0:00:01 > 0:00:07Tonight, a special programme on Awema. He's a bully, he's a mean
0:00:07 > 0:00:11bully. And he would try to intimidate you and if he finds you
0:00:11 > 0:00:14are intimidated easily, he would use it over and over again.
0:00:14 > 0:00:24staff member's opinion of the Chief Executive Naz Malik, based on her
0:00:24 > 0:00:27
0:00:27 > 0:00:30experience of working at Awema. Good evening. There's further
0:00:30 > 0:00:34turmoil tonight at Wales' foremost charity working with minority
0:00:34 > 0:00:36ethnic communities. Dragon's Eye can reveal allegations of bullying
0:00:36 > 0:00:40and harassment at the All Wales Ethnic Minority Association, or
0:00:40 > 0:00:42Awema. Former and current employees have
0:00:42 > 0:00:45spoken to tonight's programme about complaints they have made against
0:00:45 > 0:00:55two of the charity's bosses - complaints they say have not been
0:00:55 > 0:00:57
0:00:58 > 0:01:01properly investigated or resolved. Here's Arwyn Jones.
0:01:01 > 0:01:07Awema Crowe has been in the headlines for allegations made
0:01:08 > 0:01:16against her boss, Naz Malik. -- At the boss. But what was life like
0:01:16 > 0:01:23for the staff? For one member, it was very clear. We were segregated,
0:01:23 > 0:01:27there was the Future Jobs Fund and there was staff. When it came to
0:01:27 > 0:01:34lunch time, we could not sit together. We were told to sit on
0:01:34 > 0:01:40our table and they sat on another table. He is a bully, he is a mean
0:01:40 > 0:01:45a bully and he would try to intimidate you. And if he found you
0:01:45 > 0:01:48intimidated easily, he would use it over and over again. And I think he
0:01:48 > 0:01:54likes being a man of power, he would like to have power over
0:01:54 > 0:01:58people. In October last year, several members of a charity
0:01:58 > 0:02:03Macro's staff wrote letters of grievance against the Chief
0:02:03 > 0:02:08Executive Naz Malik. They also complained about his daughter, the
0:02:08 > 0:02:18operations manager of Awema Crowe, seen here as a -- during her time
0:02:18 > 0:02:19
0:02:19 > 0:02:24as a squash player -- Awema. There are accusations that 14 young
0:02:24 > 0:02:28people who work at Awema were regularly bullied and intimidated.
0:02:28 > 0:02:34Naseibah Al-Jeffery Was one of them. She claims that Future Jobs Fund
0:02:34 > 0:02:41staff had to sit and deed differed -- separately, had to use different
0:02:41 > 0:02:44toilet and pay �1 per week to use the water in the office. We saw
0:02:44 > 0:02:48people from the Future Jobs Fund getting fired in front of us, so we
0:02:48 > 0:02:58knew how easy it was for them to get rid of us. When we were told we
0:02:58 > 0:02:58
0:02:58 > 0:03:03were not allowed to do this or that, it was something that we had to
0:03:03 > 0:03:08keep quiet about, because it was either that or our jobs. And not
0:03:08 > 0:03:13others wanted to go back. It was entirely part-time staff who were
0:03:13 > 0:03:15alarmed that the treatment. -- it wasn't only. Full-time staff are
0:03:15 > 0:03:20also disappointed that their complaints didn't lead to the
0:03:20 > 0:03:25formal suspension of Naz Malik. One agreed to be interviewed only if we
0:03:25 > 0:03:29disguised their identity. It is sad to say that up to this day, they
0:03:29 > 0:03:33can carry on intimidating staff and bullying staff and it is
0:03:33 > 0:03:37increasingly difficult for staff to continue in their work. It is
0:03:37 > 0:03:43detrimental to the charity's work. People look at Awema and think this
0:03:43 > 0:03:45is probably have all charities are run. And that is what instigated
0:03:45 > 0:03:51the independent report we discussed last week, the accusations of
0:03:51 > 0:03:56bullying. That report also included accusations of financial
0:03:56 > 0:03:59irregularities against Naz Malik. The report recommended that both he
0:03:59 > 0:04:02and his daughter be suspended pending further disciplinary action.
0:04:03 > 0:04:07That didn't happen and they were both issued with a written warning
0:04:07 > 0:04:11from the new chairman of trustees at Awema, Dr Rita Austin. The
0:04:11 > 0:04:17member of staff we spoke to said the good name of Awema would
0:04:17 > 0:04:21continue to decline unless they were suspended from their posts.
0:04:21 > 0:04:25All the money we got was meant to go and help people from the ethnic
0:04:25 > 0:04:29minority community and the damage to ethnic minority communities and
0:04:29 > 0:04:35individuals is quite big. The organisation will not be able to
0:04:35 > 0:04:40survive with the Malik family in power. It is time for at stake --
0:04:40 > 0:04:43outsiders to step in. We showed the interviews and letters to an
0:04:43 > 0:04:47employment lawyer. investigation into the grievances,
0:04:47 > 0:04:51as opposed to the other allegations, was any conducted on a very
0:04:51 > 0:04:54preliminary basis. The recommendation that the independent
0:04:54 > 0:04:57investigator has made is that further investigations into the
0:04:57 > 0:05:02culture of the organisation and the grievances raised by staff are
0:05:02 > 0:05:06undertaken. He has also recommended that the two people who are at the
0:05:06 > 0:05:10centre of the allegations are suspended. That is entirely in
0:05:10 > 0:05:15accordance with the ACAS code of practice, because what you would
0:05:15 > 0:05:19look to do is where there are allegations of intimidation, is
0:05:19 > 0:05:23removed a potential perpetrators, so that you can really get to the
0:05:23 > 0:05:28nuts and bolts and get this -- the staff to speak openly. One former
0:05:28 > 0:05:32trustee, who resigned following recent events, says investigations
0:05:32 > 0:05:37need to move more swiftly. Trustees sought legal advice and were told
0:05:37 > 0:05:42by a leading law firm to suspend Naz Malik, pending a disciplinary
0:05:42 > 0:05:46procedure. We agreed again not to identify the trustee. I am amazed,
0:05:46 > 0:05:50frankly. Had this been any other organisation, things would have
0:05:50 > 0:05:54moved swiftly and nothing is said to be open. These are public bodies
0:05:54 > 0:05:58with public money and transparency must be there. Why haven't any
0:05:58 > 0:06:02board members or former board members been interviewed? Century
0:06:02 > 0:06:07large our report to the police and the Welsh Assembly government --
0:06:07 > 0:06:11since we lost our report, nothing has happened. One Assembly Member
0:06:11 > 0:06:15who has been contacted by former Awema staff says a police
0:06:15 > 0:06:20investigation is now the any way to clear-up the matter. I have written
0:06:20 > 0:06:22to the police, I have asked them to look into the allegations,
0:06:22 > 0:06:26particularly in light of the fact that trustees have not been
0:06:26 > 0:06:30contacted. That is remiss of the Welsh Government, who are leading
0:06:30 > 0:06:33the ongoing investigation, and let's not forget, there have been
0:06:33 > 0:06:39two other investigations already into this organisation. The public
0:06:39 > 0:06:43need to have money -- confident that their money is being treated
0:06:43 > 0:06:45probably by the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government is
0:06:45 > 0:06:48investigating all of the allegations. In the meantime, Naz
0:06:48 > 0:06:52Malik says it would not be appropriate for him to comment on
0:06:52 > 0:06:59the allegations against him. The Welsh Government will update
0:06:59 > 0:07:03Assembly Members on Monday. Last week, we revealed that Awema's
0:07:03 > 0:07:07funders, including the last government, had suspended funding
0:07:07 > 0:07:10pending the review, but just a job there were memories about some of
0:07:10 > 0:07:15the other allegations last week. -- jog our memories.
0:07:15 > 0:07:18We were using the same report written by Paul Dunn, where he
0:07:18 > 0:07:24makes the allegations of bullying and some financial allegations,
0:07:24 > 0:07:28financial irregularities. One of those allegations is that Naz Malik
0:07:28 > 0:07:34used the charity money, public money, to pay off credit card debts.
0:07:34 > 0:07:38He had already mated to that, but Paul Dunn made further -- further
0:07:38 > 0:07:44recommendations. -- admitted that. He recommended that Naz Malik be
0:07:44 > 0:07:47suspended while a disciplinary hearing was on going and it didn't
0:07:47 > 0:07:51happen and Dr Rita Austin, she has today written to the Charity
0:07:51 > 0:07:55Commission and in that letter, she absolutely slates Paul Dunn's
0:07:55 > 0:07:59report, saying it is a shoddy piece of work, saying it is lacking in
0:08:00 > 0:08:04evidence for many of the financial allegations. She is also very
0:08:04 > 0:08:08critical of some of the trustees of Awema. We will be hearing from have
0:08:08 > 0:08:13very shortly. I did speak to Paul Dunn, the author of the report,
0:08:13 > 0:08:16which was commissioned by the trustees, before Rita Austin was
0:08:16 > 0:08:22appointed chair, and I asked for his reaction of her criticism of
0:08:22 > 0:08:26his work as a shoddy, unfocused and inconclusive. It is a shame she
0:08:26 > 0:08:33doesn't speak her mind! First, you cannot judge it by its wrapper.
0:08:33 > 0:08:38Secondly, she doesn't know what my brief was, so I am not sure why she
0:08:38 > 0:08:42makes that comment. She also confuses two things, I think. The
0:08:42 > 0:08:46reality is I was commissioned by one of the trustees to do a
0:08:46 > 0:08:51sufficient investigation, to make a judgment about whether action was
0:08:51 > 0:08:54necessary, so I was not asked to investigate in great detail all of
0:08:54 > 0:08:59the allegations that had been made. I certainly could not have done
0:08:59 > 0:09:03that in a couple of weeks. So you were looking to see if there was a
0:09:03 > 0:09:07case to answer, is that the gist of it? Absolutely, and when Rita
0:09:07 > 0:09:11Austin says I don't have any evidence, one of the things I have
0:09:11 > 0:09:14that evidence is not only statement made by staff and statements from
0:09:14 > 0:09:18the interviews I had with them, but I have actually got a recording
0:09:18 > 0:09:23which is over 3.5 hours long of my interview with the chief executive,
0:09:23 > 0:09:27in which he makes a whole series of comments and admissions. I think
0:09:27 > 0:09:33that counts as evidence. Why hadn't she didn't have that evidence so
0:09:33 > 0:09:37she can probably look at the foundations of your recommendations,
0:09:37 > 0:09:42which are very serious for the future of the Malik family? They
0:09:42 > 0:09:46are, and I am very sorry that the Awema staff, partners and people
0:09:46 > 0:09:49who benefit from the services have been affected the way that they are,
0:09:49 > 0:09:55and it is a shame that some of the trustees are being tried used in
0:09:55 > 0:09:59the way that they have been. traduced. Why don't you give her
0:10:00 > 0:10:02your evidence? Firstly, it has been alleged that there was a bit of a
0:10:02 > 0:10:07coup and she was brought in contrary to the laws and
0:10:07 > 0:10:13regulations that govern Awema. disputes that. She might disputed,
0:10:13 > 0:10:17but I think it is quite clear from the information that I have that it
0:10:17 > 0:10:21is the case. But even if you put that to one side, I was concerned
0:10:21 > 0:10:26that there might be a whitewash, and I think my concern has been
0:10:26 > 0:10:32borne out by what has happened so far. So for example, Rita Austin
0:10:32 > 0:10:38says in her report, I believe, that the Chief Executive was guilty of
0:10:38 > 0:10:40gross misconduct. But he has had a warning. I am sure if you are to
0:10:40 > 0:10:45ask most employers and indeed most employees what happens to people
0:10:45 > 0:10:50who are guilty of gross misconduct, after investigation and a hearing
0:10:50 > 0:10:53it, they go down the road. We will raise that issue with Rita Austin
0:10:53 > 0:10:57later in the programme, but in terms of why you are not handing
0:10:57 > 0:11:05over the evidence, are you telling me that you are not doing that
0:11:05 > 0:11:07the right thing with it? -- you do not trust her. I have been asked by
0:11:08 > 0:11:13one sot of -- one set of trustees, who have now resigned because of
0:11:13 > 0:11:16what is happening at Awema, to do a job and I have done that job and I
0:11:16 > 0:11:20will and that information other, the information I have, to the
0:11:20 > 0:11:24people who are conducting informations. -- investigations.
0:11:24 > 0:11:29Why don't you give her a copy? hasn't asked for that. She may have
0:11:29 > 0:11:33changed her mind but Rita Austin has told me she wants to have me
0:11:33 > 0:11:39return all copies of documents, policies, recordings, everything to
0:11:39 > 0:11:42her. I am not going to do it. ask you about the large government
0:11:42 > 0:11:46review into the allegations surrounding Awema? -- Welsh
0:11:46 > 0:11:51Government. Has anybody from the Welsh Government contacted due to
0:11:51 > 0:11:56ask you to supply them with the evidence you say you have? Not yet,
0:11:56 > 0:12:00hopefully they will. A has anyone from South Wales Police? Nobody
0:12:00 > 0:12:06from any organisation. Nobody has been in touch with me apart from
0:12:06 > 0:12:09your good self, and other in media outlets. I am grateful to you for
0:12:09 > 0:12:12talking to us on Dragon's Eye. Paul Dunn, there.
0:12:12 > 0:12:17Rita Austin was appointed as the Chair of Awema in December last
0:12:17 > 0:12:21year. She served a previous term as Chair of the organisation at the
0:12:21 > 0:12:23beginning of the last decade, leaving in 2006. No-one from Awema
0:12:23 > 0:12:27has spoken publicly since the recent allegations came to light
0:12:27 > 0:12:30because a Welsh Government review is taking place. The new Chair has
0:12:30 > 0:12:33agreed to appear on Dragon's Eye on the basis that we discuss the
0:12:33 > 0:12:36measures she's taken since her appointment to address the
0:12:36 > 0:12:43allegations. Measures which she outlined in a statement this week
0:12:43 > 0:12:48to the Charity Commission. Rita Austin, thank you for joining us in
0:12:48 > 0:12:54a very cold Dragon's Eye studio, for give us do that. Let's start
0:12:54 > 0:12:57with your comments about Paul Dunn and his report. You are savagely
0:12:57 > 0:13:02critical of that report in your submission to the Charity
0:13:02 > 0:13:07Commission, why is that? I think the statements I have made to the
0:13:07 > 0:13:12Charity Commission called into question the governance that the
0:13:12 > 0:13:17previous trustees exercised in commissioning this report. At have
0:13:17 > 0:13:21asked, because I cannot find any offers, for a letter of appointment
0:13:21 > 0:13:27-- I have asked. I had asked for terms of reference, details of
0:13:27 > 0:13:30contract, even the curriculum vitae. I have not been able to find these
0:13:30 > 0:13:35items in the office. I have asked Paul Dunn to supply a copy of them
0:13:35 > 0:13:41and they are not there. This is not the proper way to commission a
0:13:41 > 0:13:46report. What has happened, in effect, is that a person about whom
0:13:46 > 0:13:54little is known to most of the trustees at the time has been
0:13:54 > 0:13:59allowed access to very case sensitive material in Awema and I
0:13:59 > 0:14:06don't think that is permissible without comment. I can say further,
0:14:06 > 0:14:12in terms of these actual -- this actual report... E say on several
0:14:12 > 0:14:15occasions in your statement that he provides no evidence to support his
0:14:15 > 0:14:20call for the immediate suspension of Naz Malik, pending a
0:14:20 > 0:14:24disciplinary inquiry. Yet the trustees took legal advice on Paul
0:14:24 > 0:14:28Dunn's report and the lawyers took a different view to yours. The
0:14:29 > 0:14:34lawyer has said that there was sufficient evidence in Paul Dunn's
0:14:34 > 0:14:38investigation to warrant an immediate suspension and that their
0:14:38 > 0:14:47advice was that such a suspension would be appropriate. Why did you
0:14:47 > 0:14:51I am obliged, as I was coming in as chair again - and I was asked to
0:14:51 > 0:14:57come in as chair because several of the Trustees at that time were
0:14:57 > 0:15:00appalled by the lack of leadership and focus being shown, in terms of
0:15:00 > 0:15:07allegations to which the chief executive had already responded. I
0:15:07 > 0:15:14hope we will come back to that in a minute. Let me just deal with your..
0:15:14 > 0:15:17I am obliged to consider the advice of solicitors. When I got into the
0:15:17 > 0:15:23chair, we looked at the advice from solicitors and we did give it
0:15:23 > 0:15:28consideration, due consideration. But you dismissed it in the end?
0:15:28 > 0:15:33don't think it is fair to say that I dismissed it. You chose not to
0:15:33 > 0:15:36follow it. I chose not to follow that aspect. That is a serious
0:15:36 > 0:15:42decision for a chair who has just come in and is dealing with serious
0:15:42 > 0:15:46allegations. Of course it is a serious position to take and I take
0:15:46 > 0:15:50my duties extremely seriously, which is more than can be said for
0:15:50 > 0:15:56the trustees previously. I take the decisions that I took in the light
0:15:56 > 0:16:00of knowing that the outcome of suspending the chief executive, or
0:16:00 > 0:16:05indeed anybody else, and might I say here that there is no evidence
0:16:05 > 0:16:09ever been brought to substantiate allegations against the operations
0:16:09 > 0:16:13director, indeed the solicitor has asked me to ask Paul Dunn to
0:16:13 > 0:16:17provide substantiating evidence and so far he has not. We are not
0:16:17 > 0:16:21talking about that at the moment. Let me come back to what you have
0:16:21 > 0:16:25asked me and I will try and answer your questions. In terms of the
0:16:25 > 0:16:29advice that I was given by the solicitor, trustees were given by
0:16:29 > 0:16:37the solicitor, had we done as she had advised, it would have incurred
0:16:37 > 0:16:45the charity an enormous extra expense. I could not justify that,
0:16:45 > 0:16:51on the very strong grounds that I already had, as had the trustees, a
0:16:51 > 0:16:59clear admission from Mr Malik as to the business over the credit card.
0:16:59 > 0:17:03More than that, the trustees, on 18th November meeting, had exactly
0:17:03 > 0:17:07that admission. Forgive me, but I have to push you on this. You say
0:17:07 > 0:17:11the reason for not following the legal advice was that it would
0:17:11 > 0:17:15engage the charity in unnecessary expense. To be honest, I find it
0:17:15 > 0:17:22extraordinary that, when lawyers are consulted, lawyers who are
0:17:22 > 0:17:25experts in their field and whose obligation is primarily the correct
0:17:25 > 0:17:29operating of an organisation which handles millions of pounds of
0:17:29 > 0:17:33public money, and when they say to you, we agree that there appears to
0:17:33 > 0:17:36be sufficient evidence within the preliminary investigation by Paul
0:17:36 > 0:17:41Dunn to support an allegation of gross misconduct on the part of Naz
0:17:41 > 0:17:45Malik, according to your internal disciplinary Pollock -- policy and
0:17:45 > 0:17:48procedure, you should consider immediate suspension, and our
0:17:49 > 0:17:52advice is that such a suspension would be appropriate. I must
0:17:52 > 0:17:59confess, I find it extraordinary that you chose to disregard that on
0:17:59 > 0:18:02the basis that it would be split -- too expensive. Well, you are
0:18:02 > 0:18:06perfectly entitled to your opinion. I have to make these judgments on
0:18:06 > 0:18:11behalf of the charity as I see fit. And of course I take responsibility
0:18:11 > 0:18:15for the decision. However, can I just add on that, it is my
0:18:15 > 0:18:23understanding that the solicitor was not provided with, by the
0:18:23 > 0:18:28trustees at that time, may I finish? Briefly, if you could,
0:18:28 > 0:18:34because there are other points. solicitor was not provided with Mr
0:18:34 > 0:18:39Malik was no rebuttal. There was his admission. I want to talk to
0:18:39 > 0:18:44about that now. And I have no doubt that his such -- admission was
0:18:45 > 0:18:49sufficient to warrant her advice. That is the admission that he used
0:18:49 > 0:18:52an advance on expenses, the charity money, public money, to pay off his
0:18:52 > 0:18:56credit card bill. And in your statement to the Charity Commission
0:18:56 > 0:19:00you say that that amounts to gross misconduct. Why did you not sack
0:19:01 > 0:19:05him? Well, you might ask the question, why are the trustees, who
0:19:05 > 0:19:11are now complaining, did not sack him at the time? Why did you not
0:19:11 > 0:19:16sack him? Excuse me, you ask me questions... My question is why did
0:19:16 > 0:19:20you not sack him? I did not sack him because I felt it unnecessary
0:19:20 > 0:19:23to move immediately to disciplinary action. But I have to say that at
0:19:23 > 0:19:26the July AGM, in the presence of all of the trustees who are
0:19:26 > 0:19:31currently complaining, it was properly disclosed in the minutes
0:19:31 > 0:19:37of that July AGM that the chief executive was holding what is
0:19:37 > 0:19:41called a cash float. You admit it is gross misconduct in this report.
0:19:41 > 0:19:47The trustees, on 18th November, were also faced with that very same
0:19:47 > 0:19:51allegation. In this report to the Charity Commission, you say it
0:19:51 > 0:19:54amounts to gross misconduct. You have guidelines in AWEMA that say
0:19:54 > 0:19:59that the normal punishment for gross misconduct would be summary
0:19:59 > 0:20:02dismissal. Why did you disregard your own policies and procedures in
0:20:02 > 0:20:07deciding not to dismiss the chief executive who you admit is guilty
0:20:07 > 0:20:12of gross misconduct? You might well ask why the trustees... I am asking
0:20:12 > 0:20:16why you did not do it. I'm sorry, Mrs Evans, I know you wish to
0:20:16 > 0:20:21pursue your own questions but I am here to speak to the statement I
0:20:21 > 0:20:27made to the Charity Commission. That is what we are talking about.
0:20:27 > 0:20:30What I have in my statement to the Charity Commission is also deep
0:20:30 > 0:20:35concerns about the governance of the trustees, who suddenly wished
0:20:35 > 0:20:40to discuss matters that I have done when they themselves did not take
0:20:40 > 0:20:44any action on the admitted misconduct of the chief executive.
0:20:44 > 0:20:48You have already told me you think they are incompetent, so why when
0:20:48 > 0:20:51you came in did you not say, I think this is gross misconduct, as
0:20:51 > 0:20:55you said to the Charity Commission, it amounted to gross misconduct,
0:20:55 > 0:21:02and yet you did not sack and chief executive who you said had
0:21:02 > 0:21:05committed gross misconduct. And when the procedures and guidelines
0:21:05 > 0:21:10of the organisation say he would normally be sacked if convicted or
0:21:10 > 0:21:15determined to have admitted gross misconduct. I don't think I cannot
0:21:15 > 0:21:20see you any better than I have. me ask you another question. I am
0:21:20 > 0:21:25sorry, I will finish this answer. It was in a properly convened
0:21:25 > 0:21:32disciplinary panel meeting of three trustees, including myself. We
0:21:32 > 0:21:36heard not only his admission, we heard also of the fact that the
0:21:36 > 0:21:40previous trustees had dealt with this. Why would they take an
0:21:40 > 0:21:42instruction from you, as to admit in this report, for Mr Malik to
0:21:42 > 0:21:46repay public money he had inappropriately taken to pay off
0:21:46 > 0:21:50his credit card? What sort of chief executive of the charity needs to
0:21:50 > 0:21:58be told to repay money has taken in appropriately to pay his credit
0:21:58 > 0:22:03card? Look, he does not need to be told that. But use a...
0:22:03 > 0:22:06heaven's sake, Mrs Evans, you either allow me to answer your
0:22:06 > 0:22:10questions... Please answer the question, but you seem to be
0:22:10 > 0:22:13disputing what is written here so I am trying to clarify that. I will
0:22:13 > 0:22:19now take breath and try to answer you before you interrupt me again.
0:22:19 > 0:22:26This admission was made at the July ATM. The trustees then took no
0:22:26 > 0:22:30notice. This admission was made, and his rebuttal, was made to the
0:22:30 > 0:22:37November meeting of the board. The trustees took no action. I came
0:22:37 > 0:22:42into the chair on 16th December, and on 19th December, a Friday to
0:22:42 > 0:22:46Monday, I took disciplinary action against him, having told with the
0:22:46 > 0:22:51agreement of my trustees. The trustees, having listened to the
0:22:51 > 0:22:57evidence, and all of that, having heard from the chief executives
0:22:57 > 0:23:01that he had offered to repay that many a long time ago, that he had a
0:23:01 > 0:23:07third at the AGM, it was properly disclosed, the trustees could have
0:23:07 > 0:23:10instructed him then to do it -- that he had offered, and he wished
0:23:10 > 0:23:14himself to call in the police as soon as the allegations were made
0:23:14 > 0:23:18and the honorary officers denied it. I cannot help you any further. That
0:23:18 > 0:23:24was my judgment. And I am really sorry that in this interview, which
0:23:24 > 0:23:27I came to undertake to speak to my statement to the Charity Commission.
0:23:27 > 0:23:31That is what we have been discussing. You have looked at one
0:23:31 > 0:23:36aspect of it. I know that you have to leave it there and I am really
0:23:36 > 0:23:42sorry that the good work that Main does is not being done.
0:23:42 > 0:23:45Date for joining us. -- AWEMA. Up the allegations have raised
0:23:45 > 0:23:49concern about the oversight of an organisation that spends millions
0:23:49 > 0:23:52of public money. This is not the first time there have been
0:23:52 > 0:23:56allegations of management misconduct.
0:23:56 > 0:24:00There are currently two reviews into AWEMA at governmental level.
0:24:00 > 0:24:04One is a joint review with the Wales international funding office
0:24:04 > 0:24:07on the second is a government review. The Minister for Finance
0:24:07 > 0:24:17told Assembly members about the progress of the latter. This raises
0:24:17 > 0:24:21issues about the propriety and proper use of public funds. I can
0:24:21 > 0:24:25assure you that the field work has been completed, the assessment is
0:24:25 > 0:24:28being made a moment of the investigation and officials are
0:24:28 > 0:24:33aiming to finalise a report in agreement with the Big Lottery Fund,
0:24:33 > 0:24:36of course, who engaged him that investigation, during the week
0:24:36 > 0:24:39commencing 6th February. But many of those who have made allegations
0:24:39 > 0:24:44of financial impropriety have told us no one from the Welsh Government
0:24:44 > 0:24:47has even spoken to them. I am concerned that the recommendation
0:24:47 > 0:24:53originally put to the board to suspended chief executive was not
0:24:53 > 0:24:56implemented. Clearly, if employees are coming out now and effectively
0:24:56 > 0:24:59it is an open rebellion, that decision has to be revisited
0:24:59 > 0:25:04because we cannot have a situation where we had such an important
0:25:04 > 0:25:10organisation with all of its funds suspended, staff in open the vote
0:25:10 > 0:25:13and with the work that it is doing effectively on hold. -- staff in
0:25:14 > 0:25:18open the vote. Somebody needs to get a grip. Ministers have refused
0:25:18 > 0:25:21to be interviewed on the programme about the oversight of AWEMA and
0:25:21 > 0:25:26the millions that it spends. They say it would not be appropriate
0:25:26 > 0:25:30until the review is completed. Earlier this week, Wales' top civil
0:25:30 > 0:25:35servant told a committee of AMs that the conduct of Main should
0:25:35 > 0:25:39have been considered high risk. Processors in recent years have
0:25:39 > 0:25:42been fine, but I think we have to go back longer than that to answer
0:25:42 > 0:25:50questions and to get some answers about our long-term management of
0:25:50 > 0:25:54an organisation which, if you look at the history, we should have
0:25:54 > 0:25:58raided as -- we should have graded as a high risk organisation.
0:25:58 > 0:26:02submitted a list of questions to the Welsh Government. We asked for
0:26:02 > 0:26:06a copy of the second review from 2003, which a Government spokesman
0:26:06 > 0:26:10told us was in the public domain. We asked whether allegations that
0:26:10 > 0:26:15the Welsh Government suspended funding into 1006 after complaints
0:26:15 > 0:26:18from a vice chair of AWEMA trustees about procedural Erich --
0:26:18 > 0:26:25irregularities were true. And we asked whether the Government had
0:26:25 > 0:26:29investigated AWEMA at any other time than in 2002, 2003 and the two
0:26:29 > 0:26:39reviews this year. A spokesman refused to answer our questions
0:26:39 > 0:26:48
0:26:48 > 0:26:52One of the other bodies that is supposed to provide oversight of
0:26:52 > 0:26:56charities is the sector's regulator, the Charity Commission. They told
0:26:56 > 0:27:00us they have not decided on a course of action in relation to the
0:27:00 > 0:27:04concerns surrounding AWEMA, they will not do so until they meet the
0:27:04 > 0:27:08charity, and they have not arranged a date for such a meeting.
0:27:08 > 0:27:13With me is the leader of the Welsh Conservatives in the Assembly,
0:27:13 > 0:27:17Andrew RT Davies. Welcome. What is your view of the way the review is
0:27:17 > 0:27:21being conducted by the Welsh government? There is a stench about
0:27:21 > 0:27:24the whole thing. We see the permanent secretary saying they
0:27:24 > 0:27:27have not been up to their game, have not reviewed the charity for
0:27:27 > 0:27:32some time, or been up to the job of supervising the public money that
0:27:32 > 0:27:36has gone in there. Ministers have failed. We have a minister and a
0:27:36 > 0:27:40First Minister who have failed in their job to oversee this charity.
0:27:40 > 0:27:44What we want is questions. You had the chair of the organisation in
0:27:44 > 0:27:47here earlier who identified faults, and she did not act on them. We
0:27:47 > 0:27:51have made chief-executive identified in a report with gross
0:27:51 > 0:27:55negligence. We had an employment lawyer saying that in normal
0:27:55 > 0:27:59circumstances he would have been suspended. None of the actions that
0:27:59 > 0:28:03would normally follow have been undertaken. There is a real stench
0:28:03 > 0:28:06about this and it needs a thorough investigation. I call into question
0:28:06 > 0:28:12the Welsh Government's ability to be the ultimate arbitrator on this,
0:28:12 > 0:28:16given their inaction to date. do you intend to do? My colleague
0:28:16 > 0:28:20Darren Millar has written to South Wales Police, believing the
0:28:20 > 0:28:24allegations are serious enough to warrant a police investigation. We
0:28:24 > 0:28:27will be asking some searching and serious questions through the
0:28:27 > 0:28:31Chamber and also via the Public Accounts Committee which undertook
0:28:31 > 0:28:34an investigation this week. But above all, this highlights in
0:28:34 > 0:28:38action at the highest level of government. This is an organisation
0:28:38 > 0:28:42that deals with in excess of �8 million of public money. It is not
0:28:42 > 0:28:45good enough and it builds on a series of failures across Wales
0:28:45 > 0:28:49with public money that highlights the systemic failure within the
0:28:49 > 0:28:54Welsh government and at the heart, the ministers must take account and
0:28:54 > 0:28:58be responsible. We look forward to a minister appearing on this