News

Hostile exchanges at Audit Committee

Published

11 years ago

November 13, 2014

Council’s Director of Development’s, presentation to Monday’s (Sept 22) Extraordinary Audit Committee has raised considerably more questions about grants scandal in Pembroke Dock than it answered. The thrust of Dr Jones’ lengthy address to the committee was, essentially, that where – in his words – “the irregularity” had occurred it was the fault of everyone but him or his department. Doctor Jones began by blaming the Welsh European Funding Office (WEFO) for approving a manual for the Commercial Property Grants Scheme that had “weaknesses”. His European Manager, Gwyn Evans, had written the manual, but any problems with it were clearly WEFO’s fault. And if WEFO weren’t at fault then there were all sorts of other compelling reasons (or possibly excuses) that Dr Jones could offer up. In public session, Dr Jones alleged that issues that had arisen with the Pembroke and Pembroke Dock grants schemes were all to do with the activities of one developer exploiting “loopholes” in the system. Further and in addition, Dr Jones averred that some problems had arisen because of increased workload and staffing shortages. On the one hand Dr Jones pointed out that the number of staff and projects for which he and his department had risen and on the other he pointed out that staff shortages had caused problems to arise. The failure, to replace a key manager and plan adequately for one member of staff’s maternity leave, were offered up as reasons why problems had arisen in project management.

DEPARTMENT ‘UNDERSTAFFED’ At one point, Dr Jones sought to demonstrate that whereas there were once 18 members of staff under the Head of Regeneration (a manager’s post), he now had 94 members of staff as Director of Development (a director’s post). Any sympathy most members of the Committee might have felt for the £130k+ a year Dr Jones was somewhat moderated by the fact that the overwhelming majority of those “new” posts are actually contractors engaged with the Council’s partners – such as the Futureworks initiative organised in concert with the DWP. In a thinly veiled attempt to put pressure on councillors, he three times said that it was up to councillors to decide whether they wanted the benefit of grant-aided investment in Pembrokeshire and were willing to make funds available to ensure that grants could be administered properly. Of course, Dr Jones never admitted any problems existed before – whether in staffing levels, workload or administrative burden. On the contrary, before the same Committee in January Dr Jones asserted confidently that any issues uncovered would be trivial in nature. Back in January, Dr Jones had claimed that any problems with the grants would amount to the equivalent of a few bread rolls a day lost from the canteen. As it happens, using only the figures before the Audit Committee that would mean that – at 15p per bread roll – something like 900,000 bread rolls over a calendar year, or nearly 2,500 a day h a d gone walk about on Dr Jones’ watch. But he did not apologise. He expressed “disappointment”. As a display of patronising chutzpah before the Audit Committee, it was only equalled by the continued protestations of European Manager Gwyn Evans that whatever had gone wrong it was nothing to do with him. In all of these protestations, Dr Jones and Mr Evans were dealt with in soothing and understanding tones by the newly-elected Chair of the Audit Committee, Peter Jones. Formerly of Morgan Cole Solicitors and presently legal counsel to Swansea University and Chair of Swansea Bay Futures, Mr Jones’ role appeared to be less to encourage rigorous scrutiny and investigation than to accept everything the Committee were told by officers at face value. In the absence of the Head of Legal Services, Huw Miller, and the Council’s own Monitoring Officer, Laurence Harding – it appeared that Mr Jones’ appointment was – at times – particularly fortuitous, due to his extensive legal experience heading a major law firm.

JONES THE LEGAL EAGLE Prepared to deploy his undoubtedly deep legal knowledge when it was most advantageous to the culture which allows £125,000 to be treated like loose change lost behind a sofa cushion, Mr Jones managed to appear to contradict two senior officers (Kerry MacDermott and Jon Haswell). Both of whom agreed with Cllr Jacob Williams that key documents and correspondence relating to negotiations between the Council and Mr Cathal McCosker (Dr Steven Jones’ ‘lone gunman’) could be examined by councillors on the Audit Committee as of right. That is not to say that everything was plain sailing. The Chair was visibly narked and exasperated by the efforts of Cllr Jacob Williams to extract even the merest scintilla of an apology from Dr Jones or Mr Evans. On the basis that evidence is literally ‘that which can be seen’, Mr Jones appeared impatient when Cllr Williams continued to point out that the problem was not necessarily the old procedural manual but the failure to adhere to it. Cllr Williams continued to press on in the teeth of the Chair’s rising impatience with his wish to actually hold someone to account for the repeated and manifest failings of the Council’s Development Directorate and Regeneration Unit. Cllr Williams pointed out that the Council’s own manual provided that bank statements should have been produced to show expenditure had been incurred. Offering a legal opinion based on his professional practice, Mr Jones disagreed. What Mr Jones’ keen legal mind did not pick up on, however, was that the procedural manual was a document produced by Pembrokeshire County Council for its own use. It was only approved by WEFO. The manual’s author was before the committee. Going increasing red at the back of his neck, Gwyn Evans failed to explain why he had included something in the original manual that he and his department had no intention of enforcing. He ventured to say that it would not be practical. And the Chair nodded sagely; but Mr Evans could not or did not explain that if his own procedural manual was impractical why he did not realise that and change it to reflect practicalities before any issues arose.

SAY SORRY TO STODDART Cllr Jacob Williams landed a telling blow by following up a point made earlier by Cllr Guy Woodham. Cllr Williams asked why all of the issues that Dr Jones now prayed in aid of his department had not been acknowledged before. Why, in particular, did Dr Jones persist in saying that nobody could have known what was wrong when clear evidence had been presented by Cllr Mike Stoddart at the time that something was amiss? Cllrs Woodham and Williams suggested that officers should apologise to Cllr Stoddart for the way they had previously dealt with his concerns. Councillor Williams went so far as to say that a systematic attempt had been made “to rubbish” the Hakin representative. Dr Jones pointedly declined to apologise and the Council’s European Manager, Gwyn Evans, remarkably said he stood by the content of a public FAQ document which had been shown to be factually incorrect. It was hard to determine whether either officer was intentionally or unintentionally patronising. If the word ‘sorry’ was in their minds, it was rapidly strangled before it could be uttered. Peter Jones, of course, would have been a stranger to the intricacies of the discussion before him. It did not matter how well briefed and prepared he was, the ins and outs of the grants scandal and the efforts of the Council to cover it up were not on his radar.

STODDART GETS A SAY In the teeth of Chair’s bemusement, Cllrs Woodham and Williams proposed that Cllr Stoddart address the meeting. Cllr John Allen Mirehouse gracelessly consented. Two officers, Kerry MacDermott and Jon Haswell, pointed out that as Cllr Stoddart had been invited to address the panel previously on this matter he should be asked to share his thoughts. Cllr Stoddart offered some constructive views on the way forward and agreed that the proposals in the new procedural manual and checklist proposed went some way to tackling concerns. Indeed, Cllr Stoddart seemed to have gained an ally in Jon Haswell, who agreed with him that a very basic amendment could resolve an issue which had plagued the whole grants scheme. Gwyn Evans disagreed. Peter Jones leapt in to Mr Evans’ defence. Mr Haswell was not deflected and persisted with his view. With the Chairman looking at his watch, the meeting ended shambolically and unsatisfactorily with a spat between Cllrs Mirehouse and Stoddart. Peter Jones, seemingly taking the position that the Audit Committee had no choice but to approve the documents before them, drew the meeting to a quick close at the behest of Cllrs Mirehouse and Tom Richards.

Education

Having a laugh? Scientists question inherited joke telling skills

Published

57 minutes ago

July 8, 2025

Tom Sinclair

SCIENTISTS are starting to question whether being able to crack a good joke runs in the family, according to new research.

In the first ever study to look at the influence of genes and the environment on comedic abilities, scientists compared over a thousand twins by asking them to rate their own humour and create funny captions for cartoons.

The new findings, published in the journal ‘Twin Research and Human Genetics’, revealed that the scores people gave their own humour were influenced by both inherited and environmental factors.

However, when their captions were judged independently, there was no evidence that they inherited their humorous talents. Instead, all individual differences were shaped by their environment, though a small genetic effect could not be ruled out.

The results suggest that the reasons why you are funny or your jokes bomb may be more complex and difficult to assess than other cognitive abilities.

It could also help explain the rarity of comedy duos from the same family – such as the Chuckle Brothers or the Marx Brothers – compared to actors, musicians or writers.

Lead author of the study, Dr Gil Greengross from the Psychology Department at Aberystwyth University, said: “Despite humour’s importance, relatively little is known about how we develop our sense of humour or why one sibling can be funny and another cannot. Our study’s finding that these talents are not inherited is surprising, as it contradicts most research on the heritability of cognitive abilities such as creativity and mathematical skills. So, it is really fascinating. But, since this is the first study of its kind, these results should be interpreted with caution.

“Telling a joke may seem simple but having a good sense of humour is a complex and unique trait influenced by numerous psychological attributes and personality characteristics. It varies across different social contexts, like when going on a date or entertaining. This may explain why, Chuckle and Marx Brothers aside, there are few successful comedians from the same immediate family.

“What is exciting about this research is it begs the question: if our sense of humour is not handed down from our parents but comes from our environment, what is it precisely that makes us funny?”

The findings also have implications for how scientists think about humour’s role in evolution and even dating.

Dr Greengross added: “These early findings also challenge the widely accepted evolutionary basis of humour. A great sense of humour can help ease tension in dangerous situations, foster cooperation, break down interpersonal barriers, and attract mates—all of which enhance survival and reproduction.

“There are also intriguing dating and mating aspects to this. Previous research has shown that women prioritise comedic talents in a partner more than do men, whereas men value a women’s ability to appreciate their humour. Men experience stronger selection pressure to be funny to impress women, leading to men having slightly higher humour ability, on average—a finding supported by our study. Furthermore, men rated themselves as funnier than women, likely reflecting an awareness of humour’s importance in female mate choice.”

The research team is now conducting further studies to test the findings with different sample groups of twins.

News

Coal trucks could return to centre of Saundersfoot in tribute to mining past

Published

1 hour ago

July 8, 2025

Tom Sinclair

A TRIO of ornamental coal trucks could soon be installed in the heart of Saundersfoot to honour the village’s historic links to the coal-mining industry.

The replica trucks—made from cast iron and fibreglass—are proposed for a spot at the front of the Sensory Gardens, close to the former Coal Office which now houses part of the harbour’s heritage display.

Saundersfoot flourished in the 19th century as a port exporting anthracite from local mines. It was once claimed that Queen Victoria insisted only Saundersfoot coal be used to power her Royal Yacht.

“This village owes its existence to the coal trade,” said Councillor Chris Williams, who represents Saundersfoot South and is chairing the group behind the plans. “Many people don’t realise how vital the mining industry was to the development of Saundersfoot.”

The display would be paid for and maintained by the Saundersfoot Festivities Committee, which runs events such as the popular New Year’s Day Swim and SaundersFest. The community council would look after the surrounding plants and landscaping, and handle the insurance.

As well as commemorating the village’s industrial past, the project would help smarten up the garden area, Cllr Williams added.

The idea has won widespread support locally, with more than 93 per cent of over 200 respondents to an online poll backing the proposal. A public consultation is currently under way and is due to end on July 20, when the community council will decide whether to take the next step and apply for planning permission.

Photo caption:

Proposed site – the coal trucks would sit at the front of the Sensory Gardens (Pic: Saundersfoot Community Council).

Health

Hundreds speak out as NHS waiting list scandal deepens in west Wales

Published

1 hour ago

July 8, 2025

Tom Sinclair

Patients say they were removed without warning, left in pain, or forgotten entirely – now they want answers

A WAVE of testimony from Pembrokeshire patients has revealed the true scale of the NHS waiting list crisis, with more than 100 people coming forward in just a few days to share stories of lost letters, cancelled appointments, and being removed from hospital care without ever being told.

Following a public appeal by The Pembrokeshire Herald, readers responded in force — describing what they call a “shambolic” system, in which patients are being quietly dropped from waiting lists, given incorrect or late information, and forced to chase departments that never answer the phone.

Letters never arrived — then the appointment was gone

One mother told the Herald she only discovered her young son had been removed from a waiting list for surgery after chasing a non-existent appointment.

“We never received the original letter. Then we turned up for a new date, only to be told it had been cancelled — but no one told us,” she said. “Later, they told me he’d been removed from the list for missing appointments we never knew about.”

In another case, a mother of a child with a rare genetic condition said her daughter was due annual dermatology reviews — but after a cancellation in 2023, she heard nothing for months. In February this year, she received a letter stating her daughter had missed an appointment and was being removed. She said: “We never got the original appointment, and when we finally got one for April, it was cancelled too. We’ve heard nothing since.”

Voicemail chaos and ‘no way to contact anyone’

A recurring theme in the responses was departments not answering their phones, and voicemail systems that lead nowhere.

One woman, removed from a physio course after a single missed session, said: “I rang three times that day, left a full message explaining I was unwell, but no one ever rang me back. Then a letter came saying I’d been removed from the course. I tried ringing again — just voicemail. After the second time, I gave up.”

In another case, a patient who had been waiting for diabetic retinopathy screening since before Covid told us: “I’ve phoned multiple times over three years. Every time they say they’ll send an appointment. I’ve given up.”

One former patient said he was moved to the back of the list after a missed telephone consultation — even though the doctor rang an hour early, and never called again.

GP failures and missed referrals

Many readers raised concerns about general practice as well as hospitals, claiming referrals were never sent or followed up.

One woman wrote: “If my old GP had referred me straight away, I wouldn’t be in the state I am now. As soon as I changed surgeries, I was seen — but by then the damage was done. My life’s been ruined.”

Another reader commented that her father never got the treatment he needed, and believes that delays in referrals contributed to his death.

Transport cancellations and “cheating the system”

Several readers also raised concerns about non-emergency ambulance transport being cancelled at short notice, leaving vulnerable patients unable to attend appointments.

One woman said: “My dad has had his transport cancelled the night before appointments. We had no backup, and he missed it.”

Another reader wrote: “It’s all about stats. They remove people from the list, say they’ve missed appointments, and it makes the waiting time numbers look better. It’s cheating, plain and simple.”

Health board responds — but no figures yet

Hywel Dda University Health Board has responded to the Herald’s request for comment, stating it follows strict national protocols and that any patient removed in error will be reinstated at their original place on the list.

In a statement, Director of Operational Planning and Performance Keith Jones said: “We make every effort to send appointment letters in a timely manner and it is part of our procedure to phone a patient should we need to see them at short notice or to cancel appointments.

We have received feedback from some patients of incidences where appointment letters have not been received in a timely manner. We are reviewing the factors which may lead to late receipt of appointment letters and will implement any necessary improvements.”

The health board also promotes a digital system, Hywel Dda Post, for accessing appointment details online. However, patients have reported issues with this too — particularly those without smartphones or digital literacy.

The board was unable to provide any figures on how many patients have been removed from waiting lists over the last five years and advised the Herald to submit a Freedom of Information request, which has now been done.

Public anger growing

With more than 100 people coming forward in less than 48 hours, public anger is mounting. Many say they are being pushed toward private treatment, or simply left to suffer for years.

“I’ve been in chronic pain for over a decade waiting for three surgeries,” one woman wrote. “I’ve lost 11 years of my life.”

Another added: “It’s not just the health board. Welsh Labour has failed us for years. They have money for road signs and tree projects abroad — but not for our surgeries.”

What’s next?

The Herald will continue to investigate this issue and publish further updates once the FOI response is received.

We are compiling a formal submission to both the Health Board and the Welsh Government, including anonymised patient testimonies, to call for a public explanation of how waiting lists are managed — and how many patients have been quietly removed.

If you or a family member has experienced anything similar — missed letters, unexplained removals, transport cancellations, or GP referral failures — you can contact us in confidence at:

📧 [email protected]