyniad wedi’iwneud ar y pryd i werthu’r eiddo yn gyfan apheidio a’i rannu gan y byddai’n sicrhaugwell pris yn gyffredinol. Dyna yw fynealltwriaeth i, ac, unwaith eto, yr oedd ysafle ei hun yn cael ei ystyried yn anneniadolyn fasnachol. Nid oedd mewn ardal debyg isafleoedd rhai o’r ysbytai eraill yng Nghymrua waredwyd, lle gwelwyd datblygusylweddol. Yr oedd mewn parc cenedlaethol,lle mae rheolau datblygu caeth, a’r materarall, a grybwyllwyd eisoes gan Ann Lloyd,oedd bod cleifion yn yr ysbyty—yr oedd 70 ogleifion yno hyd chwe mis ar ôl i’r ysbytygael ei werthu. Yr oedd yn rhaid i ni roi eubuddiannau hwy yn gyntaf. Yr oedd angen ini ail-leoli’r cleifion hyn—cleifionoedrannus—ac, felly, yr oedd euhystyriaethau hwy yn dod yn gyntaf. Felly, yr

24/10/2002

23

whole disposal of this was very difficult, butcommercially I understand that the advicewas—and Powys District Health Authorityhad gone out to tender to get agents in—thatthat was the best way to sell it.

oedd y broses waredu yn anodd iawn, ond ynfasnachol yr wyf yn deall mai’r cyngoroedd—ac yr oedd Awdurdod IechydDosbarth Powys wedi gwahodd tendrau i gaelgwerthwyr eiddo—mai dyma’r ffordd orauo’i werthu.

[93] Janet Davies: Right. Both you and AnnLloyd have referred to the issue of patientsstill being in there. Would it not have beenpossible—anyone who bought TalgarthHospital as a whole would actually have beeninvolved in quite a lot of preparatory work,and I do not necessarily mean building work,but things such as getting planningpermission, which, from my knowledge ofpublic life, I am sure would almost certainlyhave taken them a lot longer than six months.In fact, it would not necessarily have affectedthose 70 patients. I am not talking aboutgoing in and banging down the building nextto where they were; I am talking about earlierpreparatory work.

[93] Janet Davies: Iawn. Yr ydych chi acAnn Lloyd wedi cyfeirio at y ffaith bodcleifion yn dal yn yr ysbyty. Oni fyddai wedibod yn bosibl—byddai’r sawl oedd yn prynuYsbyty Talgarth yn ei gyfanrwydd wedigwneud llawer o waith paratoi, ac nid wyf yncyfeirio at waith adeiladu o reidrwydd, ondpethau fel cael caniatâd cynllunio, y byddai,o’m profiad i o fywyd cyhoeddus, mae’nsiŵr, wedi cymryd llawer hwy na chwe mis.A dweud y gwir, ni fyddai oangenrheidrwydd wedi effeithio ar y 70 ogleifion. Nid wyf yn sôn am fynd i mewn adymchwel yr adeilad oedd agosaf atynt hwy;yr wyf yn sôn am waith paratoi cynharach.

Mr Towns: I understand that they thoughtthat the patients might well be in there for aperiod of up to 18 months from the date ofcompletion. However, in the event, they wererehoused and resettled, some in hospitalaccommodation and some in the community,by the end of March or the beginning of April2000.

Mr Towns: Deallaf eu bod yn meddwl ybyddai’r cleifion yno am gyfnod o hyd at 18mis o’r dyddiad cwblhau. Fodd bynnag, fel ybu hi, cawsant eu symud a’u hail-leoli, rhaimewn ysbytai a rhai yn y gymuned, erbyndiwedd Mawrth neu ddechrau Ebrill 2000.

[94] Janet Davies: Ms Lloyd, this failure toproduce a business case covering the disposalseems to be the result of unclear guidance fornational health service bodies. Has any actionbeen taken, or is it about to be taken toremedy that?

[94] Janet Davies: Ms Lloyd, mae’rmethiant hwn i lunio achos busnes ar gyfer ygwaredu yn ymddangos fel pe bai oganlyniad i gyfarwyddyd aneglur i gyrff ygwasanaeth iechyd gwladol. A gymerwydunrhyw gamau, neu a oes rhai ar fin cael eucymryd i wneud yn iawn am hynny?

Ms Lloyd: Yes. Within the guidance we areabout to issue, the whole question of disposaland business cases for disposal will becovered, particularly since we now have toundertake the test for the sustainabledevelopment policy to re-emphasise that alloptions for the future use of any propertymust be taken into consideration so that abalance can be shown, in a transparent way,in terms of leading to the decision that anorganisation then takes.

Ms Lloyd: Oes. Yn y cyfarwyddyd yr ydymar fin ei gyhoeddi, rhoddir sylw i’r hollgwestiwn o waredu ac achosion busnes droswaredu, yn enwedig gan fod yn rhaid i ninawr wneud prawf y polisi datblygucynaliadwy er mwyn ailbwysleisio bod ynrhaid ystyried yr holl ddewisiadau ar gyferdefnyddio eiddo yn y dyfodol fel y gellirdangos cydbwysedd, mewn ffordd eglur, oran arwain at y penderfyniad mae sefydliadyn ei gymryd wedyn.

[95] Janet Davies: I turn to paragraph 3.19on the updated valuation. Do you consider

[95] Janet Davies: Yr wyf am gyfeirio atbaragraff 3.19 ar y prisiad diweddaraf. A

24/10/2002

24

that it is acceptable not to obtain an updatedvaluation when a property is exposed to themarket?

ydych o’r farn ei bod hi’n dderbyniol peidio âdiweddaru prisiad wrth roi eiddo ar yfarchnad?

Ms Lloyd: Independent updated valuationscan actually cost a lot of money and I think itall depends on when you had your lastvaluation, when you seek an update, but Ithink it is good practice so to do.

Ms Lloyd: Gall diweddaru prisiad ynannibynnol gostio llawer o arian ac yr wyf yncredu bod y cyfan yn dibynnu ar prydgawsoch chi’r prisiad diwethaf, wrth ofyn amddiweddariad, ond credaf ei fod yn arfer dagwneud hynny.

[96] Janet Davies: I would like to go a bit toone side to look not only at the property, butat the plant and equipment that was withinthe property. I have not been able to find outanything about what happened to that plantand equipment—whether it was put up forsale by tender, disposed of privately or justbinned. Could you, or someone else, give anyinformation on that?

[96] Janet Davies: Hoffwn wyro i un ochr iedrych nid yn unig ar yr eiddo, ond ar ypeiriannau a’r offer oedd yn yr eiddo. Nidwyf wedi medru dod o hyd i wybodaeth ambeth ddigwyddodd i’r peiriannau a’r offer—agynigiwyd hwy i’w gwerthu drwy dendr, eugwaredu’n breifat neu eu taflu? Allwch chi,neu rywun arall, roi unrhyw wybodaeth amhynny?

Mr Jones: I cannot think of any plant andequipment that was there, other than thatwhich belonged to the health authority—medical equipment that would been movedon to other health premises. I am not aware ofanything that we should have disposed ofseparately.

Mr Jones: Ni allaf feddwl am unrhywbeiriannau ac offer oedd yno, heblaw’r rhaioedd yn perthyn i’r awdurdod iechyd—offermeddygol a fyddai wedi’i symud i safleiechyd arall. Nid wyf yn ymwybodol o ddima ddylid fod wedi’i waredu ar wahân.

[97] Janet Davies: Perhaps Mr Towns couldconfirm that.

[97] Janet Davies: Efallai y gallai Mr Townsgadarnhau hynny.

Mr Towns: That would have been the PowysNHS Health Care Trust. I do not know, but Ipresume that some of the beds and fittingsand so on, the non-fixed items, would havebeen used elsewhere within the Powys NHStrust.

Mr Towns: Ymddiriedolaeth GIG GofalIechyd Powys fyddai wedi gwneud hynny.Nid wyf yn gwybod, ond yr wyf yn cymryd ybyddai rhai o’r gwelyau a’r offer ac ati, yreitemau symudol, wedi’u defnyddio mewnmannau eraill yn ymddiriedolaeth GIGPowys.

[98] Janet Davies: So you can say that thatdefinitely happened?

[98] Janet Davies: Felly allwch chi ddweudfod hynny wedi digwydd yn bendant?

Mr Towns: I could not, because it wasPowys NHS trust that occupied the buildingand it was its equipment. We can give theCommittee a note about that.

Mr Towns: Na, gan mai ymddiriedolaethGIG Powys oedd yn defnyddio’r adeilad abod yr offer yn perthyn iddi. Gallwn roinodyn i’r Pwyllgor ynglŷn â hynny.

[99] Dafydd Wigley: I would be grateful ifyou could provide a note to confirm that,because it is obviously a material question.

[99] Dafydd Wigley: Byddwn yn ddiolchgarpe gallech ddarparu nodyn i gadarnhauhynny, gan ei fod yn amlwg yn gwestiwnperthnasol.

Ann, did you want to ask a question? Yourquestion may have been partially covered in

Ann, oeddech chi am ofyn cwestiwn? Efallaifod eich cwestiwn wedi’i ateb yn rhannol yn

24/10/2002

25

the answers given already. barod.

[100] Ann Jones: I am working off adifferent sheet of questions, but I think it hasbeen covered.

[100] Ann Jones: Yr wyf yn dilyn taflengwestiynau wahanol, ond credaf fod ycwestiwn wedi’i ateb.

[101] Dafydd Wigley: Yes, Ann Lloydreferred to updated valuation earlier.

[101] Dafydd Wigley: Do, cyfeiriodd AnnLloyd at brisiadau diweddar yn gynharach.

[102] Ann Jones: That is fine, it has beencovered.

[102] Ann Jones: Mae hynny’n iawn, maewedi cael sylw.

[103] Dafydd Wigley: In which case, Alun,may I call you in at this stage?

[103] Dafydd Wigley: Felly, Alun, a gaf ialw arnoch chi nawr?

[104] Alun Cairns: Yes. I have a questionthat is directed at Mr Towns and Mr Jones,and I would like each of you to answer inturn, if possible. Bearing in mind the uniquenature of the property, how important ismarketing it positively in terms of gaining afair price for the taxpayer?

[104] Alun Cairns: Iawn. Mae gennyfgwestiwn i Mr Towns a Mr Jones, a hoffwni’r ddau ohonoch ateb yn eich tro, os ynbosibl. Gan gofio natur unigryw yr eiddo, pamor bwysig yw ei farchnata’n gadarnhaol oran sicrhau pris teg i’r trethdalwr?

Mr Towns: I think that it is very importantindeed.

Mr Towns: Credaf fod hynny’n bwysigiawn.

Mr Jones: I would not argue with that.Obviously the appointment of the right agentto do the job is an important part of thedisposal team’s work. It was selected for itsmarketing ability.

Mr Jones: Ni fyddwn yn dadlau â hynny. Ynamlwg, mae penodi’r gwerthwr cywir i’rswydd yn rhan bwysig o waith y tîmgwaredu. Fe’i dewiswyd am ei allumarchnata.

[105] Alun Cairns: So, Mr Jones, were yousatisfied with the way in which the propertywas marketed?

[105] Alun Cairns: Felly, Mr Jones, oeddechchi’n fodlon gyda’r ffordd y cafodd yr eiddoei farchnata?

Mr Jones: Yes, I think I was. I cannot thinkof any point of dissatisfaction.

Mr Jones: Oeddwn, yr wyf yn meddwl fymod. Ni allaf feddwl am unrhyw beth yroeddwn i’n anfodlon yn ei gylch.

[106] Alun Cairns: How would youreconcile the changes in the planningpermission, or potential changes in thedevelopment rights of the property, with yourcomment that you were satisfied?

[106] Alun Cairns: Sut y byddech yncysoni’r newidiadau yn y caniatâd cynllunio,neu’r newidiadau posibl yn hawliaudatblygu’r eiddo, gyda’ch sylw eich bodchi’n fodlon?

Mr Jones: This is possibly more a questionof what was noted in the records rather thanwhat actually happened. The property wasoffered for sale with quite a bit ofinformation about the planning situation thatexisted when it first came up for sale. Wewould not be undertaking to be a conduit forall matters relating to planning for eachindividual potential purchaser. I stress that

Mr Jones: Mae’r cwestiwn hwn o bosibl ynfwy i wneud â beth a nodwyd yn y cofnodionyn hytrach na beth ddigwyddodd mewngwirionedd. Rhoddwyd yr eiddo ar werthgyda thipyn o wybodaeth am y sefyllfagynllunio a oedd yn bodoli pan ddaeth arwerth am y tro cyntaf. Ni fyddem yn barod ifod yn gyfrwng gwybodaeth am bob mater ynymwneud â chynllunio i bob darpar brynwr

24/10/2002

26

because, if we do undertake to tell thepurchasers everything but we fail to do so,we become liable for any misunderstandingthat they have. What we did was toencourage them at all times to be talking tothe local planning authority. Each of thebidders had a totally different scheme. I donot think that two schemes were similar inmany ways at all. So each one’s interest inwhat the planning situation was and intalking to the planners was wildly different.That is the way that we would normally wantto do business. We are not there to make surethat they are clear on every change in theplanning circumstance. Having said that, I amsure that every purchaser would have beenmade aware that it was worth them talking tothe planners when a significant change tookplace. Sorry, that was a bit long.

unigol. Yr wyf yn pwysleisio hyn oherwyddpe byddem yn addo dweud popeth wrthbrynwyr ond yn methu gwneud hynny,byddem yn atebol am unrhywgamddealltwriaeth ar eu rhan. Yr hyn awnaethom oedd eu hannog i siarad yn gysonâ’r awdurdod cynllunio lleol. Yr oedd ganbob un o’r cynigwyr gynllun hollol wahanol.Nid wyf yn meddwl bod yr un o’r cynlluniauyn debyg i’w gilydd. Felly yr oedd diddordebpob un yn y sefyllfa gynllunio ac o ran siaradâ’r cynllunwyr yn gwbl wahanol. Dyna sut ybyddem am wneud busnes fel rheol. Nidydym yno i sicrhau eu bod yn deall pob unnewid yn y sefyllfa gynllunio. Wedi dweudhynny, yr wyf yn sicr y byddai pob prynwryn ymwybodol ei bod hi’n werth iddyntsiarad â’r cynllunwyr ar adeg o newidsylweddol. Mae’n ddrwg gen i am roi ateb aoedd braidd yn hir.

[107] Dafydd Wigley: Before Alun comesback on that, I just want to pick up one pointfrom paragraph 3.35 of the report, whichincludes the definition that:

[107] Dafydd Wigley: Cyn i Alun ymateb,yr wyf am sôn am un pwynt o baragraff 3.35yr adroddiad, sy’n cynnwys y diffiniad mai:

‘The best price reasonably obtainable is thatprovided by a fully informed open market.’

‘Y pris gorau y gellid yn rhesymol ei gaelyw’r un a ddarperir gan farchnad agoredhyddysg iawn.’

I emphasise the words ‘fully informed’. If themarket—which means potential bidders aswell as those who have already made a bid—is not fully informed as to a possible changein the planning status, does that not mean thatthe market was not fully informed andtherefore it could not have been the bestprice?

Yr wyf yn pwysleisio’r geiriau ‘hyddysgiawn’. Os nad yw’r farchnad—sy’n golygudarpar gynigwyr yn ogystal â’r rhai syddeisoes wedi gwneud cynnig—yn hyddysgiawn ynghylch newid posibl yn y statwscynllunio, onid yw hynny’n golygu nad oeddy farchnad yn hyddysg iawn ac felly na allai’rpris fod y pris gorau?

Mr Jones: What I am suggesting is that wedid that by encouraging them to go frequentlyand talk to the planners about their bids.

Mr Jones: Yr hyn yr wyf yn ei awgrymu ywein bod wedi gwneud hynny drwy eu hannogi drafod eu cynigion yn rheolaidd gyda’rcynllunwyr.

[108] Dafydd Wigley: So you were tellingpeople who had already got in touch. Wasthere, at any stage in this last bid, an advertput out that indicated the revised, updatedplanning status that existed in 1999?

[108] Dafydd Wigley: Felly yr oeddech ynsôn wrth bobl oedd eisoes wedi cysylltu. Aroddwyd hysbyseb, yn ystod unrhyw gam yny cynnig diwethaf, yn nodi’r statws cynlluniodiwygiedig, diweddaredig oedd yn bodoli yn1999?

Mr Jones: Not as far as I am aware. Mr Jones: Ddim hyd y gwn i.

[109] Dafydd Wigley: So the market ingeneral was not aware of that.

[109] Dafydd Wigley: Felly nid oedd yfarchnad yn gyffredinol yn ymwybodol o

24/10/2002

27

hynny.

Mr Jones: I think it probably was, but I takeyour point.

Mr Jones: Yr wyf yn meddwl ei bod hi, onddeallaf eich pwynt.

[110] Alun Cairns: May I couple that withMr Jones’s previous answer, Mr Towns? Doyou think that it was marketed effectively andthat everyone was aware of the changes indevelopment potential?

[110] Alun Cairns: A gaf i gymryd hynnygydag ateb blaenorol Mr Jones, Mr Towns?Ydych chi’n credu ei bod wedi’i marchnata’neffeithiol a bod pawb yn ymwybodol o’rnewidiadau yn y potensial i ddatblygu?

Mr Towns: The answer to the question isthat I do not know; I was not involved with it.

Mr Towns: Yr ateb i’r cwestiwn yw nad wyfyn gwybod; nid oeddwn yn rhan ohono.

[111] Alun Cairns: No, but with the benefitof hindsight, would you conduct another salein a similar way?

[111] Alun Cairns: Na, ond o allu edrych ynôl, a fyddech chi’n gwerthu eiddo arall mewnffordd debyg?

Mr Towns: I think that we have to pick upthe recommendations in the report and—

Mr Towns: Yr wyf yn meddwl bod yn rhaidi ni roi sylw i argymhellion yr adroddiad a—

[112] Alun Cairns: I am trying to tease out adifference now, in relation to the answer thatMr Jones gave, because it seems that MrJones is quite satisfied with the role of theagent in marketing the property.

[112] Alun Cairns: Yr wyf yn ceisio gweld aoes gwahaniaeth yn awr, yng nghyd-destunyr ateb a roddodd Mr Jones, gan ei bod hi’nymddangos bod Mr Jones yn eithaf bodlon ârôl y gwerthwr wrth farchnata’r eiddo.

Mr Towns: I think that the report identifiesthat we asked the agent, or the agent wasnotified and knew about the change. There isno evidence one way or the other to saywhether it did market it to a wider audiencethan those bids that they had already had. ButI think that what you would do, if there is achange—let us be clear what the change was:the change was not to allow housingdevelopment on the whole of the site; it wasto use, as I understand it, the existingbuildings, the existing hospital, forconversion into residential accommodation.

Mr Towns: Yr wyf yn meddwl bod yradroddiad yn nodi ein bod ni wedi gofyn i’rgwerthwr, neu fod y gwerthwr wedi’ihysbysu ac yn gwybod am y newid. Nid oestystiolaeth y naill ffordd na’r llall i ddweud awnaeth farchnata’r eiddo i gynulleidfaehangach na’r cynigion hynny a oedd eisoeswedi dod i law. Ond yr wyf yn meddwl mai’rhyn fyddech chi’n ei wneud, pe bai ynanewid—gadewch i ni fod yn glir ynglŷn âbeth oedd y newid: y newid oedd peidio âchaniatáu datblygu tai ar y safle cyfan; ybwriad, yn ôl yr hyn a ddeallaf, oedddefnyddio’r adeiladau presennol, yr ysbytypresennol, a’u troi yn llety preswyl.

[113] Alun Cairns: Okay, existing buildings.What sort of percentage of the floor spacewould that amount to?

[113] Alun Cairns: Iawn, adeiladaupresennol. Pa fath o ganran o’r arwynebeddllawr fyddai hynny?

Mr Towns: I do not know whether MrJones—

Mr Towns: Nid wyf yn gwybod a yw MrJones—

[114] Dafydd Wigley: Are we not talkingabout 95 per cent of something about 200,000sq ft, which would be about 180,000 sq ft,which, if I am right, amounts to about 4.5acres? Am I right?

[114] Dafydd Wigley: Onid ydym yn sôn am95 y cant o rywbeth sydd tua 200,000troedfedd sgwâr, a fyddai tua 180,000troedfedd sgwâr, sydd, os ydw i’n gywir, tua4.5 erw? A wyf yn iawn?

24/10/2002

28

Mr Jones: Yes, that is right. Mr Jones: Ydych, mae hynny’n iawn.

[115] Alun Cairns: Is it fair to say, or canwe make the assumption, that that is quitesignificant?

[115] Alun Cairns: Mae’n deg dweud, neu aallwn dybio, fod hynny’n eithaf sylweddol?

Mr Jones: It is a significant amount of space,yes. However, there is not a significantmarket for that much accommodation in ruralmid Wales.

Mr Jones: Mae’n lle mawr, ydi. Foddbynnag, nid oes marchnad sylweddol ar gyfercymaint â hynny o lety yng nghefn gwladcanolbarth Cymru.

[116] Dafydd Wigley: With respect, how doyou know that if it was not advertised? Is itnot the case that, in October 1998, the BreconBeacons National Park Authority notified theselling agents of the proposed changes in thedeposit local plan, and that in March theauthority decided to readvertise, but itappears that that did not become part of thereadvertisement, which seems extremelystrange?

[116] Dafydd Wigley: Gyda phob parch, sutydych chi’n gwybod hynny os na chafodd eihysbysebu? Onid oedd Awdurdod ParcCenedlaethol Bannau Brycheiniog wedihysbysu’r gwerthwyr yn Hydref 1998 o’rnewidiadau arfaethedig i’r cynllun gwaredulleol, a bod yr awdurdod wedi penderfynuailhysbysebu ym Mawrth, ond mae’n debygna ddaeth yn rhan o’r ail hysbyseb, sy’nymddangos yn beth rhyfedd iawn?

Mr Jones: If that is the sequence, then itdoes seem strange.

Mr Jones: Os mai dyna fel y digwyddoddpethau, yna mae’n ymddangos yn rhyfedd.

[117] Alun Cairns: So, going back to yourprevious answer, would you say that themarketing was flawed?

[117] Alun Cairns: Felly, i ddychwelyd ateich ateb blaenorol, a fyddech chi’n dweudbod y marchnata’n ddiffygiol?

Mr Jones: I would have to say that thecircumstances just described are flawed, yes.

Mr Jones: Byddai’n rhaid i mi ddweud bodyr amgylchiadau sydd newydd eu disgrifio ynddiffygiol, byddai.

[118] Alun Cairns: Okay. You alsomentioned in your previous answer, MrJones, that you would expect seriousbidders—I recognise that I am paraphrasingslightly—to liaise with the planningauthorities to satisfy themselves, because yousaid that the responsibility falls to them. Ifyou are seeking to gain the best market pricefor a property, do you think that just passingbidders on to planning departments is themost effective way of dealing with this?

[118] Alun Cairns: Iawn. Fe sonioch hefydyn eich ateb blaenorol, Mr Jones, y byddechchi’n disgwyl i gynigwyr o ddifrif—yr wyfyn cydnabod fy mod yn aralleiriorhywfaint—drafod gyda’r awdurdodaucynllunio er mwyn bodloni eu hunain, ganeich bod yn dweud mai hwy sy’n gyfrifol. Osydych yn ceisio cael pris gorau’r farchnad ameiddo, ydych chi’n credu mai trosglwyddocynigwyr i adrannau cynllunio yw’r fforddfwyaf effeithiol o ddelio â hyn ?

Mr Jones: In many ways, yes, I do. Mr Jones: Ydw, mewn llawer o ffyrdd.

[119] Alun Cairns: So you would preferconservative planners to market and adviseon the purchase of a property?

[119] Alun Cairns: Felly byddai’n wellgennych i gynllunwyr ceidwadol farchnata achynghori ar brynu eiddo?

Mr Jones: No, I just think that it is importantthat the detail of what they want to do isdiscussed with the planners. We could only

Mr Jones: Na, yr wyf yn meddwl ei bod hi’nbwysig eu bod yn trafod â’r cynllunwyrfanylion yr hyn y maent am ei wneud.

24/10/2002

29

discuss it in general terms. Gallem ond ei drafod yn gyffredinol.

[120] Alun Cairns: To move on, Ms Lloyd,do you feel that, in light of the experience,you have any suggestions on how NHSbodies could ensure that marketing ispresented in a more productive way in thefuture?

[120] Alun Cairns: I symud ymlaen, MsLloyd, a ydych yn teimlo, yng ngoleuni yprofiad, fod gennych awgrymiadau ar sutgallai cyrff y GIG sicrhau bod marchnata’ncael ei gyflwyno mewn ffordd fwycynhyrchiol yn y dyfodol?

Ms Lloyd: I think that certainly there needsto be an absolute clarity about the planningenvironment in which the property is beingmarketed. I think that we need to ensure thatbest practice, in terms of marketing, isfollowed at all times. The NHS is not aproperty development organisation.Nevertheless, we would wish to be assured inmy department now that every opportunityhas been explored to ensure that we aregetting the best value for money and thateverybody interested, or possibly interested,in acquiring the property for whatever reasonis absolutely aware of the changes incircumstances, or the proper circumstancesand potential of the site. That is why I thinkthat a business case—although we do notwant to get overly bureaucratic—for disposalis really essential.

Ms Lloyd: Yr wyf yn meddwl bod angenbod yn hollol glir am yr amgylcheddcynllunio y caiff yr eiddo ei farchnata ynddoyn sicr. Credaf fod angen i ni sicrhau yrarferion marchnata gorau bob amser. Nidyw’r GIG yn sefydliad sy’n datblygu eiddo.Serch hynny, hoffai fy adran dderbynsicrwydd yn awr fod pob cyfle wedi’iarchwilio i sicrhau ein bod yn cael y gwerthgorau am arian a bod pawb sydd â diddordeb,neu â diddordeb posibl, mewn caffael yreiddo am ba reswm bynnag yn hollolymwybodol o’r newidiadau mewnamgylchiadau, neu amgylchiadau aphotensial priodol y safle. Dyna pam y credaffod achos busnes—er nad ydym am fynd ynorfiwrocrataidd—yn gwbl hanfodol ar gyfergwaredu.

[121] Alun Cairns: I have one final question,Cadeirydd, with your permission. Bearing inmind the unusual mode of bidding—throughthe fax machine to the Secretary of State’soffice—and the lack of information overplanning changes, Ms Lloyd, do you acceptthat this could look fishy, albeit that that mayjust be a perception?

[121] Alun Cairns: Mae gennyf un cwestiwnolaf, Gadeirydd, i’w ofyn â’ch caniatâd. Ogofio’r dull cynnig anarferol—dros y ffacs iswyddfa’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol—a’r diffyggwybodaeth am newidiadau cynllunio, MsLloyd, a fyddech chi’n derbyn y gallai hynedrych yn amheus, er mai canfyddiad yn unigfyddai hynny o bosibl?

Ms Lloyd: May I just remind the Committeethat no bid was sent to the Secretary of State.It was a request for an extension of time only.He quite rightly did not deal with it.However, I think that anything that, in thelight of the transparency in which we wish toconduct our affairs, gives the public cause forconcern that value for money has not beenobtained, must be rectified in terms of theway in which we manage our affairs in thefuture.

Ms Lloyd: A gaf i atgoffa’r Pwyllgor nadanfonwyd cynnig at yr YsgrifennyddGwladol. Cais am ymestyn amser yn unigydoedd. Ni ddeliodd ef, yn hollol gywir, â’rmater o gwbl. Fodd bynnag, yn sgîl eindymuniad i weithredu’n agored, credaf fodunrhyw beth sy’n destun pryder i’r cyhoedd oran peidio â chael gwerth am arian, angen eiunioni o ran y ffordd yr ydym yn rheoli eingwaith yn y dyfodol.

[122] Dafydd Wigley: Before I call Alison,may I draw your attention to the contents of aletter that has come to our attention, whichwas sent to Mr Martin Shipton of the Waleson Sunday by the eventual purchaser. She

[122] Dafydd Wigley: Cyn i mi alw Alison,a gaf i dynnu eich sylw at gynnwys llythyrsydd wedi dod i law, a anfonwyd at MrMartin Shipton o’r Wales on Sunday, gan ybrynwraig derfynol. Fe ddywed yn ei llythyr:

24/10/2002

30

says in this letter:

‘Knight Frank said that it was too late to putin another bid because decisions had beenmade and recommendations were being putto the health authority within a week or so. Iasked the price of their offer which was aboutto be accepted and was told £350,000.’

Dywedodd Knight Frank ei bod hi’n rhyhwyr i wneud cynnig arall gan fodpenderfyniadau wedi’u gwneud acargymhellion yn cael eu gwneud i’rawdurdod iechyd ymhen tua wythnos.Gofynnais beth oedd pris eu cynnig a oedd arfin cael ei dderbyn a rhoddwyd pris o£350,000 i mi.

That was before she put her bid in. Iunderstand that her position may havechanged slightly in the evidence that she gaveto the Auditor General, but is it notoutrageous that a potential bidder could haveasked what the price was—the best price thatwas running—be told it, and put in a bidherself some £5,000 higher?

Yr oedd hynny cyn iddi gyflwyno ei chynnig.Deallaf y gallai ei sefyllfa fod wedi newidychydig yn y dystiolaeth a roddodd i’rArchwilydd Cyffredinol, ond onid ydyw’nwarthus y gallai darpar gynigydd fod wedigofyn beth oedd y pris—y pris gorau ar ypryd—cael y wybodaeth, a gwneud cynnig o£5,000 yn uwch ei hun?

Ms Lloyd: As I understand from the AuditorGeneral’s report, the actual highest bid wasnot £350,000 at that time and, as I understandfrom his report, what the agent provided herwith was the estimate of what the value ofthat property was.

Ms Lloyd: Yn ôl yr hyn a ddeallaf oadroddiad yr Archwilydd Cyffredinol, nid£350,000 oedd y cynnig uchaf ar y pryd ac,yn ôl yr hyn a ddeallaf o’i adroddiad, yr hyny rhoddodd y gwerthwr iddi oeddamcangyfrif o werth yr eiddo.

[123] Dafydd Wigley: I understand also thatthat is the evidence that was given to theAuditor General. However, I come back tothe letter, a copy of which I have before me,written by her in the first person:

[123] Dafydd Wigley: Deallaf hefyd maidyna’r dystiolaeth a roddwyd i’r ArchwilyddCyffredinol. Fodd bynnag, dychwelaf at yllythyr, y mae copi ohono gennyf yma, aysgrifennwyd ganddi yn y person cyntaf:

‘I asked the price of their offer’— Gofynnais beth oedd pris eu cynnig—

that was the best offer that was standing— sef y cynnig gorau ar y pryd—

‘which was about to be accepted and was told£350,000.’

oedd ar fin cael ei dderbyn a rhoddwyd pris o£350,000 i mi.

Now, for a person to put that in black andwhite, fairly soon after the event, certainlyraises questions.

Nawr, mae’r ffaith fod rhywun wedi rhoihynny ar ddu a gwyn, yn gymharol fuanwedi’r digwyddiad, yn codi cwestiynau.

Ms Lloyd: If that was the case, then, in myopinion, that breaches professional standards.

Ms Lloyd: Os dyna a ddigwyddodd, yna, ynfy marn i, mae hynny’n torri safonauproffesiynol.

[124] Dafydd Wigley: Indeed. I think wewould very much agree with that. Alison,would you like to ask a question?

[124] Dafydd Wigley: Yn wir. Yr wyf ynmeddwl y byddem yn cytuno’n llwyr âhynny. Alison, a ydych am ofyn cwestiwn?

[125] Alison Halford: Yes. I do not thinkthat this has been covered and, bearing inmind that the word ‘fishy’ has been used, you

[125] Alison Halford: Ydw. Nid wyf yncredu bod hyn wedi cael sylw ac, o gofio fody gair ‘amheus’ wedi’i ddefnyddio, efallai yr

24/10/2002

31

might like to look at paragraph 2.40. I willread a part of it for those who do not have thereport, if you would indulge me, Chair.

hoffech edrych ar baragraff 2.40. Ddarllenafran ohono i’r rhai nad oes ganddynt gopi o’radroddiad, os caf i, Gadeirydd.

‘The Authority kept a substantial body ofrecords, but not all decisions were fullydocumented. As already mentioned it did notkeep a record of: its decision to proceed witha split conveyance; its consideration andrejection of the advice that it received fromthe Welsh Office Estates Department inNovember 1995 to obtain an updatedvaluation independent of its agent; its actionsto ensure that all potential purchasers wereinformed of the proposed changes in planningrestrictions on part of the site from October1998.’

‘Cadwodd yr Awdurdod gorff sylweddol ogofnodion, ond ni chafodd pob penderfyniadei ddogfennu’n llawn. Fel y soniwyd eisoesni chadwodd gofnod o: ei benderfyniad ifwrw ymlaen â thrawsgludo wedi ei rannu; eiystyriaeth a’i wrthodiad o’r cyngor a gafoddgan Adran Ystadau’r Swyddfa Gymreig ymmis Tachwedd 1995 i gael y prisiaddiweddaraf yn annibynnol ar ei asiant; eiweithredoedd i sicrhau bod pob darparbrynwr yn cael ei hysbysu o’r newidiadauarfaethedig yn y cyfyngiadau cynllunio ar rano’r safle o fis Hydref 1998.’

We know that the planning decision tookplace in 1997. Do you not agree that not torecord these three rather fundamental aspectswas somewhat fishy? I do not mind whoanswers. It may be that Mr Jones was aroundat the time.

Gwyddom fod y penderfyniad cynlluniowedi’i wneud yn 1997. A gytunwch fodpeidio â chofnodi’r dair agwedd hynodsylfaenol yma rywfaint yn amheus? Nid oeswahaniaeth gennyf pwy sy’n ateb. Efallai fodMr Jones o gwmpas ar y pryd.

Mr Jones: There is really no excuse for nothaving the records clear for everybody to seenow. I would not offer an explanation forthat.

Mr Jones: Nid oes esgus mewn gwirioneddam beidio â chael cofnodion clir i bawb eugweld yn awr. Ni fyddwn yn cynnig esboniadam hynny.

[126] Alison Halford: But we have heard,have we not, about meticulous people makingnotes, and yet three—in fact four, but we willtalk about clawback later—major items werenot recorded?

[126] Alison Halford: Ond onid ydym wediclywed am bobl drwyadl yn gwneudnodiadau, ac eto ni chofnodwyd tair—na,pedair, ond siaradwn am adfachu wedyn—eitem bwysig?

[127] Dafydd Wigley: I think that they haveaccepted that this is a major deficiency thatcannot possibly be justified.

[127] Dafydd Wigley: Credaf eu bod wediderbyn fod hyn yn ddiffyg mawr na ellir eigyfiawnhau o gwbl.

Ms Lloyd: That is right. Ms Lloyd: Mae hynny’n wir.

[128] Alison Halford: But for the good ofthe public—the public would like some sortof comment, I am sure, Chair.

[128] Alison Halford: Ond er lles ycyhoedd—byddai’r cyhoedd yn hoffi rhywfath o sylw, yr wyf yn siŵr, Gadeirydd.

[129] Dafydd Wigley: Yes. That is now onrecord and will be borne in mind when wecome to draw up our report. Jocelyn, wouldyou like to come in on this before I call Val?

[129] Dafydd Wigley: Byddent. Mae hynnybellach wedi’i gofnodi a bydd yn cael eiystyried wrth lunio ein hadroddiad. Jocelyn,ydych chi am ddod i mewn yma cyn i mi alwar Val?

[130] Jocelyn Davies: Yes. On this point, weare told that this particular official wasnormally meticulous in record keeping—the

[130] Jocelyn Davies: Hoffwn. Ar y pwynthwn, dywedwyd bod y swyddog penodolhwn yn drwyadl iawn o ran cadw

24/10/2002

32

official has been described as meticulousabout two or three times, I think. So werethese records never made or have they beenlost?

cofnodion—disgrifiwyd y swyddog felunigolyn drwyadl, ddwy neu dair gwaith, yrwyf yn meddwl. Felly a wnaed y cofnodionhyn o gwbl neu a ydynt wedi mynd ar goll?

[131] Alun Cairns: Or destroyed. [131] Alun Cairns: Neu eu difa.

[132] Jocelyn Davies: Or destroyed. Is thereany evidence that records were made butwere not sufficient to cover these points?Were they never found? Have they been lostsince?

[132] Jocelyn Davies: Neu eu difa. A oestystiolaeth fod cofnodion wedi’u gwneud ondnad oeddynt yn ddigonol i gwmpasu’rpwyntiau hyn? Oni chafwyd hyd iddynt ogwbl? A gollwyd hwy ers hynny?

Mr Towns: We have the records and wehave made a search of the records.Obviously, some of them were with PowysDistrict Health Authority—the earlier ones,which record the majority of this, about thesplit conveyancing and the 1995 issue, wouldhave been Powys District Health Authorityfiles. The later issue, in 1998, would havebeen on the Dyfed Powys Health Authorityfiles. My information is that searches weremade for this information, and it was notfound. There were a number of other matters,which are identified in the report—reasonsfor the clawback and things like that—thatwere not recorded. I find it, as I have said,unacceptable, and it should have beenrecorded.

Mr Towns: Mae’r cofnodion gennym ac yrydym wedi eu harchwilio. Yn amlwg, yroedd rhai ohonynt gan Awdurdod IechydDosbarth Powys—byddai’r rhai cynharaf,sy’n cofnodi’r rhan fwyaf o hyn, am ytrawsgludo wedi ei rannu a mater 1995, ynffeiliau Awdurdod Iechyd Dosbarth Powys.Byddai’r mater diweddarach, yn 1998, wedibod ar ffeiliau Awdurdod Iechyd DyfedPowys. O’r wybodaeth sydd gen i, fechwiliwyd am y wybodaeth hon, ond niddaethpwyd o hyd iddi. Yr oedd nifer ofaterion eraill, a nodwyd yn yr adroddiad—rhesymau dros adfachu a phethau felly—nachafodd eu cofnodi. Mae’r cyfan, fel ydywedais, yn annerbyniol, ac fe ddylid fodwedi’i gofnodi.

[133] Jocelyn Davies: But as this is comingfrom an official who was normallymeticulous, do we know whether theserecords were never made or is it just that theyhave never been found?

[133] Jocelyn Davies: Ond gan fod hyn yndod oddi wrth swyddog a oedd yn drwyadlfel arfer, a ydym yn gwybod na wnaed ycofnodion hyn o gwbl neu na ddaethpwyd ohyd iddynt o gwbl?

Mr Towns: We do not know. The individualretired.

Mr Towns: Nid ydym yn gwybod. Mae’runigolyn dan sylw wedi ymddeol.

[134] Jocelyn Davies: We do not know, evengiven a meticulous record keeper.

[134] Jocelyn Davies: Nid ydym yn gwybod,er ei fod yn gofnodwr drwyadl.

[135] Dafydd Wigley: Janet do you want tosay something on that very quickly? I want tomove on to the clawback.

[135] Dafydd Wigley: Janet, a ydych amddweud rhywbeth am hynny’n gyflym iawn?Yr wyf am symud ymlaen i drafod adfachu.

[136] Janet Davies: Yes. Very specificallyon that, these complaints started coming in—I do not know when people began to beaware of them—but did anybody have accessto those records once it was known thatcomplaints were being made about the waythat the sale was handled, or were they put ina safe and secure place immediately?

[136] Janet Davies: Ydw. Yn benodol arhynny, dechreuodd y cwynion hyngyrraedd—nid wyf yn gwybod pryd ydechreuodd pobl fod yn ymwybodolohonynt—ond a oedd gan rywun fynediad i’rcofnodion hynny unwaith ei bod hi’n hysbysbod cwynion yn cael eu gwneud ynglŷn â’rffordd y gwerthwyd yr eiddo, neu a roddwyd

24/10/2002

33

hwy mewn lle diogel yn syth?

Mr Towns: They would have been in storagewith lots of our other records, which we haveto keep—patient records and so on.

Mr Towns: Byddent wedi’u storio â llawero’n cofnodion eraill, sy’n rhaid i ni eucadw—cofnodion cleifion ac ati.

[137] Dafydd Wigley: Secure storage? [137] Dafydd Wigley: Mewn lle diogel?

Mr Towns: They are all kept as secure items,yes.

Mr Towns: Maent i gyd yn cael eu cadw feleitemau diogel, ydynt.

[138] Dafydd Wigley: I want to move on aswe are squeezed for time. The question ofclawback is very important. Can you take thaton, Val?

[138] Dafydd Wigley: Yr wyf am symudymlaen gan fod amser yn brin. Mae cwestiwnadfachu yn bwysig iawn. A allwch chi drafodhynny, Val?

[139] Val Lloyd: Yes. I will refer toparagraph 3.26. I know that clawback wasmentioned earlier, and I will probably comeback to that. This question is probably bestdirected at Ms Lloyd. Were thecircumstances that made clawback unrealisticfor this disposal unusual or do they apply toother properties?

[139] Val Lloyd: Gallaf. Cyfeiriaf atbaragraff 3.26. Yr wyf yn gwybod i adfachugael ei grybwyll yn gynt, ac mae’n debyg ybyddaf yn dychwelyd at hynny. Ms Lloydyw’r unigolyn gorau i ateb y cwestiwn hwnfwy na thebyg. A oedd yr amgylchiadau aoedd yn gwneud adfachu yn afrealistig yn yrachos gwaredu hwn yn anarferol neu a ydyntyn berthnasol i eiddo arall?

Mr Jones: It is always a question ofjudgment as to whether you apply clawback.In most cases, we would apply clawback.Here, we had a large, listed, difficultbuilding, which we had already decidedcould not be sold without some of thecherries that existed on the site, that is, someof the houses that have since been sold off.There was clear planning guidance as to whatwas to be allowed on the site. Taking all thatinto account, it was felt that we would put toomany people off if we were also going toclaim any gains that they could possiblymake on the planning side.

Mr Jones: Mae bob amser yn gwestiwn ofarn a ddylid gweithredu’r broses adfachu aipeidio. Yn y rhan fwyaf o achosion, byddemyn gwneud hynny. Yma, yr oedd gennymadeilad mawr, rhestredig, anodd, ypenderfynwyd eisoes na ellid ei werthu hebrai o’r atyniadau ychwanegol ar y safle,hynny yw, rhai o’r tai sydd wedi’u gwerthuers hynny. Yr oedd cyfarwyddyd clir ar yrhyn a ganiateid ar y safle. O ystyried hynny,teimlwyd y byddai gormod o bobl yn cael eullesteirio pe baem yn hawlio hefyd y gallentefallai wneud enillion ar yr ochr gynllunio.

The fact that it was not recorded ismystifying to me because I am aware that itwas discussed between the health authorityand the agent and, indeed, they alsospecifically asked for my opinion. I came inespecially to give that opinion to them at ameeting. In fact, it was also the very lastthing that I can remember discussing beforethe property went on the market. So, again,there is no excuse for it being absent from thefiles. However, it was a point that wasdiscussed in detail and it is an arguable point.

Mae’r ffaith na chafodd ei gofnodi ynddirgelwch i mi gan fy mod yn ymwybodolfod y mater wedi’i drafod gan yr awdurdodiechyd a’r gwerthwr ac, yn wir, fe ofynnwydi mi, yn benodol, am fy marn. Mynychaisgyfarfod i gyflwyno fy marn yn benodoliddynt. A dweud y gwir, dyna’r peth olaf yrwyf yn cofio ei drafod cyn i’r eddo fynd ar yfarchnad. Felly, eto, nid oes esgus dros eiabsenoldeb o’r ffeiliau. Fodd bynnag, yr oeddyn bwynt a drafodwyd yn fanwl ac mae’nbwynt dadleuol.

[140] Val Lloyd: I stand to be corrected, [140] Val Lloyd: Cwympaf ar fy mai,

24/10/2002

34

Chair, because we have had a lot of papers onthis matter, but I would like to take up thispoint. From my memory, there was not alisted building there. The buildings were notlisted.

Gadeirydd, gan ein bod wedi cael llawer obapurau ar y mater hwn, ond hoffwn barhauar y pwynt hwn. O’r hyn yr wyf yn ei gofio,nid oedd adeilad rhestredig yno. Nid oedd yradeiladau’n rhai rhestredig.

Mr Jones: Did I say ‘listed’? I am sorry. Ibeg your pardon.

Mr Jones: A ddywedais ‘rhestredig’? Mae’nddrwg gen i. Yr wyf yn ymddiheuro.

[141] Val Lloyd: Yes, as one of the reasonsfor not having clawback.

[141] Val Lloyd: Do, fel un o’r rhesymaudros beidio ag adfachu.

Mr Jones: I beg your pardon. It was not alisted building. It was a building in aconservation area.

Mr Jones: Yr wyf yn ymddiheuro. Nid oeddyn adeilad rhestredig. Yr oedd yn adeiladmewn ardal gadwraeth.

[142] Val Lloyd: I would like to take issuewith two other matters. Originally, clawbackwas part of the proposal, particularly forbidder A. When the planning changes cameabout, I would have thought that that mighthave been a time to reconsider whetherclawback was of value here.

[142] Val Lloyd: Hoffwn drafod dau faterarall. Yn wreiddiol, yr oedd adfachu yn rhano’r cynnig, yn benodol i gynigydd A. Pangafwyd y newidiadau i’r trefniadau cynllunio,fe fyddwn wedi meddwl mai dyna’r amser iailystyried a oedd adfachu o werth yma.

Mr Jones: I think it was reconsidered at thatpoint.

Mr Jones: Yr wyf yn meddwl iddo gael eiailystyried bryd hynny.

[143] Dafydd Wigley: But we have norecord of it?

[143] Dafydd Wigley: Ond nid oes gennymgofnod ohono?

Mr Jones: Apparently not. Mr Jones: Mae’n ymddangos felly.

[144] Jocelyn Davies: So it is from memorythat you recollect that, or do you have notesfrom that meeting?

[144] Jocelyn Davies: Felly ydych chi’ncofio hynny o’ch cof, neu a oes gennychnodiadau o’r cyfarfod hwnnw?

Mr Jones: No, I probably do not have notesfrom that meeting.

Mr Jones: Na, mae’n debyg nad oes gennyfnodiadau o’r cyfarfod hwnnw.

[145] Jocelyn Davies: So, it is from memorythen.

[145] Jocelyn Davies: Felly, mae’r cyfan yndod o’ch cof.

Mr Jones: Yes, from memory. Mr Jones: Ydy, o ’nghof.

[146] Eleanor Burnham: I think that Valhas already covered my question, but I willask the question, and, if it has been covered, Iam sure that Mr Jones will tell me. Were thecircumstances that made clawback unrealisticfor the Mid Wales Hospital unusual or dothey apply to other NHS properties? I thinkthat you probably might have answered that.

[146] Eleanor Burnham: Credaf fod Valwedi gofyn fy nghwestiwn eisoes, ondgofynnaf y cwestiwn, ac, os yw’r mater wedicael sylw, yr wyf yn siŵr y dywed Mr Joneswrthyf. A oedd yr amgylchiadau a oedd yngwneud adfachu yn afrealistig i YsbytyCanolbarth Cymru yn anarferol neu a ydyntyn berthnasol i eiddo arall y GIG? Credafeich bod siŵr o fod wedi ateb hynny.

Mr Jones: They do apply to others, but, in Mr Jones: Maent yn berthnasol i eraill, ond,

24/10/2002

35

the majority of cases—we always seek to putin clawback. The decision is not to put it in, ifyou know what I mean.

yn y mwyafrif o achosion—ceisiwn adfachubob tro. Y penderfyniad yw peidio â’iweithredu, os ydych yn deall.

[147] Eleanor Burnham: It concerns me thatthere are so many gaps and that no recordswere kept on these circumstances. It is reallyvery concerning.

[147] Eleanor Burnham: Mae’n destunpryder i mi bod cymaint o fylchau ac nachadwyd cofnodion ar yr amgylchiadau hyn.Mae hyn yn destun pryder mawr.

My last question is, in order to demonstratepropriety, would you not expect fullconsideration of clawback to be the rule, evenfor hospitals in rural areas such as this one?

Fy nghwestiwn olaf yw, er mwyngweithredu’n briodol, oni fyddech yn disgwylbod adfachu yn cael ei ystyried yn llawn, hydyn oed mewn ysbytai mewn ardaloeddgwledig fel yr ysbyty hwn?

Mr Jones: Absolutely. Mr Jones: Yn hollol.

[148] Dafydd Wigley: We have heardseveral times this afternoon that decisions,which, at the time, seemed reasonable andobvious, were not fully recorded. In the lightof the serious allegations that have beenmade about the propriety of the disposal, canyou tell us your thoughts on the importanceof full recording? Can you also tell us of anynew steps that you are taking, or mightconsider taking in the light of thisconsideration today, or of any other lessonsthat you have learnt about this episode fromthe work of the Auditor General and histeam, and, in particular, your intentions totake on board all 12 of the recommendationsmade by the National Audit Office, plussome others that may arise from thisafternoon’s deliberations?

[148] Dafydd Wigley: Yr ydym wedi clywedsawl gwaith y prynhawn yma na chofnodwydpenderfyniadau, a oedd, ar y pryd, ynymddangos yn rhesymol ac amlwg. Yn sgîl ycyhuddiadau difrifol a wnaed am briodoldeby gwaredu, a allwch chi roi eich sylwadau i niar bwysigrwydd cofnodi llawn? Allwch chiddweud wrthym hefyd am unrhyw gamaunewydd yr ydych yn eu cymryd, neu ynystyried eu cymryd yn sgîl y drafodaeth honheddiw, neu am unrhyw wersi eraill yr ydychwedi’u dysgu am hyn o waith yr ArchwilyddCyffredinol a’i dîm, ac, yn arbennig, eichbwriadau i ystyried pob un o 12 argymhelliady Swyddfa Archwilio Genedlaethol, ynghyd ârhai eraill a allai godi o drafodaethau’rprynhawn?

Ms Lloyd: The recording of decisions takenis absolutely vital, as is the reporting of whythe decisions are taken in the light of publictransparency. We have deliberately held backthe publication of the Welsh health circularpending the outcome of the AuditorGeneral’s report, so that we could properlyencompass all his recommendations withinthat guidance, and clearly set out draft ormodel procedures for organisations to follow,in the case of the disposal of any of theirassets for the future. So this has beenparticularly helpful to us in moulding thatguidance, and I think that this represents asalutary experience for any healthorganisation, or any public organisation,aiming to dispose of its assets for the futureto make absolutely sure that it is clearlydocumented why they are taking the

Ms Lloyd: Mae cofnodi penderfyniadau awnaed yn hollol hanfodol, fel y mae adroddpam fod penderfyniadau’n cael eu gwneud feleu bod yn eglur i’r cyhoedd. Yr ydym wedioedi cyn cyhoeddi cylchlythyr iechyd Cymruyn fwriadol tra’n aros am ganlyniadadroddiad yr Archwilydd Cyffredinol, fel ygallwn gwmpasu ei holl argymhellion ynbriodol yn y cyfarwyddyd hwnnw, a gosodgweithdrefnau drafft neu fodel clir isefydliadau eu dilyn, ynglŷn â gwareduunrhyw rai o’u hasedau yn y dyfodol. Fellymae hyn wedi bod yn ddefnyddiol iawn i ni oran llunio’r cyfarwyddyd hwnnw, a chredaffod hyn yn brofiad llesol i unrhyw sefydliadiechyd, neu sefydliad cyhoeddus, sy’n ceisiogwaredu ei asedau yn y dyfodol i wneud ynhollol sicr fod y rhesymau dros eupenderfyniadu wedi’u dogfennu’n glir.

24/10/2002

36

decisions. They do really have to prove thatthey have obtained best value for theirproperty and that they satisfy now the WelshAssembly Government’s requirements onsustainable development as well.

Mae’n rhaid iddynt brofi eu bod yn awr wedisicrhau’r gwerth gorau am eu heiddo a’u bodyn bodloni gofynion datblygu cynaliadwyLlywodraeth Cynulliad Cymru hefyd.

[149] Dafydd Wigley: I am grateful. Iconclude this agenda item by observing thatthis report has confirmed a significantnumber of weaknesses in the system thatexisted at that time, which justifies theconsiderable amount of work that has beenput into this report, and also the fact thatmembers of the public brought it to ourattention, for which I thank them. There are,inevitably, some aspects of the allegationsthat were made which it has not been possiblefor the National Audit Office to substantiate.It is always difficult to prove a negative, orindeed to impugn motivation, but there maywell be some aspects that have arisen fromthis afternoon’s inquiry that Sir John Bournand his team will want to revisit—as he hasevery right to do if he believes that there arematters that need to be followed up further.Also, some matters fell outside thejurisdiction of the Auditor General and someof these, I know, are being followed upthrough other channels, such as theombudsman.

[149] Dafydd Wigley: Yr wyf yn ddiolchgar.Clof yr eitem hon ar yr agenda drwy sylwibod yr adroddiad hwn wedi cadarnhau nifersylweddol o wendidau yn y system a oedd ynbodoli ar y pryd, sy’n cyfiawnhau’r gwaithhelaeth a wnaed mewn perthynas â’radroddiad hwn, a’r ffaith fod aelodau’rcyhoedd wedi dod â’r mater i’n sylw, adiolchaf iddynt am hynny. Yn anochel, maerhai agweddau ar y cyhuddiadau a wnaed nadoedd modd i’r Swyddfa ArchwilioGenedlaethol eu profi. Mae bob amser ynanodd profi cymhelliad negyddol, neu i amaucymhelliad, ond efallai y bydd Syr JohnBourn a’i dîm am ailedrych ar rai agweddausydd wedi codi yn sgîl ymchwiliad yprynhawn yma—mae ganddo bob hawl iwneud hynny os yw’n credu bod materionsydd angen eu trafod ymhellach. Hefyd, yroedd rhai materion nad oeddynt yn dod ofewn awdurdod yr Archwilydd Cyffredinol,ac mae rhai o’r rhain, yr wyf yn gwybod, yncael eu dilyn drwy sianeli eraill, megis yrombwdsman.

May I make it clear that Audit Committeehearings are not a court of law? What weconsider are systematic weaknesses and whatsteps can be taken to improve systems so thatwe do not have to relive mistakes that havebeen made in the past. In that context, thisinquiry has been valuable, and thisCommittee will formulate its report on thebasis of what has been said today as well asthe report prepared by the Auditor General.

A gaf i nodi’n glir nad yw gwrandawiadau’rPwyllgor Archwilio yn llys barn. Yr hyn yrydym yn ei ystyried yw gwendidausystematig a pha gamau y gellir eu cymryd iwella systemau fel nad oes yn rhaid i ni ail-fyw camgymeriadau’r gorffennol. Yn y cyd-destun hwnnw, mae’r ymchwiliad hwn wedibod yn werthfawr, a bydd y Pwyllgor hwn ynllunio ei adroddiad ar sail yr hyn addywedwyd yma heddiw yn ogystal ag ar sailadroddiad yr Archwilydd Cyffredinol.

Hoffwn, felly, ddiolch i’r tystion am euhymatebion llawn ac adeiladol i’rcwestiynau. Bydd trawsgrifiad drafft yn caelei baratoi fel y gellir cadarnhau cywirdebffeithiol, ac fe’i hanfonir atoch cyn eigyhoeddi fel rhan o’r cofnodion. Pangyhoeddir adroddiad y Pwyllgor, cynhwysir ytrawsysgrif fel atodiad.

I would therefore like to thank the witnessesfor their full and constructive responses to thequestions. A draft transcript will be preparedin order to ensure factual accuracy, and willbe sent to you before it is published as part ofthe minutes. When the Committee’s report ispublished, the transcript will be appended.

Daeth y sesiwn cymryd tystiolaeth i ben am 3.16 p.m.The evidence-taking session ended at 3.16 p.m.

Cynulliad Cenedlaethol CymruPwyllgor Archwilio

The National Assembly for WalesAudit Committee

Archwiliad Pellach o Faterion yn Deillio o Waredu YsbytyCanolbarth Cymru

Further Examination of Matters Arising from the Disposalof the Mid Wales Hospital

Cwestiynau 1-105Questions 1-105

Dydd Iau 15 Ionawr 2004Thursday 15 January 2004

15/01/2004

2

Aelodau o’r Cynulliad yn bresennol: Janet Davies (Cadeirydd), Leighton Andrews, AlunCairns, Jocelyn Davies, Mark Isherwood, Denise Idris Jones, Val Lloyd, Carl Sargeant,Christine Gwyther, Mick Bates.

Swyddogion yn bresennol: Syr John Bourn, Archwilydd Cyffredinol Cymru; Lew Hughes,Swyddfa Archwilio Genedlaethol Cymru; Mike Usher, Swyddfa Archwilio GenedlaetholCymru; Ceri Thomas, Swyddog Cydymffurfio Dros Dro, Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru.

Tystion: Ms Ann Lloyd, Cyfarwyddwr GIG Cymru; Allan Coffey, Prif Weithredwr BwrddIechyd Lleol Sir Fynwy; Andy Williams, Prif Weithredwr Bwrdd Iechyd Lleol Powys.

Assembly Members present: Janet Davies (Chair), Leighton Andrews, Alun Cairns, JocelynDavies, Mark Isherwood, Denise Idris Jones, Val Lloyd, Carl Sargeant, Christine Gwyther,Mick Bates.

Officials present: Sir John Bourn, Auditor General for Wales; Lew Hughes, National AuditOffice Wales; Mike Usher, National Audit Office Wales; Ceri Thomas, Acting ComplianceOfficer, National Assembly for Wales.

Witnesses: Ann Lloyd, Director, NHS Wales; Allan Coffey, Chief Executive, MonmouthshireLocal Health Board; Andy Williams, Chief Executive, Powys Local Health Board.

Dechreuodd y sesiwn cymryd tystiolaeth am 11.15 a.m.The evidence-taking session began at 11.15 a.m.

[1] Janet Davies: The second hearing of thismorning’s Committee is a furtherexamination of matters arising from thedisposal of the Mid Wales Hospital. Beforewe go into it—and I will ask Sir John Bournto give us a background—I inform peoplewho were not here for the first session thatthere are headsets through which you will geta translation from Welsh and through whichyou will be able to hear more easily if youhave difficulty in hearing. Sir John, couldyou set the context for this report?

[1] Janet Davies: Archwiliad pellach ofaterion yn deillio o waredu YsbytyCanolbarth Cymru yw ail wrandawiad yPwyllgor y bore yma. Cyn i ni ddechrauarni—a byddaf yn gofyn i Syr John Bourn roicefndir i ni—hoffwn atgoffa pobl nadoeddent yn bresennol yn y sesiwn gyntaf fodclustffonau ar gael i’ch galluogi i gaelcyfieithiad o’r Gymraeg a’ch galluogi iglywed yn haws os ydych yn cael trafferthclywed. Syr John, a allwch roi cyd-destun yradroddiad hwn?

Sir John Bourn: Thank you, Chair. Whenthe Committee discussed the report that wehad prepared in October 2002, it becameclear, during the Committee’s session, thatthere were further issues to be followed up. Itwas brought out very clearly, and I think veryusefully, that this was so. I thereforesuggested to the Committee that I should dofurther work on these issues, particularly inthe areas of documentation, in the areas ofplanning criteria and clawback and in relationto a mysterious fax sent to the Secretary ofState. This request, or suggestion, with whichthe Committee agreed, also enabled us topick up subsequent allegations made that

Syr John Bourn: Diolch, Gadeirydd. Pandrafododd y Pwyllgor yr adroddiad yroeddem wedi ei baratoi ym mis Hydref 2002,daeth yn amlwg, yn ystod sesiwn y Pwyllgor,fod materion pellach i’w trafod. Dangoswydyn glir iawn, ac mewn modd buddiol iawn ynfy marn i, mai felly yr oedd hi. Fellyawgrymais wrth y Pwyllgor y dylwn wneudrhagor o waith ar y materion hyn, yn enwedigo ran y dogfennau, ym maes meini prawfcynllunio ac adfachu ac o ran rhyw ffacsdirgel a anfonwyd at yr YsgrifennyddGwladol. Yr oedd y cais hwn, neu’r awgrymhwn, y cytunodd y Pwyllgor ag ef, yn eingalluogi hefyd i roi sylw i honiadau a wnaed

15/01/2004

3

Powys Healthcare NHS Trust had improperlypaid rent for its occupancy of the site afterthe sale. So, the further work that we havedone picks up the points that came out in theCommittee’s first discussion of the issue andtakes account of other points that had comeout in our further research. What we havesought to do, Chair, is to put before theCommittee a consolidated account of theissues that are outstanding for yourexamination.

wedi hynny fod Ymddiriedolaeth GIG GofalIechyd Powys wedi talu rhent yn amhriodolam fod â’r safle yn ei meddiant ar ôl eiwerthu. Felly, mae’r gwaith pellach yr ydymwedi ei wneud yn rhoi sylw i’r pwyntiau agodwyd y tro cyntaf y trafododd y Pwyllgor ymater ac yn ystyried pwyntiau eraill a ddaethi’r amlwg yn ein hymchwil bellach. Yr hynyr ydym wedi ceisio ei wneud, Gadeirydd,yw rhoi gerbron y Pwyllgor adroddiad sy’ncyfuno’r materion sydd heb eu trafod fel ygallwch eu harchwilio.

[2] Janet Davies: Thank you, Sir John. Ithink that the Committee feels that thissession should give us the opportunity to geta fuller understanding of the disposal process.Mrs Lloyd, would you and the otherwitnesses introduce yourselves?

[2] Janet Davies: Diolch, Syr John. Credaffod y Pwyllgor yn teimlo y dylai’r sesiwnhon roi cyfle i ni ddeall y broses waredu ynwell. Mrs Lloyd, a wnewch chi a’r tystioneraill gyflwyno’ch hunain?

Ms Lloyd: I am Ann Lloyd, the Director ofthe NHS in Wales.

Ms Lloyd: Ann Lloyd, Cyfarwyddwr y GIGyng Nghymru, wyf fi.

Mr Coffey: I am Allan Coffey, chiefexecutive of Monmouthshire Local HealthBoard.

Mr Coffey: Allan Coffey, prif weithredwrBwrdd Iechyd Lleol Sir Fynwy, wyf fi.

Mr Williams: My name is Andy Williams; Iam chief executive of Powys Local HealthBoard.

Mr Williams: Andy Williams yw fy enw i; fiyw prif weithredwr Bwrdd Iechyd LleolPowys.

[3] Janet Davies: Thank you and welcome tothis hearing.

[3] Janet Davies: Diolch a chroeso i’rgwrandawiad hwn.

I will start the questions. I would like to referto paragraphs 7-15 of the report, wherefurther reasons are given for not keeping fullrecords. Mrs Lloyd, these paragraphs confirmthat full and proper records were not kept. Inyour experience, do the gaps indocumentation identified typify the standardof national health service businessdocumentation in Wales?

Dechreuaf y cwestiynau. Hoffwn gyfeirio atbaragraffau 7-15 yn yr adroddiad, lle yrhoddir rhesymau pellach dros beidio âchadw cofnodion llawn. Mrs Lloyd, mae’rparagraffau hyn yn cadarnhau na chadwydcofnodion llawn a chywir. Yn eich profiadchi, a yw’r bylchau a nodwyd yn y dogfennauyn nodweddiadol o safon dogfennau busnes ygwasanaeth iechyd gwladol yng Nghymru?

Ms Lloyd: Certainly not now, Chair. I wasnot working in Wales at the time of thisparticular set of transactions, so I am afraidthat I am at a loss to be able to explainwhether or not this was common practicethen. However, since the very helpful reportof the National Audit Office back in October2002, we have issued a number ofdocuments, as I said I would at that hearing,to ensure that there is proper probity in themanagement of records, in proper audit trails

Ms Lloyd: Nac ydynt erbyn hyn yn bendant,Gadeirydd. Nid oeddwn yn gweithio yngNghymru adeg y gyfres benodol hon odrafodion, felly mae arnaf ofn na allaf egluroa oedd hyn yn arfer cyffredin bryd hynny aipeidio. Fodd bynnag, ers adroddiaddefnyddiol iawn y Swyddfa ArchwilioGenedlaethol ym mis Hydref 2002, yr ydymwedi cyhoeddi nifer o ddogfennau, fel ydywedais y byddwn yn gwneud yn ygwrandawiad hwnnw, i sicrhau bod

15/01/2004

4

being undertaken in the disposal of property,and a mandatory requirement for the WelshHealth Estates Service to provide properprofessional advice to individualorganisations, which are thinking ofdisposing or acquiring property, therebyensuring that a mandatory framework isplaced on the NHS in Wales to ensure that itkeeps accurate and good records of itstransactions. It can be of no comfort to any ofus to be in the position of having to defendactions of some years ago, where there hasbeen really inadequate record-keeping of thenature described in the Auditor General’sreport. It is in everybody’s best interest thatthe NHS is able to prove at every step that ithas taken all its decisions with a goodanalysis of the risks surrounding thetransaction and to ensure that proper probitycan be safeguarded at all times.

gonestrwydd priodol wrth reoli cofnodion,fod trywyddau archwilio priodol yn cael eudilyn wrth waredu eiddo, a’i bod yn orfodolbod Gwasanaeth Ystadau Iechyd Cymru yndarparu cyngor proffesiynol priodol isefydliadau unigol, sy’n ystyried gwareduneu gaffael eiddo, a thrwy hynny sicrhau bodfframwaith gorfodol yn cael ei gyflwyno i’rGIG yng Nghymru i sicrhau ei fod yn cadwcofnodion cywir a da o’i drafodion. Ni all fodyn fawr o gysur i neb ohonom orfodamddiffyn camau a gymerwyd raiblynyddoedd yn ôl, lle y bu cofnodi hollolannigonol o’r math a ddisgrifir yn adroddiadyr Archwilydd Cyffredinol. Mae er buddpawb fod y GIG yn gallu profi ym mhob camei fod wedi gwneud ei holl benderfyniadaugyda dadansoddiad da o’r risgiau sy’ngysylltiedig â’r trafodion gan sicrhau bodmodd diogelu’r gonestrwydd priodol bobamser.

[4] Janet Davies: Thank you, Mrs Lloyd.Denise?

[4] Janet Davies: Diolch, Mrs Lloyd.Denise?

[5] Denise Idris Jones: Thank you. Goodmorning. Paragraph 23 on page 8 of thereport refers quite clearly to the fact that MrsBailey made her bid on 12 May and that herfax on 17 May was not a late bid. In fact, MrsBailey’s fax of 17 May seems to have led to alot of allegations, when it appears to havebeen a simple request for some extra time tosupply supporting documentation. Can youconfirm that she did make her bid on 12 Mayand that she supplied the requestedinformation by 17 May—that is, that she didnot receive any preferential treatment?

[5] Denise Idris Jones: Diolch. Bore da.Mae paragraff 23 ar dudalen 8 yn yradroddiad yn nodi’n eithaf clir i Mrs Baileywneud ei chynnig ar 12 Mai ac nad cynnighwyr oedd ei ffacs ar 17 Mai. Mewngwirionedd, mae’n ymddangos bod ffacs MrsBailey ar 17 Mai wedi arwain at lu ohoniadau, er ei bod yn ymddangos mai caissyml am ragor o amser i gyflwyno dogfennauategol ydoedd. A allwch gadarnhau iddiwneud ei chais ar 12 Mai ac iddi gyflwyno’rwybodaeth y gofynnwyd amdani erbyn 17Mai—hynny yw, na chafodd hi ffafriaeth?

Ms Lloyd: She did not receive preferentialtreatment; she faxed to ask for an extension.

Ms Lloyd: Ni chafodd ffafriaeth; anfonoddffacs i ofyn am estyniad.

[6] Denise Idris Jones: A 12-hourextension?

[6] Denise Idris Jones: Estyniad 12-awr?

Ms Lloyd: Yes, a 12-hour extension, which,indeed, she did not take up. It was dealt with,as you can see. The information provided bythe officials to the Secretary of State at thetime is quite clearly stated. Added to theevidence that I gave at our last hearing aboutthis issue, it certainly was not a late bid; latebids are not accepted.

Ms Lloyd: Ie, estyniad 12-awr, ond, yn wir,ni fanteisiodd ar yr estyniad hwnnw. Deliwydâ’r mater, fel y gallwch weld. Mae’rwybodaeth a ddarparwyd gan y swyddogioni’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol ar y pryd wedi einodi’n glir. O’i hychwanegu at y dystiolaetha roddais yn ein gwrandawiad diwethaf am ymater hwn, nid cynnig hwyr ydoedd ynbendant; ni dderbynnir cynigion hwyr.

15/01/2004

5

[7] Denise Idris Jones: Would it thereforenot be better if everyone was given the sameamount of time, and then this kind ofallegation would not happen again?

[7] Denise Idris Jones: Oni fyddai’n wellfelly pe bai pawb yn cael yr un faint o amser,yna ni fyddai honiad o’r math hwn yndigwydd eto?

Ms Lloyd: Absolutely. Everybody is entitledto ask for a delay in providing us withinformation, but it is quite unusual that thatshould be done; it has to be done in a veryopen and honest manner, and the sameaccommodation has to be offered to all otherbidders.

Ms Lloyd: Yn hollol. Mae gan bawb yr hawli ofyn am ragor o amser i ddarparugwybodaeth i ni, ond mae’n bur anarferol ihynny ddigwydd; rhaid ei wneud mewnmodd agored a gonest, a rhaid cynnig yr unhyblygrwydd i bob cynigydd arall.

[8] Denise Idris Jones: Was it not known,therefore, that they could ask for this extratime?

[8] Denise Idris Jones: Onid ydoedd ynhysbys, felly, fod modd iddynt ofyn am yramser ychwanegol hwn?

Ms Lloyd: I am afraid that I cannot answerthat question; I do not have that informationavailable to me.

Ms Lloyd: Mae arnaf ofn na allaf ateb ycwestiwn hwnnw; nid yw’r wybodaeth honnogennyf.

[9] Janet Davies: Thank you. Alun? [9] Janet Davies: Diolch. Alun?

[10] Alun Cairns: Thank you, Cadeirydd.Just to come back on the question that DeniseIdris Jones asked, Ms Lloyd: if you do nothave the information, who does?

[10] Alun Cairns: Diolch, Gadeirydd. A dodyn ôl at gwestiwn Denise Idris Jones, MsLloyd: os nad yw’r wybodaeth gennych chi,gan bwy y mae?

Ms Lloyd: I can certainly investigate furtherwith the NAO into the precise details that itacquired through its investigation—thisobviously is a report of that investigation—on whether or not it was able, from theevidence available, to track down, to auditwhether or not the same accommodation wasextended to others, but I would have to goback to Sir John to ask for his opinion onwhether or not he found that evidence.

Ms Lloyd: Yn sicr, gallaf ymchwilioymhellach gyda’r SAG i’r union fanylion agasglodd drwy ei hymchwiliad—adroddiadyr ymchwiliad hwnnw yw hwn yn amlwg —ynghylch a fu modd iddi, yn ôl y dystiolaetha oedd ar gael, ddarganfod, archwilio agafodd yr un hyblygrwydd ei gynnig i eraillai peidio, ond byddai’n rhaid i middychwelyd at Syr John i ofyn iddo a ddaetho hyd i’r dystiolaeth honno ai peidio yn eifarn ef.

[11] Alun Cairns: Thank you. I want to referto—

[11] Alun Cairns: Diolch. Yr wyf amgyfeirio at—

[12] Janet Davies: Alun, can I stop you therefor a second, because this is something thatwe can clear up here and now rather than letit drift on for a week or so.

[12] Janet Davies: Alun, a gaf fi dorri ar eichtraws am eiliad, oherwydd mae hyn ynrhywbeth y gallwn ei ddatrys ar unwaith ynhytrach na gadael iddo lusgo am rywwythnos.

Sir John Bourn: I wonder if I could ask MrUsher to take that point.

Syr John Bourn: Ys gwn i a allwn ofyn i MrUsher drafod y pwynt hwnnw?

Mr Usher: Certainly. Mrs Bailey made arequest by fax to the Secretary of State forthe 12-hour extension and that was granted,

Mr Usher: Wrth gwrs. Gwnaeth Mrs Baileygais drwy ffacs i’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol amyr estyniad 12-awr a rhoddwyd hwnnw, fel y

15/01/2004

6

as the witness has said. That accommodationwas not offered to other bidders, so she was,in that sense, placed at an advantage overother bidders.

dywedodd y tyst. Ni chynigiwyd yrhyblygrwydd hwnnw i’r cynigwyr eraill, fellyyr oedd ganddi, yn hynny o beth, fantais ar ycynigwyr eraill.

[13] Janet Davies: Thank you. [13] Janet Davies: Diolch.

[14] Alun Cairns: Mr Coffey, I would like torefer to paragraphs 30 and 31 of the AuditorGeneral’s report. It might be useful if Isummarise it for people observing, or maybeto clarify my understanding that £355,000was agreed as a sale price for the premiseswhen the sale was completed in October1999, together with a peppercorn rent for fiveyears, with certain surrender arrangementsbuilt into that process. However, in March2000, the trust had agreed a payment of£120,000 in order to buy itself out of its leasecommitment, which was at a peppercorn rent.So, effectively, the £355,000 does not seemto be much, although it might well have beenthe market value at the time, but the trusteffectively had to refund £120,000 on top.

[14] Alun Cairns: Mr Coffey, hoffwngyfeirio at baragraffau 30 a 31 yn adroddiadyr Archwilydd Cyffredinol. Efallai ybyddai’n ddefnyddiol pe bawn yn ei grynhoiar gyfer y bobl sy’n arsylwi, neu efallai iegluro fy nealltwriaeth bod £355,000 wedi eidderbyn fel pris gwerthu’r eiddo pangwblhawyd y gwerthiant ym mis Hydref1999, ynghyd â rhent rhad am bum mlynedd,a rhai trefniadau ildio yn rhan o’r broseshonno. Fodd bynnag, ym mis Mawrth 2000,yr oedd yr ymddiriedolaeth wedi cytuno ardaliad o £120,000 i’w rhyddhau ei hun o’ihymrwymiad i’r brydles, a oedd am rentrhad. Felly, i bob pwrpas, nid yw’r £355,000yn ymddangos yn llawer, er ei bod yn eithafposibl mai dyna oedd y gwerth marchnadol ary pryd, ond bu’n rhaid i’r ymddiriedolaethad-dalu £120,000 ar ben hynny i bob pwrpas.

Mr Coffey: If I can just describe the processof the arrangements for the buy-out of thelease. The sale was transacted and completed,as you say, in October 1999. As part of thesale and the benefits of the sale to theeventual owner, we had to insist upon a leasebeing inserted into that sale documentbecause we still had 70 patients on the midWales site. So, by selling the property, wecould sell it subject to us having the ability tolease back for a maximum period of fiveyears at the time, until such time as we hadrelocated the patients back into other NHSproperty.

Mr Coffey: Os caf fi ddisgrifio proses ytrefniadau ar gyfer prynu gweddill y brydles.Trafodwyd a chwblhawyd y gwerthiant, felyr ydych chi’n dweud, ym mis Hydref 1999.Fel rhan o’r gwerthiant a buddiannau’rgwerthiant i’r perchennog yn y pen draw, yroedd yn rhaid i ni fynnu bod prydles yn caelei chynnwys yn nogfen y gwerthiant hwnnwoherwydd bod gennym 70 o gleifion ar ysafle yn y Canolbarth o hyd. Felly, drwywerthu’r eiddo, gallem ei werthu ar yr amodein bod ni’n gallu ei brydlesu yn ôl amgyfnod o hyd at bum mlynedd ar y pryd, nesein bod wedi symud y cleifion yn ôl i rywlearall sy’n eiddo i’r GIG.

Now, the decision to buy out the lease wastaken when we were able to relocate theelderly, long-stay patients. There are twotranches of patients. The first tranche of adultacute patients were transferred fairly rapidlyand were subject to a separate lease, whichwas about a month long. The patients weretransferred and the lease expired. The secondlease, which related to the elderly, long-staypatients, which was the five-year lease, withthe 12-month break clause, was there for tworeasons really. The 12-month break clause

Yn awr, penderfynwyd prynu gweddill ybrydles pan oeddem yn gallu symud ycleifion hirdymor, oedrannus. Mae dau grŵpo gleifion. Trosglwyddwyd y grŵp cyntaf ogleifion acíwt mewn oed yn eithaf cyflym acyr oeddent yn destun prydles ar wahân, aoedd yn para tua mis. Symudwyd y cleifion adaeth y brydles i ben. Yr oedd dau reswmmewn gwirionedd dros yr ail brydles, a oeddyn ymwneud â’r cleifion oedrannus, arhosiadhir, sef y brydles bum mlynedd, gyda’r cymaltoriad 12-mis. Pwrpas y cymal toriad 12-mis

15/01/2004

7

was to limit the trust’s financial liability, so,at any point within that five-year lease, wecould instigate the 12-month break clause,and that would be the real extent of ourfinancial commitment. In our judgment, thatwas a realistic amount of time, given the stateof play and the vagaries around transferringpatients, and what could hinder that processbecause, obviously, relatives have views andjudicial reviews can be called. However, witha fair wind, we felt that we could relocatethose patients within 12 months and, so, a 12-month termination was deemed viable,acceptable and reasonable. The five yearswas to protect the patients so that, shouldsomething untoward happen, we had theoption to go up to the five years.

oedd cyfyngu ar gyfrifoldeb ariannol yrymddiriedolaeth, fel bod modd inni, arunrhyw adeg yn ystod y brydles bummlynedd honno, weithredu’r cymal egwyl 12-mis, a dyna fyddai gwir faint einhymrwymiad ariannol. Yn ein barn ni, yroedd hynny’n gyfnod realistig, o ystyried ysefyllfa a’r ansicrwydd sy’n gysylltiedig âsymud cleifion, a’r hyn a allai lesteirio’rbroses honno oherwydd bod gan berthnasaueu barn, mae’n amlwg, a gellir gofyn amadolygiadau barnwrol. Fodd bynnag, gydathamaid bach o lwc, yr oeddem yn teimlo ygallem symud y cleifion hynny o fewn 12 misac, felly, tybid bod terfyniad 12 mis ynbosibl, yn dderbyniol ac yn rhesymol. Pwrpasy pum mlynedd oedd diogelu’r cleifion felbod gennym yr opsiwn, pe bai rhywbethannisgwyl yn digwydd, i aros hyd at bummlynedd.

Now, the other thing to understand in all ofthis is that, while a peppercorn rent would bepaid by us, the actual running costs of thehospital, in terms of the heating,maintenance, security, overheads and so on,would continue. So, had we continued withthe lease for five years, we would have had tomaintain that property, because anotherclause in the lease was to maintain the fabricof the building as at the point that it wascompleted and transferred to the ownershipof Mrs Bailey. So, in order to do that, wecould not just shut it down and so on. Therewere ongoing significant financial liabilitiesand, equally and opposite if you like, for theowner to take on those liabilities earlier,clearly it would be a major financialcommitment to her. So, it was done in thatlight.

Yn awr, y pwynt arall i’w ddeall yn hyn i gydyw, tra byddem ni’n talu rhent rhad, byddaicostau gwirioneddol cynnal yr ysbyty, o ran ygwres, cynnal a chadw, diogelwch, costaucyffredinol ac yn y blaen, yn parhau. Felly,pe baem wedi parhau â’r brydles am bummlynedd, byddem wedi gorfod cynnal yreiddo hwnnw, oherwydd cymal arall yn ybrydles oedd cynnal strwythur yr adeilad felyr oedd pan gafodd ei gwblhau a’idrosglwyddo i berchenogaeth Mrs Bailey.Felly, er mwyn gwneud hynny, ni allem eigau ac yn y blaen, a dyna ddiwedd arni. Yroedd cyfrifoldebau ariannol sylweddol ynparhau ac, yn yr un modd ac i’r gwrthwynebos hoffwch, byddai wedi bod yn ymrwymiadariannol mawr, yn amlwg, i’r perchennogysgwyddo’r cyfrifoldebau hynny yngynharach. Felly, gweithredwyd ar y sailhonno.

[15] Alun Cairns: But, if I go back to theoriginal report provided by the AuditorGeneral, and to figure 3, it states that in thebid of £355,000, there were no conditions.So, I assume that this lease arrangement wasarranged at the convenience of the trust. So,in the simplest terms, what effectivelyhappened was that the health authorityreceived £355,000 as a sale of the premises,but the trust then paid back £120,000 in orderto buy itself out of the lease. Did that happenbecause of the lack of planning and foresighton behalf of the trust and the health authority

[15] Alun Cairns: Ond, os dychwelaf at yradroddiad gwreiddiol a ddarparwyd gan yrArchwilydd Cyffredinol, ac at ffigur 3, mae’nnodi nad oedd amodau yn y cynnig o£355,000. Felly, yr wyf yn tybio i’r trefnianthwn o ran y brydles gael ei drefnu erhwylustod i’r ymddiriedolaeth. Felly, yn ytermau symlaf, yr hyn a ddigwyddodd i bobpwrpas oedd i’r awdurdod iechyd dderbyn£355,000 drwy werthu’r adeiladau, ondwedyn ad-dalodd yr ymddiriedolaeth£120,000 i’w rhyddhau ei hun o’r brydles. Aioherwydd diffyg cynllunio a rhagweld ar ran

15/01/2004

8

in working together? yr ymddiriedolaeth a’r awdurdod iechyd wrthweithio gyda’i gilydd y digwyddodd hynny?

Mr Coffey: No, the trust and the healthauthority worked together in the sale of thehospital. It was predominantly within theremit of the health authority, whose propertyit was to sell. The health authority actuallywrote in the five-year lease in terms of one ofthe conditions of the sale of the property. So,the sale of the property was together with afive-year lease; it was not a separate leasenegotiated after the sale of the property. Itwas incumbent in the sale of the property thatanybody who bought it had to afford the trusta five-year lease, because there were 70patients still there.

Mr Coffey: Na, bu’r ymddiriedolaeth a’rawdurdod iechyd yn gweithio gyda’i gilyddwrth werthu’r ysbyty. Yr oedd o fewn cylchgorchwyl yr awdurdod iechyd yn bennaf, ahwnnw oedd yn gwerthu’r eiddo. Mewngwirionedd, yr awdurdod iechyd aychwanegodd y brydles bum mlynedd fel uno amodau gwerthu’r eiddo. Felly, yr oedd yreiddo yn cael ei werthu gyda phrydles bummlynedd; nid prydles ar wahân wedi’i negodiar ôl gwerthu’r eiddo ydoedd. Yr oedd ynrheidrwydd wrth i’r eiddo gael ei werthu fodunrhyw un a oedd yn ei brynu yn rhoi prydlesbum mlynedd i’r ymddiriedolaeth, oherwyddbod 70 o gleifion yno o hyd.

[16] Alun Cairns: Yes, but that conditionand that request was made by the trust andthe health authority on purchasing theproperty, but then, because of the lack offoresight and planning, just a short number ofmonths later, from October 1999 to March2000, we end up paying back £120,000 inorder to buy ourselves out of the commitmentthat we forced the purchaser to accept.

[16] Alun Cairns: Iawn, ond gwnaed yramod hwnnw a’r cais hwnnw gan yrymddiriedolaeth a’r awdurdod iechyd wrth i’reiddo gael ei brynu, ond wedyn, oherwydddiffyg rhagweld a chynllunio, ychydigfisoedd yn ddiweddarach, o fis Hydref 1999tan fis Mawrth 2000, yr ydym yn gorfod ad-dalu £120,000 er mwyn ein rhyddhau einhunain o’r ymrwymiad yr oeddem wedigorfodi’r prynwr i’w dderbyn.

Mr Coffey: The reason the five-year leasewas insisted upon in the original sale isbecause there were 70 patients in the hospital.Those 70 patients could, in theory, take up tofive years, if not more, to get out of thehospital. Had there been a judicial review, asthere has been in other instances in the NHS,the hospital closure could have beenforestalled, and those patients could havebeen in for a longer time. Our primemotivation was the protection of thosepatients, some of whom had lived there for inexcess of 30 or 40 years, and their homes, sothere had to be a proviso within the sale toaccommodate the interests of the patients. Sothat was an absolute requirement. The factthat we then negotiated a break clause of 12months was entirely due to our limiting ourfinancial liability. They are two differentthings. It was one lease, but, in terms offinancial contribution, in terms of thefinancial liability to the trust, we couldinvoke that lease at any time. We invoked itas soon as we knew that it was likely that wecould resettle or relocate the patients within a

Mr Coffey: Y rheswm dros fynnu cael ybrydles bum mlynedd yn y gwerthiantgwreiddiol oedd bod 70 o gleifion yn yrysbyty. Gallai’r 70 claf hynny, ynddamcaniaethol, gymryd hyd at bummlynedd, os nad mwy, i adael yr ysbyty. Pebai adolygiad barnwrol wedi ei gynnal, felsydd wedi digwydd mewn achosion eraill yny GIG, gallai hynny fod wedi atal cau’rysbyty, a gallai’r cleifion hynny fod wedi bodyn yr ysbyty yn hwy. Ein prif gymhelliadoedd diogelu’r cleifion hynny, rhai ohonyntyn byw yno ers dros 30 neu 40 mlynedd, a’ucartrefi, felly rhaid oedd cael amod yn ygwerthiant i ystyried lles y cleifion. Felly yroedd hynny’n ofyniad pendant. Yr unigreswm y bu i ni negodi cymal toriad 12 miswedyn oedd ein bod am gyfyngu ar eincyfrifoldeb ariannol. Maent yn ddau bethgwahanol. Un brydles ydoedd, ond, o rancyfraniad ariannol, o ran cyfrifoldeb ariannolyr ymddiriedolaeth, gallem roi’r brydleshonno mewn grym ar unrhyw adeg. Bu i ni eirhoi mewn grym cyn gynted ag yr oeddem yngwybod ei bod yn debygol y gallem

15/01/2004

9

12-month period, and that we did. However,in order for us to buy ourselves out of thelease—the lease does not come withoutcost—the implication for the owners is thatthey would take on the liability that muchearlier than they thought they would.Therefore, it would cost them a lot moremoney because they would have to take upthe heating, lighting, maintenance, security,and so on, earlier than they had planned for intheir business. Similarly to us, the equation tous was to say that, having given notice for 12months—we had seven months remainingwhen we eventually transferred thepatients—we had seven months’ worth ofdirect costs of running that, which weestimated at the time to be around £90,000,and so, even if we had just stayed there,transferred the patients, retained the lease andpaid the owner nothing, it would have cost usabout £90,000.

ailgartrefu neu adleoli’r cleifion o fewncyfnod o 12 mis, a dyna a wnaethom. Foddbynnag, er mwyn i ni allu ein rhyddhau einhunain o’r brydles—ni ddaw’r brydles hebgost—y goblygiad i’r perchenogion yw ybyddai’n rhaid iddynt ysgwyddo’r cyfrifoldebyn llawer cynt nag yr oeddent wedi eiddisgwyl. Felly, byddai’n costio llawer mwyiddynt oherwydd byddai’n rhaid iddynt daluam y gwres, y golau, cynnal a chadw,diogelwch ac yn y blaen yn gynt nag yroeddent wedi bwriadu yn eu busnes. Yndebyg i ni, y sefyllfa gyffelyb i ni oedddweud, ar ôl rhoi rhybudd o 12 mis—yr oeddgennym saith mis yn weddill pan fu i nisymud y cleifion yn y diwedd—fod gennymwerth saith mis o gostau cynnaluniongyrchol, y bu i ni amcangyfrif ar y prydeu bod oddeutu £90,000, ac felly, hyd yn oedpe baem wedi aros yno, symud y cleifion,cadw’r brydles a thalu dim i’r perchennog,byddai wedi costio rhyw £90,000 i ni.

So, the difference between the £90,000 andthe eventual settlement was our estimate ofthe balance of risk, because it is a hugesprawling site—I do not know whether youare familiar with the site, but it is very large,comprising many buildings, and it is veryremote and very prone to vandalism, and itwas a high security risk. The replacementcost of the property was worth millions, andwe were liable, as a trust, to make good anydilapidations in the condition of that entireestate that had been sold and which we hadon leasehold. So, it was our judgment that wecould either stay in it for seven months—itwould cost us £90,000 to do that anyway—so, what was it worth to us to buy out thatrisk of the potential of vandalism, fire, theftand all the rest of it, and that comprised the£120,000 payment.

Felly, y gwahaniaeth rhwng y £90,000 a’rsetliad yn y pen draw oedd ein hamcangyfrifni o’r cydbwysedd risg, oherwydd y mae’nsafle eang enfawr—ni wn a ydych yngyfarwydd â’r safle, ond mae’n fawr iawn,gyda llawer o adeiladau, ac mae’n anghysbelliawn ac yn agored iawn i fandaliaeth, ac yroedd yn risg sylweddol o ran diogelwch.Byddai’n costio miliynau i ailadeiladu’r safle,ac yr oeddem yn gyfrifol, felymddiriedolaeth, am unioni unrhywddadfeiliad yng nghyflwr yr ystad gyfan aoedd wedi ei gwerthu ac yr oeddem yn eiphrydlesu. Felly, ein barn ni oedd y gallemnaill ai aros ynddi am saith mis—byddai’ncostio £90,000 i ni wneud hynny bethbynnag—felly, beth oedd y gwerth i ni obrynu rhyddid rhag y risg honno oherwyddposibilrwydd fandaliaeth, tân, lladrata ac yn yblaen, a dyna oedd y taliad o £120,000.

[17] Alun Cairns: I do not want to pursuethis any further, other than to say that what ithas effectively meant is that the net receipt tothe health service in Wales was £235,000rather than the £355,000 that was agreed atthe outset, because we had to pay back thatsum. I want to move on to ask you why thisinformation was not made available to theAuditor General during his originalinvestigation?

[17] Alun Cairns: Nid wyf am fynd ar ôlhyn ymhellach, heblaw dweud mai’r hyn ymae wedi ei olygu i bob pwrpas yw bod ygwasanaeth iechyd yng Nghymru wediderbyn swm net o £235,000 yn hytrach na’r£355,000 a gytunwyd ar y dechrau, oherwyddi ni orfod ad-dalu’r swm hwnnw. Yr wyf amsymud ymlaen i ofyn i chi pam na threfnwydbod y wybodaeth hon ar gael i’r ArchwilyddCyffredinol yn ystod ei ymchwiliadgwreiddiol?

15/01/2004

10

Mr Coffey: That was for several reasons.The first reason was that I was not aware ofthe audit. I was not aware of the AuditorGeneral’s audit into the sale of the MidWales Hospital.

Mr Coffey: Yr oedd sawl rheswm droshynny. Y rheswm cyntaf yw nad oeddwn ynymwybodol o’r archwiliad. Nid oeddwn ynymwybodol o archwiliad yr ArchwilyddCyffredinol i werthu Ysbyty CanolbarthCymru.

[18] Alun Cairns: When did you becomeaware of it?

[18] Alun Cairns: Pryd y daethoch chi’nymwybodol ohono?

Mr Coffey: I became aware of it when I wassent the draft NAO report in September 2002.

Mr Coffey: Deuthum yn ymwybodol ohonopan anfonwyd adroddiad drafft y SAG atafym mis Medi 2002.

[19] Alun Cairns: Forgive me, but it wasquite widely reported in the Wales on Sundayand outside in the press thereafter.

[19] Alun Cairns: Maddeuwch i mi, ondcafodd lawer o sylw yn y Wales on Sunday acyng ngweddill y wasg wedi hynny.

Mr Coffey: Well, I do not take the Wales onSunday, and I did not see it in the Wales onSunday. I was not aware that there was anaudit going on into the hospital. It was withthe health authority; it was not with us. Wehad no inclusion in that audit in terms of thescoping. The National Audit Office did nottalk to us about whether we could contributeto that, so I was not aware of it. I had, duringthe process when I was negotiating thepayment to Mrs Bailey of £120,000, engagedthe district audit service in terms of thedistrict audit manager for Powys HealthcareNHS Trust to inform him of our actions, tocheck with him whether they representedvalue for money for the health service, and tocheck for probity. So, I suppose, in my mindI had already involved audit—district audit,external audit—in this process. Audit did notflag up to me at the time that I needed tocross check this prior audit report. So it didnot occur to me, because I did not knowabout it and even when I did know about it Idid not link the two particularly because Ithought that they were quite separate items.

Mr Coffey: Wel, nid wyf yn cael y Wales onSunday, ac ni welais ef yn y Wales onSunday. Nid oeddwn yn ymwybodol bodarchwiliad o’r ysbyty yn digwydd. Gyda’rawdurdod iechyd yr oedd; nid oedd gyda ni.Nid oeddem yn rhan o’r archwiliad hwnnw oran pennu ei gwmpas. Ni siaradodd ySwyddfa Archwilio Genedlaethol â niynghylch a allem gyfrannu at hynny, felly nidoeddwn yn ymwybodol ohono. Yn ystod ybroses pan oeddwn yn negodi’r taliad o£120,000 i Mrs Bailey, yr oeddwn wedicysylltu â’r gwasanaeth archwilio dosbarthdrwy reolwr archwilio dosbarthYmddiriedolaeth GIG Gofal Iechyd Powysi’w hysbysu am ein gweithredoedd, i edrycha oeddent yn werth yr arian i’r gwasanaethiechyd yn ei olwg ef ac i gadarnhaugonestrwydd. Felly, mae’n debyg gennyf fymod yn fy meddwl i wedi cynnwysarchwiliad—archwiliad dosbarth, archwiliadallanol—yn y broses hon eisoes. Ni chefais fyhysbysu gan yr archwiliad ar y pryd fodangen i mi groeswirio’r adroddiad archwilioblaenorol hwn. Felly ni chroesodd hynny fymeddwl, oherwydd nid oeddwn yn gwybodamdano a hyd yn oed pan oeddwn ynymwybodol ohono, ni chysylltais y ddau ynarbennig oherwydd fy mod yn credu eu bodyn ddau beth hollol ar wahân.

[20] Alun Cairns: With the greatest respect,Mr Coffey, this was quite a significant newsitem within the health service because of theactions of the Auditor General in terms of hisinvestigation, because of the wild

[20] Alun Cairns: Gyda phob parch, MrCoffey, yr oedd hon yn eitem newyddioneithaf pwysig yn y gwasanaeth iechydoherwydd gweithredoedd yr ArchwilyddCyffredinol o ran ei ymchwiliad, oherwydd

15/01/2004

11

allegations—some accurate, someinaccurate—that had been made by membersof the public. I am very surprised that youhad not heard of it from your colleagueswithin the health service, bearing in mind thesenior position that you hold.

yr honiadau gwyllt—rhai ohonynt yn gywir,rhai ohonynt yn anghywir—a oedd wedi eugwneud gan aelodau o’r cyhoedd. Yr wyf ynsynnu’n fawr nad oeddech wedi clywedamdano gan eich cydweithwyr yn ygwasanaeth iechyd, o gofio eich bod mewnswydd uchel.

Mr Coffey: I can only say that, if I wasaware of it, it was very tangential. I was notaware of it as a mainstream issue thatconcerned the dealings of the trust.

Mr Coffey: Ni allaf ond dweud, os oeddwnyn ymwybodol ohono, mai mater ymyloliawn ydoedd. Nid oeddwn yn ymwybodolohono fel mater prif ffrwd a oedd ynymwneud â busnes yr ymddiriedolaeth.

[21] Alun Cairns: Is it fair to say then, thatoperations within the NHS are socompartmentalised that one department doesnot talk to another?

[21] Alun Cairns: A yw’n deg dweud felly,fod gweithrediadau o fewn y GIG wedi eurhannu yn adrannau i’r fath raddau nad yw’rnaill adran yn siarad â’r llall?

Mr Coffey: Well, no, it is the opposite, infact, in that had any officials in Dyfed PowysHealth Authority at the time who were beingaudited felt that it would have been useful toengage the trust as the continuing users of thehospital, then I guess that they would havedone, and they did not. District audit did notflag up a link between the trust’s dealingswith Mrs Bailey and this previous audit. Aconnection was not made. They were twoentirely different things. My understanding,when I did find out about the audit report,was that it was concerned solely with thedisposal of the hospital.

Mr Coffey: Wel, na, i’r gwrthwyneb, mewngwirionedd, oherwydd pe bai unrhyw un oswyddogion Awdurdod Iechyd Dyfed Powysar y pryd a oedd yn cael eu harchwilio yncredu y byddai wedi bod yn ddefnyddiolcynnwys yr ymddiriedolaeth fel y rhai a oeddyn parhau i ddefnyddio’r ysbyty, yna tybiaf ybyddent wedi gwneud hynny, ac niwnaethant. Ni thynnodd yr archwiliaddosbarth sylw at gysylltiad rhwng ymwneudyr ymddiriedolaeth â Mrs Bailey a’rarchwiliad blaenorol hwn. Ni welwydcysylltiad. Yr oeddent yn ddau beth hollolwahanol. Yr hyn yr oeddwn i’n ei ddeall, pangefais wybod am yr adroddiad archwilio,oedd ei fod yn ymwneud â gwaredu’r ysbytyyn unig.

[22] Alun Cairns: Ms Lloyd, can I ask youabout the awareness or lack of awarenesswithin the health service as a whole of theAuditor General’s report? Would you say thatsenior personnel within the health servicewould generally be aware of general auditingof any division within the health service?

[22] Alun Cairns: Ms Lloyd, a gaf fi ofyn ichi am yr ymwybyddiaeth neu’r diffygymwybyddiaeth o fewn y gwasanaeth iechydyn ei gyfanrwydd o adroddiad yr ArchwilyddCyffredinol? A fyddech yn dweud y byddaiuwch bersonél yn y gwasanaeth iechyd ar ycyfan yn ymwybodol o archwilio cyffredinolyn unrhyw un o is-adrannau’r gwasanaethiechyd?

Ms Lloyd: I would expect all accountableofficers and accounting officers to be wellaware of any of the reports coming from theNational Audit Office, because they willinform good practice and it will allow themto audit their own practice.

Ms Lloyd: Byddwn yn disgwyl i bobswyddog atebol a swyddog cyfrifo fod yngwbl ymwybodol o unrhyw adroddiadau gany Swyddfa Archwilio Genedlaethol,oherwydd byddant yn llywio arferion da acyn eu galluogi i archwilio eu harferion euhunain.

15/01/2004

12

[23] Alun Cairns: Thank you, I am gratefulfor that answer. Mr Williams and Mr Coffey,and this is my final question, really—

[23] Alun Cairns: Diolch, yr wyf ynddiolchgar am yr ateb hwnnw. Mr Williams aMr Coffey, a dyma fy nghwestiwn olaf,mewn gwirionedd—

[24] Janet Davies: Before you go on to thatlast question, could I just bring in Leighton?

[24] Janet Davies: Cyn i chi ofyn ycwestiwn olaf hwnnw, a gaf fi alw arLeighton?

[25] Alun Cairns: Yes, of course. [25] Alun Cairns: Cewch, wrth gwrs.

[26] Leighton Andrews: I just want to beclear about your reasons for what you saidearlier, Mr Coffey. Paragraph 31 of theAuditor General’s report says that the trustdid not bring these issues to the NAO’sattention because it felt that the scope of theNAO’s inquiry related only up to the periodof the sale in October 1999, which is slightlydifferent to what you have just said to us.You are saying that you were not aware of it.

[26] Leighton Andrews: Yr wyf am fod ynglir am eich rhesymau dros yr hyn addywedasoch yn gynharach, Mr Coffey.Dywed paragraff 31 yn adroddiad yrArchwilydd Cyffredinol na wnaeth yrymddiriedolaeth hysbysu’r SAG am ymaterion hyn oherwydd ei bod yn credu maihyd at gyfnod y gwerthiant yn Hydref 1999yn unig yr oedd cwmpas ymchwiliad y SAG,sydd fymryn yn wahanol i’r hyn yr ydychnewydd ei ddweud wrthym ni. Yr ydych yndweud nad oeddech yn ymwybodol ohono.

Mr Coffey: No, I think it is consistent withwhat I said. When we received the draftreport in September, I circulated it within thetrust for comment. The auditor was asking forour views on its completeness, accuracy andso on. It was officers within the trust at thetime who received the report—and I cannotspeak for them, as to whether it was their firstknowledge of the audit or not—but, in termsof what the reference in that paragraph relatesto, we did not make the connection betweenthe two.

Mr Coffey: Na, credaf ei fod yn gyson â’rhyn a ddywedais. Pan dderbyniasom yradroddiad drafft ym mis Medi, bu i mi eiddosbarthu o amgylch yr ymddiriedolaeth igael sylwadau arno. Yr oedd yr archwilyddyn gofyn am ein barn ynghylch pa morgyflawn, pa mor gywir ac yn y blaen ydoedd.Swyddogion yn yr ymddiriedolaeth ar y pryda gafodd yr adroddiad—ac ni allaf siaraddrostynt, ai dyna pryd y daethant i wybod amyr archwiliad am y tro cyntaf ai peidio—ond,o ran yr hyn y mae’r cyfeiriad yn y paragraffhwnnw yn ymwneud ag ef, ni welsom ycysylltiad rhwng y ddau.

[27] Janet Davies: Okay. Alun? [27] Janet Davies: O’r gorau. Alun?

[28] Alun Cairns: Thank you, Cadeirydd.That surprised me, even more than previousanswers maybe. To begin with, Mr Coffey,you mentioned the risk that the trust wouldhave faced if it had not surrendered thelease—or if it had not terminated the lease, Ishould say. That was because of themaintenance and so on of the buildings; therewas an obligation to maintain the buildings inthe condition in which you originallyaccepted them. Would it not have beensensible to have taken at least photographicevidence of some sort to protect the interestsof the trust?

[28] Alun Cairns: Diolch, Gadeirydd. Cefaisfy synnu gan hynny, hyd yn oed yn fwy nagatebion blaenorol efallai. I ddechrau, MrCoffey, soniasoch am y risg y byddai’rymddiriedolaeth wedi ei hwynebu pe na baiwedi ildio’r brydles—neu, yn hytrach, pe nabai wedi terfynu’r brydles. Yr oedd hynnyoherwydd cynnal a chadw yr adeiladau ac yny blaen; yr oedd rhwymedigaeth i gynnal achadw’r adeiladau yn y cyflwr y cawsochhwy yn wreiddiol. Oni fyddai wedi bod ynsynhwyrol cymryd tystiolaeth ffotograffig oryw fath o leiaf i ddiogelu buddiannau’rymddiriedolaeth?

15/01/2004

13

Mr Coffey: We did take a photographicsurvey of the site for our own records. Wedid not undertake a full structural survey: weconsidered that and our professional advice—my professional advice—from the estatesdepartment in the trust, which also consultedthe health authority whose decision on thismatter it was, and Welsh Health Estates, as towhether a full structural survey would serveany purpose in terms of the protection of thetrust against future claims for dilapidation.The advice from all three bodies was that itwould be prohibitively expensive toundertake such a survey given the nature ofthe site—it is an absolutely huge site, withmany buildings. A photographic surveywould not identify things such as rot, and soon, in wooden structures; it would be a verysuperficial account of the quality of thestructure of the buildings, and it would notindicate damp, potentially. We therefore tookthe decision that, even had we commissionedan extremely expensive survey—and ourestimates at the time were that that wouldcost us around £50,000—it would not haveprotected us against any future claims fordilapidation. It would not offer us a cast-ironguarantee that people could not come backand make claims for dilapidation that theycould claim had occurred after the date ofcompletion.

Mr Coffey: Gwnaethom arolwg ffotograffigo’r safle ar gyfer ein cofnodion ni ein hunain.Ni chynhaliwyd arolwg strwythurol llawngennym: bu i ni ystyried hynny a’n cyngorproffesiynol—fy nghyngor proffesiynol i—gan adran ystadau’r ymddiriedolaeth, a fuhefyd yn ymgynghori â’r awdurdod iechyd aoedd yn gyfrifol am y penderfyniad ar ymater hwn, ac Ystadau Iechyd Cymru,ynghylch a fyddai arolwg strwythurol llawn ounrhyw fudd o ran amddiffyn yrymddiriedolaeth rhag hawliadau amddadfeiliad yn y dyfodol. Cyngor y tri chorffoedd y byddai’n afresymol o ddrud cynnalarolwg o’r fath o ystyried natur y safle—mae’n safle gwirioneddol enfawr, gydallawer o adeiladau. Ni fyddai arolwgffotograffig yn dod o hyd i bethau felpydredd, ac yn y blaen, mewn strwythuraupren; cofnod arwynebol iawn a fyddai oansawdd strwythur yr adeiladau, ac nifyddai’n dangos lle y gallai lleithder fod.Felly, penderfynasom, hyd yn oed pe baemwedi comisiynu arolwg hynod ddrud—a’nhamcangyfrifon ar y pryd oedd y byddai’ncostio tua £50,000 i ni—na fyddai wedi eindiogelu rhag unrhyw hawliadau amddadfeiliad yn y dyfodol. Ni fyddai’n rhoisicrwydd perffaith i ni na allai pobl ddod ynôl a gwneud hawliadau am ddadfeiliad ygallent honni ei fod wedi digwydd ar ôl ydyddiad cwblhau.

[29] Alun Cairns: In his report, the AuditorGeneral accepts the issue about a fullstructural survey, but I did not mention thatpurposely because of the Auditor General’scomments. However, would it not have beensensible to have had a detailed photographicrecord in order to protect the interests of thetrust, rather than some photographs, as youmentioned? It is quite clear from the AuditorGeneral’s suggestion in his report that thephotographic evidence was insufficient.

[29] Alun Cairns: Yn ei adroddiad, mae’rArchwilydd Cyffredinol yn derbyn y ddadlynglŷn ag arolwg strwythurol llawn, ond nisoniais am hynny yn fwriadol oherwyddsylwadau’r Archwilydd Cyffredinol. Foddbynnag, oni fyddai wedi bod yn synhwyrolcael cofnod ffotograffig manwl er mwyndiogelu buddiannau’r ymddiriedolaeth, ynhytrach na rhai ffotograffau, fel y soniasoch?Mae’n hollol amlwg yn ôl awgrym yrArchwilydd Cyffredinol yn ei adroddiad nadoedd y dystiolaeth ffotograffig yn ddigonol.

Mr Coffey: I think that the Auditor Generalwent to a firm of surveyors that suggestedthat some sort of video record—which againis photographic, is it not—of the site mayhave protected the trust. However, I wouldsay again that that is his professional view:our professional advice was contrary to that.

Mr Coffey: Credaf i’r ArchwilyddCyffredinol fynd at gwmni o syrfewyr aawgrymodd y gallai rhyw fath o gofnodfideo—sydd eto yn ffotograffig, onid ydyw—o’r safle fod wedi diogelu’r ymddiriedolaeth.Fodd bynnag, byddwn yn dweud eto mai eifarn broffesiynol ef yw hynny: yr oedd eincyngor proffesiynol ni yn groes i hynny.

15/01/2004

14

[30] Alun Cairns: Mr Williams, do you wantto express your view on that question?

[30] Alun Cairns: Mr Williams, a ydych amfynegi eich barn ar y cwestiwn hwnnw?

Mr Williams: Only to say that, when I tookup post, I was invited to submit evidence aspart of the Auditor General’s investigation,and the advice available to me at the timewas as Allan has described. It remained theprofessional view within the organisation thata photographic record would not beappropriate for the reasons that Allandescribed. Subsequently, of course, thisreport has suggested a different course ofaction, and I suspect that that is nowsomething that all accountable officers willreview in the light of the Auditor General’sreport. However, the advice that I was givenwhen I assumed responsibility as accountableofficer was exactly the same: a photographicrecord was not deemed to be a measure thatwould protect the organisation from chargesof dilapidation.

Mr Williams: Dim ond dweud, panddechreuais ar y swydd, fy mod wedi caelgwahoddiad i gyflwyno tystiolaeth fel rhan oymchwiliad yr Archwilydd Cyffredinol, a’rcyngor a oedd ar gael i mi ar y pryd oedd yrhyn y mae Allan wedi ei ddisgrifio. Y farnbroffesiynol yn y sefydliad o hyd oedd nafyddai cofnod ffotograffig yn briodol am yrhesymau a ddisgrifiodd Allan. Wedi hynny,wrth gwrs, mae’r adroddiad hwn wediawgrymu ffordd wahanol o weithredu, athybiaf fod hynny yn awr yn rhywbeth ybydd pob swyddog atebol yn ei adolygu ynsgîl adroddiad yr Archwilydd Cyffredinol.Fodd bynnag, yr oedd y cyngor a gefais panysgwyddais gyfrifoldeb fel swyddog atebolyr un peth yn union: nid ystyrid bod cofnodffotograffig yn gam a fyddai’n diogelu’rsefydliad rhag hawliadau am ddadfeiliad.

[31] Jocelyn Davies: May I just come inthere? One of the greatest dangers, and one ofthe biggest risks, that you cited earlier wasvandalism. A photographic record, of course,would have been very useful should thebuildings have been subject to vandalism,rather than just rotting and so on. You wouldhave been able to capture vandalism.

[31] Jocelyn Davies: A gaf fi ddod i mewnyn y fan hon? Un o’r peryglon mwyaf, ac uno’r risgiau mwyaf, y bu i chi gyfeirio ati yngynharach oedd fandaliaeth. Byddai cofnodffotograffig, wrth gwrs, wedi bod ynddefnyddiol iawn pe byddai fandaliaeth, ynhytrach na phydredd ac yn y blaen, wedieffeithio ar yr adeiladau. Byddech wedi gallucael fandaliaeth.

Mr Coffey: Yes, and that would not havebeen in dispute; you would not need a survey.I guess that it would have assisted in that.

Mr Coffey: Byddem, ac ni fyddai dadlauwedi bod am hynny; ni fyddai arnoch angenarolwg. Yr wyf yn tybio y byddai wedi bod ogymorth gyda hynny.

[32] Jocelyn Davies: It was one of the thingsthat you cited earlier as being the biggestrisk.

[32] Jocelyn Davies: Dyna oedd un o’rpethau y bu i chi gyfeirio ato yn gynharachfel y risg fwyaf.

Mr Coffey: Yes, and it was the biggest riskin the sense that, had vandalism occurred, itwould be down to the trust to make that good.In terms of instances of vandalism or fire—major impacts on the quality of the estate—we had a photographic record of the estatethat would have taken account of acts likethat, but it would not have gone down to thedetail of what windowsills needed replacing,whether there was damp in rooms and stufflike that, which may not seem a lot, butwhich would cost an awful lot to repair. Had

Mr Coffey: Ie, a dyna oedd y risg fwyaf ammai cyfrifoldeb yr ymddiriedolaeth, pe baifandaliaeth wedi digwydd, fyddai unionihynny. O ran achosion o fandaliaeth neudân—fyddai’n cael effaith fawr ar ansawddyr ystad—yr oedd gennym gofnodffotograffig o’r ystad a fyddai wedi ystyriedgweithredoedd fel hynny, ond ni fyddai wedirhoi manylion am ba siliau ffenestr yr oeddangen eu newid, a oedd ystafelloedd yn llaitha phethau felly, nad ydynt yn ymddangos ynbethau o bwys efallai, ond a fyddai’n costio

15/01/2004

15

a wing burnt down or been vandalised, then,clearly, the difference in state would be fairlyobvious.

llawer iawn i’w hatgyweirio. Pe bai adainwedi llosgi’n ulw neu wedi ei fandaleiddio,yna, yn amlwg, byddai’r gwahaniaeth yn eichyflwr yn eithaf amlwg.

[33] Alun Cairns: With the greatest respect,Mr Coffey, I feel that the position is movingin that, on the one hand, you tell us thatphotographic evidence would not be helpful,and then, following Jocelyn Davies’squestion, you say that yes, quite clearly, itwould be helpful. Which is it, and why,effectively, did we not have detailedphotographic evidence? However, I want toleave that separate, because you partlyanswered the last question. Can you tell us:would photographic evidence have beenhelpful or not?

[33] Alun Cairns: Gyda phob parch, MrCoffey, credaf fod eich safbwynt yn newidoherwydd, ar y naill llaw, dywedwch wrthymna fyddai tystiolaeth ffotograffig ynddefnyddiol, ac yna, yn sgîl cwestiwnJocelyn Davies, dywedwch y byddai, ynhollol amlwg, yn ddefnyddiol. Pa un ydyw, apham, i bob pwrpas, na chawsom dystiolaethffotograffig fanwl? Fodd bynnag, yr wyf amroi hynny o’r neilltu, oherwydd atebasoch ycwestiwn diwethaf yn rhannol. A allwchddweud wrthym: a fyddai tystiolaethffotograffig wedi bod yn ddefnyddiol aipeidio?

Mr Coffey: It would have been helpful forobvious major damage, clearly, but then—

Mr Coffey: Byddai wedi bod yn ddefnyddiolar gyfer difrod mawr amlwg, yn ddiamau,ond wedyn—

[34] Alun Cairns: And that would haveprotected the interests of the trust to a certainextent?

[34] Alun Cairns: A byddai hynny wedidiogelu buddiannau’r ymddiriedolaeth i rywraddau?

Mr Coffey: No, because it would indicatethat vandalism had taken place and we wouldhave had to repair it. It is the opposite wayround, really. It would not have protected ourinterests, I believe, because if vandalism hadcaused a room to be totally violated—windows smashed and so on—that wouldobviously be a clear change in the nature ofthe building. I think that the survey that wewere talking about at the time of thephotographic evidence was more concernedwith the basic infrastructure of the building,with the condition of the woodwork, the roof,damp—a surveyor’s report like you wouldhave for a house. For anything that wasoutside of that and major, includingvandalism and fire, it would be obvious toboth parties that it was a change in thecondition. I do not think that photographicevidence—

Mr Coffey: Na, oherwydd byddai’n dangosbod fandaliaeth wedi digwydd a byddemwedi gorfod wedi ei atgyweirio. Ygwrthwyneb sy’n wir, mewn gwirionedd. Nifyddai wedi diogelu ein buddiannau, yn fymarn i, oherwydd pe bai ystafell wedi eidifrodi’n llwyr gan fandaliaeth—ffenestriwedi eu torri ac yn y blaen—byddai hynny’namlwg yn newid clir yn natur yr adeilad.Credaf fod yr arolwg yr oeddem yn sônamdano adeg y dystiolaeth ffotograffig ynymwneud mwy ag adeiladwaith sylfaenol yradeilad, â chyflwr y gwaith coed, y to,lleithder—adroddiad syrfëwr fel y byddechyn ei gael ar gyfer tŷ. O ran unrhyw bethmawr ar wahân i hynny, gan gynnwysfandaliaeth a thân, byddai’n amlwg i’r ddaubarti ei fod yn newid yn y cyflwr. Ni chredafy byddai tystiolaeth ffotograffig—

[35] Alun Cairns: But unless you know theoriginal position, you do not then know aboutdeterioration that has happened subsequently,possibly partly due to vandalism.

[35] Alun Cairns: Ond oni bai eich bod yngwybod beth oedd y cyflwr gwreiddiol, ynani fyddwch yn gwybod am ddirywiad syddwedi digwydd ar ôl hynny, yn rhannol yn sgîlfandaliaeth o bosibl.

15/01/2004

16

Mr Coffey: Well, no. Mr Coffey: Wel, na.

[36] Alun Cairns: Thank you. [36] Alun Cairns: Diolch.

[37] Janet Davies: Chris, you have somequestions?

[37] Janet Davies: Chris, mae gennychgwestiynau?

[38] Christine Gwyther: Thank you verymuch, Chair. I would like to concentrate onquite mainstream record keeping and the lackof it at the time around the lease surrender.Paragraph 39 of the Auditor General’smemorandum refers to this. It states that thetrust did not have a record of the formal riskassessment to establish the cost of the earlylease surrender. I would like to ask youwhether such an assessment was actuallyundertaken.

[38] Christine Gwyther: Diolch yn fawriawn, Gadeirydd. Hoffwn ganolbwyntio argofnodi eithaf prif ffrwd a diffyg hynny adegildio’r brydles. Cyfeiria paragraff 39 ymmemorandwm yr Archwilydd Cyffredinol athyn. Mae’n nodi nad oedd gan yrymddiriedolaeth gofnod o’r asesiad risgffurfiol i ddangos faint y byddai ildio’rbrydles yn gynnar yn ei gostio. Hoffwn ofyn ichi a gynhaliwyd asesiad o’r fath ai peidio.

Mr Coffey: Yes, we did undertake a riskassessment in that we were faced with twochoices. When it was apparent that we couldmove the last patients out in April, which wasseven months before the lease expired, wehad two choices. One was to retain the lease,with all its attendant costs and risks for theperiod, which was a clear option. The otheroption was to seek to buy ourselves out ofthat risk, and I have already explained ourrationale for doing that. In doing that, thewhole exercise implies a risk assessment. Itwas a judgment. I had to weigh up the prosand cons and the cost of maintaining the leasewithin the trust for a further seven months todetermine how much that would cost usanyway. As I said previously, that would be£90,000 plus any indeterminate element ofrisk to make good vandalism, fire and so on. Idiscussed that balance of risk with the districtauditor at the time to check whether myreading and my judgment of the situation wasthe best course of action for the trust. Thatwas for the trust to buy itself out of the riskfor the sum of £120,000, with around£30,000 representing the value of the risktransferred back to Mrs Bailey. I think that itis useful to remember the value of the open-ended liability on the trust at the time—again,this is a very large, sprawling, remote site—was potentially millions of pounds. Had theplace been burnt down, had people got into itand set it on fire, it would have cost thehealth service millions of pounds. So, thatwas in my mind. We had a seven-monthperiod when that could have happened and to

Mr Coffey: Do, bu i ni gynnal asesiad risgoherwydd ein bod yn wynebu dau ddewis.Pan ddaeth yn amlwg y gallem symud ycleifion olaf allan yn Ebrill, sef saith mis cyni’r brydles ddod i ben, yr oedd gennym ddauddewis. Un oedd cadw’r brydles, gyda’r hollgostau a risgiau oedd yn gysylltiedig drwygydol y cyfnod, a oedd yn opsiwn clir. Yropsiwn arall oedd ceisio talu i’n rhyddhau einhunain o’r risg honno, ac yr wyf eisoes wediegluro ein sail resymegol dros wneud hynny.Wrth wneud hynny, mae hynny i gyd yngolygu asesiad risg. Yr oedd yn rhaid barnu.Yr oedd yn rhaid i mi bwyso a mesurmanteision ac anfanteision a chost cynnal ybrydles o fewn yr ymddiriedolaeth am saithmis arall i benderfynu faint y byddai hynny’nei gostio i ni beth bynnag. Fel y dywedais o’rblaen, byddai hynny’n £90,000 ynghyd agunrhyw elfen benagored o risg i unioni difrodgan fandaliaeth, tân ac yn y blaen. Trafodaisy cydbwysedd risg hwnnw gyda’r archwilydddosbarth ar y pryd i gadarnhau ai fynehongliad i a’m barn i ynghylch y sefyllfaoedd y dull gorau i’r ymddiriedolaethweithredu. Byddai hynny’n golygu bod yrymddiriedolaeth yn talu swm o £120,000 i’wrhyddhau ei hun o’r risg, a thua £30,000 yncynrychioli gwerth y risg a oedd yn cael eithrosglwyddo yn ôl i Mrs Bailey. Credaf eibod yn werth cofio y gallai gwerthcyfrifoldeb penagored yr ymddiriedolaeth ary pryd—eto, mae hwn yn safle anghysbell,eang a mawr iawn—fod yn filiynau obunnoedd o bosibl. Byddai wedi costiomiliynau o bunnoedd i’r gwasanaeth iechyd

15/01/2004

17

my mind it was protecting the public purse topay slightly over the odds of what it wouldhave cost us anyway to transfer that risk toMrs Bailey. That is what we did with theadvice of the district audit service.

pe bai’r lle wedi llosgi’n ulw, pe bai poblwedi mynd yno a’i roi ar dân. Felly yr oeddhynny ar fy meddwl. Yr oedd gennym gyfnodo saith mis pan allai hynny fod wedi digwyddac, yn fy marn i, yr oedd talu ychydig yn fwyna’r hyn y byddai wedi ei gostio i ni bethbynnag i drosglwyddo’r risg honno i MrsBailey yn diogelu arian y cyhoedd. Dyna’rhyn a wnaethom gyda chyngor y gwasanaetharchwilio dosbarth.

[39] Christine Gwyther: Right, thank you.In any risk assessment that I have beeninvolved with, if I can just finish this point,Chair, there has been a very detailedjustification of exactly how that decision wasarrived at, and, really, you have not given mean answer, Mr Coffey, as to where thatnote—that detailed note, as it should havebeen—has actually got to.

[39] Christine Gwyther: O’r gorau, diolch.Mewn unrhyw asesiad risg yr wyf i wediymwneud ag ef, os caf orffen y pwynt hwn,Gadeirydd, bu cyfiawnhad manwl iawn o suty daethpwyd i’r penderfyniad hwnnw ynunion, ac, mewn gwirionedd, nid ydych wedirhoi ateb i mi, Mr Coffey, ynglŷn ag i ble yraeth y nodyn hwnnw—a ddylai fod wedi bodyn nodyn manwl—mewn gwirionedd.

Mr Coffey: No. I would accept that thatthought process and that decision process wasnot adequately documented, and it shouldhave been.

Mr Coffey: Na. Byddwn yn derbyn nachafodd y broses ystyried honno na’r brosesbenderfynu honno ei dogfennu’n briodol, adylai hynny fod wedi digwydd.

[40] Christine Gwyther: Sorry, Chair. I justwanted to pursue that.

[40] Christine Gwyther: Mae’n ddrwggennyf, Gadeirydd. Yr oeddwn am fynd ardrywydd hynny.

[41] Janet Davies: Carl just wants to come inhere, and then I will bring you back in.

[41] Janet Davies: Mae Carl am gyfrannu yny fan hon, ac yna byddaf yn eich galw yn ôl.

[42] Carl Sargeant: You described how youestablished the £30,000 risk element, and yousay that the site was particularly vulnerable tovandalism or fire. Have you any detail ofspecific threats to the establishment as itwas?

[42] Carl Sargeant: Bu i chi ddisgrifio sut ybu i chi benderfynu ar yr elfen risg o£30,000, a dywedwch fod y safle yn arbennigo agored i fandaliaeth neu dân. A oesgennych fanylion ynglŷn â bygythiadaupenodol i’r sefydliad fel ag yr oedd?

Mr Coffey: No, there were no specificthreats; there were no people threatening todo it. It was just that these things happen.When buildings are entirely shut down, withno presence there apart from, perhaps,security guards, it is highly likely—and ithappens all the time—that they arevandalised, windows are smashed, people getin and squatters move in. Such buildings arehighly vulnerable, particularly in remoteareas. So, it was something that was morethan likely to happen in my view.

Mr Coffey: Na, ni chafwyd bygythiadaupenodol; nid oedd pobl yn bygwth gwneudhynny. Ond mae’r pethau hyn yn digwydd.Pan gaiff adeiladau eu cau’n llwyr, heb nebyn bresennol yno oni bai am, efallai,warchodwyr, mae’n dra thebygol—ac mae’ndigwydd drwy’r amser—eu bod yn cael eufandaleiddio, caiff ffenestri eu torri, mae poblyn cael mynediad ac mae sgwatwyr ynsymud i mewn. Mae’r cyfryw adeiladau ynddiamddiffyn iawn, yn enwedig mewnardaloedd anghysbell. Felly, yr oedd ynrhywbeth a oedd yn fwy na thebyg oddigwydd yn fy marn i.

15/01/2004

18

[43] Carl Sargeant: Okay. Thank you,Chair.

[43] Carl Sargeant: O’r gorau. Diolch,Gadeirydd.

[44] Christine Gwyther: I have a secondquestion on record keeping, or the lack of it.Paragraph 41 in the Auditor General’smemorandum talks about either the non-retention or non-production of records ofmeetings after 7 January that involved thetrust’s chief executive and finance directorwith Chancefield Estates Ltd. I would like toask probably Andy Williams and AllanCoffey why the trust did not retain anyrecords of the meetings, if indeed any recordswere made at the time.

[44] Christine Gwyther: Mae gennyf ailgwestiwn am gofnodi, neu’r diffyg cofnodi.Dywed paragraff 41 memorandwm yrArchwilydd Cyffredinol naill ai na chafoddcofnodion cyfarfodydd ar ôl 7 Ionawr rhwngprif weithredwr a chyfarwyddwr cyllid yrymddiriedolaeth a Chancefield Estates Cyf eucadw neu na chawsant eu cynhyrchu. Hoffwnofyn i Andy Williams ac Alan Coffey mae’nsiŵr pam na chadwodd yr ymddiriedolaethunrhyw gofnodion o’r cyfarfodydd, os yn wiry gwnaed unrhyw gofnodion ar y pryd.

Mr Coffey: I will start on this. It is correct tosay that no records were taken of themeetings between myself, the chief executiveand Mrs Bailey and her colleagues in thesense of minutes of meetings. I hope that theCommittee understands that the meetingswere infrequent and informal and involvedprobably three or four people. They were notthe type of meetings that you would normallyformally minute. When anything significantand substantial came out of those meetings,certainly when agreements came out of thosemeetings, they were always recorded by wayof letters. So, I would write to Mrs Baileysaying ‘Further to our meeting, forclarification, can you please agree that weagreed the following: a, b, c, d, e, f, and g?’.So, in that sense, any material facts oragreements that emanated from thosemeetings were recorded, are documented, andthey are in files for people to inspect. Whatwe did not retain was notes of the meeting asyou would have notes of this meeting. I thinkthat that is probably general practice whenyou have informal meetings—you do notnote them. I think, in hindsight, it would havebeen useful for us to take file notes of themeeting, just so that it is easier, when lookingback, to see who said what at the time.However, those records were not kept, no.

Mr Coffey: Yr wyf am ddechrau ateb ycwestiwn hwn. Mae’n wir dweud nachymerwyd cofnodion o’r cyfarfodyddrhyngof i, y prif weithredwr a Mrs Bailey a’ichydweithwyr o ran cofnodion cyfarfod.Gobeithiaf fod y Pwyllgor yn deall nachynhaliwyd y cyfarfodydd yn aml a’u bodyn gyfarfodydd anffurfiol a oedd yn cynnwystri neu bedwar unigolyn yn ôl pob tebyg. Nidoeddent y math o gyfarfodydd y byddech felarfer yn cymryd cofnodion ffurfiol ohonynt.Pan oedd rhywbeth arwyddocaol a sylweddolyn deillio o’r cyfarfodydd hynny, yn sicr panoedd cytundebau yn deillio o’r cyfarfodyddhynny, yr oeddynt bob amser yn cael eucofnodi drwy lythyrau. Felly, byddwn ynysgrifennu at Mrs Bailey yn dweud ‘Yn dilynein cyfarfod, er eglurhad, a allwch gadarnhaui ni gytuno ar y canlynol: a, b, c, ch, d, dd ace?’. Felly, yn yr ystyr hwnnw, cafodd unrhywffeithiau materol neu gytundebau a oedd yndeillio o’r cyfarfodydd hynny eu cofnodi,maent wedi eu dogfennu, ac maent mewnffeiliau i bobl eu harchwilio. Yr hyn nachadwasom oedd nodiadau o’r cyfarfod yn yrun modd ag y byddai gennych nodiadau o’rcyfarfod hwn. Credaf fod hynny yn arfercyffredinol yn ôl pob tebyg pan eich bod yncynnal cyfarfodydd anffurfiol—nid ydych yngwneud nodyn ohonynt. Credaf, o edrych ynôl, y byddai wedi bod yn ddefnyddiol i nigymryd nodiadau ffeil o’r cyfarfod, fel ei bodyn haws, wrth edrych yn ôl, gweld pwy addywedodd beth ar y pryd. Fodd bynnag, na,ni chadwyd y cofnodion hynny.

[45] Christine Gwyther: Thank you. Giventhe climate surrounding this disposal anddecommissioning, I find that extremely

[45] Christine Gwyther: Diolch. O ystyriedhinsawdd y gwaredu a’r dadgomisiynu hyn,mae hynny yn fy synnu’n fawr ac mae’n

15/01/2004

19

surprising and regrettable. Do you think thatyou would make it your policy in the futureto make a record of every meeting, whetheryou consider it informal, formal or whatever?

destun cryn ofid. A ydych yn credu ybyddwch yn ei wneud yn bolisi i chi yn ydyfodol i gadw cofnod o bob cyfarfod, waetheich bod yn ei ystyried yn gyfarfod anffurfiol,ffurfiol neu beth bynnag?

Mr Coffey: I think, in those circumstances,definitely; where it involved a third party anda commercial transaction, yes.

Mr Coffey: Credaf, dan yr amgylchiadauhynny, yn bendant; lle yr oedd yn cynnwystrydydd parti a thrafodiad masnachol,byddwn.

[46] Christine Gwyther: Okay. Thank you,Chair.

[46] Christine Gwyther: O’r gorau. Diolch,Gadeirydd.

[47] Janet Davies: Mark, you have somequestions?

[47] Janet Davies: Mark, mae gennychgwestiynau?

[48] Mark Isherwood: Yes. I refer toparagraph 42, which states that mothballingwas considered by some trust officials as analternative to the early end of the lease. MrCoffey, given that occupancy of the site wasshared and that, by November 1999, someparts were already occupied by Mrs Bailey,was the mothballing of the site, mentioned inparagraph 42, really a credible alternative toending the lease early?

[48] Mark Isherwood: Oes. Cyfeiriaf atbaragraff 42, sy’n nodi i rai o swyddogion yrymddiriedolaeth ystyried gosod y safle o’rneilltu fel opsiwn arall yn lle terfynu’rbrydles yn gynnar. Mr Coffey, o ystyried bodmeddiannaeth o’r safle wedi ei rhannu ac,erbyn mis Tachwedd 1999, fod Mrs Baileyeisoes yn meddiannu rhai rhannau, a oeddgosod y safle o’r neilltu, a grybwyllir ymmharagraff 42, yn opsiwn mwy ymarferol natherfynu’r brydles yn gynnar mewngwirionedd?

Mr Coffey: It was credible. We would havehad to remove Mrs Bailey from the hospitalto do that, but she was there on a grace-and-favour basis. So, yes, we could havemothballed the site, and that was our declaredintention should she not have been agreeableto terminating the lease earlier. In that case,we would have mothballed the site; that wasour intention.

Mr Coffey: Yr oedd yn ymarferol. Byddemwedi gorfod symud Mrs Bailey o’r ysbyty iwneud hynny, ond yr oedd hi yno ar sail grasa ffafr. Felly, mae’n wir, gallem fod wedigosod y safle o’r neilltu, a hynny oedd einbwriad datganedig pe na byddai wedi cytunoi derfynu’r brydles yn gynharach. Yn yrachos hwnnw, byddem wedi gosod y safle o’rneilltu; dyna oedd ein bwriad.

[49] Mark Isherwood: So how likely wouldit have been for mothballing to have led toexpensive litigation, had you taken thatroute?

[49] Mark Isherwood: Felly pa mor debygoloedd hi y byddai gosod y safle o’r neilltuwedi arwain at gyfreitha drud, pe baech wedidilyn y llwybr hwnnw?

Mr Coffey: Well, it comes back to thebalance of risk. Had we mothballed the site,that would imply that we would maintainminimum heating to protect the fabric of thebuilding, and we would have had to employsecurity—people to give it 24-hour security.We would have incurred those costsidentified earlier in the mothballing in oneshape or another. We would have had to havecontinually monitored the site to protect it

Mr Coffey: Wel, mae’n dod yn ôl atgydbwysedd risg. Pe baem wedi gosod ysafle o’r neilltu, byddai hynny’n awgrymu ybyddem yn cadw’r gwres ar y lefel isaf bosibli ddiogelu strwythur yr adeilad, a byddai’nrhaid i ni fod wedi cyflogi gwarchodwyr—pobl i’w ddiogelu 24 awr y dydd. Byddemwedi gorfod talu’r costau hynny a nodwyd yngynharach a oedd yn gysylltiedig â gosod ysafle o’r neilltu mewn un ffordd neu’r llall.

15/01/2004

20

from all of the dangers that I have outlined.However, yes, we could have done that, andwe would have had to have done that.

Byddai’n rhaid i ni fod wedi monitro’r safleyn barhaus i’w ddiogelu rhag yr hollberyglon yr wyf wedi eu hamlinellu. Foddbynnag, mae’n wir, gallem fod wedi gwneudhynny, a byddai wedi bod yn rhaid i ni wneudhynny.

[50] Mark Isherwood: Was the chair of thetrust misguided in thinking that mothballingwas a credible alternative rather than just abargaining position?

[50] Mark Isherwood: A oedd cadeirydd yrymddiriedolaeth dan gamargraff wrth feddwlbod gosod y safle o’r neilltu yn ddewisymarferol yn hytrach nag yn offerynbargeinio yn unig?

Mr Coffey: The chair of the trust did notwant the officers of the trust to pursue themothballing alternative because that wouldinvolve the removal of Mrs Bailey from thepremises. Our line in terms of mothballing, interms of our negotiating line and line in howwe would implement it, would be that, inorder to mothball it, we could not allow anyoccupation of the site for security purposes,so we could not have Mrs Bailey and peoplein her employ visiting and coming and goingto the site because we could not then make itsecure. So to make it secure, it had to beclosed down, fenced, patrolled and all the restof it. That would involve her removal fromthe site. The chairman did not want that tohappen because he was keen for Mrs Baileyto continue her operations there and to get onand start up the businesses that she aspired tostart there.

Mr Coffey: Nid oedd cadeirydd yrymddiriedolaeth am i swyddogion yrymddiriedolaeth fynd ati i osod y safle o’rneilltu oherwydd byddai hynny’n golygusymud Mrs Bailey o’r safle. Ein safbwynt oran gosod y safle o’r neilltu, o ran einsafbwynt negodi a’n safbwynt o ran sut ybyddem yn ei weithredu, fyddai, er mwyn eiosod o’r neilltu, na allem ganiatáu unrhywfeddiannaeth o’r safle am resymaudiogelwch, fellu ni allem gael Mrs Bailey aphobl a gyflogir ganddi yn ymweld â’r safleac yn mynd a dod oddi yno oherwydd wedynni fyddai modd i ni ei wneud yn ddiogel.Felly i’w wneud yn ddiogel, yr oedd yn rhaidei gau, ei ffensio, ei batrolio ac yn y blaen.Byddai hynny’n cynnwys ei symud o’r safle.Nid oedd y cadeirydd am i hynny ddigwyddoherwydd yr oedd yn awyddus i Mrs Baileybarhau â’i gweithredoedd yno a bwrw ymlaena sefydlu’r busnesau yr oedd yn awyddus i’wsefydlu yno.

[51] Mark Isherwood: Can I just ask, for myunderstanding, what area of the hospital, orproportion of the total area, was leased to thetrust in the five-year agreement?

[51] Mark Isherwood: A gaf fi ofyn, ermwyn fy nealltwriaeth, pa arwynebedd o’rysbyty, neu gyfran o’r arwynebedd cyfan, agafodd ei brydlesu i’r ymddiriedolaeth yn ycytundeb pum mlynedd?

Mr Coffey: It was the main building as youapproach the hospital—the facade, theballroom, sorry, the boardroom, offices—itwas the main block.

Mr Coffey: Y prif adeilad ydoedd, wrth i chinesáu at yr ysbyty—yr wyneb, y ddawnsfa,mae’n ddrwg gennyf, yr ystafell fwrdd,swyddfeydd—y prif floc ydoedd.

[52] Mark Isherwood: Okay. Thank you. [52] Mark Isherwood: O’r gorau. Diolch.

[53] Jocelyn Davies: Can I come in on thatquestion?

[53] Jocelyn Davies: A gaf fi ddod i mewnar y cwestiwn hwnnw?

[54] Janet Davies: Yes, certainly. [54] Janet Davies: Cewch, wrth gwrs.

[55] Jocelyn Davies: What you told us [55] Jocelyn Davies: Yr hyn a ddywedasoch

15/01/2004

21

earlier was that the provision of £120,000,which you felt was the best course of action,included £30,000 to transfer the risk to MrsBailey. You described that as paying over theodds, but you thought that it was worth it inorder to transfer the risk to Mrs Bailey.However, we have just heard that it wasentirely for Mrs Bailey’s convenience thatyou did not mothball the site because she wason site. So we pay over the odds to theindividual who we are accommodating fortheir own convenience so that they canremain on the site. Can you understand whythe public might think that this is bizarre?

wrthym yn gynharach oedd bod yddarpariaeth o £120,000, sef y camgweithredu gorau yn eich barn chi, yncynnwys £30,000 i drosglwyddo’r risg i MrsBailey. Bu i chi ddisgrifio hynny fel talumwy na’r gwir gost, ond yr oeddech o’r farnbod trosglwyddo’r risg i Mrs Bailey yn werthyr arian. Fodd bynnag, yr ydym newyddglywed mai er cyfleustra Mrs Bailey yngyfan gwbl y bu i chi beidio â gosod y safleo’r neilltu oherwydd ei bod hi ar y safle.Felly yr ydym yn talu mwy na’r disgwyl i’runigolyn yr ydym yn ei gynorthwyo er eigyfleustra fel y gall barhau ar y safle. Aallwch ddeall pam y gallai’r cyhoedd feddwlbod hyn yn rhyfedd?

Mr Coffey: Well, no. I think that there aretwo different issues. The question was: wouldMrs Bailey let us terminate the leaseagreement early? She was saying that she didnot want to do that because it would involvesubstantial costs for her—she quoted£315,000. So she did not want to do that. Sowe said that we would pay her an amount thatwas reasonable and that we could justify—given that these were public funds or publicmoney—and agree with the district auditorfor us to relinquish all of our liabilities to thesite and hand it over to her. The fact that shewas in the building did not inhibit that, in asense; it only inhibited us getting her outbecause she was already there, but she had noright to be there. So we said that we wouldmothball it, and, if she would not let usterminate the lease earlier, she would need toremove her operation and conduct itelsewhere.

Mr Coffey: Wel, na. Credaf fod dau fatergwahanol. Y cwestiwn oedd: a fyddai MrsBailey yn caniatáu i ni derfynu’r cytundebprydles yn gynnar? Yr oedd yn dweud nadoedd am wneud hynny oherwydd byddai’ngolygu costau sylweddol iddi—rhoddoddamcan bris o £315,000. Nid oedd am wneudhynny. Felly dywedasom y byddem yn taluswm a oedd yn rhesymol ac y gallem eigyfiawnhau iddi—o gofio mai cronfeyddcyhoeddus neu arian y cyhoedd a oedd yrhain—ac yn cytuno gyda’r archwilydddosbarth i ni ildio’n holl gyfrifoldebau dros ysafle a’i drosglwyddo iddi. Nid oedd y ffaithei bod yn yr adeilad yn rhwystro hynny, arryw ystyr; yr oedd ond yn ein rhwystro nirhag ei chael hi allan oherwydd ei bod yno’nbarod, ond nid oedd ganddi hawl i fod yno.Felly dywedasom y byddem yn gosod yradeilad o’r neilltu, a, phe na bai Mrs Baileyyn ein caniatáu i derfynu’r brydles yngynharach, byddai angen iddi symud eigweithredoedd a’u cynnal yn rhywle arall.

[56] Jocelyn Davies: Yes, but you just toldus that the chief considerations for notmothballing were for her convenience. Youjust said that the chair—

[56] Jocelyn Davies: Iawn, ond yr ydychnewydd ddweud wrthym mai’r prifystyriaethau dros beidio â gosod y safle o’rneilltu oedd er ei chyfleustra hi. Yr ydychnewydd ddweud bod y cadeirydd—

Mr Coffey: Well, that was the chair’s view;that was not—

Mr Coffey: Wel, barn y cadeirydd oeddhonno; nid honno oedd—

[57] Jocelyn Davies: The chair’s view wasthat he did not want to inconvenience MrsBailey, who was actually getting quite abargain.

[57] Jocelyn Davies: Barn y cadeirydd oeddnad oedd am beri trafferth i Mrs Bailey, aoedd yn cael tipyn o fargen mewngwirionedd.

15/01/2004

22

Mr Coffey: That was the chair’s view; thatwas not the executive’s view.

Mr Coffey: Barn y cadeirydd oedd honno;nid honno oedd barn y gweithgor.

[58] Jocelyn Davies: But you did notmothball it; you allowed her to stay and paidher for the transfer of the risk.

[58] Jocelyn Davies: Ond ni osodasoch ysafle o’r neilltu; bu i chi ganiatáu iddi aros a’ithalu am drosglwyddo’r risg.

Mr Coffey: No, no. When we transferred therisk, we got out of the site in April, and it wasentirely hers then. Our risk was gone in April.

Mr Coffey: Na, na. Pan y bu i nidrosglwyddo’r risg, yr oeddem wedi gadael ysafle ym mis Ebrill, a’i safle hi ydoedd yngyfan gwbl wedyn. Nid oedd risg i ni ynEbrill.

[59] Jocelyn Davies: But you did describepaying £30,000 for transferring the risk to heras paying over the odds. I think that thosewere the very words that you used.

[59] Jocelyn Davies: Ond bu i chi ddisgrifiotalu £30,000 am drosglwyddo’r risg iddi feltalu mwy na’r gwir gost. Credaf mai’r rheinia oedd yr union eiriau i chi eu defnyddio.

Mr Coffey: I did not mean paying over theodds; what I meant was that that was anestimate of the cost of the financial worth tothe trust of transferring the risk. There areanother seven months to run from April, soby transferring all of the liabilities to MrsBailey from April, it was worth at least£30,000 for the trust to do that.

Mr Coffey: Nid oeddwn yn golygu talu mwyna’r gwir gost; yr hyn yr oeddwn yn ei olyguoedd mai amcangyfrif o gost y gwerthariannol i’r ymddiriedolaeth o drosglwyddo’rrisg oedd hwnnw. Mae saith mis arall ynweddill ar ôl Ebrill, felly drwy drosglwyddopob cyfrifoldeb i Mrs Bailey o fis Ebrill, yroedd yn werth o leiaf £30,000 i’rymddiriedolaeth wneud hynny.

[60] Jocelyn Davies: I will check theverbatim record on that, Chair.

[60] Jocelyn Davies: Byddaf yn gwirio’rcofnod gair am air ar hynny, Gadeirydd.

Mr Coffey: Sorry, can I just clarify that?What I meant to say was that we were payingover the direct cost. This was a cost that youcould not calculate; it was a judgment of thevalue of the transfer of the risk. I did not say,or intend to say, that we were paying morethan we should have done.

Mr Coffey: Mae’n ddrwg gennyf, a gafegluro hynny? Yr hyn yr oeddwn yn golyguei ddweud oedd ein bod yn talu mwy na’rgost uniongyrchol. Nid oedd hon yn gost ygallech ei chyfrifo; yr oedd yn benderfyniadam werth trosglwyddo’r risg. Ni ddywedais,neu nid oeddwn yn bwriadu dweud, ein bodyn talu mwy nag y dylasem fod wedi ei dalu.

[61] Jocelyn Davies: Perhaps Imisunderstood. So that amount was ajudgment call?

[61] Jocelyn Davies: Efallai i mi gamddeall.Felly mater o farn oedd y swm hwnnw?

Mr Coffey: Yes, absolutely. Mr Coffey: Ie, yn bendant.

[62] Jocelyn Davies: Thank you. [62] Jocelyn Davies: Diolch.

[63] Janet Davies: Leighton, you have somequestions.

[63] Janet Davies: Leighton, mae gennychgwestiynau.

[64] Leighton Andrews: Before I ask MsLloyd about the role of chairs, can I justunderstand, Mr Coffey, for what period youwere the finance director of the trust?

[64] Leighton Andrews: Cyn i mi ofyn i MsLloyd am swyddogaeth cadeiryddion, a gaf fiddeall, Mr Coffey, am ba gyfnod yr oeddechyn gyfarwyddwr cyllid yr ymddiriedolaeth?

15/01/2004

23

Mr Coffey: From April 1999. Mr Coffey: O Ebrill 1999.

[65] Leighton Andrews: Until? [65] Leighton Andrews: Tan?

Mr Coffey: Until the trust was dissolved, butI was acting chief executive as well for thelast six months.

Mr Coffey: Tan i’r ymddiriedolaeth gael eididdymu, ond yr oeddwn hefyd yn brifweithredwr dros dro am y chwe mis olaf.

[66] Leighton Andrews: So what was thedate please, roughly? Was it 31 March lastyear?

[66] Leighton Andrews: Felly pa ddyddiadoedd hynny os gwelwch yn dda, yn fras. Ai31 Mawrth y llynedd ydoedd?

Mr Coffey: No, it was 31 December 2002. Mr Coffey: Nage, 31 Rhagfyr 2002 ydoedd.

[67] Leighton Andrews: Okay. May I askyou a couple of questions relating to the roleof the chairs of these trusts, Ms Lloyd? Ithink that there is often confusion in thepublic mind about the role of the chair of anAssembly sponsored public body and therelationship between the chair and the chiefexecutive. Can you set out for me what yousee as the proper role of the chair of an NHSbody?

[67] Leighton Andrews: O’r gorau. A gaf fiofyn rhai cwestiynau i chi ynglŷn âswyddogaeth cadeiryddion yrymddiriedolaethau hyn, Ms Lloyd? Credaffod swyddogaeth cadeirydd corff cyhoeddusa noddir gan y Cynulliad a’r berthynas rhwngy cadeirydd a’r prif weithredwr yn aml ynperi penbleth i’r cyhoedd. A allwch ddweudwrthyf beth yw swyddogaeth briodolcadeirydd corff y GIG yn eich tyb chi?

Ms Lloyd: The primary responsibility of thechair is to lead the board itself, and the boarditself has to scrutinise the decision making ofthe executives and ensure that they areconducting their transactions according toproper probity and proper governance and aretaking the right information intoconsideration. So the chair has to ensure thatthe information and the issues discussed bythe board are appropriate and well-informed.They also have to be almost the conscience ofthe organisation in that, at the end of the day,they have to able to assure themselves andtheir board, and the general public, that thebusiness conducted by the organisation isopen and above suspicion, has beenconducted on the basis of full information,and that all the policies of the WelshAssembly Government, and whichever otherpolicies come through, are effected withinthat organisation in making its decisions.They also, of course, have to be anambassador for the organisation and itsservices with the general public, and theyhave a primary responsibility for assessingthe performance and operation of the chiefexecutive. They do not involve themselves inday-to-day management and operationalbusiness because, basically, they are the last

Ms Lloyd: Prif gyfrifoldeb y cadeirydd ywarwain y bwrdd ei hun, a rhaid i’r bwrdd eihun graffu sut y mae swyddogiongweithredol yn gwneud penderfyniadau asicrhau eu bod yn cynnal eu trafodion yn unolâ gonestrwydd priodol a llywodraethu priodola’u bod yn ystyried y wybodaeth gywir. Fellyrhaid i’r cadeirydd sicrhau bod y wybodaetha’r materion a drafodir gan y bwrdd ynbriodol a chytbwys. Rhaid iddynt hefyd fodyn gydwybod i’r sefydliad, i raddau helaeth,oherwydd, yn y pen draw, rhaid iddynt allusicrhau eu hunain a’u bwrdd, a’r cyhoedd,bod y busnes a weithredir gan y sefydliad ynagored ac uwchlaw amheuaeth, a’i fod wediei weithredu ar sail yr holl wybodaeth, a bodholl bolisïau Llywodraeth Cynulliad Cymru,a pha bynnag bolisïau eraill a weithredir, yncael eu gweithredu yn y sefydliad hwnnwwrth iddo wneud ei benderfyniadau. Rhaididdynt hefyd, wrth gwrs, fod yn llysgennadi’r sefydliad a’i wasanaethau gyda’r cyhoedd,a hwy sy’n bennaf gyfrifol am asesuperfformiad a gwaith y prif weithredwr. Nidydynt yn ymwneud â busnes gweithredol arheoli o ddydd i ddydd oherwydd, yn y bôn,hwy yw’r llinell amddiffyn olaf wrth graffu.Felly rhaid iddynt beidio ag ymwneud â’rgweithredu o ddydd i ddydd oherwydd

15/01/2004

24

line of defence in scrutiny. So they must notinvolve themselves in day-to-day operationbecause they would place themselves in aprejudicial position if they were having tomake a judgment with their non-executivedirectors about the actions andrecommendations of executives.

byddent yn rhoi eu hunain mewn sefyllfaanffafriol pe baent yn gorfod gwneuddyfarniad gyda’u cyfarwyddwyranweithredol am gamau gweithredu acargymhellion swyddogion gweithredol.

The chief executive is primarily responsibleto the board for the operation of theorganisation, for the establishment of goodmanagement systems, for being theaccountable officer, and, in that, they have tomake sure that the internal controls are rightand that the whole of the resource over whichthey act as steward is used effectively, and,including clinical governance, they mustensure that risk assessment is undertakeneffectively. For all of that, they areaccountable directly to me, and I amaccountable, through the National Assemblyfor Wales and the Permanent Secretary, to theTreasury. So, it is a slightly different line,but, usually, the boards and I act in unison, interms of overseeing the probity and regularityof an organisation.

Mae’r prif weithredwr yn bennaf atebol i’rbwrdd am weithredu’r sefydliad, am sefydlusystemau rheoli da, am fod yn swyddogatebol, a, thrwy hynny, rhaid iddynt sicrhaubod yr holl fesurau rheoli mewnol yn gywir abod yr holl adnoddau y maent yn gweithredufel stiward drostynt yn cael eu defnyddio’neffeithiol, a, chan gynnwys llywodraethuclinigol, rhaid iddynt sicrhau bod asesu risgyn cael ei gyflawni’n effeithiol. Mewnperthynas â hynny oll, maent ynuniongyrchol atebol i mi, ac yr wyf fi ynatebol, drwy Gynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymrua’r Ysgrifennydd Parhaol, i’r Trysorlys.Felly, mae fymryn yn wahanol, ond, fel arfer,mae’r byrddau a minnau yn gweithredu felun, o ran goruchwylio gonestrwydd arheoleidd-dra sefydliad.

They have to ensure that their organisationcan maintain financial viability and advisethe board appropriately. They have to makesure, particularly in Wales, that they deliverand develop effective partnerships in order toeffect the policies of the Government, andthey have to implement the board’s decisions.So there are very distinct roles, and the chairand the chief executive’s relationship needsto be very clear-cut and distinct because thereare dangers if either starts to adopt somebodyelse’s responsibilities.

Rhaid iddynt sicrhau bod eu sefydliad yngallu cynnal hyfywedd ariannol a rhoi cyngori’r bwrdd yn briodol. Rhaid iddynt sicrhau,yn enwedig yng Nghymru, eu bod yn darparuac yn datblygu partneriaethau effeithiol ermwyn gweithredu polisïau’r Llywodraeth, arhaid iddynt weithredu penderfyniadau’rbwrdd. Felly mae swyddogaethau unigrywiawn, a rhaid i berthynas y cadeirydd a’r prifweithredwr fod yn ddiamwys ac yn bendantiawn oherwydd mae peryglon os yw’r naillneu’r llall yn dechrau ysgwyddocyfrifoldebau rhywun arall.

[68] Leighton Andrews: So would youagree with the Auditor General’s conclusionin paragraph 50 that the attendance of thechair of the trust at negotiations with MrsBailey was undesirable?

[68] Leighton Andrews: Felly a fyddech yncytuno â chasgliad yr ArchwilyddCyffredinol ym mharagraff 50 nad oedd ynbriodol i gadeirydd yr ymddiriedolaeth fod ynbresennol mewn trafodaethau â Mrs Bailey?

Ms Lloyd: I think that it was very unwisebecause it put him in a position thatprejudiced his own position.

Ms Lloyd: Credaf mai annoeth iawn oedd eiroi mewn sefyllfa a oedd yn niweidio eisefyllfa ef ei hun.

[69] Leighton Andrews: Do you think thenthat, as a result of this, we need to givegreater clarification to chairs of NHS bodiesabout their roles?

[69] Leighton Andrews: A ydych o’r farnfelly, o ganlyniad i hyn, bod angen i ni roimwy o eglurhad i gadeiryddion cyrff y GIGynglŷn â’u swyddogaethau?

15/01/2004

25

Ms Lloyd: Action has already been taken onthat. We were fortunate that we were in theposition last year of appointing a largenumber of chairs to the newly establishedstatutory bodies. The Minister had alreadytightened accountabilities between myselfand chief executives, and herself and chairs,because it was her desire, when I came intopost nearly three years ago, that that shouldbe done. Therefore, last year, the Ministerand I conducted appraisals with all chairs inpost at that time against the criteria for theoperation, and the effective operation, of thechair.

Ms Lloyd: Mae camau eisoes wedi eucymryd mewn perthynas â hynny. Buom ynffodus i fod yn y sefyllfa y llynedd o benodisawl cadeirydd ar gyfer y cyrff statudol syddnewydd eu sefydlu. Yr oedd y Gweinidogeisoes wedi tynhau cyfrifoldebau rhyngof fia’r prif weithredwyr, a rhyngddi hithau achadeiryddion, oherwydd mai ei dyhead, panddechreuais fy swydd dair blynedd yn ôl,oedd y dylid gwneud hynny. Felly, y llynedd,bu i’r Gweinidog a minnau gynnalgwerthusiadau gyda phob cadeirydd a oeddyn weithredol bryd hynny ar sail y meiniprawf ar gyfer gweithredu, a gweithredueffeithiol, gan y cadeirydd.

Over the last 18 months as well, we havebeen discussing, through our training anddevelopment programmes, with both chairsand chief executives—particularly of LHBsas they came into post—the appropriateresponsibilities of chairs and chiefexecutives. I have personally given seminarsto chief executives about what being anaccountable officer actually means inpractice, peppering my lectures with practicalexperience of what can happen when thingsgo slightly wrong and how, at the end of theday, the accountable officer has to put inplace measures through which he or she isable to protect their position and protect thereputation of the organisation. Followingextensive discussions with the organisationsconcerned, the Minister, in time for the nextround of performance reviews of chairs—andI will do the chief executives’—is issuingvery detailed guidance on precisely howperformance assessment might be undertakenagainst the requirements of both chairs andchief executives.

Yn ystod y 18 mis diwethaf hefyd, yr ydymwedi bod yn trafod, drwy ein rhaglennihyfforddi a datblygu, gyda chadeiryddion aphrif weithredwyr—yn enwedig rhai BILlwrth iddynt ddechrau yn eu swyddi—gyfrifoldebau priodol cadeiryddion a phrifweithredwyr. Yr wyf i yn bersonol wedicynnal seminarau gyda phrif weithredwyrynglŷn â’r hyn y mae bod yn swyddog atebolyn ei olygu yn ymarferol mewn gwirionedd,gan fritho fy narlithoedd â phrofiad ymarferolo’r hyn a all ddigwydd pan fo pethau’n myndychydig o chwith a sut, yn y pen draw, mae’nrhaid i’r swyddog atebol roi mesurau ar waithsy’n ei alluogi neu ei galluogi i ddiogelu eiswydd ac amddiffyn enw da y sefydliad. Yndilyn trafodaethau helaeth â’r sefydliadau dansylw, mae’r Gweinidog, mewn pryd ar gyfery cylch nesaf o adolygiadau o berfformiadaucadeiryddion—a byddaf yn gwneud rhai yprif weithredwyr—yn cyhoeddi canllawiaumanwl iawn ar sut yn union y gellid asesuperfformiad yn erbyn gofynion cadeiryddiona phrif weithredwyr.

[70] Leighton Andrews: Okay. May I askyou then, what would you expect a chiefexecutive to do in the context of an occasionlike this, where a chair has become, clearly,very involved in an operational matter?

[70] Leighton Andrews: O’r gorau. A gaf fiofyn i chi felly, beth y byddech yn disgwyl ibrif weithredwr ei wneud yng nghyd-destunachlysur fel hwn, lle y mae cadeirydd, ynamlwg, wedi ymwneud yn helaeth â matergweithredol?

Ms Lloyd: With their accountable officer haton, I would expect them to advise a chair inunequivocal terms of the danger that wasbeing run by chairs becoming involved inoperational issues such as this—particularlytransactions with third parties—because of

Ms Lloyd: O weithredu fel swyddog atebol,byddem yn disgwyl iddynt roi cyngor di-flewyn ar dafod i gadeirydd ar y perygl sy’ncodi pan fo cadeiryddion yn ymwneud âmaterion gweithredol fel hwn—yn enwedigtrafodion gyda thrydydd partïon—oherwydd

15/01/2004

26

the importance of the position of the chair inbeing able to scrutinise effectively theactions, decisions and recommendations ofthe executives. If the chair was unwilling toaccept such advice, I would expect theaccountable officer to report that to me, and Iwould deal with it, in the knowledge of theMinister—I would tell the Minister what Iwas going to do, obviously.

pwysigrwydd sefyllfa’r cadeirydd wrth allucraffu camau gweithredu, penderfyniadau acargymhellion y swyddogion gweithredol yneffeithiol. Pe bai’r cadeirydd yn anfodlonderbyn y cyfryw gyngor, byddwn yn disgwyli’r swyddog atebol fy hysbysu am hynny, abyddwn yn delio â’r sefyllfa, a byddai’rGweinidog yn ymwybodol o hynny—byddwn yn dweud wrth y Gweinidog beth yroeddwn yn mynd i’w wneud, yn amlwg.

[71] Leighton Andrews: Okay. On thisoccasion, clearly, the chief executive did nottake that view.

[71] Leighton Andrews: Iawn. Ar yrachlysur hwn, yn amlwg, nid dyna oedd barny prif weithredwr.

Ms Lloyd: I have to assume that he did not,because I cannot find any evidence that hedid. I was not the accountable officer at thetime.

Ms Lloyd: Rhaid i mi dybio felly, oherwyddni allaf ddod o hyd i unrhyw dystiolaeth ohynny. Nid fi oedd y swyddog atebol ar ypryd.

[72] Leighton Andrews: Okay. [72] Leighton Andrews: O’r gorau.

Ms Lloyd: However, certainly, where therehas been, in the past 18 months, any questionof any possible confusion of roles, they havebeen sorted out there and then, with a quickexchange between accountable officers andmyself. This has been very, very minorstuff—nothing like transactions with thirdparties.

Ms Lloyd: Fodd bynnag, yn sicr, lle y bu, ynystod y 18 mis diwethaf, unrhyw amheuaetho unrhyw ddryswch posibl amswyddogaethau, maent wedi eu datrys yn yfan a’r lle, gyda thrafodaeth gyflym rhwngswyddogion atebol a minnau. Materiondibwys iawn, iawn oedd y rhain—dim bydtebyg i drafodion â thrydydd partïon.

[73] Leighton Andrews: Are you satisfiedthat, within the NHS, you have the rightframework in place to allow people to blowthe whistle where that is necessary? I meanNHS staff.

[73] Leighton Andrews: A ydych yn fodlonbod gennych, o fewn y GIG, y fframwaithcywir i alluogi pobl i chwythu’r chwiban panfo angen gwneud hynny? Cyfeiriaf at staff yGIG.

Ms Lloyd: Yes. A huge amount of work hasbeen done on this very important areabecause, as you will know yourself, there wasa huge amount of publicity around thesmothering of potential whistleblowerswithin the service. That does nobody anygood; it destroys public confidence, and itcreates the wrong environment to actuallyeffect changes in the way in whichorganisations might operate. Very clearguidance has been given to all organisationsabout the management of whistleblowers,and, as part of our annual audits, we will—given the balanced score card now—beauditing the effectiveness of thosewhistleblowing policies and procedures.Certainly, far more people are reportingdirectly through to management their

Ms Lloyd: Ydw. Mae llawer iawn o waithwedi ei wneud yn y maes pwysig hwnoherwydd, fel y byddwch yn gwybod eichhun, bu llawer iawn o gyhoeddusrwyddynglŷn â rhoi taw ar ddatgelwyr camarferposibl yn y gwasanaeth. Nid yw hynny’ngwneud lles i unrhyw un; mae’n difethahyder y cyhoedd, ac mae’n creu’ramgylchedd anghywir i fynd ati i newid ymodd y gallai sefydliadau weithredu. Maepob sefydliad wedi cael canllawiau clir iawnar reoli datgelwyr camarfer, ac, fel rhan o’nharchwiliadau blynyddol, byddwn—oystyried y cerdyn sgorio cytbwys yn awr—ynarchwilio pa mor effeithiol yw’r polisïau a’rgweithdrefnau chwythu’r chwiban hynny. Ynsicr, mae mwy o bobl o lawer yn adrodd eupryderon yn uniongyrchol i’r rheolwyr, ac

15/01/2004

27

concerns, and chief executives constantlykeep me advised of such incidences. Thatdoes not mean to say that aggrievedindividuals will not go straight to the pressand the public, but there should be—and weare, again, auditing this—very goodprocesses in place through which patients orstaff who are concerned might receive ahearing from their own organisation beforefeeling the necessity of going outside. I thinkthat what we have to do, though, with allsuch things, is to ensure that the culture of theorganisation becomes very open andtransparent so that people do gain confidencethat they are able to blow the whistleappropriately within their own organisation.

mae prif weithredwyr yn fy hysbysu’n gysonam y cyfryw ddigwyddiadau. Nid ywhynny’n golygu na fydd pobl sydd wedidioddef yn mynd yn syth at y wasg a’rcyhoedd, ond dylai—ac yr ydym, eto, ynarchwilio hyn—prosesau fod ar waith ialluogi cleifion neu staff sy’n gofidio i gaelgwrandawiad gan eu sefydliad eu hunainefallai cyn teimlo’r angen i fynd y tu allan.Credaf mai’r hyn sy’n rhaid i ni ei wneud,fodd bynnag, gyda’r holl gyfryw faterion, ywsicrhau bod diwylliant y sefydliad yndatblygu’n agored ac yn dryloyw fel bod poblyn magu hyder eu bod yn gallu chwythu’rchwiban yn briodol yn eu sefydliad euhunain.

[74] Leighton Andrews: Do you haveconfidential phone lines and so on for peopleto use?

[74] Leighton Andrews: A oes gennychlinellau ffôn cyfrinachol ac yn y blaen y gallpobl eu defnyddio?

Ms Lloyd: Some of the organisations do, andthat is why we are conducting the audit ofgood practice.

Ms Lloyd: Mae gan rai o’r sefydliadau, adyna pam yr ydym yn cynnal yr archwiliad oarferion da.

[75] Janet Davies: Thank you. Alun, do youstill want to ask a brief question on this?

[75] Janet Davies: Diolch. Alun, a ydych dalam ofyn cwestiwn byr am hyn?

[76] Alun Cairns: Yes. It is, possibly, to sumup some of the statements that have beenmade. It is commendable, obviously, thatstrong and clear guidance has already beengiven to chairs and chief executives of trustsand boards to prevent the chairs from puttingthemselves in compromising positions. If,indeed, you do receive a call from a chiefexecutive about the actions of a chair, whichmay well compromise the chair’s position,what powers do you—you mentioned thatyou would obviously discuss it with theMinister—and/or the Minister have tointervene in that situation? What I am gettingat is this: is this a term of employment?

[76] Alun Cairns: Ydw. Mae, o bosibl, igrynhoi rhai o’r datganiadau a wnaed. Mae’nganmoladwy, yn amlwg, bod canllawiaucadarn a chlir eisoes wedi eu rhoi igadeiryddion a phrif weithredwyrymddiriedolaethau a byrddau i rwystrocadeiryddion rhag rhoi eu hunain mewnsefyllfaoedd sy’n eu cyfaddawdu. Os, yn wir,yr ydych yn derbyn galwad gan brifweithredwr am gamau gweithreducadeiryddion, a allai, yn ddigon posibl,gyfaddawdu swydd y cadeirydd, pa bwerausydd gennych chi—bu ichi grybwyll ybyddech yn amlwg yn ei drafod gyda’rGweinidog—a/neu’r Gweinidog i ymyrrydyn y sefyllfa honno? Yr hyn yr wyf yn ceisioei ddweud yw: a yw hwn yn un o’r teleraucyflogaeth?

Ms Lloyd: A term of whose employment? Ms Lloyd: Un o delerau cyflogaeth pwy?

[77] Alun Cairns: A term or condition ofemployment of chairs.

[77] Alun Cairns: Un o delerau neu amodaucyflogaeth cadeiryddion.

Ms Lloyd: No, it is not, but I do not thinkthat that interferes with an ability to exercisethe accountable officer role, which is a very

Ms Lloyd: Na, nac ydyw, ond ni chredaf fodhynny’n amharu ar allu i gyflawniswyddogaeth swyddog atebol, sy’n

15/01/2004

28

powerful and strong role, and one which hasto be exercised well and effectively. It is inthe interest of the individual and theorganisation itself that probity, regularity andtransparency are exercised well andeffectively. The NHS boards, through theaccountability framework, are responsible—Iam responsible for ensuring that they doexercise their judgment, theirrecommendations and their decisions in anopen, transparent way, in which full probitycan be assured to the general public.

swyddogaeth bwerus a chryf, ac yn un sy’nrhaid ei chyflawni’n dda ac yn effeithiol. Maegweithredu gonestrwydd, rheoleidd-dra athryloywder yn dda ac yn effeithiol o fudd i’runigolyn a’r sefydliad ei hun. Byrddau’rGIG, drwy’r fframwaith atebolrwydd, sy’ngyfrifol—fi sy’n gyfrifol am sicrhau eu bodyn gweithredu eu barn, eu hargymhellion a’upenderfyniadau mewn modd agored, tryloyw,lle gellir sicrhau gonestrwydd llawn i’rcyhoedd.

[78] Janet Davies: Thank you. Mick? [78] Janet Davies: Diolch. Mick?

[79] Mick Bates: Thank you, Chair. MrCoffey, I would like to return to the issue ofthe estimate of retaining the lease, inparagraph 46. Trust officials have estimatedthat retaining the lease would have cost thetrust some £90,000. Given that the trust didnot retain full records of the cost of retainingthe lease, what confidence can we have thatthis figure of £90,000 is correct?

[79] Mick Bates: Diolch, Gadeirydd. MrCoffey, hoffwn ddychwelyd at y mater o’ramcangyfrif o gadw’r brydles, ym mharagraff46. Mae swyddogion yr ymddiriedolaethwedi amcangyfrif y byddai cadw’r brydleswedi costio rhyw £90,000 i’rymddiriedolaeth. O ystyried na chadwodd yrymddiriedolaeth gofnodion llawn o gostcadw’r brydles, pa mor hyderus y gallwn fodbod y ffigur hwn o £90,000 yn gywir?

Mr Coffey: At the time, I ascertained thedirect costs that would be involved withfinance colleagues and others within the trustand discussed those with audit. The keycomponents were: security—that was£32,000, based on three security guardsproviding 24-hour cover around the site,boiler maintenance—we had quite detailedbudgetary figures worked up, and that was£38,000, and maintenance—an estimatebased on seven twelfths of the maintenancebudget of the Talgarth Mid Wales Hospital,which was £20,000. That comes to £90,000.Again, while a record was not maintained atthe time, records must have been in place forme to discuss it with audit, clearly, to get itsgo-ahead that the £120,000 represented valuefor money. Again, these records could becorroborated by a retrospective costinganalysis—you can get the budget reports ofthe hospitals and see what would benecessary expenditure, should it continue forseven months. So, it is a fairly transparentprocess to produce these costs.

Mr Coffey: Ar y pryd, bu i mi bennu’rcostau uniongyrchol a fyddai’n gysylltiedig âhynny gyda chydweithwyr cyllid ac eraill ynyr ymddiriedolaeth a thrafod y rheini gyda’radran archwilio. Y cydrannau allweddoloedd: diogelwch—yr oedd hwnnw’n£32,000, yn seiliedig ar dri gwarchodwr yndarparu diogelwch 24 awr ar draws y safle,cynnal a chadw’r boeler—cawsom ffiguraucyllidebol eithaf manwl wedi eu cyfrifo, ac yroedd hynny’n £38,000, a chynnal a chadw—amcangyfrif ar sail saith rhan o ddeuddegcyllideb cynnal a chadw Ysbyty CanolbarthCymru Talgarth, a oedd yn £20,000. Dawhynny i £90,000. Eto, er na chadwyd cofnodar y pryd, rhaid bod cofnodion wedi bodoli ermwyn i mi ei drafod gyda’r adran archwilio,yn amlwg, i gael ei chaniatâd bod y £120,000yn werth da am arian. Eto, gellid cefnogi’rcofnodion hyn gan ddadansoddiad prisio ôl-weithredol—gallwch gael adroddiadaucyllideb yr ysbytai a gweld beth fyddai’rgwariant angenrheidiol, pe bai’n parhau amsaith mis. Felly, mae cynhyrchu’r costau hynyn broses gymharol dryloyw.

[80] Mick Bates: Thank you for thebreakdown of the £90,000. That is verywelcome. However, if I understand your

[80] Mick Bates: Diolch am y dadansoddiado’r £90,000. Mae hwnnw i’w groesawu’nfawr. Fodd bynnag, os wyf wedi deall yn

15/01/2004

29

correctly, Mr Coffey, there is not a recordduring these proceedings that that was thebreakdown of the £90,000?

gywir, Mr Coffey, nid oes cofnod yn ystod ytrafodion hyn mai dyna oedd y dadansoddiado’r £90,000?

Mr Coffey: Apparently, audit could not finda record, no.

Mr Coffey: Mae’n debyg na lwyddodd yradran archwilio i ddod o hyd i gofnod, na.

[81] Mick Bates: Apparently it could notfind a record? Presumably, then, you couldidentify the source of this information—theestates department or wherever?

[81] Mick Bates: Mae’n debyg na lwyddoddi ddod o hyd i gofnod? Gellid tybio, felly, ygallech nodi ffynhonnell y wybodaeth hon—yr adran ystadau neu le bynnag?

Mr Coffey: Yes. The source of theinformation, when I first talked to audit aboutit, was my memory of it, and my checkingback with the planning and developmentmanager, who would have informed me ofwhat costs would be incurred and what wouldnot, and then by costing them up.

Mr Coffey: Gallwn. Ffynhonnell ywybodaeth, pan siaradais â’r adran archwilioamdani y tro cyntaf, oedd fy nghof ohoni, aminnau’n gwirio gyda’r rheolwr datblygu achynllunio, a fyddai wedi fy hysbysu o bagostau a fyddai’n berthnasol a pha rai nafyddai’n berthnasol, ac yna eu cyfrifo.

[82] Mick Bates: Did you talk to thesepeople to corroborate your recollection?

[82] Mick Bates: A fu i chi siarad â’r boblhyn i gadarnhau eich atgof?

Mr Coffey: Yes, I did. Mr Coffey: Do, gwneuthum hynny.

[83] Mick Bates: I am sorry, but I have notfound that in the report. Are there witnesses,and is there a statement to that effect withinthis?

[83] Mick Bates: Mae’n ddrwg gennyf, ondnid wyf wedi dod ar draws hynny yn yradroddiad. A oes tystion, ac a oes datganiadi’r perwyl hwnnw yn hwn?

Mr Coffey: No, I do not think so. Mr Coffey: Nac oes, nid wyf yn meddwlhynny.

[84] Mick Bates: There is not? [84] Mick Bates: Nac oes?

Mr Coffey: No. Mr Coffey: Na.

[85] Mick Bates: So, there is a whole area ofdoubt here, which leads me to believe that thewhole process was not transparent. Howcould you convince me that these figures—albeit that they may be factual—were notactually put together after the event?

[85] Mick Bates: Felly, mae’n faes yn llawnamheuaeth, sy’n gwneud i mi gredu nad oeddy broses gyfan yn dryloyw. Sut y gallech fynarbwyllo na chafodd y ffigurau hyn—erefallai eu bod yn ffeithiol—eu rhoi at eigilydd ar ôl y digwyddiad mewn gwirionedd?

Mr Coffey: Because you can work back—you can construct the figures after the eventfrom evidence. The evidence is still there. Ifan auditor visited Powys trust now and asked,‘Can you give me an estimate of the costs ofrunning that hospital for seven months?’,somebody in the management accountsdepartment would look through the budgetsand come up with figures like these. It is amatter of record. They will be there, butreporters reported the fact that there was not a

Mr Coffey: Oherwydd y gallwch weithio ynôl—gallwch bennu’r ffigurau ar ôl ydigwyddiad gan ddefnyddio tystiolaeth.Mae’r dystiolaeth yno o hyd. Pe baiarchwilydd yn ymweld ag ymddiriedolaethPowys heddiw ac yn gofyn, ‘A allwch roiamcangyfrif i mi o gostau cynnal yr ysbytyhwnnw am saith mis?’, byddai rhywun yn yradran cyfrifon rheoli yn edrych drwy’rcyllidebau ac yn rhoi ffigurau fel y rhain.Mater o gofnod ydyw. Byddant yno, ond

15/01/2004

30

piece of paper saying, ‘Here is a risk analysis,here are the costs; they add up to £90,000’.However, audit similarly concluded that theseestimates were reliable and reasonable.

adroddodd gohebwyr y ffaith nad oedd darn obapur yn dweud, ‘Dyma ddadansoddiad risg,dyma’r costau; maent yn rhoi cyfanswm o£90,000’. Fodd bynnag, daeth yr adranarchwilio i gasgliad tebyg bod yramcangyfrifon hyn yn ddibynadwy ac ynrhesymol.

[86] Mick Bates: They may have concludedthat, but I am still curious as to why therewas no record, given that you must havetaken advice as to the costs that you havegiven us now—this breakdown of £32,000,£38,000 and £20,000. Why is there not arecord?

[86] Mick Bates: Efallai eu bod wedi dod i’rcasgliad hwnnw, ond yr wyf yn chwilfrydig ohyd ynglŷn â pham nad oedd cofnod, o gofiobod yn rhaid eich bod wedi derbyn cyngor ary costau yr ydych wedi eu rhoi i ni yn awr—ydadansoddiad hwn o £32,000, £38,000 a£20,000. Pam nad oes cofnod?

Mr Coffey: I do not know. There must havebeen a record at the time, because I discussedthem with district audit, so I do not knowwhy a record of these figures cannot befound. However, we must have assessed themat the time to have that conversation with thedistrict auditor.

Mr Coffey: Ni wn. Mae’n rhaid bod cofnodar y pryd, oherwydd i mi eu trafod gyda’radran archwilio dosbarth, felly ni wn pam naellir canfod cofnod o’r ffigurau hyn. Foddbynnag, mae’n rhaid ein bod wedi eu hasesuar y pryd i gael y sgwrs honno gyda’rarchwilydd dosbarth.

[87] Mick Bates: Yes. One would assume,given that you say that they were discussed,that somebody would have a recollection,even if there were not a record, and that doesnot appear to be the case.

[87] Mick Bates: Rhaid. Byddai dyn yntybio, o gofio eich bod yn dweud iddynt gaeleu trafod, y byddai gan rywun gof, hyd ynoed pe na bai cofnod, ac nid yw’nymddangos mai hynny yw’r achos.

Mr Coffey: The district auditor recalls it, Irecall it, and people within the trust wouldrecall it.

Mr Coffey: Mae’r archwilydd dosbarth yn eigofio, yr wyf i yn ei gofio, a byddai pobl ynyr ymddiriedolaeth yn ei gofio.

[88] Mick Bates: But there is no record ofthat?

[88] Mick Bates: Ond nid oes cofnod ohynny?

Mr Coffey: No. Mr Coffey: Nac oes.

[89] Mick Bates: So you can understand mylack of confidence in the transfer—

[89] Mick Bates: Felly gallwch ddeall fyniffyg hyder yn y trosglwyddo—

Mr Coffey: Well, I think that a record musthave existed, but the record cannot be found.

Mr Coffey: Wel, credaf fod yn rhaid bodcofnod wedi bodoli, ond ni ellir dod o hyd i’rcofnod.

[90] Mick Bates: Okay, thank you. I willleave it there. Thank you, Chair.

[90] Mick Bates: O’r gorau, diolch. Yr wyfam orffen yn y fan honno. Diolch, Gadeirydd.

[91] Janet Davies: Thank you. Looking atthe question that Carl was due to ask, I thinkthat that has already been asked and, Val,possibly yours has also been asked, or isthere anything else that you want to ask?

[91] Janet Davies: Diolch. Gan edrych ar ycwestiwn yr oedd Carl yn mynd i’w ofyn,credaf fod hwnnw eisoes wedi cael ei ofyn a,Val, mae’n bosibl bod eich un chi wedi caelei ofyn hefyd, neu a oes rhywbeth arall yrydych am ei ofyn?

15/01/2004

31

[92] Val Lloyd: I think that it has alreadybeen dealt with by Alun and Carl andsomebody else—Christine, I think.

[92] Val Lloyd: Credaf fod Alun a Carl arhywun arall—Christine, dybiwn i—eisoeswedi delio ag ef.

[93] Janet Davies: Sorry about that. [93] Janet Davies: Mae’n ddrwg gennyf amhynny.

[94] Val Lloyd: That is all right. I think thatit was probably better that it was taken at thattime. It fitted in.

[94] Val Lloyd: Popeth yn iawn. Credaf eibod yn well iddo gael ei gynnwys brydhynny. Yr oedd yn berthnasol.

[95] Janet Davies: Jocelyn, do you want tocome in?

[95] Janet Davies: Jocelyn, a ydych amgyfrannu?

[96] Jocelyn Davies: Yes, I wanted to askMrs Lloyd a question. Do you consider thepayment of the early surrender of the lease tobe novel and contentious?

[96] Jocelyn Davies: Ydw, yr oeddwn amofyn cwestiwn i Ms Lloyd. A ydych ynystyried y taliad i ildio’r brydles yn gynnaryn anarferol ac yn ddadleuol?

Ms Lloyd: I do. Ms Lloyd: Ydw.

[97] Jocelyn Davies: Why? [97] Jocelyn Davies: Pam?

Ms Lloyd: We issue guidance to the servicethat any payment like this—which was notanticipated, and which certainly was notwithin any business case upon whichagreement would have been given—which isabove about £50,000, but anyway it wassubstantial enough, and it would haveaffected a business case at the end of the day,should be reported in, so that guidance can begiven and so that we know about it and canassure ourselves that a proper value-for-money exercise was conducted into itspayment and into why it was being paid, andto ensure, ourselves, that the situation hadbeen properly risk-assessed.

Ms Lloyd: Yr ydym yn rhoi canllawiau i’rgwasanaeth y dylai unrhyw daliad fel hwn—nad oedd wedi ei ddisgwyl, ac nad oedd ynbendant o fewn unrhyw achos busnes ybyddai caniatâd wedi ei roi ar ei sail—sy’nfwy na thua £50,000, ond yr oedd yn ddigonmawr beth bynnag, a byddai wedi effeithio arachos busnes yn y pen draw, gael ei adrodd,fel y gellir rhoi canllawiau ac fel ein bod yngwybod amdano ac yn gallu sicrhau’n hunainbod proses gywir i bennu gwerth da am arianwedi ei chynnal mewn perthynas â’i dalu apham yr oedd yn cael ei dalu, ac i sicrhau, einhunain, bod asesiad risg cywir o’r sefyllfawedi ei gyflawni.

[98] Jocelyn Davies: Of course, the AuditorGeneral for Wales agrees with you that it wasnovel and contentious, and the relevantdepartment should have been informed. Doyou think that the guidance on that is clearenough?

[98] Jocelyn Davies: Wrth gwrs, maeArchwilydd Cyffredinol Cymru yn cytuno âchi ei fod yn anarferol ac yn ddadleuol, adylid bod wedi hysbysu’r adran berthnasol. Aydych o’r farn bod y canllawiau ar hynny ynddigon clir?

Ms Lloyd: There was guidance issued inDecember 1998 on losses and specialpayments, which draws attention to novel andcontentious payments. Also, there was theestates code guidance, although the AuditorGeneral rightly pointed out in 2002 that thatwas out of date, and that was why we revisedit and issued it again six weeks later.

Ms Lloyd: Cyhoeddwyd canllawiau ym misRhagfyr 1998 ar golledion a thaliadauarbennig, sy’n tynnu sylw at daliadauanarferol a dadleuol. Yn ogystal, cafwyd ycanllawiau cod ystadau, er i’r ArchwilyddCyffredinol nodi’n gywir yn 2002 nadoeddynt yn berthnasol bellach, a dyna pam ybu i ni eu hadolygu a’u cyhoeddi eto chwe

15/01/2004

32

However, I believe that there was sufficientinformation available at the time forindividuals within organisations to recognisea novel and contentious payment and to seekadvice.

wythnos yn ddiweddarach. Fodd bynnag, yroedd digon o wybodaeth ar gael ar y pryd ynfy marn i i unigolion o fewn sefydliadau alluadnabod taliad anarferol a dadleuol a gofynam gyngor.

[99] Jocelyn Davies: Well, we know that thetrust did not seek advice, but how do you feelabout the reasons given for not notifying theAssembly about this transaction? Do youthink that they are valid?

[99] Jocelyn Davies: Wel, gwyddom naofynnodd yr ymddiriedolaeth am gyngor, ondbeth yw eich barn ar y rhesymau a roddwyddros beidio â hysbysu’r Cynulliad am ytrafodiad hwn? A ydynt yn ddilys yn eichbarn chi?

Ms Lloyd: I can understand that, if the trustlooked at its standing financial instructions atthe time, there was sufficient delegatedauthority given to the chief executive at thattime to be able to underwrite, I think,anything up to £500,000. So I can understandits believing from its standing financialinstructions, which are usually its bible, thatit had the authority to do this. I canunderstand that.

Ms Lloyd: Gallaf ddeall, pe bai’rymddiriedolaeth yn edrych ar eichyfarwyddiadau ariannol sefydlog ar y pryd,bod digon o awdurdod wedi ei ddirprwyo i’rprif weithredwr ar y pryd i allu tanysgrifennu,yn fy nhyb i, unrhyw beth hyd at £500,000.Felly gallaf ddeall ei bod wedi credu ar sail eichyfarwyddiadau ariannol sefydlog, sef eibeibl fel arfer, bod ganddi’r hawl i wneudhyn. Gallaf ddeall hynny.

[100] Jocelyn Davies: What would youregard, then, as a good reason for notnotifying the Assembly?

[100] Jocelyn Davies: Beth fyddech yn eiystyried, felly, yn rheswm da dros beidio âhysbysu’r Cynulliad?

Ms Lloyd: It was because, I think, that thetrust believed that it was acting within itsown standing financial instructions, a scriptof which is provided by the Welsh AssemblyGovernment.

Ms Lloyd: Yr oedd, yn fy marn i, oherwyddbod yr ymddiriedolaeth yn credu ei bod yngweithredu o fewn ei chyfarwyddiadauariannol sefydlog ei hun, a darperir sgript o’rrheini gan Lywodraeth Cynulliad Cymru.

[101] Jocelyn Davies: But you think, lookingat the guidance at the time, that it would haveat least been wise to ask for advice?

[101] Jocelyn Davies: Ond a ydych yn credu,gan edrych ar y canllawiau ar y pryd, ybyddai o leiaf wedi bod yn ddoeth gofyn amgyngor?

Ms Lloyd: I think that it would have beenwise, because this was not an expectedpayment.

Ms Lloyd: Credaf y byddai wedi bod ynddoeth, oherwydd nid oedd hwn yn daliaddisgwyliedig.

[102] Jocelyn Davies: Okay. I will leave itthere, Chair.

[102] Jocelyn Davies: O’r gorau. Yr wyf amorffen yn y fan honno, Gadeirydd.

[103] Janet Davies: Finally, Mrs Lloyd,would there be improvements in the disposaland decommissioning of significant nationalhealth sites in the future and, if so, could yougive some indication of how it would beimproved?

[103] Janet Davies: Yn olaf, Mrs Lloyd, afyddai gwelliannau yn y gwaith o waredu adadgomisiynu safleoedd iechyd gwladolpwysig yn y dyfodol ac, os felly, a allwch roirhyw syniad o sut y byddai’n cael ei wella?

Ms Lloyd: Well, we have already takencertain actions since the publication of the

Ms Lloyd: Wel, yr ydym eisoes wedi cymrydcamau penodol ers cyhoeddi’r adroddiad

15/01/2004

33

first report. We have issued Welsh healthcirculars to advise on the disposal and theacquiring of property. We have ensured thatWelsh Health Estates provides all theprofessional advice, and it is given theresponsibility now of disposing of surplusproperty. It is mandatory on the healthservice that these processes are used. Wehave re-issued the estates code, which ishighly complicated, but, to make thingseasier, we have also issued a guidance note tochief executives on the management ofproperty within the NHS to ensure that theyare well aware of the issues that they need toconsider when disposing of property or,indeed, when constructing a business case onwhich the disposal of property is resting. Sowe have done all that. Additionally, because Ibelieve that the management of capital, themanagement of the estate, needed to be putinto a strategic context, I have established acapital investment board that now looks at allbusiness cases and all capital investmentprogrammes for which I have aresponsibility, which includes the disposal ofestates. To underpin that, we have establishedan estates investment panel of experts whocan advise us thoroughly. I have a seniorofficer now in charge of all estates issues,who works very closely with my estatesdepartment and with Welsh Health Estates. Inthat way, I think that we have managed totighten, and to give better guidance as well,to the service to ensure that it can effect agood estates disposal process.

cyntaf. Yr ydym wedi cyhoeddicylchlythyron iechyd Cymru i roi cyngor arwaredu a chaffael eiddo. Yr ydym wedisicrhau bod Ystadau Iechyd Cymru yndarparu’r holl gyngor proffesiynol, a rhoddiry cyfrifoldeb iddo bellach o waredu eiddodros ben. Mae’n ofynnol i’r gwasanaethiechyd ddefnyddio’r prosesau hyn. Yr ydymwedi ailgyhoeddi’r cod ystadau, sy’n drachymhleth, ond, i hwyluso pethau, yr ydymhefyd wedi cyhoeddi nodyn canllaw i brifweithredwyr ar reoli eiddo yn y GIG i sicrhaueu bod yn hollol ymwybodol o’r materionsy’n rhaid iddynt eu hystyried wrth waredueiddo neu, yn wir, wrth ddatblygu achosbusnes y mae gwaredu eiddo yn dibynnuarno. Felly yr ydym wedi gwneud hynny igyd. Yn ogystal, oherwydd yr oedd angenrhoi rheoli cyfalaf, rheoli’r ystâd, mewn cyd-destun strategol yn fy marn i, yr wyf wedisefydlu bwrdd buddsoddi cyfalaf syddbellach yn edrych ar yr holl achosion busnesa’r holl raglenni buddsoddi cyfalaf yr wyf yngyfrifol amdanynt, sy’n cynnwys gwareduystadau. I gefnogi hynny, yr ydym wedisefydlu panel buddsoddi ystadau oarbenigwyr sy’n gallu ein cynghori’ndrylwyr. Mae gennyf uwch swyddog bellachsy’n gyfrifol am holl faterion ystadau, sy’ngweithio’n agos iawn gyda’m hadran ystadaua chyda Ystadau Iechyd Cymru. Yn y moddhwnnw, credaf ein bod wedi llwyddo idynhau, a rhoi canllawiau gwell hefyd, i’rgwasanaeth i sicrhau ei fod yn gallugweithredu proses gwaredu ystadau dda.

To make estates issues more live, you willrecall that, when we had evidence about theoverarching report by the Auditor General onthe disposal of estates throughout the NHS inWales, the conclusion reached was that estatesurplus was almost a free good. Well, fromthis year, the Minister has decided that capitalcharges will become a live issue. They willnot just be a top up; they will actually be partof the revenue allocation. So that wouldencourage organisations within the NHS inWales to really regard surplus property as areal resource that has to be managed veryeffectively, otherwise, they will not be usingtheir resources and moneys effectively. Ithink that that should cause a change inbehaviour from that which we have seen inthe past.

I wneud materion ystadau yn fwy byw, fegofiwch, pan gawsom dystiolaeth am yradroddiad trosfwaol gan yr ArchwilyddCyffredinol ar waredu ystadau ledled y GIGyng Nghymru, y casgliad y daethpwyd iddooedd bod gormodedd ystadau bron yn nwyddam ddim. Wel, gan ddechrau eleni, mae’rGweinidog wedi penderfynu y bydd taliadaucyfalaf yn fater byw. Nid ychwanegiad ynunig y byddant; byddant yn rhan o’r refeniwa ddyrennir. Felly byddai hynny’n annogsefydliadau yn y GIG yng Nghymru iystyried eiddo dros ben fel adnodd go iawnsy’n rhaid ei reoli’n effeithiol iawn, neu felarall, ni fyddant yn defnyddio’u hadnoddaua’u harian yn effeithiol. Credaf y dylai hynnyachosi newid o’r ymddygiad hwnnw yr ydymwedi ei weld yn y gorffennol.

15/01/2004

34

[104] Janet Davies: Thank you, Mrs Lloyd. [104] Janet Davies: Diolch, Mrs Lloyd.

Ms Lloyd: However, there are other thingsthat I could do—if you would like me to say?

Ms Lloyd: Fodd bynnag, mae pethau eraill ygallwn eu gwneud—os hoffech i mi ddweud?

[105] Janet Davies: I think that we willprobably leave it at that for the moment.Perhaps you would like to give us a note onthe other things that you feel you could do. Ithank Mr Coffey and Mr Williams. Beforethe transcript of the proceedings is published,you will receive a draft, so that you can comeback if you feel that anything is incorrect. Iam afraid that it is not possible to changewhat you have said because you do not agreewith it, or may have had another thought, butyou do have a chance to see that it is correct.

[105] Janet Davies: Credaf y gwnawn nimae’n debyg orffen yn y fan honno am y tro.Efallai yr hoffech roi nodyn i ni am y pethaueraill y credwch y gallech eu gwneud.Diolchaf i Mr Coffey a Mr Williams. Cyn ycyhoeddir trawsgrifiad o’r trafodion,byddwch yn derbyn drafft, fel y gallwch einhysbysu os ydych o’r farn bod rhywbeth ynanghywir. Mae arnaf ofn na allwch newid yrhyn i chi ei ddweud oherwydd nad ydych yncytuno ag ef, neu efallai eich bod wediailfeddwl, ond cewch gyfle i weld ei fod yngywir.

Daeth y sesiwn cymryd tystiolaeth i ben am 12.24 p.m.The evidence-taking session ended at 12.24 p.m.

HughesRG

AnnexB

HughesRG

Annex C

Annex D

THE AUDIT COMMITTEE

The National Assembly's Audit Committee ensures that proper and thorough scrutinyis given to the Assembly’s expenditure. In broad terms, its role is to examine thereports on the accounts of the Assembly and other public bodies prepared by theAuditor General for Wales; and to consider reports by the Auditor General for Waleson examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which theAssembly has used its resources in discharging its functions. The responsibilities ofthe Audit Committee are set out in detail in Standing Order 12.

The membership of the Committee as appointed on 3 June 2003:

Janet Davies (Plaid Cymru) - ChairLeighton Andrews (Labour)Mick Bates (Liberal Democrat)Alan Cairns (Conservative)Jocelyn Davies (Plaid Cymru)Christine Gwyther (Labour)Denise Idris-Jones (Labour)Mark Isherwood (Conservative)Val Lloyd (Labour)Carl Sargeant (Labour)

Further information about the Committee can be obtained from:

Adrian CromptonClerk to the Audit CommitteeNational Assembly for WalesCardiff BayCF99 1NATel: 02920 898264Email: Audit.comm@wales.gsi.gov.uk