COMMISSION ON THE POWERS AND ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

EVIDENCE OF:

CHAIR OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES

DAFYDD WIGLEY

HELD AT

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF WALES, CATHAYS PARK, CARDIFF

ON

THURSDAY 12 DECEMBER 2002

LORD RICHARD: Thank you very much for coming. I wonder if you would be kind enough to introduce yourself and your colleagues for the sake of the record, so we have got it on paper. What we have been doing with other witnesses is asking them to open up the subject for about ten minutes and then we will pursue whatever areas we think we would like to pursue, if that is all right with you.

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Diolch yn fawr, yr Arglwydd Richard. Rwy’n falch iawn o gael y cyfle i ymddangos ger eich bron. Hoffwn gyflwyno’n gyntaf, ar y dde i mi, Ian Summers, Cyfarwyddwr y Swyddfa Archwilio Genedlaethol yng Nghymru, ac ar y chwith i mi, Claire Bennett, Clerc y Pwyllgor Archwilio yn y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol. Rwyf yn falch iawn cael bod yma. Nid hwn yw’r pwyllgor cyntaf i mi ymddangos ger ei fron yng Nghaerdydd ar faterion cyfansoddiadol. Y tro diwethaf, rwy’n credu, oedd ym 1968 gyda Chomisiwn Crowther-Kilbrandon, os cofiaf yn iawn, cyn i rai ohonoch gael eich geni, dybiwn i.

Mae fy sylwadau heddiw o safbwynt y Pwyllgor Archwilio. Ni fyddaf yn rhoi i chi rai o’m syniadau fy hun. Fel y gallwch ddychmygu, mae gen i nifer o syniadau fy hun a gall fod cyfle arall i mi gyflwyno’r rheiny, Hoffwn wneud yn glir hefyd nad wyf, wrth ymddangos ger eich bron fel Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor Archwilio, yn aelod o Banel Cadeiryddion y Cynulliad. Am ryw reswm nid oedd archwiliad yn rhan o hwnnw. Nid wyf wedi bod yn rhan o’r drafodaeth yn nghyd-destun y ddogfen maen nhw wedi ei chyflwyno i chi.

Mae’r Pwyllgor Archwilio’n delio â gwaith sy’n cyfateb yn fras i ryw raddau i’r hyn a wneir gan PSAC yn Nhy’r Cyffredin. Pwyllgor ydyn ni sy’n cyfarfod unwaith y mis. Mae yna naw aelod yn cynnwys cynrychiolaeth o bob plaid. Mae yma bedwar aelod Llafur, tri o Blaid Cymru, un Ceidwadwr ac un Democrat Rhyddfrydol. Byddwn yn gweithio ar sail sydd mewn gwirionedd yn osgoi safbwyntiau gwleidyddiaeth plaid. Rwy’n credu ein bod wedi llwyddo i wneud hynny bron o’r cychwyn cyntaf, ac mae hynny’n bwysig iawn o ran hygrededd y gwaith a wnawn.

Byddwn yn dweud ein bod yn dibynnu ar dri ffactor i fod yn effeithiol: dewis yn briodol y pynciau y byddwn yn delio â nhw; ceisio adeiladu ar adroddiadau cynhwysfawr y Cynulliad, a gobeithio bod rhywfaint o archwilio effeithiol bryd hynny, ond mae hynny, wrth gwrs, yn dibynnu ar barodrwydd a gallu’r aelodau i gyflawni’r gwaith hwnnw; ac mae’r cyfarfodydd anffurfiol a gawn gyda swyddogion y Cynulliad yn ddefnyddiol iawn. Hwyrach ei bod yn werth nodi bod yr agweddau anffurfiol yn y Cynulliad lawer yn fwy cyffredin nag yn y Senedd yn Llundain. Mae gallu cydweithredu â gweision sifil lawer yn fwy amlwg yn ein gwaith ni yn y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol nag a fyddai yn Nhy’r Cyffredin. Gallaf ddweud hynny ar sail fy mhrofiad fy hun yn Nhy’r Cyffredin.

Mae dwy wedd i’r lles cyhoeddus sy’n deillio o’n gwrandawiadau. Yn gyntaf, mae’n dibynnu ar barodrwydd y Llywodraeth i ymateb i’n hadroddiadau. Mae ansicrwydd a ydym yn gallu mynd ymhellach gyda’r ymateb hwnnw gan y Llywodraeth. Yn ail, mae’n gyfle i roi rhybudd i gyrff cyhoeddus; gair yn ei bryd, os mynnwch, a all fod yn fuddiol.

Cafwyd rhai archwiliadau pwysig, ac yn amlwg mae’r Gwasanaeth iechyd Gwladol yn rhan fawr o’n gweithgareddau fel Cynulliad, sef tuag un rhan o dair o’n cyllideb yn y flwyddyn nesaf, bron £4 biliwn. Felly, yn naturiol mae llawer iawn o waith gyda phethau fel presgripsiwn ac Ystadau’r GIG ac yn y blaen, a chafwyd rhai astudiaethau buddiol iawn.

Mae’r sector addysg yn bwysig iawn. Rydyn ni wedi paratoi nifer o adroddiadau yn y maes hwnnw, er enghraifft, y system brynu ar gyfer y gyfundrefn addysg uwch yng Nghymru, a chawsom ymrwymiad o ganlyniad i’n gwaith i arbed £3 miliwn y flwyddyn, ac oedd hynny o fudd mawr. A dyna’r gwaith rydyn ni wedi ei wneud hefyd ar Amcan 1.

Hoffwn sôn am swyddogaeth yr Archwilydd Cyffredinol, Syr John Bourn. Mae gennym yr un Archwilydd Cyffredinol yng Nghymru ag sydd yn Llundain, ond o safbwynt deddfwriaeth, gallem benodi Archwilydd arall. Ar hyn o bryd mae gennym yr un unigolyn, a roedd manteision i hynny. Yn ddiamau, mae Syr John wedi dod â phrofiad helaeth, ac roedd hynny’ bwysig iawn yng nghyfnod cynnar y Cynulliad. Rwy’n credu y gallwn ddweud ein bod wedi gosod ein hunain ar seiliau cadarn yno. Mae hefyd yn gyfle i ni gadw mewn cysylltiad â’r gwaith sy’n digwydd yn y Cynulliad gan fod yno sianel naturiol at hwnnw. Mae yna anfanteision. Yr anfanteision yw fod pwysau gwaith mawr arno fel unigolyn, rhaid i ni geisio llunio’n hamserlen o gwmpas ei amserlen ef ei hun oherwydd y pwysau hynny. Bydd problemau’n digwydd yn achlysurol o safbwynt ein gwaith fel Pwyllgor, problemau ynglyn â ble’n union mae’r cyfrifoldeb.

Weithiau bydd cwestiynau am bobl sy’n rhoi tystiolaeth a all fod wedi gadael eu swyddi, pobl y byddem yn hoffi eu galw’n ôl. Cawsom brofiad felly gyda Chyngor y Celfyddydau lle roedd pobl wedi gadael y Cyngor lawer blwyddyn yn ôl, ond ni allem ein gwneud yn ofynnol iddynt ddod yn ol i roi tystiolaeth. Weithiau mae posibilrwydd tyndra gyda llywodraeth leol. Roedd elfen o hynny ym mater datblygu Bae Caerdydd.

Hoffwn symud ymlaen i rai o’r cwestiynau penodol a awgrymech yn y nodiadau a gawsom. Byddwch wedi cael y ddogfen a gyflwynwyd gennym i roi crynodeb o’n safbwynt.

Hoffwn gyfeirio at yr eitem ar wneud y Corff Gweithredol yn atebol. Rhan yn unig o waith y Pwyllgor Archwilio yw hynny. Mater i’r Pwyllgorau eraill yw gwneud cyrff yn atebol. Mae ein tasg ni o wneud cyrff yn atebol yn ymwneud â dyletswyddau swyddogion cyfrifo o ran swyddogaethau penodol.

Bob blwyddyn mae gennym raglen gynhwysfawr o waith y byddwn yn ei chyflawni, ac ar ddechrau pob blwyddyn byddwn yn trafod beth ddylai’r blaenoriaethau fod. Byddwn yn trafod hynny gyda Sur John Bourn. Gall ein gwrthod, os bydd angen, ond ni fu angen hynny erioed: gallwn bob amser ddod i gytundeb. Fel y dywedais, iechyd sydd ar y brig.

Roeddech yn holi ynglyn â gosod blaenoriaethau. Fel y dywedais, mae hynny i ryw raddau yn ymwneud â’n cysyniad o’r buddiannau a’r arbedion – yn enwedig y gwaith gwerth yr arian sy’n cael ei wneud – yr arbedion y gellir eu sicrhau. Mae angen cydbwysedd rhwng ymchwilio i bethau y gall fod angen canolbwyntio arnynt er mwyn tynnu sylw at arfer gwael posibl, ac ar y llaw arall agweddau lle mae’r arbedion eu hunain yn cyfiawnhau’r gwaith a wneir.

Efallai y caf gyfeirio at y ffaith fod rhywun wedi amcangyfrif bod gwaith y Pwyllgor Archwilio hyd yn hyn wedi arbed tua £40 miliwn. Cyfanswm yw hwnnw. Ni allaf ei ddadansoddi i’r hyn sydd ar y gweill, ond yn sicr mae rhai eitemau’n mynd ymlaen gyda’i gilydd a rhai’n fwy unigol.

Wrth benderfynu’n blaenoriaethau yn amlwg mae angen i ni gadw llygad ar ble mae’r arbedion mwyaf yn bosibl. Wrth gwrs, byddwn yn cael rhyw arweiniad neu ryw awgrym gan y cyhoedd eu hunain. Bydd cryn lawer o ohebiaeth yn cyrraedd. Roedd un ymchwiliad sydd bron wedi ei orffen am gael gwared ag Ysbyty Talgarth yn tarddu o ymholiad gan aelod o’r cyhoedd. Fel y digwyddodd, roedd yn rhywbeth gwerth ymchwilio iddo. Mae yna awgrymiadau felly sy’n ein cyrraedd, ac wrth gwrs, mae yna nifer o awgrymiadau nad ydyn nhw’n briodol i’r Pwyllgor. Mae’n bwysig i’r Pwyllgor gael ei weld fel pwyllgor i gadw cydbwysedd o ran ein setliad cyfansoddiadol yma.

Mae’n werth adrodd un stori a all eich goleuo o brofiad a gawsom mewn cysylltiad â’r hyn sy’n digwydd yma yn yr Amgueddfa Genedlaethol. Cawsom ymholiad am y ffordd roedd aelod o’r staff wedi ei symud o’i swydd, a daeth pennaeth yr Amgueddfa Genedlaethol wedyn i roi tystiolaeth. Cafodd amser caled, ond fe ddaliodd ei thir yn dda iawn. Roeddwn mewn cyfarfod o Lys yr Amgueddfa ychydig wythnosau’n ddiweddarach ac ni wyddai fy mod yn eistedd yng nghefn yr ystafell. Deuthum i mewn yn hwyr ac roedd hi’n rhoi ei thystiolaeth i’r Llys am ei phrofiad, ac meddai am y Pwyllgor Archwilio "Fyddwn i byth, byth yn dymuno cael y profiad hwnnw eto". "Da iawn" meddwn i, oherwydd roedd hynny’n golygu’n bod ni’n taro’r nod. Roedd y math hwnnw o ddigwyddiad, er nad oedd yr arian dan sylw yn fawr iawn, yn llesol, yn fy marn i. Cafwyd ymchwiliadau pwysig i bethau fel y celfyddydau gweledol yma yng Nghaerdydd sydd wedi cael llawer iawn o sylw, a Cronfeydd Strwythurol Ewrop. Bu ychydig anghydweld am hynny yr wythnos diwethaf.

O ran ein hadnoddau – roeddech yn holi am ein hadnoddau – rwyf yn fodlon, ac nid fi yn unig sy’n fodlon: mae’r Archwilydd Cyffredinol hefyd yn fodlon â’r adnoddau a gawn. Yn y sesiwn gyntaf oll – rwyf wedi bod ar y Pwyllgor Archwilio o’r cychwyn cyntaf er nad oeddwn yn Gadeirydd bryd hynny – cyflwynodd yr Archwilydd Cyffredinol tri phatrwm a’u cymharu â cheir modur. Meddai "Gallaf gynnig y pecyn hwn i chi a gallwch ei alw’n fini, os mynnwch. Fe aiff â chi i ben y daith ond bydd y lle’n gyfyng ac yn fach. Neu fe allaf roi’r pecyn car teulu hwn i chi, ac mae hwnnw’n ddigon drud, neu gallaf gynnig Rolls Royce i chi". Roedd y car teulu yn filiwn a hanner o bunnau’r flwyddyn, os cofiaf yn iawn, a’r Rolls Royce yn £2.2 filiwn. Penderfynodd y Pwyllgor yn unfryd roi iddo’r Rolls Royce. Rwy’n credu ei bod yn deg dweud bod Syr John wedi ei blesio’n fawr iawn. Atebodd yn ddigon emosiynol "Rwy’n addo y byddaf yn ad-dalu hwn i chi saith gwaith drosodd". Hyd yn hyn, mae’n ymddangos bod y ffigurau’n ddigon agos i’w lle. O ran adnoddau ac o ran ymrwymiad y Cynulliad i’r swyddogaeth archwilio, mae hynny’n sicr yn wir.

Mae nifer o’r cwestiynau wedi bod yn gyffredinol. Gallaf gyfeirio at rai o’r cwestiynau sy’n fwy uniongyrchol berthnasol. Fel Pwyllgor ni fyddwn yn gyffredinol yn ymchwilio o ran cyfyngiadau, peidio â meddu ar swyddogaethau deddfwriaethol, a’r math yna o beth. Gallwch ddychmygu bod yna amgylchiadau lle mae hynny’n berthnasol. Weithiau bydd Deddfau Seneddol penodol, fel gydag Awdurdod Datblygu Cymru, corff rydyn ni’n amlwg yn cadw llygad arno, ac sydd â’i Ddeddf Seneddol ei hun i’w greu. Mae’n sicr gen i yn ddamcaniaethol y gallai fod cyfyngiadau ar y gwaith a wneir am mai corff gweithredol a chorff deddfwriaeth eilaidd yn unig ydyn ni, nid corff prif ddeddfwriaeth. Fel y disgrifiwyd yn y papur, yn sicr mae yna gwestiwn o raniad rhwng y corff gweithredol a’r corff deddfwriaethol, ac mae ein safle ni’n wahanol i safle San Steffan neu Senedd yr Alban yn hynny o beth.

Mae yna ail gwestiwn o’r gorgyffwrdd rhwng cyfrifoldebau’r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol a San Steffan. Mae’r gorgyffwrdd yn fwy, wrth gwrs, rhwng Caerdydd a Llundain nag â Chaeredin; mae’r setliad yn fwy eglur yno. Weithiau bydd ymchwiliadau PAC, er enghraifft, sydd yn gorgyffwrdd. Er enghraifft, cafwyd ymchwiliad gan PAC i’r ffordd y cafodd clwy’r traed a’r genau ei drin. Gallem fod wedi cynnal ein hymchwiliad ein hunain yma, ond byddem wedi mynd dros lawer iawn o’r un tir, felly, euthum i Lundain ac eistedd yn Nhy’r Cyffredin yn y cefn i weld a oedd angen i ni fynd ag unrhyw beth ymhellach. Roeddwn i’n credu, a’r Archwilydd Cyffredinol hefyd, nad oedd llawer o angen i ni gael ein hymchwiliad ein hunain gan fod y rhan fwyaf o’r gwaith wedi ei gynnwys. Mae yna feysydd fel yna, meysydd llwydion, oherwydd diffyg eglurder wrth rannu cyfrifoldebau. Roedd hynny’n amlwg iawn mewn llawer agwedd ar argyfwng clwy’r traed a’r genau, fel y digwyddodd.

Mae yna gwestiwn hefyd rwy’n credu ei bod yn werth i mi dynnu’ch sylw ato – sef llwyth gwaith aelodau unigol o’n Pwyllgor. Mae’r gwaith papur mae angen i Aelodau’r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol ei ddarllen yn rhinwedd eu haelodaeth o nifer o Bwyllgorau yn anferth – rwyf fi’n aelod o dri Phwyllgor mawr ac yn eistedd ar dri arall, chwe Phwyllgor i gyd. Ar rai o’r Pwyllgorau hynny gall fod 300, 400, 500 o dudalennau o ddefnydd cefndir i’w darllen bob pythefnos, ac fel rheol bydd cyfarfodydd anffurfiol yn amlach. Mae’r pwysau ar aelodau unigol o’r Pwyllgor Archwilio yn sylweddol ac mae’n codi’r cwestiwn a yw’r Cynulliad o’r maint priodol ac oes arnom angen rhagor o aelodau er mwyn i aelodau allu rhoi’r amser angenrheidiol i’r holl swyddogaethau. Mae aelodau’r Pwyllgor yn gwneud gwaith cydwybodol iawn, ond rydych yn ymwybodol o’r cyfyngiadau sydd ar eu hamser, yn enwedig os oes angen darllen defnydd cefndir, neu yn ein hachos ni, gyfeirio’n ôl yn aml iawn at adroddiadau blaenorol.

Wrth gwrs, mae yna orgyffwrdd posibl â swyddogaethau archwilio eraill. Er bod y Comisiwn Archwilio ac NAO yn gweithio ar wahân, mae yna orgyffwrdd amlwg â llywodraeth leol, ac mae hyn eto’n deillio o’n setliad. Gall llawer o’r arian y mae’r Cynulliad yn ei sianelu gael ei wario drwy lywodraeth leol. Mae yna ddadl gref dros swyddogaeth archwilio integredig, rhywbeth sy’n cael ei ystyried nawr ac a fydd yn gofyn am Ddeddf Seneddol. Fel y gwyddoch, hwyrach, mae yna ddrafft o Fesur yn cael ei ystyried, er nad ydym eto wedi gweld yn union beth fydd ynddo.

Mae yna rai cwestiynau neu broblemau eraill sydd wedi codi. Un y dylwn dynnu sylw ato yw cwestiwn y grym i alw tystion yn gyffredinol. Gallwn wysio tystion penodol, Swyddogion Archwilio, wrth gwrs, ond nid oes gennym y grym yn gyffredinol. Nid yw hynny wedi bod yn broblem hyd yma, ond gallwch ddychmygu y gallai fod dan rai amgylchiadau, yn enwedig os byddant wedi ymddeol o swyddi a oedd ganddynt gynt.

Yna mae cwestiwn pwy sy’n penodi neu o bosibl hyd yn oed yn diswyddo Archwilwyr Cyffredinol. Dan y setliad presennol, mae’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol yn rhan o’r broses. Mae hynny’n angenrheidiol am ein bod yn gorff ar wahân: does gennym mo’r rhaniad gweithredol/deddfwriaethol sy’n bodoli yn San Steffan.

Mae’n siwr fy mod wedi siarad gormod, ond credwn y byddai rhai o’r agweddau hynny yn berthnasol i chi eu hystyried. Byddwn yn falch ceisio ymateb mewn unrhyw ffordd a allaf.

Interpretation: Thank you very much, Lord Richard. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you. May I first of all present, on my right, Ian Summers, who is Director of the National Audit Office in Wales, and on my left, Claire Bennett, the Clerk to the Audit Committee at the National Assembly. I am very glad to be here. This is not the first committee that I have appeared before in Cardiff on constitutional issues. The last time was in 1968 with the Crowther-Kilbrand Commission, if I remember correctly, before some of you were born I think.

The comments I am going to make today are from the point of view of the Audit Committee. I am not going to be giving you some of my own ideas. As you can imagine I have many ideas of my own and there may be another opportunity for me to present those. May I also make it clear that in appearing before you as Chair of the Audit Committee I am not a member of the Panel of Chairs in the Assembly, for some reason audit was not part of that. I have not been part of the discussion in the context of the document that they have placed before you.

The Audit Committee deals with work that corresponds to some extent with what is done by the PAC in the Commons. We are a Committee that meets once a month. There are nine members that includes representation from all parties. There are four Labour, three Plaid Cymru, one Conservative and one Liberal Democrat. We work on a basis that actually avoids party political viewpoints. I think we have achieved that almost entirely from the outset and that is very important in terms of the credibility of the work that we do.

I would say we depend on three factors to be effective: the appropriate choice of subjects that we are dealing with; trying to build on the comprehensive reports of the NAO, and I hope there is some effective scrutiny then but that depends, of course, on the members’ willingness and ability to carry out that work; and the informal meetings that we do hold with NAO officials are very useful. It may be worth noting that the informal aspects within the Assembly are far more common than they are in the Houses of Parliament. The ability to co-operate with civil servants is far more obvious in our work in the National Assembly than it would be in the Commons. I can say that from my own experience in the Commons.

The public good that emanates from our hearings has two aspects to it. First of all it depends on the Government’s willingness to respond to our reports. There is a question as to whether we are able to follow up on that Government response. Secondly, it gives an opportunity to provide a warning to public bodies, a shot across the bows if you like, which can be beneficial.

There have been some very important audits, and obviously the National Health Service constitutes a large part of our activities as an Assembly, about a third of our budget in the next year, it is almost £4 billion, so naturally a great deal of work goes into things such as prescriptions and NHS Estates and so on and there have been some very useful studies.

The education sector is very important, we have carried out a number of reports there, for example the purchasing system for the further education system in Wales and we had a commitment as a result of our work to savings of £3 million per annum, so that was a great benefit. There is the work we have also done on Objective 1.

If I can just mention the role of the Auditor General, Sir John Bourn. We have the same Auditor General for Wales as exists in London, but from the point of view of legislation we could appoint another Auditor. We do currently have the same individual and there have been benefits to this. Without doubt Sir John has brought with him extensive experience, which was very important in the initial stages of the Assembly. I think we can say that we have set ourselves on firm foundations there. It also gives us an opportunity to keep in touch with the work that is going on in the PAC because he is a natural link, a conduit, to that. There are disadvantages. The disadvantages are that there are great pressures of work on him as an individual and we have to try and work our timetable around his own timetable because of those pressures. There are occasional problems that arise from the point of view of our work as a Committee, problems as to where exactly responsibility lies.

On occasion there are questions regarding evidence givers who may have left their posts, people we would like to call back. We had such an experience with the Arts Council where people had left the Council a number of years ago but we could not require them to come back to give evidence. Occasionally there is the potential for some tension with local government. There was an element of that on the Cardiff Bay development issue.

If I could move on to some of the specific questions which you suggested in the notes that we received. You will have had the document we put in giving a summary of our position.

If I could refer to the item with regard to holding the Executive to account. That is only partly the job of the Audit Committee. The policy holding to account is a matter for the other Committees. Our holding to account is with regard to the duties that the accounting officers have with regard to specific functions.

Each year we have a comprehensive programme of work which we undertake and we debate at the beginning of each year what should be the priorities. We discuss that with Sir John Bourn. He can override us, if necessary, but that has never been needed, we can always come to an agreement. As I say, health does dominate.

The setting of priorities that you asked about, as I say that does relate to some extent to our perception of the benefits and savings - particularly in the value for money work that is undertaken - the savings that can be achieved. There is a balance to be struck between investigating things that may be needed to be focused on in order to highlight potential bad practice, although the savings may not be all that great, on the other hand aspects where the savings themselves do justify the work that is undertaken.

Perhaps I could refer to the fact that there has been an estimate made that the work of the Audit Committee so far has saved some £40 million. That is a cumulative figure. I could not analyse it into what is ongoing but some items certainly are ongoing cumulatively, some are more one-off.

In deciding on our priorities obviously we need to have one eye on where the maximum potential savings lie. Of course, we do get some steer or some approach from the general public themselves. A fair amount of correspondence comes in. One inquiry which we have almost completed with regard to the disposal of Talgarth Hospital was something that came from a member of the general public. It has turned out to be something that was well worth investigating. There are suggestions like that which do come in and, of course, there are lots of suggestions that are not appropriate for the Committee. It is important that the Committee is seen as one of the checks and balances with regard to our constitutional settlement here.

I think it is worth recalling one story which you might find illuminating from the experience we have had in relation to what goes on here in the National Museum. We had an inquiry into how a certain member of staff had been moved from his post and the subsequent head of the National Museum, Anna Southall, came to give evidence. She had a fairly hard time of it but she held her corner perfectly well. I was in a meeting of the Court of the Museum a few weeks later and she did not know that I was there at the back of the room, I came in late, and she was giving her report to the court of her experience and she said about the Audit Committee "I never, ever want to have that experience again". I thought "good" because that meant we were hitting home. That sort of instance, although the money involved was not all that great, was salutary I felt. There have been important investigations into things like the visual arts here in Cardiff which has had a fairly high profile and the European Structural Funds, there was a bit of controversy about that last week.

With regard to the resources - you asked about our resources - I am satisfied, and not only am I satisfied but the Auditor General is also satisfied with the resources that we get. At the very first session - I have been on the Audit Committee from the very beginning although I was not the Chair at that time - the Auditor General brought forward three models and he compared them to motorcars. He said "I can offer you this package which you can identify as a mini, if you like. It will get you there but it will be fairly cramped and limited. Or I can give you this family saloon package, and there was a price tag that went with that, or I can give you a Rolls Royce". The family saloon was one and a half million pounds a year, if I remember rightly, and the Rolls Royce was £2.2 million. The Committee unanimously gave him the Rolls Royce. I think it is fair to say that Sir John was, in football parlance, over the moon. He said fairly emotionally "I can promise you that I will repay this money seven-fold". So far the figures appear to be going along those lines. I think in terms of resources and in terms of the commitment of the Assembly to the audit function, that certainly is there.

A lot of the questions have been general. Can I refer to some of the questions that are of more direct relevance. As a Committee we do not generally probe in terms of constraints, of not having primary legislative functions, that sort of thing. One can imagine there are circumstances where that is relevant. Sometimes there are specific Acts of Parliament, as with the Welsh Development Agency, a body which obviously we do keep an eye on, and which has its own Act of Parliament setting it up. I suppose theoretically there could be some constraints on the work that is undertaken because we are only an executive and secondary legislative body, not a primary legislative one. As described in the paper, there certainly is the question of the split between the executive and the legislature and our position is different from Westminster or the Scottish Parliament in that regard.

There is a second question with regard to the overlap between the responsibilities of the National Assembly and of Westminster. The overlap is greater, of course, between Cardiff and London than it is with Edinburgh; the settlement is clearer there. Sometimes there will be PAC investigations, for example, which do overlap. For example, there was an investigation into the handling of foot and mouth which was undertaken by the PAC. We could have done our own investigation down here but we would have gone over a lot of the same area, so I went up to London and sat in the House of Commons at the back to see whether we needed to follow up. I believed, and the Auditor General agreed, that there was not a need for us to have our own inquiry because most of the stuff had been covered. There are areas like that, grey areas, because of the lack of clarity in the division of responsibility. That was very evident in many aspects of the foot and mouth crisis, as it happened.

There is also the question, which I think it is worth my drawing to your attention - that of the workload on individual members of our Committee. The amount of paper that Members of the National Assembly need to read by virtue of their membership of a number of Committees ---- I am on three major Committees and I am on three others, six Committees in all. On some of those Committees you could have 300, 400, 500 pages of background material to read once a fortnight and usually there are informal meetings more frequently. The pressure on the individual members of the Audit Committee is substantial and does beg the question whether the Assembly is the appropriate size and whether we do need more members in order to allow members to give the time necessary to all the functions. Members of the Committee do a very conscientious job but one is aware of the constraints they have on their time, particularly if there is a need for background reading or, in our instance, very often referring back to earlier reports.

There is, of course, a potential overlap with other audit functions. Although the Audit Commission and the NAO do work separately, there is obviously a potential overlap with local government and this, again, arises from our settlement. A lot of the money that the Assembly is channelling may be channelled for expenditure through local government. There is a strong argument for an integrated audit function, something that is now being considered and will need an Act of Parliament. As you probably know there is a draft Bill under consideration although we have not as yet seen exactly what will be contained within it.

There are a couple of other questions or problems that have arisen. One which I should flag up is the question of the power to summon witnesses, or the lack of power to summon witnesses in the generality. We can summon specific witnesses, Accounting Officers of course, but we do not have the power generally. That has not as yet been a problem but one can imagine that it might be in some circumstances, particularly if we are showing our teeth and people do not fancy it, particularly if they have retired from posts that they did hold.

Then there is the question of who appoints or possibly even removes Auditor Generals. Under the present settlement the Secretary of State is involved. That is necessary because we are a different body, we do not have the executive/legislative split that exists at Westminster.

I have gone on rather too long probably but I thought that some of those aspects would be of relevance to your consideration. I would be glad to try and respond in whatever way I can.

LORD RICHARD: Thank you very much indeed. Perhaps I can ask one or two fairly general questions before asking members of the Commission to come in on the specifics. You decide your own priorities, do you not?

MR WIGLEY: Ydyn

Yes.

LORD RICHARD: Do you have a specific number of issues that you have got to deal with or can you decide that you will concentrate on boots for the Army or whatever?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Y cyfyngiad, yr Arglwydd Richard, yw faint o amser sydd gennym a faint o adnoddau sydd gan NAO i’w rhoi i ymchwiliadau. Fel y dywedais, byddwn yn cael sesiwn yn gynnar bob blwyddyn lle bydd gan yr Archwilydd Cyffredinol restr o awgrymiadau y bydd yn eu cyflwyno. Fel rheol byddaf wedi cyfarfod ag ef ymlaen llaw ynghyd â’r cydweithwyr hyn, i fynd drwy’r hyn mae ar fin eu cynnig, ac efallai y bydd gennyf un neu ddau awgrym fy hun. Wedyn bydd gan y Pwyllgor fel rheol bethau y byddant am eu hychwanegu, a’r broblem yw beth sy’n ildio’i le os bydd rhaid i ni ychwanegu eitemau. Wrth ystyried y blaenoriaethau, mae’r budd posibl wrth gwrs yn amlwg iawn yn ein meddyliau. Os gwerth yr arian, yna maint y gyllideb ac arwyddocâd yr eitem o fewn honno, neu os oes ymchwiliadau ar sail fwy trefnus, a fydd effaith yn dilyn mewn meysydd eraill. Hynny yw, os byddwch wedi gwneud ymchwiliad ac os oes gwersi buddiol, gallant gael eu codi gan feysydd eraill a gallai fod elw ohonynt.

Interpretation: The constraint, Lord Richard, is the amount of time that we have and the amount of resources the NAO have to give to inquiries. As I said, we have a session early each year where the Auditor General does have a list of suggestions that he brings forward. I have usually had a pre-meeting meeting with him, together with colleagues here, to go through what he is about to propose and I might have made one or two suggestions myself. Then the Committee usually will have things they want to add in and the problem is what gives way if we have to add items. In considering the priorities obviously the potential benefit is very high in our minds. If it is value for money it is the size of the budget and the significance of the item within that or, if there are investigations on a more systematic basis, whether there will be a knock-on effect in other areas. In other words, if we have done an investigation and there are salutary lessons they can be picked up by other areas and benefit could be got from them.

LORD RICHARD: For example, take the health budget, do you start an investigation to see whether you are getting value for money as part of the budget or do you look at it and say "This is what has come out of it, are we satisfied with that?" How far back do you relate to the budget?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Mae’n amlwg fod ychydig waith ymlaen llaw a wneir gan y rheiny sydd agosaf at y mater i weld a yw’r pwnc yn addas, a beth yw potensial y pwnc. Cawn ein cynghori am hynny wrth lunio’n casgliadau.

Interpretation: Clearly there is some preliminary work that is undertaken by those who are at the sharp end to see whether the subject does lend itself and what the potential of the subject is. We are advised on that in coming to our conclusions.

MR SUMMERS: What we do to start with when we decide on the value for money programme that we are about to put forward is to take a look at all the expenditure that is within our remit. We look at the risks to the value for money that might occur if some areas of expenditure are more risky than others, therefore there is a risk that value for money might not be achieved. That formulates itself into our programme. We do a lot of consideration, marking and monitoring work it is called, in putting that programme together before we actually take it to the committee for discussion. Where Mr Wigley came in, we do a little bit before that.

LORD RICHARD: Is that the way the PAC operates in London?

MR SUMMERS: More or less the same standard of operation really, yes.

LORD RICHARD: It is, is it?

MR SUMMERS: Yes. The NAO will do the same sort of work in a Westminster context in taking forward its proposals to the Public Accounts Committee.

LORD RICHARD: Because there is a distinction between looking at the whole budget to see whether you can save money on it and looking to see whether the money has been properly spent. They are not necessarily the same thing, are they?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Mae’n dibynnu ar eich dehongliad o’r gair "properly", wrth gwrs. Penderfyniad gwleidyddol yw blaenoriaeth gwariant, a rhaid i hwnnw gael ei wneud gan y rheiny mewn Llywodraeth a’u gwneud yn atebol gan y Pwyllgor Pwnc p’un a yw’r gwariant ar eitem benodol yn flaenoriaeth briodol i’r Llywodraeth. Ein harchwiliad ni yw sicrhau bod yr arian wedi ei wario’n briodol yn ystyr arall y term o fewn y telerau lle dylai fod wedi ei wario a’i bod yn bosibl cadarnhau’r budd sydd i ddod ohono, os yw’n bosibl nodi hwnnw.

Interpretation: It depends on your interpretation of the word "properly" of course. Priority of expenditure is a political decision and that has to be taken by those in Government and held to question by the Subject Committee whether the expenditure on a certain item is the appropriate priority for the Government. Our investigation is to see that the money has been properly spent in the other meaning of the term within the terms within which it should have been spent and that the benefit that is supposed to come from it, if that is identifiable, can be confirmed.

LORD RICHARD: But you will not necessarily save money in that process.

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Ddim o reidrwydd, er fel y dywedais, mae yna nifer o ddigwyddiadau sydd wedi golygu arbed llawer iawn o arian. Cafwyd digwyddiadau eraill lle credwn fod yr ymchwiliad ei hun wedi bod yn wers. Soniais am brofiad Amgueddfa Genedlaethol Cymru, ond mae yna eraill hefyd. Rwy’n tybied y bydd yr ymchwiliad yn Ysbyty Talgarth nawr yn fuddiol ac y bydd pobl yn ofalus iawn i ddilyn y rheolau wrth gael gwared ag asedion fel hen adeiladau ysbyty. Rhaid i chi lunio barn am hyn: mae’n fater o gadw cydbwysedd rhwng y ddau beth.

Interpretation: Not necessarily, although, as I say, there have been a number of instances that have added up to a significant amount of saving. There have been other instances where I believe the investigation itself has been salutary. I mentioned the National Museum of Wales experience but there are others as well. I suspect that the one that we have with Talgarth Hospital now will be salutary and people will be very careful that they follow the rules in the disposing of assets such as an old hospital building. One has to make a judgement on this, it is a balance between the two.

LORD RICHARD: That is done basically by you and the Auditor General and then it is put to the Committee?

MR WIGLEY: Ydy, ac os oes cymwysiadau i hynny, mae’n rhywbeth y byddem yn ei drafod yn ein cyfarfod misol. Mae yna ran fusnes yn y cyfarfod a---

Yes, and if there are adjustments to that it is something we would discuss in our monthly meeting. We have a business part of the meeting and ----

LORD RICHARD: So the democracy is guided?

MR SUMMERS: I was just going to say, Lord Richard, that value for money is not just about saving pounds, it is about economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Effectiveness I would put at the top in terms of delivery of public services.

TOM JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) O ran cyrff y Deyrnas Gyfunol, hwyrach y byddai Asiantaeth yr Amgylchedd yn enghraifft lle mae’r cyfrifoldeb ariannol am wario y tu allan i Gymru, ond bod cyfran o gyllideb y Cynulliad yn mynd i’r corff hwnnw am wasanaethau ychwanegol yng Nghymru. Sut fyddwch chi’n gallu gwahaniaethu rhyngddyn nhw? Fyddwch chi’n edrych ar y gwariant mae’r Cynulliad ei hun wedi ei ymrwymo i’r corff hwnnw a chyrff tebyg, neu a ydych chi’n gallu edrych ar hynny a’r darlun ehangach?

Interpretation: In relation to UK bodies, perhaps the Environment Agency would be an example where the financial responsibility for expenditure lies outside Wales but there is a proportion of the Assembly’s budget going to that body for additional services in Wales. How are you able to differentiate between the two things? Do you just look at the expenditure that the Assembly itself has committed to that organisation and similar organisations, or are you able to look at that and the broad picture?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Cymharol ychydig enghreifftiau sydd gennym yn ein gwaith i edrych ar y math hwnnw o faes. Dydych chi ddim yn cael y math hwnnw o faes lle mae arian yn mynd i gyrff y tu allan i Gymru ond bod mantais i Gymru o hynny. Fe welwch yr un math o egwyddor pan fydd eich arian yn mynd i awdurdodau lleol a ninnau heb fod yn gweld y budd o reidrwydd sy’n dod o’r arian maent yn ei gael gennym ni, yn wahanol i’r arian maent yn ei godi eu hunain. Prin fyddwn ni’n mynd i mewn i’r mater hwnnw o gwbl. O safbwynt y cyrff allanol, wrth gwrs, byddai gennym yr hawl i sicrhau ein hunain fod y gwario a wnawn mewn gwirionedd yn helpu cyflawni’r diben a fwriedir. Rwy’n dychmygu y byddai’n ddigon anodd oherwydd dim ond pump y cant o incwm rhai o’r cyrff y byddem yn mynd ar ei ôl, ac ar y cyfan byddwn yn cadw at y gwaith hwnnw sy’n dod o fewn cylch gwaith y Cynulliad fel sydd wedi ei ddiffinio yn y Ddeddf, ond weithiau nid yw hynny’n cynnwys cyrff felly. Ian, ydych chi am ychwanegu unrhyw beth?

Interpretation: We have comparatively few examples in our work of looking at that kind of area. You do have that kind of area where there is funding going to bodies outwith Wales but an advantage accrues to Wales. You have also got the same kind of principle with our money going to local authorities and we cannot actually see necessarily the benefit that we are making actually meets the purpose that it is intended for. I imagine it would be quite difficult because it is only five per cent of the income of some of the organisations that we would have to pursue and generally we keep to the work that comes within the remit of the Assembly as defined under the Act but sometimes that does not cover such organisations. Ian, do you want to add anything?

MR SUMMERS: Just to add that the Environment Agency is one of the bodies that does fall within the Auditor General’s remit but, of course, his remit is restricted in Wales to the money that the Assembly provides to the Environment Agency.

TOM JONES: (In Welsh then interpreted) Felly, dydych chi mewn gwirionedd wedi creu protocol ffurfiol. Ble fyddai’r aelodau o Gymru sydd ar y corff Prydeinig yn perthyn? Ai ar y Cadeirydd neu’r Prif Weithredwr ddylem ni edrych?

Interpretation: So you have not actually created a formal protocol. Where would the members from Wales on the British organisation fit in? Would it be the Chair or the Chief Executive we should look at?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Byddai’r un egwyddor yn gweithredu, sef y bydda’n rhaid i’r Swyddog Cyfrifo fod yn atebol am wariant. Ni fyddai’r ffaith fod yno aelodau Cymreig, mewn gwirionedd, yn dod i mewn i’r mater o gwbl. Rwy’n dychmygu y byddai’n fanteisiol gydag astudiaeth felly, yn enwedig tra byddai Syr John yn dal yn y swydd gan ei fod yn gallu gweld dwy ochr i’r geiniog hefyd, ac edrychwn ymlaen i weld sut fydd pethau’n mynd ymlaen yno.

Interpretation: The same principle would exist, namely the Accounting Officer would have to be accountable for expenditure. The fact that there are Welsh members or not, to be honest, would not come into the equation at all. I imagine that it would be advantageous with such a study, particularly while Sir John is still in post as he can see the other side of the coin as well and we look forward to see how things progress there.

TED ROWLANDS: The Audit Committee is also auditing the cost of the whole administration of the Assembly?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Mae yna agweddau ar y gost y byddwn yn edrych arnynt o bryd i’w gilydd. Er enghraifft, mae rhywbeth yn digwydd ddydd Gwener am y gwersi sydd i’w dysgu mewn cysylltiad ag adeilad newydd sydd yn yr arfaeth ac sy’n destun cryn ddadlau. Nid mater i ni yw rhoi barn am fanteision y gwariant cyffredinol, ond mae’n rhywbeth sy’n dod o fewn ein cylch cyllideb ac yn dod dan gyfyngiad y rheolau.

Interpretation: There are aspects of the cost that we look at from time to time. For example, we have something coming up this Friday with regard to some of the lessons to be learned in relation to a new building that is being proposed, which is a matter of some controversy. It is not a matter for us to make judgements on the merits of the overall expenditure, but it is something that comes within our budget round and subject to the constraints of the rules.

TED ROWLANDS: One of our terms of reference is looking at any possible cost implications arising from the implementation of any proposals we make. One of the things that struck me in preparing for this Commission’s work is the Voice of Wales’ initial assessment of the running cost of the Assembly, which was between 15 and 20 million, and the cost that the Welsh Office think it is going to be, which is about 72 million and about 100 extra staff. Looking at comparing that with where we are now it seems those original estimates were widely out. I assume they are, I have not managed to compare like with like. Is it the responsibility of the Auditor General, and therefore yourself, to check that original estimate and to advise everybody on why that has happened?

TED ROWLANDS: Going back to the referendum campaign, in a sense the whole business of making the quango state accountable was a big issue and I think it possibly influenced the result of the referendum, people felt the need for the quango state to be publicly accountable. Do you have responsibility for looking at individual quango’s budgets and calling them in that respect?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Ydyn, yn wir, o fewn ffiniau’r polisi cyffredinol sy’n cael ei osod i lawr gan y Llywodraeth. Mae’r Llywodraeth wedi penderfynu cael gwared â rhai cwangos, fel Bwrdd Datblygu Cymru Wledig ac Awdurdod Tir Cymru a dod â nhw i mewn i WDA, ac mae cwangos eraill i barhau. Rhagwelwyd, fel y cofiwch, y byddai yna danllwyth o gwangos. Rwy’n clywed nad yw wedi digwydd oherwydd bod problem i gael yr arian cyfatebol, fel y dywedodd rhywun wrthyf yn ddiweddar! Ydyn, mae’r cyrff hyn yn amlwg yn berthnasol i wariant y Llywodraeth a’r Cynulliad ac mae gennym y grym i edrych arnynt.

Interpretation: Yes, indeed, within the confines of the general policy that is laid down by the Government. The Government has taken decisions to get rid of some quangos, such as Tai Cymru, and to integrate that into the administration, to amalgamate other quangos, such as the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority coming into the WDA, and other quangos continue. There was an expectation, as you will remember, of a bonfire of the quangos. I am told it has not gone forward because there is a problem finding the 'match-funding' as somebody said to me recently! Yes, obviously these bodies are relevant to the expenditure of the Government and the Assembly and we have the power to look at them.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: Two questions if I might. One is about the accountability of civil servants to your Committee and whether there are areas of responsibility that the Permanent Secretary has for the staff budget, for example, which would come, as it were, straight to you rather than through a Government Minister. Are there any things for which the civil servant is responsible direct to your Committee rather than going through another politician?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Yr unig gyllideb sydd gennym fel ein cyfrifoldeb yw cyllideb y swyddogaeth ei hun, a rhaid i ni fynd â honno at y Cynulliad i’w chadarnhau. Yn wir, pe baem yn anghytuno â’r hyn fyddai’r Archwilydd Cyffredinol am ei gael, yna byddai’n fater i’w ddatrys gan Ysgrifennydd Gwladol Cymru. Mae yna ddiogelwch yno sy’n rhan o’r archwilio a’r cydbwyso sy’n deillio o natur y corff nad oes gennym y rhaniad gweithredol/deddfwriaethol. O ran swyddogaeth yr Ysgrifennydd Parhaol, rwy’n ymwybodol fod yr Ysgrifennydd Parhaol fel Swyddog Cyfrifo yn ymddangos ger ein bron yn aml iawn, iawn oherwydd mai ef yn y pen draw yw’r lefel cyfrifoldeb dros nifer fawr o swyddogaethau, boed dan iechyd, dan addysg neu dan beth bynnag. Fe wn ei fod yn chwilio ar hyn o bryd i weld a oes rhyw ffordd i geisio lleihau’r gofyniad iddo fod yno bob tro. Wrth gwrs, gallem fynnu ei fod yno, ond rwy’n tybied bod angen cael rhywfaint o gydbwysedd. Mae hyn wedi tyfu o natur y corff hwn.

Interpretation: The only budget that we have as our responsibility is the budget of the function itself and we have to take that to the Assembly for ratification. Indeed, if we were to disagree with what the Auditor General wanted, or the Assembly was to disagree, then it would be a matter that would have to be sorted out by the Secretary of State for Wales. There is a safeguard there which is part of the checks and balance arising out of the nature of the body that we are not having the executive/legislature split. With regard to the Permanent Secretary’s role, I am conscious that we have the Permanent Secretary as Accounting Officer appearing before us very, very frequently because he is the ultimate responsibility level for a whole host of functions, whether it comes under health, under education or under whatever. I know that he is looking at the moment to see whether there is some way of trying to lessen slightly the requirement for him to be there every time. Obviously we could insist on him being there but I suspect there needs to be some balance. That has grown out of the nature of the body that we are.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: I know in local government that function is split between the Chief Executive who manages the organisation and what is called a section 151 officer who is responsible for the financial propriety of any action. That fairly neatly leads me to my next question about local government and accountability. The difference between local government and all the other bodies that you list is that, of course, it is elected and is separate and autonomous. Whilst you can call a Minister to account for how much he had allocated to a particular local authority or whether he or she had taken action about how a local authority carried out its functions with regard to spending on education, culture or whatever, I am struggling a bit with the idea that the Committee can actually call people from local government directly.

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Na.

Interpretation: No.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: How does it compare with the powers that the Public Accounts Committee has to scrutinise local government?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Mae ein pwerau ni’n debyg iawn o ran cysyniad, er ein bod yn gweithio o fewn adeiladwaith gwahanol yn gymaint â’n bod yn methu galw tystion a heb gael y rhaniad gweithredol/deddfwriaethol sydd gennych yno. Nid wyf yn rhag-weld y byddwn fel Pwyllgor am ddamsang ar diriogaeth llywodraeth leol. Os cawn, a gobeithio y cawn, adeiladwaith archwilio newydd yng Nghymru i ddod â’r Comisiwn Archwilio ac NOA at ei gilydd, a bydd manteision i ni o wneud hynny, rwy’n hollol sicr, yna bydd yn rhaid i ni gadw rhywfaint o fur atal o ran y gwaith sy’n ymwneud â llywodraeth leol am eu bod nhw’n atebol, fel y dywedech, i’w haelodau etholedig eu hunain a chyda’u hadeiladwaith eu hunain. Mae cwestiwn yn codi, pan fyddwn am olrhain llif arian ei fod yn gyfreithlon, y byddwn yn dymuno gofyn cwestiynau i sicrhau ei fod yn mynd i’r swyddogaethau y bwriadwyd ef ar eu cyfer. Gallaf ddychmygu amgylchiadau fel arian sy’n cael ei gyfyngu o fewn terfyn, er enghraifft, lle byddem yn gyfrifol am sicrhau ei fod yn cael ei ddefnyddio’n iawn. Eithriad fyddai hynny’n sicr, nid yr arfer. Y peth olaf fyddem am ei wneud fyddai codi gwrychyn llywodraeth leol. Mae ganddyn nhw eu cyfrifoldebau eu hunain. Ni fyddem yn dymuno mynd â’r cyfrifoldeb hwnnw oddi arnynt ychwaith. Mae’n bwysig iddynt ysgwyddo’r cyfrifoldeb hwnnw a gweld eu bod yn atebol o fewn eu fframwaith eu hunain.

Interpretation: Our powers are very similar in concept, although we work within a different structure with regard to us not being able to summon witnesses and not having the executive/legislature split that you have there. I am not envisaging us as a Committee wanting to trample on the territory of local government. If we have, as we hope that we will, a new audit structure in Wales bringing the Audit Commission and the NAO together, and there will be benefits in doing that I have no doubt, we will have to keep a certain amount of a Chinese wall with regard to the work relating to local authorities because they are answerable, as you rightly say, to their own elected members and they have their own structure. There is a question when we want to trace the flow of money that it is legitimate that we may want to ask questions to make sure that it is going to the functions for which it is intended. I can imagine circumstances such as money that is ring-fenced, for example, where we would have the responsibility to make sure that it is being properly used. It would be the exception very much and not the rule. The last thing we want is a fight with local government. They have got their own responsibilities. We would not want to take that responsibility off them either. It is important that they do handle that responsibility and they see that they are answerable within their own framework.

LAURA McALLISTER: Can I ask you about one of the inquiries that you have mentioned. I am not sure if you were Chair for the whole of the accommodation issue generally, the building and so on, but you were certainly a member of the Committee at that time. It strikes me as probably one of the most political of the inquiries that you could possibly have landed yourselves with. We heard from someone else very early on in our deliberations that there are issues relating to how much information you can actually gain from some of the senior civil servants, particularly Permanent Secretaries, when you are asking the kinds of questions you need to in that inquiry because clearly there is an overlap between political and certain managerial areas. Can you tell us a little bit about that, how it works and how you operate the scrutiny role?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Ni allaf gofio’r anhawster penodol wrth gael gwybodaeth yn yr ymchwiliad hwnnw. Ni fyddwn yn disgwyl y byddai Claire yn gallu cofio, ychwaith, gan mai’n ddiweddar y mae wedi ymuno â’n staff. Os gallaf gymryd yr egwyddor, cododd yr egwyddor yn ddiweddar iawn yn wir mewn cwestiwn arall mewn cysylltiad â’r elw roedd Siemens yn ei wneud ar y contract cyfrifiaduron y cyfeiriais ato. Roedd yno gwestiwn am wybodaeth benodol a oedd gan yr Ysgrifennydd Parhaol ac a allai fod yn sensitif yn fasnachol, ac roedd cwestiwn yn codi a ddylai’r wybodaeth honno gael ei rhyddhau. Roedd tybiaethau wedi eu gwneud efallai na fyddai’n cael ei rhyddhau. Efallai fod hynny’n fwy cyfyngus yn ein cyd-destun ni yng Nghaerdydd nag a fyddai yng nghyd-destun PAC yn Llundain, lle byddai pleidlais hyder yn debygol o fod wedi ei rhoi i aelodau ar sail parchu’r cyfrinachedd hwnnw. Fel mae’n digwydd, mae gennym gyfarfod ddydd Gwener i geisio symud ymlaen. Roedd Syr John Shortridge mor agored ag y gallai fod am y wybodaeth a roddodd, ond ni allai roi popeth roedd aelodau’r Pwyllgor yn gofyn amdano.

Mae yna densiwn, a bydd yna densiwn bob amser – hwyrach am resymau dilys – lle na allwn gael popeth yn agored i’r cyhoedd fel yr hoffem ei wneud. Yn ddelfrydol, byddem yn hoffi i lawer iawn fod yn agored i’r cyhoedd, ond mae yna amgylchiadau lle caiff hynny ei gadw’n ôl, yn enwedig os bydd pethau fel contractau newydd ar y gweill, fel sy’n digwydd gyda’n system gyfrifiadurol.

Ni chefais unrhyw reswm, yn sicr yn ystod fy nghyfnod fel Cadeirydd, i deimlo nad oedd y Gwasanaeth Sifil yn rhoi cydweithrediad llawn i ni nac yn darparu i ni bopeth roedd yn rhesymol i ni ei ddisgwyl.

Interpretation: I cannot remember the specific difficulty in getting information in that inquiry. I would not expect Claire to remember because she is a fairly recent addition to our staff. If I can take the principle, the principle arose very recently indeed in another question with regard to the profitability that Siemens were making on the computer contract that I referred to. There was the question of certain information which the Permanent Secretary had which may have been commercially sensitive and there was the question of whether that information should be released. There had been assumptions that perhaps it would not be released. Perhaps that was more restrictive in our context in Cardiff than it would be in the context of the PAC in London where there would have been likely to have been a confidential note given to members on the basis of respecting that confidentiality. As it happens we have a meeting coming up this Friday to try and move that forward. Sir Jon Shortridge was as forthcoming as he could be in the information that he gave but he could not give everything that members of the Committee were looking for.

There is a tension there and there will always be circumstances where - perhaps for valid reasons - we cannot get everything into the public domain as we would like to. Ideally, we would like the whole lot in the public domain, but there are circumstances where that is held back, particularly if things like new contracts are coming up, as is the case with our computer system.

I have not had any reason, certainly during my period in the Chair, to feel that the Civil Service were not giving us full co-operation and making available everything that they could to us that it was reasonable for us to expect.

PETER PRICE: In talking about constraints upon the Committee, you have identified two. One is the amount of time available from the Auditor General. You have told us about how originally that was going to be the Rolls Royce model and, therefore, that may sound as though it is a huge constraint. The other one was the amount of time of members in the meetings. To what extent is that second factor a real constraint? What would you do if you had at your disposal more meeting time than you do at the moment?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsht then interpreted) Nid oeddwn yn dadlau o reidrwydd am fwy o amser i gyfarfodydd. Roeddwn yn egluro’r cyfyngiadau ar aelodau o ran yr amser sydd ganddynt i wneud eu gwaith cartref. Os byddwch dan bwysau sylweddol gyda nifer o Bwyllgorau’n digwydd yr un wythnos a thunelli o waith i’w ddarllen, mae yna berygl y byddwch yn bwrw golwg y noson gynt ar yr hyn sydd i ddod a heb gael cyfle i gyfeirio’n ôl, yn ein cyd-destun ni, at adroddiadau cynharach, neu hwyrach i weld beth mae PAC wedi ei wneud ar fater tebyg, ac ati, a fyddai’n gwneud cyfraniad yr aelodau gymaint yn well. Yn sicr, mae cyfyngiad ar amser yma.

Pan gyfeiriais at y cyfyngiadau amser sydd ar Syr John, yn amlwg nid y bwriad oedd rhoi’r argraff, ac rwy’n ymddiheuro os rhoddais yr argraff anghywir, nad oes gan NAO fel sefydliad yr amser. Mae tîm NAO yn gwneud amser, yn rhyfeddol iawn, o fewn y cyfyngiadau staff sydd ganddynt. Mae nifer y staff sydd ganddynt yn ddigon hael, yn ôl y gyllideb Rolls Royce a roddwyd. Rhaid i amser Syr John fod yn gytbwys, wrth reswm. Rhaid iddo fod yn Llundain ar gyfer cyfarfod PAC ar ddydd Mercher ac wedyn yma yng Nghaerdydd ar gyfer cyfarfod o’n Pwyllgor ni ar ddydd Iau, ac mae hynny’n gwasgu arno ef ei hun. Mae’n ddiwrnod digon trwm yn PAC, fel y gwyr rhai ohonom, a rhaid iddo ddod i lawr ar y trên naill ai’n hwyr yn y nos neu ben bore ac yna mewn cyfarfodydd. Cyn y cyfarfod byddwn fel rheol yn treulio rhan dda o fore dydd Iau gydag ef cyn mynd i mewn i sesiwn y prynhawn, y sesiwn ffurfiol.

Interpretation: I was not arguing necessarily for more meeting time. I was pointing out the constraints that members have with regard to the time that they have for doing their homework. If you are under significant pressure with several Committees going on in the same week with piles to read, there is a danger of flicking through the night before what is coming up and not having the time to refer back, in our context, to earlier reports, or perhaps to find out what the PAC has done on a similar issue, etc., which would make the contribution of members that much better. There is undoubtedly a limit on time there.

When I referred to the time constraints that obviously Sir John has, that was not to give the impression, and I apologise if I have given the wrong impression, that the NAO as an organisation does not have the time. The NAO’s team makes time available remarkably within the constraints of the staff that they have. The staff they have got is a fairly generous one according to the Rolls Royce budget that was given. Sir John’s time obviously has to be balanced. He has to be in London for a Wednesday meeting of the PAC and then here in Cardiff for a Thursday meeting of our Committee, and that is a pressure on him himself. It is a fairly heavy day at the PAC, as some of us know, and he has to come down by train either late at night or early in the morning and then at pre-meeting meetings we usually have a good part of the Thursday morning with him before going into the afternoon session, the formal session.

PETER PRICE: Just to clarify then, in terms of the amount of time members have to study documents, that is the bigger issue in terms of membership of too many Committees rather than issues of scheduling of Committees and overlapping, it is the amount of time you can spend on doing your homework if you are on too many Committees?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Wn i ddim, Claire, a hoffech chi sôn am rai o’r profiadau a gawsom wrth geisio trefnu amserlen ein Pwyllgor. Claire sydd wedi cael y gwaethaf yn y mater hwn.

Interpretation: I do not know, Claire, whether you would like to mention some of the experiences we have had in trying to schedule our Committee. Claire has been at the sharp end of this.

MS BENNETT: It is a combination of the two. There is the issue of members not necessarily having the time to prepare for meetings because they have got many other meetings. Scheduling meetings generally is incredibly complicated. We tend to have our Committees on a Thursday afternoon, which obviously is the end of the official week in Cardiff for the Assembly. We have five members from North Wales on the Committee who have to get back to their constituencies. We have brought forward the last meeting to 1.30 rather than two o’clock so that we can try to finish a bit earlier. We are having next week’s meeting at nine o’clock. There is not very much room in the time schedule because you have got two plenary sessions, the Auditor General is in London at PAC on a Wednesday, so you cannot do that day, so that only leaves you with Tuesday and there is a plenary session. It is very complicated to find a suitable slot where everybody who needs to be there is available.

Wn i ddim a yw hyn wedi ei egluro i chi gan eraill, ond yn ddamcaniaethol bydd Pwyllgorau Pwnc – addysg, iechyd, ac yn y blaen – yn cyfarfod bob pythefnos yn ffurfiol, ond rhwng y rheiny gallech gael tri chyfarfod yr wythnos yn anffurfiol. Er enghraifft, ar hyn o bryd mae yna Bwyllgor y dylwn fod ynddo sy’n berthnasol i waith y Pwyllgor Datblygu Economaidd, lle mae pobl o’r byd telathrebu’n rhoi cefndir i ni am eu gwaith, cyfarfod anffurfiol. Rhaid i chi osod cyfarfodydd anffurfiol felly ar ben y cyfarfodydd ffurfiol a’r gofynion eraill (rydw i’n gwyro oddi ar fy nghyfrifoldebau fel Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor Archwilio, ond yma gall fod yn ddefnyddiol) fel y cyrff lobio sy’n cynnal cyfarfodydd ar ddiwedd y diwrnod gwaith yn ystod y cyfnod 5.30pm-7.00pm, neu hyd yn oed yn ogystal â’r cyfnod 12.00pm-2.00pm. Rwy’n tybied efallai fod hanner y cyrff lobio a gewch yn Nhy’r Cyffredin, ond 60 o AC sy’n ceisio delio â’r mater yn hytrach na 660 o AS.

I do not know if this has been pointed out to you by others but theoretically the Subject Committees - education, health and so on - meet once a fortnight formally but in between that you could have three meetings a week informally. For example, at this moment in time there is a Committee that I should be attending relevant to the work of the Economic Development Committee where the people from telecoms are briefing us about their work, an informal meeting. You have to superimpose such informal meetings on top of the formal meetings and other requirements (I am going a little bit off my responsibilities as Chair of the Audit Committee here but it may be helpful) such as the lobbying organisations who hold meetings at the end of the working day in the 5.30pm-7.00pm slot, or even as well as the 12.00pm-2.00pm slot. I suppose, perhaps half the number of lobbying organisations that you get in the House of Commons but it is 60 AMs who try to handle it as opposed to 660 MPs.

LORD RICHARD: Yes, but you have sort of formalised the informal consultations in the sense that if you are having the informal consultation with some outside body it is the Committee that does it and not the individual.

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Mae gwaith y Pwyllgor yn ffurfiol. Byddwn yn cael sesiwn anffurfiol o’r Pwyllgor Archwilio bob dydd Mawrth cyn ein cyfarfod ar ddydd Iau. Felly, unwaith y mis bydd gennym gyfarfod amser cinio ar ddydd Mawrth lle bydd yr aelodau hynny o’r tîm NAO sydd wedi gweithio ar yr adroddiad, hwyrach bedwar neu bump ohonynt, yn dod ynghyd gydag aelodau o’r Pwyllgor Archwilio, sydd i gyd yn cael eu gwahodd ynghyd â’r clerc a’r dirprwy glerc.

Interpretation: The work of the Committee is formal. We do have an informal session of the Audit Committee every Tuesday prior to our Thursday meeting. So once a month we have a Tuesday lunchtime meeting where those members of the NAO team that have worked on the report, perhaps four or five of them, will come together with the members of the Audit Committee who are all invited and the clerk and the deputy clerk.

LORD RICHARD: Do they come?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Fel rheol, o’r naw AC efallai y bydd pump yn dod, rhai gwahanol, sy’n cymryd eu tro yn ôl pa gyfarfodydd eraill sydd ganddynt. Dyna enghraifft o’r gwaith anffurfiol a wnawn. Os cofiaf, nid oes gan Dy’r Cyffredin yr un graddau o ddod ynghyd yn anffurfiol i siarad am gefndir yr adroddiad, y problemau a gafwyd wrth lunio’r adroddiad, neu a ddylai’r pwyslais fod ar ryw gyfeiriad. Mae hyn wedi bod yn addysgol iawn. Mae gwneud yn sicr y gallwn ddefnyddio’n hamser pwyllgor ffurfiol yn fwy effeithiol yn golygu bod angen cael cyfarfodydd cefndir felly.

Interpretation: Usually of the nine AMs, probably five will come, different ones, who rotate depending what other meetings they have got on. That is an example of the informal working that we have. My recollection is that the House of Commons does not have the same amount of informal getting together to talk about the background to the report, the problems they found in doing the report, or whether the emphasis should be placed in some direction. This has been immensely educative. To make sure that we use our formal committee time more effectively does require such briefing meetings.

PETER PRICE: If I could just try and conclude that point in this way: if you had, say, 80 members of the Assembly rather than 60, would that, as it were, do the trick or is that really merely a marginal effect of no importance as somebody suggested to us this morning?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Nid ein Pwyllgor ni fyddai’n gyrru hynny, ond pe bae aelodau o’n pwyllgor, yn rhinwedd y ffaith fod mwy o aelodau ar gael i rannu gwaith Pwyllgor arall, pe bae ychydig llai o bwysau ar ysgwyddau aelodau’n Pwyllgor, gallent roi cymaint â hynny’n fwy o amser i waith ein Pwyllgor ni ac i waith arall maen nhw’n ei wneud.

Interpretation: Our Committee would not be the driver for that but if members of our Committee, by virtue of the fact that there were more members available to share out other Committee work, if members of our Committee had a little bit less pressure on them, they could put that much more time into our Committee work and into the other work that they are doing.

PETER PRICE: So would the difference between 60 and 80 be really significant in terms of the Committee work of the Assembly or would that be quite a marginal effect?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted): Os caf fi ehangu ar hynny o safbwynt swyddogaeth archwilio’n benodol.

Interpretation: If I can broaden out from the audit function specifically.

PETER PRICE: Yes, I am talking more generally.

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Rydych yn gofyn mewn cyd-destun mwy cyffredinol.

Interpretation: You are asking in a more general context.

PETER PRICE: Yes.

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Mae yna un agwedd sy’n bwysig iawn. Gan ein bod yn wlad mor blwyfol a phob rhan o Gymru’n cystadlu â rhannau eraill am sylw, ar bob Pwyllgor fe ddylid cael aelod o bob un o bum rhanbarth Cymru. Bu adegau, er enghraifft, pan nad oedd unrhyw aelod o’r Gogledd ar y Pwyllgor Iechyd. Pe bae gennym, dywedwch, 75 o aelodau, saith aelod rhanbarthol yn lle pedwar, yr un fformiwla ag yn yr Alban, a chan fod tua saith o brif bwyllgorau, byddai hynny’n ein galluogi i gael bron yn systemataidd aelod o bob un o’r pum rhanbarth ar bob un o’r Pwyllgorau. Byddai hynny’n ddiamau yn rhoi gwell cyswllt nag sy’n bosibl ar hyn o bryd. Proses hap a damwain yw hi ar hyn o bryd, a’r chwipiaid yn ceisio cydbwyso pethau, ond mae yna gyfyngiadau yno. Weithiau cewch gyrff dilys, fel Fforwm Economaidd Gogledd Cymru a oedd yn ddigon cywir yn ddig iawn pan na phenodwyd unrhyw aelod o Ogledd Cymru ar y Pwyllgor Datblygu Economaidd. Roeddent yn teimlo nad oedd yno’r cyswllt roedd ganddynt hawl i’w ddisgwyl. Byddai cynnydd o’r math hwnnw yn sicr yn helpu yn y cyd-destun cyffredinol hwnnw, ond nid yw hynny’n rhywbeth sy’n cael ei lywio gan ofynion y Pwyllgor Archwilio.

Interpretation: There is one aspect that is very important, Wales, being the parochial country that we are, and each part of Wales vying with other parts for attention, on each Committee there should be a member from each of the five regions of Wales. There have been times, for example, when there has been no member from the north on the Health Committee. If we had, say, 75 members, seven regional members instead of four, the same formula as in Scotland, there are about seven main Committees and that would enable there to be almost systematically a member from each of the five regions on each of the Committees. That would undoubtedly give a better linkage than is possible at the moment. It is a random process at the moment, the whips try to balance things, but there are constraints there. Sometimes you find valid bodies, such as the North Wales Economic Forum were rightly very upset when no North Wales member was on the Economic Development Committee. They felt that the linkages that they had a right to expect were not there. An increase of that sort would undoubtedly help in that general context but that is not something driven by the requirements of the Audit Committee.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: Can I ask you a question about liaison between the Audit Committee and other Committees. There must be times when your scrutiny of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of something impinges on policy considerations of another Committee. You said that you were not on the Panel of Chairs, which I was a bit surprised at.

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) A finnau hefyd.

Interpretation: So was I.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: And if there was an issue, whether it would go to the Business Committee, how is that agreed as to who is doing what?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Mae’r Pwyllgor Busnes yn ymwneud mwy â threfnu’r gwaith sy’n mynd drwy’r cyfarfodydd llawn, ac ati. Pe bae angen i mi anfon sylwadau at y Panel Cadeiryddion, byddwn yn dod o hyd i gydweithiwr ac yn ceisio agor ei feddwl ef neu hi a chael cymorth fel hynny. O ran y ffordd mae ein Pwyllgor ni’n gweithio, nid wyf yn credu ei fod yn achosi unrhyw broblemau yn y cyfeiriad yna. Gallai fod amgylchiadau lle mae hynny’n digwydd, ond hyd yn hyn nid wyf wedi gweld unrhyw beth penodol.

Interpretation: The Business Committee is more involved in the scheduling of the work that goes through in plenaries, etc. If I needed to make representations to the Panel of Chairs I would find a colleague and try to unzip his or her mind and get assistance in that direction. With regard to the workings of our Committee, I do not think it is causing us any problems in that direction. There could be circumstances where it does but, as yet, I have not seen anything specific.

MS BENNETT: The accepted practice is that basically the Audit Committee considers reports laid before it by the Auditor General for Wales. That is its remit, as it were. It has first grab of a report from the Auditor General for Wales, so the Subject Committee would not be able to consider one of the Auditor General’s reports until the Audit Committee had done. For example, the Structural Funds report that we published last week is quite likely to go to the Economic Development Committee now, I would imagine, they have expressed an interest in doing so, in having a little look at that.

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Rwy’n sylweddoli fy mod wedi colli rhediad y rhan gyntaf o’ch cwestiwn. Diolch am ailgydio ynddo, Claire. Rwyf yn eistedd ar y Pwyllgor Datblygu Economaidd. Rwyf droeon wedi gweld y rheiny sy’n aelodau o’r Pwyllgor Archwilio – mae Alison Halford yn yr un sefyllfa, ac mae Alun Cairns yn yr un sefyllfa – aelodau felly wedi ymwneud yn fanwl â phwnc yn y Pwyllgor Archwilio. Pan ddaw ystyriaethau polisi felly ymlaen yn y Pwyllgor arall, mae gennym fwy o gefndir iddo. Nid yw’r cefndir fyddwn wedi ei gael ar gyfer gwaith archwilio o reidrwydd yn gymwys ar gyfer yr ystyriaethau polisi sy’n codi, ond mae’n ychwanegu at ystyriaethau polisi. Mae’n amlwg fod yna fantais i bob aelod fod yn ymwybodol o’r hyn sy’n digwydd yn y Pwyllgor Archwilio. Mae yna ochr arall i’r geiniog. Mae yna bethau sy’n codi o bwyllgorau eraill ac sydd weithiau’n ysgogi’r cwestiwn a ddylem gael archwiliad gan yr Archwilydd.

Interpretation: I realise that I missed the thread of the first part of your question, thanks for picking it up, Claire. I sit on the Economic Development Committee. I have seen on numerous occasions those who have been members of the Audit Committee and Economic Development - Alison Halford is in the same position, Alun Cairns is in the same position - such members have been into a subject in depth in the Audit Committee. When such policy considerations come forward in the other Committee we have had more background to it. The background that we have had for the audit work is not necessarily geared to the policy considerations that arise but it informs policy consideration. Clearly there is an advantage to all members to be aware of what is happening in the Audit Committee. There is an other side to the coin. There are things that arise from other Committees that sometimes trigger the question of whether we should have an investigation by Audit.

LORD RICHARD: What is it that you will be looking at on Objective 1?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Un o’r ystyriaethau mwyaf difrifol, ac achosodd hyn gryn ddadlau pan ddaeth ein hadroddiad allan yr wythnos diwethaf, sef y cwestiwn a fyddwn mewn perygl tua 2006-08, pan ddaw’r cyfnod Amcan 1 i ben, o ddioddef oherwydd diffyg ymrwymiad. Mae hynny’n codi os na fyddwn wedi llwyddo i wario’r arian a ddisgwylid a hwnnw, felly, yn cael ei gymryd oddi arnom. Roeddem yn tynnu sylw at un neu ddau o gwestiynau am y systemau sydd gan Swyddfa Ariannu Ewropeaidd Cymru, er enghraifft, eu system gyfrifiadurol, lefel y staff sydd ganddynt a’r berthynas rhwng staff a chwsmeriaid – er mwyn sicrhau bod y wybodaeth yno i reoli eu hunain i osgoi perygl diffyg ymrwymiad. Byddai hynny’n golygu colli arian gwirioneddol.

Interpreted: One of the most serious considerations, and this caused a bit of controversy when our report came out last week, was with regard to the question as to whether we will we be in trouble towards 2006-08 when the Objective 1 period comes to an end of suffering de-commitment. That arises if we have not succeeded in spending the money that was expected and, therefore, it being taken away from us. We were flagging up one or two questions with regard to the systems that the Wales European Funding Office have, for example their computer system, the level of staff they have got and the relationship between the staff and clients - in order to make sure that the information is there to manage themselves to avoid the danger of de-commitment. That would be a loss of real money.

LORD RICHARD: What is interesting me is this: you start an investigation into a particular subject of policy, you are therefore looking into what the Minister does and the Minister has all the resources of the department, the civil servants and all the rest of it, but what do you have?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Yr adnodd sydd gennym sy’n cyflwyno’r adroddiadau yw adnodd NAO, sy’n adnodd sylweddol iawn yn wir.

Interpretation: The resource that we have that brings the reports forward is the resource of the NAO, which is a very substantial resource indeed.

LORD RICHARD: Do you have enough researchers to do the job in Cardiff?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Mae gan NAO. Wn i ddim, Ian, a hoffech chi roi mwy o wybodaeth am gryfder y tîm sydd gan NAO yno.

Interpretation: The NAO does. I do not know, Ian, if you would like to give more information on the strength of the team that the NAO has down here.

MR SUMMERS: The starting point for the Audit Committee is a report from the Auditor General for Wales, I think that is section 102 of the Government of Wales Act. Before bringing anything to the Audit Committee we have to do a substantial amount of work in order to produce a report. It is the Audit Committee who agree our annual budget and, as Mr Wigley said, that is a very generous budget, thank you very much.

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Am waith da.

Interpretation: For good work.

MR SUMMERS: That is sufficient to enable us to do the work. We also have an independent right of access to the records and the information that we need to provide the information that goes into the report.

LORD RICHARD: So you do the digging?

MR SUMMERS: We are the diggers.

LORD RICHARD: You give him the result and then his Committee confronts the Minister?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Nid y Gweinidog, ond y swyddog cyfrifo. Ni fydd Gweinidogion yn dod ger ein bron. Nid ydym yn mynd ar ôl y maes polisi mae’r Gweinidog yn gyfrifol amdano: mae’r Gweinidog yn ateb i’r Pwyllgor Pwnc.

Interpretation: Not the Minister, the accounting officer. Ministers do not appear before us. We are not going after the policy area that the Minister is responsible for, the Minister answers to the Subject Committee.

LORD RICHARD: The Minister is responsible for administering the policy?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Ydy, ond y Swyddog Cyfrifo sydd â’r cyfrifoldeb technegol am y priodoldeb, ac ati, a fyddai fel rheol yn disgyn ar ysgwyddau’r Ysgrifennydd Parhaol.

Interpretation: Yes, but the technical responsibility for the propriety, etc., falls on the Accounting Officer which would normally be the Permanent Secretary.

MS BENNETT: There is a further step in the process. We have the Accounting Officer take the evidence, then produce the Audit Committee report, which is then presented to the First Minister and the Cabinet response to the recommendations of the report is provided. You do get that ministerial bit but it is further on.

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Dyna roeddwn yn cyfeirio ato’n gynharach. Mae angen ymateb cyn pen 30 diwrnod gweithio gan y Llywodraeth, ac wedyn mae gennym hawl i edrych ar yr ymateb hwnnw a gofyn cwestiynau pellach, fel sydd wedi digwydd yn ddiweddar. Mae hynny yng nghyd-destun priodoldeb, ac yn y blaen.

Interpretation: That is what I referred to earlier. There is a response required within 30 working days from the Government and then we have the right to look at that response and to ask further questions, as has arisen very recently. That is in the context of the propriety, etc.

LORD RICHARD: Further questions will be written questions to the Government as a whole?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Bydd. Mae ein hadroddiad yn mynd allan fel adroddiad ysgrifenedig a byddant yn anfon ymateb ysgrifenedig ffurfiol. Gall fod gennym 18 o argymhellion a byddant yn dweud "Ydyn, rydyn ni’n derbyn y sylw hwn" a hwyrach "na" i sylw arall am resymau y byddant yn eu rhoi. Mae yna drefn ffurfiol sy’n gofyn am yr ymateb hwnnw.

Interpretation: Yes. Our report goes out as a written report and they send a formal written response. We may have 18 recommendations and they will say "Yes, we accept this comment" and perhaps "no" on another one for reasons that they give. There is a formal system that requires that response.

TED ROWLANDS: Why is there not a Finance Committee?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Cwestiwn da, Ted. Roedd hynny’n syndod i mi. Yn bersonol, rwy’n credu y dylid cael un, ac rwyf wedi cyflwyno sylwadau ar hyd y llinellu hynny. Rwy’n credu bod yna un yn Senedd yr Alban.

Interpretation: That is a very good question, Ted. I found this surprising. Personally I believe that there should be one and I have made representations along those lines. I believe there is one in the Scottish Parliament.

TED ROWLANDS: Yes.

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Yr hyn mae hynny’n ei olygu yw, fel y mae’r system Bwyllgor yn gweithio ar hyn o bryd, eich bod yn cael y rhannu adnoddau a’r cynllunio ymlaen, ac ati, o fewn portffolio sy’n cael eu llunio’n fanwl. Fodd bynnag, yr unig ddau gorff sy’n ystyried y cwestiwn o flaenoriaethu rhwng portffolios – rhwng iechyd ac addysg, dywedwch – yw’r Cabinet ar y naill ochr o fewn system weithio’r Llywodraeth, sy’n amlwg yn gorff caeedig heb fod yn atebol i’r aelodau’n gyffredinol; neu’r sesiynau llawn lle mae’r amser sydd ar gael, wrth gwrs, yn golygu eu bod yn dipyn o siop siarad yn hytrach na gwneud newidiadau manwl. Yn bersonol rwy’n credu bod lle i Bwyllgor Cyllid, a byddwn yn hoffi gweld hynny’n fawr iawn. Mae’n debyg mai’r cwestiwn sy’n codi eto yw pwysau ar amser nifer yr aelodau i wasanaethu ar Bwyllgor felly.

Interpretation: What that means is that, as the Committee system works at the moment, you get the division of resources and the forward planning etc., within a portfolio being worked out in detail. However, the only two bodies that consider the question of prioritising between portfolios - say between health and education - is the Cabinet on one side within the workings of Government, which is obviously a closed body and not answerable to the generality of members; or the plenary sessions where, of course, the amount of time available means that it tends to be a bit of a talking shop rather than making detailed changes. Personally I believe that there is room for a Finance Committee and I would very much like to see that. I suppose the question that arises is, again, the pressure of time on the number of members to serve on such a Committee.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: Rather oddly, the numbers of Committees were laid down originally, were they not?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Maent wedi newid ryw ychydig am fod newidiadau wedi digwydd yn y diffiniadau o bortffolios. Mae yna derfyn ar nifer yr aelodau sydd gennych yn y Cabinet, ac i raddau helaeth hynny sy’n penderfynu nifer y Pwyllgorau sydd gennych.

Interpretation: They have changed a little bit because there have been changes in the definitions of portfolios. There is a limit to the number of members you have in the Cabinet and to a large extent that determines the number of Committees that you have.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: In the register of Committee reports that we were given the Audit Committee comes way ahead of any other Committee, you have 20 on this list and the next one down is education with eight.

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Ie.

Interpretation: Yes.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: I suppose the reason for this that you have provided is having the NAO behind you and they do much of the work that allows you to produce these reports.

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Ie. Ym mhob un o’n sesiynau caiff ein trafodaeth ei seilio ar gael adroddiad wedi ei gytuno fel sail ar gyfer holi. Felly, mae angen i hynny gael ei wneud yn ffurfiol mewn ffordd na fydd mor ffurfiol mewn pwyllgorau eraill. Gall fod papurau trafod i’w cyflwyno, ond na chânt eu hystyried o statws adroddiad. Yna yn Pwyllgor Archwilio, ar ôl mynd drwy’r ystyriaeth gyntaf honno ar sail adroddiad ysgrifenedig wedi ei gytuno, byddwn yn cynhyrchu’n hadroddiadau ysgrifenedig ni. Mae hyn yn rhoi rhyngwyneb ffurfiol gyda’r Llywodraeth sy’n gofyn am ymateb gan y Llywodraeth. Os mynnwch, mae’n ofynnol i ni yn ôl natur ein gwaith fod yn fwy ffurfiol na rhai o’r pwyllgorau eraill. Nid yw’n golygu nad yw’r pwyllgorau eraill yn tynnu eu pwysau: mae rhai ohonynt yn gweithio’n galed iawn.

Interpretation: Yes. In each of our sessions our discussion is based on there being an agreed report as the basis on which questioning takes place. Therefore there is a need for that part to be undertaken formally in a way that in many other committees it does not happen so formally. There may be discussion papers put forward but they are not regarded as having the status of a report. Then in the Audit Committee, having gone through that first consideration on the basis of an agreed written report, we produce our written reports. This provides the formal interface with Government requiring a Government response. If you like, we are required by the nature of our work to be more formal than some of the other committees. It does not mean that the other committees are not pulling their weight, some of them are working very hard.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: Of these 20, if you divide them into two broad categories, one is on issues which have efficiency aspects and so on, and the second category where something needs investigation and may have gone wrong. If I may just illustrate the second category: years ago I went on a course about the accounting officers and it had a session on the PAC and at that time by chance in that session they had a clip from the PAC cross-questioning the Permanent Secretary of the Welsh Office, as it was then, about the workings of a quango. It was basically a horror story to frighten us out of our wits and, my God, it did, it has stayed vividly in my mind. My question to you really is this: of all these reports that you have produced have there been cases in which things have to some extent gone wrong and you have traced this down and, if so, out of your 20 how many would it be? How many would be a much broader kind of efficiency ----

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Gwerth yr arian?

Interpretation: Value for money?

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: Value for money, that is exactly the phrase.

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Gallwn roi dadansoddiad manwl i chi ar bapur. Byddwn yn falch cael ysgrifennu hwnnw. Wrth ateb eich cwestiwn ac edrych ar y crynodeb o’r rhai sydd gennyf yma, roedd yna Ganolfan Celfyddydau Gweledol yng Nghaerdydd, er enghraifft, a aeth yn drychinebus o chwith. Pe baem yn ymchwilio i honno i weld beth aeth yn drychinebus o’i le, byddem yn chwilota’n ôl i tua 1994, yn ceisio gweithio drwy’r hyn a oedd wedi digwydd yn ystod y cyfnod hwnnw. Cyfeiriais at achos yr Amgueddfa Genedlaethol lle gofynnwyd i rywun ymddeol er mwyn cael gwared â’r broblem, er nad dyna’r ffordd orau i ddelio â phroblemau felly. Dyna adroddiad lle roedd rhywbeth wedi mynd yn drychinebus o’i le. Cafwyd rhai enghreifftiau yn y sector addysg ym Mlaenau Gwent lle roedd pethau’n mynd o’u lle. Mae wedi bod yn ofynnol i ni edrych eto ar rai o’r rhain i weld a yw’r camau, a oedd i gael eu cymryd i gywiro pethau, yn cael eu cymryd. Lleiafrif yw’r rhain, rwy’n credu, hwyrach dau neu dri, o ran gwerth yr arian yn hytrach na’r lleill. Mae yna ffordd arall lle caiff gwaith llesol ei wneud. Gall Syr John Bourn fel Archwilydd Cyffredinol ysgrifennu at gorff neu berson arall i holi a oes rhywbeth y mae angen ymchwilio iddo. Mae’r ffaith ei fod yn gofyn y cwestiwn ynddo’i hun yn fuddiol. Felly, mae gennym effaith lluosydd, oherwydd nid oes angen rhoi gormod o adnoddau mewn ymchwiliad, ond mae’n tynnu sylw at berygl.

Interpretation: We can give you a detailed analysis on paper. I would be glad to write through with that. In responding to your question and looking at the summary of the ones I have got here, there was the Centre for Visual Arts in Cardiff, for example, which was one that went horribly wrong. If we were investigating that to see what went horribly wrong and we were digging back to about 1994, trying to work through what had happened over that period of time. I referred to the National Museum case where somebody was retired in order to get the problem out of the way, which is not the best way of dealing with such problems. That was a report where something had gone wrong. There were some examples in the education sector in Blaenau Gwent where things were going wrong. We have needed to revisit some of these to see whether the actions that are supposed to be undertaken to put them right, are being done. They are a minority, I think, perhaps two to one or three to one, value for money as opposed to the others. There is another way in which beneficial work is done. Sir John Bourn as Auditor General may write through to a body or a person to make enquiries to see whether there is something that needs to be investigated. The fact that he asks the question of itself has a value. Therefore we get a multiplier effect, because one does not need into put too much resource into an investigation, but it flags up a danger.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: One last question. You said at the very beginning that you had your own ideas for improvement and that was too pregnant a piece of dangling for me to resist it. What are they?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Gaf fi ddod nôl at hynny yn y man? Mae gan Ian rywbeth i’w ychwanegu.

Interpretation: Can I come back to that in a moment. Ian has something to add.

MR SUMMERS: I thought it might be worth pointing out at this point, because we have talked a lot about value for money examinations, that there is another aspect of the Auditor General’s work that we do for him on his behalf and that is the audit of accounts, the accounts prepared by the Assembly and the Assembly Sponsored Public Bodies and a few other independent bodies in Wales, such as the Children’s Commissioner. By statute he is required to audit those accounts once a year and he is also required to certify on the regularity of financial transactions that appear in those accounts. The mere fact that we are doing that work, as Mr Wigley suggested a while ago, is a worthwhile job in itself. It may not result in a substantive report, and on most occasions it does not result in a substantive report, but we did find something when we looked at the previous year= s accounts of the National Museum, we drew that to the committee= s attention and that propriety issue was taken forward in the way it should be. A lot of comfort can be gained from the financial audit work rather than just the high profile value for money work.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: But the permanent secretary is responsible to the Assembly to whom you are responsible.

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Na, mae’r swyddogaeth archwilio’n annibynnol ar y Cynulliad.

Interpreted: No, the audit function is independent of the Assembly.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: The Auditor General is independent.

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Ydy.

Interpreted: Yes.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: The staff of the Audit Committee comes eventually under the permanent secretary.

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Clerc y pwyllgor.

Interpreted: The clerk of the committee.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: I am not taking this as a particular.

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Mae annibyniaeth y swyddogaeth archwilio yn bwysig iawn, yn sylfaenol i’n gweledigaeth. Rydym mewn sefyllfa ychydig yn wahanol o’n cymharu â’r Alban yn rhinwedd y ffaith ein bod yn gorff corfforaethol. Os bydd newid, fel rwy’n credu sydd wedi ei awgrymu yn y nodyn a gyflwynwyd gennym, yn natur y corff a ninnau maes o law yn cael rhyw swyddogaeth ddeddfwriaethol, a bod rhaniad rhwng y ddeddfwriaeth a’r corff gweithredol, yna byddai’n swyddogaeth archwilio newydd yn newid ryw ychydig. Mewn rhai ffyrdd, efallai y byddai’n fwy synhwyrol am y byddech yn gweld maes pwnc yn ei gyfanrwydd. Ond ar hyn o bryd mae rhaniad a rhai cyfrifoldebau’n dal yn canoli ar San Steffan a rhai’n canoli ar Gaerdydd.

Interpreted: The independence of the audit function is very important, fundamental to our vision. We are in a slightly different position vis a vis Scotland by virtue of the fact that we are a corporate body. If there is a change made, as I think was indicated in the note we put through, to the nature of the body and that we have in due course some legislative function and that there is a division between the legislature and the executive, then our new audit role would change a little. In some ways it might make it more sensible in that one would be seeing the totality of a subject area whereas at the moment there is a division with some responsibilities still being Westminster oriented and some Cardiff oriented.

LORD RICHARD: Basically the audit function does not come to the committee as such, does it?

MR SUMMERS: The Auditor General is responsible on his own behalf for signing off accounts and producing value for money reports. For the avoidance of doubt, we are not Assembly civil servants, we are staff of the National Audit Office and that is a completely independent body.

MR WIGLEY: Mae hynny’n bwysig iawn.

That is very important.

LORD RICHARD: That is your function at the NAO, it is not your function as Chairman of the Audit Committee.

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Fel Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor Archwilio, byddaf yn cyflwyno adroddiad blynyddol i’r sesiwn lawn i roi cyfrif am y gwaith rydym wedi ei wneud fel pwyllgor, ond wrth gwrs, nid wyf yn gyfrifol am y gwaith manwl a wneir gan y gweision sifil.

Interpretation: As Chair of the Audit Committee I present an annual report to the plenary session accounting for the work that we have done as a committee but, of course, I am not responsible for the detailed work undertaken by the civil servants.

MR SUMMERS: Any reports produced on an account of issues of irregularity or impropriety, plus any value for money reports that the Auditor General produces, are eligible to be considered by the Audit Committee under their remit and, indeed, are considered by the Audit Committee.

LORD RICHARD: Individual ones are plucked out and looked at?

MR SUMMERS: Where there is a serious issue of irregularity or impropriety, as was the case in the example of the National Museum, and pre-devolution, as was the case with the quango that you mentioned, Sir Michael. I was the Director who drafted that report that led to the video nasty, I am afraid.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: You can see it had an effect on me.

MR SUMMERS: All of those reports usually do get considered because of such a serious matter. On the value for money matters I would say most of them get considered, although there might be one or two that fall out because of a shortage of time, but not often in the Welsh context, that happens more in the Westminster context.

MR WIGLEY: Should I respond to the temptation raised by Sir Michael?

LORD RICHARD: You might as well.

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Yr hyn roeddwn ar fin ei ddweud yw hyn. Un o’r meysydd sydd wedi achosi rhwystredigaeth yw’r maes lle mae diffyg eglurder am yr hyn yw ein pwerau a’n cyfrifoldebau yn y Cynulliad a beth sydd y tu allan i’n pwerau. Mae wedi codi yng nghyd-destun pethau fel cnydau GM lle roeddem yn credu y gallem wneud rhywbeth a chael wedyn na allem. Cododd yng nghwestiwn cysylltu cyflogau athrawon â pherfformiad disgyblion lle roeddem yn credu bod gennym bwerau i wneud gorchmynion i weithredu, a chael wedyn fod hynny’n dod dan Orchymyn gwahanol. Hyd yn oed y bore yma yn y Pwyllgor Datblygu Economaidd, roedd Bwrdd Croeso Cymru am gael cynllun archwilio statudol ar gyfer ansawdd gwestai, ond nid yw ein pwerau i wneud Gorchmynion sy’n angenrheidiol i sefydlu hynny yn glir.

Ni allwch lai na theimlo gyda setliad yr Alban ei fod yn ddigon clir, naill ai mae ganddynt y cyfrifoldeb neu ddim, nid pêl ping-pong sydd yma sy’n mynd yn ôl ac ymlaen. Gyda pheli ping-pong mae perfygl bob amser na fydd y naill ochr na’r llall am gymryd y cyfrifoldeb. Yn y meysydd hynny lle mae fframwaith o ddeddfwriaeth Gymreig – deddfwriaeth sydd wedi ei llunio yn San Steffan ar gyfer Cymru, fel Deddf Llwyodraeth Leol (Cymru), Deddf yr Iaith Gymareg, Deddf Awdurdod Datblygu Cymru – fel mae pethau nawr ni allwn newid yr un iot yn y Deddfau hynny. Er enghraifft, pe baem am gael mwy nag un Aelod ar fwrdd Bwrdd Croeso Cymru, byddai’n rhaid i ni fynd i brif ddeddfwriaeth i wneud hynny, a rhaid i fater felly gymryd ei le yn y rhes am ddeddfwriaeth.

Ymhen amser, fel y byddech yn disgwyl i mi ddweud, byddwn am ein gweld yn cael swyddogaeth ddeddfwriaethol lawn o leiaf dros yr eitemau hynny sy’n ymwneud â Chymru. Yn y cyfamser mae cwestiwn a all rhywfaint o waith gael ei wneud yn rhinwedd pwerau Harri VIII lle mae’n bosibl diwygio prif ddeddfwriaeth drwy Orchymyn. Mae gennym rywfaint o hwnnw yng nghyd-destun Deddf Awdurdod Datblygu Cymru, ac mae’n debyg fod Jenny Randerson, y Gweinidog Diwylliant, wedi gosod ger eich bron gwestiwn a allai ddiwygio agweddau ar Deddf yr Iaith Gyamwrg 1993 drwy Orchymyn. Mae hwn yn bwer sydd o ran egwyddor wedi ei ystyried wedi ei ildio i WDA, felly dydyn ni ddim yn mynd y tu allan i delerau’r setliad a gefnogwyd yn y refferendwm. O gofio’r hyblygrwydd hwnnw, a hwyrach o roi ychydig hyblygrwydd i Ddeddf Llywodraeth Leol Cymru i wneud newidiadau ynddi, ni fyddai’n rhaid i ni ddisgwyl ein tro yn y rhes. Weithiau gall y rhes sy’n disgwyl am ddeddfwriaeth yn San Steffan fod yn rhes faith iawn, iawn.

Interpretation: What I was going to say was this. One of the areas that has been a matter of frustration has been the area where there is a lack of clarity as to what are our powers and responsibilities in the Assembly and what are outside our powers. It has arisen in the context of things like GM crops where we thought we could do something and then we found that we could not. It arose on the question of the linkage of teachers' salaries to pupils' performance where we thought we had order-making powers to act and then we found that it came under a different Order. Even this morning in the Economic Development Committee the Wales Tourist Board were wanting to have a statutory inspection scheme for the quality of hotels but our powers to make Orders that are necessary to set that up are not clear.

One cannot help but feel that with the Scottish settlement it is fairly clear, either they have got the responsibility or they have not and it is not a ping-pong ball that goes backwards and forwards. With ping-pong balls there is always a danger of neither side wanting to take responsibility. In those areas where there is a framework of Welsh legislation - legislation that has been passed in Westminster for Wales such as, the Local Government (Wales) Act, the Welsh Language Act, the Welsh Development Agency Act - as things stand we cannot change a dot or a comma of those Acts. For example, if we wanted to have one more Member on the board of the Wales Tourist Board, we would have to go to primary legislation to do that and such an issue has to take a place in the queue for legislation.

In the fullness of time, as you might expect me to say, I would want to see us having a full legislative function at least over those items to do with Wales. In the interim there is a question of whether some work can be done by virtue of the Henry VIII powers where it is possible to amend primary legislation by Order. We have a certain limited amount of that in the context of the Welsh Development Agency Act and you have probably had submitted to you by Jenny Randerson, the Culture Minister, the question of whether he could amend aspects of the Welsh Language Act 1993 by Order. This is a power which in principle has been considered conceded to the WDA, so we are not going outside the terms of the settlement that the referendum endorsed. Given that flexibility, and perhaps giving the Local Government of Wales Act some flexibility for changes to be made to it, we would not have to wait in the queue. Sometimes the queue for legislation in Westminster can be a very long queue indeed.

There are other things that no doubt I could add and perhaps I might drop a personal note through on some of the other matters.

LORD RICHARD: That would be very helpful.

PETER PRICE: This is such a big field and I come back to the audit side of things looking at it in terms of the England and Wales comparisons which are now available. I would like to take this a little further. At the moment you have common bodies for UK or England and Wales in the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission. Inevitably they make comparisons across the territory because they have all those statistics available to them and common indicators. As the policies and, even more, the structures of delivery in Wales change, is there going to be an attempt, as you see it from the Audit Commission viewpoint, to ensure that there will be some basis for comparisons that you can look across the border? In the audit structures that you are aiming to put in place, how is that going to be carried through so that you are not just looking at purely Welsh benchmarks and points of comparison?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Rwy’n credu bod hynny’n gwestiwn digon dilys. Cyn i fi eich trosglwyddo i Ian i gael ateb manwl, hoffwn ddweud fy mod yn derbyn yn llwyr werth gallu cael meincnodau a ffyn mesur y tu allan i Gymru ei hun er mwyn i ni allu gweld cymariaethau â’r hyn sy’n digwydd yn Lloegr, neu yn yr Alban, yn wir. Yn ddiamau mae yna adegau pan ydym yn debycach i’r Alban nag i Loegr am amrywiol resymau. Mae gan yr Alban eisoes yr annibyniaeth honno, ond nid yw’n golygu nad yw’n bosibl tynnu cymariaethau. Er enghraifft, cawsom gyfarfodydd gyda’r swyddogaeth archwilio yn Senedd yr Alban. Maent wedi bod yma i ddod i’n pwyllgor ac wedi cyfarfod â’r Archwilydd Cyffredinol. Rydym wedi cysylltu â Gogledd Iwerddon er i’n bwriad i ddod â nhw yma fethu oherwydd yr hyn sydd wedi digwydd yno. Yn sicr mae yna fanteision o gael cymariaethau y tu allan i Gymru a hwyrach y tu allan i Brydain mewn rhai cyd-destunau.

Interpretation: I think that is a very valid question. Before I pass over for the detail to Ian can I just say that I accept entirely the value of being able to have benchmarks and measuring rods outside Wales itself so we can see comparisons with what is happening in England or, indeed, in Scotland. No doubt there are times when we compare more closely to Scotland than to England for various reasons. Scotland itself already has that independence but it does not mean that it is not possible to do comparisons. For example, we have had meetings with the audit function in the Scottish Parliament. They have been down here to attend our committee and meet with the Auditor General. We have had links with Northern Ireland although our intention to get them down here fell apart a little because of what has happened there. There are certainly merits in having comparisons outside Wales itself and perhaps outside Britain in some contexts.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: What are the comparative costs of the audit between Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland and England?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Fe ddylwn wybod hynny, ond dydw i ddim. Rwy’n ymddiheuro. Gallwn anfon nodyn atoch.

Interpretation: I should know that but I do not, I apologise. We can drop you a note.

MR SUMMERS: I do not know the answer. It is also important to note that the devolved powers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland differ so, therefore, the responsibilities of the Auditor General for Scotland are wider than those, for example, of the Auditor General for Wales.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: Put it like this, have they got a Rolls Royce service too?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Rwy’n meddwl eu bod ychydig yn eiddigeddus o’r hyn oedd gennym pan ddaethant yma. Rwy’n credu eu bod yn cydnabod bod gennym swyddogaeth ddigon da yn gweithio yma. Mae yna wersi y gallwn eu dysgu ganddyn nhw, yr un fath ag y gallan nhw ddysgu gennym ni.

Interpretation: I think they were rather jealous of what we had when they came here. I think they recognise that we have a fairly good function running here. There are lessons we can learn from them as they can learn from us.

MR SUMMERS: On the issue of a single audit body for Wales, the advantages are the ability to adopt common standards of audit and a common audit approach, to be able to follow money down through the funding chain and to be able to look at cross-cutting work where local government and central government in Wales have responsibilities. I think there are substantial benefits to be gained from the creation of such a body.

Those who have asked for that body to be created, namely the Assembly Government in putting forward the request for primary legislation, are also very conscious of the fact that they do not want to lose the benefits that are inherent in the current approach, as you suggest, from the NAO being a cross-border body and the Audit Commission being a cross-border body, being able to produce comparative statistics. In drafting the Bill I think it will be very important to make sure that there are very close ties between the various audit bodies in the United Kingdom. Indeed, that already exists to some extent by the creation of a Public Audit Forum chaired by the UK Comptroller and Auditor Generals where they get together and work out how they can adopt common standards and work together, the exchanging of staff between the various audit bodies and so on. That point you made is a very conscious one, it is one that is being taken into account and in scrutinising the draft Bill, if one is forthcoming from the UK Government, no doubt that will be looked at very carefully as well.

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Rydym yn gobeithio gweld drafft o fesur rhwng nawr a mis Mawrth, cyn hynny, hwyrach.

Interpretation: We are hoping to see a draft Bill between now and March, perhaps earlier.

MR SUMMERS: If the UK Government finally agrees to produce one, yes.

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Mae hwnnw’n nodyn optimistaidd.

Interpretation: That is an optimistic note.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: Can I just ask a question about the rights of individual Assembly Members to access information on the accounts and whether there are any differences between the rights of an Assembly Member compared with an MP or Scottish MP in terms of access to information and whether they can make representations to your committee for investigation?

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) O ran yr hawliau mynediad damcaniaethol, mae’n siwr gen i nad oes unrhyw wahaniaeth. Yn ymarferol, mae’r berthynas weithio agosach sydd gennym yn golygu na welwch aelodau’n siarad â gweision sifil neu bobl yn y Comisiwn Archwilio neu beth bynnag. Mae yna enghraifft nawr, heb enwi’r aelod penodol o bwyllgor, o rywun sydd am gael rhagor o wybodaeth am agwedd arbennig nad yw aelodau’n hapus amdano, a bydd yn siarad ag un o’r gweision sifil amdano. Mae hynny’n beth da oherwydd yr hyn mae’n ei olygu yw, pan ddaw’n fater o drafod, y byddwn o leiaf wedi sefydlu’r ffeithiau a bydd gennym ryw ddealltwriaeth o’r ffeithiau. Gallwn ddehongli’r ffeithiau a dadlau am hynny. Rwy’n ei gael yn haws i’r graddau hynny.

O ran rhoi cynnig am bwnc i archwilio iddo, byddwn yn tybied ei fod yn ddigon tebyg. Os bydd AS yn tynnu sylw at rywbeth sy’n bwysig, yna’n sicr os yw o fewn gallu PAC bydd yn dod i sylw Cadeirydd PAC a rhaid llunio barn wedyn faint o amser sydd ar gael. I ryw raddau, yr hyn rydym yn gallu ei wneud drwy gael yr adeiladwaith hwn yng Nghymru yw edrych ar nifer o bethau’n fanwl na allem byth fod wedi disgwyl i PAC ei wneud. Yn ystod yr holl flynyddoedd y bûm i yn San Steffan, rwy’n cofio ymchwiliad i Awdurdod Datblygu Cymru ar un adeg ac un neu ddau beth digon amlwg fel hynny, ond roedd nifer yr ymchwiliadau yng nghyd-destun Cymru yn lled fach ar lefel PAC.

Interpretation: With regard to the theoretical rights of access, I do not suppose there is any difference. In practical terms the closer working relationships that we have mean that you do get members talking to civil servants or to people in the Audit Commission or whatever. There is an example now, without naming the particular member of a committee, of someone who wants to have more information on a certain aspect that members are not happy about and will be talking to one of the civil servants about it. That is good because what it means is when it comes to discussion, at least we have established what are the facts and we have some understanding of the facts. We can interpret the facts and argue about that. I find it easier to that extent.

With regard to putting a bid in for a subject to be investigated, I would have thought it is probably quite similar. If an MP flags up something that is important then no doubt if it is within the purview of the PAC it will be brought to the attention of the Chairman of the PAC and a judgment has to be made then on how much time is available. To some extent what we are able to do by having this structure in Wales is to look into a number of things in detail that we could never have expected the PAC to do. In all the years I was at Westminster I remember an investigation into the Welsh Development Agency at one time and one or two fairly high profile things like that but the number of Welsh context investigations were fairly limited at PAC level.

TED ROWLANDS: The Welsh accounting officer, the permanent secretary, was regularly brought before the Public Accounts Committee.

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Byddai, ond nid mewn archwiliadau manwl o’r math mae gennym ni’r amser i’w cynnal. Nid wyf yn beio PAC mewn unrhyw ffordd oherwydd mae ganddynt lwyth gwaith mawr.

Interpretation: Yes, but not on detailed investigations of the sort we have the time to do. I am in no way blaming the PAC because they have a large workload.

LORD RICHARD: Can I thank you very much for coming, for being so generous with your time and answering the questions, it has been a very helpful session.

MR WIGLEY: (In Welsh then interpreted) Hoffwn ddiolch yn fawr iawn i chi a’ch cydweithwyr am heddiw ac am y gwaith rydych yn ei wneud yn ystod y cyfnod hwn. Rwy’n edrych ymlaen at weld eich adroddiad.

Can I thank you very much indeed and your colleagues both for today and the work that you are doing over this period of time. I look forward to your report.