EDITORIAL BY COUNTY COUNCILLOR ALAN DENNISON

A RECENTLY published Herald article stated: “This is the first time in the council’s history that an administration has accepted a budget proposed by an opposition group.”

This milestone should encourage a shift away from the routine party political manoeuvres that often dominate council discussions. More importantly, it serves as a reminder to the Leader that listening should extend beyond the largest opposition group and council members—it should prioritise the residents of Pembrokeshire who fund these positions and expect quality services at a fair cost. The days of expecting ratepayers to finance unnecessary projects are coming to an end.

Budget criticism and optimism

While the budget has faced public criticism for failing to provide sufficient relief, leading to increased burdens on taxpayers and service reductions, much of this criticism is valid. The budget was crafted within a limited timeframe, but it does offer a sense of hope—the first in years where services are being restored, including those cut last year and those earmarked for cuts by the current administration. The details of these services are available in the accompanying documents, but the budget ensures their implementation with minimal risk.

This budget also marks the first phase in a long-term effort to strengthen the council’s financial standing. Moving forward, highly paid cabinet members will be expected to set annual objectives and provide monthly updates on their progress, particularly regarding departmental savings. Budgets must not be allowed to accumulate unchecked, as they have within social services, without accountability from the responsible cabinet member. Furthermore, the council must disclose full costs and revenues for the services it provides.

Future priorities and efficiency measures

For the 2025/26 financial year, priority should be given to Invest to Save initiatives, asset management, and reviewing loss-making services. The council can no longer afford unnecessary expenses, such as company car payments for senior positions, or the excessive number of high-paying roles. A job review should be conducted to streamline senior management as positions become vacant.

Exploring resource-sharing with other authorities is another avenue worth pursuing. For instance, the ambulance service could share vehicle maintenance facilities, reducing costs by pooling resources for preferential fuel rates and insurance. Additionally, offering pet cremation services at Narberth could create a new revenue stream. Numerous such opportunities await identification.

Closer collaboration with Hywel Dda University Health Board could lead to improvements in social services, while shared back-office functions—such as road sweepers, grit lorries, and highway maintenance—could reduce costs. Savings from these efficiencies should be ring-fenced to fund apprenticeships in mechanics, office administration, public protection, and other hard-to-fill positions.

A comparison with the Tory budget proposal

This budget and its savings proposals were developed by the Independent group. But how does it compare to the alternative budget proposed by the Tories? Cllr Thomas has condemned the accepted budget, referring to his “team”—though it remains unclear who is in this team that will supposedly rescue the county from financial difficulties. What does their budget contain? A collection of Fumbling Ifs & Buts, or FIBs for short.

Leisure services: the reality behind the proposal

The Tory budget proposes restructuring leisure services by transferring operations to a not-for-profit company, Freedom Leisure, owned by Wealden Leisure Ltd. Their chief officer earned £190,000 last year, with other directors receiving between £120,000 and £160,000. While the company claims to be non-profit, its approach to cost-cutting is clear—higher charges for pools, gyms, and halls, reduced heating in pools, scaled-back cleaning, and malfunctioning booking systems. Trustpilot, a respected review site, rates Freedom Leisure poorly, with 83% of reviews at one star, citing these exact cost-cutting measures. Do we really want to see Pembrokeshire’s leisure centres suffer the same fate? FIB number 1.

Selling council properties: a vague promise

The Tory budget includes plans to sell off council properties—but which ones? What are their values? How quickly can they be sold? These unknowns render this another FIB.

Housing and efficiency cuts

The proposal also plans to stop funding the Affordable Housing Reserve next year to support a headline council tax rate of 7.5%. Future reductions are subject to an annual review—another uncertain FIB.

Furthermore, the Tories suggest increasing the Chief Executive’s efficiency savings target by £200,000, raising it to £1.5 million. However, even they acknowledge this may not be achievable, planning to use reserves to cover any shortfall. A surefire FIB.

A proposed review of the regeneration department aims to save £250,000, but since this is not guaranteed, reserves will again be used as a backup. Another 100% FIB.

Scrapping the Enhancing Pembrokeshire grant scheme

One concrete element of the Tory budget is the complete removal of the Enhancing Pembrokeshire grant scheme, which funds community improvement projects. Unlike their other claims, this is not a FIB—but it does mean fewer opportunities for local communities to access funding.

The reality of Tory cuts

While the Tories claim to oppose service reductions, their budget includes more cuts than the Independent group’s proposal. These include:

• Eliminating social care assessment staff.
• Cutting revenue and benefits staff—the very people responsible for rent collection.
• Reducing equipment budgets for children with physical and sensory needs.
• Scaling back street cleaning, grass cutting, and litter bins, leading to more litter and overgrown public areas.
• Slashing early years education funding, undermining statutory obligations under the Childcare Act 2006.
• Closing Thornton Sports Hall for community use.

The choice for Pembrokeshire

The decision before the council is clear: a carefully costed budget from the Independent group, supported by the current administration, or a budget based on FIBs and deeper service cuts. Pembrokeshire’s future depends on making the right choice.

“Ukraine is fighting not just for its own freedom, but for the principles of democracy and justice that should unite us all”, says Herald Editor, Tom Sinclair

THERE are moments in history when leaders define themselves—not just by what they say, but by how they treat others. On Friday (Feb 28), in a shocking display of arrogance and ignorance, President Donald Trump showed the world precisely what kind of leader he is. In an extraordinary and disgraceful diplomatic blunder, Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to leave the White House, cutting short a meeting that was meant to strengthen ties between the two nations. Instead of supporting a country fighting for its survival, Trump chose to humiliate its leader.

This was not just a moment of political theatre; it was an insult to every Ukrainian citizen suffering under Russia’s brutal invasion, to every soldier defending their homeland, and to every nation that has stood up against tyranny.

For all his bluster about “making America great,” Trump’s latest act proves yet again that he does not understand the difference between strength and bullying. A strong leader stands by their allies. A weak leader turns their back when it’s convenient. A strong leader understands diplomacy. A weak leader throws a tantrum when things don’t go their way.

Trump’s dismissive attitude towards Ukraine is a betrayal of not just one nation but of democratic values themselves. Under his administration, the White House has become a revolving door of diplomatic disasters, with world leaders leaving insulted and America’s reputation in tatters. Instead of standing up to Vladimir Putin—the aggressor responsible for this war—Trump appears more interested in undermining Ukraine at every turn. His words and actions send a dangerous message: that the United States is no longer a reliable ally, and that dictators can act with impunity.

Unlike Trump and his administration, the people of Pembrokeshire have demonstrated true solidarity with Ukraine. When Russia launched its unprovoked invasion, our community stepped up. Five vans filled with essential supplies were sent directly to those in need, organised by The Pembrokeshire Herald and backed by the incredible generosity of local people. Our firefighters have sent vital equipment to help their Ukrainian counterparts. Across our county, individuals and businesses have raised money, collected aid, and stood in unwavering support of Ukraine’s right to defend itself.

We do this because we understand something Trump never will: that integrity, compassion, and standing up for what’s right matter more than self-serving political games. Pembrokeshire knows that Ukraine is fighting not just for its own freedom, but for the principles of democracy and justice that should unite us all.

History teaches us that bullies never win. Whether it’s on the playground or the world stage, those who use power to intimidate and belittle eventually face their reckoning. Trump’s pathetic treatment of Ukraine will not be forgotten. The world is watching, and America’s allies are taking note. The bonds between democratic nations will not be broken by one man’s petulance.

The Pembrokeshire Herald remains steadfast in its support for Ukraine. We stand with President Zelenskyy. We stand with the Ukrainian people. And we stand with all those who believe that democracy, freedom, and justice must prevail over the cowardice and corruption of those who would rather appease tyrants.

Trump’s disgraceful behaviour will be remembered for what it is: a moment of shame. But the bravery of Ukraine and the solidarity of those who support it will be remembered for what it represents: hope, resilience, and the undeniable truth that justice will triumph in the end.

By Jonathan Edwards

FUTURE historians will benchmark this week’s sad closure of the last remaining blast furnace at Tata Steel Port Talbot as a turning point in the UKs industrial history.

With the British Steel plant at Scunthorpe also due to turn off its own blast furnace, the UK as the birthplace of the industrial revolution will be left without the ability to produce its own steel.

This is a seismic moment therefore in our economic history: from here on in the UK will be reliant upon virgin steel imports.

Strategically this leaves the British state in an exposed position on all sorts of fronts.

Tragedy

This week’s development is of course primarily a tragedy for the 2,800 workers who will directly lose their jobs and those businesses further down the supply chain.

The jobs at Port Talbot were well paid in comparison to other available employment and therefore the local economy, even if workers were to find alternative jobs, will take a hit in terms of direct consumer expenditure.

The south Wales Valleys are already regrettably amongst the poorest regions of Europe.

The decision by Tata of course indicates the folly of privatising your primary industries in the first place. Once those industries are sold then governments lose control.

Decision makers

Port Talbot was originally bought by Corus before being ultimately bought by Tata in 2007, meaning that the fate of Welsh steel making was in the hands of decision makers in faraway Mumbai.

Understandably, directors and board members make decisions in what they perceive to be the best interests of their company.

Port Talbot is one asset of many that Tata holds across the world and in the group’s future business plan there is no longer a requirement for primary steel making capability in Port Talbot.

Did Brexit play a role in Tata’s thinking? The UK is no longer a part of the world’s largest economic union. If Tata wants to produce primary steel for the European market, why do it in Wales which is outside?

According to Tata, the blast furnaces were losing the company £1m a day. The restructuring involves £1.25bn investment by the company to build an electric arc furnace, which essentially recycles steel, with construction set to begin next summer. The UK Government will contribute £500m.

Savaged

In opposition the Labour Party absolutely savaged the blueprint, yet the final plans seem to have changed little now that they are in government at a UK level.

We were told in advance of the election that only a change of government could save the jobs. Prior to the election, Jo Stevens MP, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, said in the Commons: “This government has forked out £500m taxpayers’ cash for the loss of 3,000 jobs and this is their deal, and they own it.”

Earlier this month, the new Business and Trade Secretary of State, Jonathan Reynolds, said the Labour version of the same deal gives “hope for the future of steel making in south Wales”.

From what I can see it’s the same number of jobs lost for the same amount of money invested by the UK Government. Furthermore, the unions’ alternative proposals have not been adopted.

I am not entirely convinced the tactic of the UK Government to gloss the agreement is credible.

Perhaps they genuinely thought that their proposals would change the position of the company; if so they have been given a very rude awakening on the limit of the powers of the nation state when up against a giant company like Tata.

Plaid Cymru’s ultimate call for the Welsh Government to compulsorily purchase the site also has its weaknesses.

The Welsh Government’s entire economic development budget for both revenue and capital is only £527m. At a £1m a day loss, compulsorily purchasing Port Talbot would wipe out 70% of the total budget without even considering the cost required to buy the plant.

Alternative for Deutschland

I was listening to a very interesting podcast by Irish economist David McWilliams recently where he discussed the rise of the far right AfD (Alternative for Deutschland) in Germany.

One of the main reasons for its recent electoral successes has been the decision of Volkswagen, a company that has provided well-remunerated employment for the best part of a century, to start closing production capacity in Germany.

The podcast argued that the demise of the old certainties has created a climate of fear that is being exploited.

We are no strangers to industrial decline in Wales; however the closure of the last steel making blast furnace in Wales underscores that we are facing a very uncertain economic future.

Faced with global forces they cannot control, the traditional political mainstream does not have a convincing narrative of where we are heading. Talk of a green industrial revolution sounds great in a pamphlet, but what exactly does it mean for working people in terms of employment and remuneration?

Looking at the overall strategic political position, I fear that Project Miserable by the UK Government could well backfire and play into the hands of the far right. Welsh nationalism also must move beyond its default grievance narrative. In the absence of hope for our people, malign forces will surely pounce.

Jonathan Edwards was the MP for Carmarthen East & Dinefwr from 2010 to 2024.