The Abyss Staring Back at Wales

The National Assembly has voted in favour of a moratorium on opencast mining.
Whether there'll actually be a moratorium is a different issue.
(Pic : The Guardian)

• The Parc Slip Monster
• Libraries, Bus Cuts, School Moves & Parc Slip II

As promised on Wednesday, I come back to another members debate, this time on opencast mining, which is a controversial issue in the South Wales Valleys in particular. There's a map of current and former sites available from the Assembly Members Research Service blog (here).

A cross-party motion called for the Welsh Government to :

• Introduce a moratorium on opencast mining to allow for a strategic review into whether current measures are properly protecting communities.
• Respond to research into opencast restoration failures, addressing concerns about MTAN2 (the official guidance) and the recommended 500 metre "buffer zone" between mines and homes.
• Support local authorities that undertake legal action to force restoration.

Lynne Neagle AM (Lab, Torfaen) started by applauding the cross-party support for a moratorium on opencast mining during an election campaign (clip). A pause on opencast mining was needed to give space and time for the Welsh Government to undertake a strategic review on the impact of mining, with the cost of lengthy public inquiries leaving planners "stuck between rock and a hard place".

Lynne mentioned the Varteg proposals, where despite more than a decade of protest, mining companies propose to opencast 100m away from homes and a primary school. Although the original application was rejected, another application (near enough unchanged) has been submitted, so MTAN2 isn't meeting the needs of constituents. Alun Davies AM (Lab, Blaenau Gwent) made a point that the Assembly voted through the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act 2015, and opencast mining was contrary to the spirit of the law.

The Assembly are waiting for a Petitions Committee report into whether MTAN2 should be made law, and although there are disagreements, we can't afford the current confused situation to continue. She cited Garn Lakes near Blaenavon as an example of where restoration has worked, so she didn't want to tar all mining companies with the same brush. However, the "dodgy dealings" have "cast a shadow on the industry", and companies shouldn't be allowed to develop new sites to cover the cost of existing obligations.

William Graham AM (Con, South Wales East) reminded everyone that the motion called for a moratorium, not a ban on opencasting, and a pause will allow time to consider amendments to the Planning Bill (clip). He listed a number of sites in his region - including Ffos-y-fran in Merthyr and Varteg – as well as their controversial planning histories.

William said the 500m buffer zone was agreed by the Assembly, but Welsh Government draft policy proposed a 350m buffer zone; and although the government has said the buffer has to be given appropriate weight in planning applications, words were not enough. He suggested local authorities should be able to reject retrospective applications so developers are aware that the buffer is an absolute condition, not optional. William proposed that sub-standard restoration can be resolved through the use of restoration insurance bonds to prevent companies avoiding their liabilities towards restoration.

William Powell AM (Lib Dem, Mid & West Wales) started by paying tribute to the United Valleys Action Group (clip). It was vital to see a "consistency of approach" in planning, particularly technical advice notes, and proposals that breach planning conditions need to be properly justified. The market conditions for coal have changed, leaving "colossal" shortfalls in funding for restoration, meaning companies are "unable to finish projects they've started".

He called for greater public consultation with regard mine closures and their after-use, listing come of the common knock-on impacts nearby residents face such as poor air quality, noise, and declining property prices. He ended by saying the motion consistent with commitments to develop renewable energy.

Gwenda Thomas AM (Lab, Neath) said her constituency was built on coal, and it defines the area's past, but if carbon capture technology is proven viable, coal could have a future (clip). She doesn't oppose responsible mining but supports the motion anyway. Gwenda previously called for a presumption against new mining applications unless communities are properly protected, and subsequent events reinforced her views.

Gwenda described the legal actions between cash-strapped local authorities and mining companies - who can afford £250,000 for a single barrister's view - as a David vs Goliath battle. The people of Cwmllynfell, which borders East Pit, have been promised restoration for three generations, but now they're told "there's no money" and they must have a lake, which involves constructing a wall to hold back tens of thousands of cubic metres of water.

Celtic Energy and Oak Regeneration have made a string of promises relating to
restoration of former mines - like East Pit above - but they've all fallen flat.
(Pic : Wales Online)

David Rees AM (Lab, Aberavon) also acknowledged the historical and current importance of coal, though despite providing jobs, it contradicts carbon reduction policies (clip). He described how Parc Slip has been off limits since 1947 (technically incorrect as the eastern half has been restored), and how the ownership transferred from British Coal to Celtic Energy in 1997, who in turn transferred ownership to offshore company, Oak Regeneration, which has caused more problems in trying to recover costs. David also questioned what has happened to levies raised from coal privatisation?

Natural Resources Minister, Carl Sargeant (Lab, Alyn & Deeside), accepted that opencast was an "emotive issue", acknowledging the context of a moratorium (clip). Although he was sympathetic, he said it wouldn't resolve the situation or secure restoration. Opencast isn't a new industry, unlike fracking, and is "deeply embedded in communities" with live planning applications.

The Minister placed the blame on "market-driven" privatisation of the coal industry, which was rushed through with no consideration given to the effect it would have on communities. Companies retain the rights of a state-owned company but with none of the obligations. Peter Black AM (Lib Dem, South Wales West) said Scotland was pursuing the UK Government for restoration funds, and Carl agreed that the UK Government can't shirk its responsibilities.

He praised some aspects of MTAN2,  described as "wide-ranging" in a number of factors, including taking the track record of the company and future restoration plans into consideration with regard planning applications. David Rees intervened to say he believed there had to be upfront guarantees of restoration, as Parc Slip was more expensive to restore than was predicted.

Carl said the Welsh Government couldn't take action which "results in restoration solutions being taken off the table" simply because people live in close proximity to the mines. He did confirm that the Welsh Government will support councils taking legal action, and that he would host a summit with "stakeholders" on the future of opencast.

In reply, Bethan Jenkins AM (Plaid, South Wales West) called for a "fit for purpose system" that's made in Wales, rejecting comparisons with Scotland as Welsh communities generally live closer to pits (clip). The findings from Welsh Government research were imperfect but its call to strengthen MTAN should be enacted, even if the report "pities developers" and doesn't address communities.

In terms of policy proposals, Bethan suggested creating a mineral planning centre of excellence, ex-miner liason panels to provide technical assistance unavailable to planners and compel local authorities to retain minerals planning officers – despite having four mines, Neath Port Talbot has no expert planners. In the longer-term, workers should be retrained in renewables, saying Plaid Cymru would support creating a Green Skills College.

On specific cases, in particular Parc Slip, she said companies should own the land they mine as it's hard to hold an offshore company like Oak Regeneration to account, with Celtic Energy only acting as an operator and subsequently refusing to take responsibility. Bethan also said the exceptions in MTAN2 are too broad, like "economic development", which could mean anything to anyone.

Although welcoming the proposed summit, Bethan revealed that a FOI request (I presume it's this - pdf) showed there has been no correspondence between the UK and Welsh governments on opencast mine restoration for five years.

The motion was agreed by 36 votes to none with 16 abstentions from the Labour frontbench and some backbenchers (recorded vote here).

Where next?

If you went to the Parc Slip nature reserve today, you wouldn't believe you were walking
on a former opencast mine. When you reach the other end of the reserve, you see this.

It's a non-binding vote. The Assembly agrees that a moratorium should happen, but the Welsh Government isn't obliged to follow through with that - just as there were premature celebrations over a fracking moratorium earlier this year. As William Graham said, it's right to remember that the motion called for a temporary pause on opencasting to allow for a review, not an outright ban, which would be a knee-jerk reaction.

Nevertheless there's a serious issue here that's failed to be addressed adequately by local authorities, Welsh and UK governments. The mining companies have them by the proverbial balls, and with so many tricks and loopholes, they've done them up like kippers.

It's highly likely Parc Slip will never be restored to how it was. The stark contrast between Parc Slip nature reserve and the void tens of metres away serves as a perfect historical artifact, marking the difference between state-ownership and regulation of the mining industry, and privatisation, where companies have figuratively "f**ked 'n' chucked" the land.

If the mining companies had a good track record of restoring sites, boundaries were properly enforced and the law was robust enough to ensure all that happened, opencasting would be less controversial. Now, it's not unreasonable to say opencast mining deserves to die out in Wales.

The remaining problem is that we still need coal. Wales and the UK retain coal-fired power stations and everyone except David Rees and Bethan Jenkins forgot that coal is a vital ingredient in steel-making (Assembly takes a ride on Heavy Metal) – Parc Slip supplied Port Talbot steelworks; Ffos-y-fran, Cwmgrwach and Tower supply Aberthaw power station and the steel industry.

As Bethan was also keen to point out on Twitter, only a fraction of the coal Port Talbot steelworks is obtained via opencast, the rest is imported (along with iron ore etc.)

The best hope for opponents is closure of Aberthaw power station and replacement with a renewable scheme (like a second tidal lagoon in Cardiff Bay) or something like gas or biomass. I'm also sure none of the AMs advocate closing steelworks, but if you want to "keep coal in the ground" permanently, that's what has to happen.

Digging coal up safely, locally and moving it by rail is better than importing it, which just shifts the problem elsewhere and increases the carbon footprint. Despite improvements to mining techniques and underground safety, I doubt anyone other than reactionary socialists want to see a return of shaft mining either.

This issue could turn out to be an important milestone in the decarbonisation of the Welsh
economy, but politicians should be honest about the hit Wales would take as a result.
(Pic : © Copyright Robin Drayton and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence)

So which way are we going to go? It would be a mistake to rely wholly on the green economy to replace jobs lost during the de-carbonisation of Wales.

Even though the numbers employed in opencast are a fraction of those employed in deep mining, very few forms of renewable energy are as labour intensive as fossil fuels or heavy industries like steel-making or chemicals. You put up a wind turbine, fit solar panels, insulate a home or build a tidal lagoon and apart from routine maintenance that's it – job done. The same goes for nuclear. The number of jobs required to run a station are a fraction of those needed to build it.

One of the reasons deep mining collapsed is because while demand for coal was holding up, the industry employed so many people it became uneconomical. Green technology has the opposite problem in that it employs too few people and often requires government subsidy.

Although its true to say opencast costs jobs too - in agriculture/land management (obviously), and more abstract cases like the Richards & Appleby cosmetics factory in the Rhymney valley - politicians should at least be honest and say that the main goal of renewables is clean energy production and energy efficiency, not long-term mass job creation or traditional economic growth. How they sell that is their problem.

Read More

The Parc Slip Monster

Celtic Energy's inability to fill a hole they dug has left
a murky "lake" for local communities to deal with.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

Just before Christmas, the issue of open-cast mining in south west Wales reared it's head again after an intervention by a group of Assembly Members, worried about faltering restoration plans at two former mines.

Caerphilly-based Celtic Energy – listed on the recent Western Mail Top 300 as the 56^th largest company by turnover in Wales - transferred ownership of four open-cast sites to British Virgin Islands registered subsidiary, Oak Regeneration. The two largest sites are Parc Slip near Kenfig Hill - which straddles the border between Neath Port Talbot (NPT) and Bridgend (BCBC) – and East Pit near Cwmllynfell in the Amman Valley.

Oak Regeneration are tasked with restoring the two sites following the expiration of mining licences. They propose to develop a garden village at Parc Slip and a resort at East Pit. In order to fund these works, Oak Regeneration were pressing for further extensions to mining licences.

There's a huge coal seem stretching from Margam to Pencoed. Most of it is under the Cefn Hirgoed Common and Sarn, so the only realistic extraction point is towards the Margam end, which has either been open-cast already or is farmland.

Extensions to mining licences are often highly-controversial and strongly opposed in local communities as it's a particularly dirty and noisy industry and renders previously open-access land useless for decades (more at the end of Digging deep into deals done dirt cheap).

Perhaps Oak Regeneration hoped the "ambitious" restoration proposals would swing licence decisions and public opinion in their favour, to the point that some local councillors were won over by the plans. Both NPT and BCBC dilly-dallied on issuing enforcement notices (as the respective planning authorities), which would legally-bind the company to immediately start work on restoring the sites back to normal. Mining even continued at East Pit after the licence expired.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) intervened and several Oak Regeneration directors found themselves in court accused of attempting to defraud Bridgend, NPT and Powys councils. In February 2014 the case was dismissed, and an attempt to restart the case failed late last year. By the looks of it the SFO tried altering the charges after the case went to court, but because no money changed hands there was little hard evidence to implicate the defendants.

The cost of restoring both mines is estimated to be £157million, but Oak Regeneration are reported to have only set aside a paltry £8million. Unless extensions to mining licences are granted, it's likely that the resulting enforcement notices would bankrupt Oak Regeneration, and the cost of restoring the mines will fall on NPT, BCBC and the Welsh Government.

Although she wasn't mentioned in relation to the intervention, Bethan Jenkins AM (Plaid, South Wales West) is one of the few AMs who has spoken out consistently on this and has campaigned on open-cast mining since she was first elected.

It's also right to say she's often given short shrift by Welsh Government ministers – usually Carl Sargeant (Lab, Alyn & Deeside) and previously John Griffiths AM (Lab, Newport East) – when pressing for answers in the Assembly.

Since it's become more obvious that the sites are unlikely to be restored, the rest of the AMs in South Wales West have caught up Keystone Cops style – up to and including Carwyn Jones himself (though he did know about this).

The AMs are calling for Celtic Energy - Oak Regeneration's parent company - to stump up the restoration money. Celtic Energy have sung from the same hymn sheet as Oak Regeneration : extend mining licences to raise restoration funds. In light of falling coal prices it's unlikely to raise enough.

It isn't limited to this part of Wales either. Although Bethan's the most prominent campaigner on this issue in the Assembly, others – like Lynne Neagle AM (Lab, Torfaen) - have expressed concerns about a proposed open-cast mine near Fart Egg in her constituency, while protests against the Ffos-y-fran mine on the outskirts of Merthyr have rumbled for the best part of 25 years.

This isn't a particularly popular industry, regardless of whether it provides jobs or not.


This is why Wales can't have nice things....

Is this what we're getting?
Nope, think again....
(Pic : bridgendbites.com)

There's been a clear lack of foresight by the local authorities, the mining companies and the Welsh Government which - unless a solution is found - could leave a scar on the landscape that will last generations.

Open-cast mines can be and are restored successfully, demonstrated (ironically) at Parc Slip.

The eastern half of Parc Slip open-cast, on the outskirts of Tondu, was fully restored in the 1980s-1990s and is now a popular nature reserve (pictured above). If you went there today you would barely know it used to be a mine. To the west, there's a poorly fenced-off moonscape and a massive hole filling with water. I don't know what East Pit is like, but I'm presuming it's similar.

There are obvious safety concerns. Depending on the rocks around it, the water is likely to be either very acidic or very alkaline, so there's no way it can be treated to become a pleasant "lake". It'll either have to be back filled or pumped out and disposed of properly. The water's also so blue it looks like a tropical lagoon, but anyone tempted to take a dip during the summer would be swimming in bleach.

Back in 2013, Cllr. Luke Ellis (Lab, Pyle) warned people to stay away after reports of trespassing, but the water's even higher now. So greater efforts will need to be made to keep people away.

Then there's the flooding risk. It's taken about 5 years to fill 60-70 metres of mine workings. Judging by what I've seen there's only another two to three years left until there's a real threat the "lake" will be over-capacity.

If the "lake" breached, the River Kenfig (which is right next to the mine and the only obvious place for the water to go) is too small to cope, so it could cause flooding downstream in Pyle and North Cornelly. That's bad enough on it's own, but it would be an ecological disaster too, as polluted water will head for Kenfig Burrows - a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

Open-cast mining is safer than drift and deep mining at the expense of the environment. Having said that, as long as power stations like Aberthaw and key industries like the Port Talbot steelworks continue to need coal, it's better to source that coal locally and move it by rail than import it.

In the medium to long-term, Aberthaw power station (and other coal-fired power stations around the UK) will either be replaced or close due to poor emissions standards, while TATA are/were considering opening a drift mine in Margam. Therefore, it looks as though open-cast doesn't have much of a future.

Celtic Energy and Oak Regeneration have been underhand, having sold NPT, BCBC and the Welsh Government magic beans. The latter can't say they weren't warned either.

This has always been about extending mining licences. The regeneration projects are a pipe dream that companies are under no obligation to deliver. Housing developments, which Celtic Energy have been plugging since the AMs' intervention, are moot. Nobody seriously thinks Oak Regeneration - a company without a pot to piss in - would be able to oversee a garden village (which would probably cost £450-500million) at Parc Slip, do they? We'll be lucky if they grow trees there again.

So you can see what's going to happen. It'll either be left as it is for the foreseeable future and become a potential serious environmental hazard. Or, there'll be no choice but to extend mining licences to prevent NPT and BCBC, probably the Welsh Government too, being left with a massive clean up bill as Oak Regeneration go bust. I wouldn't want to see that happen because costs will be be passed on to taxpayers.

A Machiavellian part of me does want that to happen though, because the Welsh Government have been complacent on open-cast mining for years (minerals policy is devolved - MTAN). A nice big bill to bail out a dodgy offshore company would be just the kick up the backside they desperately need.

This is why I get annoyed when politicians say "sustainable" because, as the Welsh Government often prove, they don't practice what they preach. There's absolutely nothing "sustainable" about what's happening at Kenfig Hill.Maybe they won't see open-cast as such a neighbourly industry anymore and start to think about proper regulation, including absolute cast-iron guarantees (perhaps backed by legislation) of financing for restoration projects before mining licences are granted.

Ultimately, the reason why governments introduce so much of the "obstructive red tape" businesses complain about is because some companies continuously breach the trust of local communities this way.

Right, what are we going to call it?

"Lake Sargeant"? "Llyn Carwyn"?

Read More

Nadolig Llawen!

I've given consideration to packing this in. That's nothing to do with lack of interest, in fact I've exceeded my own expectations there. It's as though I've been blogging on autopilot. Perhaps an excuse for a break has come at the right time, though I felt like flipping a coin to decide if it would be permanent or not.

In the coming year, I'd like to look at : local government in Wales – which couldn't come soon enough in my opinion - broadcasting and who Wales' “twins” are around the world.

I'll hopefully finish my look at contentious public policy issues (including capital punishment) and there's Part II of the Silk Commission too. I've considered looking at the recent Census “stunting” of the Welsh language, but I think that's best left to fluent Welsh-speakers to be honest.

I'll give a full evaluation of David Melding's serialised proposals for a federal UK (if it's finished next year). I also do the usual stuff covering bigger stories in Bridgend, the Welsh economy and the Assembly.

There've been rumours of a Welsh Government reshuffle. There were some "interesting" searches directing here at the end of October/early November (that, in the wrong context, could've easily been misread!). Carwyn Jones was coy when asked on that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did happen early in 2013.

Editing Neophobia has taken longer than I thought, but the final draft should be finished next week. I'm not sure how long formatting will take. Due to the recent tax issues I'm reconsidering whether to use Amazon as "publisher" and distributor, though I'm unlikely to change my mind for practical reasons. My guess is that it'll be out in February.

If, over the holidays, you're bored, you can't stand either your family or the crap on television or you just don't have a life, then here are the most read posts from the last year. It might give you an insight into what sort of posts are popular.

1. Cardiff Green Investment Bank Bid – Enough's Enough
2. Wales: An Economic Profile I – Primary Industries & Energy : The first in a six-part look at the state of the Welsh economy at present.
3. Defending Wales I – What are Wales' strategic defence needs? : The start of a five-part look into a possible independent Welsh defence policy. I might return to this in the future.
4. Forced Cymraeg - A special investigation : A tongue-in-cheek look into the thoughts behind the anti-Welsh language "movement". See also : Mysterious superhero rids Wales of Cymraeg.
5. Whither Porthcawl?
6. Kings of their castles : Do our government structures nurture corporate psychopathy? Or is Carmarthenshire Council just a running joke of a local authority? Consider the recent problems with the South Wales Guardian when reading it again.
7. Linking north and south Wales by rail
8. Offa's Gap – What? When? Where? & Why?
9. March 1^st 2036 – Cardiff, Wales
10. Leanne's Greenprint for The Valleys

Honourable mentions:

A Welsh Monarchy
The Big Independence Question (@ Cambria)
Could Wales host a Commonwealth Games?
Dirty deeds done dirt cheap?
The future of the Welsh media report

The only thing important or relevant enough over the next fortnight worthy of a blog is the Assembly recall for a vote on Council Tax benefit regulations. I think I've done enough this year to say, just this once, “I can't be arsed.”

Cyfarchion y Tymor pawb!

Read More

Regulated Mobile Home Sites Bill

Peter Black's Member's Bill on park homes aims to tighten regulations
and prevent site operators from abusing their power.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

Although Darren Millar's (Con, Clwyd West), widely-derided, Chewing Gum Levy Bill wasn't approved by AMs a few weeks ago, Peter Black's (Lib Dem, South Wales West) Member's Bill was accepted, becoming the first Member's Bill introduced to the Senedd since the 2011 referendum.

Now it's time to take a look at the proposals in more detail.

The problem

Some 3,400 households in Wales are counted as (permanent) "residential mobile homes". The definition of a "mobile home" usually extends to fixed caravans, but includes holiday caravans. Most of the people living in these will be elderly and subsequently living on a reduced, fixed income.

Several incidents and scandals involving mobile home parks have led to campaigns to improve the regulation and licensing of these parks. The licencing scheme is said to be "outdated", while many park owners have have criminal prosecutions brought against them.

One issue surrounds the sale of mobile homes – in particular buying mobile homes at a greatly reduced price, then selling them for market value.

In the consultation Peter Black carried out before laying the Bill in front of the Assembly, home owners were said to be greatly in favour of reforms, while site operators/owners were hostile towards it. I think that says it all.

What does the Bill aim to do, specifically?

Licencing & management of regulated sites

• The Welsh Government will regulate how applications for licences are made - and the price.
• The proposed manager of a regulated site will need to pass a "fit and proper persons test", and either be the person in control of a site, or an employee of someone with control of a site.
• Licences last for up to 4-5 years, and will be renewable after that, with temporary extensions of up to 3 months available.
• Licences can be revoked when a person breaches the condition of a licence, is no longer considered a "fit and proper person", or would be unlikely to be granted a licence were it up for renewal.
• Licence holders will have a right to appeal.
• The Welsh Government will be able to set codes of practice, and have the power to ensure there are proper management practices in place.
• "Site rules" need to be submitted with licence applications. Changes to these site rules need to be consulted with residents.

Licencing authorities

• Local authorities will become the "site licencing agencies" for mobile home sites, with the possibility of collaboration with other authorities.
• Licencing authorities will be given the power of entry for matters related to licencing.
• Licencing authorities will decide how many mobile homes can be put on a site.
• Local authorities will need to keep a register of regulated site licences.

Offences

• Failing to obtain a licence when it's a requirement
• Stationing too many homes on a regulated site than permitted by a licence
• Failure to, or preventing someone from, complying with licencing conditions
• Preventing an authorised person entering the site (power of entry)
• Operating unlicensed regulated sites.

Offenders can be punished by up to £5,000 fine in a Magistrate's Court, or an unlimited fine in a Crown Court case. For blocking the power of entry, it's a fine of up to £2,500. Site owners who sell mobile homes or collect pitch fees on unlicensed sites can be ordered to repay any pitch fees or costs incurred. In some cases, a fixed penalty notice may be given.

Sale and purchase of mobile homes

Site operators rent a pitch, but the owner of the mobile home owns the home.

If mobile home owners want to sell their home, they need to seek site owner approval of the new purchaser. Some site operators have "blocked" sales this way, and it's been one of the primary complaints leading to this Bill. Site owners are also entitled to a commission on sales – up to 10% of sale price. It's said that pitch fees would rise by 22% if the commission were removed – so it stays.

However, in this Bill:

• New owners will no longer need to be approved by the site operator
• BUT sales/transfers of pitch agreements cannot go ahead until the site operator receives their commission.

Other

• Joint-owned mobile homes can be taken over by a person for which it's their primary residence.
• Site owners cannot pass on any costs relating to this Bill via pitch fees.
• Home owners will be able to make any external or internal modifications to their home, as long as the modifications don't breach any terms of agreement. Permission by site owners cannot be "unreasonably withheld".
• Unless there's agreement between home owners and site operators, a mobile home cannot be moved without a Residential Property Tribunal unless it's "urgent" (i.e landslip).

Effects of the Bill

The benefits are said to include:

• A simplified legal process, and making licencing easier to monitor.
• Result in actual savings for local authorities in enforcing licences in the long-term.
• Improve standards at sites (obvious).
• Elderly residents being coerced out of their mobile home should be reduced.
• Residents won't be faced with picking up the costs for the new scheme via increased pitch fees.

Some of the potential pitfalls are said to be:

• Banks might be unlikely to led to sites where there's a fixed-term pitch.
• The extra costs placed on park owners, hitting profitability.

It's said that the financial costs of the Bill are "dependant on how and when the powers are implemented." The initial cost of setting up the scheme, at all levels of government and the site owners, is estimated to be £463,000 – including a one-off £270,000 bill for the Welsh Government. The scheme should cost around £83,000 per year to run after that, with most of that falling on the licencing authorities (local councils).

Read More

AWEMA - No Taffioso deals, but some questions unanswered

Last Thursday, the Wales Audit Office published their long-awaited report into AWEMA, following the charity's liquidation. More on this at : National Left, Jac o' the North, Peter Black AM, A Change of Personnel, Inside Out, Betsan Powys and Gareth Hughes.

Firstly, we need to get the Labour issue out of the way. The report found no evidence of outright political interference, saying that although "the full basis of some of the Welsh Government's funding decisions were unclear" there was little evidence of "inappropriate ministerial involvement." (p31)

By that, they mean there were no deals in smoky rooms, or ministers going out of their way – on record - to accommodate Naz Malik. In fact, AWEMA didn't always get what they asked for.

The report highlights who was responsible for what over the period (Appendix 5). Three names feature prominently throughout - Jane Hutt, Carl Sargeant & Edwina Hart – with a few others, such as Carwyn Jones, Sue Essex, Brian Gibbons and Andrew Davies playing minor roles. Also, between 2007-2011, Ieuan Wyn Jones played a significant role as minister responsible for the European funding , but his name doesn't feature as often.

So, this was a primarily Labour-led systemic failure, but neither Plaid, nor the Lib Dems (Mike German's brief involvement circa 2000-2001 & Lib Dem AWEMA trustees), come out of this completely smelling of roses (heh).

Welsh Labour conspiracy theories are entertaining – no doubt harbouring truths - but a scandal would have to be really big and bad to make an impact. It also distracts from the key issue – poor governance. The way to dent a party's credibility, is that when they're crap at the job they're elected to do, it gets reported as widely as possible.

On that, the findings were more damning. You could sum up the rest of the report in one sentence : In handling AWEMA, the Welsh Government, parts of the European Funding Office and civil service have been vain, disorganised and shown poor leadership.

Vain - The report says that the Welsh Government's equalities unit issued advice to Jane Hutt and Rhodri Morgan that they were worried about the "impact on the Welsh Government's reputation among....minority ethnic groups, were it to cease funding AWEMA." (p40)

When the wider scandal broke in 2011, and the organisation's existence was threatened, AWEMA  did play the race card. So civil service warnings were, perhaps, vindicated. So what? Fearing the reactions to "controversial" decisions is no way to run a government or civil service. It's vanity. To quote The Thick of It from the weekend, "This is the result of a political class that's given up on morality and simply pursues popularity at all costs."

Disorganised – The report highlights major errors in grant funding, citing lack of stability in the equalities unit, and brushing aside the findings of a specially commissioned report. Edwina Hart wasn't even sent a submission about new funding arrangements, despite commissioning the review in the first place and being responsible for funding (p41).

The equalities unit "did not rigorously follow up concerns about AWEMA's governance arrangements" for a period of five years (2005-2010) and didn't take allegations, by the chair and acting chair in 2007, into consideration. The European Funding Office had no concerns about AWEMA's EU projects, but "didn't apply sufficient rigour in monitoring these projects."

Poor leaders – The Welsh Government were warned no fewer than eight times between 2000-2011 about AWEMA (Appendix 3), including former Plaid AM, Dai Lloyd and Peter Black AM (Lib Dem, South Wales West) as recently as 2010.

The Welsh Government were satisfied with many of AWEMA's projects, but too lazy in monitoring them – a recurring theme. They didn't respond to specific allegations, had poor communication between departments, failed to follow-up concerns or "get to the heart of issues" when concerns were raised. (p71-72)

The report says that "management of....funding to AWEMA by the Welsh Government....has often been poor." There's praise, however, for how the Welsh Government reacted in 2011 .Shame it couldn't have been said earlier.

It's also unclear how much this has cost. Direct payments from the Welsh Government totalled £7.15million between 2000-2011. The Welsh Government claimed a debt owed to them of around £900,000. AWEMA disputed this, and the figure was reduced to around £545,000. Naz Malik denied there were any missing funds on ITVWales' Sharp End. It's unlikely AWEMA's creditors - including the Welsh Government - will see any of that money again.

Some important questions remain partially, or wholly, unanswered. So this hasn't been flushed yet.

Bethan Jenkins pressed Finance Minister, Jane Hutt (Lab, Vale of Glamorgan) to release documents from the equalities unit, to little avail. The change of Permanent Secretary might be a legitimate excuse for that, and might delay backbench AMs getting answers too.

We partially know why funding kept going to AWEMA – the Welsh Government/civil service didn't want to be accused of racism – but it's worth hearing the reasons from the ministers themselves. We now, also, have a good idea about who was involved. Will we get any apologies?

Other issues and questions I don't think have been satisfactorily cleared up include:

• What were the precise failings which resulted in the answer to the (2006) written question by Dai Lloyd and Peter Black AM being "incomplete and inaccurate"?
• Why, despite concerns raised in the 2004-05 report, was funding to AWEMA increased in subsequent years?
• Why did the Welsh Government "fail to act" in response to the 2007 accusations from the acting chair and vice-chair of AWEMA?
• What, precisely, did the Charities Commission do in relation to the 2007 allegations?
• Where are the Home Office  records relating to their £346,000 grants to AWEMA?
• What was particular about the 2011 disclosures that convinced the Welsh Government to act compared to prior warnings?
• What actions are the Welsh Government and civil service taking to prevent this from happening again?

It's been reported that several urgent questions have been submitted for tomorrow, and today, the Assembly's Public Accounts Committee heard that the Welsh Government had "no way of highlighting that AWEMA was high risk." I think it's time ministers were upfront, or lines will never be drawn under this.

Read More

Draft Public Audit (Wales) Bill

"Who watches the watchers?"
The draft Public Audit Bill aims to address some key issues
surrounding how public institutions in Wales are held to account.
(Pic: BBC)

The second "meaty" piece of legislation so far this Assembly term is incredibly boring, but absolutely essential. It's to do with the Wales Audit Office, which has – ironically - come under intense scrutiny over the years due to various failing and malpractices.

Before she became Plaid leader, Leanne Wood (Plaid, South Wales Central) uncovered instances of workplace bullying, self-authorised expenses and excessive severance packages. And of course the former Auditor General was jailed in November 2010.

Having said that, despite these major issues, it's actually been an efficient organisation – winning a chartered accountancy award in 2009.

The time has come though for more concrete changes and Finance Minister Jane Hutt (Lab, Vale of Glamorgan) put a new Public Audit Bill out for consultation in March, with a final draft/Bill proper likely to come in the next couple of months.

The draft proposals included:

1. Public Audit Institutions

The Auditor General:

• Will be nominated by the Assembly and appointed by the Queen
• Can hold the office for a single term of 7 years and cannot be re-appointed
• Cannot be an elected official, member of the House of Lords, or an existing employee of the Wales Audit Office or Assembly Commission
• Pay will be decided by the Assembly's Public Accounts Committee, but won't be performance based
• Will be Chief Executive of the Wales Audit Office

The Wales Audit Office (WAO):

• Will have a corporate body made up of 7 members - 5 of whom will be non-executive members appointed from outside the WAO, the Auditor General and one employee of the WAO.
• May employ its own staff, but under the same conditions as employment to the Welsh Government
• Is obliged to carry out its functions "efficiently and cost-effectively"
• Must prepare a statement of expenses and income and prepare and annual plan for the financial year
• Will have the power to borrow to meet temporary excesses
• May charge fees for its duties and services, subject to Public Accounts Committee approval. Welsh Ministers will be able to draw up a "scale of fees" through regulations

2. Public Audit Functions

• The Auditor General will have "compete discretion" and will not be under the direct control of the Assembly or Welsh Government.
• Welsh Ministers and Assembly Commission must keep proper accounts and prepare a statement of those accounts for each financial year, submitted by November 30^th in the following financial year.

Public Bodies subject to public audit include (with varying deadlines):

• Public Service Obundsman
• Older Persons Commissioner
• Children's Commissioner
• Welsh Language Commissioner
• Local Government Boundary Association
• Estyn (school inspector)
• Forestry Commission
• Countryside Council for Wales
• General Teaching Council for Wales
• HEFCW (HE funding)
• National Library
• National Museum
• Welsh levy board
• Welsh NHS body/bodies
• Care Council for Wales
• Wales Centre for Health
• Sports Council for Wales
• CADW

• Education bodies, such as governing bodies, may be subject to audit on request.
• Welsh Ministers may amend the list with consultation with the body/bodies affected.
• The Auditor General will have four months to lay a copy of the accounts before the National Assembly as well as a report on any findings.
• The Auditor General will have to be satisfied that spending, or money received, was lawful, used for expected purposes, meets statutory provisions for accounting and observed proper practices in the statement of accounts.
• The Auditor General will have to carry out "value for money" examinations, to ensure efficiency and cost-effectiveness within an organisation. This must take the views of the Public Accounts Committee into account.
• The Auditor General can produce reports on matters "in the public interest" that arise during an audit.
• The House of Commons Select Committee of Public Accounts will be able to request that the Assembly's equivalent committee take evidence on their (HoC) behalf or report evidence to them.

3. Auditing Local Government

• Local authorities (county councils, community councils, national parks, police commissioners, fire authorities etc.) will need to make up their accounts by March 31.
• The Auditor General will have similar powers to audit local authorities as those listed in part 2 above.
• The Auditor General will have the power to judge and publish "standards of performance" within local authorities. It will need to be published in a local newspaper which is printed for sale, free of charge or circulating in the area.

4. Data Matching

• The Auditor General will be able to conduct "data matching exercises", which involves comparing data to see how well they match, including identifying patterns and trends. This aims to assist in the detection of fraud.
• Any of the bodies mentioned above will be required to provide data to the Auditor General, with fines for non-compliance.
• Results of data matching may be disclosed by the Auditor General but with some restrictions (i.e. patient data).
• The results may be published by the Auditor General, but not if the body or person is included in the data matching exercise, can be identified from the information, or if the information is "not otherwise in the public domain".
• The Secretary of State will have powers in this area to do with criminal justice. The SoS will have powers to amend the Act to include public bodies that relate exclusively to Wales, modify applications or to omit bodies.

5. Functions of the Auditor General

This is a list of specific rights and duties of the Auditor General, and the subjects of audits. It's an expansion of everything listed above.

Conclusion

I'm not entirely sure of the reasons this legislation is needed, to be frank. All of these things should already have been in place since the Wales Audit Office was established. However, it does make it a lot clearer as to what the Wales Audit Office and the Auditor General are responsible for. It should lead to better functioning behind the scenes, and ensure that relevant bodies are kept on their toes.

It brings the Wales Audit Office into line with the provisions of the UK Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill.

As I said, this is incredibly boring an uninspiring, but essential for smooth running of government.

You can wake up now.

Read More

Cardiff Green Investment Bank Bid - Enough's enough

A dunce's cap is casting a broad shadow over Wales
and the Welsh economy.
(Pic : Modified from Webbaviation.co.uk)

Ultimately, politicians and civil servants are ordinary people just going about their business. Although I'm probably being naïve , they usually have our interests at heart. It's an incredibly tough job, and from time to time, they should be afforded a bit of slack. Not everything is a catastrophe or a disgrace.

I can't think of many, if any, AMs I dislike. They seem like a nice bunch, generally hard-working and approachable. On the whole, I'm proud to have them represent us and the fledgling Welsh democracy. Obvious exceptions aside, I don't buy into the hyperbole that political parties that don't share my views are "the enemy." It's only politics after all.

The nicey-nicey stops there though. We all make mistakes. Politicians and civil servants are human, they should be allowed to make mistakes too. However, there's a fine line between a mistake and ineptitude.

This is probably the point the wheels come off this blog, but certain things need to be said. Maybe I'm just looking for an excuse to throw my toys out of the pram to enable an "exit".

Although it's obvious that I'm aiming this at Welsh Labour, it applies equally to any party that has ambitions of being in government here, and could probably be expanded to include parties who have been in power.

Instead of thinking of this as a partisan piece, consider it the concerns of an ordinary, increasingly angry, Welsh voter.

Cardiff's Green Investment Bank Bid

Cardiff bid to be the location of the Westminster Government's "Green Investment Bank" (GIB), along with other cities across the UK. It'll be an arms-length financial institution, initially capitalised with £3billion. It's hoped the GIB will go some way to help the UK Government attract the sort of investment needed to help meet its environmental targets.

Cardiff's bid - our capital, with ambitions of being a "major European city", led by a council leader who has a fetish for the word "international" - fell at the first hurdle.

Cardiff exited at the same stage as Bicester, Stoke, Torbay and Durham.

There were inevitable cries from Business Minister Edwina Hart (Lab, Gower) that this was "disappointing news", describing Cardiff's bid as "robust." Last week, however, the UK Department for Business & Skills released the bid documents. You can read Cardiff's via A Change of Personnel, who's been pretty damning of it, as has BBC Wales' Vaughan Roderick on Twitter and others.

As far as I'm concerned, the bid is a must-read for anyone with even the slightest interest in Welsh politics. Actually take a look. See how the Welsh Government and civil service handled this for yourselves.

I couldn't quite believe what I was reading. Wow.

Some people may criticise Vince Cable's decision to publish the bids, but he's done Wales a great service here. It's a bit like getting told a bad exam mark in front of the class – if you feel humiliated, then at least there's motivation to do better the next time.

Remember, this is a bid for a bank, capitalised with £3billion. It's not a "Sprechen Sie Sprockets" FDI, branch factory pitch. It was supposed to be a bid for an institution that could become a major player in finance over the next few decades.

Much of the initial negative reaction to the bid focused on grammar and spelling mistakes. I'm not a hypocrite. I hold my hands up and say the grammar here leaves much to be desired sometimes. Grammar isn't important though. It's much, much worse than that.

Besides, I don't get money to do this. I'm not going to get a public sector pension out of this, and I don't have a portfolio with hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers money at stake. Perhaps that's for the best, because if I had overseen something as amateurish as this bid, a P45 would be the honourable way out.

• There's all the usual cliched guff about Cardiff (Europe's youngest capital etc.) that could've been cut and paste from any Cardiff Council press release of the last ten years.
• Significant chunks of the bid read like a student Geography project. You're bombarded with numbers that haven't been put into any proper context. It's not an easy read - not because it's on an intellectual plane above the lay person - but because its so poorly presented. Just compare it with Bristol's bid. As one of my old primary school teachers would say – "slapdash!"
• It heavily trumpets the Cardiff CBD/enterprise zone, but proposed locating the GIB (temporarily) in 3 Capital Waterside (it's actually 3 Assembly Square), which as far as I know, is outside the enterprise zone.
• 3 Assembly Square is a partially occupied 66,000sqft building. Later, the report acknowledges that only up to 75 jobs would be created – or 880sqft a worker. There's open plan offices and then there's that.
• There's a cringe-worthy graphic of Cardiff's "national and international" flight connections – which includes exotic destinations like Jersey and Aberdeen. There are only passing mentions of links to London and Europe. Bank. Capitalised with £3billion. Just a reminder.
• Some of the bid reads as though the Welsh Government expected Welsh businesses to exclusively benefit from the GIB, citing "up to £50billion of energy projects in Wales over the next 10 years".
• There's unnecessarily detailed profiles of Welsh infrastructure companies, environmental companies as well as Welsh university environmental research projects.
• There are a few examples of "imago bureaucratica" - process and implementation matrices reminiscent of your typically impenetrable Welsh local authority report.
• There's a call for the bid criteria to be expanded/changed. That's rather pretentious, isn't it? However well-intentioned it was.
• The bid cites Cardiff's low wages compared to other UK cities as a "cost effectiveness consideration", describing it as "compelling". Thanks for helping us in the race to the bottom. Thanks for, seemingly, taking pride in Cardiff's comparatively low wages. Though to be fair, other bids did the same thing. Unsurprisingly, the successful bidders were from two of the UK's most expensive cities with highly remunerated workforces– Edinburgh and London. There's a reason for that. Peanuts and monkeys.
• Only a few of the testimonials had anything to do with the GIB. Most seem to be related to recruiting and retaining people. You would expect to be able to do that. It's not exactly the best message to be sending out.
• Adrian Clark is quoted twice in the testimonials - and yes he's the same person in each case as far as I can tell.

At least the cover is good – Cardiff Bay on a sunny day, with that Magic Roundabout-style ride in front of the Pierhead Building. Yeah, I think that just about sums it up.

We're fortunate, in a back-handed way, that Cardiff was never really a front-runner for this. It was always either going to go to Edinburgh or remain entirely in London. That decision makes sense on many levels.

However, if a job's worth doing, it's worth doing right.

The Bigger Picture - Why this is bad

We don't get to see many bids the Welsh Government put forward for things like this, but it does make you wonder about the quality of the civil service and how these processes are managed. Was the prospect of a major financial institution basing itself in Cardiff not important enough for the Welsh Government & civil service to take seriously?

You remind yourself of all the "disappointing news" down the years. You wonder if this is the level we're at. You wonder how often that Wales' low wages have been described as "compelling." You wonder if this is the standard of case made for things like the electrification of the Valley Lines or energy projects.

I remind myself of all the times I've had to stick up for the "WAG" - online and offline - and wish I hadn't bothered.

I just feel let down and more than a little embarrassed.

We have so many economic problems here. We have so many issues that haven't been addressed properly for the best part of a century. For "our" Welsh Government and civil service to do something as half-arsed as this is soul-crushingly depressing.

This is a monumental cock up – not for what it was, but for what it represents.

It's a symptom of a wider illness and malaise in Cathays Park. It not only reflects badly on the Welsh Government, but the entire machinery by which Wales aims to attract investment. It should be a watershed and a real kick up the backside, but why do I suspect that we'll be back here again at some point in the near future.

They can fall back to the position of "whoopsy daisy" - moaning about fate, coalition cuts and such. However, the very minimum we should expect from our public servants is that they have a bit of pride in their work. That goes for ministers as much as the mandarins.

All of us should be demanding better, but we accept mediocrity because, for some reason, it's what we feel we deserve in Wales. We're so used to it now, we don't bat our eyelids when something like this happens, we shrug and then continue to wonder why everything is terrible.

It's partially our fault as members of the public. We let people get away with pulling stunts like this because they stick "Welsh" before their name, or their job title, or because they wear the right colour rosette. We're far too nice sometimes. You're not supposed to support our governments as you would the national rugby team

We've built a wall in our minds and we willingly live on the wrong side of it - as though it's something to be proud of. We're gluttons for punishment and self-flagellation. We constantly argue over the same points again and again and again, fighting invisible enemies and strawmen. It's like noticing a hangnail when your body is riddled with tumours.

We're absolutely mad, aren't we? Absolutely stark raving bonkers.

How long, as a nation, are we going to continue to put up with this bullshit?

If you make a genuine mistake, hold your hands up and I'm sure we'll be forgiving. Learn from it.

If you feel you're in over your head in your role, ask for that extra bit of help you need. Don't hide behind your pride, you're dealing with our livelihoods here. Do the extra study, put in the hours - that's all we ask.

Don't use politics as an excuse not to do anything. It doesn't matter if it's one of those "baby-eating Tories", or "separatists", offering to help you out. If it even hints at possibly having a beneficial impact – swallow your pride and reach out.

You might be a Labour government, but as soon as your backside hits a cabinet chair, you're there to work for Wales - not the party, and not Ed Miliband. Stop fretting over what the unions or NEC will think. Think for yourselves. Own yourselves and own your job. Don't consider yourself the subordinate to anybody in London. We have problems now, and we can't wait until 2016 for the two Eds to hold your hand - if they even get that far.

If you don't put in the effort, hide or hunker down, shirk your responsibilities or pass the buck – whether it's down the M4, to a colleague, or hiding behind one of these ridiculous Welsh bureaucratic implementation frameworks – then cheerio! You are the problem and one day, you will be found out.

Two words - Fianna Fáil. We'll get fed up with it at some point. You'll get the liberal democracy equivalent of a lynching. No amount of "delivery statistics", freebies, third sector backers or psudo-nationalist posturing will save you. It doesn't matter how well-intentioned you are, or whether your heart is in the right place, you'll deserve it.

You'll deserve it for taking our votes for granted and using your position to entrench mediocrity.

You'll deserve it for all those people out there who are earning less that they otherwise would - or have been denied the opportunity of a well-paying job - because you make the case that low wages are "compelling."

You'll deserve it because you were playing politics - scoring points for, and against, other politicians and parties – who, in all probability, don't cry themselves to sleep wondering whether their decisions are going down well in Wales or not.

One of the reasons we have devolution is so we can turn around problems here by ourselves. What we need is a bit of elbow grease and some willpower. A bit of effort and work ethic. An unrelenting commitment to see Wales prosper. I don't doubt that Welsh ministers an civil servants have it, but any semblance of attainment or success is invisible.

It's easier to keep telling us why you can't do something - because you don't have X power or you don't have X budget. Perhaps you should focus on what you can do. No idea should be written off if it could make Wales a better place. Trying and failing is better than not trying at all.

Get the little things right by all means, but the big things matter too. All I'm seeing is fudge, after bungle, after excuse, after apathy. You've made a lot of good noises recently, but it always seems to be a case of one step forward, two steps back. This isn't because of any vast conspiracy, or the constitution or circumstances outside of your control. Welsh Labour - pull your socks up.

You can turn it around. You have the opportunity and chance to do so.

Do it. The Hoff is warming up in front of the wall, and although there's only a tiny, geeky rabble in front if it baring sledgehammers at the moment, more will come.

I'm not talking about those whose argument extends to inflatable pink pigs, Welsh language paranoia or desecrating the Chartists memory.

I'm talking about people up and down the country who back devolution and see Welsh ministers and Welsh civil servants doing perceivably sweet-FA to improve our lot - passing off reports like this as "robust" when it would shame a first-year undergraduate. Lose our goodwill towards you, continue to hide behind excuses or pride or politics, and you're finished - regardless of the colour of your rosette.

It might take decades, in all likelihood it won't even involve independence, but one day, one glorious day, a change is gonna come. Oh yes it will.

Perhaps, deep down, that's the main reason I support independence. Not because of patriotism or self-determination, but because it's the ultimate change from the status quo - and you always have to start with the status quo when trying to address serious problems.

You'll have no where to hide. There'll be no Westminster bwci bo to blame. You won't be able to point fingers at anyone and everyone will be pointing fingers at you. You'll be exposed, chewed up, ripped up and dissected in a way that you never will have before. It'll be probable, though not impossible, that you'll never, ever be able to get away with anything like this ever again. That goes for all parties.

I can't wait.

Ideally, within days of that bid becoming public, there should've been a steady stream of people walking out of Cathays Park and the Welsh Government's Treforest bunker, carrying boxes with their lucky desk gonk on top. Do not pass go, do not moan to your union reps, do not collect your severance pay - down the job centre with you.

AWEMA was strike one. This is strike two. Another one – and with some inevitability there'll be another dropped bollock between now and May 2016 - and Carwyn will have to make some serious changes, to both his cabinet and the civil service.

But does he have the guts to do so? Are any of us putting enough pressure on the powers that be to change?

As you might have gathered from the tone of this "rant", a message needs to be sent to the civil service and Welsh ministers that this standard of work is unacceptable.

Carwyn, you're probably never going to read this, but please:

Rip the whole stinking lot up and start again.

Read More

AWEMA - someone in Cardiff needs to own up

More on this at Jac OThe North, Inside Out, National Left, The Western Mail, Betsan Powys, Gareth Hughes and Wales Home.

It's been a point made elsewhere but Martin Shipton and his team at The Western Mail (as well as BBC Wales and the South Wales Evening Post) need to be congratulated for this excellent piece of investigative journalism. It's shows the true value a solid national press has for Wales and the vital role it plays in holding TPTB to account.

The latest report from the Welsh Government and Big Lottery Fund was published last week into the goings-on at All Wales Ethnic Minority Association (AWEMA). We've had things called "scandals" in the past (Nick Bourne's Ipod, The Lib Dem 2, second homes in Penarth and Rosie Butler's table), but I'd agree with Daran Hill that this is "perhaps the biggest scandal around the use of public money since devolution began". However, we have to put this in perspective. It's still small fry compared to some of Westminster's shenanigans.

You probably already know about what happened but here's a summary of the allegations from the latest report:

• AWEMA didn't submit any accounts to Companies House or the Charity Commission for the year 2010-11 and no management accounts exist having "not been produced for some time".
• There's an "absence of key policies and procedures within AWEMA", for example an expenses policy, conflict of interests register or register of hospitality's given/taken – this was taken advantage of (mobile phone bills paid, greetings cards, parking charges) although the sums were small and backed with receipts.
• Creditor information was not available - said to be vital to give assurance of solvency.
• Naz Malik (the CEO) hadn't been subject to a performance appraisal since 2006.
• ABOMA (the board of management) held no regular meetings or were done so on an "ad hoc" basis with big gaps between them – sometimes as long as 11 months.
• Naz Malik's decisions were only given retrospective approval by ABOMA.
• Expenditure from AWEMA's funds included £2,100 on gym membership, £800 on rugby and cricket tickets and one of Naz Malik's parking tickets worth £110. None of these were disclosed to HMRC and it's unclear if these were funded from public money.
• Naz Malik relied on the Financial Director for details of financial processes, when as CEO he should have "a key duty in overseeing these processes".
• The AWEMA payroll system was "seriously inadequate". The three directors salaries were "high in comparison to other members of AWEMA" though action has now been taken by ABOMA.
• Naz Malik's daughter reported to him as a director, a "clear conflict of interest" and her salary increased from £20,498 in 2008 to £50,052 in 2012 with Naz Malik present at meetings of ABOMA (when approving salary increases) both as CEO and an ABOMA member.

The most damning statement of all is that there can be "no assurances" that there were "appropriate arrangements in place to safeguard and make proper use of Welsh Government (£105k), Wales European Funding Office (£5m) or Big Lottery Funds (£523k) entrusted to AWEMA". That's a potential (and I have to stress potential) misuse of some £6million in public funds.

But it gets worse.

As you probably know, the Welsh Government were warned about AWEMA in a 2004 report (found by a Lib Dem researcher – more on that at Gareth Hughes's blog) that suggested all public funding was stopped there and then.

So it's taken the Welsh Government 8 years to act, after they commissioned their own report into AWEMA, after the resignation of their acting chairman in 2007 and after that report rung whacking great big alarm bells that AWEMA had issues.

We needn't dwell on the fact that the Malik family are prominent Labour members and supporters. I don't buy that this was a conspiracy - just a toxic mix of negligence, arrogance and old fashioned cronyism. In fairness Labour were quick to suspend them and appear content to stall things for now while distancing themselves from the Malik's and AWEMA. No doubt they'll want to "move on to the important issues that matter to the people of Wales blah blah blah"  - and they'd have a point.

However this going to be hard for them to shake off for the following reason.

Somebody, somewhere, signed off public money to AWEMA back in 2004 (probably with the best of intentions) while ignoring independent advice wilfully or accidentally. Presumably a social justice, European affairs or equalities minister, a deputy minister or a senior civil servant.

Only the anoraks who follow Welsh politics closely are really interested in this and we're comfortably out-numbered by those who aren't. However I think we'll all be more forgiving if that person (or persons) owned up instead of hunkering down hoping this will blow over. If it turns out public money they signed off has been abused in any significant way, a dent in their pride by taking ownership of their mistake should be the least of their concerns.

At the very least that person(s) has to come out with an apology, explain the reasons why they ignored the original report and cooperate with any new investigations. The sooner the better. We don't know what any possible criminal investigation could reveal though I suspect the worst of it is already public knowledge.

I'm not going to speculate on who that could be.

Of course that's small comfort to those losing their jobs or having their schemes/funding/programme under threat by AWEMA's demise. I hope that all those who had nothing to do with this can move on to better things.

I also hope someone in Cardiff Bay or Cathays Park is having their conscience tugged before someone else tugs it for them.

Read More

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater

I'm often critical of what constitutes a "scandal" in Wales these days. In the past few years we've had cigar smoking, iPods, Lib Dem administrative oversights and this week a provocatively expensive table. However the goings-on at the University of Wales have "shamed" the institution to such an extent that the proverbial last rites are being administered by Leighton Andrews.

What was once a federation of all of Wales' higher education establishments has withered to a rump of its former self. Most of its work appears to be in validating qualifications for various centres around the world – this isn't as unusual or as dodgy as it sounds. The institution which kicked off the scandal back in 2008 was the venerable Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary in Indiana, which had its degrees validated by the University of Wales, but was not accredited by UoW or any US university either. Oh dear.

In the last few weeks BBC Wales revealed a separate visa scandal, now being investigated by the UK Border Agency. Students at a "centre" in London were exempted from working on MBA's, enabling them to apply for visas to stay in the UK, by purchasing "advanced" diplomas and seeing UoW exam papers in advance.

Despite announcing on October 3^rd that they would stop validating other institution's degrees, several universities have called for the UoW to be wound up. UWIC is already rebranding itself as Cardiff Metropolitan University, while Wrexham-based Glyndwr University is seeking degree-awarding powers. All that will be left of the UoW it seems will be a tarnished brand, ruined reputation and a largely redundant registry in Cathays Park.

However eager people are to smack down the UoW, and however convenient this all is, the University of Wales still plays a critical role in the Welsh higher education sector. The Prince of Wales Innovation Scholarships (POWIS), run by the UoW Global Academy and funded by the EU and Welsh universities and businesses, aims to fund and attract high-achieving graduates to Wales to undertake research & development at Welsh universities and Welsh companies.

Although there's certainly an argument that we should be investing in Welsh graduates to do this kind of work, with research and development an increasingly competitive and vital part of the global economy, Wales should seize any advantages and opportunities that come along.

By suspending funding and reviewing the POWIS scheme, perhaps using the scandals as a bit of cover, the Welsh Government might have created a longer-lasting negative impact on Welsh higher education than anything the University of Wales might have done. UoW claims that POWIS has brought in £12.5million of investment in two years and exceeded expectations in product development and research projects - isn't that worth a measly £400k?

There are still many unanswered questions....

Read More