Cardiff-Swansea electrification zapped by UK Government

Rail electrification between Cardiff & Swansea (including Bridgend) was promised by a Conservative-led government in 2012. Five years later they've scrapped it.

I'm not surprised as we've been softened up for this news. It's happened the same week the first round of contracts (worth £6.6billion) for the (estimated) £56billion High Speed 2 project in England – to which Wales will be paying our share of at least £2.7billion – were announced.

The Welsh Secretary, Alun Cairns, slimed his way through the issue earlier this week by talking up the benefits of the new trains. You know what contempt rail passengers are held in when the replacement of 40+-year-old trains that are frequently overcrowded during rush hour is seen as a gift instead of a basic necessity.

Alun clearly knew what was coming, but there's been dishonesty and shadow playing on this from the start. Extending electrification from Cardiff to Swansea is something the Conservatives were reluctantly talked into by the Lib Dems in 2012. They've never really wanted to do it, having wrangled over who was going to pay for it and dragging their feet. It was even omitted from their 2017 manifesto, which should've set alarm bells ringing.

The English transport secretary, Chris Grayling (who also has responsibility for rail infrastructure in Wales), argues the benefits of electrification can be delivered with the new Hitachi intercity express trains, coming into service in south Wales later this year. Fortunately, the new trains are both electric and diesel powered meaning they can run on tracks without overhead lines.

This also means they're more expensive to build, heavier, more things can go wrong with them, are less environmentally-friendly and noisier. That means higher maintenance costs for the track, inefficient engines, no real difference in journey times between Swansea and Cardiff, as much noise as today....it's almost as if there'll be absolutely no difference to things as they are now.

It's a typical solution of a government, party and nation-state that does everything by spreadsheets, divorced from both how things work on the ground and long-term thinking.

Hitachi has built a new maintenance facility in Swansea for the new trains. If you've gone past it recently you will have noticed it's come complete with the infrastructure for overhead power lines. They're going to get rusty.

Electrification between Cardiff and London is still going ahead, but you've got to wonder – with the current state the UK Government's in – what other plans they have in store for us. As Prof. Stuart Cole has argued, this project can't simply be restarted if the expertise and resources are moved. If it's scrapped now it's unlikely anything will happen for a long time; in 15-20 years when we're still talking about this we'll wonder, "Why didn't we do something back in the 2010s?"

I suppose the only question is why has it been scrapped?

We haven't been told because the Conservatives know we won't like the answer: the money and resources for electrifying Cardiff-Swansea are needed in England.

The budget for current electrification work has over-run and if the UK Government are going to deliver pledges in parts of England, "less important" projects need to be ditched.

On an EnglandandWales scale, this is an easy to write-off project between two small provincial cities and should be placed behind the likes of Bath, Liverpool and Manchester. It also means some English cities miss out, like Nottingham and Sheffield - so it's not just Wales being left behind.

At a Welsh level, it's about providing electrified rail services between the capital, one of the most important industrial centres (Neath Port Talbot & Bridgend) and the country's second and third largest cities (Swansea & Newport respectively), as well as being a springboard for electrification in north Wales. Westminster doesn't see this.

Wales has about 6% of the UK's rail network, yet receives around 1-1.5% of Network Rail funding. Scotland gets a population-based share because rail infrastructure is devolved. It isn't devolved here because if Wales received a ring-fenced 4.9% share of UK rail spending, it would mean less money to spend in England London.

As they've significantly underestimated the costs involved, yet again Network Rail's bungling will hamper a major infrastructure project in Wales. It doesn't bode well for the new Wales & Borders rail franchise, Metro, north Wales electrification and pretty much any significant project you can think of either.

Network Rail is really good at putting new shelters in stations, painting lines, fixing bridges and installing new signalling, but beyond that, they're not looking fit for purpose when it comes to running Welsh railways.

The first rule of politics is "Don't make promises you can't keep", but that doesn't seem to apply here. So we've been lied to and let down again. The most depressing thing is you know we're going to sit back and take it because we've got no cards to play and we're used to it.

I can't wait to see what happens with the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon! Fingers crossed!

Read More

FMQs: Aid, Air & Dogs

After last weekend's “excitement” I was hoping to return to normality. Plaid's Assembly Group have dealt with the issue in a refreshingly swift and professional manner even if – despite what I wrote on Sunday - a suspension seems too strong. As far as I'm concerned the matter's closed.

Read More

FMQs: Trains, Schools & Fraud

The big story is the Supreme Court's ruling that the UK Parliament must vote to start the Brexit process (“activate Article 50”) instead of it being left to the UK Government.

Read More

The Great Cardiff Airport Swindle?

Were the Welsh Government diddled when they nationalised Cardiff Airport in 2013?
(Pic : Wales Online)

As others have said, the Welsh Government's reputation when it comes to spending public money has taken a big hit over the last few days, and brings what I said in Wales reacts to steel job cuts all the more into focus:

Read More

A Mayor for Cardiff?

Should Cardiff have a directly-elected mayor?
(Pic : Cardiff City Hall)

It's a question that could be put to electors in the capital if a new campaign succeeds in getting the right number of signatures to trigger a local referendum on the issue.

Read More

Making the Metro

(Pic : BBC Wales)

At the end of November the Welsh Government launched the first publicity campaign for the proposed South Wales Metro after the project was given a firm go ahead earlier in 2015 (Metro a Go Go).

Read More

Westminster 2015 : The Welsh Battlegrounds

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

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

Read More

Westminster 2015 : The Key Issues in Wales

What are likely to be the main issues for Welsh voters?
(Pic : Click on Wales)

The first debate's out of the way, I've given my verdict on the Coalition and the manifestos are going to be released over the next few weeks (I'll look at them in more detail once their all out, though UKIP are dragging their heels by the looks of it) - which means it's time to focus on some of the issues that might be fought over in Wales.

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

Why are Welsh ambulance response times so poor?

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

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

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

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

Where are the problems?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What might the problems be?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the Welsh Government doing about it?
                                  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

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

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

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

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

The Committee's summarised recommendations were that :

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

Background & Current Performance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Contract

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Future of the Air-Link

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

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

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

A bit of afters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

Williams Commission : The Fallout

What's long been seen as a no-brainer reorganisation increasingly
looks like it's going to cause the Welsh Government headaches.
(Pic : Wales Online)

Yesterday, the National Assembly held the first of what's likely to be many debates on the Williams Commission report – which I covered last week - into the future of public service delivery, and possible reorganisation of Welsh local authorities.

It's only part of the public discussion that's continuing into the report's recommendations, and it's certainly generated several talking points.

The Assembly

Although most AMs who spoke did so in favour of change, it looks like the Welsh
Government will have trouble convincing their own AMs, let alone the opposition.
(Pic : National Assembly)

The debate started with the First Minister, who said some of the Commission's findings will make "uncomfortable reading for local government, for us (AMs) and for other public services in Wales." He emphasised that the report underlined that delivery was patchy in addition specific problems with long-term finance *insert obligatory Westminster cuts reference here* .

He said the report was "never just about mergers in local government" but believes this reorganisation "will be different" (compared to 1996). As Welsh Labour leader he says his party will be consulted on the proposals and a Welsh Government stance will be reached by the end of March. Though he later said "the time frame for....potential legislation" needs to be in place by April.

Shadow Local Government Minister, Janet Finch-Saunders (Con, Aberconwy), criticised the timetable, and although she welcomed the Commission itself, called for strong leadership from the First Minister to see it though. She raised concerns about uncertainty facing local government workers.

Plaid Cymru Leader, Leanne Wood (Plaid, South Wales Central), welcomed the wider work into public service delivery, even though the debate had focused on "lines on maps". She wondered why the debate was held "now" instead of on a cross-party motion that would have the backing of Welsh Government and Assembly. She said reforms "must....aim to improve public services" and that the last reorganisation was "built on whole scale horse-trading" that mustn't be repeated.

The Lib Dems Local Government spokesperson, Peter Black AM (Lib Dem, South Wales West), dismissed the idea that the report's recommendations "should be accepted wholesale", and criticised the fact there was no (political) representation of opposition parties on the Commission (there were, however, members closely associated with parties, like Nerys Evans and Nick Bourne).

He believed the terms of reference were flawed, highlighting that it didn't look at health or the local government voting system. He also criticised the language of the report – "a bureaucratic nightmare written in consultant speak".

Lynne Neagle AM (Lab, Torfaen) rejected the idea of "tinkering with the electoral system". Although she accepted change, she believed concerns about the cost of reorganisation should be listened to, and the Assembly was "rushing headlong into (reorganisation)....in order to meet an arbitrary Easter deadline for which there appears no rational explanation ".

Russell George AM (Con, Montgomery) raised concerns about the specific proposal to merge Powys Council with Powys Health Board due to some services being commissioned from neighbouring health boards.

Leighton Andrews AM (Lab, Rhondda) said he was sympathetic to the Commission's recommendations, unsurprisingly making the link between scale and education failures. Although he agrees with the need for "smaller, stronger councils", he believes the role of local government wasn't explored in enough detail, neither were alternative forms of service delivery.

His comments were partly echoed by Mick Antoniw AM (Lab, Pontypridd), who also questioned the wisdom of merging two poor local authorities (RCT + Merthyr) and said the role of community councils needed to be discussed.

Rhodri Glyn Thomas AM (Plaid, Carms E & Dinefwr), said the First Minister's statement was "contradictory" because he expects the opposition to respond to the report without himself offering a response on behalf of the Welsh Government.

In his closing remarks, the First Minister rejected Peter Black's assertion that opposition parties were being "forced to back" the Commission's report, and instead believed AMs would've wanted to debate the issue early. He said it was "preposterous" there were 22 planning authorities, local education authorities etc. wondering if one or two of the LEAs "would ever come out of special measures".

He agreed with Leanne Wood that there shouldn't be any "horse-trading" on wards, boundaries etc. saying it might cause the process to unravel.

The First Minister finished by warning AMs that the longer the process continued the more uncertainty it could cause local authorities, especially in recruiting senior officers.

When it came to a vote on the motion and amendments, AMs - except those from Plaid and the Lib Dems - rejected the idea of changing the local election voting system. However, they supported an amendment calling for a reduction in the number of local councillors.

Too Soon?

Although there were Q&As in previous sessions, the fact they held the debate just over a week after the report's publication is unusual. Plenary debates on committee reports, for example, are usually up to a month after publication. This was significantly more complicated than anything that's come out of an Assembly committee.

Maybe Carwyn Jones though he was doing AMs a favour by offering an early debate, and he hints at that. However, I would be surprised if AMs and their support staff made it through the full report and fully-digested it to the levels expected of a professional legislator this soon.

Before I'm accused of hypocrisy, I can base blog posts off the summary because I'm not paid large sums of money to go through it line by line. I'm "allowed" to miss bits and pieces here and there because I don't have any credentials or responsibilities. AMs can't.

As a result, it'll take some convincing for me to believe this was a fully-informed debate, and it looks like an attempt to rush things.

Local Government & Public Bodies

It appears local authorities are waiting for the Welsh Government
to make the first move, though support for reform appears lukewarm.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

Many of the current 22 local authorities are – as far as I can tell – still "digesting the full report" (or using it for post-digestion purposes) which makes the Assembly debate timing even odder.

The broad vibe I'm getting is that they "cautiously welcome" some but not all headline recommendations, and are waiting for the Welsh Government to make a formal response.

I know Bridgend Council circulated statements to reassure staff that the reorganisation process is at an early stage (English : No jobs are currently under threat). I'm sure other local authorities have done the same.

Some immediate concerns have been flagged up. Vale of Glamorgan Council Leader, Neil Moore (Labour), pleaded to the Welsh Government not to merge his authority with Cardiff. Ceredigion Council's Leader, Ellen ap Gwynn (Plaid), questioned the Easter deadline, while her Chief Executive expressed concerns about insecurity amongst workers.

On Monday, the Daily Post reported a campaign's been started for Anglesey (I don't know if its by Paul "The Druid" Williams) to remain apart from Gwynedd due to concerns about a possible Bangor-centric local authority, with Rhun ap Iorwerth AM (Plaid, Ynys Môn) calling for "local voices to be heard".

The WLGA are also "digesting the report", but judging by their evidence to the Commission, there are strong signs the WLGA might oppose full-blown mergers on cost grounds, instead seeking more formal collaboration between the current authorities.

As far as I can tell there hasn't yet been any formal response from fire authorities, national parks, police forces or local health boards – all of which could be affected by the Commission's proposals too.

The Bay Bubble

Most of the civil society responses have come via Click on Wales.

First off, there's an article from former Cardiff Council Conservative leader, John Winterson Richards, which called for better leadership not better structures. He believes the Welsh Government and Assembly haven't applied enough pressure on councils, leading to entrenched poor leadership, which he partly blames on Labour's hegemony. He's not the first to question the reported financial savings from reorganisation either.

The Electoral Reform Society's Stephen Brooks summarises a series of articles from AMs, local government and academics – Catch 22 (pdf). He wonders if proposed reorganisations might reduce local democracy, as larger authorities might be too distant from their communities. He effectively questions if local government is 100% trusted to deliver certain services, and that a centralising technocracy has developed in Cathays Park since devolution.

John Osmond offered a comprehensive summary of the Commission report itself. This was followed by a Gareth Hughes article, which questioned whether the process will be completed before 2018, due to big political differences in the Assembly about the way forward.

Next, there was an article from director of Co-production Wales, Ruth Dineen. I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person, and I'm more than used to jargon in the sciences. I've often believed it's harder to describe complicated issues in layman's terms than through public sector management-speak. Though if I'm completely honest I barely understood a word of it and wonder if it (and a few of the responses) was a subtle satire of the Commission report itself.

I think what Ruth was trying to say was that there's an opportunity to rethink how local services are provided. Users and other members of the community could volunteer to run and design local government services alongside professionals. That's "radically different" to what we're used to, and a model used in places like The Netherlands and closer to home via things like timebanks.

Elsewhere, there's an article from Phil Parry's ITK (to use footballing terms), Daran Hill, on Wales Eye which further explores some of the political machinations. We all realise Labour are probably in for a tough time from their local government ranks, and that the Conservatives are almost certainly going to oppose reorganisation if it's not proven to save money in the long run. Daran believes that Labour could reach an accommodation with Plaid (or the Lib Dems), but it's likely to come down to the issue of the voting system.

ITV Wales' Adrian Masters says there are tentative steps towards some sort of deal, with talk of meetings between the First Minister and the opposition party leaders being arranged for next week - again Adrian says a deal might hang on proportional representation.

On the subject of voting systems, over on the Elections in Wales blog, Prof. Roger Scully described the current method of electing local councillors as a candidate for "The Worst Electoral System in the World". He says the chance to change the electoral system at local government level would be a "valuable reform", giving a nudge and a wink towards Single Transferable Vote (STV) - as used in Scotland.

Last but not least, former Bridgend Council leader, Jeff Jones, launched a broadside at the Commission and its proposals in The Western Mail. He described the recommendations as a "quick fix solution" that would create local authorities with entrenched economic under-performance (like the proposal for the Gwent Valleys) and lead to big redundancy pay outs for senior officers.

It's 11 weeks or so until Easter, the deadline suddenly looming an awful lot closer.

Read More

New law to rein in abandoned horses

A lovely horse, and some not so lovely horses.
The Welsh Government are cracking down on illegal fly-grazing via a new law

There've been instances across Wales of horses being left to fly graze on public land or farmland illegally, and for some time, the Welsh Government have wanted to clamp down on abandoned horses.

Bridgend and the Vale of Glamorgan are, in fact, picked out as "hot spots" for fly-grazing.

In 2011, more than 250 stray horses and ponies rampaged around Laleston and Coity, some managing to get onto the M4. In 2012, stray horses in the Bryntirion area of Bridgend took over playing fields and invaded both the local secondary school and people's gardens. Byron Davies AM (Con, South Wales West) has also raised concerns about ~200 abandoned horses in the Gower.

Horses can be temperamental, so can be dangerous to anyone who isn't used to handling them. It's usually the fire service and police who deal with the horses themselves, but local authorities have complained that the powers they currently have are "inadequate to enable them to tackle the issue."

In response, last week Natural Resources and Food Minister Alun Davies (Lab, Blaenau Gwent) introduced the Control of Horses Bill to the National Assembly.

A bit of controversy

Once again, the Welsh Government have sped up legislation, this time bypassing the first committee stage, which usually includes evidence from interested outside parties and experts. The Bill's fairly short and easy to understand so I don't think they're trying to pull a fast one, but you've got to wonder if the Welsh Government are starting to bypass legislative stages out of habit.

Ironically, Welsh Conservative leader - and farmer - Andrew Davies (Con, South Wales Central), might've provided the impetus by suggesting in previous debates that a fly-grazing law "could be required this winter" if it's harsh enough to put animals at risk. He believed the Welsh Government should "reach out to opposition parties to try to instigate a speedy passage of the Bill".

So they did, and the minister says he received concrete cross-party for it. That's the clear party political view, but - putting aside unrelated criticism of Alun Davies over the last 48 hours for a moment - it's not the view shared by the Assembly's committees.

Respective chairs of the Environment & Sustainability and Finance Committees - Dafydd Elis Thomas AM (Plaid, Dwyfor Meirionnydd) and Jocelyn Davies AM (Plaid, South Wales East) - criticised the decision at some length during the first debate on Tuesday.

Simon Thomas AM (Plaid, Mid & West Wales) - speaking on behalf of the Constitutional & Legislative Affairs Committee - said they didn't have a chance to scrutinise the legislation beforehand and that the committee "didn't like working this way."

A William Graham AM (Con, South Wales East) amendment to the debate motion "regretting" the decision to bypass the first committee stage failed to pass by just two votes.

What the law intends to do

The law covers "all equine animals".
(Pic : zoochat.com)

Bill here (pdf), explanatory memorandum here (pdf).

The Bill :

• Gives local authorities the power to seize, impound and dispose of horses which are either :
• On highways or in public places without lawful authority
• On land without the consent of the landowner/occupier ("landowner" includes local authorities themselves)
• Places statutory duties on local authorities to:

• Give written notice at the point of seizure and to the police within 24 hours.
• Take reasonable steps to find the horse(s) owner and inform them in writing within 7 days of seizure.
• Keep a public register of all horse seizures.

• Will mean horse owners are liable for the costs of any seizure of horses under this law, and the local authority won't be obliged to return a horse until payment has been received in full.
• Will mean if the horse owner, or someone on their behalf, hasn't been found/come forward with 7 days, local authorities have the power to arrange for the "disposal" of the horse, including euthanasia.
• Outlines that if money made from disposal falls short of the costs of seizure then the owner will be liable to make up the difference, but also if the disposal exceeds costs of seizure then the local authority will be required to pay the owner the difference.
• Places a duty on Welsh Ministers to draft regulations for an appeals process.
• Repeals/supersedes clauses relating to wild horses in previous local government legislation.

"Horse" for the purpose of the Bill is defined as a horse, donkey, pony, mule, hinny (whatever one of those is) and "any other equine animals". Zebras of Wales - not just the Treorchy kind - have been put on notice then, while somewhere there's a zoologist crying.

I know I'm talking theoretically here, but you can imagine what the public reaction might be if a zebra escaped from a travelling circus, zoo or sanctuary, wasn't recovered in time, and was (somehow) set to be put down under this law.

The Assembly's Finance Committee have asked for updated estimates of how many horses the Welsh Government would expect to be destroyed should the Bill become law. It's also said in the explanatory memorandum that the law will be reviewed two years, or sooner, after it becomes law.

What the law means

The explanatory memorandum says the Bill has been welcomed by animal welfare organisations and equine societies such as RSPCA, Redwings and Blue Cross,  who've seen sharp increases in the number of horses seeking re-homing or being abandoned.

The overriding goal of the law is clear cut, and it's obvious the Welsh Government are getting tough with fly-grazers.

Horse owners would have a week to reclaim their horse(s) if seized by a local authority. If not, the horse will either end up re-homed or in a knacker's yard, with the owner facing a hefty bill for their trouble.

7 days might seem harsh – previous limits were 14 days - and it was raised by Joyce Watson AM (Lab, Mid & West Wales) in the Environment & Sustainability Committee, while Julie Morgan AM (Lab, Cardiff North) had concerns about the potential impact on gypsies and travellers.

You've also got to wonder if disposal is the best solution, when compulsory microchipping of horses - in the same manner as dogs - might be better in the long-term.

Alun Davies told the committee he would expect "any responsible horse owners to check their horses on a daily basis". Negligent horse owners might have also seen the old limit as 14 days of free food for their horse(s) at the expense of someone else's land.

Some existing laws – like the Animals Act 1971 and Animal Welfare Act 2006 – place duties on owners to ensure the welfare of animals they own, and gives landowners the power to detain livestock that stray onto their land. Legislation specific to some old counties of Wales also granted local authorities the power to seize stray animals, however those provisions don't cover the whole of Wales, while the Control of Horses Bill will.

A similar, but significantly more extensive, law was passed in the Republic of Ireland in 1996. I think it perfectly highlights the difference between the sovereign powers an independent nation has and devolution.

The current cost of fly-grazing to the police, RSPCA, councils, equine societies and fire service is said to be a cumulative £1.2million a year.

The average cost – citing examples in Bridgend and Vale of Glamorgan – of a horse seizure is around £500 per horse, while other local authorities like Swansea say the costs are between £1,000 and £1,500 per horse.

The costs of the proposed law are mixed. Some local authorities operating under the local laws mentioned above will already carry out some of the functions outlined in this proposed Bill, so it won't cost them anything. For the rest, it might cost around £600 per horse.

To put things in perspective, Bridgend, Vale of Glamorgan and Swansea impounded 154 horses in 2012 alone – which is much higher than I had expected, working out at almost three horses a week.

At national level, a contract for secure accommodation for seized horses would cost around £450,000 to set up, and £300,000 per year afterwards. It'll cost the Welsh Government £11,000 to issue the appropriate statutory guidance.

I'd also propose another, less politically correct, solution to the problem:

         

I don't understand why people are squeamish about eating horse meat. It's eaten across Asia and mainland Europe – especially France, Italy, and northern Europe - we have loads of them, it's better for the environment as horses fart less methane than cows and they're all free range. It's also completely legal, just unfashionable.

It might encourage those thinking of abandoning their horses to sell them instead. You have to wonder if there would be a market for Welsh boucheries chevalines.

Read More

The deal's done - so what next for Cardiff Airport?

I could've commented on this when Carwyn Jones made the original announcement back in December. I doubt he would've made that announcement unless an agreement was inevitable at the time, but it was worth waiting until the deal to buy Cardiff Airport was announced properly, which happened last week.

First thing's first, Cardiff Airport is important to Cardiff and its environs alone. As our capital, we should expect it to have decent air links – especially to be taken seriously for business. But this isn't economically essential for "Wales". North Wales has Liverpool and Manchester, mid Wales has Birmingham, while the far south east of Wales is probably within Bristol's catchment area anyway. Cardiff's catchment area should be everything west of Monmouthshire and south of Builth Wells – probably around 1.5-2million people.

I've touched on some of the issues surrounding Cardiff Airport and its future before, but let's be clear, once passenger figures start to reach 700,000-800,000 levels – which is entirely possible in the next 5 years based on the trends – there's a real possibility the whole thing could become so commercially unviable that closure could be an option. Something has to be done.

As far as I'm concerned this was the right decision. I'm pleased that the Welsh Government have taken some concerted and decisive action for once.

I can understand why the Tories are getting their knickers in a twist over this, as they're ideologically opposed to public ownership of anything, even if the airport will be "run commercially".

I'm also opposed to public ownership of things like airports, but I'm not opposed to public-private partnerships, not-for-profits or co-operative models of ownership and management. Sometimes that can be done completely within the private sector, sometimes – especially in the case of Wales - the state needs to help things along.

My biggest concern surrounds the Welsh Government hiding behind that old "commercial sensitivity/confidentiality" chestnut when questions were asked about this deal in the Senedd. When they finally revealed the numbers involved last week, my enthusiasm for this started to ebb.

I'm not a property expert or surveyor, but £52million seems a steep price tag for an airport that's barely keeping its annual passenger figures above the 1million mark. If I had to guess, I would've put the valuation at perhaps a half to two-thirds that.

Sion Barry also had a rather....optimistic....take on this in the Western Mail. I doubt Severnside airport is a goer now, and he seems to have ignored the presence of British Airways Maintenance, which is probably more important to the south Wales economy than the airport is.

Like it or not, it's done now. So what are the Welsh Government and the holding company put in charge of the airport going to do next?

Opportunities and threats

Cardiff's major trump card over Bristol is the length of its runway, which can accommodate larger aircraft, especially those used on long-haul flights. Air passenger duty for long haul flights could be devolved to Wales in the next million years, so there's a clear opportunity there to attract long haul flights to Cardiff.

That could take pressure off the London airports, with Cardiff Airport effectively acting as a mini "Heathrow West". That could expand Cardiff's catchment area, as well as save fuel for aircraft travelling from North, Central and South America, perhaps Australasia too (via Los Angeles).

Bristol might end up taking more "bucket and spade" short haul European flights as a result, but Cardiff should try and retain/attract some economically important air links to major European capitals. That might require a greater mix of airlines using the airport, and that was one of the first things the new chair pointed towards. I presume that's what Carwyn Jones and Edwina Hart have in mind too.

I think worries around transport - especially road transport - are overblown. People drive from the valleys to Bristol Airport because Bristol offers more choice in terms of flights and destinations. It certainly isn't easier to get to than Cardiff, and I think it's a lazy excuse so people can get around coming out and saying "Cardiff Airport is rubbish" to avoid appearing unpatriotic. That's no reason to ignore transport issues though.

Cardiff Airport - or should that be Rhoose village - already has a railway station, but it's about 2km from the terminal itself. There have been mooted proposals for a direct rail link to the airport terminal, but it's meeting opposition.

If that did happen, then I think there would need to be significant improvements from the west – that means train services to/from Swansea and west Wales being able to use the airport station. That would require significant junction/capacity improvements at Bridgend though, which aren't part of any Network Rail or Welsh Government plans.

The Welsh Government and civil service are very good at underpinning their plans with extensive - perhaps over the top - strategies and frameworks. Delivery is a whole other matter.

I'm starting to get worried, as there was – as the new chair has strongly hinted – no concrete business plan for the airport in place when the Welsh Government bought it. They're working on that now.

The Tories and Bristol Airport are going to whinge about this forever and a day. I'm actually surprised at the Conservative's stance on this, as it seems they'd be quite happy to let Cardiff Airport fall by the wayside and let Bristol take as much potential business traffic as possible. They're right to criticise the price tag, but at least the Welsh Government are doing something.

As for Bristol Airport, it's rather arrogant of them to assume south Wales should always remain within their domain. One leading reason they took off ahead of Cardiff was that they secured several low-cost carriers - like EasyJet - at the right time. The roles could very easily have been reversed.

When you weigh up all the variables, in many respects Cardiff should be the predominant airport in south west Britain. The reasons it isn't include persistent mismanagement and things like the Severn Bridge tolls. Fingers crossed that's about to change.

I don't think Carwyn Jones or Edwina Hart need be hung out to dry on this – yet – as they need a chance to see this though. They deserve friendly criticism on this and be given a two to three year window to be judged upon. If it fails, they'll need to take the can for it, but I'll give them credit for trying and being bold for once.

Plaid and the Lib Dems are right to ask for details of the Welsh Government's (and assorted partners) plans for the airport. They're being a sensible opposition about this, perhaps seeing the dire situation at Cardiff Airport for what it is. The Tories aren't, and come across as throwing a wobbler over very little.

But the wider issue remains. The Welsh Government wouldn't have spent £52million on an airport without some sort of "plan" or "strategy" underpinning that rather ballsy decision....would they?

Read More