Politics

It shouldn’t happen to a Health Minister

Published

7 years ago

January 30, 2018

Angela Burns: Slated 'supercilious' and 'arrogant' First Minister

IT’S NOT easy being a Welsh Government Minister.

There are so many new words to learn when you get into office and so many old ones to forget.

For example, take the word ‘cut’. It’s a very simple three letter word. But once you become a Welsh Government Minister, you are not allowed to use it.

Instead, at least as far as Welsh Government policies go, the word ‘cut’ has to be replaced with the far more unwieldy ‘transformation’ or the two-word mouthful ‘transformational change’.

ANGRY ANGELA ATTACKS

As you will see elsewhere in this newspaper, Hywel Dda UHB – to nobody’s surprise – has been caught on the hop by people discovering that when it talks about ‘transforming clinical services’ it means ‘cuts and closures’. You could argue that cuts are in themselves transformational, at least in the same way that being guillotined was transformational for the French aristocracy.

On Wednesday (Jan 24), Vaughan Gething was faced with a barrage of topical questions, which he confronted with the enthusiasm and delight of Louis XVI on his final journey to Place de la Révolution.

You wouldn’t want to get on the wrong side of Angela Burns, the Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire AM who speaks for her party on Health in the Senedd.

Crikey Moses! After a brief initial question, she tore into the Health Board, the Welsh Government, the First Minister, Labour backbenchers, Mr Gething and almost managed to get to Uncle Tom Cobley and all in a positively breathless display of genuine outrage.

Picking up a copy of the Parliamentary Review of Welsh Health Services, unanimously backed by Senedd members the previous week, she handled it between two fingers as though it was a particularly badly soiled nappy.

It was quite bad enough, Mrs Burns said, for the First Minister and his backbenchers to behave in a supercilious and arrogant fashion towards members raising their constituents’ concerns, it was quite another to obtain cross party agreement on the strategic direction of Welsh health services and then ignore the very principles that underpin it.

Mr Gething got to his feet and momentarily looked shell-shocked. Unlike the First Minister, there were almost no Labour members present to prop him up, bray, and snipe at the opposition with sarcastic remarks. However, the Cabinet Secretary is nothing if not smooth and polished. More than capable of bandying around banal generalities, Mr Gething soon adjusted himself into his usual smooth delivery of assurances about ‘meaningful consultations’.

Demonstrating the same sort of faulty memory that could yet come to unglue his leader, Vaughan Gething continued by saying that his boss had not been in any way supercilious.

Mr Jones’ stock in trade is supercilious.

Perhaps Mr Gething had not been paying attention; because having watched the previous day’s First Minister’s Questions and the business statement which preceded Mrs Burns’ questions, you would have to say that Mrs Burns had it pretty much nailed on.

ASK ME NO QUESTIONS

It didn’t get much better for Mr Gething, despite his stream of soothing words and assurances of good intentions. There used to be a saying that you couldn’t knit fog. Well, you certainly couldn’t weave whole fabric out of Mr Gething’s non-answers.

Mr Gething was very clear that he couldn’t answer direct questions because of protocol and the risk that he might have to make final decisions on a consultation which had not yet started. Which was very odd, because the previous day Carwyn Jones had decided he wouldn’t comment because the consultation was ‘open’. Open or closed, Mr Gething was prepared to fall back on the ‘all changes are difficult’ line. As an alternative tack, he attempted a switch to ‘difficult choices have to be made’.

So often did he repeat these lines, or variations on them, that it appeared as though poor Mr Gething had got stuck in one of those time loops beloved of science fiction programmes that need to create a cheap episode to make up for blowing the make-up budget on Slurb the Invincible or some such in a preceding one.

WHERE’S HELP WHEN YOU NEED IT?

Paul Davies had a go after Mrs Burns. Mr Davies doesn’t really do splenetic outrage, but he was clearly peeved – testy even. In a calm and measured way, he berated the Health Board for even proposing, never mind contemplating the closure of Withybush Hospital.

In response, Mr Gething tried a different tactic. While he appreciated that local sentiment was strong, it would be the same across Wales as tough decisions – hard choices – had to be made everywhere across the nation. This was, Mr Gething suggested, a national issue.

Mr Gething’s words would have had more weight on that score had he been accompanied by members of the Welsh Assembly from his own party. Apart from Mark Drakeford seated to his right, Mr Gething appeared terribly alone. The rest of the chamber was devoid of a Labour presence, demonstrating just how seriously west Wales’ concerns were being taken by all those south Wales AMs upon which the party depends for its majority.

Simon Thomas, incongruously seated next to Neil Hamilton, was next to tackle Mr Gething’s dead bat defence.

Pointing out the way in which the First Minister had sought to use the Parliamentary Review in an effort to deflect either criticism or inquiry, Mr Thomas told the Cabinet Secretary that the review was published too late to influence any proposals advanced by Hywel Dda.

After ungallantly pointing out that Labour’s candidate in the 2015 General Election, Paul Miller, had stood on a platform of restoring the paediatric services to Withybush – which had been removed temporarily without consultation – and had still not returned, he suggested this was the opportunity to test the strength of the Parliamentary Review’s framework.

NO STOPPING A CONSULTATION

Mr Gething lost his way a little as he said it wouldn’t be right for him ‘to attempt to instruct’ the health board to stop its consultation now. That would be the consultation that has not started, as the Cabinet Secretary had previously made clear just minutes before.

Difficult conversations needed to be had, tough choices had to be made, and the public would be properly engaged in the process of helping to make those tough choices after taking part in those difficult conversations.

You could see the cogs clicking away as Mr Gething spun new golden platitudes out of old strawmen.

Joyce Watson, whose support for retaining services in the past was less than fulsome, said it was very important that the public was told Withybush was not closing immediately. As this had never been suggested anywhere, it was hard to see what point Joyce Watson was trying to make; but having been thrown a life preserver, Mr Gething clung to it. He agreed that there was no plan to close Withybush in the immediate future. A relief for those attending outpatients next week to have their bunions filed.

Mr Gething then proceeded to point out that other hospitals were also mentioned in the options that had been leaked and that there could be those hard conversations and tough choices to be made in respect of them. But never mind, there would be a genuine and meaningful consultation and, if not, there would be a meaningful and genuine one. That’s what he expected the Board to do. Although, of course, he couldn’t tell them that was what was needed, because he might end up having to make one of those difficult choices after hard and tough conversations.

HAMILTON’S FORK

Neil Hamilton was next. Reaching for his pantomime pitchfork, he rather nastily skewered the Cabinet Secretary on its tines.

Remarking on Mr Gething’s status as the government’s fire blanket for successive health board failings everywhere, he posed the rather more difficult question of whether the threat to Withybush could be boiled down to death by a thousand cuts?

Tellingly, he suggested: “It must be regarded as a ridiculous proposal to close Withybush—even in contemplation in the medium term, let alone the short term. The health board should, when it produces the list of options for people to discuss, avoid causing unnecessary alarm and consternation by producing extreme proposals that are not going to be followed through.”

He then rather neatly suggested the real problem was a complete lack of accountability in the health service. Community Health Councils, Health Boards, were not elected bodies and the truth was that everything ended up on the Health Secretary’s desk. ‘People on the ground feel they have no voice at all,” Mr Hamilton said.

Vaughan Gething could see the home stretch coming.

There would be a meaningful conversation about tough choices in a difficult consultation, in which the views of clinicians would be heard as well as those of the public. It would be rather mean to point out that there is a difference between hearing and listening.

Particularly as those conversations will be tough, difficult, hard, meaningful, and genuine.

Then Mr Gething concluded on a point that he must now be grateful he did not open with.

Concluding he volunteered, he didn’t want to be in the position in the future where the Government will be asked: ‘Why didn’t you do something about a part of the service that really has gone wrong?’

That remark rather fortunately leaves the question unasked as to what all the previous tough choices after hard conversations and meaningful consultations over the last twelve years were actually for.

That would be a difficult – if not unanswerable – question.

News

Neyland Town Council conflict deepens as Extraordinary Meeting called

Published

23 hours ago

January 18, 2025

Tom Sinclair

THE DIVISIONS within Neyland Town Council are set to come under further scrutiny at an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) scheduled for Wednesday (Jan 22) at 7:00pm in Neyland Community Hub. This follows weeks of escalating tensions between councillors and public discontent over the council’s operations.

Petition demands resignation

Central to the conflict is Cllr Mike Harry, who is facing calls for his resignation after a petition, organised by Mrs P Percival-Maxwell, accused him of making inappropriate remarks and creating division within the council. The petition was presented during a recent council meeting on Monday (Jan 13).

Cllr Harry has rejected the allegations, describing the petition as “factually incorrect” and part of a targeted effort to undermine his position. In a previous statement to The Herald, he clarified his use of the term “degenerates” in an email, stating it referred specifically to three councillors—Brian Rothero, David Devauden, and Steve Thomas—who he accuses of bullying the Town Clerk and causing dysfunction within the council.

Agenda highlights serious divisions

The EGM agenda, jointly issued by Cllrs Rothero and Devauden, reflects the extent of the discord. Key points include:

Addressing public complaints and the petition calling for Cllr Harry’s resignation.
Allegations of abuse of council social media powers and bringing the council into disrepute.
Concerns over Neyland CIC’s financial losses, which reportedly total £82,000, and their potential impact on the council.
A motion to remove the Mayor and Deputy Mayor from office.

The agenda has been described by Cllr Harry as a “list of items designed to rabble-rouse and cause maximum trouble within the council.” He claims the ongoing actions of Cllrs Rothero and Devauden are an attempt to disrupt proceedings for personal agendas, making it difficult for the council to function effectively.

Questions of lawfulness

The lawfulness of the EGM has become a point of contention. According to Cllrs Rothero and Devauden, the meeting was called in strict compliance with the council’s standing orders, including the required three clear days’ notice. However, the agenda also mentions the possibility of a forced change of venue due to challenges in booking the Neyland Community Hub, raising concerns about whether such a change would meet procedural requirements. For the meeting to remain lawful, any venue change must be communicated effectively and within the legal framework governing local council meetings.

Another potential issue lies in the authority to call the meeting. Cllrs Rothero and Devauden assert that their actions align with standing orders, but any procedural irregularities, such as failing to involve the Town Clerk in booking arrangements or properly distributing the agenda, could open the meeting to legal challenges. The involvement of the Monitoring Officer in correspondence suggests an effort to ensure compliance, but whether this will be sufficient remains to be seen.

Cllr Harry, meanwhile, has described the meeting as a “personal agenda” by his opponents, further questioning its legitimacy. If the meeting proceeds and results in significant decisions, such as the removal of the Mayor or Deputy Mayor, any procedural flaws could later be cited to contest these outcomes.

Social media row adds fuel to fire

A recent post on Neyland Town Council’s Facebook page by Cllr Harry has added to the controversy. In his email to fellow councillors, Cllr Harry admitted the post was “possibly questionable” but justified it as a response to years of attacks from certain councillors and their allies. The post has reportedly drawn threats of legal action and complaints to the Monitoring Officer.

Cllrs Rothero and Devauden have accused Cllr Harry of misusing his position and the council’s social media channels to target opponents, further eroding trust within the council.

Community concerns and financial risks

Beyond personal disputes, the financial state of Neyland CIC, a community interest company, has emerged as a pressing issue. With reported losses of £82,000, concerns are mounting about the potential impact on the town council’s budget and its ability to deliver essential services.

A council divided

As the date for the EGM approaches, opinions within Neyland remain divided. Some residents have voiced support for Cllr Harry, citing his nearly 20 years of service and commitment to the community. Others back the petition, viewing his actions as detrimental to the council’s reputation and functionality.

The Herald understands that the outcome of the EGM could mark a turning point for the council, potentially reshaping its leadership and future direction. With accusations and counter-accusations flying, the meeting promises to be a pivotal moment in addressing the dysfunction that has gripped Neyland Town Council.

News

Neyland councillor defends actions following petition for resignation

Published

2 days ago

January 17, 2025

Tom Sinclair

A STATEMENT has been issued by Cllr Mike Harry in response to a petition calling for his resignation, which was handed in during the Neyland Town Council meeting on Monday (Jan 13). The petition, organised by Mrs P Percival-Maxwell, accuses Cllr Harry of making inappropriate remarks and creating division within the council.

In his detailed statement, Cllr Harry rejected the allegations, describing the petition as “factually incorrect” and part of a targeted effort to discredit him and further destabilise the council.

Cllr Harry explained that his email, which is at the centre of the controversy, was a response to what he described as “insulting and threatening” messages from fellow councillors Brian Rothero, Steve Thomas, and David Devauden. He clarified that the term “degenerates” referred specifically to those individuals, who he accuses of relentless bullying and harassment of the Town Clerk, not Neyland residents.

He also pointed out that the “constituents” referred to in the petition are, in fact, a group of five individuals who attended an unauthorised meeting and whom he alleges are regulars at a local pub owned by Cllr Rothero.

Cllr Harry claimed that the ongoing behaviour of Cllrs Rothero, Thomas, and Devauden has rendered the council dysfunctional and unable to serve the people of Neyland effectively. He described their actions as consistently disruptive, highlighting the negative impact on the Town Clerk and the council’s ability to progress key matters.

“I’d simply had enough and had to finally call it out for what it is,” he stated, noting that his email was directed at a total of eight individuals who, in his view, show no interest in the council’s proper functioning.

Cllr Harry, who has served on Neyland Town Council for nearly 20 years, emphasised his dedication to the community and its residents. “The interests of the residents of Neyland have always been paramount to me,” he said. He expressed frustration over the current tensions within the council, calling the situation “particularly difficult and insulting” and not reflective of why he became a councillor.

The petition has deepened divisions within Neyland, with some residents supporting Cllr Harry’s defence and others standing by the petition’s call for his resignation. The issue highlights broader concerns about the council’s internal dynamics and its ability to address key issues for the community.

News

New holiday lodges at Pembrokeshire deer park get approval

Published

2 days ago

January 17, 2025

Bruce Sinclair - Local Democracy Reporter

PLANS for disability-friendly holiday lodges at a Pembrokeshire deer park attraction which could be a Wales tourism “benchmark” have been backed, but a final decision is likely to rest with full council.

In an application recommended for refusal at the January 14 meeting of Pembrokeshire County council’s planning committee, Mr and Mrs Evans are seeking permission for 15 lodges at Great Wedlock, Gumfreston, near Tenby, the site of a 176-acre deer farm attraction, which includes animals from the late Queen’s estate, and a more recently-granted market traders’ barn.

An earlier application for the lodges was recommended for refusal by officers at last July’s planning meeting, but, at the start of that meeting, members heard the application had been withdrawn at the agent’s behest.

Reasons for refusal given to members included it was outside of an identified settlement boundary in a countryside location, it was considered to have an adverse impact on visual amenity and did not include a Green Infrastructure statement.

The applicants have previously said build costs to complete the development would be circa £2m.

Following the withdrawal, amended proposals have been submitted by the applicants through agent Atriarc Planning, following a consultation recently held with St Florence Community Council.

St Florence Community Council did not support the previous application, but has supported the latest scheme.

Speaking at the January meeting, Alan Jones, on behalf of the community council, said it was now supporting the “much-improved design” which, amongst other concerns, now addressed the issue of a much wider range of disabilities – including the blind and deaf and hard of hearing – rather than just wheelchair use.

Applicant Andrew Evans told the meeting the proposals would support a whole raft of people with varying disabilities, Great Wedlock already taking a “head-on” approach supporting people with disabilities through special vehicles at the deer park, and encouraging people with disabilities to apply for staff vacancies.

“This is not an application for yet another holiday park, it is a well thought out one for those who have a disability, which will make them a majority rather than a minority; it will make us at the forefront for people in Wales to visit with a disability.”

Local member, Cllr Rhys Jordan moved the application be supported in spite of an officer recommendation for refusal, saying it was “an opportunity to address a clear shortage [for disability-friendly accommodation] and a chance for Pembrokeshire to lead the way in accessible tourism,” adding: “Most importantly the lodges will be 100 per cent accessible and set a benchmark, positioning Pembrokeshire as a leader in accessible tourism.”

He finished: “Approve this forward-thinking proposal today.”

Officers have recommended planners refuse the scheme, for similar reasons to previously, saying the material considerations put forward in the agent’s supporting planning statement “are not sufficient to overcome the conflict with relevant Development Plan policies”.

Members voted 11 in favour to two against supporting the scheme.

The committee’s backing of the proposal takes the form of a ‘minded to’ support, meaning the proposal will return to a future meeting as it is against an officer recommendation, and, if supported a second time, will ultimately have to be decided by full council, in this case potentially at the March meeting.

The applicants’ previous scheme for the trading barn took an identical route, being decided by full council after repeatedly being recommended for refusal.