FMQs: RIFW Redux, Tuition Fees & Parking Fines

The final FMQs of the 2016-17 Assembly term took place this afternoon and it's also the final FMQs covered on this site.

Read More

Law to support Additional Learning Needs introduced

(Pic : Northampton College)

Having stood down the "picket line", it's worth giving those of you who might've laughed it off a friendly reminder of how much work's done here - just under two hours for this post; no pay, very little if any coverage of this topic anywhere other than the BBC. It's also what's going to be lost in the future; more on that tomorrow.

Read More

Carmarthenshire's Roll of Dishonour

This weekend, people will gather near monuments which, in some cases, will list the names of those who willingly and unwillingly sacrificed their lives in conflict.

Read More

FMQs : Veterans, USA & Article 50

It's a long one this week as I've decided to tack on the Assembly's response to the Article 50 judgement. There's also a sense of deja vu from recent FMQs as you'll probably see for yourselves.

Read More

FMQs : Liz, Class Sizes & Court Closures

Time for another account of the weekly "theatre" of First Minister's Questions. This time the topics include : smaller class sizes, the EU referendum, court closures....and Wales at Euro 2016.

Read More

Assembly Requests "Clear & Durable" Devolution Settlement

When the Prime Minister and that-other-bloke-who-used-to-be-important
announced their response to Silk II, it looked like we were due constitutional clarity.
So far it's still a bit cloudy.
(Pic : The Guardian)

The Assembly's Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee recently reported back on a short inquiry they undertook into the future of devolved powers. This was done in light of Silk Commission Part II, the fallout from 2014's Scottish independence referendum, St David's Day Agreement and the forthcoming Wales Bill – expected to be introduced in the autumn.

Read More

Devolution : Last Stand of the Human Rights Act?

(Pic : via Flickr)

One Conservative manifesto commitment prior to their election victory was the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 and its replacement with a "British Bill of Rights" - possibly including a subsequent full withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if certain demands aren't met. The task has been passed to new Justice Secretary, the shy and retiring Michael Gove.

Read More

New Law to Reform Social Care

In the wake of several scandals relating to treatment of people in care, the Regulation
and Inspection of Social Care Bill aims to tighten up professional regulation.
(Pic : nursingcarehomesincornwall.co.uk)

Yesterday, Health Minister, Mark Drakeford (Lab, Cardiff West), introduced the second major piece of legislation reforming social services this Assembly term.

The Regulation and Inspection of Social Care Bill (Bill [pdf], explanatory memorandum [pdf]) outlines a number of reforms to how social care services are regulated and inspected....funnily enough. More info from the National Assembly's In Brief blog.

Read More

Carmarthenshire : The Rot Laid Bare

The eagerly-anticipated Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA) report into the governance arrangements, culture and practices at Carmarthenshire Council (CCC) has been published (pdf).

Jonathan Edwards MP and Rhodri Glyn Thomas AM (both Plaid, Carms E. & Dinefwr) issued a joint statement. The Western Mail describe the report as "damning", while the Carmarthen Journal put a slightly positive spin on it.

Meanwhile, as you might expect, the Carmarthenshire blogosphere are keen to give their own views. The full list of recommendations is available on Carmarthenshire Planning – as well as Jacqui's thoughts on the report itself. Y Cneifiwr provided an extensive account of the report, adding his scepticism whether things can change due to the political leadership, and Pat Racher from West Wales News Review calls for CCC's councillors to "wake up and take control of the wheel".

The report's 39 recommendations can be summarised as :

• CCC should implement an immediate managerial "cultural change programme" to promote transparency and openness.
• CCC should review its media and public engagement protocols, and promote/support the use of social media by councillors.
• CCC should hold an annual register of interests (published on its website).
• The Local Service Board (LSB) should consider broadcasting its meetings and update its website regularly.
• CCC should introduce a new constitution and provide guides for councillors and the public.
• The new constitution should :
• allow councillors to ask supplementary questions
• relax requirements for signatories for motions
• should not allow motions to be referred to another committee or the Executive Board
• place greater prominence on the role of Chair
• CCC should promote the opportunity for the public to table questions at council meetings, have an online petition system, review its approach to the public gallery and commit to continuing council meeting broadcasts.
• CCC should publish the Executive Board's forward work programme, consider broadcasting Executive Board meetings, allow non-executive members to remain for exempt items and allow non-executive members to be present for decision meetings.
• Executive Board members should only attend scrutiny committee sessions when invited, and their role should be confined to presenting policy and reports.
• CCC should revise its "call-in" procedures.

Culture, Leadership & Values

The report hints at a "leadership clique" that - directly or indirectly -
placed barriers on moves towards openness and transparency.
(Pic : Carmarthenshire Planning)

CCC has a clear commitment to openness and transparency as a result of several internal and external reviews, and this was praised.

However, the report says there were several "behavioural, cultural and procedural barriers to achieving the Council's ambition", and rebuilding relationships will take some time. For starters, the change will have to be councillor-led with officers only offering support.

Interviewees spoke of "internal tensions" between councillors, and a lack of trust was said to be a key theme, partly due to the fact wards, Assembly and UK Parliament seats in the authority are hotly contested meaning the political groups are often at each others throats.

CCC's constitution has contributed to problems, with limited opportunities to "call-in" decisions and ask supplementary questions as well as restrictions on tabling motions. It's said the constitution "is neither conductive to nor encourages challenge from within the council".

In terms of the relationship between the Executive Board (Cabinet) and officers, it's described as "constructive and positive". But it's implied the Executive Board are distrustful of non-executive members and non-executive members were equally hostile to officers, with the role of officers and Executive Board members "becoming confused".

This suggests a "ruling clique", and many responses focused on the role of the Chief Executive, Mark James – who has a much higher profile and role in council affairs than he should, resulting in media attention focusing on unelected officers as opposed to the elected Executive Board. There's a culture of defensiveness, where CCC, "doesn't deal with negativity well", and was "deemed to react....aggressively to challenge, particularly from the media".

Relations with the Media & Public Engagement

"Do you agree or disagree that you can influence decisions in your local authority?"
(Pic : National Survey for Wales)

In case you didn't know, CCC "invests significant resources into public relations". Despite this, there's a "strained relationship" between CCC and the local media, with concerns that press releases were one-sided, politically-motivated and backed by threats to withdraw advertising from certain publications.

There are "a number of local bloggers with a particular interest in the business of the authority" with a "disproportionate interest in the activities and perceived influence of bloggers in Carmarthenshire" amongst interviewees – mostly as a result of the libel trial and its outcome. The report says things like social media can be a double edged sword as it's a tool for engagement, but also the accuracy of reporting is likely to fall short of mainstream media standards.

In terms of wider public engagement, Carmarthenshire residents are amongst the least likely in Wales to say they can influence the authority's decisions and "do not feel empowered" – Bridgend doesn't do much better, by the way.

The Council's Workings

There were concerns about senior officer appointments, especially appointment of senior officers on an interim basis. The current management team is described as "stable", but several senior officers are seeking severance agreements, and this "upheaval" is described as "unprecedented in a Welsh local government context".

Although there was praise for councillor training, the report said it wasn't "member led or designed", with mixed attendance levels at training sessions because they're inconveniently timed. There were also concerns that the Business Management Group was an "unconstitutional decision-making forum" which didn't take minutes and excluded non-executive members.

Council Meetings

Although recent reforms have been praised, the council's constitution
placed unnecessary restrictions on the public and councillors.
(Pic : The Telegraph)

CCC were the first local authority in Wales to record council meetings, and the review team were impressed by the in-depth discussions the council had on various reports. However, the procedural rules within the constitution are not user friendly, though CCC has committed to adopting the Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors' "modular constitution" (pdf).

Many councillors are dissatisfied with council meetings, and believe they should be the "crucible for local democratic debate" and "focus for public engagement", as opposed to the current stage-managing. Some also believe that meetings should be held at a time that's convenient for the public and should be as long as they need to be (there's a limit of 3 hours, and standing orders need to be suspended to go beyond that).

CCC were praised for starting to take questions on notice, but lack of supplementary questions was described as "peculiar" and "inconsistent with other local authorities".

The rules for motions on notice are described as "restrictive" by requiring seven signatures, while opposition councillors were concerned they couldn't table motions on controversial issues, as the scope of motions was often set out by senior officers.

Then there's the public gallery. CCC infamously take a register of details for people attending in the gallery "for fire safety purposes", which the review team said could be seen as "officious" and "deter people from attending". There was also the issue of members of the public filming meetings – which is allowed in England, but there are concerns that it could be "disruptive".

The issue of the Chief Executive "advising" the Chair was also raised, with varying policies across Wales. Some councils have a monitoring officer to provide constitutional advice, and the role of other officers is to advise on policy. In CCC's constitution the "Proper Officer" – who just so happens to be the Chief Executive – has a role in determining the validity of motions and questions. The review team believe this responsibility should be the Chair's.

The Executive Board & Scrutiny

Carmarthenshire's Executive Board are secretive, hold too much power and
the call-in processes for scrutiny committees were roundly criticised.
(Pic : Carmarthens Journal)

Some councils broadcast cabinet meetings, and although Carmarthenshire's Executive Board are starting to go "on the road", the review team believe online broadcasting should be extended to board meetings held at County Hall.

The Wales Audit Office say the issue of "exempt items" needs particular improvement, with some authorities said to be "working towards a more open approach" where fewer items are considered exempt.

The review team were "surprised" that non-executive members had to leave Executive Board meetings, along with the press and members of the public, during the discussion of "exempt items". Only 5 other councils do this, and of those, some are reconsidering the policy while others say exempt items are rare.

There were concerns over transparency of Executive Board decision meetings, with no opportunity to call-in decisions and seemingly sweeping powers to Executive Board members to approve spending – including the recent "Meryl's Millions" (c/o Y Cneifiwr). There were also concerns that decisions were rubber-stamped during the Executive Board meetings and the real discussions took place in behind closed door "pre-meetings".

Although there were said to be good examples of scrutiny work - and such work was often highly-regarded - there were also major worries.

The arrangements for Executive Board members attending committee meetings seems unclear, with some attending even if not invited, while others are unsure if they should attend at all. Best practice is for Executive Board members to only attend when invited so the relationship between the Board and committees doesn't become "cosy" and impact objective scrutiny.

Scrutiny committees also have the power to "call-in" decisions. However, CCC's call-in procedures are arranged in such a way it makes it very difficult to trigger one, which requires the approval of more than half of a committee's membership within a three day deadline. Other local authorities have more relaxed requirements and longer deadlines, while CCC's is described as "onerous".

Winds of Change?

#DaftArrest marked a turning point that's led to these proposals. Despite being
largely vindicated, "victory" - touch wood - is coming at a heavy price.
It didn't have to be like that.
(Pic : New Statesman)

The first step towards recovery is admitting you have a problem. In many ways the commitment to reform from CCC is admirable, so I won't be too snide.

As Jacqui Thompson said, although the language of the report was "professional and polite", when you read between the lines, the report paints a picture of a local authority that's no longer fit for purpose, stuck in a self-congratulatory bubble and keeps digging itself into holes.

It's a shame its taken court cases, legal injunctions and the full force of the Wales Audit Office to get things done, when Jacqui herself and others (up to and including councillors) have flagged up these issues and have been calling for the measures outlined in the report for the best part of a decade.

If this review had happened years ago, CCC really would be towards the top-performing local authorities in Wales. But there was a breakdown in trust due to the paranoid and excessively autocratic rule of Mark James, the Executive Board and other senior officers.

Ultimately, we're only here because of a domino effect caused by #DaftArrest (perhaps earlier), and because a handful of concerned citizens, politicians and whistleblowers kept picking away at the council's record in the face of legal threats, obfuscation and a distinct lack of action and concern from the Welsh Government.

If – and it's a big if – these changes are implemented then it'll be a (Pyrrhic) victory for long-standing "critics", and arguably the most significant thing the Welsh blogosphere has ever contributed to, as a reformed Carmarthenshire will likely be a model post-Williams Commission local authorities will work from.

Jacqui Thompson and others are vindicated. Although there's not much anyone can do about the libel verdict, if CCC are keen to pursue the reform agenda, they should admit the libel action was on behalf of CCC as a whole (which is unlawful), negotiate a token settlement with the Thompsons which would allow them to keep their home, and allow Mark James to move on to pastures new with a bit more dignity than his Pembrokeshire counterpart.

The libel cases, the bluster in the press and the defence of the indefensible – it wasn't worth it, was it?The political leadership of Carmarthenshire Council now face a critical choice.

On one hand, there's a chance to create a "New Model Council", and after all the mistakes they've made, Kevin Madge et. al. can restore some pride and gain respect by leading the reforms, and perhaps even going above and beyond the recommendations in the report.

On the other hand, CCC can dismiss the recommendations or take a "pic n' mix" approach, which after the positive feedback from the WLGA will result in them losing friends and credibility pretty quickly, and put a return of Dyfed firmly back on the table.

Based on their track record so far, I think you all know which way this is going to go....

Read More

Silk II : The Wrath of Paul

On Monday, the second and final part of a wide-ranging review into Welsh devolution was published by the Silk Commission – available here (pdf).

The first part looked at fiscal powers, culminating in the current Wales Bill. This second part, however, looked at the National Assembly itself and its devolved powers, as well as other issues like the Welsh civil service and cross-border cooperation.

It was difficult to decide how to approach this, so I decided to split it into one chunk looking at devolved powers, another at key powers taken off the table and another looking at changes to "the machinery of government" (civil service, the Assembly etc).

What further devolved powers does Silk II propose?

The headline proposals are to devolve policing and youth justice, though
without wider criminal justice powers at present.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

Policing – The headline recommendation, which includes crime prevention and community safety. Devolving the police would mean the National Assembly would have legislative competence for the "governance and administration" of the police in Wales – the only emergency service not currently devolved. Things like the National Crime Agency would remain non-devolved. In terms of funding, the current Home Office grant would transfer to Wales, with an estimate £2-3million bill to set up a specialist Welsh Government policing team. Policing should be devolved by 2017.

Youth Justice - This covers the "treatment and rehabilitation" of those aged 10-17 who commit criminal offences. Many of the factors here are intertwined with devolved and local government services like education, social services, training and health. So it's recommended administration of youth justice services be devolved by 2017, which would cost around £300,000.

Transport – There's a package of powers here, the big ones being devolution of Network Rail funding and the Wales & Borders rail franchise, which is what the Welsh Government and Enterprise and Business Committee have long called for. Also included is ports development, which is important for the economy. Elsewhere in public transport, there are proposals to devolve Traffic Commissioner functions as well as regulation of bus and taxi services. In terms of road transport, there's a recommendation to devolve speed limits and drink-drive limits – in line with what's happened in Scotland.

Energy Project Consent – Because the energy needs of Wales (a net-exporter of electricity) would be out of kilter with wider UK needs, the full devolution of energy consent was rejected – however the limit for the Welsh Government to consent to energy projects would be raised to 350MW from the current 50MW (more from A Welshman's Blog).

Water (Partial) – Powers over sewerage should be devolved, and the boundary for legislative competence should be aligned with the national borders, with a formal inter-government protocol on cross-border water issues.

Local government elections – Including their administration and rules of conduct. Technically speaking, the local government electoral system is devolved, but I imagine this recommendation includes that too.

Teachers' pay – In line with Scotland and Northern Ireland, however pensions devolution has been rejected as it would discourage cross-border movement of teachers between England and Wales. The Scottish and Northern Irish education systems are a bit more independent than the Welsh system anyway.

What devolved powers did Silk II reject?

The Commission rejected the devolution of broadcasting, but included
measures that will give the National Assembly an enhanced role.
(Pic :outcasting.org)

Criminal Justice (for now) – This includes the court system, prisons, legal aid, sentencing guidelines, public prosecution and probation services. The costs of creating a Welsh judiciary are much, much smaller than I was expecting - £2million – but the additional cost of a Welsh court system would be £10million. The Commission say the Assembly should instead start off with powers that impact the "day to day lives" of people (policing). So it's rejected now, along with prisons, but something that "should be contemplated in future", with a full review into devolution of criminal justice taking place between 2018-2025.

Further economic powers – The report rejects further devolution of economic powers. Amongst those proposed were DWP work programmes, consumer protection, regulation and inward investment. Instead, the report says there should be better cross-border coordination in policies which overlap (like training programmes).

The Crown Estate – Instead of transferring responsibility for the Crown Estate to Wales, its recommended Wales have similar status to Scotland, with an appointed Crown Estate Commissioner and Crown Estate office.

Broadcasting – As expected, and as I predicted back in September last year, devolution of broadcasting has been rejected due to opposition from both Welsh and UK governments. However, the National Assembly "should take an enhanced role in broadcasting" with a devolved governance body (Welsh BBC Trust), public funding for S4C should be devolved (which doesn't matter as it's moving to whole scale licence fee funding) and appointment of S4C Authority members should require Welsh Government approval. Ofcom should also have a board member with "specific responsibilities for Wales".

Social security – "Social welfare" is devolved to the National Assembly, that includes things like social services and child protection. Social security – aka. the benefits system – isn't, and isn't even devolved in Scotland or Northern Ireland. 46-51% of people polled believed the National Assembly should control the benefits system, however it's rejected because it's an important part of the social and economic union, and the Welsh Government were concerned about exposure to budgetary risks.

What does Silk II outline for the machinery of government?

In addition to reserved powers, by 2021 will this
be home to an 80-member Welsh Parliament?
(Pic : National Assembly of Wales)

Reserved powers – Arguments in favour of a reserved powers model are :

• Certainty in what powers the Assembly has, meaning they can "legislate with confidence".
• Schedule 7 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is "unclear", because the whole thing has to be consulted before laws are made, while it's obvious in a reserved powers model which powers are explicitly off the table.
• It would "be more stable over time", meaning no challenges to Welsh laws as we've seen in (currently) three cases. A reserved powers model would also reduce the risk of such litigation.
• It would "bring greater consistency" with the rest of the UK, as a reserved powers model is used in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
• It would enable the devolution settlement itself to be redrawn along "clearer and more logical principles" and it would be simpler.

Inter-governmental relations – Welsh and UK governments should share good practice, with a statutory code provided in a new Government of Wales Act. A Welsh-UK Government intergovernmental committee should be established with a new arbitration system for disagreements between the two governments.

The National Assembly itself – Some proposed solutions to the "scrutiny gap" and demands on AMs time have included "smarter working" (which I've covered before) adding co-opted unelected members to Assembly committees (as in local government) or the creation of a second chamber. However, the Commission say it's "convinced the Assembly requires more backbench members....to scrutinise policy and legislation more thoroughly." They therefore propose an increase in the number of AMs from 60 to 80 at a cost of approximately £5.3million. Don't cheer all at once.

Also, the (pseudo-colonial) right for the Welsh Secretary to participate in National Assembly sessions would be removed. The Assembly should also be able to regulate its own financial procedures with the door left open on a possible name change to "Welsh Parliament" – though I don't see the point, personally.

The National Assembly should also be recognised as "permanent" as long as it's the will of the  people of Wales.

The Civil Service & Civil Society – There are no proposals to "devolve" the civil service, and the Commission believe that the Welsh Government should continue to be staffed as part of the "Whitehall" civil service. UK Government departments should also be "clearer about the extent of their responsibilities for the different parts of the UK."

Timescales & The Referendum Question

The proposals will not only mean an increase in responsibilities,
but also an increase in the devolved budget.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

The big thing to note is that the Commission rejects holding a referendum on these extra powers (other than the proposed income tax powers as outlined in the Wales Bill). Instead, it should be a matter left for individual party manifestos in the 2015 UK Election and 2016 Welsh General Election.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that, for reasons I outlined in Marching out of lockstep.

Some of the proposals can be introduced without legislation, mainly those powers relating to improved inter-governmental working, or things that can be transferred by Orders in Council.

The other powers, and a reserved powers model, would require a new Government of Wales Act. A Bill would be published in autumn 2016 and enacted by summer 2017. If the Bill passes, then the National Assembly would have a reserved powers model following the 2021 Welsh General Election.

Full devolution of rail and policing would result in the devolved budget increasing by £500million, and full devolution of criminal justice would increase that to £800million. If you include the £300million "fair funding" then I guess that takes it to £1.1billion.

Conclusion : A golden mean?

The shelves must be creaking under the weight all these reports...and the dust.

(Pic : Click on Wales)

I'll come back to the political reaction when this is inevitably debated in the Senedd over the next couple of weeks/months.

Silk II has been argued in a logical, pragmatic manner. It's much better than Silk I and undoes a lot of the mess Peter Hain left in 2006. However, at the same time there's also very little on the table. The powers are similar to those devolved to Scotland under the Scotland Act 2012. Copy and paste, almost.

The question there is if Scotland votes no in September, and as a result acquires further devolved powers or devo-max, Wales will be left behind yet again when - based on this report - Wales is tantalisingly close to achieving parity with Scotland (if criminal justice powers were devolved in future).

A lot of the things have been mentioned so many times before – like devolution of the Wales & Borders franchise, policing, youth justice, reserved powers and teachers' pay – that it's a bit of a damp squib, albeit welcome.

It would've been exciting, and really made a difference to the National Assembly's standing, if we got criminal justice powers alongside that, but we'll have to wait until the 2020s if it's to happen. It's sensible for it to be reviewed thoroughly, but it seems like a largely unnecessary delay.

Having control over policing without criminal justice powers is a bit like like having control of the ambulance service without running hospitals.

Returning to the Assembly itself, it'll be hard to justify 80 AMs until after the devolution of criminal justice powers because those powers really will increase the workload for AMs above and beyond what they currently have. The current 60 should be able to cope with these powers (like policing, teachers pay etc.) as long as they find ways to – as the report puts it, and as myself and others have put it before – "work smarter".

So I'd say I'm neither blown away nor disappointed - it's pretty sensible on the whole. However, as history has shown us, the final versions of visions of grand commissions often end up watered-down. This is going to have to remain a whole package, as I don't think there's any room for compromise here that won't undermine its intent.

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

Bandits control the Wild West

Carmarthenshire folk don't take kindly to varmint auditors.
(Pic : via angelfire)

We've already seen Pembrokeshire Council's (PCC) Indians protect their chiefs - another round of that next week - but Carmarthenshire's cowboys and cowgirls (CCC) had an opportunity to restore natural order to their territory earlier this week.

The council instead hanged the sheriff by choosing to "note" – effectively reject - the Wales Audit Office (WAO) report into unlawful indemnity funding, whilst accepting they made mistakes on that and the pension payments – with nobody taking responsibility, naturally.

The broad message coming out of the meeting was identical to that of Pembrokeshire - "We haven't done anything wrong, but we won't do it again."

Y Byd ar Bedwar

Ahead of the meeting, S4C's Y Byd ar Bedwar provided a decent summing up of the issues in Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire (available here with English subtitles), with contributions from Carmarthen Planning's Jacqui Thompson and Y Cneifiwr. Both Mark James and Bryn Parry-Jones had an opportunity to put their side of the story across but turned it down.

Former Chair of CCC, Cllr. Sian Thomas (Plaid, Penygroes), said she "could see the erosion of democracy within the county council". Although it was her job to ensure councillors could have their say, she feared she would be corrected or overruled by the executive.

To put that in context, imagine if the head of the Welsh Government civil service attended meetings of the National Assembly, was looking over the shoulder of the Presiding Officer, telling her who should and shouldn't speak, for how long and on what basis.

Although it's standard practice for senior officers to attend council meetings, that's how bad things have been in Carmarthenshire for many years. But don't worry, because they're the best local authority in Wales.

"At the end-a the day...."

Outfits from Debenhams....
(Pic : lightmasterstudios.co.uk)

This was my first experience of Carmarthenshire Council live. You can watch it for yourself here.

After a failed attempt by Cllr. Emlyn Dole (Plaid, Llannon) to – under CCC's constitution – remove Tim Kerr QC from proceedings, it moved on to statements on behalf of the WAO and Tim Kerr himself.

The auditor, Anthony Barrett, said "the law is very clear" that no funding can be provided for a counterclaim, there were failures in governance and procedure, and he called on CCC to withdraw the indemnity.

Tim Kerr QC – not as cheery as he was in Pembrokeshire, this was Serious Tim – repeated the assertions in his November 2013 legal advice (covered here).

That being :

• the WAO doesn't have an authoritative voice in law.
• the Welsh Governments 2006 Order didn't remove powers to indemnify officers under Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972.
• CCC wasn't "a litigious council" because they were sued.
• there were no procedural flaws.

Cllr. Darren Price (Plaid, Gorslas) said officers failed to be cautious, adding that the public would expect someone earning £200k to fund legal proceedings themselves. He said guidance clearly prevents individuals undertaking legal proceedings,and that by ignoring it, CCC were questioning the legitimacy of Welsh Government. He posed the question - "Was it really worth it?"

Cllr. Sian Caiach (People First, Hengoed) argued that officers had been used as a proxy to undertake a libel case on behalf of the council through a legal loophole. This action undermined both free speech and the authority of the Welsh Government.

Council Leader, Kevin Madge (Lab, Garnant), tried to make a statement, but proceedings were interrupted as CCC invited Sunn O))) to perform an impromptu concert.

                              

After some bowel-loosening drone metal, he continued, saying he wanted to set up cross-party group to overview governance, led by the WLGA (aka. "Form a committee" - Welsh solution to everything).

Kevin was "appalled and disgusted by some of the things said about Mark James", and it was right - as an employer - to support him as part of their duty of care. The court judgement backed that decision, and only the courts can determine the interpretation of law with regard the legality of the indemnity.

Then the leader of the "Independents" - Cllr. Meryl Gravell (Ind, Trimsaran) – admonished the "disgraceful content on blogs", saying five defamatory blogs constituted "exceptional circumstances" (when it was later confirmed that "exceptional circumstances" has no clear cut definition and evolved from case law). She wagged fingers at people around the chamber, saying that it was all those who committed the grievous crime of speaking to the media who brought the council into disrepute.

Later, Cllr. Giles Morgan (Ind, Swiss Valley) – Martin Bell minus ethics – described the Thompson case as a "crusade against council officers", saying people who talk about the council as if they're down the pub are "reprehensible" (unless they're actually down the pub, I presume - or is that where CCCs lawyers are heading next?).

Though Giles did accept that Mark James should've left the meeting. Which....would render the process unlawful on its own. Which means having to accept the WAO report.

An impassioned speech from Cllr. Glynog Davies (Plaid, Quarter Bach) said the "plain English" guidance cautioned against awarding the indemnity and bans using funds to undertake a claim. The Executive Board say they didn't get independent legal advice because of their "knowledge of the blogger", and he asked whether the decision was morally correct?  Cllr. Linda Evans (Plaid, Llanfihangel-ar-Arth) asked if advice from the barrister representing Mark James – Adam Speker – counted as "independent advice"?

The answer to both questions was, of course, "yes".

CCC moved to "note" the report, suspend part of constitution relating to indemnity funding, and called for Welsh Government to clarify the law. As a result, there's an outside chance the WAO could take the council to the High Court.

The pensions and no-confidence debates were staid. However, it was broadly accepted CCC got things wrong - even by Meryl Gravell.

Cllr. Anthony Jones (Lab, Llandybie) said senior executive pay was "out of kilter" and immoral, calling for the Welsh Government to intervene and issue clear guidance. It's worth pointing out that the National Assembly's Public Accounts Committee are undertaking an inquiry into senior management pay.

Kevin Madge's broad defence was, "I was doing it all in good faith."

The no-confidence debate had something to do with bungalows and Debenhams. Also, it included one of the most bizarre statements I've ever heard - that Carmarthenshire was "unscathed by the recession". This report from the Wales Rural Obervatory (pdf) – sorry, Jac – indicates otherwise, with Carmarthenshire suffering relatively badly compared to other rural authorities.

Although the mother hens of the Independents looked as though they were "Waiting until Great Birham Wood to high Dunsinane Hill shall come against him", Kevin Madge et. al - as expected - saw off the no-confidence vote comfortably.

Plaid left with their tail tucked between their legs having "stood up for taxpayers", Labour-"Independents" rallied behind themselves, but ultimately CCC remains led by someone who can't command gravitas however decent, if misguided, a bloke he comes across as.

"Where seldom is heard a discouraging word"....

Mark James wasn't there in person, but he was in spirit.
(Pic : via photobucket)

Considering the finer points of law and statute, it's clear neither CCC or PCC did anything that was explicitly prohibited. Neither did Caerphilly Council either.

When you weigh up the sums of money involved, the lack of any reimbursement, disregard for normal procedure, the bloody mindedness of both authorities in the face of public criticism and most importantly of all - basic morality - they're guilty as sin. That often counts for more.

The reason Carmarthenshire has gone so far down this road is because small mistakes haven't been acknowledged properly or corrected, officers and senior councillors come to think they're always in the right, then the mistakes get bigger and bigger and bigger - what Pat Dodd Racher described on West Wales News Review as "a bubble of self-congratulation".

CCC had a golden opportunity to start its healing process by taking full accountability for what they did, but they fluffed the test.

If those at the top had done the decent thing and resigned, still co-operating with any cross-party investigation into procedures at the council, that would've been praiseworthy and honourable.

Instead, far from drawing a line under the matter, I suspect they've just made things worse.

If Gloucestershire Police and CPS decide there's a criminal case to go forward, CCC have just done something monumentally stupid. I'd also be surprised if Carmarthenshire survives local government reorganisation now, because they've publicly undermined the Welsh Government's authority.

We're talking about one of the largest local authorities in Wales effectively slipping into administrative anarchy by forming their own interpretation of Welsh Government guidance and orders, even when it's been made crystal clear that what CCC has done was contrary to them.

They've made AMs and MPs from all parties look like chumps. They blatantly disrespected Anthony Barrett and the Wales Audit Office. They've spat in Lesley Griffiths' coffee, farted in Carl Sargeant's face and kicked Carwyn Jones in the balls. They've made the National Assembly look like muscleless wonders and left a flaming bag of dog poo on the steps of Cathays Park.

The Welsh Government can either restore good order themselves by sending in more sheriffs, or they can let it go, giving other local authorities in Wales a green light to try the same thing in future.

Read More

The Stench of the Cleddau

An otherwise productive meeting of Pembrokeshire Council on the damaging
Wales Audit Office reports descended into an unedifying farce.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

As much of the focus regarding the recent Wales Audit Office reports into unlawful payments has been on Carmarthenshire – due to culminate next week - it's only fair I turn my attentions to their equally-ripe neighbour, Pembrokeshire Council (PCC), which held an extraordinary council meeting to discuss unlawful pension payments to their chief executive and one other senior officer last Friday.

Extensive coverage of the goings on there has been provided by Cllr. Jacob Williams (Non-affiliated Ind, East Williamston) and Cllr. Mike Stoddart (Non-affiliated Ind, Milford Hakin).

Auditor Anthony Barrett's findings (pdf) were very similar to those in Carmarthenshire – which is unsurprising as it was effectively a joint-arrangement. The main difference is the numbers involved and some of the titles of the relevant committees. Pembrokeshire also didn't have any libel indemnity issues.

• The agreement to pay cash sums instead of pension payments to senior staff who opted-out of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) - to mitigate effects of changes to tax relief on pensions - was ultra vires (beyond their power).
• The Senior Staff Committee failed to take into account all relevant considerations. They also failed to provide evidence that supported their claims that not approving the cash payments would prevent the recruitment of high-calibre senior staff. The Committee made a decision based off a one page report, which was exempt from publication.
• They also failed to take equalities duties into account, and the decision "constituted indirect discrimination" on age and sex grounds because senior staff – mostly older men – would benefit disproportionately from the cash payments compared younger staff and women. As nobody complained within the legal timescale, it was "indirect" discrimination rather than outright (same as Carmarthenshire).
• The report itself was drafted and presented by two senior officers who had disqualifying personal interests as they could've benefited from the cash payments – rendering it an unlawful decision just by their mere presence.
• Despite claims to the contrary, the payments would have constituted an additional cost to the council based on future actuarial/risk assessments and changes to national insurance contributions. The auditor says the figures were also different to those the Senior Staff Committee decided upon.
• PCC's Chief Executive, Bryn Parry-Jones, had received £51,011 in payments across 2012-13 and 2013-14. I understand the report implies £28,742 was also paid to an unnamed senior member of staff.

I was home at the time so I caught most of the second half of the meeting. OK, it wasn't the most riveting thing to watch, but it was conducted impressively. Councillors were given the freedom to speak as long as they wanted – often making great contributions – and the chair didn't dominate proceedings.

Hopefully, Bridgend Council will be joining them later this year. It underlines the importance of broadcasting these meetings – as will become more apparent later on.

PCC accepted all four of the Wales Audit Office recommendations, meaning the council will :

• Stop the payments in lieu of pension contributions.
• Address procedural weaknesses to avoid a repeat.
• Ensure that any similar future payments (if possible) are in line with the decision taken by the Senior Staff Committee.
• Disclose the payments in their 2012-13 financial statement, and the committee responsible should re-approve the accounts.

Then things took a bizarre, sinister turn.

The leader of the opposition in the council, Cllr. Paul Miller (Lab, Neyland West), had tabled a motion calling for PCC to suspend Bryn Parry-Jones on full pay due to the Gloucestershire Police investigation. This is a very different tact to the Labour leader a few miles east.

As you probably know, since then, Carmarthenshire's chief executive Mark James has temporarily stood down while the police investigation continues. Although it's unclear what "stepping down" means as opposed to a formal suspension, he really should've done so days after the original reports were published – for his own sake, really.

Better late than never. The delay deserves criticism, but he's innocent until proven otherwise.

PCC's ruling "Independent" Group, however, were going to defend their man to the end, and boy does he know it.

In a display of pompous bluster, one of the "Independents" stood up, said he had a prejudicial interest as he had called for the chief executive to remain in post in the Western Telegraph, and withdrew from the meeting hoping to take a large chunk of the opposition with him as some sort of matter of honour.

He later snuck back in and withdrew again, each time accompanied by a dramatic closing of his file.

Tim Kerr QC – a name which should be familiar – revealed that a brown white envelope containing newspaper cuttings was left for him in the chauffeur-driven car that picked him up at Port Talbot station. Those local newspaper cuttings contained quotes from councillors who called for Bryn Parry-Jones's suspension.

After pressing from councillors to name names, he began "readink names from ze list". Lo and behold, almost all of them were councillors who had called for the chief executive to be suspended or resign, whether Labour, Plaid or non-affiliated Independents.

Councillors are supposed to vote with an open mind. So proceedings hinged on whether councillors were predispositioned (leaning towards a decision) or predetermined (100% made their mind up) in their voting intentions.

If they were predetermined, and voted that way on the motion, it was implied they would breach the Code of Conduct and be subject to an Ombudsman investigation.

Cllr. Miller said he received legal advice from Welsh Labour's retained lawyers that his group's statements were predispositions and so his group would remain.

However, Tim Kerr believed many of the newspaper quotes constituted predetermination. It's also worth pointing out that the envelope was left by Pembrokeshire's Monitoring Officer (a senior legal officer and paid member of staff).

Not willing to be subject to their own misconduct investigations, most – but not all – of the opposition councillors withdrew part in protest, part because they had no choice. As a result, the motion calling for the suspension of the chief executive was withdrawn.

However, as Caebrwyn pointed out yesterday, the official guidance within the Localism Act 2011 on predetermination (which applies to Wales as well as England) doesn't prohibit councillors from voting even if they've made public statements supporting a particular position.

So it looks like what happened in Pembrokeshire was a dirty trick and attempt to intimidate.

And, most importantly of all, it happened all on camera.

What should cause bums to squeak across the south west of Wales however, is the news that's broken in the last few hours that Caerphilly Council's former chief executive, Anthony O'Sullivan, and his deputy, Nigel Barnett, have been formally charged with misconduct in public office....having been brought to that point by similar, but not identical, circumstances to those in Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire.

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