Politics
Carwyn in crisis after Millar’s statement

A WAR of words has broken out between First Minister Carwyn Jones and former Cabinet member Leighton Andrews about allegations that a report into bullying was made by Mr Andrews to the First Minister as long ago as 2014 and that one of the AMs he reported as being a target of adverse briefing was the late Alyn & Deeside AM Carl Sargeant.
Mr Sargeant died in November this year after being dismissed from his Cabinet post.
He was sacked from his post on the basis of allegations about his behaviour that were never put to him.
The First Minister finds himself exposed on the issue, after making a series of pious announcements about how the Welsh Assembly would not cover up allegations of bullying and inappropriate behaviour following a series of allegations about the conduct of senior figures at Westminster.
That position has been progressively unpicked by Mr Andrews in a number of tweets, blog posts and very few media interviews.
And in the Welsh Assembly on Tuesday (Dec 12), Mr Jones’ position was left even more exposed by a dramatic personal statement by Conservative AM Darren Millar.
Mr Millar revealed that when he asked the First Minister questions about bullying in the Welsh Government in 2014, he did so at Mr Sargeant’s request and timed the questions to coincide with Mr Sargeant telling him that a formal complaint of bullying had been made against a special advisor (SPAD) to the Welsh Government.
Mr Jones was not in the Senedd to hear Mr Millar’s statement, having left after fielding First Minister’s questions.
TWO ISSUES UNRAVELLED
The issue of the First Minister’s treatment of Carl Sargeant and the latter’s death have become intertwined with a second issue, namely whether or not the First Minister misled the Assembly when he said – three years ago – no allegations of bullying had been made to him about the conduct of either special advisers or specialist advisers.
This article sets out the way in which both issues wind around themselves and why Carwyn Jones finds himself in jeopardy.
There are currently three investigations ongoing that affect the First Minister directly and indirectly. A further investigation – into allegations made against Carl Sargeant – has been discontinued.
The first investigation is into the way Mr Jones investigated allegations against Mr Sargeant; the second is into whether he misled AMs; the final one is the investigation by HM Coroner into Carl Sargeant’s death. Any one of the outcomes of those investigations have the potential to end Mr Jones’ career in ignominy.
While each of those investigations are hazardous to the First Minister’s political health, if Mr Jones is found to have breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct, there is no way for him to ride out the ensuing storm.
WHAT IS THE MINISTERIAL CODE?
‘Ministers are expected to behave according to the highest standards of constitutional and personal conduct in the performance of their duties’.
The ministerial Code, issued by the First Minister, provides guidance to ministers on how they should act and arrange their affairs in order to uphold these standards. In particular, they are expected to observe the 7 principles of public life and the principles of ministerial conduct. The code applies to Cabinet Secretaries, Ministers and the Counsel General.
WHAT DOES THE CODE SAY?
‘It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to the Assembly, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead the Assembly will be expected to offer their resignation to the First Minister.
‘In particular, the First Minister may also refer matters concerning himself to an Independent Adviser’.
WHY IS CARWYN JONES IN DIFFICULTIES?
In November 2014, Darren Millar AM submitted a Written Assembly Question to the First Minister asking: ‘Has the First Minister ever received any reports or been made aware of any allegations of bullying by special and/or specialist advisers at any time in the past three years and, if so, when and what action, if any, was taken?’
Mr Jones’ answer could not have been more unequivocal: ‘No allegations have been made’.
WHAT IS CARWYN JONES ALLEGED TO HAVE DONE?
Mr Jones’ version of events has been challenged by his former Cabinet colleague Leighton Andrews.
Leighton Andrews says: ‘I made a complaint to the First Minister about one aspect of [deliberate personal undermining of Carl Sargeant], of which I had direct evidence, in the autumn of 2014. An informal investigation was undertaken. I then asked for it to be made formal. I was told it would be. I was never shown the outcome. There was no due process’.
Mr Jones has maintained that no allegations were made, sparking a war of words between himself and Mr Andrews. At First Minister’s questions on December 5, Carwyn Jones came perilously close to calling his former colleague a liar. Mr Andrews responded by publishing a more detailed account of events and invited the First Minister to repeat what he had said in the Senedd without the benefit of Parliamentary Privilege to protect him from legal action.
Mr Jones has, so far, declined Mr Andrews’ invitation.
Now, fuel has been thrown onto the smoking embers under the First Minister.
In a devastating Personal Statement in the Senedd thisTuesday, the Conservative AM Darren Millar revealed that not only had he been asked by the late Carl Sargeant to ask the November 2014 question, but also that Mr Sargeant asked him to delay asking the question until AFTER an allegation of bullying was made to the First Minister against a named SPAD. By way of corroboration, Mr Millar revealed that he had discussed the matter during October and November 2014 with the Conservative Chief Whip, Paul Davies. Mr Millar also said that other AMs were aware of what was going on.
CARWYN’S DILEMMA
The First Minister’s answer can only be read compatibly with the accounts given by Mr Millar and Mr Andrews if he can claim either that he did not understand the question at the time, or that the question was phrased so as to make his answer entirely truthful without it being in anyway accurate. Mr Jones has suggested that what he calls his ‘lawyerly way’ might have led him into answering the question the way he did, but he has rather undone that suggestion by his subsequent comments attacking others’ accounts.
If the answer cannot be read compatibly with the accounts of his fellow AMs – and it is a significant verbal stretch to perceive how it might be, no matter how ‘lawyerly’ Mr Jones’ way is – then the choices left are stark.
For Mr Jones’ response in November 2014 to hold water he will have to successfully advance the proposition that several other AMs are themselves lying or are/were mistaken. The odds are not in Mr Jones’ favour on that one.
And the alternative position for Mr Jones – that he did not treat complaints as being made formally or that complaints that were made to him were not made in the correct form or format – lays him open to a charge of dealing with Mr Millar’s questions in less than good faith. Moreover, if Mr Jones did not take the allegations seriously because he regarded it as part and parcel of the normal rough and tumble of politics, it runs an absolute coach and horses through the pious approach he took before Mr Sargeant’s death.
Neither proposition, no matter how finessed, lets Carwyn Jones off the hook. The former would instantly end his career as First Minister; the latter would wound him so severely that he would - almost certainly – be persuaded to step down in favour of an alternative leader. In short, and in either of those circumstances, Mr Jones was either a knave or a fool.
WHO KNEW WHAT AND WHEN?
And there is another wrinkle of suspicion that bears consideration: if Mr Sargeant did complain about an over-mighty SPAD, it is open to question whether or not his card was marked. A self-perpetuating club of insiders would not take kindly to having their gilded cages rattled; links are undeniably strong between the national Welsh media and some ministerial special advisers.
That possibility is given some credence by what former Cabinet member Leighton Andrews wrote on his blog.
The Herald contacted Mr Andrews regarding his blog’s content and the First Minister’s remarks regarding bullying. He gave us permission to quote directly from his blog.
‘From discussions with many well-connected individuals over the last few weeks I have been able to piece together the following:
- A Labour AM told the Labour Assembly Group meeting on November 9 that he had been texted by someone he regarded as a reliable source that Carl was to lose his job, before the reshuffle was announced
- A leading Welsh journalist received a text in advance of the reshuffle’s announcement that Carl was to be sacked
- A Welsh Labour MP told another Welsh Labour MP that Carl was to lose his job, before the reshuffle was announced’
Mr Andrews asks the question ‘who leaked?’ The ancillary questions to that are ‘who would benefit from such a leak?’ and ‘what would be such a leak’s purpose?’
A QUESTION OF TIMING
Mr Andrews’ sequence of events is of vital importance.
Mr Sargeant was dismissed as a Cabinet Secretary on November 3 and died on November 7. Two days after that event members of the Labour Assembly Group were told by one of their number that their deceased former colleague’s dismissal was leaked to them before Carl Sargeant was dismissed. Mr Andrews’ allegations that news of Mr Sargeant’s dismissal was currency among Labour MPs beforehand and a journalist was informed would be the toxic icing on a cake.
The reason for that is straightforward: at the time he was dismissed and at the time of his death Mr Sargeant had not been given the details of the allegations made against him by anonymous third parties whose versions of events he was given no opportunity to rebut. The leaking of his dismissal suggests that the case against Mr Sargeant had been judged by the First Minister and a decision made that would take no account of his innocence, guilt, or ability to answer the charges. If, has been alleged, the First Minister had previously dismissed one of the complaints relied upon to sack his ‘dear friend’, questions arise about the First Minister’s competence in deciding the allegations. Most tellingly, it is one of Mr Jones’ SPADs who carried out inquiries for the First Minister into the allegations against Mr Sargeant.
The number of people who would and should have known about both the investigation into Mr Sargeant and the decision to dismiss him would have been passingly small. Mr Jones himself and perhaps a handful of other people. Political circles being notorious hubs for gossip, it would take only one leak for ripples to spread.
There is no doubt that if the First Minister does not know who leaked he is being peculiarly incurious.
At the end of Mr Millar’s statement on Tuesday, a number of prominent Labour members exchanged looks that suggested that their consciences might well now be pricking them into reflecting on what they knew.
Mr Jones’ position has not looked more precarious than it does now and, while some AMs have accused others of seeking to settle political scores, it seems that Mr Millar’s intervention might well prove the one that does for the First Minister.
News
Split opinion over Cardigan’s extended pavements

Councillors clash on future of pedestrian scheme
CARDIGAN town councillors remain divided over the future of the town’s extended pavements, which were introduced by Ceredigion County Council during the Covid-19 pandemic as a safety measure.
Calls for the removal of the pavements were made last month, with several members describing them as an unwelcome reminder of lockdowns and social distancing. Councillors said the pavements had served their original purpose and were no longer needed.
However, during Tuesday night’s meeting, Cllr Richard Jones expressed support for keeping the wider pavements, describing them as a benefit to the town.
“I think they are a good thing,” he said. “They make the place look busy and give it a kind of European feel. The time for consultation is over. This was discussed at county council level, and none of our councillors attended.”
Cllr Jones was responding to a letter from former town councillor and disability rights campaigner Morvenna Dorita, who criticised the push to remove the pavement extensions. Ms Dorita, who is a wheelchair user, argued that the changes made the town safer for disabled people.
Her view was not shared by all present. County councillor Sian Maehrlein said there were ongoing concerns from residents about the pavements.
“Word on the street is that most people want these pavements gone,” she said. “Some disabled residents have said that, because the tactile paving hasn’t been pressure-washed, it’s hard to tell the difference between the pavement and the road.
“I believe the town would be better and safer if they were removed. Whatever we decide, half the town will support it and the other half won’t. We’re caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.”
Cllr Nick Bolton also opposed the extensions, suggesting that street furniture from cafés posed more of a hazard.
“These pavements impede people’s right of passage,” he said. “If they were removed, we could fit in more delivery bays on the high street.
“The county council said they’d maintain them and make them safer, but they haven’t spent a bean.”
County councillor Clive Davies reminded members that the county council made the decision to make the pavements permanent in 2022, and any removal would now require a fresh consultation.
He added that, if the town could secure a new street scene grant, there may be scope to improve the overall layout of the high street.
“We could look at bollards to provide better protection for disabled pedestrians,” he suggested.
It was agreed to invite county council officers to visit Cardigan and assess what improvements could be made to the street scene.
News
Welsh pensioners to receive state pension increase amidst mixed reactions

STARTING this month, over 600,000 pensioners across Wales will see their State Pensions rise by up to £470 annually, following the UK Government’s adherence to the ‘triple lock’ policy. This policy ensures that pensions increase each year by the highest of average earnings growth, inflation, or a minimum of 2.5%.
Government’s Position
The UK Government has emphasized its commitment to supporting pensioners through the triple lock. In a recent statement, it was noted that this commitment would result in the State Pension increasing by up to £1,900 over the course of the current Parliament.
Opposition and Think Tank Critiques
However, the policy has faced criticism from various quarters. The Liberal Democrats have raised concerns about the real impact of the pension increase, pointing out that due to the freezing of income tax thresholds, a significant portion of the pension rise could be offset by increased tax liabilities. They estimate that a typical basic rate tax-paying pensioner might see 77% of the pension increase negated by these tax measures.
Additionally, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has questioned the sustainability of the triple lock mechanism. They argue that while the policy aims to protect pensioners’ incomes, it may not be the most efficient approach and could lead to unpredictable fiscal burdens.
Pensions Minister’s Stance
Torsten Bell, the newly appointed Pensions Minister, has previously described the triple lock as “rubbish” and advocated for its replacement with a system that aligns state pension increases with benefits for jobseekers and the long-term sick. Despite his past remarks, recent reports indicate that he is now “fully committed” to maintaining the triple lock.
Economic Implications
Financial experts have also highlighted potential unintended consequences of the pension increase. The freezing of personal tax allowances means that some pensioners may find themselves pushed into higher tax brackets, thereby reducing the net benefit of the pension rise. This situation underscores the complex interplay between pension policies and tax regulations.
In summary, while the increase in State Pensions is a welcome development for many Welsh pensioners, it has sparked a broader debate about the effectiveness and sustainability of the triple lock policy, as well as its interaction with the broader tax system.
News
Welsh Government unveils new legislation to transform bus services

PROPOSALS to overhaul the way local bus services are planned and delivered across Wales have been published today, with the aim of improving services for passengers and encouraging more people to use public transport.
A new Bill has been laid before the Senedd which, if passed, will grant powers to establish a fully integrated bus network that puts passenger needs first.
Key proposals include creating one network, one timetable, and one ticket system across Wales. Services will be designed based on local knowledge but coordinated nationally by Transport for Wales, working in close partnership with local authorities and Corporate Joint Committees. The new system would primarily operate through franchised contracts delivered by private, public, and third sector operators.
Welcoming the Bus Services (Wales) Bill, Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales Ken Skates said the legislation had the potential to transform bus travel for communities across the country.
“This is a historic day for public transport in Wales as proposals for bus reform begin their journey through the Senedd,” said Mr Skates. “This is about putting people first—offering one network, one timetable and one ticket across Wales.
“Change is needed. While some areas are well-served, it’s not the case everywhere. I want a bus network that is reliable, affordable, easy to use, and better integrated with other modes of transport such as trains and active travel.
“The benefits are clear: improved access to services, greater equity for those most reliant on public transport, and a meaningful alternative to car travel.”
Buses carry around 190,000 passengers a day in Wales and account for three-quarters of all public transport journeys. The Bill aims to address common barriers to bus use—such as poor reliability, lack of ticket interoperability between operators, and weak links with other transport modes.
The public will benefit from clearer, easier-to-navigate timetables and more seamless transitions between buses and trains. Ticket revenue will be reinvested across the country, improving services in both rural and urban areas.
Mr Skates highlighted current examples of successful integration, including the TrawsCymru T1 service, which already offers joint bus and rail tickets, and the 1bws ticket in North Wales, valid on almost every local bus in the region.
“These examples show what can be achieved with joined-up thinking,” he said. “I don’t underestimate the scale of change this Bill represents, which is why the rollout will happen region by region. But when complete, it will be truly transformational.”
The rollout is expected to begin in South West Wales in 2027, followed by North Wales in 2028, South East Wales in 2029, and Mid Wales in 2030. However, Mid Wales will benefit from earlier improvements through the Bridge to Franchising programme, already underway.
-
Business6 days ago
SpaceX eyes Milford Haven for new UK facility
-
Crime7 days ago
Pembrokeshire farm worker accused of threatening to burn employer’s farm
-
Crime6 days ago
‘Yeah but no but’ insult to female officer lands Monkton man with court fine
-
Features6 days ago
‘We weren’t wild. We were unprotected’: A generation groomed and forgotten
-
Crime6 days ago
Leaked messages reveal shocking culture at HMP Parc amid misconduct probe
-
Politics7 days ago
Probe into ‘escalating’ horse fly-grazing in Pembrokeshire
-
Crime6 days ago
Inquest reveals tragic consequences of inadequate medication in prison
-
Community6 days ago
Tenby boat lift signals start of tourist season in Pembrokeshire