Pwyllgor Diwylliant, Cyfathrebu, y Gymraeg, Chwaraeon, a Chysylltiadau Rhyngwladol
Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport, and International Relations Committee15/02/2023
Aelodau'r Pwyllgor a oedd yn bresennol
Committee Members in Attendance
|Alun Davies MS|
|Delyth Jewell MS||Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor|
|Hefin David MS|
|Heledd Fychan MS|
|Jenny Rathbone MS||Dirprwyo ar ran Carolyn Thomas|
|Substitute for Carolyn Thomas|
|Tom Giffard MS|
Y rhai eraill a oedd yn bresennol
Others in Attendance
|Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson||Cadeirydd, Chwaraeon Cymru|
|Chair, Sport Wales|
|Brian Davies||Prif Weithredwr Dros Dro, Chwaraeon Cymru|
|Acting Chief Executive, Sport Wales|
Swyddogion y Senedd a oedd yn bresennol
Senedd Officials in Attendance
|Manon Huws||Cynghorydd Cyfreithiol|
|Rhea James||Dirprwy Glerc|
|Tanwen Summers||Dirprwy Glerc|
Cofnodir y trafodion yn yr iaith y llefarwyd hwy ynddi yn y pwyllgor. Yn ogystal, cynhwysir trawsgrifiad o’r cyfieithu ar y pryd. Mae hon yn fersiwn ddrafft o’r cofnod.
The proceedings are reported in the language in which they were spoken in the committee. In addition, a transcription of the simultaneous interpretation is included. This is a draft version of the record.
Cyfarfu’r pwyllgor yn y Senedd a thrwy gynhadledd fideo.
Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 09:30.
The committee met in the Senedd and by video-conference.
The meeting began at 09:30.
Bore da. Hoffwn i groesawu'r Aelodau i'r cyfarfod hwn o'r Pwyllgor Diwylliant, Cyfathrebu, y Gymraeg, Chwaraeon a Chysylltiadau Rhyngwladol. Dŷn ni wedi derbyn ymddiheuriadau gan Carolyn Thomas ac mae Jenny Rathbone yn ymuno â ni ar ei rhan. Oes gan unrhyw Aelodau fuddiannau i'w datgan? Dwi ddim yn gweld unrhyw rai.
Good morning. I'd like to welcome Members to this meeting of the Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport and International Relations Committee. We've received apologies from Carolyn Thomas and Jenny Rathbone is joining us on her behalf. Do any Members have any declarations of interest? I don't see that there are.
Felly, fe wnawn ni symud yn syth ymlaen at eitem 2. Dŷn ni'n cymryd sesiwn dystiolaeth gyda Chwaraeon Cymru ynglŷn â'r honiadau yn ymwneud ag Undeb Rygbi Cymru.
So, we'll move straight on to item 2. We are taking an evidence session with Sport Wales with regard to the allegations surrounding the Welsh Rugby Union.
Can I ask the witnesses to introduce yourselves for the record, please?
I'm Tanni Grey‑Thompson, and I'm chair of Sport Wales.
I'm Brian Davies, and I'm the acting chief executive of Sport Wales.
Fantastic. It's lovely to have you with us. We will move straight into questions, and I'll go to Hefin David.
When we interviewed the chair and chief executive of the WRU a couple of weeks ago, they said that they'd engage with Sport Wales to lead and support the independent review that they're introducing. They made mention of Sport Resolutions—an arbitration service. What we'd like to understand is, what was Sport Wales's involvement, and why did you come to pick Sport Resolutions as the body to run the investigation?
Diolch, Hefin. If I give you a bit of a brief timeline as to how this came about, both myself and Tanni received separate phone calls, late afternoon on Friday, 27 January, asking if we would help and advise on the establishment of an independent panel. It was urgent, and they needed answers immediately. We have a retainer with the organisation in question, Sport Resolutions, who have a—is it enviable or unenviable, depending on your point of view—track record of working in this kind of field. It's well established, it's not for profit, and, as I said, we have a retainer with them for our appeals processes. So—
Can I ask you, just at that point, have you used them before, then?
We haven't as an organisation had need to use them, but we do know organisations, such as British Cycling, British Canoeing, British Gymnastics, have used them. And they are used quite extensively in the world of anti-doping, and the establishment of panels to look at anti-doping evidence as well.
Is that why you've got a retainer with them?
No. Our retainer is about our appeals process. So, if someone complains about us, there's a process that we put in place to deal with that complaint, and if someone is unhappy, or an organisation is unhappy with the result of that complaint, then, we retain the services of Sport Resolutions to look at it, on appeal.
Hefin, just for transparency, before I became chair of Sport Wales, I'd spoken at lots of Sport Resolutions conferences; I'd had a number of dealings with them in other cases that I worked on, outside sport—so, their expertise and the number of individuals they had access to. Also, from a very personal level, I felt, looking at appointing a chair who was outside Wales, who had knowledge of sport and that structure—the good and the challenging bit of sport in Wales is the interconnectivity, and, for me, it was important that the independence that that individual brought was someone whose future career didn't depend on sport in Wales.
Thank you for that. Hefin, back to you.
Yes, that's been reflected in the correspondence we've received from interested parties—that it was someone entirely independent to Welsh sport. So, can I ask what is Sport Wales's role now with the ongoing investigation? Do you take a step back, or will you be further involved as the process continues?
It's a bit of both, to be honest. So, the independent panel is exactly that—it's an independent panel that has the terms of reference agreed, and it will operate now under the auspices of Dame Anne Rafferty. But there is a commissioning advisory group. So, the panel has been commissioned by the WRU—someone has to commission it, so, the WRU will be covering the costs, and therefore are the commissioning party. But there is an advisory group, consisting of a representative of the Welsh Rugby Union, a representative of Sport Wales, and a further independent person, and that's the commissioning advisory group. It effectively sits there to help the panel if it requests it. It is asking for monthly updates from the panel, but its role is basically to check on progress and that everything the panel wants and needs is being received. So, we do have a partial role in that commissioning advisory group, yes.
Previously commissioned reports will be provided to the panel—will they be public record, or is that all going to be done in private?
I think the chief executive of the WRU covered that in the last session, where they needed to check the legality of that situation. They certainly clarified that they'd be available to the panel, but in terms of public access, that was for the WRU to determine, based on the confidentiality, certainly of one of the reports that was commissioned into the women's game. A lot of the evidence was given under agreement that it would be confidential, so they were having to check whether they could redact or publish anything publicly.
I think others will have a question about the detail of the report; I was wondering if, in general, reports will be made public and the answer is no; they'll have confidential access. What about evidence sessions? Do you feel that the evidence sessions with people—I assume there'll be sessions much like this committee—will they be held in public, much the same as a public inquiry, or will they be done in private?
I can't answer that question, I'm afraid, because it's an independent panel being chaired by Dame Anne Rafferty. You'll have to direct the question directly to Dame Anne, I'm afraid, because it is her process, it's her panel.
Yes, of course.
Sorry. Thank you. Just in terms of other reports into British national governing bodies, there have been some challenges in terms of what is made public. So, in similar cases, people have given evidence and then reports had to have been heavily rewritten when those people were quite nervous about potentially being identified, even though there were very generic comments in there that individuals had made. So, I think where we are in terms of—this has moved at quite a lot of pace, and I think we all recognise the urgency of getting something started very quickly. Some of those things still need to be explored, because I think the challenge in this area—and this is culture across sport and society—is how difficult it can be for some individuals to come forward and, sometimes, when they want to come forward in terms of how comfortable they feel coming forward.
I've been involved in various different ways in lots of different issues in sport, and that confidentiality is really important. And one of the challenges is that some people don't want to necessarily put things in writing or need to feel—. When I did the piece of work for the UK Government on duty of care back in 2017, a large number of people didn't even want their name to be in my diary and didn't want to meet me in Westminster, wanted to meet me outside. I ended up meeting people in coffee shops all over. So, there's a lot of sensitivity around some of this.
There's that balance between transparency and confidentiality—we fully understand that. Chair, I've got two more questions. One is on the terms of reference. As a body, are you satisfied that the terms of reference are sufficiently broad and focused at the same time to cover the key issues that are at play here?
An interesting question in that broad and focused is a difficult balance to strike. I think in terms of expediency and the specific allegations that were raised in the BBC programme, they are covering the right areas. I think if they were too broad, this review could go on for years, and there are examples where that is the case, and the reviews take literally years to produce. This isn't the objective here; the objective here is to try and change some immediate things in the culture of an organisation and therefore it needs to report promptly. So, the terms of reference have reflected that in terms of its scope.
So, as an organisation, I think we're happy, but they are Dame Anne Rafferty's terms of reference. We've had input into them, as have the WRU, but they are the chair of the independent panel's terms of reference. So, again, I think the question is directed at Dame Anne, whose CV and track record is very impressive. I hope that people agree that the independent panel has a very good and capable chair.
I do feel that, though, the terms of reference are public and there's nothing to stop you having an opinion on those terms of reference, but I think you've expressed that anyway.
Sorry, Chair, it might be worth me just adding that the other role for the commissioning advisory group is if the panel, or Dame Anne, wants to change the terms of reference during her investigation, she consults with the commissioning advisory group as to whether that can be done or should be done.
That's very helpful. That's very helpful. Thank you. And finally, my last question is regarding what you've already made reference to—the length of time this will take. I think Nigel Walker said to us in the last session that he'd be uncomfortable if it took 10 to 12 months. They're looking to get this done as quickly as possible. Do you feel this can be done as quickly as possible? And what kind of timescale would be preferable, do you think?
I've no reason to doubt Nigel's desire for it to be done within that time frame. The advice we were given by Sport Resolutions is it is quite dangerous and potentially not very productive to put a timeline on something of this nature, because the panel needs to have the opportunity to find its course through its terms of reference. There is a desire to make some changes as quickly as possible, certainly in the culture of the WRU, but also then potentially more widely in the sport sector so lessons can be learned quickly and implemented more widely if necessary.
I think the issue is, if the report makes recommendations and the WRU is undertaking, in the meantime, changes, and if the recommendations are contrary to those changes, then you end up having to do things twice and possibly making it harder to do things later down the line.
Yes, I think that's true. What I would probably would add, though, is that what the WRU are currently proposing is some hard governance changes, which are really very welcome and needed, and have been needed for a while. But the soft changes are more difficult, and that's maybe where the panel's recommendations will be focused. I don't know if that makes sense—hard changes: the rules; soft changes: how things are implemented, what the culture within the organisation looks like and how that can be improved or monitored or regulated.
So, you don't think the investigation will talk about the make-up of the board, then?
I'm hoping it won't need to if the recommendations that the WRU have put forward, or the chief exec and chair have put forward, are adopted by the membership.
Okay, thank you.
From my previous experience in something like this, people will use it as an opportunity to come forward and raise any issue that they have, whether it's about regions, and I think that's where the terms of reference are really important and in terms of what the panel is there to do. So, Brian's absolutely right—it's hard to put a time frame on it because it depends on how many people come forward, but I think we all recognise, for Welsh sport, that the pace needs to be there as well.
Thank you. Diolch, Hefin. Can I check, before the BBC programme aired on 23 January, were you at Sport Wales aware of any allegations of inappropriate behaviour at the WRU?
Nothing formal. We were aware of some things that were in the public domain, but, in terms of the specific allegations that were aired, no, nothing had been raised directly with us.
Thank you for that. And just to check, because that's one of the themes that's come up in the course of the evidence we've had already—that people have said nothing formal—and to clarify, it was just things that were in the public domain that you would have been aware of before.
Yes, and quite a bit of what was in the public domain was a bit of hearsay, a bit of rumour, a bit of gossip. There were some more factual things, I think, but fundamentally it was a—. People have talked about Amanda Blanc's evidence. Well, Amanda Blanc kept her counsel having resigned from the WRU. It was all hearsay for that significant period as to why she left the professional rugby board.
I think Tom Giffard and Jenny Rathbone want to come in on this. I'll just bring Tom in first, and then I'll go to Jenny. Tom.
You mentioned that there was nothing formal. Obviously, from the informal things you did hear in the public domain, did you do any investigative work to get to the bottom of how real those allegations were?
I think it's important, in response to that, to identify what our role is as a body, as an arm’s-length body of Welsh Government. We're the agency responsible for promoting and developing sport and physical activity in Wales. We're not an investigatory body. We're not resourced that way. We're not established that way. We have no legislative power. We do have duties. As an organisation, we're bound by certain legal duties. But, in terms of the sector, we don't really have that kind of responsibility. Whether we should is another matter. So, if someone does raise something informally with us, there is a limit to what we can do.
I understand the point you're making, but, just from a concern perspective, you have a relationship with the WRU, both in terms of counsel and a financial relationship. Surely, in your role, if you hear an allegation like that, regardless of how formal or not it's presented to you, you'd have a concern that you'd want to investigate, wouldn't you?
I think the key word there is 'investigate'. I'm not sure we do have the authority to investigate, but we do have a duty to maybe help those individuals if they contact us. So, in terms of anything to do with employment, if someone contacted us directly, we would probably point them in the direction of their trade union if they've got one, to seek support, or other agencies that are available. Depending on what the issue was, there are other commissioners, commissions, agencies and the like that we could point them towards, but we don't have any jurisdiction in those areas, so it would be difficult for us to investigate in that sense.
Wales is a pretty small country. Everybody knows everybody in the sports world, I would imagine. So, when somebody as senior and high profile as Amanda Blanc resigned unexpectedly and there's hearsay knocking around, weren't you curious to find out whether there was any substance to this hearsay?
Are you talking personally or as an organisation?
As an organisation.
Well, Amanda Blanc was chair of the professional rugby board, which is obviously, by definition, the professional aspect of the sport. We don't have any dealings with the WRU in respect of professional sport. Ours is all about grass roots and the development of the women's game and pathway, so that's where the public investment goes into the WRU. We have no remit on the professional side of the game, and we certainly can't invest lottery funds in anything to do with the professional side of the game. So, we might have been interested, but, as far as I could tell at the time, Amanda wasn't saying why she left. She made no public statement.
Okay, but if this hearsay had any cause for concern, clearly I understand you're not responsible for the professional rugby board, but were you not curious to make sure that whatever allegations were going around about the culture in the professional game were not spilling out into the rest of the game?
The line I draw here is that hearsay like that about the culture does come from the top. Where we do have an influence is on hard governance, and we were pushing the WRU to change its constitution to bring in an independent chair, to do some of the changes that the governance review that AlphaValue had conducted in 2022, and to be implemented. When things like that are implemented, hopefully those kinds of incidents or areas that Amanda Blanc might have had concerns over are fewer and far between, or are dealt with more appropriately, because the hard governance structure is in place to deal with it properly. We focus our attention on that hard governance with the WRU, and it was such a shame that the October AGM failed to pass one of the recommendations that the then chair was trying to push through, which was effectively the demise of his own position, to bring in an independent chair. Rob Butcher, following that period, resigned because he was convinced, as are we, that the independence of governance at the top level is really important to the health of a sport. So, I've drawn a line to the hard governance bit, which is the area we have more influence, if you like, over, with regard to governing bodies in general and the WRU specifically.
So, what did Sport Wales do after the failure to pass those new regulations in October?
We wrote a letter to the WRU asking what their implementation plan was now for the governance review changes that had been recommended by AlphaValue in its governance review that was commissioned by the WRU. We gave them until the end of next month to give us that implementation plan. Without it, there was no public funding going to be made available. Obviously, a few things have happened since we wrote that letter, and therefore at the moment the WRU get no money publicly from Sport Wales, but—
You were giving them nearly five months to actually do something about the—
Well, yes, it was late October, I think, the AGM—wasn't it? Yes.
Okay. Five months to get their act together before the whole thing blew up in their face.
Yes. I think we're quite aware of the difficulties the WRU have had historically over getting changes like this made through its membership. Two chairs have resigned in trying to get changes like this through.FootnoteLink We have no power to insist they make those changes, and that's true of any governing body. So, we try to work with the governing body to implement these kinds of changes in the best way possible. You are trying to win over hearts and minds of the membership, normally, in most constitutional changes. So, I can understand why that sounds like a long time, but in reality it's probably what it takes to try to do road shows, take the recommendations around the communities to convince people—i.e. clubs, in the WRU's case—to vote for these radical changes, as they see them.
Just before I bring in Alun Davies, could you outline what your role is in terms of hard governance, as you would put it?
Yes. So, in 2015, we helped the sector develop a governance and leadership framework document. That's basically a guidance document as to how you should structure your constitutional set-up. There are similar ones available in England and in Scotland, but they do differ slightly. So, that first phase of trying to help a governing body put in place its constitutional arrangements is backed up by what we call a capability framework, which is a self-assurance process, but it does allow us to also go in and do periodic checks on either governance or finance. So, fundamentally, that's the structure we have: we have the governance and leadership framework and the capability framework, and the ability to go in based on our offer letters to do finance reviews and governance checks—basically, checking their self-assurance responses.
Thank you. Thank you for that. Alun.
I'm grateful. Thank you. You gave a very conditional response, Brian, to the Chair's questions on what you knew prior to last month. You hedged your answer and you made it very conditional, in terms of 'hearsay', 'we'd heard', 'public domain'. You didn't give a clear response, in my view. What I interpret, and this is why I want to put this to you, from your answer is that Sport Wales, corporately, were aware of the difficulties in the WRU.
The ones that have been reported, the behavioural issues.
What had been reported, sorry?
What we've seen since January, the reason we're here today.
My feeling is—
Since the programme aired.
No. Perhaps I'm not phrasing the question properly, but your answer to the previous question was so conditional as to make me feel that Sport Wales, corporately, knew or had good reason to suspect that there were serious cultural problems in the WRU, and you chose not to take action on that.
I'd refute that wholeheartedly.
You had no knowledge of any of these cultural issues.
We had no formal knowledge of the specific allegations—
That's why I keep coming back to you: you've conditionalised that answer again. You had no 'formal knowledge'. So, you did have informal knowledge is what I gain from that answer.
I probably had as much as you had from what you read in the public domain.
Well, I didn't have any knowledge of that, but you're saying you had informal knowledge. This is what I keep coming back to. And I'm also not convinced by your answer that Sport Wales has no powers in these matters, because your remit letters—I don't have them in front of me—are very clear about issues and duties around equality, and if you believe that a governing body or a sports organisation is failing in those duties or have reason to suspect that they are, then you should be taking action over your relationship with them.
Yes, and that action would be the withholding of public funds. We have no power. We have no legislative power. That was accurate, and I stand by it.
Alun, just quickly, sorry, I think—
Sorry, could I step in at that point? I've been involved in sport for 40-odd years, and we talk a lot about how the issues in wider society come out in sport as well—
Of course they do.
—and vice versa. So, after the programme was aired, I asked Brian and all the team, and also asked to go back and check with former employees or people who have been involved with the WRU over the year, what did Sport Wales know. The answer was 'nothing'. If you're talking about culture within governing bodies and culture within sport, then there we are aware that there are lots of parts of the sporting world where the culture isn't great. In terms of the really specific allegations, absolutely not. The wider culture in sport is something that, actually, if there's one thing that comes out of this it's that, actually, it sends a really strong message out to the other Welsh governing bodies. And what's happening with the WRU has reverberated up into the other home countries and into national governing bodies, that we all have to do something to look at the culture and the 'isms' that are around in sport. But in terms of what we knew, 'no'.
I think, if I can add, what we did know was that the governance arrangements at the WRU were not good enough to deal with these kinds of issues. And that is the area we do have influence on. And you could argue maybe we could have done that faster, but as I say, we do take an approach to try and work with governing bodies rather than to governing bodies.
And I wouldn't criticise that approach. I think that's the correct approach, as it happens. And I also accept that the knowledge of the failures of governance at the WRU was common knowledge—it wasn't a secret. I've discussed it with senior officials in the WRU myself about how the need for change is always being prevented by a very conservative organisation that is unwilling to face up to the need for change. And I accept the issues of governance, but we're talking here about cultural issues as well, and whilst I understand and accept the points made by Tanni in generality, I want to come back to the relationship between Sport Wales and the WRU, because that's what we're here to discuss. And I'm left feeling unsure by this session this morning, quite honestly, that Sport Wales did not have the knowledge of these specific cultural issues within the WRU because—
Well, I can confirm we did not have any specific knowledge—
Well, this is it, you see—
But you just used the word 'specific' as well, so I've just repeated what you said.
I'm trying to ask a question that gets an answer that makes me feel comfortable, and every time I ask you a question—
Well, I'll try again: I and other people in our organisation had no specific knowledge of the cultural allegations that were raised in the BBC programme.
Okay. That's got to where—
We knew there was a tribunal under way.
You knew there was a tribunal. So, you knew there was a problem.
Well, we knew there was a problem, but we couldn't tell you what that problem was because it was going through a tribunal process, and you're not supposed to—
These sessions are always very difficult when—
You know, were we aware there was likely to be misogyny in sport? Yes. Or ableism or racism or—? Absolutely. But in terms of the specifics, no.
Were you aware that non-disclosure agreements were in common use in the WRU?
Not in common use, no. We were aware, following this tribunal and the appeal, that one had been signed.
One—you were aware of?
In relation to these allegations, yes.
One in total in the WRU?
That's the only one I was aware of.
So, you were only ever aware of one non-disclosure agreement.
Yes, and I think the WRU identified that they'd signed another one. Is that right? In their evidence?
Just on this, Heledd, I think, wanted to come in with a supplementary and then we'll come right back to Alun.
Yes, I just wanted to return to your comment on Amanda Blanc in particular, as you said you weren't aware of the reasons that she left. Obviously, we've become aware now that she did give an interview in June 2022 to the BBC, which was reported at the time. So, was there any awareness then? I accept that when she resigned, there wasn't knowledge, but was there something that became more evident because it was in the public domain? I don't think it was picked up as it should have been, but I think very clearly she did give reasons publicly.
I wasn't aware of that report in June. I've only been aware of the accusations, if that's the right term, that she's made since these allegations, specific to the culture, were raised. I met with Amanda Blanc once with regard to the Professional Rubgy Board and some of the changes that PRB were trying to make. And I shared her frustration that they were trying to make some changes that were then being blocked further down the line through the governance structures of the WRU, so that was the only thing that I was aware of—was her frustration at trying to make some change on the professional side of the game.
Having these conversations, of course, raises other questions, doesn't it, about the operations of these different bodies? And I'm interested to know about how Sport Wales sees its role, and interprets the responsibilities it has. If you're made aware of an organisation that has potentially quite serious issues of governance or cultural issues within it, structural issues, however you wish to term it, how would you respond to that? Because you seem to be saying this morning, 'Nothing to do with us, guv.'
I hope that hasn't come across like that.
Because what you said: you don't have any legislative role or anything like that.
I don't think I said that. We can check, maybe, the tape afterwards, if you like. But what I said was there's a limit to what we can do within our power. We would look at whatever the allegation was that came to us on a case-by-case basis, because if it involved a piece of specific legislation, people would need to be directed to the right way of dealing with that, because it probably wouldn't be us. I think that's what I said. We can offer advice, but we are not established as an agency specifically for giving people specific advice on areas that they may be making allegations against.
But you are charged with the expenditure of public funds.
And public funds always come with strings—
—as they should. And some people will say there are too many, others will say there are not enough, and that's a debate everybody can have. So, you do have a responsibility to ensure that public funds are well used, are used properly, and used to deliver the objectives that may have been set for them, and you will audit that use, I would presume.
And part of that, of course, would be a duty on equality issues, and I'm just interested: if, for example, somebody was taking money and going off on holiday with it, or something, it would be a clear open-and-shut case, and you'd go to the police, I presume, and something would follow.
And I accept that, sometimes, cultural issues can be more difficult to identify from the outside than a clear breach of the law, and I accept that. But where you know there are issues of failure within the WRU—and we've seen that in terms of governance, and we know the history of trying to secure change to the WRU—then it would appear to me that perhaps Sport Wales lacked sufficient curiosity, potentially, about how that money was being used to discharge its functions in terms of equality.
There are multiple ways we get the insight that we need to know whether the public funding has been used appropriately. There's obviously the finance reviews that we can instigate, and two of those were instigated with the WRU in February 2021 and March 2022, and those financial reviews were passed. The governance review that was instigated with AlphaValue was another method that we had to check on how the WRU was operating within the realms of the areas that we have control over. And I think those methods, together with other methods of reporting we asked the WRU to give us with regard to the funding, were pretty sufficient. I don't think we can be accused of not checking on how the WRU were using the money we were investing in them.
It's effectively less than 1 per cent of their total turnover, the public investment into the WRU, but we do ask quite a bit of reporting back in return for that investment. Obviously, for other governing bodies, that's a significant proportion of their income; for the WRU, it isn't. But it was specific: it was for the hub programme and the women and girls' pathway development. So, we do have reports from the WRU about how the money was used and we have wider financial reports about the health of the WRU and its processes, and we also had the governance review from AlphaValue, which identified it needed to make improvements, and we asked for a plan.
I'm grateful to you for that. I presume that, after the last month or so, you will be revising the way in which you monitor these matters.
Matters of delivering on the equality responsibilities.
So, there's an equalities and human rights commissioner who deals with those matters—
But you are responsible for the expenditure of public money. Do you really outsource everything?
That's not an outsourcing; that's a legislative fact.
But in terms of the money that Sport Wales allocates to the WRU, the process around that and how the money is spent and how they report back to us, I think it's really clear. Brian's right: we're not a regulator. Our ability to step in on other areas is challenging. There's a big discussion going on at the moment in British sport about regulation, whether there should be a football regulator. I've talked about an ombudsman who has that role, who can actually step in, audit and challenge—
See, I don't like the idea of all these regulators being created, because I just think it creates a web of whatever. But part of my antipathy towards those sorts of proposals is because I thought we could trust Sport Wales to be able to ensure that all this stuff actually happens, and I'm not so sure now. I'm just left—
Sorry, Alun, I don't think you understood our role. I explained our role at the beginning—
I do understand your role, with respect, but—
In terms of trusting us—. Well, you don't, clearly, because you just said you don't trust us to do our job.
I said I'm asking the question about this. I had assumed that a remit letter goes out to an organisation, and certainly, when I was in Government, I would assume that the basic auditing of delivery and the rest of it was always done, and if there was an issue, you'd take action to address that, and that was how the basic structure would work. And then you'd have the overall objectives for policy change, and those things are always matters of live debate. Sometimes, we agree and, sometimes, we disagree, and I've got no issue with those disagreements, as it happens. But I'm just thinking—. I want to be convinced by you, Brian, right? I'm looking to be convinced.
In terms of—
Of Sport Wales.
How we deliver our role.
Yes. Yes, and I'm feeling that I've—
So, we are not a regulator. We are not a regulator. We don't have the powers of regulation.
Yes, I know you're not, but I'm feeling that I've got to search round to ask precisely the right question in order to get the answer I'm looking for, and that just feels very uncomfortable.
So, would I, as an individual, like to go in and tell any large governing body they need to do this, this and this; they've got to nail equality, diversity and inclusion; stamp out the sexism; all this? Absolutely. With my Sport Wales chair hat on, what we actually have the ability to do is ensure that the public money—and we're trying to work in partnership with the governing bodies—is spent in an absolutely proper way. And so, for the bits we're not responsible for, you need to try and take the people with you. The bits we're responsible for, I think we do really well. But the WRU is a huge organisation—
Of course it is, of course it is, I accept that.
It comes back to that we can't tell them, in certain bits, what to do. Would I like to? Yes, but that's not what our role is.
We've got—. Forgive me, I didn't mean to interrupt you.
I think Heledd wanted to come in with a supplementary. We may have to move on from this line quite soon, but, Heledd.
Just to follow up from Alun, I think you've referenced the remit letter, and, obviously, in that it says that the shared goals should be—. One of them is addressing all inequality and achieving an anti-racist Wales. Obviously, as an organisation, as you've outlined, you're limited in terms of how much you can push different governing bodies in terms of this. So, do you think there should be different powers given to Sport Wales then? Do you feel frustrated? Because this is in your remit letter as something that's a shared goal, and, obviously, you're a key delivery partner for Welsh Government in this? I'm just thinking that it's not just about ensuring that the funds are adequately accounted for, I would have thought. If some public funds are going into pathways for women and young women into rugby, and as we're aware now that it may not be a safe environment for them, how would you approach that then? Because it's not just that they could account for the money, but I would guess that there's another layer to this.
I think that bit we can hold them to account for. It's other issues that have come out through other parts of the organisation, as we're not a regulator—sorry, I keep saying that—that you can't—. I think that for the money that we're accountable for, yes, we can demand those things from them.
It's not the only sport that's going through this. We've talked about British governing bodies who are in the public domain. There are a number of British governing bodies who've gone through this and it hasn't been in the public domain and they've been able to keep their challenges under the radar. I think this is a bigger discussion for the whole of home country and British sport in terms of where we are. Sport at its best is absolutely amazing and incredible in terms of what it can do, but it's also a microcosm for society and some of the challenges that are there.
Sport is not an island in terms of these aspects that are heinous and so disappointing and sad to hear, and really depressing, actually. But what it can do is demonstrate good principles and demonstrate to wider society how people should act. Clearly, when an incident like this happens to such an important governing body, it becomes a focus of attention. Maybe we're losing sight of the fact as well that the people to blame here are the ones who hold these views. Whilst governing bodies need to act properly when they are brought to their attention, the wider societal aspect of racism, sexism, misogyny and homophobia is massive. Sport can do its bit, for sure, and it can be held as an exemplar—in this case, it isn't—and that is important and that is something we would like to work with governing bodies to make sure they can stand up and say. I know you're looking at a letter later from a governing body that says it is doing work in this area and is proud of it, and I'd like to think that there are others in the sector doing the same. We want to work with the WRU to improve itself so that it can deal with these things more properly, because they are going to exist, they're going to continue, and we need sport to be able to call it out better and for people to feel safe in calling it out. That's one of the key things.
Thank you for that. We'll move on to Jenny.
Given the damage to the WRU's reputation, and indeed the reputation of Wales, I just wondered whether Sport Wales had received reports about or allegations of inappropriate behaviour within other sports governing bodies in the last five years, and whether in the light of this cautionary tale you feel there's anything that Sport Wales can do to engineer change before it comes back and hits them in the face.
I think one thing that we should expect from this is that other cases will potentially come forward. It's happened when there's been other investigations in other sports, sometimes quite long in the past, sometimes quite recent. We have had a conversation about that. Some of it might come through the WRU investigation. An individual from another sport might contact—that's the part of the panel in terms of seeing what other further work can be done. We've also had some conversations about what happens if people come to us. I wouldn't be surprised if, on a personal level, I'm approached in some way, because that's happened with other investigations. It's horrendous, what's happened, and it's deeply upsetting, but if there's some positive that can come out of this it means that other people might step forward and we have a chance to look at other governing bodies. I think the other thing is that it's so close to home. I think a lot of the other investigations have all felt like a long way away; now that this is in Wales it sends out a really strong message to lots of the other governing bodies to really make sure that not just their policy and process is in place, because that's one thing, but you have a mechanism where people feel able to and safe to report, and then when they do they're handled in an appropriate way. I don't imagine it's just going to be around the WRU.
In terms of your question about five years, I'd have to go back and check what has, if anything, been reported to us historically. We don't have a mechanism for general reporting by the public to us because we're not established that way. But we do get people contacting us, mainly about things like selection—'I haven't been selected, I want you to investigate', things like that. But I'd have to check whether we've had any other complaints about cultural issues with other governing bodies. I can't think of any specifically, but, as I say, we're not really set up that way for people to contact us.
Just as you've mentioned selection, clearly that could be a way of demonstrating racism or sexism, depending on context, but obviously it could just be somebody who's not able to accept that somebody else is better than them, and sport is a competitive business. If you were able to look back at your records and see whether there's any pattern to these allegations—I appreciate they come forward and many of them are just people who can't accept they've not made the grade—how do you think you'll be able to act given the power of the message we've got here from the WRU experience? What does that enable you to do using that information?
I think that's a really important point. The optimist in me sees this as a potential accelerator for the hard governance changes that some governing bodies still need to make, including the WRU. If the club membership of the WRU failed to vote through some of these changes, or the changes now that the executive are proposing, that is a serious situation, because it has been brought to light that the hard governance is important. It does have a role, a significant role, to play in making sure sport is well run, and that cultural aspects are well handled and developed. As I said, the optimist in me sees the opportunity here to make the changes necessary in other areas as well. So, the people who've come forward, not only do they need to be applauded for their bravery, but they also need to be applauded because they have given us a chance to accelerate changes we have been trying to urge and help government bodies to make. Now there's a chance for us to do that, certainly with the WRU, and potentially wider.
I was just going to say that one of the reasons I recommended an ombudsman was not because of some great big power grab, or wanting to invent this huge organisation—it was actually to help governing bodies look at their internal policy, process, culture and think about how they could do things in a different and a more modern way. Different governing bodies have embraced it and struggled with it—capacity, capability; there's all sorts of things with it. You talk about selection—something like selection is an incredibly emotive time for individuals in terms of how we handle that. We've dealt with one case since I became chair of selection.
I think there's also a wider piece, and I think it is us in collaboration with governing bodies in terms of how you educate young athletes on pathway to actually understand—. With something like selection, actually athletes need to understand you're not appealing the selection of the athlete, you're appealing the process, which is quite different. How we educate people who come onto pathway and do those things I think is really important in terms of actually understanding what a good culture is. If you've been involved in sport for a long time as an athlete, that culture can shift and change, and it's actually helping everyone to understand. I believe most of the time we have a chance of rehabilitating most people, but there's also a point where you get on the bus or you leave the bus with some individuals. This is the moment in time for Welsh sport to say, 'Okay, this is happening here as well.'
You personally have probably the strongest reputation in the sporting world for your work on inclusivity. How do you think you can use your personal reputation to encourage sport governing bodies to really now examine their processes and put their house in order before somebody else does it for them?
I think there are slightly separate bits, depending on whether you're talking about community sport or pathway. For governing bodies who are involved in pathway and talent identification, it's about getting the absolute best talent that you can, and that is about encouraging inclusion, diversity and equality of opportunity in terms of who you get into the squad system. I think, however sad it is, it's a moment in time for everyone to say, 'Okay, we need to be looking at how we get the best in Welsh sport.' This is not about targeting specific individuals. It's not a witch hunt. But actually we have to get to the crux of the problem in terms of what's happening in terms of how you can get to a situation where these things are happening. That's not just a culture change in a year; that's a culture that's built on years of not evolving and not developing. I watched the programme—and I've sat in some really difficult meetings and in and outside meetings had things said to me that are deeply unpleasant—and in that moment you just go, 'Wow, this is horrendous', beyond anything I think any of us could ever imagine. If we want sport to develop and grow, and we talk about it having a social impact and all the other things sport can do, it cannot operate in this way—it just can't. Partly why I applied to be chair was because of trying to move this along. It's me and others.
I appreciate that, in professional sport, ruthless decisions have to be made about putting forward the best team because winning is everything, but in community sport surely it's just as important to take part as to win, and therefore here it's much more important, is it not, to ensure that everybody is included who wants to take part. How do you think we can use this terrible experience to encourage that and ensure that, at the most basic level, the conservation that takes place on a Saturday morning is, 'Come on, Freddy'—or whatever—'why don't you have a go?'?
Absolutely. On the community side, it's sport for sport's sake and it's also sport for health and education, and all the other things that it brings. I think it's a moment for everyone to look at how they behave and what they do, and how they encourage people in. It's really important that just every young person—. And that's why the funding model is based around school sports data. That's how Sport Wales is moving forward in terms of what to do with it. Actually, in terms of the funding, it's a really exciting time because it's about investing in young people, and it's got to be that every young person has the chance and opportunity to be active and play sport. We want every young person doing it.
If I can add, we held a summit in December about an inclusive sport system, how we develop it, so there is an opportunity here again to further that messaging about how sport can be more inclusive in terms of the opportunities it presents. It's not just about a numbers game and a medals game. Our strategy has evolved over the years more recently, and it is a difficult message to get across when people are used to where it's about thousands taking part and it's about a few winning medals, when we say, 'No, it's much more complex than that.' So, there is an opportunity here to keep that messaging and grow that messaging. And if I could add one more piece about—
Forgive me interrupting. Can I check if you'd be able to stay with us for another five, possibly 10 minutes? I'm very aware that Tom has been very patient. Thank you. Please carry on.
We've talked about the opportunities, and certainly with Tanni's profile that is a significant opportunity for sport in Wales to listen to someone who's been there, seen a lot both in this country and globally, but it also helps us build on some pieces we want to do across the UK with Tanni's profile. I talked pretty much about the capability framework being an important tool for us. We're aware that governance and self-assurance tools like that are just a journey. They need to be evolved and developed, and there's a role here across the UK to work on a culture piece. Because the hard governance—I keep coming back to it—is really important and is something that we are comfortable with trying to enact with partners. The culture piece we're not comfortable with because it's difficult, uncertain and complex. But with Tanni and with the will of the other bodies in the UK, maybe we can make additions to that capability framework that involves culture in its wider sense.
Perhaps you could just write to us with the numbers of organisations who took part in your diversity conference.
I'll hand back to the Chair.
Thank you so much. Tom, thank you for your patience.
Thank you. Can I ask you both—? Tanni, you were asked about someone coming to you with a report of inappropriate behaviour within their sport. Is Sport Wales equipped to deal with that?
It depends. Legislatively, we're not—
On a human level.
—if people want us to act. In terms of approachability, I'd say we are approachable, but there is a limit to what we can then do. I think I mentioned earlier, we would then signpost people, depending on what the issue was, to the appropriate agency, because it probably isn't us, depending on the issue. And that includes selection. We don't know whether someone is very good at tiddlywinks or not, so we're not the best people to decide on whether a selection issue is inappropriate or not. We could look at it, depending on what the aspect was—was it racism, was it homophobia—but we're not really geared up for it. We get a certain amount of funding from the public purse. We distribute circa 70 per cent of that to partners; the rest is used to run two national centres and the administrative base. To improve that area, or make us more valuable in that area, would come at some price—either we'd distribute less funding or we'd need an increase in funding, would be my commentary on it.
Because it strikes me from today and from this episode that perhaps Sport Wales isn't best placed to deal with that. And I've no doubt that your hearts are in the right place on it, but you look at this episode around the WRU, and you said earlier you had an awareness, informally perhaps, of what was going on, and it doesn't seem like those conversations were had with the WRU to establish, whether you had a formal role or not, exactly what had happened. If I've got a financial relationship with somebody, if I'm looking to buy a car, I'm looking to find out whether that dealer has got a good reputation, and if they don't, I'm not exchanging contracts and exchanging money with them. What I can't understand is why that work wasn't done, and is that not a failure on the part of the people—whether they came to you formally or not—that had concerns about the way the WRU was run, and therefore impacted your relationship with it?
Can I just add that I don't have people knocking down my door with serious complaints of this kind of level? They are—. When it happens outside, it's not huge numbers. So, being able to deal with it on a human level, yes; actually, what we can do as Sport Wales, it comes back to being limited. If somebody came and rang me this morning and said, 'I've got this issue', there are processes and advice that we can give; it actually might not help in terms of sorting out some of those issues. And again, it comes back to what we have the ability to ask a big organisation like WRU—. We seek assurance, but we're not able to go in and do a deep-dive audit. It's actually trying to build trust within the governing bodies.
So, I started with Sport Wales in the 1990s, and the way that money was given out, it was very much seen as a grant—people applied for as much as they possibly could think of applying for, and it got divvied up, and that's how it went out. What we're trying to do now is develop a relationship—move away from that parent-child relationship, and develop one of trust. We need to have a conversation about what happens when trust breaks down, and what we do then.
Brian was saying earlier about a case-by-case basis, depending what the issue is, what the size of the governing body is. A lot of the time, when cases like this hit the news, it's like, 'Take their money away.' Well, actually, taking the money away could be the worst thing that happens, because then the piece of work or the projects that are being run because of that funding just stop. So, it's sometimes not quite as binary as it can play out in parts of the media, or in just a quick discussion.
I understand the point you make, and there are shades of grey, of course, in all of these things. But just for clarity, when you were hearing some of these things informally that you alluded to earlier, when you saw the article—or perhaps you didn't see the article that Heledd referred to earlier, from Amanda Blanc, where she made public some of the complaints that she had about the WRU—was there even as much as an informal phone call to the WRU, to say, 'I'm seeing some of these things, can you reassure me that they're untrue'?
We have a small relationship management team, so there would have been an officer allocated to the WRU, amongst other sports in their portfolio. I'm sure they were having discussions with them, but mainly it would have been focused on the governance changes we needed to see, because we believe those are the route to improving the situation with regard to allegations of this nature.
And finally, one of the things I think this whole episode also showed up was the question of who marks the homework, perhaps, of some of these things—and you've alluded to it a number of times throughout this session. I don't want to get into the merits or otherwise of a regulator, because I think Tanni's made that point already, but have you ever raised concerns with Welsh Government to say, 'Well, actually, perhaps the infrastructure in place isn't sufficient, so that when something goes wrong, who ultimately is the WRU answerable to?' Because if it's not you, it's not Welsh Government, it's not us a Senedd, surely there's a gap there in the legislative infrastructure, and would that not be your role to flag that with the Welsh Government?
It would be really interesting to see how that could be done, because you start treading on the toes of international federations here, who quite often throw in the fact that there should be no political interference in their sport. So, I think there's an interesting avenue there about what role World Ruby has in terms of the WRU, what role any international federation has with regard to any domestic governing body.
They are independent organisations, so balancing that independence versus regulation is a really complex area. It's not difficult to balance independence against legislative requirements—that is pretty straightforward. We don't have any legislative abilities with regard to these issues, but other directorates do. The international federations have a role as well, I believe, in making sure that the governing bodies are well run. And again, there are good examples in Wales where governing bodies adhere to our governance and leadership framework and capability framework, and show examples of good practice, but they also then adhere to further British governing body requirements, so it's like a belt and braces. With the Welsh Rugby Union, there is no British body. There is an international body, though, World Rugby, and it would be interesting to see what role could be played there.
Symud yn olaf i Heledd Fychan.
Moving finally to Heledd Fychan.
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Gadeirydd.
Thank you very much, Chair.
If can just ask, obviously, you've emphasised the need for good governance in your role in terms of providing advice, guidance, support, et cetera. A number of these things are, obviously, as you outlined rightly, when some individuals go rouge sometimes, but it can be very difficult when those are perhaps senior people within any sport. In terms of whistleblowing then, where do you find your role in terms of Sport Wales? Because, obviously, if you're building a relationship of trust and so on and seen as being that link with funding and so on, very often people might turn to you in terms of whistleblowing. So, what happens at that point then? You mentioned signposting earlier, but do you ever provide any access to human resource services within Sport Wales or anything? I'd just like to understand what happens at that point.
Historically, we did try and provide some central services, like HR and finance advice to governing bodies, but it became clear over the years that there was a grey area. We were calling governing bodies to account on certain practices and policies, and yet we'd advised them on the development of them as well. So, we had to withdraw those central services. However, we do have a suite of consultants in different areas that are available to governing bodies, a framework like a public procurement framework, but of our own. So, that's how the governance review for the WRU was established, that we have a suite of governance experts, and the WRU were offered those experts, and they chose AlphaValue to do the work for them. So, there are those kinds of instances.
In terms of whistleblowing specifically, that's a really interesting area. We're not set up to receive whistleblowing, and that's just a fact. But we're not the only sports council that isn't set up. All the sports councils are set up the same way in terms of their royal charters. So, whistleblowing is difficult, which is why I said earlier that we would deal with it on a case-by-case basis. You can't ignore someone who contacts you, but we'd have to deal with it on a case-by-case basis.
I've not had anyone, in this role, come to me in something that would be a whistleblowing case. They're very difficult to deal with, because by the time it gets to that point, relationships have broken down, people are very reluctant to put it in writing. It's the power to investigate or sense check or put the right support in place. There are other organisations—. Yorkshire County Cricket Club, which I'm involved with, they had a whistleblowing policy, which was around racism, and there was a whole set-up that went with that, and a process that was run by law firm. We don't have anything like that in wider British—
We have an internal process, but we don't have an external process.
There's nothing like that in British sport. That's a whole other debate about what would happen.
If someone approached us, I'm confident in our ability to at least be able to offer help and advice. Whether that gets to a resolution, I couldn't say, because it depends what the case was.
I'm just returning, really, to the remit letter and the expectations on Sport Wales, and I wonder how you can fulfil those obligations in the remit letter, because if you're limited, it's very difficult. And I guess it's something that we've been looking at, as a committee, the value of those remit letters—that they're not just words—and to ensure that Welsh Government sponsored bodies are empowered to not just say, 'Yes, of course we're doing this, and we do this by encouraging good governance.' Because it seems it's very difficult when it's very much based on trust or conversations or advice, you know, where the seriousness of that complaint perhaps goes. And it's just trying to understand when there are some public funds in question as well—. I take your point in terms of not going over it, but if we were ever investing in something that then put someone in a situation where they were unsafe or faced racism, homophobia, et cetera, it's just trying to really unpick whether there's a conversation needed between Welsh Government sponsored bodies and Welsh Government in terms of unpicking those commitments in a remit letter to what actually, within your remit, is achievable.
I think that's a very good point. Because quite a bit of it is down to interpretation as well. I haven't memorised all 10 pages of the remit letter, but the bit you quoted earlier about improving equality, we take that as investing in the appropriate areas of the sport to improve access for all intersectional issues, not so much maybe the other areas that are achieving focus here, which are the fact that a governing body has a culture that promotes equality and stuff like that. So, it depends on interpretation. The remit letter is long and is very demanding, but luckily there's a golden thread through that with our strategy and the overlap is quite good, so I believe that—well, I would say it—I think we're doing a good job of developing our impact in line with the remit letter, but there are areas in it that are very interpretative, I would suggest.
I note that you've had a term of Government remit letter this time, so—
Yes, for the first time.
Yes. So that's obviously different. I presume then that you have to report annually to Welsh Government—
Quarterly, in terms of those. So, I guess it's just a matter then for us, perhaps outside of this meeting, to look at those measures as well, because, as you say, if they're very broad objectives, I think that clarity then is something that perhaps we need to explore further.
I'm also interested, obviously, in terms of now, and you mentioned earlier, Tanni, that in instances like this people take it as an opportunity to perhaps raise things that are historic, things that they haven't been able to share previously. So, have you considered what your role may be there, or had any conversations with Welsh Government about how we facilitate that? As you've said, it will be an ongoing battle, there will be instances, unfortunately, of racism, homophobia, sexism and, as you say, it's how we deal with them and address them are the key things that people come forward to challenge. But, in the meantime, how do we—? Pandora's box has been opened, so what's your role and what conversations have taken place with Welsh Government in terms of this? Or is there a role for Sport Wales?
There have been no conversations about that particular aspect of how to deal with historic complaints. At the moment, the independent panel process is if—. So, Sport Resolutions are providing the secretariat for the hotline or the e-mail address that's been provided as part of the investigation. I'm not part of that commissioning advisory group, so I'd have to check whether we've had any conversations with Sport Resolutions about how we deal with those or what we do with them. But there have certainly been no conversations at the moment with Welsh Government on our role.
No, and without breaking any confidentiality of what may come to that, I think that's a really important thread, and, as we see what cases come—what sports they're from, or what organisations they're from—actually, what we do to move forward. So, I think for me, there's the recommendations around the WRU, but then I think there's a wider piece around what happens in the rest of sport and what actually can happen going forward, because, yes, I think there'll be more that comes out.
I think it's a very important point. A lot has happened in a fortnight in terms of the establishment of this panel, but there are things that obviously still need to be developed and discussed.
Diolch am hwnna.
Thank you for that.
Can I just ask one final question? Have any officials at Sport Wales read the WRU's report into the women's game?
Okay. It's useful to have a clear answer on that. I really appreciate the fact that you were willing to stay over an extra 11 minutes, so thank you very much for that. Thank you for your evidence. A transcript of what's been said is going to be sent to you to check for accuracy. There may be a few things we wanted to follow up with you in writing, if that's all right, but we're really very grateful to you for coming in and for your candour this morning. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Diolch yn fawr.
Diolch am ddod mewn.
Thank you for coming in.
Aelodau, mi wnawn ni symud yn syth at bapurau i'w nodi. Mae gennym ni dri phapur i'w nodi, dwi'n meddwl. Dwi jest yn edrych am y papurau yn fy mhapurau. Dim ond dau. Llythyr gan Criced Cymru atom ni ynghylch yr honiadau yma, ac wedyn gwybodaeth ychwanegol. Oedd gan unrhyw un unrhyw beth oedden nhw eisiau dweud am y papurau yna, neu ydych chi'n hapus i'w nodi nhw? Ie, ocê.
So, Members, we will move straight to papers to note. We have three papers to note, I think. I'm just looking for the papers to note in my papers. No, only two. Thank you again. We have a letter from Cricket Wales to us with regard to the allegations, and then additional information. Did anyone have anything they wanted to say about the papers, or are you happy to note them? Yes, okay.
bod y pwyllgor yn penderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o weddill y cyfarfod yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.42(vi).
that the committee resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi).
Cynigiwyd y cynnig.
Felly, mi wnawn ni symud, gyda'ch caniatad, o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42, i wahardd y cyhoedd o weddill y cyfarfod. Ydych ch'i'n fodlon i ni wneud hynny? Mi wnawn ni aros i glywed ein bod ni'n breifat cyn i ni gario ymlaen.
So, we'll move on, with your permission, to a motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. Are you happy for us to do so? We'll wait to hear that we are therefore in private before we proceed.
Derbyniwyd y cynnig.
Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am 10:42.
The public part of the meeting ended at 10:42.
Cywiriad/Correction: One previous chair resigned and the other was voted out of office in trying to get changes like this through.