1

THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES: AUDITCOMMITTEE

REPORT 01-01 – Presented to the National Assembly For Wales on 15th February inaccordance with section 102(1) of the Government of Wales Act 1998

THE CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE

CONTENTS Paragraph

Introduction 1The cost of the project to construct the Barrage and create the freshwater lake 6Costs and benefits 7Overall performance and factors contributing to the increase in costs 10Lessons learned 16Bringing the Barrage into operations and the succession arrangements put inplace for the Barrage and the Bay following the wind up of the DevelopmentCorporation

19

Successor Arrangements 22Key issues for the future management of the Barrage and the Bay 32The arrangements in place to identify and manage potential liabilities andenvironmental obligations

37

Summary of findings and conclusions 48Summary of recommendations 49Concluding remarks 50

ANNEXES

Annex A: Relevant Proceedings of the Committee – Minutes of Evidence (Thursday13 July 2000)

Annex B: Letter dated 12 August 2000 from the Permanent Secretary, Jon Shortridge,providing information requested by the Audit Committee at the meeting on 13July 2000

Annex C: Letter dated 11 August 2000 from Roger Thomas, Director, EnvironmentAgency Wales commenting on some of the evidence given to the AuditCommittee at its meeting on 13 July 2000

Annex D: The Audit Committee

2

INTRODUCTION

1. This report is about the progress that has been made on the project to construct the

Cardiff Bay Barrage that runs from Penarth to Queen Alexandra Dock in Cardiff and to

create in Cardiff Bay a two hundred hectare freshwater lake. This project was the

centrepiece of the work undertaken by the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation to

regenerate the Bay area. Work on the project began in May 1994 and by 31 March 2000,

when the Development Corporation was wound up, the Barrage was substantially

complete and the aim was to achieve freshwater impoundment and create the freshwater

lake by March 2001. During this period the estimated overall cost of the project increased

from £191 million in March 1995 to £220 million in March 2000.

2. On the basis of a report prepared by the Auditor General for Wales1, we took evidence

from the National Assembly for Wales and from Michael Boyce, the former Chief

Executive and Accounting Officer of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation. We

would like to put on record our thanks to Mr Boyce for giving evidence to the Committee

and our appreciation of the help which he gave us.

3. This report focuses on the three main issues that emerged from our examination:

§ the cost of the project to construct the Barrage and create the freshwater lake;

§ bringing the Barrage into operation and the succession arrangements put in place for

the Barrage and the Bay following the wind up of the Development Corporation; and

§ the arrangements put in place by the Assembly to identify and manage the potential

liabilities and environmental obligations that the completion of the Barrage and the

creation of the freshwater lake will bring with them.

4. The report sets out our findings and conclusions together with a number of

recommendations. Our main conclusions and recommendations are shown in bold. We

hope that our recommendations will help the Assembly improve its oversight of major

construction projects and develop sound arrangements for dealing with the potential

1 Report by the Auditor General for Wales The Cardiff Bay Barrage, presented to the National Assembly on 5 July2000

3

liabilities and environmental obligations linked to the creation of the freshwater lake in

Cardiff Bay.

5. In addition, the Committee will have a second opportunity to consider developments on a

number of these issues. The National Audit Office Wales is currently undertaking an

examination of the arrangements put in place for the wind up of the Cardiff Bay

Development Corporation.2 The Committee is awaiting with interest the Auditor

General’s report on the outcome of his examination.

The cost of the project to construct the Barrage and create the freshwater lake

6. The Auditor General for Wales reported that the overall cost of constructing the Barrage

and creating the freshwater lake in Cardiff Bay had increased. In March 1995, the

Secretary of State for Wales had set a cap of £191 million for the total cost of the

project3. The Development Corporation's forecast at that time was that the total cost

would be £199 million and consequently it had to find savings of some £8 million to keep

within the Secretary of State's estimate4. In March 1999, the Secretary of State raised

the cap on the project to £197 million (a figure which excluded for commercial in

confidence reasons an undisclosed provision of £6.5 million for contingencies for contract

claims).5 On 28 March 2000, following the final settlement with Balfour Beatty-Costain,

the contractors responsible for the construction of the Barrage, the First Secretary

announced a further increase in the cap on the project to £213.4 million.6 Currently the

best estimate of the final outturn for the project as a whole is £220 million, an increase of

15 per cent on the initial financial cap for the project set by the Secretary of State.7

Costs and benefits

7. We welcome the assurance from Assembly officials that the current forecast outturn of

£220 million for the project as a whole is a more robust estimate than earlier ones given

that most of the costs have been met and paid for and there are comparatively few areas

of uncertainty left that would have an effect on the final cost.8 In this context we note the

2 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 3.15 3 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 2.3 and Q12 4 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 2.4 and Q13 5 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 2.9 6 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 2.10 7 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 2.19 and Q188 Q19

4

Permanent Secretary's assurance that the Assembly is working to this figure of

£220 million and his hope that it will be achieved.9 We expect the Assembly to maintain

firm oversight of the remainder of the work needed to complete the construction of the

Barrage and create the freshwater lake and so ensure that the current overall estimate of

£220 million is not exceeded. In addition, we look to the Auditor General for Wales to

monitor progress on the remainder of this project and to bring to this Committee's attention

any concerns that he may have.

8. The point was made to us that the overall cost of this project should be balanced against

the benefits that may flow from establishing Cardiff as a major waterfront city. We note

that, shortly before it wound up, the Development Corporation calculated that, as a

minimum, £170 million a year was already being returned to the public purse as a result of

direct and indirect tax revenues attributable to developments in Cardiff Bay.10 Mr Boyce

developed this line of argument in his evidence to the Committee. He said that in reaching

this figure of £170 million the Corporation had deliberately produced a serious

underestimate because it knew its calculation would be subject to critical analysis.11 He

also said that the cost of the Barrage had been almost repaid by a single inward

investment in the Bay of £200 million by Nippon Electric Glass Company Limited.12 The

company had looked at locations all over Europe for this investment and it had chosen

Cardiff because it was the Cardiff Bay product that had made the difference. And at the

heart of the Cardiff Bay product was the Barrage which enabled Cardiff to take its place

as a major waterfront city.13

9. We believe that this line of argument highlights a crucial concern for value for money that

is more fundamental and goes wider than issues of project management and financial

control. This relates to the wider economic impact of developments in Cardiff Bay.

Given the amount of public money already invested in Cardiff Bay and the scale of the

support that the Assembly will continue to provide, we believe that Assembly Members

should be clearly told what the full economic benefits are that this investment has brought

with it. In addition, we believe that this analysis should also provide a benchmark against

which the Assembly can measure the impact of future developments in the Bay area. We

recommend that the Assembly gives priority to commissioning an economic appraisal of

9 Q2010 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 1.911 Q912 Q10

5

developments in Cardiff Bay, including the impact of the Barrage and the freshwater lake,

making use as appropriate of the earlier work undertaken by the Cardiff Bay

Development Corporation.

Overall performance and factors contributing to the increase in costs

10. The Auditor General's report highlighted the complexity of this project and described the

difficult and uncertain physical conditions which the Corporation and its contractors had to

contend with in building the Barrage. His report also noted that the First Secretary's

comment that, while the containment of the rise in costs in these circumstances was a

considerable achievement, nevertheless there would be some disappointment at the

increase in costs from an estimated £191 million in 1995 to £220 million in 2000, a cost

overrun of some 15 per cent.14

11. In this context we fully endorse the Permanent Secretary's comment that he expects

projects to be properly managed and to come in on budget.15 We recognise that this is a

challenging target particularly for large, complicated construction projects and we note that

the Assembly's Highways Directorate aims to keep outturn costs within 15 per cent of

budget.16 We expect the Assembly to ensure effective management arrangements are in

place for all major capital projects which it oversees. We also expect the Assembly to be

vigilant in its oversight to ensure all major capital projects are completed on target and

within budget.

12. The importance of this point is borne out in the Committee's view by the handling of the

factors that contributed to the increase in costs and the eventual cost overrun. The

Committee was not entirely persuaded by the explanations it was given about these

factors.

13. Clearly some of the increase in costs was due to factors outside the control of the

Development Corporation, the Welsh Office and subsequently the Assembly. This applies

for example to the construction of the Gwent Levels Wetland Reserve. Because the

original plans for a reserve were rejected, the Corporation had to establish a different

scheme at a different location. The eventual impact of this was to increase the cost of

13 Qs 10 and 1114 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraphs 8 and 1.815 Q28

6

this aspect of the project from £5.7 million to £10.4 million.17 Other factors that

contributed to the increase in costs were more predictable, in particular the risks posed by

ground conditions in Cardiff Bay18 and the consequences of making changes to the design

of the Barrage once construction was under way (for example the decision to delay and

then subsequently reinstate the third lock).19

14. In the Committee's view all this serves to reinforce the concerns which the Auditor

General expressed about the handling of the provision for inflation and contingencies on

this project.20 We endorse the Auditor General's conclusion that for major capital projects

the Assembly should ensure that realistic provision is made to cover potential

contingencies and that, for those projects which it oversees but does not directly control,

the Assembly should ensure that there is clear accountability for the management and use

of this provision. We also agree that the Assembly should explore the feasibility of

developing some incentive for the organisation concerned to keep within this provision.

15. As the report from the Auditor General noted, one factor in containing the cost of

constructing the Barrage was the inclusion of incentive clauses in the contracts with

Balfour Beatty-Costain and also with Bechtel the project managers appointed by the

Corporation for the construction of the Barrage. Under these incentive clauses, Balfour

Beatty-Costain, were able to share the benefits flowing from any cost savings which they

identified.21 In addition Mr Boyce described to the Committee the arrangements under

which Bechtel were rewarded for their part in delivering the project.22 We noted

Mr Boyce's argument that the public sector had benefited from Bechtel's performance

and the Permanent Secretary's comment that he fully supported having incentive

arrangements in major public contracts.23 The Committee accepts that incentive

arrangements have a role to play in major public contracts which the Assembly enters

into. However, the Committee believes that it is essential that these arrangements are

transparent and that it is clear that they provide the best possible value for the Assembly.

16 Q28

17 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 2.12 and Q3418 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 2.12 and Q3219 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 25 and Qs 34 and 3520 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 10 21 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 2.12 22 Q38 23 Qs 40, 41

7

Lessons Learned

16. The Auditor General's report usefully draws out lessons for the future based on the way in

which the project to construct the Barrage and create the freshwater lake was handled.24

These were reinforced by the evidence which we received. In this context, we note in

particular the following points:

§ If, in the future, the Assembly were to undertake a project of similar scale and

complexity, it would require another agency, apart from the Assembly, to manage and

operate it. It would be for the Assembly to decide whether this agency should be a

sponsored body or a local authority. Whatever decision is made, the Assembly would

be funding the project and it would need to ensure that proper arrangements were in

place for the management of the project.25 The approach adopted for the Barrage

provides a useful model.

§ The imposition of a cap on the overall cost of the project to construct the Barrage and

create the freshwater lake and the financial discipline associated with this sent a very

strong message to the Corporation and its contractors that this was a hard-edged

project which would be delivered within the "cost envelope".26

§ Where the public sector is making major investments of this nature, it should do all that

it can to transfer as much of the risk as it can to the private sector. To the extent that

the public sector cannot do this, it needs to have arrangements in place to manage the

risk, much as the Corporation did in appointing Bechtel Limited as its project

managers.27

§ Establishing the sense of an inclusive, team approach to the project was an important

factor in taking it forward successfully. The team encompassed not just the staff and

Board members of the Corporation but also its contractors and consultants as well as

the Welsh Office and subsequently the Assembly.28

17. We endorse the lessons that have been drawn so far from the project to construct the

Barrage and create the freshwater lake and we recommend that the Assembly takes full

24 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 2.2025 Q4726 Q23, Q4527 Q2328 Q45

8

account of them as it puts in place management arrangements for other projects that

involve the investment of significant amounts of public money.

18. Finally, in this context, we believe there is also a wider lesson to be drawn about the

responsibility of the Assembly in decisions on major projects of this kind. We asked how

the Assembly can ensure that it will derive benefits from this kind of investment which it

can then redirect to other parts of Wales when it is faced with decisions of this kind in

future.29 We endorse the Permanent Secretary's comment that in undertaking a project of

this nature there has to be a hard-edged business case that looks at the best estimates of

the costs and benefits to see whether it will deliver a reasonable rate of return.30 We

agree that the Assembly will want to take a view on large scale capital schemes and that,

in forming this view, any debate would need to be informed by the business case that had

been undertaken and made available to Members so that the Assembly could consider

collectively the wider issues that the Committee had identified.31

Bringing the Barrage into operation and the succession arrangements put in place

for the Barrage and the Bay following the wind up of the Development Corporation

19. The original target date for creating the freshwater lake in Cardiff Bay was August 1998.

By the beginning of November 1999 the Barrage structure was substantially complete and,

on 4 November 1999, enabled the impoundment of saltwater in the Bay under the terms of

a temporary impoundment licence issued by the Environment Agency Wales. Work on

other aspects of the project, in particular in relation to water quality issues, continues with

the aim of creating the freshwater lake by March 2001. In addition, following the wind up

of the Development Corporation on 31 March 2000, Cardiff County Council assumed

responsibility for the operation, maintenance and management of the Barrage and the Bay

and a new Harbour Authority, which is part of the County Council, is responsible for

carrying out the necessary work.32

20. Given this, we agree that the Assembly has a responsibility to ensure that the project to

construct the Barrage and create the freshwater lake, which in effect the Assembly has

inherited, is completed as satisfactorily as possible and in the most cost-effective way.33

29 Q44 30 Q44 31 Q4432 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage Part 233 Q46

9

In particular we endorse the view that there is a particular responsibility on officials, and

more generally on the Assembly, to ensure that during this period of transition, with the

completion of the project and the transfer of the management of the Barrage and the Bay

to the County Council, there is no loss of vigilance and that the Assembly has systems in

place to ensure that the project is completed and managed satisfactorily thereafter.34

21. Against this background, the Committee explored the key decisions around the successor

arrangements put in place for managing and operating the Barrage and the Bay. The

Committee also identified some key issues for the future management of the Bay and the

Barrage.

Successor Arrangements

1. In examining the successor arrangements put in place for the Bay and the Barrage

following the wind up of the Development Corporation, the Committee considered three

separate but linked decisions. These were

§ the decision to give Cardiff County Council responsibility for the new Harbour

Authority;

§ the decision not to proceed with the option of contracting out the facilities

management of the Bay and the Barrage to Thames Water;

§ the decision to delay the dredging of the Bay and to delay freshwater impoundment in

the Bay to March 2001.

2. The Committee noted the sequence of events that led to the decision to give Cardiff

County Council responsibility for the Harbour Authority. Following the announcement of

the wind up arrangements for the Development Corporation in March 1999, the Welsh

Office and subsequently the Assembly was faced with a choice about the nature of the

Harbour Authority, in essence whether it should be another Assembly sponsored body or

whether it should be transferred to the local authority.35 We were told that at this point in

the process Cardiff County Council was not taking any interest in the Barrage.36 During

the summer of 1999, the Assembly became aware that the Council might be interested in

taking on this responsibility and there then followed a period of intensive negotiation during

34 Q4635 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 1.13, Q89

10

late August and early September 1999.37 This led to the announcement in October 1999

confirming that Cardiff County Council had agreed to assume responsibility for the

operation, maintenance and management of the Bay and the Barrage and that the Harbour

Authority would be part of the Council.38

3. The Assembly and the County Council subsequently signed a Memorandum of

Understanding which was presented to the Economic Development Committee.39 This set

out the principles underpinning the arrangements with the Council. These flowed through

to the relevant agreements concluded with the Council on 27 March 200040. These

agreements transferred to the Council ownership of relevant assets and responsibility for

liabilities (including those associated with the Harbour Authority) under Section 165 of the

Local Government and Planning Act 198041. These agreements are referred to as the

Section 165 Agreements. The principles set out in the Memorandum of Understanding

now also flow through to the funding agreement with the Council42.

4. Clearly, the Assembly, the Corporation and the Council were all working to a very tight

timetable to establish successor arrangements for the Barrage and the Bay that were fair

to the Council but also adequately protected the Assembly's interests. We note that, given

that the Assembly inherited this project, it could not simply lay off all the risks associated

with it by handing it over to Cardiff County Council43 and that, from the Council's

perspective, there was a limit to what it could reasonably have been expected to take over

from the Assembly in terms of its responsibilities for the project.44 We await with interest

the results of the review of the wind up arrangements which the Auditor General is

currently undertaking to see his overall assessment of the arrangements agreed between

the Assembly and Cardiff County Council.

5. The Auditor General's report on the Cardiff Bay Barrage set out the background to the

competition run by the Development Corporation to select a contractor to provide a

facilities management service for the Barrage and the Bay, the emergence of Thames

Water from this process as the preferred bidder and the eventual decision not to proceed

36 Q8237 Q8438 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraphs 1.13 and 1.1439 Q8440 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 3.1341 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 3.342 Q7543 Q112

11

with the Thames Water option. Instead the conclusion reached was that Cardiff County

Council operating and maintaining the Barrage and the Bay without Thames Water would

be the most cost effective option, saving the Assembly £3 million over three years, a

figure which, as the Auditor General noted, Thames Water questioned.45

6. This was an unusual process.46 We noted that the Assembly had been surprised and

concerned at the outcome of the tendering exercise and at the cost of the proposed

Thames Water contract, which was outside the Corporation's delegated financial limits

and so subject to Assembly approval. The market had been tested and produced a

potential cost that was higher than the Assembly had expected. There was, therefore, a

need to take stock and consider whether it represented the best value for money.47 So

when, as part of the discussions with Cardiff County Council of the successor

arrangements, the Council argued that it could deliver comparable services to Thames

Water more cost-effectively, the Assembly tested the position carefully and examined the

figures in depth. On this basis it was satisfied that the Council could deliver these services

and secure savings of £1 million a year over three years and the Council is now publicly

and legally committed to doing so.48

7. In his report, the Auditor General noted that the National Audit Office Wales would be

examining all the relevant Section 165 Agreements concluded between the Development

Corporation and the successor organisations, including Cardiff County Council as part of

its review of the arrangements put in place for the wind up of the Development

Corporation.49 We await with interest the outcome of the Auditor General's review of the

Section 165 Agreements. In taking this forward, we believe that it is essential that the

Auditor General has full access to all the information that he needs and in particular we

look to the Assembly and Cardiff County Council to co-operate fully with the Auditor

General in exercising his right of access to the Harbour Authority.50

8. On a separate issue, we also note the Assembly's view that although there may be some

consultation between the Assembly and the County Council, it will be a matter for the

County Council and Harbour Authority to decide on the skills and expertise needed to

44 Q11645 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraphs 3.10 to 3.1546 Q7447 Q7448 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 3.14, Qs 50, 7549 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 3.15

12

manage the Barrage and the Bay and in particular whether they employ in-house

specialists or outsource them because of operational and cost advantages.51

9. We also considered the factors that gave rise to the decision to delay dredging the Bay

and to defer freshwater impoundment to March 2001. We note the view taken by the

Permanent Secretary as Accounting Officer that given the balance of risk and potential

nugatory costs it was best to postpone dredging the Bay and to delay freshwater

impoundment even allowing for the additional costs that would be involved in protecting

the Barrage structure.52 These additional costs are estimated at some £1.1 million.53

10. We were told that everything was on target to achieve freshwater impoundment by April

2001. There were though some continuing uncertainties, and it was not possible for us to

be given an absolute assurance on all these matters at this stage.54 We expect Assembly

officials to exercise vigilant oversight of progress to meet the target of achieving

freshwater impoundment by April 2001.

Key issues for the future management of the Barrage and the Bay

11. Looking to the longer term, we welcome the intention of the Assembly to ensure that there

is proper but constructive pressure placed on Cardiff County Council and the Harbour

Authority in achieving continuing value for money.55 We believe this attitude is in line with

the recommendation contained in the report by the Auditor General that the Assembly

should ensure there is an adequate substitute for competitive tension in the contractual

arrangements being put in place with Cardiff County Council.56

12. We note that the arrangements which the Assembly is putting in place are for five years in

the first instance. Thus there would be the opportunity, if the Assembly had any doubt

about this matter, for the market to be tested after a five year period. The agreement also

allows for either party to serve one year's notice of wanting to depart from existing

arrangements. Accordingly, in the shorter term, if the Assembly was not satisfied that

50 Q10051 Qs 65, 66, 6752 Q5153 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 3.18 54 Q6255 Q5156 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 3.40

13

these arrangements were giving value for money, there would be the opportunity to seek

an alternative way forward.57

13. As, in the light of experience, the Assembly develops its thinking on the overall nature of

the management arrangements which it has put in place for the Barrage and the Bay, we

recommend that this area should remain a focus of attention within the Assembly's

management structure.58 We also recommend that the Assembly should not rule out the

possibility of opting at some point in the future for an alternative management model such

as the possibility of managing the Bay as a Private Finance Initiative project.59

14. The forecast net cost of operating the Barrage and the Bay will be around £9 million a

year.60 This represents a significant cost to the Assembly. Accordingly we welcomed the

assurance that the funding arrangements that are being put in place with Cardiff County

Council will ensure that the Assembly can satisfy itself that the money going to the

Council will only be used for expenditure associated with the Barrage and the Bay.61

15. In his report the Auditor General also referred to the need for the Assembly to ensure that

there is scope for maximising the revenue which the new Bay environment will

generate.62 We welcomed the recognition that the Assembly had a big interest in seeking

to minimise the net cost of running the Bay. We also welcomed the assurance which we

were given that, in their discussions with Cardiff County Council, officials were seeking

constructively to agree a shared approach to how that revenue could be maximised.63 We

recommend that the Assembly actively encourages Cardiff County Council to develop

soundly based initiatives for generating additional revenue from Cardiff Bay.

The arrangements in place to identify and mange potential liabilities and

environmental obligations

1. Turning to the general question of the potential liabilities and environmental obligations

associated with the construction of the Barrage and the creation of the freshwater lake,

we acknowledge that there is a danger of being unduly alarmist at the position that the

Assembly finds itself in. Nevertheless, as the Permanent Secretary recognised, if the

57 Q5158 Q14459 Qs 120, 12160 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 3.21, Q11261 Q11162 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 3.40

14

worst came to the worst on a whole range of issues there would be substantial additional

liabilities for the Assembly. However although this is a possibility it was not a strong one

due to the manner in which the project had been discussed during deliberations on putting

in place the funding agreements.

2. Against this background we looked in particular at potential liabilities and environmental

obligations linked with

§ safety concerns;

§ water quality;

§ groundwater damage;

§ drainage schemes; and

§ the compensation provided for the lost Bay habitat by the Gwent Levels Wetland

Reserve.

3. The report by the Auditor General referred to concerns about safety issues particularly

while the Barrage operates in a tidal environment.64 We welcomed the Permanent

Secretary's comment that he was particularly concerned about safety aspects and he

thought it in the public interest that the Barrage is completed and the freshwater lake

created as quickly as possible. We noted that the Health and Safety Executive had been

closely involved in the detailed discussions that took place around the transfer to Cardiff

County Council of the management of the Bay in its present state.65 We note that

concern for health and safety is built into the management regime for the new Harbour

Authority. We welcome the assurance that health and safety will continue to be a high

priority.66

4. The report by the Auditor General noted that the capital investment required to meet

statutory water quality requirements in the Bay could be between £6 million and

£7 million. In addition the Assembly retained liability should key measures intended to

secure water quality fail.67 We were told that Cardiff County Council, coming into this

63 Q11164 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 3.1965 Q5966 Q6067 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraphs 2.16 and 3.24

15

process late, had doubts about the method that had been proposed by the Development

Corporation for oxygenating the Bay and wanted the opportunity to consider alternatives.68

At the time when we took evidence on the Auditor General's report, the Council had gone

out to tender for aeration equipment and we were told that the outcome of this process

would show how reasonable the estimate of £6 million to £7 million was.69 We will be

interested to learn the outcome of the County Council's exercise to purchase aeration

equipment and whether the arrangements put in place as a result of this exercise will

provide a cost effective water quality regime that meets statutory requirements.

5. In his report, the Auditor General referred to the possibility of Cardiff Bay being classified

as a sensitive water under the European Union's Urban Waste Water Treatment

Directive.70 The Permanent Secretary subsequently informed us that the Environment

Agency may recommend that the Cardiff Bay inland lake should be designated by the

Assembly under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations 1994 as a "Sensitive

Area" as early as 2001 (the next review), though it could be 2005. Provision has already

been made, ahead of designation, for the cost of nutrient stripping through Dwr Cymru's

current five year environmental quality programme and the work will be undertaken at the

waste water treatment plants by the company towards the end of the programme period.

If formal designation is made it may be held that the Harbour Authority will be liable for

the costs of nutrient stripping.71 The Auditor General's report indicated that the estimated

cost of dealing with this is £4.5 million.72

6. expectation that the measures which have been put in place will prove to be adequate.

There is, however, no absolute assurance on this and the Assembly will have to wait until

freshwater impoundment to see what the full effects are.73

7. The report by the Auditor General notes that there is a liability in respect of groundwater

damage for twenty years after impoundment.74 The Permanent Secretary subsequently

confirmed for the Committee where matters stand on the possibility of extending the

twenty year groundwater protection period. He informed the Committee that the

68 Q10469 Q10570 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 3.2771 Annex B72 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 3.2773 Q12974 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 3.30

16

provisions of Schedule 7 to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Act 1993 set out the framework for

the groundwater protection regime for potentially affected properties. Under

paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 7 to the Barrage Act the date of commencement of

impoundment was set by the Corporation as 4 November 1999. The groundwater

protection scheme is now an inherited matter for the Harbour Authority. However,

representations can be made to the Assembly to make regulations (under Section 21(2) to

the Barrage Act) to amend the terms of the groundwater protection scheme set out in

Schedule 7. In addition, in compliance with the Barrage Act, the office of the Independent

Groundwater Complaints Administrator continues to exist and now reports to the

Assembly. She is able to, and has, considered complaints about this matter.75

8. On the drainage schemes, we welcomed the assurance that the contractual matters that

were left unresolved on the wind up of the Development Corporation would now be

quickly finalised.76 We also welcomed the assurance that the Assembly is confident of

recovering the amount of up to £4.3 million from Welsh Water within the timescale

indicated by the Auditor General.77

9. On the Gwent Levels Wetland Reserve, the Auditor General's report indicated that the

final cost of the Reserve could be in excess of £10.4 million.78 We note the assurance

that this estimate of £10.4 million is robust and that the final outturn should be about this

amount.79 We also asked what the current position was on the Reserve being designated

a Special Protection Area.80 The Permanent Secretary subsequently told us that the

Severn Estuary Special Protection Area had been designated in July 1995. The Gwent

Levels Wetlands Reserve had been substantially completed in the autumn of 1999 and the

Countryside Council for Wales had taken charge of the management of the Reserve at

that time. The Countryside Council for Wales takes the view that the target date to

qualify for Special Protection Area status, alongside or within an extended Severn Estuary

Special Protection Area, is the winter of 2004-2005.81

75 Annex B76 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 3.34 Qs 132, 13477 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 3.35 Q13578 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 3.3779 Q14180 AGW Report The Cardiff Bay Barrage paragraph 3.3881 Annex B82 Q142 and 143

17

10. We found that the Reserve had been designed not to relocate species of birds which had

been displaced by the impoundment of water in the Bay but to create a new habitat82.

Indeed, those birds which were displaced had been found to have relocated to the Rumney

Estuary rather than the Gwent Levels. The Levels were therefore a new opportunity for

other species to make their habitats there,

11. In view of the scale and nature of the environmental obligations and potential liabilities

associated with the construction of the Barrage and the creation of the freshwater lake,

we recommend that Assembly officials continue to develop and operate effective risk

management to keep to a minimum any unplanned or unforeseen demands on the public

purse.

Summary of findings and conclusions

1. We set out below our main findings and conclusions.

(i) We expect the Assembly to maintain firm oversight of the remainder of the

work needed to complete the construction of the Barrage and create the

freshwater lake and so ensure that the current overall estimate of £220 million is

not exceeded. In addition, we look to the Auditor General for Wales to monitor

progress on the remainder of this project and to bring to this Committee's

attention any concerns that he may have.

(ii) We expect the Assembly to ensure effective management arrangements are

in place for all major capital projects which it oversees. We also expect the

Assembly to be vigilant in its oversight to ensure all major capital projects are

completed on target and within budget.

(iii) We endorse the Auditor General's conclusion that for major capital projects

the Assembly should ensure that realistic provision is made to cover potential

contingencies and that, for those projects which it oversees but does not directly

control, the Assembly should ensure that there is clear accountability for the

management and use of this provision. We also agree that the Assembly should

explore the feasibility of developing some incentive for the organisation

concerned to keep within this provision.

18

(iv) The Committee accepts that incentive arrangements have a role to play in

major public contracts which the Assembly enters into. However, the Committee

believes that it is essential that these arrangements are transparent and that it is

clear that they provide the best possible value for the Assembly.

(v) We agree that the Assembly will want to take a view on large scale capital

schemes and that, in forming this view, any debate would need to be informed by

the business case that had been undertaken and made available to Members so

that the Assembly could consider collectively the wider issues that the Committee

had identified.

(vi) We await with interest the results of the review of the wind up

arrangements which the Auditor General is currently undertaking to see his

overall assessment of the arrangements agreed between the Assembly and

Cardiff County Council.

(vii) We await with interest the outcome of the Auditor General's review of the

Section 165 Agreements. In taking this forward, we believe that it is essential

that the Auditor General has full access to all the information that he needs and in

particular we look to the Assembly and Cardiff County Council to co-operate

fully with the Auditor General in exercising his right of access to the Harbour

Authority.

(viii) We expect Assembly officials to exercise vigilant oversight of progress to

meet the target of achieving freshwater impoundment by April 2001.

(ix) Looking to the longer term, we welcome the intention of the Assembly to

ensure that there is proper but constructive pressure placed on Cardiff County

Council and the Harbour Authority in achieving continuing value for money.

(x) Accordingly we welcomed the assurance that the funding arrangements that

are being put in place with Cardiff County Council will ensure that the Assembly

can satisfy itself that the money going to the Council will only be used for

expenditure associated with the Barrage and the Bay.

(xi) We welcomed the recognition that the Assembly had a big interest in

seeking to minimise the net cost of running the Bay. We also welcomed the

19

assurance which we were given that, in their discussions with Cardiff County

Council, officials were seeking constructively to agree a shared approach to how

that revenue could be maximised.

(xii) We welcome the assurance that health and safety will continue to be a high

priority.

(xiii) We will be interested to learn what the outcome was of the County Council's

exercise to purchase aeration equipment and whether the arrangements put in

place as a result of this exercise will provide a cost effective water quality regime

that meets statutory requirements.

Summary of recommendations

1. We set out below our main recommendations.

(i) We recommend that the Assembly gives priority to commissioning an

economic appraisal of developments in Cardiff Bay, including the impact of the

Barrage and the freshwater lake, making use as appropriate of the earlier work

undertaken by the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation.

(ii) We endorse the lessons that have been drawn so far from the project to

construct the Barrage and create the freshwater lake and we recommend that

the Assembly takes full account of them as it puts in place management

arrangements for other projects that involve the investment of significant amounts

of public money.

(iii) As, in the light of experience, the Assembly develops its thinking on the

overall nature of the management arrangements which it has put in place for the

Barrage and the Bay, we recommend that this area should remain a focus of

attention within the Assembly’s management structure. We also recommend that

the Assembly should not rule out the possibility of opting at some point in the

future for an alternative management model such as the possibility of managing

the Bay as a Private Finance Initiative project.

20

(iv) We recommend that the Assembly actively encourages Cardiff County

Council to develop soundly based initiatives for generating additional revenue

from Cardiff Bay.

(v) In view of the scale and nature of the environmental obligations and potential

liabilities associated with the construction of the Barrage and the creation of the

freshwater lake, we recommend that Assembly officials to continue to develop

and operate effective risk management to keep to a minimum any unplanned or

unforeseen demands on the public purse.

Concluding Remarks

The construction of the Cardiff Bay Barrage has been a major projectachieved against a background of significant political and public pressure.Whilst we acknowledge that its completion has been a memorableachievement, there are still a number of issues whose impact has yet to beassessed or indeed felt. The Barrage has brought a high volume of inwardinvestment and other development to the South Cardiff area, but we shouldnot lose sight of the fact that there may still be further impacts on the areawhich are far less predictable and which may be much less welcome toresidents in the immediate vicinity of Cardiff Bay and wildlife in the SouthWales area. The impoundment of the freshwater lake, the effect on housing inthe area, the role and performance of the Harbour Authority, the completion ofthe Gwent Wetlands Reserve and the management controls exercised by theNational Assembly for Wales on similar projects in the future are all areas inwhich the Audit Committee will take a great deal of interest in the future.

ANNEX A

21

Cynulliad Cenedlaethol CymruPwyllgor Archwilio

The National Assembly for WalesAudit Committee

Morglawdd Bae CaerdyddCardiff Bay Barrage

Cwestiynau 1-145Questions 1-145

Dydd Iau 13 Gorffennaf 2000Thursday 13 July 2000

22

Aelodau o’r Cynulliad yn bresennol: Janet Davies (Cadeirydd), Lorraine Barrett, JaneDavidson, Geraint Davies, Glyn Davies, Brian Gibbons, Jenny Randerson, DafyddWigley.

Swyddogion yn bresennol: Syr John Bourn, Archwilydd Cyffredinol Cymru; SharonDavies, Swyddog Cydymffurfio Gweithredol y Cynulliad; Frank Grogan, SwyddfaArchwilio Genedlaethol Cymru.

Tystion: Michael Boyce, cyn Brif Weithredwr, Corfforaeth Datblygu Bae Caerdydd;Steven Phillips, Pennaeth Is-adran Polisi Economaidd y Cynulliad; Jon Shortridge,Ysgrifennydd Parhaol Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru.

Assembly Members present: Janet Davies (Chair), Lorraine Barrett, Jane Davidson,Geraint Davies, Glyn Davies, Brian Gibbons, Jenny Randerson, Dafydd Wigley.

Officials present: Sir John Bourn, the Auditor General for Wales; Sharon Davies,Acting Assembly Compliance Officer; Frank Grogan, National Audit Office Wales.

Witnesses: Michael Boyce, former Chief Executive of Cardiff Bay DevelopmentCorporation; Steven Phillips, Head of Economic Policy Division, National Assembly forWales; Jon Shortridge, Permanent Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales.

Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 9.33 a.m.The meeting began at 9.33 a.m.

[1] Janet Davies: I welcome everyone tothe last Audit Committee meeting of thisAssembly year. The purpose of thismeeting is to take evidence inconnection with the National AuditOffice’s report for the Auditor Generalfor Wales, Cardiff Bay Barrage.

[1] Janet Davies: Croeso i bawb i gyfarfodolaf y Pwyllgor Archwilio eleni. Pwrpas ycyfarfod hwn yw cymryd tystiolaeth mewncysylltiad ag adroddiad y SwyddfaArchwilio Genedlaethol ar gyferArchwilydd Cyffredinol Cymru,Morglawdd Bae Caerdydd.

[2] Jenny Randerson: I declare an interestas a Cardiff councillor. However, I amnot a member of Cardiff City and CountyCouncil’s cabinet, nor a member of thenew Harbour Authority board. ThereforeI have no information about this issueother than that which is publiclyavailable.

[2] Jenny Randerson: Yr wyf yn datganbuddiant fel cynghorydd yng Nghaerdydd.Fodd bynnag, nid wyf yn aelod o gabinetCyngor Dinas a Sir Caerdydd, nac ynaelod o fwrdd yr Awdurdod Harbwrnewydd. Felly nid oes gennyf unrhywwybodaeth am y mater hwn oni bai am yrhyn sydd ar gael i’r cyhoedd.

23

[3] Jane Davidson: I declare a previousinterest, as one of the objectors to theCardiff Bay Barrage, who objected to theCardiff Bay Barrage Bill throughout itsparliamentary process. I did so as thecouncillor for Riverside in Cardiff at thattime.

[3] Jane Davidson: Yr wyf yn datganbuddiant blaenorol, fel un owrthwynebwyr Morglawdd BaeCaerdydd, a wrthwynebodd FesurMorglawdd Bae Caerdydd drwy gydol eidaith drwy’r senedd. Gwneuthum hyn fely cynghorydd dros Llan yr Afon yngNghaerdydd ar y pryd.

[4] Lorraine Barrett: I think that I amrequired to declare an interest, becausein my previous job I worked for theMember of Parliament for Cardiff Southand Penarth, who was very involved withthe Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. I did nothave a direct interest, but I would feelmore comfortable to declare that Iworked for that MP for 12 years. I tookadvice and felt that I should put that onrecord.

[4] Lorraine Barrett: Credaf bod gofyn imiddatgan buddiant, oherwydd yn fy swyddflaenorol yr oeddwn yn gweithio i’r AelodSeneddol ar gyfer De Caerdydd aPhenarth, a oedd yn ymwneud yn fawr âMesur Morglawdd Bae Caerdydd. Nidoedd gennyf fuddiant uniongyrchol ondbyddwn yn teimlo’n fwy cyfforddus oddatgan y bûm yn gweithio i’r AS hwnnwam 12 mlynedd. Cymerais gyngor ac yroeddwn o’r farn y dylwn gofnodi hynny.

[5] Dafydd Wigley: Do I need to declarean interest as I voted on the Bill in theHouse of Commons? If I do, I do so.

[5] Dafydd Wigley: A oes angen i middatgan buddiant oherwydd imibleidleisio ar y Mesur yn Nhy’rCyffredin. Os oes angen, gwnaf hynny.

[6] Janet Davies: I ask the witnesses tointroduce themselves.

[6] Janet Davies: Gofynnaf i’r tystiongyflwyno eu hunain.

Mr Phillips: I am Steve Phillips, Head ofthe Assembly’s Economic PolicyDivision, which sponsored Cardiff BayDevelopment Corporation until its wind-up and dissolution.

Mr Phillips: Steve Phillips wyf fi, PennaethIs-adran Polisi Economaidd y Cynulliad, aoedd yn noddi Corfforaeth Datblygu BaeCaerdydd nes iddi ddod i ben a chael eididdymu.

Mr Shortridge: I am Jon Shortridge, theAssembly’s Permanent Secretary.

Mr Shortridge: Jon Shortridge wyf fi,Ysgrifennydd Parhaol y Cynulliad.

Mr Boyce: I am Michael Boyce, currentlyunemployed but formerly chief executiveof the Cardiff Bay DevelopmentCorporation.

Mr Boyce: Michael Boyce wyf fi; yr wyf ynddi-waith ar hyn o bryd ond yn gyn brifweithredwr Corfforaeth Datblygu BaeCaerdydd.

[7] Janet Davies: Welcome to all of you.You may address the meeting in eitherWelsh or English and translationequipment is available. We will break forcoffee at about 10.45 a.m.

[7] Janet Davies: Croeso i bawb ohonoch.Gallwch annerch y cyfarfod naill ai ynGymraeg neu yn Saesneg ac mae offercyfieithu ar gael. Byddwn yn cael egwylgoffi tua 10.45 a.m.

24

My first question is to Jon Shortridge.The Auditor General’s report shows thatthe final cost of building the barrage andcompleting the other work needed tocreate the freshwater lake in Cardiff Baymay be as much as £220 million. Thereport also notes, in paragraph 1.9,CBDC’s assessment of the economicbenefits derived from the regeneration ofCardiff Bay. How much of that wouldhave been achieved anyway, without thebarrage and the lake?

Y mae fy nghwestiwn cyntaf i JonShortridge. Y mae adroddiad yrArchwilydd Cyffredinol yn dangos y gallaicost derfynol adeiladu’r morglawdd achwblhau’r gwaith arall yr oedd ei angen igreu’r llyn dwr croyw ym Mae Caerdyddfod cymaint â £220 miliwn. Mae’radroddiad hefyd yn nodi, ym mharagraff1.9, asesiad CDBC o’r manteisioneconomaidd sydd yn deillio o adfywio BaeCaerdydd. Faint o hynny fyddai wedi eigyflawni beth bynnag, heb y morglawdda’r llyn?

Mr Shortridge: I think that Michael Boycecan give a more informed answer to thatthan I can. However, my impression isthat comparatively little would have beenachieved without the barrage and thelake and without the enormous focus onsouth Cardiff that was given by CBDC’sestablishment, bearing in mind that thebarrage and the lake were the keyelements in the corporation’sdevelopment strategy.

Mr Shortridge: Credaf y gall MichaelBoyce roi ateb mwy hyddysg i hynny nagy gallaf i. Fodd bynnag, yr argraff a gefaisi yw mai cymharol ychydig fyddai wedi’igyflawni heb y morglawdd a’r llyn a heb yffocws enfawr a roddwyd ar dde Caerdydddrwy sefydlu CDBC, o gofio mai’rmorglawdd a’r llyn oedd yr elfennauallweddol yn strategaeth datblygu’rgorfforaeth.

[8] Janet Davies: Do you have anyevidence to back that up?

[8] Janet Davies: A oes gennych unrhywdystiolaeth i gefnogi hynny?

Mr Shortridge: No, not with me personally.However, Mr Boyce might be able tohelp you.

Mr Shortridge: Nac oes, nid gyda mi ynbersonol. Fodd bynnag, efallai y gall MrBoyce eich helpu

[9] Janet Davies: Mr Boyce? [9] Janet Davies: Mr Boyce?

25

Mr Boyce: I do not have any evidencewith me. I do not have anything, actually,in my current circumstances. The £170million, which we calculated in the spring,was a serious underestimate, because weknew that it might be subject to criticalanalysis. Therefore, we calculated thefigure and, more or less, halved it. So thetrue figure, the true return to the publicpurse, is way in excess of £170 million ayear. So the barrage has already beenpaid for and an enormous sum of moneyis being repaid to the taxpayers of theUnited Kingdom and Wales on an annualbasis.

Mr Boyce: Nid oes gennyf unrhywdystiolaeth gyda mi. Nid oes gennyfunrhyw beth, a dweud y gwir, yn fyamgylchiadau presennol. Yr oedd y £170miliwn, a gyfrifwyd gennym yn y gwanwyn,yn danamcangyfrif difrifol, oherwydd yroeddem yn gwybod y gallai fod yn destundadansoddiad beirniadol. Felly, cyfrifiwydy ffigur gennym, a’i haneru, mwy neu lai.Felly mae’r ffigur gwirioneddol, yr elwgwirioneddol i’r coffrau cyhoeddus, ynllawer mwy na £170 miliwn y flwyddyn.Felly talwyd am y morglawdd eisoes acmae swm anferth o arian yn cael ei ad-dalu i drethdalwyr y Deyrnas Unedig aChymru yn flynyddol.

It was always our judgment that theredevelopment of south Cardiff neededsomething special and distinctive tomake it work. That something specialand distinctive was the barrage. I thinkthat without the barrage, there wouldhave been a very ordinary, very routine,very mundane, very bland, very grey,long-term redevelopment process, whichwould have brought none of the benefitsthat our analysis has demonstrated.

Ein barn ni bob amser oedd bod angenrhywbeth arbennig a nodweddiadol ermwyn sicrhau y byddai ailddatblygu deCaerdydd yn gweithio. Y morglawdd oeddy peth arbennig a nodweddiadol hwnnw.Heb y morglawdd, yr wyf o’r farn ybyddai’r broses ailddatblygu tymor hirwedi bod yn un gyffredin iawn, arferoliawn, diflas iawn, digyffro iawn, a di-liwiawn, a fyddai wedi parhau am gyfnod hiriawn, ac na fyddai wedi dod ag unrhyw uno’r manteision a ddangoswyd gan eindadansoddiad.

[10] Janet Davies: Do you feel, therefore,that value for money has been achievedfrom this?

[10] Janet Davies: A ydych o’r farn, felly, ycyflawnwyd gwerth am arian o hyn?

26

Mr Boyce: Well, the cost of the barragewas repaid almost by one single inwardinvestment by Nippon Electric GlassCompany Limited, which came to OceanPark. It has brought £200 million into thebay alone, but probably something like£3 million into the United Kingdomeconomy. It was attracted to its locationby the total package of Cardiff Bay. Ithink that the company looked atsomething like 179 locations all overEurope for the investment. At the end ofthe day, I think that most sites can say‘we have a good labour force, we havegrants, we have good communications’.They all tend to level each other out.What we were able to offer to NEG wassomething special that gave it addedvalue. That added value was created bythe barrage, and NEG’s investment inOcean Park alone was greater than thecost of constructing the barrage. Soleaving aside the £170 million a year thatis being returned to the United Kingdomeconomy, one single investment paid forthat barrage.

Mr Boyce: Wel, ad-dalwyd cost ymorglawdd bron gan unmewnfuddsoddiad gan Nippon ElectricGlass Company Limited, a ddaeth iOcean Park. Daeth â £200 miliwn i’r baeei hun, ond mae’n debyg iddo ddod â thua£3 miliwn i economi’r Deyrnas Unedig.Cafodd ei ddenu i’w leoliad gan becyncyfan Bae Caerdydd. Credaf i’r cwmniedrych ar tua 179 o leoliadau ledledEwrop ar gyfer y buddsoddiad. Arddiwedd y dydd, credaf y gall y rhan fwyafo safleoedd ddweud ‘mae gennym weithluda, mae gennym grantiau, mae gennymgyfathrebu da’. Maent i gyd yn dueddol ofod yn gyfartal. Yr oeddem yn gallucynnig rhywbeth arbennig i NEG aroddodd werth ychwanegol iddo. Crewydy gwerth ychwanegol hwnnw gan ymorglawdd, ac yr oedd buddsoddiad NEGyn Ocean Park ynddo’i hun yn fwy nachost adeiladu’r morglawdd. Felly, ganroi’r £170 miliwn y flwyddyn sydd yndychwelyd i economi’r Deyrnas Unedigi’r naill ochr, talodd un buddsoddiadunigol am y morglawdd hwnnw.

[11] Janet Davies: Did the company saythat it felt that it was the barrage thatmade the difference?

[11] Janet Davies: A ddywedodd y cwmniei fod o’r farn mai’r morglawdd a wnaethy gwahaniaeth?

27

Mr Boyce: It was the Cardiff Bay productthat made the difference, at the heart ofwhich is the barrage. The companybought its proximity to an inner harbour,to what it then expected to be an operahouse—which will now be the WalesMillennium Centre—to a mixture ofindustry, residential, retail andcommercial attractions, to leisureattractions such as Techniquest and tofive-star hotels such as Rocco Forte’s. Itbought the total package, and thepackage would not have been possiblewithout the barrage. What all waterfrontcities require is water and without abarrage Cardiff did not have water for 18hours a day. The only way that Cardiff cantake its place as one of the majorwaterfront cities is to have some waterthere and the only way that that has beenproduced is by the construction of thebarrage.

Mr Boyce: Cynnyrch Bae Caerdydd aoedd yn gyfrifol am y gwahaniaeth, acwrth wraidd hynny mae’r morglawdd.Prynodd y cwmni leoliad a oedd yn agos iharbwr mewnol, i’r hyn y disgwyliwydiddo fod bryd hynny yn dy opera—a fyddbellach yn Ganolfan Mileniwm Cymru—igymysgedd o atyniadau diwydiannol,preswyl, manwerthu a masnachol, iatyniadau hamdden megis Techniquest agwestai pum seren megis un RoccoForte. Prynodd y pecyn cyfan ac nifyddai’r pecyn wedi bod yn bosibl heb ymorglawdd. Yr hyn y mae pob dinas ar lany dwr ei angen yw dwr, a heb forglawddnid oedd gan Gaerdydd ddwr am 18 awr ydydd. Yr unig ffordd y gall Caerdyddgymryd ei le fel un o brif ddinasoedd glany dwr yw drwy gael rhywfaint o ddwr ynoa’r unig ffordd y gwnaethpwyd hyn oedddrwy adeiladu morglawdd.

[12] Brian Gibbons: This is to Mr Boyce,and for Mr Shortridge to give his opinionon a piffling £8 million. What do you feelis the basis for the difference in theoriginal estimates of building the barrageof £199 million by the Cardiff BayDevelopment Corporation and £191million by the Welsh Office?

[12] Brian Gibbons: Mae’r cwestiwn hwn iMr Boyce, ac i Mr Shortridge roi ei farnar swm pitw o £8 miliwn. Beth, yn eichbarn chi, yw’r sail ar gyfer y gwahaniaethyn amcangyfrifon gwreiddiol adeiladu’rmorglawdd o £199 miliwn ganGorfforaeth Datblygu Bae Caerdydd a£191 miliwn gan y Swyddfa Gymreig?

Mr Boyce: My recollection is that it wasnot an estimate. It was a financial cappingimposed on the cost by the thenSecretary of State for Wales, Mr JohnRedwood. He made a political judgmentthat the acceptable figure would be £191million. At that time, we estimated thatthe cost would be £199 million andtherefore we had to effect savings to getfrom our genuine pre-estimate of thecost down to the political capping.

Mr Boyce: Yn ôl yr hyn a gofiaf, nidamcangyfrif ydoedd. Yr oedd hwn ynderfyn ariannol a roddwyd ar y gost ganYsgrifennydd Gwladol Cymru ar y pryd,Mr John Redwood. Lluniodd farnwleidyddol mai £191 fyddai’r ffigurderbyniol. Ar y pryd, amcangyfrifwyd ybyddai’r gost yn £199 miliwn ac felly yroedd yn rhaid inni wneud arbedion isymud o’n cynamcangyfrif dilys o’r gosti’r terfyn ariannol gwleidyddol.

[13] Brian Gibbons: Mr Shortridge, howcould the Welsh Office at that time justifyundercutting such a well-established caseas that Mr Boyce has put forward?

[13] Brian Gibbons: Mr Shortridge, sutgallai’r Swyddfa Gymreig ar y prydgyfiawnhau rhoi pris mor isel ar achosmor gadarn â’r un a gyflwynwyd gan MrBoyce?

28

Mr Shortridge: My understanding is thatthe figure of £191 million was, in 1995,the figure that was regarded assufficiently compatible with that whichParliament had been given when theCardiff Bay Barrage Act 1993 waspassed. Ministers at the time were keento ensure that the cost of the barrageshould be kept at that level if at allpossible. Following a review ordiscussion of the costs that had takenplace at that time, the Cardiff BayDevelopment Corporation, in responseto correspondence, said that the cost ofthe barrage as envisaged at the time,building in estimates for inflation andcontingencies, would be £199 million.The response at the time to that was arequest that it should get it back down to£191 million. In response to that, theCBDC said that it could achieve that bymaking certain savings to the overallinvestment package and that is whathappened.

Mr Shortridge: Yr wyf ar ddeall bod y ffiguro £191 milliwn, yn 1995, yn ffigur yrystyrir ei fod yn cydweddu’n ddigonol â’run a roddwyd gan y Senedd pan basiwydDeddf Morglawdd Bae Caerdydd 1993.Yr oedd gweinidogion ar y pryd ynawyddus i sicrhau y dylid cadw cost ymorglawdd ar y lefel hwnnw os yn bosibl.Yn dilyn arolwg neu drafodaeth o’r costaua gynhaliwyd ar y pryd, dywedoddCorfforaeth Datblygu Bae Caerdydd,mewn ymateb i ohebiaeth, y byddai cost ymorglawdd fel y’i rhagwelir ar y pryd, gangynnwys amcangyfrifon ar gyferchwyddiant a threuliau, yn £199 miliwn.Yr ymateb ar y pryd i hynny oedd cais ydylai ddod yn ôl i lawr i £191 miliwn. Felymateb i hynny, dywedodd CDBC y gallaigyflawni hynny drwy wneud arbedionpenodol i’r pecyn buddsoddi cyffredinol adyna a ddigwyddodd.

[14] Brian Gibbons: We have heard a fewtimes in this Committee that estimatesare drawn up on where savings will bemade or costs incurred. I am trying towork out on what kind of foundation youcame to this conclusion of £191 million.Why not pick £195 million or £185million? What is the foundation for or therobustness of these estimates?

[14] Brian Gibbons: Yr ydym wedi clywedsawl gwaith yn y Pwyllgor hwn y caiffamcangyfrifon eu llunio yn seiliedig ar bley gwneir arbedion neu ble y bydd costau.Yr wyf yn ceisio gweithio allan ar ba sail ydaethoch i’r casgliad hwn o £191 miliwn.Pam na ddewiswyd £195 miliwn neu £185miliwn? Beth yw sail neu gadernid yramcangyfrifon hyn?

Mr Shortridge: My understanding is, as Isaid, that the foundation was that theoverall cost of the barrage should becomparable with the cost that Parliamenthad been told it should be at the time ofthe Cardiff Bay Barrage Act 1993. Thatwas the peg that we were seeking tocontinue to impose and we invited theCBDC to bring its costs back down tothat level. It indicated to us that it coulddo so.

Mr Shortridge: Yr wyf ar ddeall, fel ydywedais, mai’r sail oedd y dylai costcyffredinol y morglawdd gymharu â’r gosty dywedwyd wrth y Senedd y dylai fod aradeg Deddf Morglawdd Bae Caerdydd1993. Dyna’r nod yr oeddem ynymdrechu i barhau i’w osod agwahoddwyd CDBC i ostwng ei chostauyn ôl i’r lefel honno. Dangosodd inni ygallai wneud hynny.

[15] Brian Gibbons: Yes, but why didParliament decide on £191 million? Whydid it not pick on £180 million or even£50 million?

[15] Brian Gibbons: Ie, ond pam ypenderfynodd y Senedd ar £191 miliwn?Pam na ddewisodd £180 miliwn neu hydyn oed £50 miliwn?

29

Mr Shortridge: That is what Parliamentwas told by the Welsh Office and theSecretary of State for Wales at the time.

Mr Shortridge: Dyna beth ddywedodd ySwyddfa Gymreig ac YsgrifennyddGwladol Cymru ar y pryd wrth y Senedd.

[16] Brian Gibbons: That is correct, butwhat is the basis for that figure?

[16] Brian Gibbons: Mae hynny’n gywir,ond beth yw’r sail ar gyfer y ffigurhwnnw?

Mr Shortridge: I imagine that it was thebest estimate that could be made at thetime bearing in mind that detaileddesigns or detailed contracts were not inplace. Inevitably, this was the bestestimate that could be made byGovernment at the time. Parliament wasinformed of that. It considered theCardiff Bay Barrage Act 1993 on thebasis of that information. It is reasonablefor Government departments in thosecircumstances to seek to ensure, insofaras they can, that costs do not go beyondwhat Parliament has been told about.

Mr Shortridge: Dychmygaf mai hwnnwoedd yr amcangyfrif gorau y gellid eiwneud ar y pryd o ystyried nad oeddcynlluniau manwl na chontractau manwlwedi’u trefnu. Mae’n anochel mai hwnoedd yr amcangyfrif gorau y gallai’rLlywodraeth ei wneud ar y pryd. Yr oeddyn ystyried Deddf Morglawdd BaeCaerdydd 1993 ar sail y wybodaethhonno. Mae’n rhesymol bod adrannau’rLlywodraeth mewn amgylchiadau o’r fathyn sicrhau, cyhyd ag y gallant, nad ywcostau yn mynd y tu hwnt i’r hyn ydywedwyd wrth y Senedd amdano.

[17] Brian Gibbons: Therefore it would bereasonable to say that this was a fairlyrough and ready estimate and that once itwas enacted or included in the legislationwe were stuck with it. However, £191million was pretty much a ball-park figurerather than an exact science?

[17] Brian Gibbons: Felly byddai’nrhesymol dweud mai amcangyfrif gweddolfras oedd hwn ac unwaith y’igweithredwyd neu y cafodd ei gynnwys yny ddeddfwriaeth yr oedd yn rhaid i nigadw ato. Fodd bynnag, ffigur bras oedd£191 miliwn yn hytrach na ffigurpenodol?

Mr Shortridge: It was the best informedfigure at the time. However, I agree thatit would not be an exact science.

Mr Shortridge: Hwn oedd y ffigur cytbwysgorau ar y pryd. Fodd bynnag, cytunafnad yw’n ffigur penodol.

[18] Brian Gibbons: What do you think thelikely final cost of the project will be?

[18] Brian Gibbons: Beth fydd cost terfynoltebygol y prosiect yn eich barn chi?

Mr Shortridge: The figure in this report is£220 million. In part, it depends on howyou define the project as to whetheradditional costs go in or some costscome out. However, I am happy to agreewith what is in this report: that the bestestimate of the final outturn for thebarrage, and certain associated workslike the bird reserve, is £220 million.

Mr Shortridge: Y ffigur yn yr adroddiadhwn yw £220 miliwn. Yn rhannol, mae’rmater o roi costau ychwanegol i mewnneu dynnu rhai costau allan yn dibynnu arsut y diffiniwch y prosiect. Fodd bynnag,yr wyf yn hapus i gytuno gyda’r hyn syddyn yr adroddiad hwn: mai £220 miliwnyw’r amcangyfrif gorau ar gyfer alldroterfynol y morglawdd, a rhai gweithiaucysylltiedig megis y warchodfa adar.

30

[19] Brian Gibbons: In view of the fact thatwe have already accepted that £191million was a rough and ready estimate,how robust do you think this estimate is?

[19] Brian Gibbons: Yng ngoleuni’r ffaithein bod wedi derbyn eisoes bod £191miliwn yn amcangyfrif bras, pa morgadarn yw’r amcangyfrif hwn yn eich barnchi?

Mr Shortridge: This is clearly a much morerobust estimate. Most of these costshave been met and paid for, as the reportindicates. There are comparatively fewareas of uncertainty left which could havean effect on the final cost.

Mr Shortridge: Mae’n amlwg bod hwn ynamcangyfrif llawer mwy cadarn.Cyrhaeddwyd a thalwyd am y rhan fwyafo’r costau hyn, fel y mae’r adroddiad ynnodi. Cymharol ychydig o feysydd oansicrwydd sydd ar ôl a allai effeithio ar ygost derfynol.

[20] Brian Gibbons: Are you in a positionto quantify what the outer limits of thosefigures might be?

[20] Brian Gibbons: A ydych chi mewnsefyllfa i gyfrifo yr hyn y gallai terfynaueithaf y ffigurau hynny fod?

Mr Shortridge: I would prefer not tocommit myself to anything off the cuff.However, the report indicates, inparagraph 2.17, the main areas ofcontinuing uncertainty. The informationthere helps to give a pretty firmindication of the likely variation. I amworking to a figure of £220 million and Ihope that that will be achieved.

Mr Shortridge: Byddai’n well gennyf beidioag ymrwymo i unrhyw beth yn fyrfyfyr.Fodd bynnag, mae’r adroddiad yn nodi,ym mharagraff 2.17, y prif feysydd oansicrwydd sydd yn parhau. Mae’rwybodaeth hon yn helpu i roi dangosiadgweddol gadarn o’r amrywiaeth tebygol.Yr wyf yn anelu at ffigur o £220 miliwn agobeithiaf y cyflawnir hynny.

[21] Brian Gibbons: It obviously seems tobe a fairly inexact science.

[21] Brian Gibbons: Mae’n amlwg ei fod ynymddangos yn ffigur nad yw’n fanwlgywir.

Mr Shortridge: No. With the barragevirtually complete, it is much more of anexact science. I think that £220 million isa very reasonable figure for this report tocontain and one for us to be seeking toachieve.

Mr Shortridge: Nac ydyw. Gyda’rmorglawdd bron yn gyflawn, mae’n ffigurllawer mwy penodol. Credaf fod £220miliwn yn ffigur rhesymol iawn i’wgynnwys yn yr adroddiad hwn ac yn un ydylem geisio ei gyflawni.

[22] Brian Gibbons: So if I picked a figureout of the air, which I am actually doing,and said it ended up being £235 million,would it be reasonable to say that youwould be absolutely shocked?

[22] Brian Gibbons: Felly, petawn ynpenderfynu ar ffigur ar hap, sef yr hyn yrwyf yn ei wneud yn awr, ac yn dweud mai£235 miliwn yw’r ateb, a fyddai’nrhesymol dweud y byddai hynny’n eichdychryn?

Mr Shortridge: Yes. Mr Shortridge: Byddai.

31

[23] Brian Gibbons: Finally, in your view,what are the lessons that the Assemblycan learn from the budgeting for thisproject as a whole and also the way it wasmanaged and controlled, bearing in mindthat we may have other ‘expensiveprojects’ in mind ourselves?

[23] Brian Gibbons: Yn olaf, yn eich barnchi, beth yw’r gwersi y gall y Cynulliad eudysgu o’r cyllido ar gyfer y prosiect hwnyn gyffredinol a hefyd y ffordd y’irheolwyd, o gofio efallai fod gennym‘brosiectau drud’ eraill ar y gweill einhunain?

Mr Shortridge: As a major capital projectundertaken in a very difficult maritimeenvironment, this was a generally well-managed project, as this report indicates.Paragraph 9 states that this was a soundperformance on the part of thecorporation, and paragraph 1.8 statesthat the construction of the barrage inthese circumstances was a creditableachievement despite the cost overrun.So that is its background.

Mr Shortridge: Fel prosiect cyfalaf mawr agynhaliwyd mewn awyrgylch morol anoddiawn, yr oedd hwn yn brosiect a reolwydyn dda yn gyffredinol, fel y noda’radroddiad hwn. Mae paragraff 9 yn nodibod hwn yn berfformiad cadarn ar ran ygorfforaeth, ac mae paragraff 1.8 yn nodibod adeiladu’r morglawdd yn yramgylchiadau hyn yn gyflawniadcymeradwy er gwaethaf y gor-gostau.Felly dyna’r cefndir.

Building on that, the main lessons arethat where you have major investmentsof this nature, the public sector shoulddo all it can to transfer as much of therisk as it can to the private sector. Tothe extent that it cannot do that, it needsto have arrangements in place to managethe risk. The corporation, in appointingits project management contractors,Bechtel Limited, had in place a highlyprofessional team of people whomanaged that risk. In addition, again asthe report indicates, there was a teamapproach between the contractors andthe corporation to manage and build thisproject. It was not an adversarialrelationship.

Gan adeiladu ar hynny, y prif wersi yw lleceir buddsoddiadau mawr o’r natur hwn,dylai’r sector cyhoeddus wneud cymaintag y gall i drosglwyddo cymaint o’r risgag y gall i’r sector preifat. I’r graddau naall wneud hynny, mae angen bod ganddodrefniadau wrth law i reoli’r risg. Yr oeddgan y gorfforaeth, wrth benodi eichontractwyr rheoli prosiect, BechtelLimited, dîm proffesiynol iawn o bobl aoedd yn rheoli’r risg hwnnw. Yn ogystal,eto fel y noda’r adroddiad, yr oeddymagwedd tîm rhwng y contractwyr a’rgorfforaeth i reoli ac adeiladu’r prosiecthwn. Nid oedd yn berthynas niweidiol.

32

Finally, as the Welsh Office, we sought toimpose a very firm financial discipline onthe project by having the cap that wewere talking about earlier. That cap wasin place to send a very strong messagenot just to the corporation but to itscontractors, that this was not a softproject. This was a hard-edged projectand the expectation was that all thoseconcerned would deliver within the costenvelope. I recognise that there is aconflict between on the one hand wantinga firm cap and on the other hand wantingan adequate contingency reserve. Whatwe sought to do was to err on the side ofthe cap rather than a generouscontingency. We thought the cap wasbest fitted to deliver an output ratherthan an indication that you could have arolling contingency reserve.

Yn olaf, fel y Swyddfa Gymreig, ceisiwydgosod disgyblaeth ariannol gadarn iawnar y prosiect drwy gael y terfyn ariannolyr oeddem yn ei drafod yn gynharach. Yroedd y terfyn hwnnw wedi’i osod i anfonneges gref iawn nid yn unig i’rgorfforaeth ond i’w chontractwyr, nadoedd hwn yn brosiect hawdd. Yr oedd ynbrosiect caled a’r disgwyliad oedd ybyddai pawb dan sylw yn cyflwyno o fewnyr un amlen gost. Deallaf fod gwrthdarorhwng, ar y naill law, cael terfyn cadarn acar y llaw arall cael cronfa ddigonol wrthgefn. Yr hyn y ceisiwyd ei wneud oeddbod yn fwy o blaid y terfyn na chronfahael wrth gefn. Yr oeddem yn teimlo body terfyn yn fwy addas i gyflwyno allbwn ynhytrach nag argymhelliad y gallech gaelcronfa wrth gefn dreigl.

[24] Brian Gibbons: Therefore, to bereasonable, if one had a project on terrafirma that was costing about £27 million,we would have learned adequate lessonsto ensure that that is likely to come in onbudget and so forth?

[24] Brian Gibbons: Felly, i fod ynrhesymol, pe bai yna brosiect ar dir sychoedd yn costio tua £27 miliwn, byddemwedi dysgu gwersi digonol i sicrhau eifod yn debygol o fod o fewn y gyllideb acati?

Mr Shortridge: That is always theaspiration. If you look at what the costoverruns are on major constructionschemes in the public sector, you willfind that the average cost overrun isprobably slightly more than the 15 percent we are talking about.

Mr Shortridge: Dyna’r dyhead bob amser.Os edrychwch ar y gor-gostau mewncynlluniau adeiladu mawr yn y sectorcyhoeddus, fe welwch bod cyfartaledd ygor-gostau ychydig yn uwch na’r 15 ycant a drafodwyd gennym fwy na thebyg.

[25] Brian Gibbons: You are talking aboutthe barrage?

[25] Brian Gibbons: A ydych yn siarad am ymorglawdd?

Mr Shortridge: Yes, compared to majorroad schemes and the like.

Mr Shortridge: Ydwyf, o gymharu âchynlluniau ffordd mawr a phethaucyffelyb.

[26] Janet Davies: Glyn, you wanted toenlarge on this?

[26] Janet Davies: Glyn, yr oeddech amymhelaethu ar hyn?

33

[27] Glyn Davies: Yes, on the very lastpoint that Jon Shortridge made. We havethe 1995 position where there was apolitical judgment on the calculated cost,the cap, to send out a message of £191million. You then had the best estimatedcost that the corporation was making,which was £199 million. You now have acurrent position of about £220 million.However, whatever figures we take, weare talking about a 10 to 15 per cent costoverrun. A fair part of that results fromthe changed requirements by Parliamentto do with environmental compensation.Comparing this project with otherbuilding projects such as the proposednew Assembly building, to which Brianreferred, the Millennium Stadium, thenew buildings in London for Parliamentand the Scottish Parliament, are wetalking about the type of cost overrunthat you would have thought almost to beexpected in such a complex operation?This is an unusually complexdevelopment.

[27] Glyn Davies: Oeddwn, ar y pwynt olafa wnaethpwyd gan Jon Shortridge. Maegennym sefyllfa 1995 lle yr oedd barnwleidyddol ar y gost a gyfrifiwyd, y terfyn,i anfon neges o £191 miliwn. Wedyn yroedd gennych yr amcangyfrif cost gorauyr oedd y gorfforaeth hon yn ei gwneud,sef £199 miliwn. Yn awr mae gennychsefyllfa bresennol o tua £220 miliwn.Fodd bynnag, pa ffigurau bynnag agymerwn, byddwn yn sôn am tua 10 i 15 ycant o orwario. Mae rhan sylweddol ohwn yn deillio o’r gofynion diwygiediggan y Senedd yn ymwneud ag iawndalamgylcheddol. O gymharu’r prosiect hwnâ phrosiectau adeiladu eraill megisadeilad newydd arfaethedig y Cynulliad, ycyfeiriodd Brian ato, Stadiwm yMileniwm, yr adeiladau newydd ynLlundain ar gyfer y Senedd a Senedd yrAlban, a ydym yn sôn am y math oorwario y byddech bron yn ei ddisgwylmewn gweithrediad mor gymhleth? Maehwn yn ddatblygiad anarferol o gymhleth.

Mr Shortridge: As Accounting Officer, I donot like to talk about expected costoverrun.

Mr Shortridge: Fel Swyddog Cyfrifo, nidwyf yn hoff o drafod gor-gostaudisgwyliedig.

[28] Glyn Davies: I was hesitant in askingthat question.

[28] Glyn Davies: Yr oeddwn yn betrusgarcyn gofyn y cwestiwn hwnnw.

34

Mr Shortridge: I expect projects to beproperly managed and to come in onbudget. Having said that, the reality isthat if you consider comparable schemes,for example, in 1992 the National AuditOffice produced a report on roadschemes and for 120 contracts ofschemes with a total cost of £1.5 billion,the cost overrun was 27 per cent. Thatwas back in 1992. However, ourHighways Directorate aims to keepoutturn costs within 15 per cent ofbudget. That is because you are seekingto manage and put pressure down oncosts and because you know that, interms of the way that the risk is beingmanaged, claims will be coming insubsequently. We are dealing here withvery complex project managementarrangements and large sums of moneyin difficult environments. It would beunreasonable to expect all such projectsto be absolutely on target.

Mr Shortridge: Yr wyf yn disgwyl ibrosiectau gael eu rheoli’n gywir ac aroso fewn y gyllideb. Wedi dweud hynny, yrealiti yw os ystyriwch gynlluniau y gellireu cymharu, er enghraifft, yn 1992cynhyrchodd y Swyddfa ArchwilioGenedlaethol adroddiad ar gynlluniauffyrdd ac ar gyfer 120 contract ogynlluniau gyda chyfanswm cost o £1.5biliwn, yr oedd y gor-gostau yn 27 y cant.Yr oedd hynny yn ôl yn 1992. Foddbynnag, nod ein Cyfarwyddiaeth Priffyrddyw cadw gor-gostau o fewn 15 y cant o’rgyllideb. Mae hynny oherwydd eich bodyn ceisio rheoli a rhoi pwysau ar gostauac oherwydd eich bod yn gwybod, ynnhermau’r modd y rheolir y risg, y dawceisiadau i law o ganlyniad. Yr ydym ynymdrin yma â threfniadau rheoli prosiectcymhleth iawn a symiau mawr o arianmewn amgylchiadau anodd. Byddai’nafresymol disgwyl i bob brosiect o’r fathgyrraedd y targed i’r dim.

[29] Glyn Davies: What contingency is theAssembly allowing in the new buildingproject that it plans?

[29] Glyn Davies: Faint o gronfa wrth gefny mae’r Cynulliad yn ei ganiatáu yn yprosiect adeilad newydd y mae’n eigynllunio?

Mr Shortridge: That is set out clearly inthe Turner and Townsend report.

Mr Shortridge: Caiff hynny ei nodi’n glir ynadroddiad Turner a Townsend.

[30] Glyn Davies: It is around 15 per cent,is it not?

[30] Glyn Davies: Mae tua 15 y cant, onidyw?

Mr Shortridge: Around that, but I think thatthe Turner and Townsend report addressed itdifferently to the way that we addressed thisearlier. It has analysed and quantified therisks very carefully so that it is not simply amatter of applying 15 per cent. It has built upthe various elements that could result inadditional unanticipated expenditure.

Mr Shortridge: Tua hynny, ond credaf fodadroddiad Turner a Townsend wedi ymdrinag ef mewn ffordd wahanol i’r ffordd yrymdriniwyd â hwn gennym yn gynharach.Mae wedi dadansoddi a meintioli’r risgiau ynofalus fel nad mater o gynnwys 15 y cant ynunig ydyw. Mae wedi adeiladu’r elfennauamrywiol a allai arwain at wariantychwanegol nas disgwyliwyd.

[31] Janet Davies: As this is such animportant part of the evidence, I willallow other Members to ask questions sothat we can make everything clear.

[31] Janet Davies: Gan fod hyn yn rhanmor bwysig o’r dystiolaeth, caniatâf iAelodau eraill ofyn cwestiynau fel ygallwn wneud popeth yn glir.

35

[32] Jane Davidson: If we can return to thematter in hand, I am particularlyinterested in paragraph 2.12, whichstates that

[32] Jane Davidson: Os gallwn ddychwelydat y mater dan sylw, mae gennyfddiddordeb mawr ym mharagraff 2.12,sydd yn nodi mai

‘the main factor influencing the change inthe cost of constructing the Barrage wasthe unforeseen ground conditions’.

‘y prif ffactor a oedd yn dylanwadu ar ynewid yng nghost adeiladu’r Morglawddoedd cyflwr annisgwyl y tir’.

If my memory serves me well, for thoseof us who were involved in this at thetime, they were unforeseen by the CardiffBay Development Corporation but not byanyone else. I would be grateful to hearMichael Boyce’s and Jon Shortridge’scomments on the degree of change, interms of the modelling on the groundconditions on which the original andsubsequent barrage costs were based.

Os cofiaf yn iawn, ar gyfer y rhai ohonomoedd yn ymwneud â hyn ar y pryd, nisrhagwelwyd hwy gan GorfforaethDatblygu Bae Caerdydd, yn wahanol ibawb arall. Byddwn yn ddiolchgar oglywed sylwadau Michael Boyce a JonShortridge ar faint y newid, yn nhermau’rmodelu ar gyflwr y tir y seiliwyd costaugwreiddiol a dilynol y morglawdd arnynt.

Mr Shortridge: For detail, I would want to turn toMichael Boyce on this. My understanding is thatthe estimates were based on certain bore holeinformation that was available to Bechtel Limited.In practice, that bore hole information was toogeneralised to enable accurate estimates to bederived. That was the basic position, but MrBoyce was probably closer to it than me.

Mr Shortridge: I fanylu, hoffwn droi at MichaelBoyce ar gyfer hyn. Yr wyf ar ddeall y seiliwyd yramcangyfrifon ar wybodaeth am dyllau turiopenodol a oedd ar gael i Bechtel Limited. Ynymarferol, yr oedd y wybodaeth honno ar dyllauturio yn rhy gyffredinol i alluogi i amcangyfrifoncywir gael eu llunio. Dyna oedd y sefyllfasylfaenol, ond mae’n debyg bod Mr Boyce ynagosach ati na mi.

Mr Boyce: This is about groundconditions at the base of the barrage, notground conditions in south Cardiffgenerally, of course. The corporation hadcommissioned experienced consultantsto undertake necessary studies onground conditions. The last paragraph ofthe National Audit Office report explainsthat, in the event, those turned out to beinaccurate, in particular with regard tothe precise level at which the sands andgravels were considered suitable tosupport the barrage structure. Of course,it was not until Balfour Beatty-Costainhad begun to construct the barrage thatthe inadequacy of those particularsurveys became apparent. Thatinaccuracy had to be addressed, and thatcost money in terms of payments to thecontractors.

Mr Boyce: Mae hyn yn ymwneud â chyflwry tir ger sylfaen y morglawdd, nid cyflwr ytir yn ne Caerdydd yn gyffredinol, wrthgwrs. Yr oedd y gorfforaeth wedicomisiynu ymgynghorwyr profiadol igynnal yr astudiaethau angenrheidiol argyflwr y tir. Mae paragraff olaf adroddiady Swyddfa Archwilio Genedlaethol ynesbonio bod y rhain, fel y digwyddoddpethau, yn anghywir, yn arbennig mewnperthynas â’r union lefel yr ystyriwyd body tywod a’r graean yn addas i gynnalstrwythur y morglawdd. Wrth gwrs, nichanfuwyd bod yr arolygon penodol hynnyyn annigonol nes i Balfour Beatty-Costain ddechrau adeiladu’r morglawdd.Yr oedd yn rhaid ymdrin â’r anghywirdebhwnnw, ac fe gostiodd hynny arian o rantaliadau i’r contractwyr.

36

It is not entirely unexpected because—although I am not an engineer and I donot have any engineering support—theprocess in very basic lay terms is thatpeople go across the line of the barrageand drill bore holes. You do not drill abore hole every inch; you drill one everyso many meters. Therefore, it is self-evident that something can existbetween successive bore holes. That waswhat happened here. There werecircumstances where bore holes werenot drilled that did not become apparentuntil the contractors started work.

Nid yw hyn yn hollol annisgwyloherwydd—er nad wyf yn beiriannydd acnad oes gennyf gymorth peirianyddol—ybroses mewn termau lleyg sylfaenol iawnyw bod pobl yn mynd ar hyd llinell ymorglawdd ac yn drilio tyllau turio. Nidfesul modfedd y caiff twll turio ei ddrilio;ond fesul hyn a hyn o fetrau. Felly, mae’namlwg y gall rhywbeth fodoli rhwng tyllauturio dilynol. Dyna beth ddigwyddoddyma. Yr oedd amgylchiadau lle na chafoddtyllau turio eu drilio ac ni ddaeth hyn i’ramlwg nes i’r contractwyr ddechrau ar ygwaith.

[33] Jane Davidson: I return to the issue ofcost. I was looking at the changebetween the original estimate, based onthe original flawed data, and thesubsequent estimate, based on the farmore persuasive data when BechtelLimited took the contract.

[33] Jane Davidson: Yr wyf am ddychwelydat y gost. Yr oeddwn yn edrych ar y newidrhwng yr amcangyfrif gwreiddiol, sydd ynseiliedig ar y data diffygiol gwreiddiol, a’ramcangyfrif dilynol, yn seiliedig ar y datallawer mwy perswadiol pan ymgymeroddBechtel Limited â’r contract.

Mr Boyce: I do not have those figures, Iam afraid.

Mr Boyce: Nid yw’r ffigurau hynny gennyf,yn anffodus.

37

[34] Jenny Randerson: My point is alongsimilar lines. Table 1 on page 14 sets outhow the figure of £191 million wasreached in considerable detail.Therefore, it obviously was not an off-the-cuff guess; it was reached in somedetail. Apart from the bird reserve—andI understand the reasons why thevariation on the bird reserve is soconsiderable; it is basically a differentreserve and it was a Parliamentarydecision that led to that—the majorvariation comes in the barrage structure.There are the ground conditions, whichJane dealt with, but there is also, Irecollect, the question of the third lock,which was taken out and put back inagain. I would be grateful if you couldprovide us with some details as to whatthat process was and why it wasundertaken, why it was taken out andthen put back in again at considerableadditional cost. Also, in addition to thosetwo, are there any other factors that ledto that big increase in barrage structurecosts?

[34] Jenny Randerson: Mae fy mhwynt i ynun tebyg. Mae tabl 1 ar dudalen 14 ynnodi sut y cyrhaeddwyd y ffigur o £191miliwn yn eithaf manwl. Felly, mae’namlwg nad dyfalu a wnaethpwyd;cyrhaeddwyd y ffigur mewn pethmanylder. Ar wahân i’r warchodfa adar—ac yr wyf yn deall pam y mae’r amrywiado ran y warchodfa adar mor sylweddol;mae’n warchodfa wahanol mewngwirionedd a phenderfyniad Seneddol aarweiniodd at hynny—strwythur ymorglawdd sydd yn amrywio fwyaf. Ceiramodau’r tir yr oedd Jane yn ymdrin âhwy, ond hefyd, mi gofiaf, ceir mater ytrydydd loc, a dynnwyd allan ac a roddwydyn ôl i mewn. Byddwn yn ddiolchgar pegallech roi manylion inni ar beth oedd ybroses honno a pham y’i cynhaliwyd, pamy’i tynnwyd allan a’i ailosod ato am gostychwanegol sylweddol. Hefyd, yn ogystalâ’r ddau hynny, a oes unrhyw ffactoraueraill a arweiniodd at y cynnydd mawrhwnnw yng nghostau strwythur ymorglawdd?

Mr Boyce: Those are the big factors, Ithink. You will appreciate that I do nothave any access to any information or anysupport. All this information is now withCardiff City and County Council, if youneed to get into the detail of it. I am notable to help you on the detail.

Mr Boyce: Mae’r rheini’n ffactorau mawr,fe gredaf. Byddwch yn gwerthfawrogi nadoes gennyf unrhyw fynediad i unrhywwybodaeth na chymorth. Mae’rwybodaeth hon i gyd bellach gan GyngorDinas a Sir Caerdydd, os oes angen ymanylion arnoch. Ni allaf eich helpugyda’r manylion.

38

The challenge that the corporation hadwas to reduce the real figure of £199million down to the capped figure of £191million. One of the issues looked at waschanging the nature of the constructionin order to make it less expensive tobuild. That included removing one of thelocks. That would have provided asignificant saving. However, of course, assoon as you decide to change a projectthat has already been designed andcosted, you are into spending moneyimmediately, even on finding savings, asyou may understand in othercircumstances.

Y sialens a gafodd y gorfforaeth oeddgostwng y ffigur gwirioneddol o £199miliwn i lawr i’r ffigur terfyn o £191miliwn. Un o’r materion yr edrychwydarno oedd newid natur yr adeiladwaith ermwyn ei wneud yn llai drud i’w adeiladu.Yr oedd hyn yn cynnwys tynnu un o’rlociau. Byddai hyn wedi arbed ariansylweddol. Fodd bynnag, wrth gwrs, cyngynted ag y byddwch yn penderfynunewid prosiect a gynlluniwyd ac agostiwyd eisoes, byddwch yn gwario arianar unwaith, hyd yn oed wrth ddod o hyd iarbedion, fel y byddwch efallai’n deallmewn amgylchiadau eraill.

Then it transpired that, having spentmoney seeking to take out the third lock,we were required by yachting interests toreinstate it. Therefore, we went througha fairly sterile process of spending moneyon taking out a lock and then spendingmoney on putting it back in again.However, that was done to try to addressthe imperative of reducing a budget from£199 million to the capped figure of £191million. In the end, trying to do thatactually cost us money.

Yna daeth i’r amlwg, wedi inni wario ariani geisio tynnu’r trydydd loc, bod gofyninni ei adfer oherwydd y rhai â buddiantmewn hwylio iotiau. Felly, aethom drwybroses weddol ddi-fudd o wario arian ardynnu loc ac yna gwario arian ar eiailosod eto. Fodd bynnag, gwnaethpwydhynny i geisio ymdrin â’r gorchymyn oleihau cyllideb o £199 miliwn i’r ffigurterfyn o £191 miliwn. Yn y pen draw, fewnaeth ceisio gwneud hynny gostio arianinni mewn gwirionedd.

[35] Jenny Randerson: I have asupplementary question. You said thatyou were required to reinstate the lockby yachting interests. Was that becauseof the legal requirements of thesituation? There were agreements with,or assurances to, Cardiff Yacht Club inthe original legislation, were there not?Or was it simply because of publicopinion, shall we say, in the wider senseof the term?

[35] Jenny Randerson: Y mae gennyfgwestiwn atodol. Fe ddywedasoch ygofynnwyd i chi adfer y loc gan rai âbuddiant mewn hwylio iotiau. A oeddhynny oherwydd gofynion cyfreithiol ysefyllfa? Yr oedd cytundebau â ChlwbIotiau Caerdydd, neu sicrwydd iddo, yn yddeddfwriaeth wreiddiol, onid oedd? Neua oedd hyn oherwydd y farn gyhoeddus,dyweder, yn ystyr ehangach y term?

39

Mr Boyce: There were yachtingassociations pursuing their interests witha degree of enthusiasm and veryrobustly. It was a mixture of legalobligation and strong persuasion andlobbying. Many of the arrangements withthe yachting associations were onunderstandings delivered to Parliament,rather than on any legally bindingarrangements. That cocktail ofpersuasion and legal argumentpersuaded the corporation that it wasright to reinstate the lock. The processof taking it out and putting it back, sadly,but inevitably, cost money.

Mr Boyce: Yr oedd cymdeithasau iotiau ynhyrwyddo eu buddiannau â phethbrwdfrydedd ac yn gadarn iawn. Yr oeddyn gymysgedd o reidrwydd cyfreithiol apherswâd a lobïo cryf. Yr oedd llawer o’rtrefniadau â’r cymdeithasau iotiau arddealltwriaeth a gyflwynwyd i’r Senedd,yn hytrach nag ar unrhyw drefniadau aoedd yn gyfreithiol rwymol. Perswadiwydy gorfforaeth gan y cymysgedd hwnnw oberswâd a dadl gyfreithiol ei bod ynbriodol ailosod y loc. Yr oedd y broses o’idynnu allan a’i ailosod, yn anffodus, ondyn anochel, yn costio arian.

[36] Geraint Davies: Returning to thegroundwork and the survey, can youconfirm that there was no evidence of anynegligence by the consultants that youengaged? Were the bore holes drilled ata reasonable distance or should theyhave been more frequent? If there wasnegligence, are there grounds forclaiming compensation?

[36] Geraint Davies: Gan ddychwelyd at ysylfaeni a’r arolwg, a allwch gadarnhaunad oedd tystiolaeth o unrhywesgeulustod gan yr ymgynghorwyr addefnyddiwyd gennych? A oedd pellterrhesymol rhwng y tyllau turio a ddriliwydneu a ddylid bod wedi gwneud rhagorohonynt? Os oedd esgeulustod, a oesrhesymau dros hawlio iawndal?

Mr Boyce: I understand that the drilling ofthe bore holes was conducted inaccordance with normal civil engineeringpractice.

Mr Boyce: Yr wyf ar ddeall y driliwyd ytyllau turio yn unol â’r drefn arferol mewnpeirianneg sifil.

[37] Geraint Davies: Was this normal civilengineering though, because this was thefirst time that you had done something ofthis nature?

[37] Geraint Davies: Ond a oedd hyn ynbeirianneg sifil cyffredin, oherwydd hwnoedd y tro cyntaf i chi wneud rhywbetho’r natur hwn?

Mr Boyce: Drilling bore holes underwateris not common, but there is sufficientexperience of it around the world. Theconsultant engineers employed by thecorporation to drill the bore holesfollowed what was, certainly at the time,standard engineering practice in thatprocess. It missed items.

Mr Boyce: Nid yw drilio tyllau turio o dany dwr yn arferol, ond mae digon o brofiado wneud hynny ledled y byd. Dilynodd ypeirianwyr ymgynghorol a ddefnyddiwydgan y gorfforaeth i ddrilio’r tyllau turio yrhyn a oedd, yn sicr bryd hynny, yn arferpeirianegol safonol yn y broses honno.Methwyd â darganfod rhai pethau.

40

[38] Janet Davies: I will also ask aquestion on paragraph 2.12, Mr Boyce.On pages 14 and 15 an incentive clause,which saved the corporation £720,000, ismentioned. Presumably, its purpose wasalso to save the contractors money. Whatwas the split between the contractor andthe corporation?

[38] Janet Davies: Fe ofynnaf innau hefydgwestiwn ar baragraff 2.12, Mr Boyce. Ardudalennau 14 a 15, sonnir am gymalcymhelliad, a arbedodd £720,000 i’rgorfforaeth. Yn ôl pob tebyg, ei bwrpasoedd arbed arian i’r contractwyr hefyd.Beth oedd y rhaniad rhwng y contractwra’r gorfforaeth?

Mr Boyce: The purpose of the clause wasnot to save the contractors money. It wasto ensure that they did not make toomuch money at the public’s expense.Our concern had been that, in so manycivil engineering contracts, all of whichturned out to be much more expensivethan the barrage, there is always a risk ofa conflict of interest between theengineer to the contract, the employingpublic sector body and the contractor.We wanted to separate that out andensure that there was someone who wasshouting for the public sector, not beingan honest broker sitting in the middleand trying to come to some agreementbetween the contractor and the publicsector organisation. We did not want thatbecause it usually leads to compromiseand a more expensive contract.

Mr Boyce: Nid arbed arian i’r contractwyroedd pwrpas y cymal. Ei bwrpas oeddsicrhau nad oeddent yn ennill gormod oarian ar draul y cyhoedd. Ein pryderoedd, mewn cymaint o gontractaupeirianneg sifil, a phob un ohonynt yn ypen draw yn llawer drutach na’rmorglawdd, bod risg o hyd bod gwrthdarorhwng peiriannydd y contract, y corffsector cyhoeddus sydd yn cyflogi a’rcontractwr. Yr oeddem am wahanu hynnya sicrhau bod rhywun oedd yn lleisio barny sector cyhoeddus, heb fod yn gyfryngwryn y canol a cheisio dod i ryw fath ogytundeb rhwng y contractwr a’rsefydliad sector cyhoeddus. Nid oeddemeisiau hynny oherwydd ei fod fel arfer ynarwain at gyfaddawd a chontract drutach.

41

Therefore, we devised a system withBechtel whereby it was obliged, on behalfof the corporation, to bring this project inas close as possible to cost. One thingthat we did not insist on was that itshould be brought in at any particulartime. It was not like building theMillennium Stadium. There was noWorld Cup to be played. It did not reallymatter whether it was completed inAugust 1998 or November 1999,providing that the delay did not costmoney but, in fact, helped the cost planto be managed more effectively. Wealways placed our emphasis on the cost,never on the time. We therefore had abonus or an incentive scheme withBechtel, on a sliding scale obviously, thatthe closer that it got the contract to theauthorised figure, the more chance therewas for it to earn a bonus. It could end upearning nothing if it failed, but if itsucceeded beyond everyone’s wildestdreams it would earn much more money.In the event, you can see the figure thatit earned for keeping this contract, wewould say, without any cost overrun. Thatis a matter of semantics; it is a matter ofaccounting. We said that it would cost£199 million in 1995. If you add on to thatall of the things that were completelyoutside the corporation’s control—theGwent Levels Wetland Reserve, theconstruction design managementregulations, the landfill tax; all of whichhad nothing to do with the corporationand no one contemplated in 1995—thefigure comes pretty close to £220 million.We think, and Bechtel would say, that webrought this contract in almost exactly tothe figure which we were required to doso. As a result, Bechtel, which was on abonus scheme, shared the benefit for thatremarkable achievement with the publicsector.

Felly, dyfeisiasom system gyda Bechtellle yr oedd yn ofynnol iddo, ar ran ygorfforaeth, gyflawni’r prosiect mor agosâ phosibl at y gost. Un peth na wnaethomei fynnu oedd y dylid ei gyflawni erbynrhyw amser penodol. Nid oedd feladeiladu Stadiwm y Mileniwm. Nid oeddCwpan y Byd i’w chwarae. Nid oedd obwys mawr pa un a fyddai’n cael eigwblhau ym mis Awst 1998 neu ym misTachwedd 1999, ar yr amod nad oedd yroedi yn costio arian ond, mewngwirionedd, yn helpu i reoli’r cynllun costyn fwy effeithiol. Yr oedd ein pwyslais ary gost bob amser, yn hytrach nag ar yramser. Felly yr oedd gennym gynllunbonws neu gynllun gyda Bechtel, arraddfa symudol yn amlwg, sef po agosaf ybyddai’n dod â’r contract at y ffigur aawdurdodwyd, y mwyaf fyddai’r cyfle iddoennill bonws. Mae’n bosibl na fyddai’nennill dim pe bai’n methu, ond pe bai’nllwyddo y tu hwnt i ddisgwyliadau eithafpawb byddai’n ennill llawer mwy o arian.Pe byddai hyn yn digwydd, gallwch weld yffigur a enillodd ar gyfer cadw’r contracthwn, fe ddywedem ni, heb unrhyworwario. Mae hynny’n fater o semanteg;mae’n fater o gyfrifo. Dywedasom ybyddai’n costio £199 miliwn yn 1995. Osychwanegwch at hynny yr holl bethau aoedd y tu hwnt i reolaeth y gorfforaeth ynllwyr–Gwarchodfa Gwlyptir GwastadeddauGwent, rheoliadau rheoli cynlluniauadeiladu, y dreth tirlenwi; nad oedd awnelo’r un ohonynt ddim â’r gorfforaethac nad oedd neb wedi’u rhagweld yn1995—daw’r ffigur yn agos iawn at £220miliwn. Credwn, a byddai Bechtel yncytuno, ein bod wedi cyflawni’r contracthwn bron yn union yn ôl y ffigur ygofynnwyd inni wneud. O ganlyniad,rhannodd Bechtel, a oedd ar gynllunbonws, y budd o’r cyflawniad nodedighwnnw gyda’r sector cyhoeddus.

[39] Janet Davies: Therefore, if Bechteland the public sector shared it, was it atotal of £720,000?

[39] Janet Davies: Felly, os rhannwyd efrhwng Bechtel a’r sector cyhoeddus, aoedd yn gyfanswm o £720,000?

42

Mr Boyce: That is what went to Bechtel.That was its share of it. The public sectorsaving is untold millions of pounds.

Mr Boyce: Dyna’r swm a aeth i Bechtel.Dyna oedd ei ran ef ohono. Mae’rarbediad i’r sector cyhoeddus yn filiynaudirifedi o bunnoedd.

[40] Janet Davies: What I am readingstates that the incentive clause provedvery successful and produced savings forthe corporation that amounted to£720,000. I may be being very stupidabout this, but I am getting slightlyconfused. I am asking about this becauseit does not seem to me to be a very greatamount on such a large contract.

[40] Janet Davies: Mae’r hyn yr wyf yn eiddarllen yn nodi bod y cymal cymhelliadyn llwyddiannus iawn a’i fod wedicynhyrchu arbedion o £720,000 i’rgorfforaeth. Efallai fy mod yn bod yn dwpiawn ynglyn â hyn, ond yr wyf wedi drysubraidd. Gofynnaf am hyn oherwydd nadyw’n ymddangos yn swm mawr iawn i miar gontract mor fawr.

Mr Boyce: This is a very short report on avery complicated contract. Theexceedingly complicated arrangementwith Bechtel is not really the subject ofthis NAO report at all. I do not thinkthat, without reference to thosecomplicated contracts and sideagreements, I can take you further thanwhat the NAO report states and what Isay, which is that the bonus scheme wasto ensure that Bechtel got paidsomething for good performance, thebeneficiary of which was the publicsector.

Mr Boyce: Adroddiad byr iawn yw hwn argontract cymhleth iawn. Mewngwirionedd nid y trefniant hynodgymhleth gyda Bechtel yw pwnc yradroddiad hwn gan y Swyddfa ArchwilioGenedlaethol. Ni chredaf, heb gyfeirio aty contractau cymhleth a’r trefniadau ochr,y gallaf ymhelaethu ymhellach na’r hyn anodir yn adroddiad y Swyddfa ArchwilioGenedlaethol a’r hyn a ddywedaf i, sefmai pwrpas y cynllun bonws oedd sicrhaubod Bechtel yn cael rhywfaint o dâl amberfformiad da, y derbyniodd y sectorcyhoeddus fudd ohono.

[41] Janet Davies: I accept that you do nothave the figures and the papers, and thatthis is a quite complex issue. I do notknow whether Mr Shortridge can expandon it at all.

[41] Janet Davies: Derbyniaf nad yw’rffigurau a’r papurau gennych, a bod hwnyn fater eithaf cymhleth. Ni wn a all MrShortridge ymhelaethu arno o gwbl.

Mr Shortridge: No. Only to say that I fullysupport having incentive arrangementslike this in major public contracts.

Mr Shortridge: Na allaf. Dim ond i ddweudfy mod yn llwyr gefnogi cael trefniadaucymhelliad fel hyn mewn contractaucyhoeddus mawr.

[42] Janet Davies: They are fairly usualthese days and I also support them.However, the concern stays with me that£720,000 does not seem as much as youwould normally expect from a contract ofthis size. We must leave it there—

[42] Janet Davies: Maent yn weddolgyffredin y dyddiau hyn ac yr wyf innau’neu cefnogi hefyd. Fodd bynnag, yr wyf yndal i bryderu nad yw £720,000 ynymddangos yn gymaint ag y byddech yn eiddisgwyl o gontract o’r maint hwn. Rhaidinni ei gadael hi yn y fan hon—

43

Mr Boyce: I think that the Assemblywould need to carry out a value formoney study to make some sort ofcalculation as to what the contract mighthave been had Bechtel not been workingon an incentivised management scheme.I am not sure whether that calculationhas been made or whether it can beeasily made. I am picking figures out ofthe air by saying that, having got it towhat we would judge to be no costoverrun, we believe that there wouldcertainly have been a serious costoverrun without it. We have seen thenormal Welsh average on the Brynglastunnels and the Conway tunnel, whichhad cost overruns of 50 to 80 per cent. Ifthat is the experience in the past and wehave not done that, then we must havedone something right in the scheme thatwe had with Bechtel.

Mr Boyce: Credaf y byddai angen i’rCynulliad gynnal astudiaeth gwerth amarian i wneud rhyw fath o gyfrifiad iganfod beth fyddai’r contract wedi bod pena byddai Bechtel wedi bod yn gweithioar gynllun rheoli cymelliadol. Nid wyf ynsiwr a wnaethpwyd y cyfrifiad hwnnwneu a ellir gwneud un yn hawdd. Yr wyfyn dyfalu ffigurau gan ddweud, wedi innilwyddo i gyrraedd sefyllfa lle na fyddaigor-gostau yn ein barn ni, credwn ybyddai gor-gostau difrifol yn sicr hebddo.Yr ydym wedi gweld cyfartaledd arferolCymru ar dwneli Brynglas a thwnelConwy, gyda gor-gostau o rhwng 50 ac 80y cant. Os mai dyna’r profiad yn ygorffennol ac nad ydym wedi gwneudhynny, yna mae’n rhaid ein bod wedigwneud rhywbeth yn iawn yn y cynllun aoedd gennym gyda Bechtel.

[43] Janet Davies: It is certainly a greatrelief that this project is not in that orderof overrun. However, I still think that wemust ensure that we have the bestpossible value. Dafydd Wigley wants toask questions about managing theproject.

[43] Janet Davies: Yn bendant mae’nrhyddhad mawr na fu gor-gostau i’rgraddau hynny yn y prosiect hwn. Foddbynnag, credaf o hyd bod yn rhaid innisicrhau ein bod yn cael y gwerth gorauposibl. Mae Dafydd Wigley eisiau gofyncwestiynau yn am reoli’r prosiect.

[44] Dafydd Wigley: Cyn imi symudymlaen at hynny, hoffwn ddweud fy modyn gwerthfawrogi’r ffaith fod Mr Boycewedi dod yma i’n cynorthwyo heddiw, ernad yw’n gweithio i’w gyn-gyflogwrbellach. Yr ydym fel Pwyllgor yn ystyriedhyn o safbwynt y gwersi y gallwn eudysgu. Mae’r cymorth y gallwch ei roiinni i ddysgu’r gwersi hynny yn allweddol.

[44] Dafydd Wigley: Before I move on tothat, I would like to say that I appreciatethe fact that Mr Boyce has come here toassist us today, even though he no longerworks for his former employer. As aCommittee, we are considering this fromthe point of view of the lessons that wecan learn. The assistance that you cangive to us in learning those lessons iscrucial.

44

Cyn gofyn cwestiynau penodol ynglyn ârheoli, a gaf ymhelaethu ar bwynt awnaethpwyd beth amser yn ôl, pan oeddMr Boyce yn cyfeirio at y manteision a’renillion i Gaerdydd o’r datblygiadauhyn—cannoedd o filiynau o bunnoedd?Byddai’n dipyn o broblem i’r Cynulliad yny dyfodol pe byddai cwestiwn tebyg yncodi eto lle bo angen rhoi tua £200miliwn a fyddai, o bosibl, wedi gallu myndtuag at addysg, iechyd neu unrhyw faesarall y dymunem, i brosiect fel hwn addaw â manteision mawr i ardal benodol,ond nad yw’n dychwelyd y manteisiontrethiannol y cyfeiriodd Mr Boyce atynti’r Cynulliad.

Before asking specific questions relatingto management, may I expand on a pointthat was made some time ago, when MrBoyce referred to the advantages andgains to Cardiff of these developments—hundreds of thousands of pounds? Itwould be quite a problem for theAssembly in future if a similar questionarose again where we needed to giveabout £200 million that could, possibly,have gone towards education, health orany other area that we wished, towards aproject such as this one that brings manyadvantages to a specific area, but doesnot return the taxation benefits, to whichMr Boyce referred, to the Assembly.

Hoffwn ofyn i Jon Shortridge, pan fyddwnyn gorfod asesu yn y dyfodol a ydym amwario symiau aruthrol fel hyn arbrosiectau—nid symiau bach lleol ondsymiau aruthrol sydd yn ystumio’r hollraglen wariant a allai fod gan yCynulliad—sut y gallwn sicrhau y dawmantais yn ôl inni y gellid ei ailgyfeiriowedyn i rannau eraill o Gymru ofuddsoddiad o’r math hwn?

I would like to ask Jon Shortridge, whenwe have to assess in future whether wewill spend huge sums like this onprojects—not small local sums but hugesums that distort the whole expenditureprogramme that the Assembly mayhave—how can we ensure that benefitfrom this kind of investment, which canthen be redirected to other parts ofWales, will return to us?

Mr Shortridge: Whenever we undertake aproject of this nature, there has to be ahard-edged business case that will lookat all the best estimates of all the costsand all the benefits to see whether it willdeliver a reasonable rate of return. Thatis what happened on this occasion. Thatwould certainly continue to happen underthe Assembly, and I think that it wouldbe for you as Members to decide howyou involved yourselves in that.However, I could well imagine that, ifthere were a scheme of this scale, itwould be a matter for the Assembly totake a view on. In taking that view, anydebate would need to be informed by thebusiness case that had been undertakenand made available to Members so that itcould be a collective consideration ofthese wider issues to which you refer.

Mr Shortridge: Pryd bynnag y byddwn ynymgymryd â phrosiect o’r math hwn,mae’n rhaid cael achos busnescystadleuol a fydd yn edrych ar yr hollamcangyfrifon gorau o’r holl gostau a’rholl fanteision i weld a fydd yn cyflwynocyfradd elw resymol. Dyna ddigwyddodd ytro hwn. Byddai hynny’n sicr o barhau odan y Cynulliad, a chredaf mai chi felAelodau a ddylai benderfynu sut i gymrydrhan yn hynny. Fodd bynnag, gallafddychmygu, pe bai cynllun ar y raddfahon, byddai’n fater i’r Cynulliad ffurfiobarn arno. Wrth roi’r farn honno, byddaiangen i unrhyw drafodaeth gael ei goleuogan yr achos busnes a fyddai wedi’ibaratoi ac a fyddai ar gael i Aelodau fel ygallai fod yn ystyriaeth ar y cyd o’rmaterion ehangach hyn y cyfeiriwch atynt.

45

[45] Dafydd Wigley: Mae hynny ynrhywbeth y bydd yn rhaid i ni felCynulliad ei ystyried rywbryd—sut yrydym yn asesu pethau o’r fath. Maegwersi i’w dysgu o hynny.

[45] Dafydd Wigley: That is somethingthat we as an Assembly should considersometime—how we assess such things.There are lessons to be learnt from that.

Trof at reoli’r prosiect. Mae paragraff2.20 adroddiad yr Archwilydd Cyffredinolyn gosod allan rai o’r gwersi ar gyfer ydyfodol sydd i’w dysgu o’r modd y mae’rgorfforaeth wedi rheoli’r prosiect. MrBoyce, beth ydych chi’n ei deimlo yw’rgwersi, a pha rai o’r gwersi hynny yteimlwch y dylai’r Cynulliad dalu’r mwyafo sylw iddynt pe baem yn wynebuprosiect arall o faint a chymhlethdodcyffelyb i’r prosiect hwn?

I turn to the project’s management.Paragraph 2.20 of the Auditor General’sreport sets out some of the lessons forthe future that are to be learned from theway that the corporation has managed theproject. Mr Boyce, what do you feel arethe lessons, and which of those lessonsdo you feel that the Assembly should paymost attention to if we were to faceanother project of similar size andcomplexity to this project?

Mr Boyce: I think that it would probablybe a bit presumptuous of me to give theAssembly lessons. I think that what wefound helpful first of all, although wewriggled and shouted about it, was thecap, which put great pressure on us tolook very closely at every single cost.The fact that a cap was imposed, that itwas very visible, and had a high profile—everybody could trip this cap figure off inall sorts of arenas—was a greatdiscipline. I found that having that capwas a great discipline—it was always inour minds. We always regarded it asunreasonable and could alwaysdemonstrate why it was unreasonable.Nevertheless, its very presence, thestrong political presence that lay behindit, I think helped in the end in the overallmanagement of the project.

Mr Boyce: Credaf y byddai braidd yn hyfimi roi gwersi i’r Cynulliad. Credaf mai’rhyn a gawsom yn ddefnyddiol i ddechrau,er ein bod wedi gwingo a phrotestioynglyn ag ef, oedd y terfyn ariannol, aroddodd bwysau mawr arnom i edrych ynofalus iawn ar bob cost unigol. Yr oedd yffaith fod terfyn wedi’i osod, ei fod ynweladwy iawn, a bod ganddo broffiluchel—gallai pawb ddyfynnu’r ffigurterfyn hwn ym mhob math o feysydd—ynddisgyblaeth wych. Canfyddais fod cael yterfyn hwnnw yn ddisgyblaeth wych—cadwem ef mewn cof bob amser. Yroeddem bob amser yn ystyried ei fod ynafresymol a gallem ddangos pam ei fod ynafresymol o hyd. Er hynny, credaf fod eibresenoldeb ynddo’i hun, y presenoldebgwleidyddol cryf a oedd y tu ôl iddo, wedihelpu yn y pen draw o ran rheolaethgyffredinol y prosiect.

46

A second lesson, and we have rehearsedit already, of course, is to ensure thatthere is, alongside the contract, peoplewho have the public sector’s interest atheart and are not acting as the brokers’men or mediators between one side orthe other, but are beyond peradventureon the side of those who are paying, andthere being no ambiguity about that. Ithink that we were helped by not havinga time imperative. There seems to be agreat obsession, particularly in themedia, about projects being late—well,late for what? Unless there is some veryspecific reason for a project being openon a particular date, I think that peopleshould try to get away from the obsessionthat time is important. What is important,it seems to me, is the value that isderived from the project and the cost ofthe project. Unless there is some specifictime imperative and you pay for that, youshould not start getting worried aboutpeople saying that it is late, because it isnot usually late for anything. It is simply apoint that people want to use as amechanism for being critical perhaps.

Ail wers, ac yr ydym wedi ei hymarfereisoes, wrth gwrs, yw sicrhau y ceir, ochryn ochr â’r contract, bobl sydd yn meddwlam les y sector cyhoeddus ac nad ydyntyn gweithredu fel cyfryngwyr rhwng unochr â’r llall, ond sydd y tu hwnt i bobamheuaeth ar ochr y rhai sydd yn talu, acnad oes unrhyw amwysedd ynglyn âhynny. Credaf y bu i’r ffaith nad oeddgennym derfyn amser ein helpu.Ymddengys bod obsesiwn mawr, ynenwedig yn y cyfryngau, ynglyn âphrosiectau hwyr—wel, hwyr ar gyferbeth? Oni bai bod rheswm penodol iawndros agor prosiect ar ddyddiad penodol,credaf y dylai pobl geisio anghofio’robsesiwn bod amser yn bwysig.Ymddengys i mi mai’r hyn sydd yn bwysigyw’r gwerth a geir o’r prosiect a chost yprosiect. Oni bai bod terfyn amserpenodol a’ch bod yn talu am hynny, niddylech ddechrau poeni ynglyn â phobl yndweud ei fod yn hwyr, oherwydd fel arfernid yw’n hwyr ar gyfer unrhyw beth.Efallai mai dim ond pwynt y mae pobl amei ddefnyddio fel dull o fod yn feirniadolydyw.

Within the organisation, we tried to dealvery closely with the contractors, withthe consultants, with staff, with boardmembers and with the Welsh Office, andthen the Assembly, very much on a teambasis, so there was not a ‘them’ and ‘us’.It was not a question of who is beingsupervised and who is the supplicant. Itwas a question of us all having aresponsibility to deliver this projectprofessionally and with pride, and westrove in all our managementmechanisms to emphasise thateveryone’s role was as important aseveryone else’s in achieving this. Theteam role was so important in doing that.

O fewn y sefydliad, ceisiasom weithio’nagos iawn â’r contractwyr, yrymgynghorwyr, staff, aelodau’r bwrdd a’rSwyddfa Gymreig, ac yna’r Cynulliad, arsail tîm yn bendant, fel nad oedd ‘nhw’ a‘ni’. Nid oedd yn gwestiwn o bwy sydd yncael ei oruchwylio a phwy yw’r deisyfydd.Yr oedd yn ymwneud â’r ffaith fodgennym oll gyfrifoldeb i gyflwyno’rprosiect hwn yn broffesiynol a chydabalchder, ac ymdrechasom yn ein hollddulliau rheoli i bwysleisio bod rôl pawbcyn bwysiced â’i gilydd o ran cyflawnihyn. Yr oedd rôl y tîm mor bwysig wrthwneud hynny.

47

Finally, there is an issue raised in thereport about contingency. It is importantthat there is a realistic contingencyallowance that is allowed to survive withprojects. It is an easy target for savings,which of course may turn out to be falsesavings—they look good on paper, but inreality they do not amount to anything. Inthis case, they actually did amount tosomething. It is not addressed in thereport, but we cut the contingencyallowance when we were reducing the£199 million to £191 million. We did notdo so in a cavalier way or by saying, ‘thisis going to be easy and we can put it allback in afterwards’ because there was avery substantial sum of money within thatcontingency allowance for dealing withenvironmental protestors.

Yn olaf, caiff mater ei godi yn yradroddiad ynglyn â chronfa wrth gefn.Mae’n bwysig cael lwfans realistig wrthgefn y caniateir iddo oroesi gydaphrosiectau. Mae’n darged hawdd argyfer arbedion, a allai wrth gwrs fod ynarbedion ffug yn y diwedd—maent ynedrych yn dda ar bapur, ond mewngwirionedd nid ydynt yn werth dim. Yn yrachos hwn, yr oeddent yn werthrhywbeth. Ni chyfeirir ato yn yradroddiad, ond torrwyd y lwfans wrth gefnpan oeddem yn lleihau’r £199 miliwn i£191 miliwn. Ni wnaethom hyn mewnffordd ddiseremoni na thrwy ddweud,‘mae hyn yn mynd i fod yn hawdd a gallwnei roi i gyd yn ôl wedyn’ oherwydd yroedd swm sylweddol o arian o fewn ylwfans wrth gefn hwnnw ar gyfer ymdrin âphrotestwyr amgylcheddol.

It was a very significant sum of moneybecause, had they known how, or had theenthusiasm, to do so, they could havecaused considerable disruption, whichwould have been exceedingly expensiveto the public. In 1995, we judged thateither they would not be clever enoughor they would not be continuallyenthusiastic enough to cause thatdisruption. Therefore, against the adviceof consultants who have less of an ear tolocal issues on matters such as that, wetook out of the contingency all the sumsof money that had been provided forenvironmental protests and theconsequences of environmental protests.

Yr oedd yn swm sylweddol iawn o arianoherwydd, pe baent yn gwybod sut, neupe bai ganddynt y brwdfrydedd, i wneudhynny, gallent fod wedi amharu’nsylweddol ar bethau, a fyddai wedi bod ynddrud iawn i’r cyhoedd. Yn 1995, yroeddem o’r farn na fyddent yn ddigondeallus neu na fyddent yn ddigonbrwdfrydig yn barhaus i achosi’r amhariadhwnnw. Felly, yn groes i gyngorymgynghorwyr sydd yn llai ymwybodol ofaterion lleol ar bynciau o’r fath, tynasomo’r gronfa wrth gefn bob swm o arian addarparwyd ar gyfer protestiadauamgylcheddol a chanlyniadauprotestiadau amgylcheddol.

Therefore there was a special case forwhy we reduced our contingencyallowance. However, I agree with theNational Audit Office’s conclusion that,in normal circumstances, you would becautious about cutting contingencies as amechanism for making savings. I alsoagree that one of the lessons is to makesure that there is a realistic contingencysum maintained in contracts and that it ispreserved when other pressures arebrought to bear upon it.

Felly yr oedd gennym achos dros leihauein lwfans wrth gefn. Fodd bynnag, yr wyfyn cytuno â chasgliad y Swyddfa ArchwilioGenedlaethol y byddai rhywun, mewnamgylchiadau arferol, yn bryderus ynglynâ thorri cronfeydd wrth gefn fel dull owneud arbedion. Yr wyf hefyd yn cytunomai un o’r gwersi yw sicrhau bod swmrealistig wrth gefn yn cael ei gynnalmewn contractau ac y caiff hwn ei gadwpan roddir pwysau eraill arno.

48

[46] Dafydd Wigley: Diolch am yr atebcynhwysfawr hwnnw. Hoffwn roi sylwadaucyn symud ymlaen at gwestiwn i JonShortridge. Os oes manteision yn dod obrosiect, fel y dywedodd Mr Boyce arddechrau’r sesiwn hwn, o gannoedd ofiliynau o bunnoedd, cymeraf fod mantaiso gael y manteision hynny drwodd yngynharach yn hytrach nag yn hwyrach.Felly, mae rhyw ystyriaeth o amserlen osyw rhywun yn teimlo bod y prosiect ynwerth ei wneud. Felly, cymeraf fod ynrhaid chwilio am gydbwysedd rhwng caely manteision hynny yn gynt a’r gost, syddyn ychwanegol weithiau, o gadw atamserlen rhy gaeth. Credaf efallai fodgwersi i ni fel Cynulliad yno.

[46] Dafydd Wigley: Thank you for thatcomprehensive answer. I would like tomake comments before moving on to aquestion to Jon Shortridge. If advantagescome from a project, as Mr Boyce said atthe beginning of this session, ofhundreds of millions of pounds, I assumethat there is an advantage from gettingthose advantages through earlier ratherthan later. Therefore, there is someconsideration of timetable if one feelsthat the project is worth doing.Therefore, I assume that a balance mustbe found between having thoseadvantages more quickly and the cost,which is sometimes additional, ofkeeping to a timetable that is too rigid. Ibelieve that there are lessons for us asan Assembly there.

Trof at Jon Shortridge. O safbwynt yCynulliad ac o’ch safbwynt chi agweinyddiaeth y Cynulliad, beth yr ydychchi’n eu gweld fel y gwersi sydd wedi eudysgu o’r prosiect?

I turn to Jon Shortridge. As far as theAssembly is concerned and as far as youand the Assembly’s administration isconcerned, what do you see as thelessons that have been learned from theproject?

49

Mr Shortridge: In terms of the detailedlessons, I do not think that I have muchthat I would want to add to what Michaelhas just said and to what I said earlier. Ithink that perhaps, standing back from it,the lesson for the Assembly is that this isa project that it has inherited fromGovernment and it has a responsibility toensure that it is completed assatisfactorily as it can be and in the mostcost-effective way. That means that aparticular responsibility is placed on me,certainly, and on the Assembly moregenerally, to ensure that at this criticalstage when we are going through atransition with the completion of theworks, and the management of the bayand the barrage itself having beentransferred to the council, there is noloss of vigilance and that we havesystems in place to ensure that theproject is not only completed butmanaged satisfactorily thereafter. Upuntil now, I have been able to depend onMichael, as accounting officer, toexercise all those responsibilities. Weare in a period of change now and,therefore—and this is no reflection onCardiff City and County Council—theremust be additional risk until you get thenew systems properly bedded down andtested. That, I think, is the main lessonfor us as an Assembly in the presentcircumstances.

Mr Shortridge: Yn nhermau’r gwersimanwl, nid wyf yn credu bod gennyf laweri’w ychwanegu at yr hyn a ddywedoddMichael ac at yr hyn a ddywedais yngynharach. Credaf efallai, o sefyll yn ôl,mai’r wers ar gyfer y Cynulliad yw bodhwn yn brosiect a etifeddwyd gan yLlywodraeth a bod ganddo gyfrifoldeb isicrhau y caiff ei gwblhau mor foddhaol âphosibl ac yn y ffordd fwyaf cost effeithiol.Mae hynny’n golygu bod cyfrifoldebpenodol arnaf i, yn bendant, ac ar yCynulliad yn fwy cyffredinol, i sicrhau ynystod y cam hanfodol hwn wrth inni fynddrwy gyfnod trosiannol gyda chwblhau’rgwaith, a rheoli’r bae a’r morglawdd eihun wedi’i drosglwyddo i’r cyngor, nachollir unrhyw wyliadwrusrwydd a bodgennym systemau mewn grym i sicrhaunid yn unig y caiff y prosiect ei gwblhauond y caiff ei reoli’n foddhaol o hynnyymlaen. Hyd yn hyn, yr wyf wedi galludibynnu ar Michael, fel swyddog cyfrifo, igynnal yr holl gyfrifoldebau hynny. Yrydym mewn cyfnod o newid yn awr ac,felly—ac nid yw hyn yn adlewyrchiad ogwbl ar Gyngor Dinas a Sir Caerdydd—mae’n rhaid bod risg ychwanegol nes ichisefydlu a phrofi’r systemau newydd ynbriodol. Yn fy marn i, dyna yw’r brif wersi ni fel Cynulliad yn yr amgylchiadaupresennol.

[47] Dafydd Wigley: Yr oeddech yncyfeirio at y ffaith ein bod ni wedietifeddu’r prosiect hwn ganLywodraeth—wrth gwrs, o hyn allan, niyw’r Llywodraeth. Pe baem yn mynd atio’r newydd ar brosiect o’r math hwn, afyddech yn dilyn yn union yr un patrwmâ’r hyn a welsom yma?

[47] Dafydd Wigley: You referred to thefact that we have inherited this projectfrom Government—of course, from nowon, we are the Government. If we wereto start on this sort of project again,would you follow exactly the samepattern as that which we have seen here?

50

Mr Shortridge: Yes, I would. I think thatthis would be a project that would requireanother agency apart from the Assemblyto manage and operate it. It would be adecision for the Assembly whether thatwould actually be a sponsored body orthe local authority. However, this wouldbe a project that we, as the Assembly,would be funding, and we would need tomake sure that there were properarrangements in place to control themanagement of the project. Thearrangements that we have discussedthis morning, which Michael Boyce andhis predecessors put in place forcontrolling the management of theproject, have largely proved successfuland I would not want to change them.

Mr Shortridge: Byddwn. Credaf y byddaihwn yn brosiect a fyddai angenasiantaeth arall ar wahân i’r Cynulliad i’wreoli a’i weithredu. Penderfyniad yCynulliad fyddai pa un ai corff a noddirneu awdurdod lleol fyddai hynny. Foddbynnag, byddai hwn yn brosiect y byddemni, fel y Cynulliad, yn ei ariannu, a byddaiangen inni sicrhau bod trefniadau cywir arwaith i reoli’r prosiect hwn. Bu’rtrefniadau a drafodwyd y bore yma, asefydlwyd gan Michael Boyce a’iragflaenwyr ar gyfer rheoli’r prosiecthwn, yn llwyddiannus ar y cyfan ac nifyddwn am eu newid.

[48] Janet Davies: I turn to the issue ofbringing the barrage into operation andthe succession arrangements that wereput in place for Cardiff Bay following thewind-up of Cardiff Bay DevelopmentCorporation. Paragraph 3.11 of theAuditor General’s report states thatCBDC planned to contract out themanagement arrangements. How didCBDC envisage this working inpractice?

[48] Janet Davies: Trof at fater rhoi’rmorglawdd ar waith a’r trefniadau olynola sefydlwyd ar gyfer Bae Caerdydd yndilyn diddymu Corfforaeth Datblygu BaeCaerdydd. Noda paragraff 3.11 adroddiadyr Archwilydd Cyffredinol bod CDBC ynbwriadu contractio’r trefniadau rheoli.Sut oedd CDBC yn rhagweld hyn yngweithio’n ymarferol?

51

Mr Boyce: As a straightforward facilitiescontract. We recognised and judged thatCBDC had no experience in running abarrage and that there were no resourcesavailable to Cardiff Bay DevelopmentCorporation to run and manage abarrage, and that perhaps it would takethree to five years of operationalexperience to have some understandingof the issues involved in such anexercise. Therefore, our judgment wasthat we should go to the marketplace andfind an operator to be employed byCBDC. There were some misleadingreports in the paper about handing itover to the private sector. In fact, it wasbeing managed by the public sector by itemploying those who had experience inmanaging water areas around the world.We followed the normal practice ofadvertising in the Official Journal of theEuropean Communities for people whowould offer their expertise in managingand operating the barrage for an initialthree to five year period, which wouldgive the public sector some experienceupon which to make a long-termjudgment as to the right way toundertake this. As the reportdemonstrates, we carried out thatexercise and selected an organisationthat we thought would perform thatfunction in a value for money and efficientway on behalf of the public sector.

Mr Boyce: Fel contract cyfleusterau syml.Yr oeddem yn sylweddoli ac yn barnu nadoedd gan CDBC unrhyw brofiad oweithredu morglawdd ac nad oeddadnoddau ar gael i Gorfforaeth DatblyguBae Caerdydd i weithredu a rheolimorglawdd, ac y byddai efallai’n cymrydtair i bum mlynedd o brofiad gweithredoli gael rhywfaint o ddealltwriaeth o’rmaterion sydd yn ymwneud ag ymarfero’r fath. Felly, ein barn oedd y dylem fyndi’r farchnad a chanfod gweithredydd i’rGorfforaeth ei gyflogi. Yr oedd rhaiadroddiadau camarweiniol yn y papurynglyn â’i drosglwyddo i’r sector preifat.Yn wir, yr oedd yn cael ei reoli gan ysector cyhoeddus gan ei fod yn cyflogirhai oedd â phrofiad mewn rheoliardaloedd dwr ledled y byd. Dilynwyd yrarfer cyffredin o hysbysebu yngNghylchgrawn Swyddogol y CymunedauEwropeaidd ar gyfer pobl a fyddai’ncynnig eu harbenigedd o ran rheoli agweithredu’r morglawdd ar gyfer cyfnodcychwynnol o dair i bum mlynedd, afyddai’n rhoi rhywfaint o brofiad i’r sectorcyhoeddus ar roi barn hir dymor ar yffordd gywir i ymdrin â hyn. Fel y dengysyr adroddiad, cynhaliwyd yr ymarferhwnnw a dewiswyd sefydliad y credem ybyddai’n cyflawni’r swyddogaeth honno arran y sector cyhoeddus mewn moddeffeithlon gwerth am arian ac effeithlon.

[49] Janet Davies: Therefore, the mainfactor was that Thames Water had thisworldwide experience?

[49] Janet Davies: Felly, y prif ffactor oeddbod gan Thames Water brofiad byd-eang?

52

Mr Boyce: Yes. We advertised for anyonein Europe to come forward withproposals, and Thames Water’s was thebest proposal in terms of cost,experience and value to the publicsector. I suppose that we will get therebut there was no question of that being incompetition with any other public sectoragency, because at the time when weadvertised in Europe and when we cameforward with our preferred bidder, noother public sector organisation was inthe frame. We had to leave the barragemanaged and operated and we had toensure that that would be done efficientlyand effectively. In September 1999, theonly way that we could guarantee andensure that for the benefit of the publicsector was to leave a binding contractwith a private firm to do it, whichCBDC’s successor would inherit.

Mr Boyce: Ie. Rhoddasom hysbyseb yngwahodd unrhyw un yn Ewrop i gyflwynocynigion, a chynnig Thames Water oeddyr un gorau yn nhermau cost, profiad agwerth i’r sector cyhoeddus. Mae’ndebyg y cyrhaeddwn y fan honno ond nidoedd unrhyw gwestiwn y byddai hynnymewn cystadleuaeth ag unrhywasiantaeth sector cyhoeddus arall,oherwydd ar yr adeg yr oeddem ynhysbysebu yn Ewrop a phanbenderfynasom pa gynigiwr i’w ddewis,nid oedd unrhyw sefydliad sectorcyhoeddus arall yn agos ati. Yr oedd ynrhaid inni adael y morglawdd yn cael eireoli a’i weithredu ac yr oedd yn rhaidinni sicrhau y byddai hynny’n cael eiwneud yn effeithlon ac yn effeithiol. Ymmis Medi 1999, yr unig ffordd y gallemwarantu a sicrhau hynny er budd y sectorcyhoeddus oedd gadael contractymrwymol i gwmni preifat wneud hynny, ybyddai olynydd CDBC yn ei etifeddu.

[50] Janet Davies: Mr Shortridge, givenCBDC’s view on this matter, what wasthe basis of the First Secretary’s decisionnot to proceed with the Thames Wateroption?

[50] Janet Davies: Mr Shortridge, o wybodbarn CDBC ar y mater hwn, beth oeddsail penderfyniad y Prif Ysgrifennydd ibeidio â pharhau ag opsiwn ThamesWater?

53

Mr Shortridge: This must be understood inthe context of discussions that weretaking place at the time about who wouldacquire the responsibility for operatingthe barrage. During those discussions, itbecame clear that Cardiff City andCounty Council was interested inmanaging the barrage itself, which, whileit had been discussed in the past, had notcrystallised in those terms. Therefore, itbecame clear that it was interested intaking over this responsibility and, inaddition, it said that it would be able, inits view, to do it at a substantially lowerprice. In those circumstances one needsto test that position carefully, particularlyas the council said that it would be ableto incur savings of £1 million a year.Intensive discussions took place with thecouncil to see to what extent we could besatisfied that it could deliver on all ofthat. In the end, as you know, we weresatisfied. So the £1 million saving playedan important part.

Mr Shortridge: Rhaid deall hyn o fewn cyd-destun trafodaethau a oedd yn cael eucynnal ar y pryd ynglyn â phwy fyddai’ncael y cyfrifoldeb o weithredu’rmorglawdd. Yn ystod y trafodaethauhynny, daeth yn glir bod gan GyngorDinas a Sir Caerdydd ddiddordeb mewnrheoli’r morglawdd ei hun, ac er iddogael ei drafod yn y gorffennol, nid oeddwedi’i grisialu yn y termau hynny. Felly,daeth yn glir bod ganddo ddiddordebmewn cymryd y cyfrifoldeb hwn ac, ynogystal, dywedodd y byddai’n gallu, yn eifarn ef, ei wneud am bris sylweddol is. Ynyr amgylchiadau hynny mae angen iberson brofi’r sefyllfa’n ofalus, ynenwedig gan fod y cyngor wedi dweud ybyddai’n gallu gwneud arbedion o £1miliwn y flwyddyn. Cynhaliwydtrafodaethau dwys gyda’r cyngor i weld iba raddau y gallem fod yn fodlon y gallaigyflawni hynny i gyd. Yn y diwedd, fel ygwyddoch, yr oeddem yn fodlon. Fellychwaraeodd yr arbediad o £1 miliwn ranbwysig.

The other thing that was happening atthe same time was the issue of whether itwould be feasible to move to freshwaterimpoundment by April 2000. The viewthat we came to—for a range ofreasons—was that it would be very highrisk to assume, around November lastyear, that it would be possible to doeverything that needed to be done byway of dredging and having assurancesabout the operation of the barrage infreshwater conditions. So that, in turn,meant that there was no need to move tothe full operation of the barrage in thetimescale envisaged in the prospectiveThames Water contract.

Y peth arall oedd yn digwydd yr un prydoedd y mater yn ymwneud â ph’un afyddai’n ymarferol symud i gronni dwrcroyw erbyn mis Ebrill 2000. Daethom i’rfarn—am nifer o resymau—y byddai’nrisg uchel iawn tybio, tua mis Tachwedd yllynedd, y byddai’n bosibl gwneud popethoedd yn rhaid ei wneud drwy garthu achael sicrwydd am weithrediad ymorglawdd mewn amodau dwr croyw.Felly, yn ei dro, yr oedd hynny’n golygunad oedd angen symud i weithredu’rmorglawdd yn llawn yn yr amser aragwelwyd yng nghontract arfaethedigThames Water.

So for those two related reasons, it cameback to the conclusion that it would bebest to go with the Cardiff councilproposal.

Felly am y ddau reswm cysylltiedighwnnw, daeth yn ôl i’r casgliad y byddai’nwell derbyn cynnig cyngor Caerdydd.

54

[51] Janet Davies: So you felt satisfied thatthat represented value for money. Couldyou tell me how you will ensure that thearrangements that have been put intoplace with the council will continue torepresent value for money in the future?

[51] Janet Davies: Felly yr oeddech ynteimlo’n fodlon bod hynny’n cynrychioligwerth am arian. A allech chi ddweudwrthyf sut y byddwch yn sicrhau bod ytrefniadau a roddwyd ar waith gyda’rcyngor yn parhau i gynrychioli gwerth amarian yn y dyfodol?

Mr Shortridge: I can answer that in generalterms. If you want greater detail, I willbring in Steven Phillips. The main way inwhich we will ensure value for money inthe short term is by the fundingagreement, which we are in the processof putting in place. This will set out, veryclearly, the relevant responsibilities ofthe local authority and of the Assembly inensuring that the operation of thebarrage and the bay is managed to besteffect. That is the most immediateinstrument that we will be using.

Mr Shortridge: Gallaf ateb hynny mewntermau cyffredinol. Os hoffech fwy ofanylion, gofynnaf i Steven Phillipsgyfrannu. Y brif ffordd y byddwn ynsicrhau gwerth am arian yn y tymor byryw drwy’r trefniant ariannu, yr ydym yn ybroses o’i sefydlu. Bydd hwn yn nodi, ynglir iawn, gyfrifoldebau perthnasol yrawdurdod lleol a’r Cynulliad o ran sicrhauy caiff gweithrediad y morglawdd a’r baeei reoli yn y modd gorau. Hwn yw’rofferyn mwyaf uniongyrchol y byddwn ynei ddefnyddio.

In the longer term we will want to ensurethat there is proper, but constructive,pressure placed on the council and theHarbour Authority, in terms of gettingcontinuing value for money. Thearrangements that we are putting in placeare for five years in the first instance, sothere would be the opportunity, if theAssembly had any doubt about thismatter, for the market to be tested aftera five-year period. The agreement alsoallows for either party to serve oneyear’s notice of wanting to depart fromthe existing arrangements. So, again, ifthe Assembly in the much shorter termwas not satisfied that the arrangementswere giving value for money, thatopportunity exists to seek an alternativeway forward.

Yn y tymor hwy byddwn am sicrhau y caiffpwysau gwirioneddol, ond adeiladol, eiroi ar y cyngor ac Awdurdod yr Harbwr,yn nhermau cael gwerth am arianparhaus. Mae’r trefniadau yr ydym yn eurhoi ar waith am gyfnod o bum mlyneddyn y lle cyntaf, felly byddai cyfle, pe baigan y Cynulliad unrhyw amheuaeth am ymater hwn, i brofi’r farchnad ar ôl cyfnodo bum mlynedd. Mae’r trefniant hefyd yncaniatáu i’r naill barti neu’r llall roiblwyddyn o rybudd o’u dymuniad i ddodâ’r trefniadau presennol i ben. Felly, eto,os nad oedd y Cynulliad yn y tymor llawerbyrrach yn fodlon bod y trefniadau yn rhoigwerth am arian, mae’r cyfle hwnnw’nbodoli i chwilio am ffordd amgen ymlaen.

[52] Janet Davies: So the one-year noticeis for as far as can be foreseen atpresent?

[52] Janet Davies: Felly mae’r rhybuddblwyddyn ar gyfer cyhyd ag y gellir eiragweld ar hyn o bryd?

Mr Shortridge: It is a five-year agreementthat can be terminated at one year’snotice, yes.

Mr Shortridge: Mae’n gytundeb pummlynedd y gellir ei ddwyn i ben gydarhybudd o flwyddyn, ydyw.

55

[53] Janet Davies: What is the situationafter the five years?

[53] Janet Davies: Beth yw’r sefyllfa ar ôlpum mlynedd?

Mr Shortridge: I think that everyone’sexpectation is that this is a rolling five-year contract but, nevertheless, the factthat there is this break clause at fiveyears means that there is an opportunityfor the position to be reviewed.

Mr Shortridge: Credaf fod pawb yn disgwylbod hwn yn gontract treigl pum mlyneddond, serch hynny, mae’r ffaith y ceircymal toriad ar ôl pum mlynedd yn golygubod cyfle i arolygu’r sefyllfa.

[54] Janet Davies: Thank you. It was notclear whether it was just one five-yearperiod, or whether it was ongoing.Geraint would like to ask about bringingthe barrage into service.

[54] Janet Davies: Diolch. Nid oedd yn glirai dim ond ar gyfer un cyfnod pummlynedd yr oedd hynny, neu a oedd ynbarhaol. Hoffai Geraint ofyn cwestiwnynglyn â rhoi’r morglawdd ar waith.

[55] Geraint Davies: I would like to goback to the position with regard toThames Water. Do you envisage possiblecompensation claims from Thames Watergiven the way in which it has been dealtwith in this unusual procedure as regardscontracts?

[55] Geraint Davies: Hoffwn fynd yn ôl i’rsefyllfa yn ymwneud â Thames Water. Aydych yn rhagweld ceisiadau posibl amiawndal gan Thames Water o weld yffordd yr ymdriniwyd ag ef yn yweithdrefn anarferol hon yn ymwneud âchontractau?

Mr Shortridge: No. Mr Shortridge: Nac ydw.

[56] Geraint Davies: You do not envisagethat at all. We were talking about timeearlier on, and about time not making adifference, but I think, in this instance,that it has made a difference. In generalterms, what was the corporation’sassessment of the implications of movingthe target date for freshwaterimpoundment to March 2001?

[56] Geraint Davies: Nid ydych ynrhagweld hynny o gwbl. Yr oeddem yntrafod amser yn gynharach, a’r ffaith nadyw amser yn gwneud gwahaniaeth, ondcredaf, yn yr achos hwn, ei fod wedigwneud gwahaniaeth. Yn gyffredinol, bethoedd asesiad CDBC o oblygiadau symudy dyddiad targed ar gyfer cronni dwrcroyw i fis Mawrth 2001?

Mr Shortridge: The corporation wascertainly disappointed. There are no twoways about that. It remained hopeful thatit would be possible to achievefreshwater impoundment by April 2000. Ithink that there was just a difference ofview on that. However, Mr Boyce maywant to comment further.

Mr Shortridge: Yr oedd y gorfforaeth ynsicr yn siomedig. Does dim dwywaith amhynny. Yr oedd yn dal yn obeithiol ybyddai’n bosibl cyflawni cronni dwr croywerbyn mis Ebrill 2000. Credaf fodgwahaniaeth barn ynglyn â hynny. Foddbynnag, efallai y bydd Mr Boyce am roisylwadau pellach.

56

Mr Boyce: Yes. The corporation remainedsatisfied right up until the decision wasmade at, I think, the beginning ofDecember that the freshwaterimpoundment should be delayed. Thecorporation remained satisfied that itcould have achieved it by the spring ofthis year. In fact, the corporation waswound up on 31 March 2000 stillbelieving that had it been allowed to doso, we would have already achievedfreshwater impoundment by now. That isa view well known to the NationalAssembly for Wales.

Mr Boyce: Ydw. Parhaodd y gorfforaeth ynfodlon hyd at yr adeg y gwnaethpwyd ypenderfyniad ddechrau mis Rhagfyr, fegredaf, y dylid oedi cyn cronni dwr croyw.Parhaodd y gorfforaeth yn fodlon y gallaigyflawni hyn erbyn tymor y gwanwyneleni. Mewn gwirionedd, diddymwyd ygorfforaeth ar 31 Mawrth 2000 gan ddal igredu pe bai wedi cael caniatâd i wneudhynny, y byddem wedi cyflawni cronni dwrcroyw erbyn hyn. Mae hon yn farn syddyn hysbys iawn i Gynulliad CenedlaetholCymru.

[57] Geraint Davies: It is said that theCardiff deal would save £3 million butyou have incurred costs of £1.1 million bydelaying impoundment. Is that £3 millionthe net saving or is it reduced by £1.1million because of the costs involved indelaying the freshwater impoundment?

[57] Geraint Davies: Dywedwyd y byddai’rfargen â Chaerdydd yn arbed £3 miliwnond yr ydych wedi creu costau o £1.1miliwn drwy oedi cyn cronni. Ai arbediadnet yw’r £3 miliwn hwnnw neu a gaiff eileihau £1.1 miliwn oherwydd y costausydd yn ymwneud ag oedi’r broses ogronni dwr croyw?

Mr Shortridge: I am not quite sure towhich £1.1 million you refer. There arecosts associated with protecting thebarrage as it continues to operate on atidal basis. Therefore, that is an estimateof the cost. There are certainly additionalcosts involved, which in the widerscheme of things, need to be netted offthe £1 million a year. However, therewere other factors which concerned me.To move to a freshwater impoundment,the bay needed to be dredged. Dredgingcosts are very substantial; they could beof the order of £5 million or so. Dredgingthe bay at really quite short notice mightwell have required 24-hour operation,which would have been a particularlyexpensive way of doing it.

Mr Shortridge: Nid wyf yn siwr iawn at ba£1.1 miliwn yr ydych yn cyfeirio. Mae ynagostau sydd yn gysylltiedig â diogelu’rmorglawdd wrth iddo barhau i weithreduar sail llanw a thrai. Felly, mae hynny’namcangyfrif o’r gost. Yn sicr, mae costauychwanegol yn gysylltiedig, ac o ran ycynllun ehangach, mae angen eu tynnuoddi ar y £1 miliwn y flwyddyn. Foddbynnag, yr oedd ffactorau eraill a oedd ynachos pryder i mi. Er mwyn symud atgronni dwr croyw, yr oedd angen carthu’rbae. Mae costau carthu yn sylweddoliawn; gallent fod tua £5 miliwn. Gallaicarthu’r bae ar fyr rybudd fod wedi gofynam weithrediad 24 awr, a fyddai wedi bodyn ffordd arbennig o ddrud o’i wneud.

57

If the material were to be piped out intothe estuary, a licence would have beenneeded from the Department of theEnvironment, Transport and theRegions. That was not in place at thetime. If we had gone ahead with thedredging, and for whatever reason it hadnot been possible to have freshwaterimpoundment in April, bearing in mindthat there were still concerns about theautomated operation of the barrage, andthe bay was being flushed through thesummer, to some extent—and I do notknow how significantly, but potentially toa significant extent—the material thathad been dredged out of the bay in theearly part of the year could have beenflowing back in during the summer.

Pe bai’r deunydd yn cael ei bibellu allani’r moryd, byddai angen trwydded ganAdran yr Amgylchedd, Trafnidiaeth a’rRhanbarthau. Nid oedd hynny mewngrym ar y pryd. Pe baem wedi parhau â’rcarthu, ac am ba reswm bynnag na fyddaiwedi bod yn bosibl cronni dwr croyw ymmis Ebrill, o ystyried bod rhai pryderon ohyd ynglyn â gweithrediad awtomataidd ymorglawdd, a bod y bae yn cael ei lifolchidrwy’r haf, i ryw raddau—ac ni wn pa morsylweddol, ond o bosibl i raddausylweddol—gallai’r deunydd a garthwydallan o’r bae yn rhan gynnar yn y flwyddynfod wedi bod yn llifo’n ôl yn ystod yr haf.

I took the view as Accounting Officerthat that was a significant risk thatneeded to be taken into account indeciding whether it was really essentialto go for freshwater impoundment inApril of this year, bearing in mind whathas already been said about the relativeimportance of completing things by aparticular time on the one hand, andseeking to manage risk and minimisecost on the other. The view I took asAccounting Officer was that the nature ofthe risks and the potential nugatory costsinvolved in the dredging were such thatit was best to delay the freshwaterimpoundment, bearing in mind that therewould be some additional costs involvedin protecting the structure and so on.

Cymerais y farn fel Swyddog Cyfrifo bodhynny’n risg sylweddol yr oedd angen eihystyried wrth benderfynu a oedd ynhollol hanfodol cronni dwr croyw ym misEbrill eleni, o ystyried yr hyn addywedwyd eisoes am bwysigrwyddperthynol cwblhau pethau erbyn amserpenodol ar y naill law, a cheisio rheolirisg a lleihau’r gost i’r eithaf ar y llawarall. Y farn a gymerais fel SwyddogCyfrifo oedd bod natur y risgiau a’rcostau pitw posibl a oedd yn ymwneud â’rcarthu yn golygu y byddai’n well oedi cyncronni’r dwr croyw, o ystyried y byddairhai costau ychwanegol yn gysylltiedig âdiogelu’r strwythur ac ati.**

[58] Geraint Davies: Do we know howmuch those are yet? What are the latestfigures and are they likely to increase?

[58] Geraint Davies: A wyddom faint yw’rrheini eto? Beth yw’r ffigurau diweddarafac a ydynt yn debygol o gynyddu?

Mr Shortridge: I do not have a particularfigure. Steven Phillips may be able tohelp you with that.

Mr Shortridge: Nid oes gennyf ffigurpenodol. Efallai y gall Steven Phillips eichhelpu â hynny.

58

Mr Phillips: Essentially, the £3 millionsaving that was identified in thecomparison between the Thames Watercontract and the alternativearrangements for Cardiff City and CountyCouncil, included factors that they werenet—to borrow your phrase. Theyincluded factors that we played into theequation as a consequence of the delay tofreshwater impoundment. That isbasically the position. There are othercosts that may arise, which are knownabout but cannot be quantified at themoment or are unknown, but would haveessentially arisen anyway.

Mr Phillips: Yn ei hanfod, yr oedd y £3miliwn o arbedion a nodwyd yn ygymhariaeth rhwng contract ThamesWater a’r trefniadau amgen ar gyferCyngor Dinas a Sir Caerdydd, yn cynnwysffactorau eu bod yn net—i ddefnyddioeich geiriau chi. Yr oeddent yn cynnwysffactorau a dynnwyd i mewn i’r mater oganlyniad i oedi o ran cronni’r dwr croyw.Dyna’r sefyllfa yn y bôn. Mae costaueraill a allai godi, sydd yn hysbys ond naellir eu meintioli ar hyn o bryd neu nadydynt yn hysbys, ond a fyddai wedi codibeth bynnag.

[59] Geraint Davies: Paragraph 3.19 refersto concerns about safety. Could youelaborate on safety as regards this issue?What is being done to address thesesafety concerns?

[59] Geraint Davies: Mae paragraff 3.19 yncyfeirio at bryderon ynglyn â diogelwch.A allwch chi ymhelaethu ar ddiogelwch oran y mater hwn? Beth sydd yn cael eiwneud i ymdrin â’r pryderon diogelwchhyn?

Mr Shortridge: I will answer in generalterms and then hand over for specifics. Iwas particularly concerned about thesafety aspects. Those of you who havestood on the barrage when it is beingflushed will have seen the strength of thecurrents running through the lock gates.I think that it is definitely in the publicinterest that the barrage is completedand the freshwater lake created asquickly as possible. That is a concernshared by everyone involved and theHealth and Safety Executive was closelyinvolved in the detailed discussions thattook place around the transfer of themanagement of the bay in its presentstate to Cardiff council. If you want moredetail on precisely how the safety issue isbeing managed, I would have to hand youover to Michael Boyce or to StevenPhillips.

Mr Shortridge: Fe atebaf yn gyffredinol acyna trosglwyddo i eraill ar gyfer ymanylion. Yr oeddwn yn pryderu’narbennig am yr agweddau diogelwch.Bydd y rhai ohonoch sydd wedi sefyll ar ymorglawdd pan mae’n cael ei lifolchi wedigweld cryfder y llif sydd yn rhedeg drwygatiau’r loc. Credaf ei bod yn sicr o fuddi’r cyhoedd bod y morglawdd yn cael eigwblhau a bod y llyn dwr croyw yn cael eigreu cyn gynted â phosibl. Mae hwn ynbryder a gaiff ei rannu gan bawb sydd yngysylltiedig ac yr oedd yr AwdurdodGweithredol Iechyd a Diogelwch ynymwneud yn agos iawn â’r trafodaethaumanwl a gynhaliwyd ynghylchtrosglwyddo rheolaeth y bae yn ei gyflwrpresennol i gyngor Caerdydd. Os ydycham gael mwy o fanylion ar sut yn union ycaiff y mater diogelwch ei reoli, bydd ynrhaid i mi eich trosglwyddo i MichaelBoyce neu Steven Phillips.

[60] Geraint Davies: Mr Boyce? [60] Geraint Davies: Mr Boyce?

Mr Boyce: I do not know how it is beingmanaged.

Mr Boyce: Ni wn sut y mae’n cael ei reoli.

59

Mr Phillips: As the Permanent Secretaryhas said, health and safety was at thistime, and continues to be, a majorpriority. Since they acquiredresponsibility for the management of thebay, Cardiff council and the HarbourAuthority have conducted studies onvarious aspects, including thosementioned by Jon Shortridge. That isbuilt into the management regime for theHarbour Authority. There are otheraspects to this. I mentioned the healthaspects in addition to the safety ones.They will continue to be a high priority.

Mr Phillips: Fel y dywedodd yrYsgrifennydd Parhaol, yr oedd iechyd adiogelwch ar y pryd yn brif flaenoriaeth,ac mae’n parhau felly. Ers iddynt gaelcyfrifoldeb dros reoli’r bae, mae cyngorCaerdydd ac Awdurdod yr Harbwr wedicynnal astudiaethau ar amrywiolymagweddau, gan gynnwys y rhai anodwyd gan Jon Shortridge. Caiff hynnyei gynnwys yn rhan o’r drefn reoli argyfer Awdurdod yr Harbwr. Maeagweddau eraill ar hyn. Soniais am ymaterion iechyd yn ogystal â’r materiondiogelwch. Byddant yn parhau i fod ynflaenoriaeth uchel.

[61] Geraint Davies: So there is the waterquality aspect as well?

[61] Geraint Davies: Felly mae agweddsydd yn ymwneud ag ansawdd y dwrhefyd?

Mr Phillips: Yes, the water quality regimealso has health and safety aspects interms of removing algae, litter andanimal infestation and so on. That is allpart of the equation.

Mr Phillips: Oes, mae gan y systemansawdd dwr agweddau ar iechyd adiogelwch yn nhermau cael gwared aralgâu, sbwriel a phla anifeiliaid ac ati.Mae hyn i gyd yn rhan o’r darlun cyfan.

[62] Geraint Davies: How confident areyou that you will achieve freshwaterimpoundment by March 2001?

[62] Geraint Davies: Pa mor hyderus ydychchi y gallwch gronni dwr croyw erbyn misMawrth 2001?

60

Mr Shortridge: As I understand it,everything is currently on target, so myexpectation remains that we will havefreshwater impoundment by April 2001.Clearly, there are some continuinguncertainties. The Harbour Authority—the council—has gone out to tender bothon the oxygenation arrangements and onthe dredging. Those tenders are due inlater this month. Provided that nothingunexpected emerges from that, thatmeans that that aspect of it should all betaken care of. My understanding also isthat there is still work being done onaspects of the operation of the barrage.However, I would certainly hope that anyresidual problems with that could beresolved in the time available. I do notthink that anyone, in the presentcircumstances, could give an absoluteassurance on all these matters at thisstage.

Mr Shortridge: Yr wyf ar ddeall fod popethar y trywydd iawn ar hyn o bryd, felly yrwyf yn dal i ddisgwyl y byddwn wedicronni’r dwr croyw erbyn mis Ebrill 2001.Yn amlwg, mae rhai ffactorau ansicr ynparhau. Mae Awdurdod yr Harbwr—ycyngor—wedi cyflwyno’r trefniadauocsigenu a’r carthu i dendr. Disgwylirderbyn y tendrau hynny yn ddiweddarachy mis hwn. A bwrw na fydd unrhyw bethannisgwyl yn codi o hynny, mae hyn yngolygu y dylai’r agwedd honno fod danreolaeth. Yr wyf hefyd ar ddeall bodgwaith yn dal i gael ei wneud ar agweddauar weithrediad y morglawdd. Foddbynnag, yr wyf yn mawr obeithio y gellirdatrys unrhyw broblemau sydd yn weddillynglyn â hynny o fewn yr amser sydd argael. Ni chredaf y gallai unrhyw un, yn yramgylchiadau presennol, roi sicrwyddpendant ar bob un o’r materion hyn ar yradeg hon.

[63] Geraint Davies: Are there costimplications if you fail to meet thattarget?

[63] Geraint Davies: A oes goblygiadau oran cost os byddwch yn methu â chwrddâ’r targed hwnnw?

Mr Shortridge: No more than the nature ofthe cost implications that we have had tomanage over the course of this financialyear. As I say, I think that it is mostunlikely that we would be in a position tocontemplate that.

Mr Shortridge: Dim mwy na natur ygoblygiadau o ran cost y bu’n rhaid eurheoli yn ystod y flwyddyn ariannol hon.Fel y dywedais, credaf ei bod ynannhebygol iawn y byddwn mewn sefyllfa iystyried hynny.

[64] Geraint Davies: Paragraph 3.9 of thereport refers to the fact that Cardiff Cityand County Council was using CrestNicholson Marinas Limited to servicevarious aspects of the barrage ‘for alimited period’. How long will that periodbe?

[64] Geraint Davies: Mae paragraff 3.9 yradroddiad yn cyfeirio at y ffaith fodCyngor Dinas a Sir Caerdydd yndefnyddio Crest Nicholson MarinasLimited i wasanaethu agweddau amrywiolar y morglawdd ‘am gyfnod cyfyngedig’.Beth fydd hyd y cyfnod hwnnw?

61

Mr Phillips: I am not sure. CrestNicholson was operating the barrage onthe behalf of Cardiff Bay DevelopmentCorporation. That arrangement wasextended for a minimum period, as Irecall, of at least three months. I knowthat the Harbour Authority is looking atways of possibly continuing to work withCrest Nicholson, or alternativearrangements, but that, essentially, is amatter for it.

Mr Phillips: Nid wyf yn siwr. Yr oedd CrestNicholson yn gweithredu’r morglawdd arran Corfforaeth Datblygu Bae Caerdydd.Estynwyd y trefniant hwnnw am gyfnod,yn ôl yr hyn a gofiaf, o dri mis o leiaf. Gwnfod Awdurdod yr Harbwr yn edrych arffyrdd posibl o barhau i weithio â CrestNicholson, neu drefniadau amgen, ondmater iddo ef yw hynny.

[65] Geraint Davies: So are we talkingabout months or years?

[65] Geraint Davies: Felly a ydym yn sônam fisoedd neu flynyddoedd?

Mr Phillips: I am not sure. The originaltimescale envisaged was a fairly shortone. There was a negotiation betweenCrest Nicholson and the council on whatthat should be and they reached amutually satisfactory agreement to seethem through the immediate transitionperiod following the wind-up of thecorporation and the council’s acquiring ofresponisibility for the barrage on 1 April.How the council chooses to pursue thearrangements for the future is essentiallya matter for it, provided, of course, thatserious cost implications do not arisefrom that decision.

Mr Phillips: Nid wyf yn siwr. Yr oedd yterfyn amser a ragwelwyd yn un gweddolfyr. Cafwyd trafodaeth rhwng CrestNicholson a’r cyngor ar yr hyn y dylaihwnnw fod a daethant i gytundeb a oeddyn foddhaol i’r ddwy ochr, i fynd â hwydrwy’r cyfnod trawsnewid uniongyrcholyn dilyn dod â’r gorfforaeth i ben a’rcyngor yn cymryd cyfrifoldeb dros ymorglawdd ar 1 Ebrill. Mater i’r cyngoryw sut y bydd yn dewis ymdrin â’rtrefniadau ar gyfer y dyfodol, ar yr amod,wrth gwrs, nad oes goblygiadau costdifrifol yn codi o’r penderfyniad hwnnw.

[66] Geraint Davies: Do you think that thecouncil could have sufficient skills withinit?

[66] Geraint Davies: A ydych yn credu ybyddai sgiliau digonol o fewn y cyngor?

Mr Phillips: I think that the councilbelieves that it would need a mixture ofexternal expertise, which it could matchto in-house resources. I am not anexpert, but I would imagine that theoperation of the barrage would requirefairly specialist operators and people whoare well trained. It will be for theHarbour Authority and Cardiff council totake a judgment on whether they canemploy these specialists in-house, orwhether outsourcing them offers a morecost-effective and better operationalsolution.

Mr Phillips: Credaf fod y cyngor o’r farn ybyddai angen cymysgedd o arbenigeddallanol arno, y gallai ei gyfateb agadnoddau mewnol. Nid wyf yn arbenigwr,ond gallaf ddychmygu y byddaigweithredu’r morglawdd yn gofyn amweithredwyr gweddol arbenigol a phoblwedi’u hyfforddi’n dda. Lle Awdurdod yrHarbwr a chyngor Caerdydd fydd ffurfiobarn ar ba un a allant gyflogi’r arbenigwyrhyn yn fewnol, ynteu a yw cael yradnoddau’n allanol yn cynnig ateb mwycost effeithiol sydd yn well o rangweithrediad.

62

[67] Geraint Davies: So do you think thatthings have changed, then? This was tobe for a limited period, but becausethings have changed it will be extended,is that it?

[67] Geraint Davies: Felly a ydych o’r farnfod pethau wedi newid? Am gyfnodcyfyngedig yr oedd hyn i fod, ondoherwydd bod pethau wedi newid bydd yncael ei ymestyn; ai dyna’r sefyllfa?

Mr Phillips: I do not know what thecouncil’s intention is for the long term. Iknow that it has had discussions withCrest Nicholson. The immediate focuswas on ensuring that the barrage wasoperated properly and safely during thetransition from the corporation to theHarbour Authority. That has beenachieved. The council will no doubtconsult us on the arrangements that itproposes to put in place in the medium tolong term but, essentially, this is a matterfor it to determine.

Mr Phillips: Ni wn beth yw bwriad y cyngoryn yr hir dymor. Gwn ei fod wedi caeltrafodaethau â Crest Nicholson. Yr oeddy ffocws uniongyrchol ar sicrhau bod ymorglawdd yn cael ei weithredu’n gywirac yn ddiogel yn ystod y trosglwyddo o’rgorfforaeth i Awdurdod yr Harbwr.Cyflawnwyd hynny. Heb os, bydd ycyngor yn ymgynghori â ni ynglyn â’rtrefniadau y bwriada eu sefydlu yn ytymor canolig i’r tymor hir, ond, yn y bôn,mater iddo ef benderfynu arno yw hwn.

[68] Brian Gibbons: Was Cardiff councilpart of the original tendering process?

[68] Brian Gibbons: A oedd cyngorCaerdydd yn rhan o’r broses dendrowreiddiol?

Mr Shortridge: No. Mr Shortridge: Nac oedd.

[69] Brian Gibbons: Was it open to it? [69] Brian Gibbons: A oedd yn agored ihynny?

Mr Boyce: It was not relevant. We wentto the market, as it were, towards theend of 1998 and during 1999 and we putour proposals for Thames Water plc tohave the contract before the Assembly inSeptember 1999. It was not until October1999 that the First Secretary announcedthat Cardiff City and County Council wasgoing to be the harbour authority. So thework that we had done was in advance ofCardiff council being involved in thebarrage at all. I think that it is importantto understand that.

Mr Boyce: Nid oedd yn berthnasol.Aethom i’r farchnad, fel petai, tuag atddiwedd 1998 ac yn ystod 1999 arhoddasom ein hargymhellion y dylaiThames Water plc gael y contractgerbron y Cynulliad ym mis Medi 1999.Ni ddatganodd y Prif Ysgrifennydd tan fisHydref 1999 mai Cyngor Dinas a SirCaerdydd fyddai awdurdod yr harbwr.Felly gwnaethpwyd y gwaith yr oeddemwedi ei wneud cyn i gyngor Caerdyddddod yn gysylltiedig â’r morglawdd ogwbl. Credaf ei bod yn bwysig deallhynny.

63

When we went forward in September1999 for approval for Thames Water, theexpectation, as far as the Assembly wasconcerned, was that a harbour authoritywould succeed the corporation. It wasnot until 18 or 19 October, I think, thatthe First Secretary announced that theharbour authority would in fact be Cardiffcouncil. So the council came into theframe in a serious and official way afterwe had already secured the bid fromThames Water and put it before theAssembly for approval.

Pan aethom ymlaen ym mis Medi 1999 igael cymeradwyaeth i Thames Water, ydisgwyliad, cyn belled ag yr oedd yCynulliad yn y cwestiwn, oedd y byddaiawdurdod harbwr yn olynydd i’rgorfforaeth. Ni chyhoeddodd y PrifYsgrifennydd tan 18 neu 19 Hydref, fegredaf, mai cyngor Caerdydd fyddaiawdurdod yr harbwr. Felly daeth y cyngori’r darlun o ddifrif ac yn swyddogol ar ôlinni sicrhau cynnig Thames Water a’i roigerbron y Cynulliad i’w gymeradwyo.

[70] Brian Gibbons: When you advertised,I think that you said that it was in theOfficial Journal of the EuropeanCommunities?

[70] Brian Gibbons: Pan wnaethochhysbysebu, credaf ichi ddweud mai yngNghylchgrawn Swyddogol y CymunedauEwropeaidd yr oedd hynny?

Mr Boyce: It is for all those interestedin—

Mr Boyce: Mae ar gyfer pawb sydd âdiddordeb yn—

[71] Brian Gibbons: Was there anyreason—?

[71] Brian Gibbons: A oedd unrhyw reswmdros—?

Mr Boyce: No. No one was excluded. Mr Boyce: Nac oedd. Ni eithriwyd neb.

[72] Brian Gibbons: So it would have beenentirely legitimate for Cardiff council,when you placed the advertisement inthe journal, to have expressed itsinterest at that stage and to havesubmitted a bid like anyone else?

[71] Brian Gibbons: Felly byddai wedi bodyn hollol ddilys i gyngor Caerdydd, panroddasoch yr hysbyseb yn y cylchgrawn, ifod wedi mynegi diddordeb bryd hynny achyflwyno cynnig fel pawb arall?

Mr Boyce: It would not have beenexpected, because Cardiff council wasstubbornly resisting anything to do withthe barrage until the late summer andautumn of last year. There would havebeen no interest on its part in evenreading the advertisement at the timethat we put it in.

Mr Boyce: Ni fyddai disgwyl i hynnyddigwydd, oherwydd yn bendant yr oeddcyngor Caerdydd yn gwrthod yn bendantbod yn gysylliedig â’r morglawdd mewnunrhyw fodd tan ddiwedd yr haf a hydref yllynedd. Ni fyddai ganddo unrhywddiddordeb hyd yn oed mewn darllen yrhysbyseb yr adeg y cyhoeddasom hi.

[73] Brian Gibbons: So that whatever theprocess involved, there was a politicialchange of heart or some change of heart?

[73] Brian Gibbons: Felly beth bynnagoedd y broses dan sylw, cafwyd newidmeddwl gwleidyddol neu ryw fath o newidmeddwl?

Mr Boyce: Yes. Mr Boyce: Do.

64

[74] Brian Gibbons: Mr Shortridge, howcommon is it that after a tenderingprocess has been completed, somebodyarrives offstage to express an interest inrunning the contract more cheaply? Howoften has that happened previously inyour experience?

[74] Brian Gibbons: Mr Shortridge, pa morgyffredin yw ar ôl cwblhau proses dendro,bod rhywun yn cyrraedd o’r tu ôl i’r llennii fynegi diddordeb mewn gweithredu’rcontract yn rhatach? Pa mor aml y maehynny wedi digwydd o’r blaen o’chprofiad chi?

Mr Shortridge: It has not happened in myexperience and I do not suppose that ithappens very often. However, I thinkthat it is important to remember that wewere all surprised and very concerned atthe outcome of this tendering processand the cost of the Thames Watercontract. The Assembly had to approve itbecause it was outside Cardiff BayDevelopment Corporation’s delegatedlimits. The market had been tested andwe ended up with a figure that was higherthan we expected and certainly higherthan we wanted. There was a needtherefore to take stock and to considerwhether it represented the best wayforward and the best value for money.

Mr Shortridge: Nid yw wedi digwydd yn fymhrofiad i ac nid wyf yn tybio ei fod yndigwydd yn aml iawn. Fodd bynnag,credaf ei bod yn bwysig cofio ein bod igyd wedi’n synnu ac yn bryderus iawn amganlyniad y broses dendro hon a chostcontract Thames Water. Yr oedd yn rhaidi’r Cynulliad ei gymeradwyo oherwydd eifod y tu hwnt i derfynau dirprwyedigCorfforaeth Datblygu Bae Caerdydd.Profwyd y farchnad a chawsom ffigur oeddyn uwch na’r hyn a ddisgwyliwyd ac ynsicr yn uwch na’r hyn yr oeddem eieisiau. Felly yr oedd angen cymryd stocac ystyried a oedd yn cynrychioli’r fforddorau ymlaen a’r gwerth gorau am arian.

[75] Brian Gibbons: If you are on aninterview board and you do not think thatthe candidates are up to the mark, you donot make an appointment. I do notunderstand the legalities, but it seemsthat you made an appointment and thensaid that you had changed your mind. Isthat a reasonable analogy? Where wouldthat analogy break down?

[75] Brian Gibbons: Os ydych ar fwrddcyfweld ac nad ydych yn credu bod yrymgeiswyr yn ddigon da, nid ydych ynpenodi neb. Nid wyf yn deall yr ochrgyfreithiol, ond ymddengys ichi benodirhywun ac yna dweud eich bod wedinewid eich meddwl. A yw honno’ngyfatebiaeth resymol? Ble byddai’rgyfatebiaeth honno yn methu?

65

Mr Phillips: I think that there is animportant distinction here between therole that was envisaged for ThamesWater and the role that Cardiff counciltook on. As Michael Boyce said, theadvertisement, or the tendering process,was for a facilities management contract.As the harbour authority, Cardiff councilassumed responsibility for themanagement of the barrage and the bay.Those two functions are not identical. Inother words, there could have been asituation, in theory, in which Cardiffcouncil could have assumedresponsibility for the bay and the barrageas the harbour authority and employedThames Water to run a facilitiesmanagement contract. That did nothappen, but eventually, Cardiff council,through a political change of heart, orhowever you wish to describe it,reappeared on the scene. Thememorandum of understanding withCardiff council set out the principleswhich subsequently flowed through to thesection 165 agreements and now to thefunding agreement. As part of thatconsideration, the council came to us andargued that it could deliver comparableservices to Thames Water more cost-effectively. We looked at those figures ingreat depth and concluded that it coulddo so and the council is publicly andlegally committed to doing so.

Mr Phillips: Credaf fod gwahaniaeth pwysigyma rhwng y rôl a ragwelwyd ar gyferThames Water a’r rôl a gymerodd cyngorCaerdydd. Fel y dywedodd MichaelBoyce, yr oedd yr hysbyseb, neu’r brosesdendro, ar gyfer contract rheolicyfleusterau. Fel awdurdod yr harbwr,cymerodd cyngor Caerdydd gyfrifoldebdros reoli’r morglawdd a’r bae. Nid oeddy ddwy swyddogaeth yn union yr un fath.Mewn geiriau eraill, gallai fod sefyllfa, ynddamcaniaethol, lle gallai cyngorCaerdydd fod wedi cymryd cyfrifoldebdros y bae a’r morglawdd fel awdurdod yrharbwr a chyflogi Thames Water iweithredu contract rheoli cyfleusterau. Niddigwyddodd hynny, ond yn y pen draw,ailymddangosodd cyngor Caerdydd, ar ôlnewid meddwl gwleidyddol, neu sutbynnag yr hoffech ei ddisgrifio. Mae’rmemorandwm dealltwriaeth â chyngorCaerdydd yn nodi’r egwyddorion a lifoddo ganlyniad drwy gytundebau adran 165ac yn awr i’r cytundeb ariannu. Fel rhano’r ystyriaeth honno, cysylltodd y cyngorâ ni a dadlau y gallai gyflwynogwasanaethau y gellid eu cymharu âThames Water yn fwy cost effeithiol.Edrychwyd ar y ffigurau hyn yn fanwl iawna daethom i’r canlyniad y gallai wneudhynny a bod y cyngor yn ymrwymedig yngyhoeddus ac yn gyfreithiol i wneudhynny.

[76] Brian Gibbons: I do not know whetherMr Boyce was surprised that theAssembly came to the opinion that theinvisible hand of the market had notprovided a good value for money contractfor managing the barrage and so on. Theconclusion is almost that the tenderingprocess failed to give good value formoney and therefore we would notproceed with it. Did you feel that that wasa reasonable conclusion?

[76] Brian Gibbons: Ni wn a oedd MrBoyce yn synnu bod y Cynulliad wedi dodi’r farn nad oedd llaw anweledig yfarchnad wedi darparu contract gwerth daam arian ar gyfer rheoli’r morglawdd acati. Y casgliad bron yw bod y brosesdendro wedi methu â rhoi gwerth da amarian ac felly na fyddem yn parhau â hyn.A oeddech o’r farn fod hynny’n gasgliadrhesymol?

66

Mr Boyce: We took the view that it was acontract that we could put before theNational Assembly for approval withconfidence, otherwise we would not havesubmitted it to the National Assembly.As accounting officer for the corporation,it was my responsibility to ensure thatthe proposals that were put forward werereasonable and demonstrated value formoney. That was the judgment that wemade of the Thames Water contractwhen we put it forward. We would havebeen happier had it been less costly butour judgment was that it would havedelivered a good service at a good pricefor the public sector and the managementand operation of the bay. However,circumstances overtook that judgmentand other judgments overtook thatjudgment, which, quite properly, theAssembly follows and is entitled tofollow.

Mr Boyce: Yr oeddem o’r farn ei fod yngontract y gallem ei roi gerbron yCynulliad Cenedlaethol i’w gymeradwyoyn hyderus, neu ni fyddem wedi eigyflwyno i’r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol. Felswyddog cyfrifo i’r gorfforaeth, fynghyfrifoldeb i oedd sicrhau bod ycynigion a gyflwynwyd yn rhesymol ac yndangos gwerth am arian. Dyna oedd yfarn a ffurfiwyd gennym am gontractThames Water pan gafodd ei gyflwynogennym. Byddem wedi bod yn hapusachpe bai wedi bod yn llai costus ond yn einbarn ni, ni fyddai wedi cyflwynogwasanaeth da am bris da i’r sectorcyhoeddus a rheolaeth a gweithrediad ybae. Fodd bynnag, aeth amgylchiadau yndrech na’r farn honno ac aeth barnaueraill yn drech na’r farn honno, ac ymae’r Cynulliad, yn eithaf priodol, yn eudilyn ac mae ganddo hawl i’w dilyn.

[77] Brian Gibbons: So, you were happythat the Thames Water contract agreedat that time was a pretty good deal? Thatis what you seem to be saying.

[77] Brian Gibbons: Felly a oeddech ynfodlon bod contract Thames Water ycytunwyd arno bryd hynny yn fargen dda?Ymddengys i mi mai dyma’r hyn addywedwch.

Mr Boyce: It was a deal thatdemonstrated value for money for thepublic sector, it was the best deal thatdemonstrated value for money for thepublic sector and it went forward forapproval with the confidence of thecorporation.

Mr Boyce: Yr oedd yn fargen oedd yndangos gwerth am arian ar gyfer y sectorcyhoeddus; hon oedd y fargen orau aoedd yn dangos gwerth am arian ar gyfery sector cyhoeddus ac aeth ymlaen i’wgymeradwyo gyda chefnogaeth ygorfforaeth.

[78] Brian Gibbons: It may have been thebest deal on offer, but it may not havebeen the best deal.

[78] Brian Gibbons: Efallai mai hon oedd yfargen orau a oedd ar gael, ond efallai nadhon oedd y fargen orau.

Mr Boyce: It was the best deal becausethe market had been tested and it wasthe best deal that the market hadproduced.

Mr Boyce: Hon oedd y fargen orauoherwydd profwyd y farchnad a hon oeddy fargen orau a gynhyrchwyd gan yfarchnad.

67

[79] Brian Gibbons: So, it was down toperfections or imperfections of themarket. Do you think that the tenderingprocess in general for major projects hasbeen harmed by Cardiff councilgazumping Thames Water? Why wouldanyone bother to enter into the tenderingprocess if someone were to suddenlyappear offstage?

[79] Brian Gibbons: Felly, perffeithrwyddneu amherffeithrwydd y farchnad a oeddyn gyfrifol. A ydych o’r farn fod y brosesdendro yn gyffredinol ar gyfer prosiectaumawr wedi’i niweidio gan gyngorCaerdydd yn gasympio Thames Water?Pam y byddai unrhyw un am drafferthuymgymryd â’r broses dendro pe bairhywun yn debygol o ymddangos yn sydyno’r tu ôl i’r llenni?

Mr Shortridge: I do not think that, as apublic sector body, one should be obligedto always take the best tender thatcomes back from the private sector. Ithink that you have a responsibility tosee whether, now that you have testedthe market and know what the best thatit can do is, there are better ways for thepublic sector to operate it to get bettervalue for money.

Mr Shortridge: Ni chredaf, fel corff sectorcyhoeddus, y dylem deimlo rheidrwyddbob amser i dderbyn y tendr gorau addaw yn ôl o’r sector preifat. Credaf fodgennych gyfrifoldeb i weld, yn awr eichbod wedi profi’r farchnad ac yn gwybodbeth yw’r gorau y gall ei wneud, a oesffyrdd gwell i’r sector cyhoeddusweithredu i gael gwerth gwell am arian.

[80] Janet Davies: We will break for coffeefor 15 minutes.

[80] Janet Davies: Cymerwn egwyl goffiam 15 munud.

[Cafwyd egwyl goffi rhwng 10.53 a.m. ac 11.08 a.m.][A coffee break was held between 10.53 a.m. and 11.08 a.m.]

[81] Janet Davies: We shall resume on thesame lines as when we broke up. GlynDavies has a few questions that he wantsto pursue on this issue.

[81] Janet Davies: Byddwn yn parhau ar yrun pwnc â chyn yr egwyl goffi. Mae ganGlyn Davies ychydig o gwestiynau yrhoffai eu gofyn ar y mater hwn.

68

[82] Glyn Davies: I want to come back towhat seems to me to be a very strangedecision. The circumstances surroundingit seem quite strange. There are one ortwo different messages coming throughfrom the two people who are speaking tous. I start with the question of time. Thisis a hugely complicated project. We knowthat. How long did Cardiff BayDevelopment Corporation take to assesswho its preferred management agentwould be through the advertising processand the investigations? How long did thattake? I was quite alarmed to hear someof the timings to which Michael Boycereferred. Related to that, how long didthe Assembly then take to decide thatthis was a matter for Cardiff council totake over? What are the two relativetime periods in assessing the suitabilityof who was going to take over this majorproject?

[82] Glyn Davies: Hoffwn ddychwelyd at yrhyn sydd yn ymddangos i mi ynbenderfyniad rhyfedd iawn. Mae’ramgylchiadau yn eithaf rhyfedd. Mae unneu ddau o negeseuon gwahanol yn caeleu cyfleu gan y ddau berson sydd ynsiarad â ni. Dechreuaf gyda mater yramser. Mae hwn yn brosiect cymhlethiawn. Gwyddom hynny. Faint o amser agymerodd Corfforaeth Datblygu BaeCaerdydd i asesu pwy y byddai’n eiddewis fel asiant rheoli drwy’r broseshysbysebu a’r ymchwiliadau? Faint oamser a gymerodd hyn? Cefais fraw oglywed rhai o’r amseroedd yr oeddMichael Boyce yn cyfeirio atynt. Yngysylltiedig â hynny, faint o amser wedyna gymerodd y Cynulliad i benderfynu bodhyn yn fater i gyngor Caerdyddymgymryd ag ef? Beth yw’r ddau gyfnodperthynol wrth asesu addasrwydd pwybynnag oedd yn mynd i ymgymryd â’rprosiect mawr hwn?

Mr Boyce: From our position, we startedthe process in August 1998 andsubmitted our proposals for approval inSeptember 1999. Between those dateswas the time when people madeexpressions of interest in the work, whencontractors actually tendered for thework, when we analysed those tenders,had discussions with a preferred bidder,did our own analysis of that bid and sentour recommendation on the basis of thatanalysis. So the timetable, as far as thecorporation was concerned, was just over12 months from beginning to end, fromAugust 1998 to September 1999. As Isaid earlier, throughout that period—although you have not asked about this,it is worth emphasising it—Cardiffcouncil was taking no interest in thebarrage at all.

Mr Boyce: O’n sefyllfa ni, dechreuwyd ary prosiect ym mis Awst 1998 achyflwynwyd ein cynigion i’w cymeradwyoym mis Medi 1999. Rhwng y dyddiadauhynny oedd yr amser pan fynegodd poblddiddordeb yn y gwaith, pan dendroddcontractwyr ar gyfer y gwaith, panddadansoddwyd y tendrau hynny, pangawsom drafodaethau â’r cynigiwrdewisol, pan wnaethom ein dadansoddiadein hunain o’r cynnig hwnnw ac anfon einhargymhellion ar sail y dadansoddiadhwnnw. Felly yr oedd yr amserlen, o ran ygorfforaeth, ychydig dros 12 mis o’idechrau i’w diwedd, o fis Awst 1998 i fisMedi 1999. Fel y dywedais yn gynharach,drwy gydol y cyfnod hwnnw—er nadydych wedi gofyn llawer am hyn, mae’nwerth ei phwysleisio—nid oedd cyngorCaerdydd yn cymryd dim diddordeb yn ymorglawdd.

69

[83] Glyn Davies: I accept that. I took thatfrom a question you answered earlier;that up until, it seems to me, very littleshort of the date that the announcementwas made before the Assembly, Cardiffcouncil seemed to be taking no interestin this. How long were the discussionsinvolving its bid?

[83] Glyn Davies: Derbyniaf hynny.Deallais hynny o gwestiwn a atebasoch yngynharach; tan, fe ymddengys i mi, ynunion cyn y dyddiad y gwnaethpwyd ycyhoeddiad gerbron y Cynulliad, nidymddengys i gyngor Caerdydd gymrydunrhyw ddiddordeb yn hyn. Pa mor hiroedd y trafodaethau a oedd yn ymwneudâ’i gynnig?

Mr Shortridge: Steve Phillips was closer tothis than I was, so I will ask him to givethe precise answer. However,essentially, the decision that Cardiffcouncil should become the harbourauthority was announced to the Assemblyin October. I cannot recall offhand howlong the discussions leading up to thatdecision took.

Mr Shortridge: Yr oedd Steve Phillips ynymwneud yn agosach â hyn na mi, fellygofynnaf iddo roi’r ateb cywir. Foddbynnag, mewn gwirionedd, cafodd ypenderfyniad mai cyngor Caerdydd addylai ddod yn awdurdod harbwr eigyhoeddi i’r Cynulliad ym mis Hydref. Niallaf gofio pa mor hir a gymerodd ytrafodaethau a arweiniodd at ypenderfyniad hwnnw.

Mr Phillips: The first important milestonehere is an announcement that was madeon 31 March 1999 by the then Secretaryof State for Wales, which outlined thesuccession arrangements to Cardiff BayDevelopment Corporation as a whole.That said that there would be a harbourauthority. It did not specify who would bethat harbour authority or what form itwould take.

Mr Phillips: Y garreg filltir bwysig gyntafyma yw cyhoeddiad a wnaethpwyd ar 31Mawrth 1999 gan Ysgrifennydd GwladolCymru ar y pryd, a amlinellodd ytrefniadau ar gyfer olynydd CorfforaethDatblygu Bae Caerdydd yn gyfan.Datganai hwnnw y byddai awdurdodharbwr. Nid oedd yn nodi pwy fyddai’rawdurdod harbwr hwnnw na’i ffurf.

[84] Glyn Davies: That does not seemrelevant to the question.

[84] Glyn Davies: Nid yw hynny’nymddangos yn berthnasol i’r cwestiwn.

70

Mr Phillips: It is relevant in the sense that,as Michael Boyce said, at that stageCardiff council was not interested. Webecame aware that it might be interestedin taking on this function in about July orAugust of last year. There was a periodof very intensive negotiations with themduring late August and early Septemberlast year, which led to the announcementto which the Permanent Secretaryreferred and to the signature of thememorandum of understanding, which isin the Library and has been presented tothe Economic Development Committee.Cardiff Bay Development Corporation, asMichael said, presented the ThamesWater proposal to us in September. Thatwas assessed during October andNovember against the background that Ihave just described of the negotiationswith Cardiff council on the harbourauthority. The decision was announced inearly December, as I recall.

Mr Phillips: Mae’n berthnasol yn yr ystyr,fel y dywedodd Michael Boyce, nad oeddgan gyngor Caerdydd ddiddordeb brydhynny. Daethom yn ymwybodol y byddaiganddo ddiddordeb efallai mewnymgymryd â’r swyddogaeth hon tua misGorffennaf neu Awst y llynedd. Cafwydcyfnod o drafodaethau dwys gyda hwyddiwedd mis Awst a dechrau mis Medi yllynedd, a arweiniodd at y cyhoeddiad ycyfeiriodd yr Ysgrifennydd Parhaol ato acat lofnodi’r memorandwm dealltwriaeth,sydd yn y Llyfrgell ac a gyflwynwyd i’rPwyllgor Datblygu Economaidd.Cyflwynodd Corfforaeth Datblygu BaeCaerdydd, fel y dywedodd Michael,gynnig Thames Water inni ym mis Medi.Aseswyd hwnnw yn ystod Hydref aThachwedd yn erbyn y cefndir addisgrifiais o’r cyd-drafodaethau âchyngor Caerdydd ar awdurdod yrharbwr. Cyhoeddwyd y penderfyniadddechrau mis Rhagfyr, os cofiaf yn iawn.

[85] Glyn Davies: The assessment tookplace after it was announced to theAssembly, in other words?

[85] Glyn Davies: Cynhaliwyd yr asesiadwedi iddo gael ei gyhoeddi i’r Cynulliad,mewn geiriau eraill?

Mr Phillips: No. This goes back to thepoint that I was making in response toBrian Gibbons’s question earlier, that wewere looking at two closely linked butessentially separate issues at the time;one was the establishment of a harbourauthority and the other was who woulddischarge the facilities management role.The timing was in one sense unfortunatebecause it meant that the issue could notbe looked at as a whole. In another senseit was fortunate because we were able totake one decision in anticipation of theother.

Mr Phillips: Naddo. Mae hyn yn dychwelydat y pwynt a wneuthum wrth ymateb igwestiwn Brian Gibbons yn gynharach,sef ein bod yn edrych ar ddau fater syddyn agos iawn i’w gilydd ond sydd ynfaterion ar wahân ar yr un pryd; y cyntafoedd sefydlu awdurdod harbwr a’r ailoedd pwy fyddai’n ymgymryd â rôl rheolicyfleusterau. Yr oedd yr amseru’nanffodus ar un llaw oherwydd yr oedd yngolygu na ellid edrych ar y mater yngyffredinol. Ar y llaw arall yr oedd ynffodus oherwydd yr oeddem yn gallugwneud un penderfyniad drwy ragweld yllall.

71

[86] Glyn Davies: Just so that I get thisclear, because to me this is quite animportant point, right up until, it musthave been around August or September,as far as the corporation was concernedthere was no interest at all from Cardiffcouncil. It seems, from what you aresaying, that there were some discussionsbetween you and Cardiff council, which,apparently, Michael Boyce did not knowabout. Sometime in September—you tellme when I am wrong—it was announcedin the Assembly that Cardiff councilwould become the harbour authority.After that you made some assessment onwhether it was the proper authority to doit and then a memorandum was signedsome time later.

[86] Glyn Davies: Er mwyn i mi gael hynyn glir, oherwydd i mi mae hyn yn bwynteithaf pwysig, hyd at tua mis Awst neu fisMedi, cyn belled ag yr oedd y gorfforaethdan sylw ni ddangosodd cyngor Caerdyddddiddordeb o gwbl. Ymddengys, o’r hynyr ydych yn ei ddweud, nad oedd MichaelBoyce, yn ôl pob sôn, yn gwybod am raitrafodaethau rhyngoch chi a chyngorCaerdydd. Rywbryd ym mis Medi—dywedwch wrthyf os byddaf ynanghywir—cyhoeddwyd yn y Cynulliadmai cyngor Caerdydd fyddai awdurdod yrharbwr. Wedi hynny buoch yn asesu aihwn oedd yr awdurdod cywir i wneudhynny ac yna llofnodwyd memorandwmbeth amser yn ddiweddarach.

Mr Phillips: Not quite. There wereexpressions of interest at the politicallevel, let us say, around July or Augustlast year from Cardiff council—

Mr Phillips: Nid yn union. Mynegoddcyngor Caerdydd ddiddordeb ar y lefelwleidyddol, dyweder, tua mis Gorffennafneu fis Awst y llynedd—

[87] Glyn Davies: That is what I said, is itnot? I said that Michael Boyce did notknow about it.

[87] Glyn Davies: Dyna beth a ddywedais,onid e? Dywedais nad oedd MichaelBoyce yn gwybod amdano.

Mr Phillips: I do not know whether heknew about it at the time, but discussionswere going on. Those discussionsintensified at official level, as I said, inSeptember last year, which led to theproduction of the memorandum ofunderstanding in October. That debatewas going on about the harbour authority.The issue of who would discharge thefacilities management role was a separateissue.

Mr Phillips: Ni wn a oedd yn gwybodamdano ar y pryd, ond yr oeddtrafodaethau’n mynd rhagddynt.Dwysaodd y trafodaethau hynny ar lefelswyddogol, fel y dywedais, ym mis Medi yllynedd, ac arweiniodd hynny atgynhyrchu’r memorandwm dealltwriaethym mis Hydref. Yr oedd y drafodaethhonno’n ymwneud ag awdurdod yrharbwr. Mater ar wahân oedd pwyfyddai’n ymgymryd â’r rôl o reoli’rcyfleusterau.

[88] Glyn Davies: Whose decision was it?Was it just the Secretary of State forWales at the time who took thisdecision? Were you, as AccountingOfficer, involved? What expertise didyou employ to advise you within theAssembly that this was a proper decisionto take, bearing in mind the very shorttimescales?

[88] Glyn Davies: Penderfyniad pwy oeddhyn? Ai dim ond yr Ysgrifennydd GwladolCymru ar y pryd a wnaeth ypenderfyniad? A oeddech chi, felSwyddog Cyfrifo, yn gysylltiedig â hyn?Pa arbenigedd a ddefnyddiwyd gennychi’ch cynghori o fewn y Cynulliad bod hwnyn benderfyniad cywir i’w wneud, oystyried y terfynau amser byr iawn?

72

Mr Shortridge: Are we talking about thedecision on who should become theharbour authority?

Mr Shortridge: A ydym yn sôn am ypenderfyniad ar pwy ddylai ddod ynawdurdod yr harbwr?

[89] Glyn Davies: Yes. [89] Glyn Davies: Ydym.

Mr Shortridge: That was a decision takenby Alun Michael in consultation withcolleagues. The issue that we had toaddress following the announcement ofthe wind-up arrangements was that ‘Yes,there should be a harbour authority, butwhat should that harbour authority be?’Should it in effect be a shrunk-downversion of Cardiff Bay DevelopmentCorporation, in other words, anotherAssembly sponsored body, or was thissomething that should be transferred tothe local authority? At some point duringthe discussions, the local authorityexpressed an interest in itself becomingthe harbour authority. As far as I wasconcerned as Accounting Officer, thatwas an entirely reasonable option.

Mr Shortridge: Yr oedd yn benderfyniad awnaethpwyd gan Alun Michael mewnymgynghoriad â chydweithwyr. Y materyr oedd yn rhaid inni ymdrin ag ef yndilyn y datganiad o’r trefniadau diddymuoedd ‘Ie, dylem gael awdurdod harbwr,ond beth ddylai’r awdurdod harbwrhwnnw fod?’ A ddylai fod yn fersiwn llai oGorfforaeth Datblygu Bae Caerdydd,mewn geiriau eraill, corff arall a noddirgan y Cynulliad, neu a oedd hyn ynrhyweth y dylid ei drosglwyddo i’rawdurdod lleol? Ar ryw bwynt yn ystod ytrafodaethau, mynegodd yr awdurdodlleol ddiddordeb mewn dod yn awdurdodyr harbwr ei hun. Cyn belled ag yroeddwn i yn y cwestiwn fel SwyddogCyfrifo, yr oedd hynny’n opsiwn hollolresymol.

[90] Glyn Davies: Yes, we have coveredthat before. Who took the decision at theend of the day? I am more interested inknowing that.

[90] Glyn Davies: Ie, yr ydym wedi trafodhyn o’r blaen. Pwy wnaeth y penderfyniadar ddiwedd y dydd? Mae gennyf fwy oddiddordeb mewn cael gwybod hynny.

Mr Shortridge: It was a Cabinet decision. Mr Shortridge: Yr oedd yn benderfyniadgan y Cabinet.

[91] Glyn Davies: It was a decision takenby the Cabinet, on the basis of youradvice that it was a proper decision thatit could take in accountancy terms.

[91] Glyn Davies: Yr oedd yn benderfyniada wnaethpwyd gan y Cabinet, ar sail eichcyngor ei fod yn benderfyniad priodol ygallai ei wneud yn nhermau cyfrifo.

Mr Shortridge: Yes, and it was never anissue for me that it was not in any way aproper decision.

Mr Shortridge: Oedd, ac ni fu erioed ynfater i mi nad oedd yn benderfyniad cywirmewn unrhyw ffordd.

[92] Glyn Davies: You did not think that itwas appropriate to go back to ThamesWater to find out its position, bearing inmind that there had been discussionsgoing on for at least 12 months?

[92] Glyn Davies: Onid oeddech o’r farn ybyddai’n briodol ichi fynd yn ôl at ThamesWater i ddarganfod ei sefyllfa, o ystyriedbod trafodaethau wedi bod yn cael eucynnal ers 12 mis o leiaf?

73

Mr Shortridge: Now you are asking adifferent question about the question offacilities management as opposed to whoshould be the harbour authority. Theview that was rightly taken at the timewas that if there was any question ofCardiff being the harbour authority, itneeded to be consulted on thearrangements to be put in place that itwould inherit for the operation of thebarrage. I was quite clear on that.

Mr Shortridge: Yr ydych yn awr yn gofyncwestiwn gwahanol ynglyn â’r cwestiwn oreoli cyfleusterau yn hytrach na phwyddylai fod yn awdurdod yr harbwr. Y farna ffurfiwyd yn gywir ar y pryd oedd osoedd unrhyw bosibilrwydd mai cyngorCaerdydd fyddai awdurdod yr harbwr, ybyddai angen ymgynghori ag ef ynglyn â’rtrefniadau i’w sefydlu y byddai’n euhetifeddu ar gyfer gweithrediad ymorglawdd. Yr oeddwn yn eithaf clir arhynny.

[93] Glyn Davies: Were you satisfied thatCardiff council had the necessaryexpertise to handle what is, as we havesaid, a very complicated project?

[93] Glyn Davies: A oeddech yn fodlon bodgan gyngor Caerdydd yr arbenigeddangenrheidiol i ymdrin, fel yr ydym wedidweud, â phrosiect cymhleth iawn?

Mr Shortridge: Initially, when this came upas an option, no, I was not satisfied. Weneeded to test and challenge it and veryintensive discussions took place with thecouncil in order for us to satisfyourselves as officials that this was aviable option. The conclusion that wereached following those discussions wasthat it was viable. Indeed, up until now,as far as I am concerned, it has turnedout to be so. From very much a standingstart, the council is addressing this in athoroughly professional way.

Mr Shortridge: I ddechrau, pan godwyd hynfel opsiwn, na, nid oeddwn yn fodlon. Yroedd angen inni ei brofi a’i herio achynhaliwyd trafodaethau dwys iawngyda’r cyngor er mwyn inni fodloni einhunain fel swyddogion bod hwn yn opsiwnhyfyw Daethom i’r casgliad yn dilyn ytrafodaethau hyn ei fod yn hyfyw. Yn wir,hyd yn hyn, cyn belled ag yr wyf i yn ycwestiwn, felly y bu. O gychwyn stond ynwir, mae’r cyngor yn ymdrin â hyn mewnmodd proffesiynol iawn.

[94] Glyn Davies: The council did not havestaff to carry out the work and had to goto Crest Nicholson, but there was notendering process. We do not know forhow long that contract will continue. Youhave already told us that. Do you notthink that there is a case, perhaps, of thatparticular contractor having Cardiffcouncil over a barrel? Do you not thinkthat there is a danger of that?

[94] Glyn Davies: Nid oedd gan y cyngor ystaff i gynnal y gwaith ac yr oedd yn rhaididdynt fynd at Crest Nicholson, ond nidoedd proses dendro. Ni wyddom am bahyd y bydd y contract hwnnw’n parhau. Yrydych wedi dweud hynny wrthym eisoes.Onid ydych o’r farn fod achos, o bosibl,bod cyngor Caerdydd yng nghledr llaw ycontractwr penodol hwnnw? Onid ydychyn credu bod perygl o hynny?

Mr Shortridge: The other thing in thisequation is the one-year delay—

Mr Shortridge: Y ffactor arall yn y materhwn yw’r oedi o flwyddyn—

[95] Glyn Davies: I will come to that in aminute.

[95] Glyn Davies: Deuaf at hynny mewnmunud.

74

Mr Shortridge: Cardiff has inherited thepresent situation for operating what isstill, in one sense, an incomplete barrageas opposed to having to put in place,from April this year, a regime formanaging it as a freshwater lake.

Mr Shortridge: Mae Caerdydd wedietifeddu’r sefyllfa bresennol ar gyfergweithredu’r hyn sydd yn parhau i fod, arun ystyr, yn forglawdd anghyflawn ynhytrach na gorfod sefydlu, o fis Ebrilleleni, system i’w reoli fel llyn dwr croyw.

[96] Janet Davies: To what extent did thefact that Cardiff City and County Councilbecame the harbour authority have analmost domino effect, in that it thenbecame the facilities manager? It wouldhave been possible to separate thosejobs.

[96] Janet Davies: I ba raddau y cafodd yffaith fod Cyngor Dinas a Sir Caerdyddwedi dod yn awdurdod yr harbwr effaithdomino bron, o ran ei fod wedi dod ynrheolwr cyfleusterau? Byddai wedi bodyn bosibl gwahanu’r swyddi hynny.

Mr Shortridge: Clearly, once there hadbeen a decision that Cardiff was to be theharbour authority, its view on how thebarrage and bay could best be managedwas a highly relevant consideration.

Mr Shortridge: Yn amlwg, unwaith y cafwydpenderfyniad mai Caerdydd fyddaiawdurdod yr harbwr, yr oedd ei farn arsut y gellid rheoli’r morglawdd a’r baeorau yn ystyriaeth berthnasol iawn.

75

[97] Glyn Davies: The interestingcomment to me was your previous oneabout how we should involve the privatesector in these matters as far as possible.That does not seem to have applied verymuch in this case. However, I will moveon to another issue. The reason that youdecided, effectively, on this—which againis very much at variance with whatMichael Boyce is saying—is the value formoney of the Thames Water bid and thefact that the Cardiff council bid wassomewhat cheaper. I think that GeraintDavies challenged this £3 million savingby saying that £1.1 million has alreadygone because of the cost involved indelaying the freshwater impoundment. Inanswering us, you have tried to tell usthat you did not think that that could goahead. Yet, the people who have theexpertise, have worked with this allalong, discussed it with Thames Waterand so on are telling us pretty clearlytoday that it could have gone ahead. Itseems to me that that £1.1 million,simply as a starter, has to come off the £3million unless, of course, you arefundamentally disagreeing, with whatexpertise you had, with what MichaelBoyce is saying.

[97] Glyn Davies: Y sylw diddorol i mioedd yr un a wnaethpwyd gennych ynflaenorol am sut y dylem gynnwys ysector cyhoeddus yn y materion hyn cynbelled â phosibl. Nid ymddengys bodhynny wedi cael ei gymhwyso rhyw laweryn yr achos hwn. Fodd bynnag, symudafymlaen i fater arall. Y rheswm ypenderfynasoch ar hyn, mewngwirionedd—sydd unwaith eto yn groesi’r hyn y mae Michael Boyce yn eiddweud—yw gwerth am arian cynnigThames Water a’r ffaith fod cynnigcyngor Caerdydd rywfaint yn rhatach. Yrwyf yn credu i Geraint Davies herio’r £3miliwn drwy ddweud bod £1.1 miliwnwedi diflannu eisoes oherwydd y gostsydd ynghlwm â’r oedi cyn cronni dwrcroyw. Wrth ein hateb, yr ydych wediceisio dweud wrthym nad oeddech yncredu y gallai hynny fynd yn ei flaen. Eto’igyd, mae’r bobl sydd â’r arbenigedd,sydd wedi gweithio gyda hyn drwy gydolyr amser, wedi ei drafod gyda ThamesWater ac ati yn dweud wrthym yn eithafclir heddiw y gallai fod wedi mynd yn eiflaen. Ymddengys i mi bod yn rhaid i’r£1.1 miliwn hwnnw, dim ond fel mancychwyn, gael ei dynnu oddi ar y £3miliwn oni bai, wrth gwrs, eich bod ynanghytuno’n sylfaenol, â’r arbenigeddoedd gennych, â’r hyn y mae MichaelBoyce yn ei ddweud.

Mr Shortridge: I have told the Committeewhy I, as Accounting Officer, was not atall comfortable with the idea of goingahead with freshwater impoundment inApril of this year. It is a judgment for youas to whether you share my view orMichael Boyce’s. However, I have givengood reasons. I think that I can correctthe record on the £1.1 million, havingdiscussed this in the break. The £1.1million for protecting the barrage, as Inow understand it, is netted off and istherefore not an additional cost on top ofthe £1 million a year savings.

Mr Shortridge: Yr wyf wedi dweud wrth yPwyllgor pam nad oeddwn i, fel SwyddogCyfrifo, yn gyfforddus o gwbl â’r syniad obarhau â chronni dwr croyw ym mis Ebrilleleni. Eich penderfyniad chi yw a ydychyn cytuno â mi neu â Michael Boyce.Fodd bynnag, yr wyf wedi rhoi rhesymauda. Credaf y gallaf gywiro’r cofnod ar y£1.1 miliwn, wedi trafod hyn yn ystod yregwyl. Caiff yr £1.1 miliwn ar gyferdiogelu’r morglawdd, fel y deallaf yn awr,ei dynnu ymaith fel net, ac felly nid yw’ngost ychwangol ar ben yr arbedion o £1miliwn y flwyddyn.

76

[98] Glyn Davies: I wonder whether wecould have that confirmed to us?

[98] Glyn Davies: Tybed a allem gaelcadarnhad o hynny?

Mr Shortridge: I will submit a note. Mr Shortridge: Fe gyflwynaf nodyn.

[99] Glyn Davies: Yes, I would like that tobe confirmed in a note if at all possible.You now have three years—I am nottalking about as an Accounting Officer—for which you know, in theory, what therunning costs will be. Yet, it is five yearsuntil you can go out to tender and testthe market. Do you not think that thereis a possibility within those two periodsthat this saving, which may well alreadybe reduced, may be substantially reducedagain and that, in fact, there may not bemuch saving at all in the end? One thingto which we should also refer is whetheryou are certain that no credence at allshould be attached to the fact thatThames Water are challenging the extentof these savings. Have you discussed itwith the company to make certain thatyou know the basis of its challenge to thesavings?

[99] Glyn Davies: Ie, hoffwn i hynny gael eigadarnhau mewn nodyn os yn bosibl.Mae gennych bellach dair blynedd—nidwyf yn sôn amdanoch fel SwyddogCyfrifo—lle gwyddoch, ynddamcaniaethol, beth fydd y costaugweithredu. Eto, bydd yn bum mlyneddcyn y gallwch fynd allan i dendr a phrofi’rfarchnad. Onid ydych yn meddwl bodposibilrwydd o fewn y ddau gyfnod hwnnwy gall yr arbediad hwn, a all fod wedi eileihau eisoes, ostwng yn sylweddol eto acmai’r gwirionedd yw na fyddai llawer oarbedion yn y pen draw? Un peth y dylemhefyd gyfeirio ato yw a ydych yn sicr naddylid rhoi coel o gwbl ar y ffaith fodThames Water yn amau maint yrarbedion hyn. A ydych wedi trafod hyn â’rcwmni i sicrhau eich bod yn gwybod ar basail y mae’n herio’r arbedion?

Mr Shortridge: We have looked at thesefigures very carefully and we are satisfiedthat the savings are there and areavailable. As I recall, the contract or theoffer on the table from Thames Waterwas for a three-year period. So, thesavings that we are talking about have tobe calculated in relation to that three-year period.

Mr Shortridge: Yr ydym wedi edrych ynofalus iawn ar y ffigurau hyn ac yr ydymyn fodlon bod yr arbedion yno a’u bod argael. Yn ôl yr hyn a gofiaf, yr oedd ycontract neu’r cynnig ar y bwrdd ganThames Water am gyfnod o dair blynedd.Felly, rhaid i’r arbedion yr ydym yn sônamdanynt gael eu cyfrifo mewn perthynasâ’r cyfnod hwnnw o dair blynedd.

77

[100] Glyn Davies: My only otherquestion—and I would like to ask manymore, I must say—is, are we going to bein a position now where the NationalAudit Office has full access to the newHarbour Authority when it makes itspreparations for the second report thatwe want? There are an awful lot ofquestions. I could be here all morningand I am not at all certain that I have gotthe answers that I want. However, Iwould be satisfied if I knew that theNational Audit Office could ask all thosequestions and follow them up before itsnext report.

[100] Glyn Davies: Fy unig gwestiwnarall—a byddwn yn hoffi gofyn llawermwy, mae’n rhaid imi ddweud—yw, aydym yn mynd i fod mewn sefyllfa bellachlle bydd gan y Swyddfa ArchwilioGenedlaethol fynediad llawn i Awdurdodyr Harbwr newydd pan fydd yn gwneud eibaratoadau ar gyfer yr ail adroddiad syddei angen arnom? Mae nifer fawr ogwestiynau. Gallaswn fod yma drwy’rbore ac nid wyf yn sicr o gwbl a wyf wedicael yr holl atebion y byddwn yndymuno’u cael. Fodd bynnag, byddwn ynfodlon pe gwyddwn y gallai’r SwyddfaArchwilio Genedlaethol ofyn yr hollgwestiynau hynny a mynd ar eu trywyddcyn yr adroddiad nesaf.

Mr Shortridge: My clear understanding isthat the National Audit Office will haveaccess to the Harbour Authority’spapers. I am sorry if you feel that youhave not had the answers that yourequire. I have sought to give as fullanswers as I can.

Mr Shortridge: Cefais ar ddeall yn glir ybydd gan y Swyddfa ArchwilioGenedlaethol fynediad i bapurauAwdurdod yr Harbwr. Mae’n ddrwggennyf os ydych yn teimlo na chawsoch yratebion sydd eu hangen arnoch. Yr wyfwedi ceisio rhoi atebion mor llawn ag ygallaf.

Sir John Bourn: Chair, I can confirm that Iam satisfied that I have access and willbe able to pursue these questions.

Syr John Bourn: Gadeirydd, gallafgadarnhau fy mod yn fodlon bod gennyffynediad ac y bydd modd i mi fynd ar ôl ycwestiynau hyn.

[101] Janet Davies: Thank you, Sir John.Jenny, you wanted to come in onsomething briefly?

[101] Janet Davies: Diolch, Syr John.Jenny, a oeddech am ofyn rhywbeth yngryno?

Jenny Randerson: I have a couple ofquestions to Michael Boyce. When youenvisaged Thames Water as the facilitiesmanager, what was your view on the roleof harbour authority? Was it your viewthat Thames Water would be the harbourauthority as well? I do not get thatfeeling at all.

Jenny Randerson: Mae gennyf un neu ddauo gwestiynau i Michael Boyce. Panoeddech yn rhagweld Thames Water felrheolwr y cyfleusterau, beth oedd eichbarn ynglyn â rôl awdurdod yr harbwr? Aoeddech o’r farn mai Thames Waterfyddai awdurdod yr harbwr yn ogystal?Nid wyf yn synhwyro hynny o gwbl.

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

[102] Jenny Randerson: It is important thatwe do not get the two issues confused.

[102] Jenny Randerson: Mae’n bwysig nadydym yn cymysgu’r ddau fater.

78

Mr Boyce: They have been confused,though they have not been confused heretoday.

Mr Boyce: Maent wedi cael eu cymysgu,er nad ydynt wedi’u cymysgu ymaheddiw.

[103] Jenny Randerson: I am trying toseparate them.

[103] Jenny Randerson: Yr wyf yn ceisio’ugwahanu.

Mr Boyce: The harbour authority wouldhave stood in the shoes of Cardiff BayDevelopment Corporation. A successorto the corporation was needed. TheAssembly had decided that the successorwould be a harbour authority. Putting thatto one side, how was the bay to bemanaged and operated? It was ourjudgment that a facilities managementcontract would be the best way to do it,for ourselves and for our successorharbour authority, because it would havethe benefit of someone else’smanagement for three to five years whileit learned what the best option might be.If the Thames contract had gone forward,that contract would have been inheritedby the harbour authority, Cardiff council,on 1 April 2000, and Thames Waterwould have been working for Cardiffcouncil in the way that we had envisagedthat it would have been working for us.

Mr Boyce: Byddai awdurdod yr harbwrwedi sefyll yn esgidiau CorfforaethDatblygu Bae Caerdydd. Yr oedd angencael olynydd i’r gorfforaeth. Yr oedd yCynulliad wedi penderfynu mai’r olynyddfyddai awdurdod harbwr. Gan roi hynnyi’r naill ochr, sut y byddai’r bae yn cael eireoli a’i weithredu? Yr oeddem o’r farnmai’r ffordd orau o wneud hyn, i ni ac iawdurdod yr harbwr a fyddai’n olynu,oedd drwy gontract rheoli cyfleusterau,oherwydd y byddai’n cael y fantais o gaelei reoli gan rywun arall am gyfnod o dair ibum mlynedd tra’n dysgu pa opsiwnfyddai orau. Pe byddai contract Thameswedi mynd yn ei flaen, byddai’r contracthwnnw wedi’i etifeddu gan awdurdod yrharbwr, cyngor Caerdydd, ar 1 Ebrill2000, a byddai Thames Water wedi bodyn gweithio ar ran cyngor Caerdydd yn yffordd yr oeddem wedi rhagweld ybyddai’n gweithio drosom ni.

[104] Jenny Randerson: Thank you. That isvery clear.

[104] Jenny Randerson: Diolch. Maehynny’n glir iawn.

Mr Shortridge, it seems to me that oneof the key issues on the costs ofmanaging the barrage is the aeration oroxygenation costs. There are variousways of providing that. When you helddiscussions with Cardiff City and CountyCouncil, how important was the questionof aeration costs and how much detailwere you provided with before thedecision was made on how the facilitiesmanagement would be undertaken? Howimportant was it to you to get detail atthat stage, and what detail did you haveon how the aeration would be provided?

Mr Shortridge, ymddengys imi mai un o’rmaterion allweddol ynghylch costaurheoli’r morglawdd yw’r costaunwyeiddio neu ocsigeneiddio. Maeamrywiol ffyrdd o ddarparu hynny. Pangynhaliasoch drafodaethau â ChyngorDinas a Sir Caerdydd, pa mor bwysigoedd y cwestiwn o gostau nwyeiddio afaint o fanylion a roddwyd ichi cyn ypenderfynwyd sut y byddid yn mynd ati ireoli’r cyfleusterau? Pa mor bwysigydoedd ichi gael manylder ar yr adeghonno, a pha fanylion a oedd gennychynglyn â’r modd y byddai’r nwyeiddio yncael ei ddarparu?

79

Mr Shortridge: The consideration of theaeration arrangements was a significantbut, I would say, not a decisive elementin the consideration. Cardiff council,coming to this late, but as the agreedharbour authority, had doubts as towhether the preferred option of having abubbler—a boat that generates oxygenwhere it is required in the bay—wasnecessarily the most cost-effectiveoption. It was not persuaded of that atthe time and it wanted the opportunity toconsider alternatives, as indeed it is nowdoing. Once the decision was taken notto go for freshwater impoundment in thespring of this year, the issue of what theaeration arrangements should be in theshort term fell away, because the onething I would not want, as AccountingOfficer, would be to incur the verysubstantial expenditure on a bubbler 12months in advance of need.

Mr Shortridge: Yr oedd ystyriaeth o’rnwyeiddio yn elfen arwyddocaol, ond nid,yn fy nhyb i, yn elfen dyngedfennol yn yrystyriaeth. Yr oedd gan gyngorCaerdydd, a oedd yn dod yn rhan o hynyn hwyr yn y dydd, ond fel yr awdurdodharbwr y cytunwyd arno, amheuonynghylch a oedd yr opsiwn a ffafriwyd ogael byrlymydd—sef cwch sydd yncynhyrchu ocsigen lle bydd ei angen yn ybae—o anghenraid yr un mwyaf costeffeithiol. Ni chafodd ei ddarbwyllo ohynny ar y pryd ac yr oedd am gael y cyflei ystyried opsiynau eraill, fel, yn wir, ymae yn ei wneud yn awr. Unwaith ygwnaethpwyd y penderfyniad i beidio âchronni dwr croyw yn ystod y gwanwyneleni, diflannodd y mater o’r hyn y dylai’rtrefniadau nwyeiddio fod yn y tymor byr,oherwydd mai’r un peth na fyddwn yn eiddymuno, fel Swyddog Cyfrifo, fyddaigwario’n sylweddol iawn ar fyrlymydd 12mis cyn bod ei angen.

[105] Jenny Randerson: However, if Cardiffcouncil decide in the end that a bubbleris needed, some of your savings will havegone?

[105] Jenny Randerson: Fodd bynnag, pebai Cyngor Caerdydd yn penderfynu yn ypen draw bod angen byrlymydd, a fyddaipeth o’ch arbedion yn diflannu?

Mr Shortridge: No. I certainly hope not.There is an estimate of somewherebetween £6 million and £7 million foraeration equipment, whatever it may be.The Council has gone out to tender and,as I understand it, very comprehensivelyout to tender, for the aeration equipment.Those tenders are due in later thismonth. The outcome of that tenderingprocess will determine whether £6million to £7 million is a reasonableestimate, or whether it might be lessthan that.

Mr Shortridge: Na fyddent. Yr wyf yn mawrobeithio na fyddent. Mae amcangyfrif oswm rhwng £6 miliwn a £7 miliwn amoffer nwyeiddio, beth bynnag y bydd.Mae’r Cyngor wedi mynd allan i dendrac, yn ôl a ddeallaf, i dendro’ngynhwysfawr iawn am yr offer nwyeiddio.Disgwylir derbyn y tendrau hynny ynddiweddarach yn y mis. Bydd canlyniad ybroses dendro yn penderfynu a yw’r swmrhwng £6 miliwn a £7 miliwn ynamcangyfrif rhesymol, neu a fydd yn llaina hynny.

80

[106] Jenny Randerson: I have a short finalbut very important question. Earlier, youreferred to the power of the sea and thetide, and the safety issues. There hasbeen considerable talk about thepossibility that the structure of thebarrage could be undermined by theongoing situation. If there were to bephysical damage to the barrage duringthis intervening period, who would pickup the cost of that—Cardiff council or theAssembly?

[106] Jenny Randerson: Mae gennyf uncwestiwn byr terfynol sydd, serch hynny,yn un tra phwysig. Yn gynharach,cyfeiriasoch at bwer y môr a’r llanw athrai, a’r materion diogelwch. Bu cryndipyn o sôn am y posiblrwydd y gallaistrwythur y morglawdd gael ei thanseiliogan y sefyllfa barhaus. Os bydd difrodffisegol i’r morglawdd yn ystod y cyfnodhwn, pwy fyddai’n talu am hynny—ai cyngor Caerdydd ynteu’r Cynulliad?

Mr Shortridge: I do not have the detailedagreements in front of me, but I ampretty confident that it would be a liabilityfor the Assembly.

Mr Shortridge: Nid yw’r cytundebau manwlo’m blaen, ond yr wyf yn eithaf hyderus ybyddai gan y Cynulliad atebolrwydddrosto.

[107] Janet Davies: I do not know howmany of the questions that you weregoing to ask, Lorraine, have beencovered. However, I invite you to pursueyour topic of the costs of managing thebarrage and the bay.

[107] Janet Davies: Nid wyf yn gwybodfaint o’r cwestiynau yr oeddech yn myndi’w gofyn a gafodd eu hateb, Lorraine.Fodd bynnag, yr wyf yn eich gwahodd ifynd ar drywydd eich pwnc o gostaurheoli’r morglawdd a’r bae.

[108] Lorraine Barrett: Mr Shortridge, Iam looking at paragraph 3.20 and 3.21. Ido not think that they have beenspecifically covered. Can you tell us whythe estimated costs of the funding of theoperation of the bay and the barrageincreased from £5 million to £10.6 millionbetween 1997 and the present time?

[108] Lorraine Barrett: Mr Shortridge, yrwyf yn edrych ar baragraffau 3.20 a 3.21.Nid wyf yn meddwl eu bod wedi eu trafodyn benodol. A allwch ddweud wrthympam y bu cynnydd yn yr amcangyfrif ogostau gweithredu’r bae a’r morglawdd o£5 miliwn i £10.6 miliwn rhwng 1997 a’radeg hon?

Mr Shortridge: I cannot give you a detailedbreakdown of that. Steve may be able todo so. However, I am sure that a major, ifnot the major element, would be the costof aerating the bay and securing waterquality. This gets right back to the wholeissue of the concern about the costs ofthe Thames Water tender.

Mr Shortridge: Ni allaf roi dadansoddiadmanwl ichi o hynny. Efallai y gall Stevewneud hynny. Fodd bynnag, yr wyf ynsiwr y byddai’r gost o nwyeiddio’r bae asicrhau ansawdd y dwr yn un o’r prifelfennau, os nad y brif elfen. Mae hyn ynmynd â ni yn ôl at yr holl fater o’r pryderynglyn â chostau tendr Thames Water.

[109] Lorraine Barrett: Should the aerationoperation not have been thought of at thetime? Was sufficient thought given to itat the time? I do not know whether youor Michael Boyce should answer that.

[109] Lorraine Barrett: Oni ddylid fod wediystyried nwyeiddio ar y pryd? A roddwyddigon o ystyriaeth iddi ar y pryd? Ni wn aichi ynteu Michael Boyce ddylai atebhynny.

81

Mr Shortridge: Let me start by answeringthis way. I think that, as AccountingOfficer, my main concern about thiswhole exercise is in relation to therevenue as opposed to the capital costs.I do not know at this moment the fullexplanation as to precisely how and whythese increases occurred. I understandthat, in part, the issue is that this is avery novel piece of engineering and,therefore, there are many unquantifiedrisks involved in seeking to operate it.That means that the private sector,because it does not necessarily have theright experience of this aquaticenvironment to work from, has difficultyin coming up with tight estimates oncosts. That is my general impression. Itmay be that either Michael or Steve cangive you a fuller explanation.

Mr Shortridge: Gadewch imi ddechraudrwy eich hateb fel hyn. Fel SwyddogCyfrifo, yr wyf ym meddwl bod fy mhryderpennaf i o ran y gwaith hwn i gyd ynymwneud â’r refeniw yn hytrach na’rcostau cyfalaf. Ni wn ar hyn o bryd bethyw’r esboniad llawn o ran sut a pham ynhollol y bu’r cynnydd hyn. Deallaf mai’rmater, yn rhannol, yw mai peirnianwaithhynod newydd yw hwn ac, felly, maellawer o risgiau na ellir eu mesur yngysylltiedig â cheisio ei weithredu. Maehyn yn golygu ei fod yn anodd i’r sectorpreifat roi amcangyfrif tynn o’r costau,gan nad oes ganddo’r profiad cywir o’ramgylchedd dyfrol o anghenraid fel sail.Dyna’r argraff gyffredinol a gefais. Efallaiy gall naill ai Michael neu Steve roiesboniad llawnach ichi.

Mr Boyce: One of the things thathappened in the intervening period wasthat it changed from the National RiversAuthority to the Environment Agency.There was, of course, a passage of time,and we then had a new agency with newexperience, new pressures on theenvironment, and the demands of theEnvironment Agency were morestringent than the demands of theNational Rivers Authority. By lastsummer, the Environment Agency wassaying that the only way to deal withwater quality was to have a bubbler andto appoint Thames Water. Therefore, wewould have been foolish to have set ourface against, in effect, the instruction ofthe Environment Agency.

Mr Boyce: Un o’r pethau a ddigwyddoddyn ystod y cyfnod hwnnw oedd iddo newido fod yn Awrdurdod AfonyddCenedlaethol i fod yn Asiantaeth yrAmgylchedd. Aeth amser heibio, wrthgwrs, ac yna cawsom asiantaeth newyddgyda phrofiad newydd, pwysau newydd aryr amgylchedd ac yr oedd gofynionAsiantaeth yr Amgylchedd yn llymach nagofynion yr Awdurdod AfonyddCenedlaethol. Erbyn yr haf diwethaf, yroedd Asiantaeth yr Amgylchedd yndweud mai’r unig ffordd o ddelio agansawdd y dwr oedd cael byrlymydd aphenodi Thames Water. Felly, byddemwedi bod yn annoeth i fynd yn groes,mewn gwirionedd, i gyfarwyddydAsiantaeth yr Amgylchedd.

[110] Lorraine Barrett: A ‘yes’ or ‘no’answer will be adequate for the next part,which relates to the money from WelshWater in 2005, possibly £4.3 million. Areyou confident that steps are now beingtaken to ensure that we get that moneyand that the money will come from WelshWater at the due time?

[110] Lorraine Barrett: Bydd ateb ‘ydwyf’neu ‘nac ydwyf’ i’r cwestiwn nesaf ynddigonol, sef cwestiwn sydd yn ymwneudâ’r arian a ddaw gan Ddwr Cymru yn2005, sef £4.3 miliwn o bosibl. A ydychyn ffyddiog bod camau’n cael eu cymrydar hyn o bryd i sicrhau y byddwn yn caelyr arian hwnnw ac y byddwn yn cael yrarian gan Ddwr Cymru ar yr adegbriodol?

82

Mr Shortridge: Yes. Mr Shortridge: Ydwyf.

[111] Lorraine Barrett: Thank you. I willmove on to a slightly more interestingquestion. Given that we have hugepotential with a major waterfront city, theopportunities must not be missed. Whatcan the Assembly do to encourageCardiff council to maximise the incomepotential of the bay and ensure that it willdo so? Some people have expressedconcern about whether the money thatthe Assembly is giving Cardiff council forthe bay will be used only and specificallyfor that purpose and will not be used tosubsidise other council services.

[111] Lorraine Barrett: Diolch. Yr wyf amsymud ymlaen at gwestiwn sydd ychydigyn fwy diddorol. Gan gofio bod gennymbotensial enfawr o ran bod yn ddinas landwr o bwys, ni ddylid colli’r cyfleoedd.Beth all y Cynulliad ei wneud i annogcyngor Caerdydd i amlhau incwm posibl ybae i’r eithaf ac i sicrhau y bydd yngwneud hynny? Mynegwyd pryder gan raiynglyn â’r posibilrwydd na chaiff yr ariany mae’r Cynulliad yn ei roi i gyngorCaerdydd am y bae ei ddefnyddio’n unigac yn benodol i’r diben hwnnw ac nachaiff ei ddefnyddio i sybsideiddiogwasanaethau eraill y cyngor.

Mr Shortridge: In terms of maximising theincome potential from the bay, I have twoshort points. Clearly, we, as an Assemblyand Assembly officials, have a biginterest in seeking to minimise the netcost of running the bay. Therefore, in alldiscussions that we have and in all thefunding agreements that we put in place,we will be seeking constructively, withthe council, to agree a shared approachto how that revenue can be maximised.One important aspect of maximising thatrevenue will be, I think, that there is anenhanced dredging of the bay, so that youcan maximise the amount of water sportuse that is made of it. There is an up-front capital cost involved in that, but Ithink that, in the long term, it would bemoney well spent. In terms of how wesatisfy ourselves that the money going tothe council will only be used forexpenditure associated with the barrageand the bay—the agreements that StevePhillips is putting in place are certainlyintended to secure that end. If you wantmore information about how that end isto be secured, Steve can provide it.

Mr Shortridge: O ran gwneud y gorauposibl o’r potensial o wneud incwm o’rbae, yr wyf am nodi dau bwynt cryno.Mae’n glir bod gennym ni, fel y Cynulliada swyddogion y Cynulliad, fuddiant mawrmewn ceisio lleihau’r gost net oweithredu’r bae. Felly, ym mhobtrafodaeth a gynhelir ac ym mhob cytunebariannu a sicrheir, byddwn yn ceisiocytuno, mewn modd adeiladol, arymagwedd gyffredin ynglyn â’r modd ygellir amlhau’r refeniw hwnnw i’r eithaf.Yn fy marn i, bydd gwella’r gwaith ogarthu’r bae er mwyn cynyddu’r defnyddo chwaraeon dwr yn un o’r agweddaumwyaf pwysig ar amlhau’r refeniw hwnnwi’r eithaf. Bydd hynny’n golygu talu costcyfalaf ymlaen llaw, ond yn fy marn i,byddai hynny yn y tymor hir yn arian awariwyd yn ddoeth. O ran sut y gallwnfodloni ein hunain y caiff yr arian a roddiri’r cyngor ei wario’n unig ar arian sydd yngysylltiedig â’r morglawdd a’r bae—maeSteve Phillips yn sicrhau’r cytundebaugyda’r bwriad pendant o gyrraedd y nodhwnnw. Os byddwch am gael mwy owybodaeth am y modd y gellir cyrraedd ynod hwnnw, gall Steve ei ddarparu.

83

Mr Phillips: I have little to add except tosay, as I said earlier, that we are takingthe legal agreements that wereconcluded between the corporation andCardiff council and turning them intovery robust and detailed fundingarrangements that will show why themoney is being drawn down by Cardiffcouncil, for what purpose and with anunderpinning justification. Thoseagreements are very nearly complete.We have already given an undertaking toput them in the Assembly Library and tocirculate them to the EconomicDevelopment Committee. We will do thesame with a similar agreement that weare concluding with the Vale ofGlamorgan Council.

Mr Phillips: Nid oes gennyf fawr ddim i’wychwanegu, ar wahân i ddweud, fel ydywedais yn gynharach, ein bod yncymryd y cytundebau cyfreithiol agwblhawyd rhwng y gorfforaeth a chyngorCaerdydd a’u troi yn gytundebau ariannumanwl a fydd yn dangos pam fod yr arianyn cael ei dynnu i lawr gan gyngorCaerdydd, i ba ddiben a chydachyfiawnhad yn sylfaen iddo. Mae’rcytundebau ar fin cael eu cwblhau. Yrydym eisoes wedi cytuno i’w rhoi ynLlyfrgell yr Cynulliad a’u dosbarthu i’rPwyllgor Datblygu Economaidd.Bwriadwn wneud yr un peth â chytundebcyffelyb yr ydym wrthi’n ei gwblhau gydaChyngor Bro Morgannwg.

[112] Lorraine Barrett: Do you foresee atime when the income generated for thecouncil could pay for the running of thebarrage and the bay? What are thearrangements for the future, whetherfive, 10 or 20 years’ time, where theAssembly is committed to the council forcertain costs of running the barrage? If itis making a profit, will it be allowed tokeep that profit or would that subsidisethe money to which the Assembly iscommitted?

[112] Lorraine Barrett: A ydych ynrhagweld amser pan allai’r incwm agynhyrchir gan y Cyngor dalu amweithredu’r morglawdd a’r bae? Bethyw’r trefniadau ar gyfer y dyfodol, ymhenpum, 10 neu 20 mlynedd, pan fydd yCynulliad wedi’i ymrwymo i dalu’r costaupenodol o weithredu’r morglawdd i’rcyngor? Os bydd yn gwneud elw, a fyddhawl ganddo i gadw’r elw hwnnw neu afyddai hynny’n cymorthdalu’r arian aglustnodwyd gan y Cynulliad?

84

Mr Shortridge: Briefly—and we canelaborate on this later—in the presentcircumstances I would be surprised if theCouncil could run the bay from revenue.The net cost at the moment is £9 milliona year. It is unrealistic to think that youcould generate that sort of revenue inthe short to medium term. In terms ofhow we can be sure in the longer termthat the council will not run away with theAssembly’s money, we return to whatSteve Phillips has told you about thefunding arrangements and agreements.We will continue to seek to nail thisexpenditure down. Those agreements, asthey have to, allow for the Assembly tomeet unexpected, unanticipatedexpenditure. However, both Vale ofGlamorgan and Cardiff councils arerequired to come to us to seekagreement for such expenditure beforethe expenditure is incurred. That isunavoidable. It gets back to the fact that,as I said to Dafydd Wigley earlier, theAssembly is inheriting a Governmentproject. It cannot lay off all the associatedrisks by handing it over to a localauthority.

Mr Shortridge: Yn gryno—a gallwnymhelaethu ar hyn yn nes ymlaen—o danyr amgylchiadau presennol byddwn ynsynnu pe byddai modd i’r Cyngorweithredu’r bae drwy refeniw. Y gost netar hyn o bryd yw £9 miliwn. Nid yw’nrealistig ystyried y gallech gynhyrchu’rmath hwnnw o refeniw yn y tymor byr i’rtymor canolig. O ran bod yn sicr yn ytymor hwy na fydd y Cyngor yn rhedeg iffwrdd ag arian y Cynulliad, dychwelwn atyr hyn a ddywedodd Steve Phillipswrthych am y trefniadau ariannu a’rcytundebau. Byddwn yn parhau i geisiohoelio’r gwariant hwn. Mae’r cytundebauhynny, fel y mae’n rhaid iddynt, yncaniatau i’r Cynulliad gwrdd â gwariantannisgwyl na chafodd ei ragweld. Foddbynnag, mae gofyn i gyngor BroMorgannwg a chyngor Caerdydd ddodatom i sicrhau cytundeb ar gyfer gwarianto’r fath cyn ei wario. Mae hynny’nanorfod. Mae’n mynd â ni’n ôl at y ffaithmai etifeddu prosiect gan y Llywodraetha wnaeth y Cynulliad, fel y soniais wrthDafydd Wigley yn gynharach. Ni allddileu’r holl risgiau sydd yn gysylltiedig âhyn drwy ei drosglwyddo i gyngor lleol.

85

[113] Jane Davidson: When I asked at thebeginning of the session what theincreased costs were—for example,those related to the inaccurate data interms of the under sea data, the creationof the barrage and the outturn costs as aresult of the new survey—I was told thatthey could not be quantified. However,the report indicates that the majority ofthe extra costs are related to thatparticular problem. The extra costs cometo £19 million. Having heard what hasbeen said in the last 30 minutes, we havethe issue that the project is inheritedfrom the Government. We as AssemblyMembers are clearly concerned with anyrevenue implications for the Assembly,which will affect our ability to deliver ourprogramme. The Permanent Secretaryhas expressed his view that the NationalAssembly would be liable for anyproblems with the barrage structure andthat there are a range of risks andliabilities that we have not been able toquantify yet because we are talking aboutsuch a new, experimental project and wedo not know where it is going. Thisleaves me with a range of worries aboutthe implications for our Assembly blockgrant and whether we can go back to theSecretary of State for Wales for anyadditional costs that are related to thefunctioning of something that was not thechoice of this Assembly. I want to asktwo questions related to this. Who ispaying the £2 million for the re-survey ofthe 21,000 houses in two to three years’time post-impoundment? Are we payingit or will Cardiff council pay it?

[113] Jane Davidson: Pan ofynnais arddechrau’r sesiwn beth oedd y costauuwch—er enghraifft, y rhai sydd yngysylltiedig â’r data anghywir o ran y datatanforol, y cronni a’r costau alldro yn sgîlyr arolwg newydd—dywedwyd wrthyf naellid eu mesur. Fodd bynnag, mae’radroddiad yn nodi bod mwyafrif y costauychwanegol yn gysylltiedig â’r broblemarbennig honno. Cyfanswm y costauychwanegol fydd £19 miliwn. Ar ôl clywedyr hyn a ddywedwyd yn ystod y 30 munuddiwethaf, mae’n fater bod y prosiectwedi’i etifeddu oddi wrth y Llywodraeth.Mae’n glir ein bod, fel Aelodau’rCynulliad, yn bryderus ynglyn ag unrhywoblygiadau refeniw i’r Cynulliad, a fydd yneffeithio ar ein gallu i gyflwyno einrhaglen. Mynegodd yr YsgrifennyddParhaol ei farn y byddai’r CynulliadCenedlaethol yn atebol am unrhywbroblemau’n ymwneud â strwythur ymorglawdd ac y byddai ystod o risgiau arhwymedigaethau na fu’n bosibl inni eumesur eto gan ein bod yn sôn ambrosiect sydd mor newydd ac arbrofol acni wyddom i ble mae’n mynd. Mae hyn ynfy ngadael â myrdd o bryderon ynglyn â’rgoblygiadau o ran ein grant bloc i’rCynulliad ac ynglyn â’r posibilrwydd ofynd yn ôl at Ysgrifennydd GwladolCymru am unrhyw gostau ychwanegolsydd yn ymwneud â gweithrediadrhywbeth nad oedd yn ddewis gan yCynulliad hwn. Hoffwn ofyn dau gwestiwnsydd yn berthnasol i hyn. Pwy fydd yntalu’r £2 filiwn i gynnal ail arolwg o’r21,000 o dai yn y ddwy neu dair blyneddnesaf yn dilyn cronni? Ai ni neu ai cyngorCaerdydd fydd yn talu amdano?

Mr Phillips: The Assembly is effectivelypicking that up as part of the ongoingcommitment.

Mr Phillips: Bydd y Cynulliad yn taluamdano i bob pwrpas fel rhan o’rymrwymiad parhaus.

86

[114] Jane Davidson: I know that we willhave further questions about the issue ofgroundwater in a moment but, just on thecost element, if the worst case scenariowere to be realised and 21,000properties required remedial repair,would that be a cost to the Assembly?

[114] Jane Davidson: Yr wyf yn gwybod ybyddwn yn cael ein holi ymhellach ynglynâ mater y dwr daear mewn munud ond, oran elfen y gost yn unig, pe byddai’rgwaethaf yn digwydd a bod angenatgyweirio 21,000 o dai, a fyddai hynny’ngost i’r Cynulliad?

Mr Phillips: That is correct. Mr Phillips: Byddai.

[115] Jane Davidson: That cost wasestimated as being in the region of £19million in 1995 and would be anadditional cost for the Assembly. Cardiffcouncil has the responsibility for itsfunctions in terms of the harbourauthority and has six places where thedewatering wells are in place at particularsensitive locations—I think those werethe words used. If, as a result ofimpoundment, there were any additionalcosts related to the dewatering wells,would those fall upon the Assembly?

[115] Jane Davidson: Amcangyfrifwyd maitua £19 miliwn oedd y gost honno yn1995 ac y byddai’n gost ychwanegol i’rCynulliad. Mae gan gyngor Caerdyddgyfrifoldeb dros ei swyddogaethau o ranawdurdod yr harbwr ac mae ganddo chweman lle ceir ffynhonnau dihysbyddu mewnlleoliadau sensitif arbennig—credaf maidyna’r geiriau a ddefnyddiwyd. Os, oganlyniad i gronni’r morglawdd, y byddaiunrhyw gostau ychwanegol yn berthnasoli’r ffynhonnau dihysbyddu, a fyddai’rrhain yn dod i ran y Cynulliad?

Mr Phillips: There are a number ofpermutations here. As I said earlier, wehave costs that are fixed and that we canidentify. We have costs that arepotentially known about but that wecannot quantify. Your reference to thedewatering arrangements falls into thatcategory. There are also completelyunknown costs—acts of God and so forth.Essentially, what we are trying to do withCardiff council through these fundingarrangements is to work through and toquantify as precisely as we can anestimate of what those costs will be andto make a risk assessment that will judgehow likely it is that the liability willcrystallise. That is how we areproceeding.

Mr Phillips: Mae nifer o gyfnewidiadauyma. Fel y dywedais ynghynt, maegennym gostau sydd yn sefydlog ac ygallwn eu nodi. Mae gennym gostau syddo bosibl yn hysbys ond na allwn eumesur. Mae eich cyfeiriad at y trefniadaudihysbyddu yn perthyn i’r categorihwnnw. Mae hefyd gostau sydd yn gwblanhysbys—gweithredoedd Duw ac yn yblaen. Yn y bôn, yr hyn yr ydym ynceisio’i wneud gyda chyngor Caerdydddrwy’r trefniadau ariannu hyn yw gweithiodrwyddi ac amcangyfrif mor fanwl âphosibl yr hyn fydd y costau hynny agwneud asesiad risg a fydd yn barnu pamor debygol ydyw y bydd yr atebolrwyddyn crisialu. Dyna sut yr ydym yn mynd ynein blaenau.

87

[116] Jane Davidson: My last question onthis issue relates to whether or notadditional arrangements can be put inplace over and above the memorandumof understanding. The memorandum ofunderstanding limits the liability ofCardiff council in terms of these costs,which brings the liability back to theAssembly. If we were to identify otherperceived risks over the next year or soand we wanted to manage the cost interms of those risks, is there anopportunity to renegotiate with Cardiffcouncil on these issues?

[116] Jane Davidson: Fy nghwestiwn olafar y mater hwn yw a ellir sefydlu’rtrefniadau ychwanegol hyn y tu hwnt i acuwchlaw’r memorandwm dealltwriaeth aipeidio. Mae’r memorandwmdealltwriaeth yn cyfyngu atebolrwyddcyngor Caerdydd o ran y costau hyn, syddyn dwyn yr atebolrwydd yn ôl i’rCynulliad. Pe byddem i nodi risgauymddangosiadol eraill dros y flwyddynneu ddwy nesaf a’n bod am reoli’r gost oran y risgiau hynny, a oes cyfle i ail-drafod y materion hyn gyda chyngorCaerdydd?

Mr Phillips: There is an opportunity for usto consult with Cardiff council on thosesorts of issues. That arrangement is builtinto the funding agreements and theother organisational arrangements that Ihave described. The fundamental point isthe one that the Permanent Secretarymade earlier. These are potentialliabilities or, in certain cases, actualliabilities, which the Assembly hasinherited as a consequence of thebarrage being a Central Governmentproject. They have to be dealt with inthat context in the final analysis.

Mr Phillips: Mae cyfle inni ymgynghori âchyngor Caerdydd ar bob math o faterion.Mae’r trefniant hwnnw yn rhan o’rtrefniadau ariannu a’r trefniadausefydliadol eraill yr wyf wedi eu nodi. Ypwynt sylfaenol yw’r un a wnaethpwydgan yr Ysgrifennydd Parhaol yn gynt.Rhwymedigaethau posibl, neu mewn rhaiachosion, rwymedigaethau gwirioneddolyw’r rhain, a etifeddwyd gan y Cynulliad oganlyniad i’r ffaith mai prosiect gan yLlywodraeth Ganolog oedd y morglawdd.Mae’n rhaid ymdrin â hwy yn y cyd-destun hwnnw yn y pendraw.

Mr Shortridge: May I make two points?The questions have been well put and Iaccept them. However, equally, fromwhere I am sitting, I do not want theCommittee at this stage to overstate therisks that exist. It would not be right onthe basis of this discussion to be undulyalarmist at the position. Clearly if theworst came to the worst on a wholestring of things, there would besubstantial additional liabilities for theAssembly. That remains a logicalpossibility but it is not something aboutwhich I am especially concerned at themoment in terms of the way in which thisproject has been managed up to now andthe arrangements that we have put inplace. That point has to be made.

Mr Shortridge: A gaf i wneud dau bwynt?Cafodd y cwestiynau eu mynegi’n dda acyr wyf yn eu derbyn. Fodd bynnag, i’r ungraddau, o’m safbwynt i, nid wyf am i’rPwyllgor orbwysleisio’r risgiau sydd ynbodoli yn ystod y cyfnod hwn. Ni fyddai’niawn ar sail y drafodaeth hon i godibwganod heb angen. Yn amlwg pe bai’rgwaethaf yn digwydd o ran nifer mawr obethau, byddai’r Cynulliad yn wyneburhwymedigaethau ychwanegol sylweddol.Mae hynny’n bosibilrwydd rhesymegolond nid yw’r rhywbeth sydd yn peripryder abennig imi ar y foment o ran yffordd y cafodd y prosiect hwn ei reoli hydyn hyn ac o ran y trefniadau a roddasomar waith. Mae’n rhaid gwneud y pwynthwnnw.

88

The second point—and it is a differentangle on the inheritance, really—if theAssembly had chosen to create aslimmed-down development corporationto act as the harbour authority, all of thiswould have remained a liability of theAssembly in one form or anotherbecause we would have fully funded thatnew Assembly sponsored public body.Equally, one can understand from Cardiffcouncil’s perspective that there is a limitto what it can reasonably be expected tohave taken over from the Assembly interms of its responsibilities for theproject.

Yr ail bwynt—a golwg arall ar yretifeddiaeth ydyw, mewn gwirionedd—pebai’r Cynulliad wedi dewis creucorfforaeth datblygu llai o faint iweithredu fel yr awdurdod harbwr, byddaihyn oll wedi parhau i fod ynrhwymedigaeth i’r Cynulliad mewn unffordd neu’i gilydd gan y byddem wediariannu’r corff cyhoeddus newydd wedi’inoddi gan y Cynulliad yn llawn. Yn yr unmodd, gellir deall o safbwynt cyngorCaerdydd bod pendraw i’r hyn y gellirdisgwyl yn rhesymol iddo fod wedi’idderbyn gan y Cynulliad o ran eigyfrifoldebau dros y prosiect.

[117] Jane Davidson: That is not my point.My point is not in any way to put extraliabilities on Cardiff. My point is to probefor this Committee the use of Assemblymoney on a project that is not a project ofthis Assembly and to ensure that wehave all the arrangements in place tomanage any risks contingent on thisproject, both to the satisfaction of theNational Audit Office and to ourselves asMembers.

[117] Jane Davidson: Nid dyna fy mhwynt i.Fy mhwynt i yw peidio â gosod mwy orwymedigaethau ar Gaerdydd. Fy mhwynti yw ymchwilio ar ran y Pwyllgor hwn i’rdefnydd o arian y Cynulliad ar y prosiectnad yw’n brosiect y Cynulliad hwn asicrhau bod gennym yr holl drefniadau yneu lle er mwyn rheoli unrhyw risgiau aallai ddeillio o’r prosiect hwn, i fodloni’rSwyddfa Archwilio Genedlaethol a ni einhunain, fel Aelodau.

Mr Shortridge: I fully understand that and Ishare everything that you have said onthat, because I have an accountability.

Mr Shortridge: Yr wyf yn llwyr ddeall hynnyac yr wyf yn cytuno â phopeth addywedasoch ynglyn â hynny, oherwyddfod gennyf atebolrwydd.

[118] Dafydd Wigley: I have a briefquestion following on from that. If thenature of the risk is open-ended and wehave been lumbered with this—it may bea small or a larger figure, or it may besubstantial to use your terms, it could be£20 or £30 million or perhaps more—wasthere any option, and I do not necessarilyadvocate this course, but was there anypossible option whereby we could havegot shot of all that risk by—

[118] Dafydd Wigley: Mae gennyfgwestiwn byr sydd yn dilyn ymlaen ohynny. Os yw natur y risg yn benagoreda’n bod yn gorfod ysgwyddo’r baich – gallfod yn ffigur bach neu’n un mwy, neu gallfod yn sylweddol i ddefnyddio’ch termauchi, gallai fod yn £20 neu’n £30 miliwnneu fwy o bosibl—a oedd unrhyw opsiwn,ac nid wyf o anghenraid yn argymell yllwybr hyn, ond a oedd unrhyw opsiwnposibl a fyddai wedi ein galluogi i gaelgwared ar y risg honno yn gyfan gwbldrwy—

[119] Jane Davidson: Left it toGovernment.

[119] Jane Davidson: Ei adael i’rLlywodraeth.

89

[120] Dafydd Wigley: Jane says ‘left it toGovernment’. We are the Governmentnow. We have to take the ups with thedowns of that. However, was there anyoption of going to the private sector, forexample? I am not saying that Inecessarily advocate that but, clearly, ifthere was a risk that could bequantified—where there is a risk, thereis a premium—could the whole risk havebeen passed over to somebody else sothat we, as Assembly, were not lumberedwith it? Was that explored?

[120] Dafydd Wigley: Mae Jane yn sôn am‘ei adael i’r Llywodraeth’. Ni yw’rLlywodraeth bellach. Mae’n rhaid innidderbyn y da a’r drwg sydd yn dod i’nrhan. Fodd bynnag, a oedd unrhywopsiwn o ran mynd at y sector preifat, erenghraifft? Nid ydwyf yn dweud fy mod ynargymhell hynny o anghenraid, ond mae’nglir os oedd risg y gellid ei fesur—llemae risg, mae premiwm—a ellid fod weditrosglwyddo’r risg yn gyfan i rywun arallfel nad oedd yn rhaid i ni, yn y Cynulliad,ei hysgwyddo? A gafodd hyn ei archwilio?

Mr Shortridge: At one level, I think thatthat remains an option for the future,which the Assembly might want to lookat. As I understand it—and others canhelp me—the thinking at an earlier stagewas that the management of the baywould be done as a private financeinitiative project. When that wasexplored, the private sector was notinterested in taking over the scale of riskthat was to be transferred. That is one ofthe reasons why the revenue costs thatwe have are greater than we expected. Ithink that the hope was that, if it was aPFI project, it could all be rolled up andit would be a substantially lesser sum.

Mr Shortridge: Ar un lefel, yr ydwyf o’rfarn fod hynny’n opsiwn ar gyfer ydyfodol, y gallai’r Cynulliad ei ystyried.Yn ôl yr hyn a ddeallaf—a gall eraill fyhelpu—ystyriwyd yn ystod cyfnodcynharach y gellid rheoli’r bae felprosiect menter wedi’i ariannu’n breifat.Pan gafodd hynny ei archwilio, nid oeddgan y sector preifat ddiddordeb mewncymryd drosodd raddfa’r risg i’wthrosglwyddo. Mae hyn yn un o’rrhesymau pam fod costau’r refeniw ynfwy nag a ddisgwyliasom. Yn fy marn i, ygobaith oedd, os oedd yn brosiect PFI, ygellid ei ddirwyn i ben ac y byddai’n swmtipyn llai sylweddol.

[121] Dafydd Wigley: Does Mr Boycehave anything to add?

[121] Dafydd Wigley: A oes gan Mr Boycerywbeth i’w ychwanegu?

Mr Boyce: We always envisaged that itwould be a PFI project but that it wouldnot be a PFI project from day onebecause the private sector would need tohave more information and greaterexperience of its management andoperation. Therefore, it was ourjudgment that it would be a viable PFIoption three to five years down the road.That goes back to why we chose afacilities management contract for thatthree- to five-year period.

Mr Boyce: Yr ydym wastad wedi rhagweldy byddai’n brosiect PFI ond na fyddai’nbrosiect PFI o’r cychwyn cyntaf gan ybyddai angen i’r sector preifat gael mwyo wybodaeth a mwy o brofiad o ran eireoli a’i weithredu. Felly, einpenderfyniad ni oedd y byddai’n opsiwnPFI ymarferol yn ystod y tair i bummlynedd nesaf. Mae hynny’n mynd yn ôli’r rheswm pam y dewiswyd contractrheoli cyfleusterau gennym ar gyfer ycyfnod rhwng tair a phum mlyneddhwnnw.

90

It seemed to us that there wasconsiderable scope for shore-based andbay-operated co-incidence ofmanagement to produce a revenuestream to the private sector that wouldmeet the public sector obligation for thebay. We were conscious of the fact thatthere was the Ferry Road peninsula,which projected into the bay. That is avery large area of land, with the Ely onone side and the Taff on the other, sittingin a very prominent position and couldhave had commercial opportunities toexploit in order to produce a revenuestream for managing and operating thebarrage. That may not be possible in thefuture because Cardiff City and CountyCouncil has sports village aspirations forthat land.

Yr oedd cryn gyfle yn ein barn ni ar gyferrheolaeth ar y cyd ar y lan a weithredwydo’r bae i gynhyrchu llif refeniw i’r sectorpreifat a fyddai’n bodloni rhwymedigaethy sector preifat ar gyfer y bae. Yr oeddemyn ymwybodol o’r ffaith fod penrhynFerry Road yn bodoli, oedd yn estyn allani’r bae. Mae honno’n ardal fawr iawn odir, gydag afon Elái ar un ochr a’r Taf ar yllall, sydd mewn safle amlwg iawn a gellidfod wedi achub ar gyfleoedd masnacholi’w datblygu er mwyn cynhyrchu llifrefeniw i reoli a gweithredu’r morglawdd.Efallai na fydd hyn yn bosibl yn y dyfodolgan fod Cyngor Dinas a Sir Caerdydd yngobeithio codi pentref chwaraeon ar y tirhwnnw.

However, there are other shore-basedareas of land around the bay. It wasalways in our thinking, and would remainin my thinking, that there is a PFIopportunity here in the future to take theburden off the National Assembly. Imight just say as a postscript that I donot think that the Assembly has been‘lumbered’ with the barrage because ithas already produced £1.5 billion’s worthof investment for Wales as a nation and isdelivering at least £170 million into thepublic purse, of which Wales is asignificant beneficiary.

Fodd bynnag, mae ardaloedd eraill ar ylan o gwmpas y bae. Yr oeddem wastado’r farn, ac yr wyf i yn parhau o’r un farn,bod cyfle PFI yma yn y dyfodol i gymryd ybaich oddi ar ysgwyddau’r CynulliadCenedlaethol. Hoffwn ychwanegu fel ôl-nodyn nad wyf o’r farn fod y Cynulliadwedi gorfod ysgwyddo baich y morglawddgan ei fod eisoes wedi cynhyrchubuddsoddiad gwerth £1.5 biliwn i Gymrufel cenedl ac mae’n cyflwyno o leiaf £170miliwn i’r coffrau cyhoeddus, gydaChymru’n elwa’n sylweddol arno.

[122] Janet Davies: We now need to moveon to the arrangements that have beenput in place to identify and manage theenvironmental obligations and potentialliabilities. Mr Shortridge, paragraphs3.39 and 3.40 of the report note that theAssembly is developing oversightmechanisms for bodies that are nowresponsible for the operation of thebarrage, the bay and the other schemesthat we have already discussed. TheAuditor General also points to theassociated potential risks and liabilities.What steps are you taking to identify andmanage the potential risks?

[122] Janet Davies: Mae angen inni yn awrsymud ymlaen at y trefniadau a roddwydar waith i nodi a rheoli’r cyfrifoldebauamgylcheddol a’r rhwymedigaethauposibl. Mr Shortridge, mae paragraffau3.39 a 3.40 o’r adroddiad yn nodi bod yCynulliad yn datblygu mecanweithiaugoruchwylio ar gyfer cyrff sydd bellach yngyfrifol am weithredu’r morglawdd, y baea’r cynlluniau eraill a drafodasom eisoes.Mae’r Archwilydd Cyffredinol hefyd yntynnu sylw at y risgiau a’rrhwymedigaethau posibl cysylltiedig. Pagamau yr ydych yn eu cymryd i nodi arheoli’r risgau posibl?

91

Mr Shortridge: The whole process of riskmanagement, I think, is subsumed in thediscussions that have been held onputting in place the funding agreements.In those agreements, we are seeking tohave absolute clarity between ourselvesand the Harbour Authority on who isresponsible for what and then, inaddition, to have a process in place toensure that there are proper monitoringarrangements and that we can jointlylearn from experience to ensure that allaspects of the bay are being managed inthe most cost-effective way.

Mr Shortridge: Mae’r broses gyfan o reolirisg, yn fy nhyb i, wedi ei chynnwys yn ytrafodaethau a gafodd eu cynnal er mwynrhoi’r trefniadau ariannol ar waith. Yn ycytundebau hynny, yr ydym yn ceisio caeleglurdeb llwyr rhyngom ac Awdurdod yrHarbwr ynglyn â phwy sydd yn gyfrifol ambeth ac yna, yn ogystal, i gael proses ynei lle i sicrhau y ceir trefniadau monitrocywir ac y gallwn gyd-ddysgu o brofiad ermwyn sicrhau bod yr holl agweddau ar ybae yn cael eu rheoli yn y modd mwyafcost effeithiol.

[123] Janet Davies: Jenny has somequestions about the environmentalobligations in general.

[123] Jenny Davies: Mae gan Jenny raicwestiynau ynglyn â’r rhwymedigaethauamgylcheddol yn gyffredinol.

[124] Jenny Randerson: When will themeasures be in place to ensure thatthere is a proper regime to meet waterquality requirements in the bay?

[124] Jenny Randerson: Pryd bydd ymesurau yn eu lle i sicrhau bod trefngywir i ddiwallu gofynion ansawdd y dwryn y bae?

Mr Shortridge: That is all associated withthe aeration equipment. TheEnvironment Agency Wales will have tobe closely consulted on and involved inthe precise arrangements that are beingput in place. I know that this time lastyear, when the bubbler was the front-running option, the Environment Agencywas, in principle, content with that as away of proceeding. Whatever theoutcome following the present tenderexercise, the Harbour Authority and theEnvironment Agency will have to workclosely together because theEnvironment Agency will have to besatisfied that water quality requirementsare being met.

Mr Shortridge: Mae hynny i gyd yngysylltiedig â’r offer nwyeiddio. Bydd ynrhaid ymgynghori’n agos ag Asiantaeth yrAmgylchedd, Cymru a’i chynnwys yn ytrefniadau penodol sydd yn cael eu rhoiar waith. Yr adeg hon y llynedd, pan oeddy byrlymydd yn opsiwn blaenllaw, yr wyfyn gwybod fod Asiantaeth yrAmgylchedd, mewn egwyddor, yn fodlonâ hynny fel ffordd o fynd yn ei blaen. Bethbynnag fydd y canlyniad yn dilyn yrymarfer tendro presennol, bydd yn rhaid iAwdurdod yr Harbwr ac Asiantaeth yrAmgylchedd weithio’n agos â’i gilyddoherwydd bydd yn rhaid bodloniAsiantaeth yr Amgylchedd o ran diwallugofynion ansawdd y dwr.

[125] Jenny Randerson: Do you anticipatethat this will be before the March 2001deadline?

[125] Jenny Randerson: A ydych ynrhagweld y bydd hyn yn digwydd cyn yterfyn amser ym mis Mawrth 2001?

92

Mr Shortridge: Yes. I expect all thearrangements to be in place for theMarch 2001 deadline and I expect theEnvironment Agency to have signed offwhatever arrangements the HarbourAuthority proposes. Thereafter, it will bea question of monitoring to ensure thatthe standards are being met.

Mr Shortridge: Ydwyf. Yr wyf yn rhagweld ybydd yr holl drefniadau yn eu lle erbyn yterfyn amser ym mis Mawrth 2001 ac yrwyf yn disgwyl y bydd Asiantaeth yrAmgylchedd wedi dirwyn pa drefniadaubynnag a gynigir gan Awdurdod yrHarbwr i ben. Ar ôl hynny, bydd yngwestiwn o fonitro i sicrhau y caiff ysafonau eu cwrdd.

Mr Phillips: May I add briefly to that? Thereason why the tenders are coming in forthe dredging and oxygenation equipmentlater this month is because of the leadtime for ordering the bubbler—if it is tobe a bubbler—or an alternative system,and similarly to put in place thearrangements for dredging, all inanticipation of freshwater impoundmentin March or April next year. As thePermanent Secretary said earlier, thereis no guarantee of that, but the council isworking towards that target date. Inaddition, it is still working closely withthe Environment Agency, which hasrecently extended the temporaryimpoundment licence from the end ofJune to the end of September, whichgives us some comfort that the necessarysteps have been taken and the work is inhand.

Mr Phillips: A gaf i ychwanegu’n gryno athynny? Y rheswm pam fod y tendrau’ndod i mewn ar gyfer yr offer cloddio acocsigenu yn hwyrach yn ystod y mis hwnyw oherwydd yr amser arweiniol ar gyferarchebu’r byrlymydd—os oes byrlymydd ifod—neu system arall, ac yn yr un moddiroi’r trefniadau ar waith ar gyfer cloddio,y cyfan wrth ragweld cronni dwr croyw ymmis Mawrth neu fis Ebrill y flwyddynnesaf. Fel y dywedodd yr YsgrifennyddParhaol ynghynt, nid oes sicrwydd ohynny, ond mae’r Cyngor yn gweithiotuag at y dyddiad targed hwnnw. Ynogystal, mae’n parhau i weithio’n agos agAsiantaeth yr Amgylchedd, sydd wediestyn y drwydded gronni dros dro ynddiweddar o ddiwedd mis Mehefin hyd atdiwedd mis Medi, sydd yn rhoi rhywgysur inni bod y camau angenrheidiolwedi’u cymryd a bod y gwaith mewn llaw.

[126] Jenny Randerson: On a separateissue, in paragraph 3.27 of the report,there is reference to the fact that CardiffBay may be designated a ‘sensitivewater’. How will consequent expenditurebe met if that happens? Who will beresponsible?

[126] Jenny Randerson: Ar fater gwahanol,ym mharagraff 3.27 o’r adroddiad, ceircyfeiriad at y ffaith y gall Bae Caerdyddgael ei ddynodi fel ‘dwr sensitif’. Sut ybydd modd cwrdd â’r gwariant dilynol osdigwydd hyn? Pwy fydd yn gyfrifol?

Mr Shortridge: I mentioned that that is anadditional cost that would fall to theAssembly.

Mr Shortridge: Soniais y bydd hynny’n gostychwanegol a fyddai’n dod i ran yCynulliad.

Mr Phillips: Correct. Mr Phillips: Cywir.

[127] Jenny Randerson: Has that beendiscussed with Cardiff City and CountyCouncil in terms of managementarrangements?

[127] Jenny Randerson: A drafodwyd hyngyda Chyngor Dinas a Sir Caerdydd o ranreoli’r trefniadau?

93

Mr Phillips: It has been discussed, but notso much in terms of managementarrangements, because we do not know ifit will happen and if it does, it is someyears away yet, possibly outside theinitial five-year period that we havediscussed. However, in designing thestructures that we have put in place, wehave been careful to ensure that this sortof potential liability can be catered for.

Mr Phillips: Cafwyd trafodaeth, ond nidcymaint o ran trefniadau rheoli gan nadydym yn gwybod os bydd yn digwydd acos y bydd, mae’n parhau i fod raiblynyddoedd i ffwrdd, o bosibl y tu allani’r cyfnod cychwynnol o bum mlynedd ybuom yn ei drafod. Fodd bynnag, wrthgynllunio’r strwythurau a sefydlwydgennym, buom yn ofalus i sicrhau y gellirdarparu ar gyfer y math hwn orwymedigaeth posibl.

[128] Jenny Randerson: Do you have a bestestimate of when the decision might bemade? You said it is some years away; isit 10 or 20 years?

[128] Jenny Randerson: A oes gennychamcangyfrif gorau o pryd y gellid gwneudy penderfyniad? Soniasoch y gallai fodymhen rhai blynyddoedd; ai 10 neu 20mlynedd?

Mr Phillips: I must admit to not being anexpert on this directive. There aredifferent views and the European Union,if I remember correctly, has been, or is,reviewing the criteria against which itdesignates sensitive waters. Therefore, Iam not clear if it will happen. As far as Iam aware, we are not in active discussionwith the European Commission about it.

Mr Phillips: Mae’n rhaid imi gyfaddef nadwyf yn arbenigwr ar y cyfarwyddyd hwn.Mae barn wahanol ynglyn â hyn ac os wyfyn cofio’n iawn, bu’r Undeb Ewropeaiddyn arolygu neu mae wrthi’n arolygu’rmeini prawf yn erbyn yr hyn y mae’ndynodi’n ddyfyr oedd sensitif. Felly, nidwyf yn glir a fydd yn digwydd. Hyd y gwn,nid ydym mewn trafodaeth weithredol â’rComiswn Ewropeaidd ynglyn â hyn.

Mr Shortridge: I will submit a note givingyou the best information that I can onthat.

Mr Shortridge: Byddaf yn cyflwyno nodyn afydd yn rhoi’r wybodaeth orau a feddaf amhynny ichi.

[129] Jenny Randerson: I also want tomention groundwater damage, to whichJane Davidson referred earlier. Do Iunderstand correctly from your answersto her that you have left that issue to oneside and are not pursuing it? You saidthat there is no way of knowing at thispoint how much that amount would be. Isany work being done at present toestimate the potential impact ongroundwater and the potential costs? Ihad the alternative impression from yourprevious answer.

[129] Jenny Randerson: Yr wyf hefyd amsôn am ddifrod dwr daear, y cyfeirioddJane Davidson ato ynghynt. A wyf i ddeallyn iawn yn ôl eich atebion iddi eich bodwedi rhoi’r mater hwnnw o’r neilltu acnad ydych am fynd ar ei drywydd?Dywedasoch nad oes unrhyw ffordd owybod ar hyn o bryd faint fyddai’r swmhwnnw. A oes unrhyw waith yn myndrhagddo ar hyn o bryd i amcangyfrif yreffaith bosibl ar y dwr daear a’r costauposibl? Yr oeddwn wedi cael argraffwahanol o’ch ateb blaenorol.

94

Mr Shortridge: I am not aware of any workgoing on. We are relying very much onthe professional analysis that wasundertaken by, or on behalf of, CBDC.The firm expectation is that themeasures that have been put in place willprove to be adequate. However, therecan be no absolute assurance on that. Wemust wait for the freshwaterimpoundment.

Mr Shortridge: Nid wyf yn ymwybodol fodunrhyw waith yn mynd rhagddo. Yr ydymyn dibynnu’n fawr ar y dadansoddiadproffesiynol a gynhaliwyd gan, ac ar ranCDBC. Y disgwyliad cadarn yw y bydd ymesurau a sefydlwyd yn rhai digonol.Fodd bynnag, nid oes sicrwydd llwyrynglyn â hynny. Bydd yn rhaid inni arosam y cronni dwr croyw.

Mr Phillips: As the National Audit Officesaid on page 17 of its report, there are tobe re-surveys of the properties, whichwill commence next year.

Mr Phillips: Fel y dywedodd y SwyddfaArchwilio Genedlaethol ar dudalen 17 o’ihadroddiad, byddant yn cynnal ail arolwgo’r eiddo, a fydd yn cychwyn y flwyddynnesaf.

[130] Jenny Randerson: However, becauseof the nature of the impoundment at themoment, which is not as was originallyintended—impoundment and then youhave a freshwater lake—there will beperiods when the water is not there. Isthe three-year period affected by the factthat we do not have proper impoundmentat the moment?

[130] Jenny Randerson: Fodd bynnag,oherwydd natur y gwaith cronni ar yfoment, nad yw’r hyn y bwriadwyd iddofod yn wreiddiol—cronni ac yna maegennych lyn dwr croyw—bydd adegau panna fydd y dwr yno. A effeithir ar y cyfnodo dair blynedd gan y ffaith nad oesgennym gronni priodol ar hyn o bryd?

Mr Shortridge: I think that I have readsomewhere, but I will need to clarify itfor you, that that is something that isbeing taken into account in terms of thetimescale over which householders haverights under the arrangements.

Mr Shortridge: Yr wyf yn meddwl fy modwedi darllen amdano rywle, ond byddangen imi egluro i chi ei fod yn cael eiystyried o ran y terfyn amser y bydd gan ydeiliaid tai hawliau drosto o dan ytrefniadau.

[131] Jenny Randerson: Yes, because theyhave this 20-year period. That couldmake a big difference to the legalsituation, as well as a practical difference.

[131] Jenny Randerson: Ie, oherwydd fodganddynt y cyfnod hwn o 20 mlynedd.Gallai hynny wneud gwahaniaeth mawr i’rsefyllfa gyfreithiol, yn ogystal â gwneudgwahaniaeth ymarferol.

[132] Jane Davidson: Paragraph 3.34refers to unresolved contractual claimsrelated to drainage work. Can you, MrShortridge, say what the current positionis on these?

[132] Jane Davidson: Mae paragraff 3.34yn cyfeirio at hawliadau cytundebol hebeu datrys sydd yn berthnasol i waithdraenio. A allwch ddweud wrthym bethyw’r sefyllfa bresennol ynglyn â’r rhain,Mr Shortridge?

Mr Shortridge: I cannot. Mr Phillips maybe able to do so.

Mr Shortridge: Na allaf. Efallai y gall MrPhillips wneud hynny.

95

Mr Phillips: I do not think that I can sayany more than what is in the report.There were a number of unresolvedclaims outstanding at the wind-up of thecorporation on 31 March. We are lookingat the robustness and theappropriateness of those claims in thenormal way, and will be dealing with themas appropriate.

Mr Phillips: Ni chredaf y gallaf ddweudmwy na’r hyn sydd yn yr adroddiad. Yroedd nifer o hawliadau heb eu datrys pangafodd y gorfforaeth ei dirwyn i ben arFawrth 31. Yr ydym yn ystyried cadernida phriodolrwydd yr hawliadau hynny yn yffordd arferol, a byddwn yn delio â hwy fely bo’n briodol.

[133] Jane Davidson: When do you expectit to be resolved?

[133] Jane Davidson: Pryd y disgwyliwchiddo gael ei ddatrys?

Mr Phillips: Very shortly, I should imagine. Mr Phillips: Yn fuan iawn, dybiwn i.

[134] Jane Davidson: Within days ormonths?

[134] Jane Davidson: O fewn dyddiau neufisoedd?

Mr Phillips: Weeks. Days or weeks; Iwould not say months.

Mr Phillips: Wythnosau. Dyddiau neuwythnosau; ni fyddwn yn dweud misoedd.

[135] Jane Davidson: In the short term,therefore. Thank you. Paragraph 3.35refers to recovering £4.3 million fromWelsh Water, but we cannot have themoney back until 2005. Are youconfident that that timescale will remainappropriate in terms of that recovery?

[135] Jane Davidson: Yn y tymor byr, felly.Diolch. Mae Paragraff 3.35 yn cyfeirio atadfer £4.3 miliwn gan Ddwr Cymru, ondni allwn gael yr arian yn ôl tan 2005. Aydych yn hyderus y bydd y terfyn amserhwnnw yn parhau’n briodol o ran yradferiad hwnnw?

Mr Phillips: Yes. Mr Phillips: Ydwyf.

[136] Jane Davidson: Paragraph 3.36 and3.37 refers to the Gwent Levels WetlandReserve. We now know that the cost ofthe Gwent Levels Wetland Reserve willbe in excess of £10.4 million, which is £5million more than originally expected.However, I am acutely aware that that £5million is related to moving the wetlandssite, and is a realistic cost. Whatassurance can you give the Committeethat that represents value for money?

[136] Jane Davidson: Mae paragraff 3.36 a3.37 yn cyfeirio at Warchodfan GwlyptirGwastadeddau Gwent. Yr ydym yngwybod bellach y bydd cost GwarchodfaGwlyptir Gwastadeddau Gwent yn fwy na£10.4 miliwn, sydd yn £5 miliwn yn fwyna’r hyn a ddisgwyliwyd yn wreiddiol.Fodd bynnag, yr wyf yn hynod ymwybodolbod y £5 miliwn hwnnw yn ymwneud âsymud safle’r gwlyptir, ac mae’n gostrealistig. Pa sicrwydd y gallwch ei roi i’rPwyllgor fod hynny’n cynrychioli gwertham arian?

96

Mr Shortridge: I do not think that I wouldput it in those terms. It was arequirement of the corporation and theestablishment of the bay that alternativehabitats should be provided. In thecircumstances, that is what it has cost tomeet that requirement.

Mr Shortridge: Nid wyf yn meddwl ybyddwn yn ei roi yn y termau hynny. Yroedd yn ofyniad gan y gorfforaeth wrthsefydlu’r bae y dylid darparu cynefinoedderaill. O dan yr amgylchiadau, dyna’r hyny mae wedi ei gostio i ddiwallu’r gofyniadhwnnw.

[137] Jane Davidson: Paragraph 3.36refers to the arrangements that havebeen put in place so that within five yearsthe reserve will qualify as a specialprotection area. Are those five yearsfrom the 1996 agreement, so that we canexpect it in 2001, or are the five yearspost-impoundment, that is, 2006?

[137] Jane Davidson: Mae paragraff 3.36yn cyfeirio at y trefniadau a roddwyd arwaith fel y gall y warchodfa fod yn gymwysi fod yn ardal warchod arbennig o fewnpum mlynedd. A yw’r pum mlyneddhynny yn dechrau o’r cytundeb yn 1996,fel y gallwn ei ddisgwyl yn 2001, neu ayw’r pum mlynedd yn dechrau ar ôl ycronni, hynny yw, yn 2006?

Mr Shortridge: I cannot answer that. Iimagine that it would be five years fromthe time when the reserve is properlyfunctioning. However, again I would haveto submit a note on that.

Mr Shortridge: Ni allaf ateb hynny. Yr wyfyn tybio y byddai ymhen pum mlynedd o’radeg y bydd y warchodfa’n gwblweithredol. Fodd bynnag, unwaith etobyddai gofyn imi gyflwyno nodyn arhynny.

[138] Jane Davidson: Can you assist onthat, Mr Boyce?

[138] Jane Davidson: A allwch gynorthwyoar hynny, Mr Boyce?

Mr Boyce: I understood that it would befrom the day that the Gwent reserve wascompleted, which was in March.

Mr Boyce: Yn ôl yr hyn a ddeallaf, byddaio ddiwrnod cwblhau gwarchodfa Gwentymlaen, sef mis Mawrth.

[139] Jane Davidson: March of this year? [139] Jane Davidson: Mis Mawrth eleni?

Mr Boyce: Yes. Mr Boyce: Ie.

[140] Jane Davidson: Therefore we aretalking about 2005 for that status.

[140] Jane Davidson: Felly yr ydym yn sônam 2005 ar gyfer y statws hwnnw.

Mr Boyce: Yes. Mr Boyce: Ydym.

[141] Jane Davidson: What is your currentestimate of the likely cost of creating thereserve? I put that to Mr Boyce and MrShortridge.

[141] Jane Davidson: Beth yw eichamcangyfrif presennol o’r gost debygol ogreu’r warchodfa? Gofynnaf hynny i MrBoyce a Mr Shortbridge.

97

Mr Shortridge: My understanding is thatthe figure of £10.4 million is prettyrobust. We could be talking plus orminus a hundred thousand or so.However, as a roundish figure, I thinkthat it is a reasonable one.

Mr Shortbridge: Yn ôl yr hyn a ddeallaf,mae’r ffigur o £10.4 miliwn yn un eithafcadarn. Gallasem fod yn siarad am rywgan mil fwy neu lai. Fodd bynnag, felffigur gweddol grwn, mae’n un rhesymol,yn fy nhyb i.

Mr Boyce: The reserve has been in placeand has been operating as a reservesince the autumn of last year. Thereforeit just needs the five years to mature toqualify for that status. Most of the costshave been met. There are one or twooutstanding contractual claims fromcontractors when we handed it over tothe Countryside Council for Wales at theend of March. As the PermanentSecretary said, we are not talking aboutlarge sums of money.

Mr Boyce: Bu’r warchodfa ar waith ac yngweithredu fel gwarchodfa ers yr hydref yllynedd. Felly dim ond pum mlynedd iaeddfedu sydd ei angen i fod yn gymwysar gyfer y statws hwnnw. Cafodd y rhanfwyaf o’r costau eu talu. Mae un neu ddauo hawliadau cytundebol i’w talu igontractwyr pan drosglwyddasom hi iGyngor Cefn Gwlad Cymru ddiwedd misMawrth. Fel y dywedodd yr YsgrifennyddParhaol, nid ydym yn sôn am symiaumawr o arian.

[142] Jane Davidson: The reserve wasdesigned to relocate dunlin, redshank,widgeon and shoveler among otherthings—

[142] Jane Davidson: Cynlluniwyd ywarchodfa i adleoli pibydd y mawn, ypibydd coesgoch, y chwiwell a’r cigyddglas ymysg pethau eraill—

Mr Boyce: No. It was not designed torelocate anything but to create a newhabitat altogether. It was designed togive an environmental gift, if you like, toWales and the community as a whole inreplacing those environmentaladvantages that some perceived existedin the bay area. It was not about moving aset of birds from one location to theother. It is not expected that dunlin andredshank will go from Cardiff Bay to theGwent Levels. They are more likely togo from Cardiff Bay to the Rumneyestuary. Indeed, that is where they havegone, because before the corporationwas wound up, it ringed birds in the bayto find out where they went as soon asthe bay was impounded and they went tothe river Rumney.

Mr Boyce: Naddo. Ni chafodd eichynllunio i adleoli unrhyw beth ond ynhytrach i greu cynefin newydd sbon. Fe’icynlluniwyd, os mynnwch, fel rhoddamgylcheddol i Gymru a’r gymuned gyfandrwy adfer y manteision amgylcheddolhynny yr oedd rhai yn tybio eu bod ynbodoli yn ardal y bae. Nid yw’n fater osymud un carfan o adar o un lleoliad i’rllall. Ni ddisgwylir i bibydd y mawn a’rpibydd coesgoch fynd o Fae Caerdydd iWastadeddau Gwent. Maent yn fwytebygol o fynd o Fae Caerdydd i aber afonRhymni. Yn wir, dyna lle y maent wedimynd, oherwydd cyn i’r gorfforaethddirwyn i ben, bu’n modrwyo adar yn ybae i ganfod i ble yr oeddent ar ôl i’r baegael ei gronni ac aethant i afon Rhymni.

[143] Jane Davidson: Alternative feedinggrounds have been found by the birdsand the Gwent Levels provide a newlocation and a new opportunity.

[143] Jane Davidson: Cafodd yr adar hyd idiroedd bwydo eraill ac maeGwastadeddau Gwent yn darparu lleoliadnewydd a chyfle newydd iddynt.

Mr Boyce: Precisely. Mr Boyce: Yn hollol.

98

[144] Dafydd Wigley: I will address ageneral question to Jon Shortridge, if Imay, Chair. Given the degree ofquestioning that you have faced todayand the residual and oversightresponsibility that must remain with theAssembly, do you believe that theAssembly has the capability of keepingthat oversight in control and do you havethe people in place to do so?

[144] Dafydd Wigley: Yr wyf am ofyncwestiwn cyffredinol i Jon Shortbridge,os caf, Gadeirydd. O ystyried yr holimanwl a wynebasoch heddiw a’rcyfrifoldeb gweddilliol a goruchwyliol ymae’n rhaid i’r Cynulliad barhau i’wysgwyddo, a ydych o’r farn fod gan yCynulliad y gallu i gadw’r oruchwyliaethhonno o dan reolaeth ac a oes gennych ybobl mewn swyddi a all wneud hynny?

Mr Shortridge: Yes, I do believe that wehave the capability. The division thatSteve Phillips heads has beenresponsible for overseeing Cardiff BayDevelopment Corporation for manyyears. In bringing this project to aconclusion, the corporation has had todeal with an enormous number ofcomplex issues, in which the WelshOffice had to take a close interestwithout overstepping the mark andtaking the executive responsibilitiesitself. These are the sort of oversightresponsibilities of which, as officials inthe Assembly, we have a lot ofexperience and it should be well withinour competence. On whether I have theright people in place, at the moment I do.I have great confidence in StevenPhillips. As many of you will know, he is avery high calibre official. All the time thathe is heading his division and managingthis process with Cardiff council I willhave confidence that we as Assemblyofficials will be managing this continuingproject as well as it can be managed.

Mr Shortridge: Yn fy marn i, mae gennym ygallu. Mae’r is-adran y mae StevePhillips yn bennaeth arni wedi bod yngyfrifol am oruchwylio CorfforaethDatblygu Bae Caerdydd ers llawer oflynyddoedd. Wrth ddod â’r prosiect hwni ben, bu’n rhaid i’r gorfforaeth ymdrin ânifer helaeth o faterion cymhleth, y bu’nrhaid i’r Swyddfa Gymreig gymryddiddordeb agos ynddynt heb fynd yn rhybell ac ymgymryd â’r cyfrifoldebaugweithredol eu hunain. Y rhain yw’r matho gyfrifoldebau goruchwylio y cawsom ni,fel swyddogion y Cynulliad, lawer obrofiad ohonynt ac ni ddylai fod unrhywanhawster o gwbl inni ymgymryd â hyn.Ynglyn â’r cwestiwn o gael y bobl gywiri’w weithredu, ar hyn o bryd mae gennyfrai. Mae gennyf ffydd mawr yn StevePhillips. Fel y gwyr llawer ohonoch,mae’n swyddog o allu arbennig. Tra peryef yn bennaeth ar ei is-adran a thra pery ireoli’r broses hon gyda chyngorCaerdydd yr wyf yn ffyddiog y byddwn nifel swyddogion y Cynulliad yn rheoli’rprosiect parhaus hwn cystal ag y gallwn eireoli.

[145] Janet Davies: I thank Mr Boyce, MrShortridge and Mr Phillips for their fullanswers to our questions and for thepromise to let us have answers in writingwhere there were one or two problems.A draft transcript will be sent to you sothat you can check the factual accuracybefore it is published as part of theminutes. When the Committee publishesits report, the transcript will be includedas an annex.

[145] Janet Davies: Hoffwn ddiolch i MrBoyce, Mr Shortridge a Mr Phillips ameu hatebion llawn i’n cwestiynau ac amaddo i roi eu hatebion inni ynysgrifenedig lle yr oedd un neu ddau obroblemau’n codi. Anfonir trawsysgrifddrafft atoch er mwyn ichi allu sicrhaubod y ffeithiau’n gywir cyn cyhoeddi’rddogfen fel rhan o’r cofnodion. Pan fydd yPwyllgor yn cyhoeddi ei adroddiad,cynhwysir y trawsysgrif fel atodiad.

99

Daeth y sesiwn cymryd tystiolaeth i ben am 12.03 p.m.The evidence-taking session ended at 12.03 p.m.

Annex B

Letter dated 12th August, 2000 to the Clerk of the Audit Committee from Jon

Shortridge

Title: Information requested at the Audit Committee meeting on the 13th July 2000

Please note this information is available in hard copy only

100

Annex C

Letter dated 11th August 2000 to Clerk of the Audit Committee from Mr Roger

Thomas, Director Enviroment Agency Wales

Title: Cardiff Bay Barrage – National Assembly Audit Committee

Please note this information is available in hard copy only

101

ANNEX D

THE AUDIT COMMITTEE

The National Assembly's Audit Committee ensures that proper and thorough scrutiny is given to theAssembly’s expenditure. In broad terms, its role is to examine the reports on the accounts of theAssembly and other public bodies prepared by the Auditor General for Wales; and to consider reportsby the Auditor General for Wales on examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness withwhich the Assembly has used its resources in discharging its functions. The responsibilities of theAudit Committee are set out in detail in Standing Order 12.

The membership of the Committee as appointed on 9 November 2000 is:

Janet Davies (Plaid Cymru) - ChairAlan Cairns (Conservative)Jocelyn Davies (Plaid Cymru)Alison Halford (Labour)Ann Jones (Labour)Peter Law (Labour)Lynne Neagle (Labour)Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru)Kirsty Williams (Liberal Democrat)

Further information about the Committee can be obtained from:

Russell KeithClerk to the Audit CommitteeNational Assembly for WalesCardiff BayCF99 1NATel: 02920 898155Email: Audit.comm@wales.gsi.gov.uk