FMQs: IndyRef2, Drugs & Urgent Stuff

The usual stuff was on the agenda today alongside an abnormally large number of urgent questions (a few more weeks and I never have to do this again). Once again, Leader of the House, Jane Hutt (Lab, Vale of Glamorgan), was filling in for the First Minister.

Read More

FMQs: No Love Lost

The increasingly fractious row over Carmarthenshire Council's decision to make Llangennech School Welsh-medium-only continues. Plus, other questions on climate change, scams/cold calling and the Welsh Government “leaning” on lobbyists and the Third Sector.

Read More

Woodpeckers, Tits & Choughs

(Pic : Centre for Ecology & Hydrology)

In the last few weeks an alliance of environmental, conservation and ecology groups published a State of Nature report for 2016 (pdf). It didn't make good reading when it comes to protecting native Welsh species, with some spots of hope. There's more from the Assembly's Research Service here.

Read More

FMQs : Curious Tales, Cwmbran Hospital & Ireland

There was a varied FMQs today, with questions ranging from the M4, average earnings, the planning system and also a polite warning from the Llywydd.

Read More

FMQs : Cancer, Steel & Newport M4

I'm trying something new for the Fifth Assembly in order to improve the depth of coverage and that's blogging First Minister's Questions (FMQs) for the first time.

Read More

Back to the Future

"If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits 8 counties you're going to see some serious shit."

Today's post was originally going to be on the annual Programme of Government report, but due to a "dramatic" turn of events on local government reform I'll have to post it another time. There's a lot to get through.

Read More

Westminster 2015 : The Welsh Battlegrounds

Which Welsh seats are going to be keenly-fought over?
(Pic : BBC)

As we're now into the last fortnight of the 2015 election campaign, it's time to take a closer look at where in Wales the fight for votes might be keenest, and which seats might be more likely to change hands.

Read More

Turning Wales a (Radioactive) Shade of Green

When the fuel for your nuclear reactor is spent, where does it go?
The Welsh Government are consulting on changes to their policy.
(Pic : American Nuclear Society)

"Radioactive waste" - two words that conjure images of deformities, lead boxes several feet thick and fluorescent green sludge.

The truth is a bit different. Most radioactive waste is a result of medicine – leftovers from radiography and radiotherapy - and is so low-grade it can sometimes be (carefully) disposed of at landfill sites. Then of course there's the higher-grade waste associated with nuclear energy and nuclear weapons.

Disposal of radioactive waste is – believe it or not – a devolved matter, though there's high-level cooperation between the respective governments of the UK.

Back in April, the Welsh Government launched a consultation on their radioactive waste policies, asking people if said policies needed a review. After carrying out that review, the Welsh Government have launched another consultation (pdf) which includes its preferred options for future disposal of radioactive waste, though no final decisions have been made.

The Current Standpoint

Most of the UK's high-grade nuclear waste is reprocessed or stored at Sellafield,
but with so much fuel reaching the end of its life, a new option is required.
(Pic : BBC)

In 2006, the independent Committee for Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) recommended that their preferred method of dealing with the high-grade waste resulting from the current generation of nuclear power plants was geological disposal (aka. storing it permanently in an excavated hole circa 500-1000ft deep). In 2013, CoRWM reaffirmed this as their favoured option.

In 2010, the UK Government's approach was for communities to volunteer to store high-grade waste for the whole of the UK in exchange for "goodies/investment". Communities in Cumbria (where most of the UK's radioactive waste is stored) and Kent considered it but ultimately it was rejected.

The Scottish Government took a different view and would prefer surface-level storage near the place where the waste was produced. The Welsh Government sat on the fence and neither supported or opposed geological disposal, though if a Welsh community were to "volunteer", the Welsh Government would reconsider their position.

What concerns did the consultation raise?

Some respondents believed it was irresponsible to support Wylfa B whilst opposing
the storage of nuclear waste in Wales - and the Welsh Government now agree.
(Pic : Cyndeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg)

It's irresponsible to reject storage of nuclear waste whilst supporting Wylfa B – The support for Wylfa B is one of the main reasons, in the Welsh Government's own words, that they decided to review their policies. The Welsh Government believe, in principle, that storing/disposing nuclear waste in Wales would be consistent with supporting nuclear energy.

It would be irresponsible to store nuclear waste above ground due to threats from terrorism and natural disasters, but burying it won't solve these issues either – The Welsh Government "note" the CoRWM recommendation that geological disposal is the best long-term solution to the problem, and they say that there's "no evidence" that surface storage would "provide a safer long-term answer".

Concerns over the cost to the Welsh Government – UK policy means the costs of nuclear waste disposal falls on the operator. State funding is provided via the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) and the Welsh Government are confident there would be no additional cost to themselves.

Liabilities following an accident – It's the UK Parliament's responsibility to approve/pay compensation as a result of nuclear accidents above and beyond compensation paid out by operators.

The Welsh Government should reconsider its support for new nuclear power stations – The Welsh Government rather glibly say that the issue of whether new nuclear power stations should be supported or not falls outside the consultation. They believe nuclear energy is a "reliable low-carbon source that complements renewables....bringing significant long-term economic benefits".

The best option is not to produce more radioactive waste – The Welsh Government believe that high-grade waste can be stored safely, and there's a backlog of "legacy waste" from 60 years of nuclear power that still needs to be disposed of. The presence of legacy waste also means that a decision has to be made now to comply with EU radioactive waste directives.

Incidents at Yucca Mountain and WIPP in the US prove geological disposal is unsafe – The Welsh Government raised concerns with CoRWM about these incidents, but they don't believe that this  proves geological disposal is harmful.

"Bribing" communities to host radioactive waste is wrong – The fact some of the communities that came forward to host a facility withdrew from the process without penalty demonstrates "the robustness of the right to withdraw". However, the Welsh Government evaded the issue of whether or not it was "bribing" or not.

The Welsh Government should be responsible for "Welsh" waste – Responsibility for disposal of radioactive waste doesn't mean waste will be disposed in Wales. At the moment, the only radioactive waste stored in Wales is low-grade and often in low volumes.

The Welsh Government's Choice

The Welsh Government now support "geological disposal" and
don't rule out Wales hosting such a facility.
(Pic : enformable.com)

Justification for a policy change

• "Storage" requires an ongoing supervision and is only a short to medium-term option, so "disposal" is preferred to remove the need for supervision.
• There are no proposals to reprocess nuclear waste from Wylfa B, so management of that waste is required. The current Welsh Government policy of opposing management of nuclear waste in Wales contradicts this and will need to be changed.
• There's already a considerable amount of nuclear waste requiring disposal even before taking Wylfa B into account. Therefore, there's a duty on this generation to ensure the process of disposing the waste is started now.

The Welsh Government's Preferred Option

• A nuclear waste policy that's consistent with supporting new nuclear power stations/Wylfa B.
• A policy that meets EU directives, and the Welsh Government believes that will not be met by surface or near-surface storage.
• A policy that takes the needs and safeguarding of future generations into account.
• Subsequently, the Welsh Government's preferred option is "geological disposal". Though they say they've taken no firm decisions on this and it doesn't mean it'll be stored in Wales.

A Radioactive Issue

This is the reason you shouldn't make up nuclear
energy policy on the back of a fag packet.

The legal difference (as defined in the EU directive) between "disposal" and "storage" is that if nuclear waste is "stored" there's an expectation that it will be recovered in the future. "Disposal" means it's left there and presumably sealed in somehow, never to be returned to again.

"Stored" is a better word to describe both because wherever it's put, it's going to be there probably a lot longer than humans will be around. The half-life of plutonium waste, for example, is around 24,000 years. For some uranium isotopes produced/used in nuclear energy it's around 245,000 years.

To put that in perspective, 24,000 years ago modern humans had just started colonising North America and the last ice age was at its peak.

That's one hell of a legacy for "Future Generations" we're going to leave.

Wanting nuclear power without dealing with the waste is a lot like wanting to eat haute cuisine without eventually having to take a dump.

Wales is going to be very high up the list of potential nuclear waste disposal sites because, objectively speaking, sites have to be : geographically isolated, economically depressed (to be easily won over by the promise of investment), close to a producers of high-grade waste (to minimise transport), home to communities that are used to living with nuclear energy and both geologically and hydrologically stable.

Anglesey ticks all the boxes.

The Welsh Government now openly admit their support for Wylfa B is implicit support for the disposal of high-grade nuclear waste in Wales (completely contradicting statements by the First Minister in the Senedd chamber). For once they're being honest.

That doesn't mean it'll happen, but certain politicians and parties will have to admit that on the record too because eggs are heading for faces, and there's little room for backtracking without looking like utter pillocks.

Read More

Why are Welsh ambulance response times so poor?

The Wales Ambulance Service Trust (WAST) has failed to hit and maintain its response time targets (65% of the most serious [Category A] 999 calls responded to within 8 minutes) for around 24 months in a row.

The latest figures, from August 2014 (pdf), show that 56.9% of Category A calls were responded to within 8 minutes; that rises to 66.8% within 10 minutes and 83% at 15 minutes. That means for 17% (almost 1 in 5) of life-threatening calls in Wales, an ambulance takes near double the target time to reach the patient. Summer is traditionally quiet in terms of demand for ambulance services, so these figures are particularly bad.

Although this is one of those issues which Assembly Members get very hot under the collar about, nobody's ever considered the precise reasons why the ambulance service is missing its targets so consistently. Opposition AMs huff and puff over the figures and turn it into a political football, while ministers almost never give straight answers.

Most of this is going to be guesswork and inductive reasoning with very little hard evidence to back it up. But I do believe that – concerns from the McClelland Review about management aside - some of the reasons might not be sexy enough for politicians to score points off each other in the Senedd chamber or press, but do make sense.

Where are the problems?

Before considering why response times are poor, it's worth looking at performances at a local level to see if there are any patterns we can draw conclusions from. As you can see from the map below, response times vary wildly across Wales.

Ambulance response times by local authority - August 2014
(Pic : StatsWales/Welsh Government)

Four local authorities actually hit or exceeded the target – Swansea (65.1%), Conwy (65.9%), Bridgend (69.3%) and Wrexham (70.3%). Neath Port Talbot (62.8%) and Denbighshire (63%) came close. So despite criticism elsewhere, it looks like ambulance response times in the Abertawe Bro Morgannwg local health board are significantly better than the rest of Wales.

In terms of poor responses, there are two distinct clusters.

The first cluster are rural local authorities, with Monmouthshire (50%), Anglesey (51.5%) Powys (53.3%), Vale of Glamorgan (53.5%) and Carmarthenshire (54.7%) standing out, with the likes of Pembrokeshire, Ceredigion and Gwynedd not doing much better.

The second cluster consists of Cardiff (58.1%) and the south Wales valleys. Response times in Caerphilly (44.8%), Rhondda Cynon Taf (46.4%), Torfaen (47.6%), Merthyr Tydfil (51.3%) and Blaenau Gwent (52.8%) are much, much worse than the rest of Wales. The difference between bordering local authorities like Bridgend and RCT is stark, though – as I'll come to – there may be unorthodox explanations as to why this is the case.

What might the problems be?

These aren't exactly ambulance friendly street layouts.
(Pic : Wales Online)

The quality of the road network - The poorest response times are in the south Wales valleys where there are a lot of very narrow side streets consisting of tightly-packed terraced houses, usually on steep inclines. There's often very little room to park if you live on these roads, let alone enough room to attempt to get an ambulance up them at high speed.

Local authorities which have the better response times, like Swansea, Bridgend and Wrexham, are quite car-friendly. Swansea city itself, for example, has been designed with road traffic in mind since the Luftwaffe flattened it, while Bridgend and Wrexham have large housing estates served by high-quality spine roads and dual carriageways.

So as much as AMs might want to pin the blame on the government or the WAST's management team, it could be equally down to dodgy junctions, potholes, poor car parking, ill-considered one-way systems or unnecessary sets of traffic lights and speed humps.

Perhaps consideration should be given to the creation of designated "ambulance-friendly routes" in the valleys that are cleared of any and all obstructions where practical.

Rurality and the distance travelled to 999 calls – This is something you can easily infer from the map, and it's so blindingly obvious even the harshest critic of the Welsh NHS will have to accept it as an unavoidable hazard.

The further you are from a hospital or ambulance station, the longer the ambulance will take to reach you – simple. The problem will be more acute in north west, mid and west Wales (as well as some south Walian local authorities like Monmouthshire and Vale of Glamorgan). The catchment areas for Ysbyty Gwynedd and Bronglais Hospital, for example, are huge, and often cover difficult terrain.

Farming and fishing are probably the most dangerous jobs around. Workers in these sectors are at higher risk of suffering serious accidents, and these jobs are also more densely concentrated in these areas.

Also, people who move to idyllic-looking farmhouses to retire don't factor in that – as they get older and inevitably get sicker too - ambulances might struggle to reach them at the end of gravel tracks off a picturesque winding B-road in the Welsh Desert. And air ambulances might be tied up elsewhere.

Ambulances are too heavy and too slow - In 2013, around £9.5million was spent upgrading the Welsh ambulance fleet. Although they now carry very high-tech (and heavy) equipment – before factoring in the weight of paramedics themselves and patients – the ambulances are still glorified transit vans that can't negotiate corners particularly well and accelerate slowly. Over longer distances this will add up.

If you want an analogy, it's a bit like refurbishing the interior of a train or bus to business class standards, but the bus/train itself remaining a clapped out diesel from the 1970s.

There's little the Welsh Government and Ambulance Trust can do here, and the onus is on ambulance manufacturers to create faster, lighter vehicles. Perhaps there should be more use of motorbikes and cars for first responders, while using larger ambulances solely to transport patients to hospital and stabilise complicated conditions.

There's at least 8 ambulances I can see that can't go on another urgent 999 call.
(Pic : Morriston Hospital via cardifflocalguide.co.uk)

Delayed transfers at Accident & Emergency departments – Now this is something you really can criticise the Welsh Government for. It's their job to ensure there are enough medical staff, and that hospitals are well-resourced enough, to see whoever comes through the door.

Every minute an ambulance spends outside A&E departments waiting to discharge patients is a minute that ambulance is out of action. There are acute problems in Cardiff in particular, and it occasionally happens at other hospitals, such as Morriston Hospital in Swansea and Princess of Wales Hospital, Bridgend.

With the forthcoming centralisation of specialist services in south Wales, I'll actually expect this problem to get worse, as treating capacity hasn't been dealt with. They might stand a chance of being seen by staff quicker, but as far as I can tell there'll be the same number of beds to treat them.

This is the main reason why, in my opinion, you end up hearing of extreme cases of people waiting hours for an ambulance to show up. It's simply because all the ambulances are tied up outside A&E departments waiting to offload patients.

Compassion fatigue & "false alarms" - "Compassion fatigue" is a mild form of post traumatic stress disorder that affects people who deal with harrowing things every single day (like paramedics and A&E doctors), and it even affects the general public when we're bombarded with bad news or sob stories. We eventually get used to it to such an extent we don't care anymore. How many times have we been told the Wales Ambulance Trust are over-worked, under-staffed and poorly-managed?

For medical staff this becomes cynicism and a lack of genuine compassion for patients. This in turn may lead to complacency in care and poor morale. I doubt you would ever get paramedics to admit it because the trade unions will go ballistic and on the defensive. But I'm willing to bet on some calls they'll let standards slip because they've had enough crap for one day.

Then there are people calling for an ambulance when they don't really need one, tying up more resources. It's easy to criticise people who do this as time-wasters or hypochondriacs, but it's often better to be safe than sorry. Welsh Government public information campaigns on this have clearly failed.

The McClelland review recommended that the 8 minute target be ditched.
- something AMs have conveniently forgotten.
(Pic : Telegraph and Argus)

The targets are too ambitious – Not all Category A 999 calls need to be responded to within 8 minutes. With improved medicines and treatments, things that would've once killed people – like heart attacks and strokes – are now increasingly survivable, even if a patient doesn't reach hospital in the "golden hour" (which some academics and medics have called a "myth").

That's no reason to be complacent, and there is evidence that suggests the sooner an ambulance reaches a patient who's suffering a heart attack, the greater the chance of survival (Pell, Sirel, Marsden et. al 2001).

However, just to point out how silly the 8 minute target is (as pointed out in the McClelland review), if an ambulance reaches a patient within 8 minutes and they die, they've met the target. If they reach them in 8 minutes 30 seconds and save the patient's life, they've missed the target. That's ridiculous, and no wonder paramedics must hate their job (Price, 2006) when those are the twisted standards they're held to by managers and politicians.

Echoing what was said in the McClelland review, the target should be based around the patient's outcome (for argument's sake, all Category A patients should be admitted to hospital within 40 minutes of the 999 call with a chance of survival), not a stopwatch.

What are the Welsh Government doing about it?
                                  

You've got to say that if these are the sorts of problems facing the ambulance service, then there's very little the Welsh Government can do other than implementing some of the recommendations from the McClelland report and keeping their fingers crossed.

Ditching the 8 minute target – however rational it would be - would be an absolute god-send to opposition AMs. It would probably send the Tories in particular into screams of ecstasy on the Senedd benches, as it'll be on every election leaflet in 2016, accompanied by a photo of an elderly actor/actress having a "chest-clutcher" on the stairs. So it's unlikely to happen due to politics, even if shifting the goal posts is in vogue at Cathays Park.

However, in the last fortnight or so, the new Deputy Minister for Health, Vaughan Gething (Lab, Cardiff S. & Penarth), made a major announcement on this.

The Welsh Government have earmarked around £5million towards the creation of an Emergency Medical Retrieval and Transfer System (EMTRS) service. In English, that means an expansion (you could even say a part-nationalisation) of the Wales Air Ambulance - dubbed "Flying Doctors" after the cheesy 1980s Australian drama, though it's probably more comparable to M.A.S.H. It'll operate for 12 hours a day, and will be based in Swansea and Welshpool.

The idea's that trained doctors and consultants will be airlifted to serious incidents with equipment so patients can be treated at the scene instead of waiting for an ambulance to take them to hospital to be treated. If it works, it's said 95% of the population will now be within 30 minutes of doctor-led emergency care.

The EMTRS is probably an act of desperation, but as an idea it's incredibly sensible, practical and I'm surprised it hasn't been attempted a lot sooner.

Read More

"Thank you for flying Ieuan Air...."

Poor value for money? Or vital transport link?
The Anglesey-Cardiff "Ieuan Air" service has its critics.
(Pic : Wales Online)

The direct air service between Cardiff and Anglesey has been a political football since it was first introduced. Some consider it a vital public service air link; others consider it a complete waste of money.

The National Assembly's Public Accounts Committee undertook a short inquiry into its future role, as well as evaluating its current commercial performance due to the high levels of public subsidy it receives and falls in passenger numbers (pdf).

The Committee's summarised recommendations were that :

• Data collection should be improved - preferably using an independent source - to avoid discrepancies between what the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and airline operators report.
• The Welsh Government should undertake research on who uses the air-link and why, as well as research into the long-term passenger number trends.
• Any future tender for the air-link should include comprehensive marketing plans, and the Welsh Government should try to attract as many bidders as possible in order to maximise the benefits and opportunities of the air-link.

Background & Current Performance

£9million has been spent on the air link since 2007, including
£1.5million on terminal facilities at RAF Valley.
(Pic : anglesey-today.com)

The Anglesey-Cardiff air-link was established in May 2007 (before Ieuan Wyn Jones even became a government minister), and is currently operated by two companies. The marketing and ticket booking services are provided by Manx company, Citywing, while the air service itself is provided by Links Air, based on Humberside. The current contract to provide the service runs until December 2014. The service runs twice a day in both directions during weekdays.

The Welsh Government subsidises the service under the EU's Public Service Obligation (PSO) rules, which allows governments to subsidise services that are key to economic development but are otherwise commercial unviable. The subsidy currently amounts to £1.2million per year.

The Ministry of Defence are also involved as they run the RAF Valley terminus of the flight. Anglesey Council and a company called Europa also fund/run the terminal services at the airbase.

The total cost of the air service from May 2007 to March 2013 was just over £9million. This sum includes the £1.5million to build the passenger terminal at RAF Valley and various grants to Anglesey Council.

65,703 passengers used the service over the same time period, and the subsidy per passenger is £86. Although passenger numbers exceeded expectations in the first two years, they've since declined by 12.5% between 2011-2013.

There were differences between the passenger numbers reported by the CAA and those provided by the Welsh Government (via the service operator) – the latter's numbers being higher than the CAA's. However, since 2012 these discrepancies have become smaller and didn't cause the Committee any great concern.

As for the reasons why passenger numbers are falling, the University of South Wales' Martin Evans said that passengers were "price sensitive" and even the slightest increase in fares put them off. The Welsh Government, however, pointed towards figures that showed an increase in the number of advanced bookings and overall passenger numbers.

The Welsh Government have commissioned ARUP to review the marketing of the air service, fares strategy and support to maximise passenger numbers. The contract currently grants the operators £20-25,000 per year to market the service. The Committee believe more needs to be done - such as advertising connecting bus services - and all of that should be part of the tendering process.

In terms of the type of passenger, it was said between half and two-thirds of passengers were business passengers, but there was no data on how many of these were public sector workers. The Committee were concerned because public sector journeys would ultimately be paid for entirely by taxpayers, weakening the subsidy's value for money case.

With regard value for money, there hasn't been an evaluation of the benefits of the air service since 2008, and without this information it might be more difficult for the Welsh Government to justify further subsidy. Some of this will be explored further in the ARUP review, which will give a better idea of who uses the service and why, but it was argued it might be difficult to tie economic data to the service.

The Contract

Following the 2011 Cork air crash, there've been concerns raised
at EU level about "virtual airline" arrangements for air services.
(Pic : RTE)

There's a slightly complicated back story as to how the current operators got the franchise.

When the contract was up for re-tender in 2010, the only bidder was Highland Airways. But because the Welsh Government had concerns over the financial stability of the company, they rejected Highland Airways offer and put out an "emergency tender" which was awarded to Manx2.

However, because Manx2 were a "virtual airline" (they outsource all operational roles), this fell foul of EU PSO rules, meaning another company had to be on board at the same time – hence why there are two companies involved in running the air link.

As for the relevance of this, an accident at Cork Airport in February 2011 – which killed 6 people – involved an aircraft operated by the same company Manx2 used to provide the Anglesey-Cardiff link (FLM). The company has since had its aviation accreditation withdrawn, and this dual-company arrangement has been flagged up to the European Commission as a concern which should be taken into consideration when awarding any new Anglesey-Cardiff contract in December.

The Committee also had concerns about the timing of the tender and contract award, which is supposed to go out (quite literally) now if it's going to be awarded in December. The Committee were worried that the timescales are too tight and there's little room for contingencies.

The Future of the Air-Link

Due to MOD restrictions, the air link can only operate 5 days a week.
(Pic : Royal Air Force)

The Welsh Government haven't given a clear commitment on whether the service will be re-tendered or not. However, the Committee come up with several potential options for any future services.

• Increasing the size of the aircraft – The current aircraft has 18 seats, but previous tenders included 29-50 seater aircraft. The size of the aircraft was reduced by the Welsh Government due to concerns over air passenger duty and because RAF Valley doesn't meet UK guidelines for passenger aircraft bigger than 18 seats. Increasing the size of the aircraft would mean fewer passengers would be turned away and, if marketed correctly, could boost incomes and make it more commercially viable.
• More stops? – This might mean adding an extra stop or two (Harwarden in Flintshire and Caernarfon airport were mooted). Harwarden was ruled out due to competition from rail, while Caernarfon would need lots of work to bring it up to spec. A third stop could also put off passengers as it would increase journey times.
• 7 day a week service – At the moment only a 5 day service is possible due to military restrictions, and any moves to change this will need to be discussed with the RAF.
• Changes to state aid rules – PSO rules were recently changed which mean there are fewer constraints on what the Welsh Government can or can't do. An example was given where the Cardiff-Anglesey aircraft could be used to make commercial flights from Cardiff-Paris in the downtime between Anglesey flights.

A bit of afters

The inquiry has been criticised for being "too simplistic", and it failed to
draw comparisons with other PSO services in the UK and rest of Europe.
(Pic : via Wikipedia)

As you might've heard, Committee member Mike Hedges AM (Lab, Swansea East)  got a bit shirty, describing the inquiry as "superficial and simplistic". The Committee only called four witnesses - who all gave evidence on a single day – and received just five pieces of written evidence, three of which were from the same person. That's not unusual for a "short inquiry".

I've read my fair share of committee reports over the last three years or so. The lack of any comparison with other PSO services in the UK (like those in the Scottish Highlands & Islands) was a glaring omission. Mike Hedges was right. I don't think it would've really changed the overall conclusions, but without those comparisons it's hard to say whether the air link is truly under-performing or not.

The Lib Dems have long called for the service to be scrapped, and chimed in again this time, describing the air link as "wasteful and polluting".

The air link currently reduces the NW Wales-Cardiff journey time from 4-5 hours (by car or train) to around 90 minutes. If the service were well-used it could be considered an absolute bargain. The £1.2million per year saved by scrapping the service would do diddly squat to improve north-south transport links, and the Lib Dems have consistently failed to say what they would do with such an enormous bounty. The cost of doubling the Wrexham-Chester railway line is £44million alone.

If money were no object, ideally we would build a floating runway in the Menai Straits off Bangor. That would be the optimum place for a NW Wales-Cardiff air link, and being right next to Snowdonia should provide a steady stream of tourist traffic too. However, like it or not, RAF Valley – despite being poorly located – is the only suitable facility.

It looks as though the air link has an uncertain future, and criticisms about its performance stand up. There's just a danger that through this inquiry we only know the price of it whilst ignoring its value.

Read More

Does Wales make the most of EU opportunities?

                            

It's been a while. There've been many changes. Nick Ramsey has no doubt been stumbling through the Ty Hywel corridors to Every Rose Has Its Thorn.

However, I couldn't resist returning to the rock stars of the Assembly Committee world – Business & Enterprise – and their inquiry report into EU funding opportunities from 2014-2020, which was launched at Cardiff's Chapter Arts Centre last week (pdf).

A lot of this work overlaps with the Constitutional & Legislative Affairs Committee inquiry into the Welsh role in EU decision-making.While that inquiry focused on the political and constitutional situation, this one was more focused on the economic, cultural and financial side of things.

The one thing you can take from both inquiries is the need for a clear strategy on Welsh involvement with the EU. It's a point raised before, but Scotland and the Republic of Ireland have a "more joined up approach" than we do. Meanwhile, concerns that EU funds in Wales have been misused, or Wales being constantly "left off the map", mean a revision of the Welsh Government's EU strategy is long overdue – something Finance Minister Jane Hutt (Lab, Vale of Glamorgan) is considering.

There were 16 recommendations in total, summarised as :

• Ensuring any future EU strategy (Wales in Europe : What role do we play?) sets clear objectives and maximises Welsh involvement in EU programmes.
• Developing tailored support; including the creation of an EU Funding Champion, a central contact point for EU funds and specialist support for the youth, transport and education sectors.
• Addressing gaps in Welsh representation in Brussels (also raised in the Welsh EU role inquiry)
• Setting clear objectives for Welsh universities to promote both studying abroad and  language courses as well as creating an alumnus of international students.
• Local Government should develop their own action plans to make best use of EU funds.
• Champion the Welsh creative sector in Europe, ensuring they're not disadvantaged in applying for EU funding because of the UK's strong TV industry.
• Develop a closer working relationship with DG Move and TEN-T executives in Brussels - as well as the Irish – to ensure Wales gets the most out of pan-EU transport programmes.

EU Programmes – What are they?

When discussing "EU Programmes" in Wales, you'll automatically think "Objective One" (Structural Funds) or the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). There are, however, EU schemes that cover other activities and sectors worth up to €42billion. The inquiry focused on how Wales engages with these programmes and what can be done to ensure we get the most out of them.

These programmes include :

• Erasmus+ (€14.7bn)
• Connecting Europe/Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T) (€15bn)
• Regional Cooperation (INTERREG) (€8.7bn)
• Creative Europe (€1.46bn)
• Competitiveness of Small & Medium Sized Companies (COSME) (€2.03bn)

There's also the Horizon 2020 scheme which covers science and technology, but this wasn't within the inquiry's remit.

Welsh engagement with EU programmes

The EU Commission's Creative Europe programme helped fund Y Gwyll, but there were
concerns that the strength of the UK's media sector may disadvantage Wales.
(Pic : The Guardian)

Although Wales engages with many of these programmes – like INTERREG, Creative Europe and some of the education programmes - a recurring theme is that the high priority and narrow focus given to structural funds (Objective One and CAP) has limited Welsh involvement elsewhere.

There are specialist European officers in local government and higher education – often with a presence in Brussels – but there's nothing similar for the youth, private and voluntary sectors. The benefits from participating in these programmes are potentially huge and such groups may be missing out unnecessarily.

In the Welsh Government's evidence they say some programmes are easier to work with and win funding from than others, so they often had to target their resources carefully. They intend to review how they interact with the EU, but with no set timetable. This led to the Committee supporting previous calls for a full EU Strategy, citing the Irish and Danish governments own successful strategies.

It was said Wales isn't "as switched on" as other countries, with an example given of one academic who was working with the INTERREG programme having no contact whatsoever with the Wales European Funding Office (WEFO). There was also a lack of proper communication with businesses, with calls for a "clear contact point" based outside Wales for foreign companies looking to work with Welsh partners.

There was a specific focus on the creative industries sector, and the EU programme Creative Europe. The EU Commission's media programme "provides support for film productions from pre-production through to distribution, primarily in the form of direct grants to companies and organisations". This scheme provided support towards the production of Y Gwyll/Hinterland.

Media Antenna Wales – part of the Welsh Government's creative industries team – provides support to companies and producers seeking to work with Creative Europe, often helping them negotiate the bureaucracy and form-filling that comes with EU programmes. This level of specialist support was praised and said to be something to emulate in other sectors.

There was, however, a worry that because the UK has a "strong audio-visual industry" overall, Welsh creative companies would be overlooked or disadvantaged when applying for EU funds. Better Together?

International Mobility

Although Wales attracts its fair share of Erasmus funding and
participation, twice as many students are incoming as outgoing.
(Pic : BBC)

Erasmus, now reformed into Erasmus+, is a general exchange programme aimed at all aspects of the university sector. The British Council is in charge of this at a UK level and says Wales is "attracting its share of the budget in relation to population size" (€11million between 2006-07 and 2012-13).

The benefits of participating in Erasmus are said to include : greater employability, improved self-esteem and there was evidence that academic performance improves too. There's also a knock-on impact to universities themselves, as Erasmus can leave a good impression on students studying here and could be adapted to provide a trade boost that runs into the tens of millions of pounds.

One big barrier is that there are twice as many incoming students to Wales as there are outgoing. Lower Welsh take-up rates are said to be down to numerous factors like : language barriers, lack of engagement by academics, lack of awareness, financial problems and lack of confidence. Also, participation was markedly lower from "new universities".

Cardiff University's Prof. Colin Riordan set a target of 17% of graduating students spending some study time abroad by 2017, having set up a £1.6million bursary fund to help achieve it. At the moment the rate is 12%.

Despite his ambition being praised, these levels of participation fall far short of Germany, which has a 50% target. Prof. Riordan said levels of engagement on this matter with the Welsh Government were "low" and that it wasn't afforded a high level of status.

Colegau Cymru suggested the creation of a "one-stop shop" within the Welsh Government for lifelong learning programmes, while Swansea University suggested the Welsh Government could do more to help universities and colleges access EU funding programmes.

There was also confusion over youth volunteering and youth work. The British Council no longer want to work with devolved bodies on this (in Wales' case Connect Cymru), but said that was because they're changing how they're working with them as there was little evidence of the benefits and effectiveness of youth work and youth volunteering programmes.

International Co-operation

A lot of the Welsh participation in INTERREG is wrapped up in the Ireland-Wales programme.
(Pic : EU Commission)

There were 89 INTERREG projects in Wales during the 2007-13 funding period, attracting €41.5million in EU funding. Most of this went towards Irish-Welsh co-operation.

Colegau Cymru said there are specific challenges here, as in order to get funding, projects need to be managed not only across institutions but across borders around the EU. Milford Haven Port Authority also said there hadn't been enough engagement with the private sector.

Local councils say that while they've participated in programmes like INTERREG, much of their focus has been on structural funding (Objective One, European Social Fund) and rural development. They pointed towards the lack of Welsh Government advice and contacts, with Conwy Council adding – in rather parochial terms – that "their only priority is their own local area".

The Committee underlined the lack of a joined-up approach, but also a lack of ambition by local councils, which is "in marked contrast to the further education sector". They called on the WLGA to display leadership.

Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T)

Wales - left off an EU map....again.
And the Welsh Government hasn't helped matters either.
(Pic : ITV Wales)

TENT-T is described as a "set of strategically significant road, rail, air, water transport networks" identified by the EU as particularly important to the internal market.

Wales isn't currently on any of the core network corridors, though Business & Economy Minister, Edwina Hart (Lab, Gower) said Welsh experts were sent as part of the UK team when drafting the maps. Milford Haven and the north Wales coast mainline were subsequently added at the request of the UK Government.

Milford Haven Port Authority say there's a significant amount of money that could be available to Wales to develop freight facilities, but too much focus has been on passengers. Holyhead was also excluded from TEN-T as a core port, despite its pretty important role in linking Great Britain to Ireland – though it falls short of Liverpool in terms of tonnage.The Committee say that the negotiating process between Cardiff, London and Brussels was "confused and opaque".

Also, in an astonishing admission, Wales didn't make any applications to, and secured no funding from, the TEN-T programme as of January 2014. Edwina Hart has confirmed, however, that a business case for improvements to the Crewe-Holyhead railway through TEN-T is underway.

The Answer : "Wales could do more"

To repeat myself, there's a clear need for some sort of high level strategy – as much as I loathe such things – and many of the Committee's recommendations make sense. EU programmes also have to be put in a much wider context than structural and agricultural funds as they have important cultural and educational aspects as well.

The lack of proper engagement with TEN-T, however, is a hidden national disgrace and signifies incredible laziness on the part of the Welsh Government. Even a slither of TEN-T funding could've gone a long way towards bringing forward projects like rail electrification or upgrading parts of the A55. I suppose they deserve credit for getting the ball rolling on the north Wales mainline at least.

I suppose in a way this is a complement or follow-up to my 2012 post -"What Wales gets from the European Union".

The answer is, quite clearly, "a lot". If the Welsh Government properly organised itself and started to put the work in the answer would be "even more" - and not just in monetary terms.

Read More

Never Mind The Bollocks....

Before addressing Silk II, it's worth registering my irritation, anger even,
at Plaid Cymru's backfired attempt to "discipline" Michael Haggett.
(Pic : Syniadau)

All Plaid Cymru had to do was shut up.

They got their man in the Senedd. Beds had been made, and Plaid's anti-nuclear lobby have been tucked in so hard they've been suffocated - whether they realise it or not.

The party top brass weren't satisfied with one of the best constituency performances in Plaid's recent history, embarrassing Labour in the process. They had to celebrate the triumph by flaying those of little faith - Syniadau's Michael Haggett (MH) in their sights.

MH : Deserved Criticism

After the by-election, I said some of MH's language and timing was "brazen", and that Plaid Cymru had a right to be angry "for that reason, but that reason alone". MH had to answer for it.

The sole justification (for a complaint) would be his, "it would be tragedy for Plaid if Rhun (ap Iorwerth) was elected" comment. You wouldn't expect a member to, effectively, hope their party loses an election, regardless of their opinion of the candidate. All parties would treat that seriously, and people have been expelled for less.

Those who volunteered time or money on Anglesey last July have a right to be angry, and perhaps MH owed them an apology. The initial punishment (a written warning with an expulsion suspended for 12 months) even seemed proportionate.

However, you would've expected Plaid to let it go, because any disciplinary actions would've had to have revisited public statements on nuclear energy - except it didn't because the process was an absolute train crash.

If Plaid had disciplined MH fair and square, I wouldn't be posting this. But the whole thing was rendered an injustice by the hamfisted way Plaid got to that position, raising serious questions about how the party is run behind the scenes.

Speaking Truth to Power

Being accused of lying is hardly the most stinging insult towards a politician (however unpleasant) as it's an unofficial part of the job. MH's criticism of Plaid's nuclear policy and its misrepresentation by senior figures in the party stands up - regardless of the tone of his arguments.

Llyr Gruffydd AM (Plaid, North Wales) produced an excellent energy policy paper a few weeks ago, but it was hard to take seriously because – once again – Plaid tiptoed around a controversy for the sake of being everything to everyone. Their "We don't support nuclear power, except...." stance is farcical.

There are plenty of "pragmatic" realpolitik policies Plaid Cymru oppose or oppose when they want to - fracking, opencast mining, large-scale onshore wind farms, moving Trident to Wales, the monarchy, closing small schools, the "bedroom tax", GMOs, toxic waste dumps, drones.... the list goes on.

Based on the Anglesey precedent, if someone proposed a nuclear-powered Aberthaw B or Trawsfynydd B promising thousands of jobs, what would Plaid's position be? Will it be "We don't support nuclear power, except...." all over again? You can't tell.

An issue of little importance? Absolutely not.When it comes to independence - Plaid's "long term aim" - you have to place yourself 20, 30, 40 years into the future, weighing up all variables including nuclear energy. It doesn't matter if it has minute support or not, if it's a "long term aim" of a political party they have to future proof policy with that in mind.

Plaid secured a crushing by-election victory, the price being the "The Party of Wales" backing the construction of a 21^st Century Caernarfon Castle.

I don't have an issue with nuclear power on safety, technological or environmental grounds (unlike MH), even whilst living in the shadow of Hinkley Point. My objections are mostly economic. Even if decommissioning liabilities were shared, it's a long-term bill and liability we don't need.

Wales doesn't need a nuclear power station based on our energy requirements and potential for renewables; the UK does. Construction will likely be undertaken by experienced contractors – not locals, that's why there's talk of lots of temporary housing on Anglesey - while the number of operational and long-term jobs are partly related to decommissioning Wylfa A.
Losing Anglesey Aluminium completely will be the bigger blow to the Anglesey and Welsh economies in the long run. Producing aluminium - a hard product - is worth more in terms of domestic productivity than utilities ever will be.

Even if Wylfa B was going to be steam-rollered through by Westminster, supporting nuclear power in Wales is logically incompatible with both Welsh nationalism and sustainable development – the latter of which Labour continuously pays lip service to as well.

A valid complaint heard in a Kangaroo Court

Maintaining discipline amongst a 7,000+ member organisation is always going to be a tough, thankless task.

Elin Jones AM (Plaid, Ceredigion) can't be criticised for making a complaint. There's nothing wrong with a party disciplining its members as long as the process is fair, objective and the same rules apply to everyone regardless of rank.

The disclosed emails and documents are unequivocal - Plaid bollocksed it up.

At the start, you would've expected an enquiry into MH's comments – which could've then led to a formal disciplinary procedure.

The first question would be, "Have senior members of Plaid Cymru publicly misrepresented the party's nuclear energy policy?" If the answer's yes - and it is yes - then MH is entitled to question the party or candidate's stance. Case closed. His only responsibility would be to express that reasonably, and you can certainly argue he didn't. But the truth is the truth.

If Plaid don't like that, they'll need to change their policies. That's supposed to be the job of the membership, making Plaid "different" from other parties, isn't it?

Instead, key decisions were taken behind closed doors without input from MH (including taking part in the initial investigation), Plaid's Standing Orders relating to discipline weren't followed correctly, records weren't properly kept and even basic things like dates were wrong.

MH was trying to answer a case without knowing : who would be adjudicating, the precise grounds for the complaint so he could properly defend himself, whether there was any potential conflict of interest amongst members of the relevant panels and timetables.

The initial investigation report - seemingly the sole evidence by which the final judgement was based upon - reads as biased in the absence of evidence from MH.

Regardless of your opinion on the rights and wrongs here, condemning someone without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves properly isn't just immoral it's disgusting.

MH was pedantic, but in quasi-judicial proceedings it's absolutely essential rules, regulations and orders are followed to the letter. That didn't happen, and should render judgements null and void.

I'm astonished Plaid had the cheek to restart the process after a successful appeal. An appeal where Michael ripped their position apart. If people don't know what "Kafkaesque" means, MH has provided an excellent example.

If a private company or public body were acting this way there would've been grounds for an employment tribunal. I'm sure Plaid at all levels would vigorously "defend the rights" of those on the receiving end of such disgraceful treatment. The placards would be out in force.

Except for their own.

Respect cuts both ways

When bloggers do something wrong, we should be called out on it. To repeat myself, some of the things MH wrote were unacceptable, and the punishment (had the processes been followed properly) was fair.

But an injustice or attack against one is an attack on all.

Although there are plenty of people and processes that come to the aid of those of higher standing in Welsh politics and society - even when they spout utter bollocks - there's nothing for those of us at the other end of the scale except each other. Call that solidarity if you want.

Yeah, the blogosphere's small, geeky, not very important nor influential. Some commentators (bloggers or those who interact with us) verge on being cartoon characters, whether they're the most strident hard-nationalist or the most uber-Brit anti-devolutionista.

It's fallen out of fashion amongst "Assembly insiders" so it's not seen in the same light it was five or six years ago. However, like it or not it's part and parcel of how Welsh politics is covered - which is in a bad enough state as it is. Summarising party policies or things like the Assembly in detail - for those who are interested but who don't want to read the official stuff themselves - is the sort of thing you don't get here because Wales lacks broadsheet newspapers.

It takes hard work and dedication to get where I am, let alone Syniadau, which for a Welsh politics site has been a phenomenal success. Often - if you're a nationalist - that means being an active member of, or agreeing with, Plaid Cymru. Sometimes it means disagreeing, and hopefully providing constructive criticism or sparking debate.

OK, Michael didn't live up to the "constructive" part, but I would've expected a member of the rank and file with a large audience of readers to have been on the list of people to engage with constructively, not treated as a nuisance.

It's in stark contrast to Scotland's "Fifth Estate". Plaid would fall over themselves to have a Wings over Scotland or Bella Caledonia. It's likely "cybernats" are playing a crucial role in the independence referendum.

Elin Jones speaks for Plaid on internet campaigning as she's the party's Director of Communications. It would've been nice to have known of Plaid's low opinion of blogs sooner, because it would've saved me hours of voluntary work – including more recently, this, this and this - and from a non-member.

To give you a rough idea of how much that's "worth" - nothing to Plaid Cymru it seems - if there were a market for it and it were carried out by journalists, the going freelance NUJ rate is ~£100-200 per 1,000 words online.

Blogs appear out of thin air, but you can't pull posts out of your backside. It can become an unpaid part-time job, and if you're a party member you're effectively volunteering all year round - not just at election time - the number of hours it amounts to bordering on insane. Except, it's never been considered voluntary work in MH's case, has it?

Your public statements are widely-read but don't carry weight.  It's also a risk, with particular problems in Wales - the abuse, balancing things so you don't annoy the wrong person (ha!), litigious local authorities etc. If you get your stuff wrong you publicly humiliate yourself, because you're doing something in your free time without paid researchers and assistants to draft and fact check things for you.

Open debate should be Plaid Cymru's greatest strength, but if criticism is shouted down and critics hounded out, all you're left with is a parade of delusional feel-good fluff with no substance. The party marches off a cliff, high as a kite, because they believe stuffing more letter boxes in safe seats and dishing out more keyrings than they used to means they're heading for government.
MH was abrasive, but honest opinion and advice is absolutely essential to any political party that has ambitions of power, as integrity and fixing policy holes gets them into office. Muddled policies don't. The arsekissers, ladder-climbers and yes-(wo)men will be the first to jump ship when the going gets tough, taking canvassers, memberships and donations with them.

You could say MH is a self-important loose cannon who should know his place.

You can also say he's been a foundation stone of Plaid's online campaigning for five years, with articles - the vast majority fervently in support of the party's policies - collectively read more than a million times. You would've thought that counts for something in terms of "voluntary work" or "party loyalty", and might buy you enough grounds to be treated with a modicum of common decency when you breach discipline.

Even if the complaint was valid, Michael earned the right to be judged properly and to be heard out. People might rightly question his loyalty to the party, but the party showed no loyalty to him in kind.Plaid should take great care in ensuring that, in future, decentralised socialism doesn't translate into meaning the same old centralised bullshit.

Read More

Carmarthenshire Goes Rogue

I don't make a habit of returning to things that haven't concluded, but I'll make an exception in Carmarthenshire Council's (CCC) case, as the local authority continues its downward spiral into chaos.

The fallout from two critically damaging Wales Audit Office (WAO) reports continues – I don't need to tell you to follow the Carmarthenshire blogs and South Wales Guardian there – with an extraordinary general meeting of CCC due to be held on 27^th February to discuss them.

The opposition Plaid Cymru group seek to table motions of no confidence in senior officers and members of the Executive Board - which decided to award the pension payments and indemnity in the first place.

The recent intervention of Keith Davies AM (Lab, Llanelli), who's joined calls for Mark James to be suspended, is significant because – as Carmarthenshire Planning has said – he's the first senior Labour figure to voice that opinion and could – as Y Cneifiwr has said – give some Labour councillors a "green light" to back a motion of no confidence or abstain.

I don't know much about internal Carmarthenshire politics, but judging by the numbers it's likely any motions of no-confidence will need at least 10 votes from Lab-Ind, or abstentions, to succeed. Easier said than done.

I'm sure many councillors would've wanted an immediate extraordinary meeting, but it was perhaps the right decision to give the debate some breathing room, even if it extends the headlines for several weeks.

You would've expected suspensions of the senior officers involved too because of the seriousness of the judgements. It's the sensible thing to do – to protect the officers as much as the reputation of the council - but CCC are delicate little flowers and are never, ever, ever wrong!

The formal responses from CCC have been quite astonishing and have read like North Korean news bulletins.I expected a rebuff, but not to these levels.

Caerphilly took it on the chin, but unfortunately it's since descended into an unedifying "tu quoque" bun fight between Labour and Plaid Cymru. It looks like Pembrokeshire are dilly-dallying – though the former Council Leader, John Davies, has been big enough to admit they were wrong. Neither have reached anywhere near the same levels of petulant delusion as Carmarthenshire.

It's an old trick Fungus used at Manchester United – make "your side" (Labour & Independents) think the whole world's against you and it'll create a siege mentality where everyone will pitch together and dig in to win whatever the cost. Fungus was also often described as a Stalinist. And, as history has taught us, sometime an autocrat can get you to do what they want just by being in the same room and looking at you.

The Legal Advice

Aside from the publication of the WAO reports themselves, preliminary police involvement and the intervention of Keith Davies, the biggest development since has been the publication of two pieces of legal advice CCC received in relation to the indemnity funding. As far as I can tell there's been nothing relating to the pension payments, though Pembrokeshire Council are due to debate that later this week.

The first set of legal advice from 2008, by James Goudie QC (pdf), suggests the 2006 Order didn't override clauses in the Local Government Act 1972 (Section 111) which grants local authorities any and all powers to discharge their functions – what West Wales News Review described as a "Get Out of Jail Free Card".

Basically, if CCC want to ignore the 2006 Order, they believe a certain interpretation of the 1972 Act and how the 2006 Order relates to it gives them the power to do so.

As far as I can tell though, that would only be the case had Wales voted no to devolution in 1997.

The auditor said the 2006 Order provided a statutory code to Welsh local authorities outlining precisely when a Welsh local authority can indemnify officers in libel defences, explicitly prohibiting their use to undertake a claim.

Last time I checked, Carmarthenshire was in Wales and the National Assembly has responsibility for most aspects of local government within Wales. What the Welsh Government says in that regard, goes.

Although James Goudie QC disagrees with this, he says in no uncertain terms that "the restrictions in the 2006 Order and the Welsh Assembly Guidance on the bringing of defamation are a weighty factor against granting an indemnity" and that "it will be extremely rare for such a decision by the Council to be reasonable."

The broad conclusion of the 2008 legal advice was, therefore, "even if you can do it – don't". A common sense cautious approach could've interpreted it as advising against awarding the indemnity quite easily.

The Executive Board were apparently told there was unequivocal support in favour of granting the indemnity – which was bullshit, as there in black and white in the legal advice itself.

The second set of advice, from Timothy Kerr QC (pdf), is retrospective and doesn't add anything new. It's basing the lawfulness of the indemnity, largely, on the (for now) successful outcome at the High Court and on similar grounds to the Goudie advice (Section 111 powers).

The outcome isn't important. The lawfulness of the indemnity when it was originally granted is. Therefore, the 2008 advice trumps anything after it.

The WAO reports were written with full knowledge of both sets of legal advice and other unpublished correspondence, so I doubt the publication of the advice damages the credibility of Anthony Barrett's reports at all. It's now CCC's word against the WAO and will almost certainly head for the courts unless "something else" happens.

When it comes to matters of public finance, I know whose unqualified opinion I believe carries more weight.

Carmarthenshire : Rogue State?

We deal with upstart rebel territories a bit differently nowadays.
(Pic : themiscollection.com)

CCC are not only thumbing their nose at the WAO, Anthony Barrett, the opposition, the media, Carmarthenshire's council taxpayers and pretty much everyone who disagrees with them, they're also challenging the Welsh Government's authority.

By resorting to a justification based on the 1972 Act, they're effectively saying the 2006 Order isn't worth the paper it was written on. I hope Lesley Griffiths, the First Minister, AMs and civil servants in Cathays Park can see that. Their rather timid response to date shows they perhaps don't.

If CCC are given an opportunity to overturn WAO reports in relation to remuneration and indemnities, it could lead to challenges under the 1972 Act provisions to all sorts of Orders issued by the Welsh Government. It undermines both the devolution of local government, and the mandate Welsh Ministers have from the Welsh electorate to make regulations in that area.

That's before considering the serious damage it would do to the Wales Audit Office's reputation.

Carmarthenshire are, in effect, trying to seize control of some aspects of local government finance from the Welsh Government via a loophole that shouldn't even be there.

In less-enlightened times, if a local fiefdom were undermining the authority of the central government and its public servants in such an insolent manner, legions of knights would now be crossing the Loughor and heads would be put on spikes.

We're no stranger to this. Senior officers in Carmarthenshire are in danger of joining the long list of shit heel petty princes who paid the price for getting ideas above their station, having little care for the damage it could do Wales as a whole.

Councillors have been left in a tough position. Many will be swayed by the legal advice, but if they focus on the first set alone, and fully comprehend it, they'll realise the case for awarding the indemnity was likely to have been exaggerated beyond recognition.

I even feel sorry for Executive Board members. They still have to go for their own incompetence, but they've been done up like kippers by people they surely trusted. The sillier ones will still trust them, and will be standing there alongside the officers when the inevitable happens one day.

This is in danger of becoming a national embarrassment, and because of CCC digging their heels in, is more serious than it otherwise would have been.

A failure to, at the very least, suspend those involved temporarily means Carmarthenshire may as well be considered a rogue local authority that's become a law unto itself, needing to be brought to heel in the same way Anglesey was.

This isn't just about the credibility of CCC now, but about the credibility of Welsh local government and some of our most important public institutions.

When it rains....

I doubt anyone will have noticed this, but another sign of both the implosion within CCC's bunkers and contempt they hold the National Assembly and Welsh Government has come from an unexpected source.

The National Assembly's Petitions Committee recently discussed a petition to list the former ground of Llanelli RFC and Scarlets - Stradey Park - which has been eyed up for a controversial housing development (since under construction, apparantly).

The petition itself was closed after Culture Minister, John Griffiths (Lab, Newport East), said no more could be done (pdf).

Here's edited version of what was said at the Committee meeting last week on this petition :

(Chair) William Powell AM (Lib Dem, Mid & West Wales) : We....received a response from the Minister for Culture....and from Carmarthenshire County Council....I think it would be fair to say that we found a degree of churlishness from the local authority. I have had sight of e-mails from the local authority officers that fall some way short of courtesy to the team that supports this committee and to us. I think we should put on record that that is regrettable. Possibly, we might wish to bring these matters regarding the curt and somewhat inappropriate tone of the correspondence to the attention of the leader or chief executive of Carmarthenshire council.

Joyce Watson AM (Lab, Mid & West Wales) : I think courtesy is the least that anyone can expect. Are you telling me that what is printed here—I read this a few times—is what you received? Was this it?

(Clerk) Mr George : No, this was the second response that we received. The first response was shorter than this.

William Powell AM : I believe that it was, ‘No, no and no’

Joyce Watson AM : That sounded -

Mr George : I went back to say that the response was likely to be put before the committee and, maybe, they wanted to reconsider. We then got this response instead.

Joyce Watson AM : ....I move that we write to the leader of the authority, Councillor Kevin Madge, and to the chief executive.

William Powell AM : Mr Mark James.

Joyce Watson AM : We should simply say that, in our opinion, it is not normally the way we receive correspondence from those that we ask questions of. For as long as I have been on this committee....I have not seen anything so brief, so blunt and which lacks complete engagement, quite frankly.

William Powell AM : It may, at the least, flag-up some sort of training need and the need for people to be called to account.....it would be useful for us to write to the chief officer and the leader of Carmarthenshire....just to flag up that matter, because it shows a discourtesy to the committee, to our team and, indeed, to the petitioners to have adopted such a tone.

It's unclear precisely who sent the "No, no and no" response, though the Head of Planning at Carmarthenshire Council is Eifion Bowen. You can read a tidied-up of CCC's curt and disrespectful response to both a National Assembly Committee and more than 4,000 petitioners here (pdf).

Read More