A JOINT business advice surgery will take place later this month after more than one hundred and fifty local firms signed up to an online forum highlighting growing concerns over business rates and rising costs.

The event has been organised by Samuel Kurtz and Paul Davies, who say they were inundated with requests for further help following their recent virtual session on the business rates system.

More than one hundred and fifty businesses from across Pembrokeshire and west Wales registered for the online forum, raising questions about the Valuation Office Agency revaluation process, how rateable values are calculated and what elements can be challenged.

Both Members of the Senedd said the scale of engagement showed a clear appetite for practical, one-to-one advice.

The in-person surgery, scheduled for February 17, will give business owners the chance to discuss their individual circumstances confidentially and seek tailored guidance directly from their elected representatives.

Samuel Kurtz said the response to the forum demonstrated the pressure many firms are under.

“The response showed just how strong the demand is for clear advice and constructive engagement,” he said. “With more than one hundred and fifty registrations, it was evident that many businesses want the opportunity to explore their own situations in greater depth, and that is exactly what this advice surgery is designed to provide.

“Businesses in west Wales are at a cliff edge. Employers tell us the current business rates system is placing real strain on high streets at a time when they are already facing rising staffing, energy and supply costs. Policy should encourage investment and growth, not penalise it.”

Paul Davies added that the session would help them build a stronger case with ministers.

“We want to do everything we can to support businesses in Pembrokeshire and this surgery is a valuable opportunity to listen to their specific concerns and make representations on their behalf,” he said.

“Firms are telling us they feel like they are walking a tightrope. Whether it is rates increases, higher overheads or workforce challenges, the strain is clear. Taking real-world evidence directly to the Welsh Government is the best way to push for change.”

Businesses interested in attending are encouraged to contact the pair’s constituency offices to book an appointment.

Cover image

Offering support: Paul Davies MS and Samuel Kurtz MS (Pic: Supplied)

PM admits he knew of Mandelson’s post-conviction friendship with Jeffrey Epstein as questions mount over vetting and national security

IT took three attempts for Kemi Badenoch to get a straight answer, but when the Prime Minister finally responded, what remained of his authority appeared to drain away.

At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday (Feb 4), the Conservative leader targeted the vetting process behind Peter Mandelson’s appointment as the UK’s ambassador to Washington. The line of attack was widely anticipated. Equally predictable were Keir Starmer’s attempts to deflect.

Eventually, however, disclosure proved unavoidable. The Prime Minister confirmed that when he appointed Mandelson, he already knew that the former Cabinet minister had maintained a friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for child sex offences.

A packed House of Commons audibly gasped.

Whatever political cover Downing Street hoped to create by suggesting Mandelson had repeatedly misled questioners about the relationship quickly evaporated. The reality was stark. Those responsible for the appointment knew that Mandelson’s association with Epstein had continued after conviction, imprisonment and release — and still judged him suitable for Britain’s most sensitive diplomatic post.

That decision now raises profound questions about the Prime Minister’s judgment and the advice he received from senior officials and security services.

As MP after MP rose to speak, common themes emerged. Conservative members described the appointment as reckless. Labour backbenchers said it demonstrated a callous disregard for Epstein’s victims. Others questioned whether proper security warnings had been heeded at all.

When Mandelson was later removed from the Washington role, the Government claimed the decision followed “new revelations” about his association with Epstein. That explanation was left in tatters by the Prime Minister’s admission that the relationship was already known.

Yet the Epstein connection may not be the most politically damaging element of the affair.

During the 2008 financial crisis, taxpayers rescued Britain’s banking system after years of reckless risk-taking. Public anger led ministers to propose a 50% tax on bankers’ bonuses. Papers from the so-called Epstein files suggest that while serving as Business Secretary in Gordon Brown’s Cabinet, Mandelson briefed Epstein on confidential discussions about that tax.

One email indicates he even advised that a senior US banker should “slightly threaten” then-Chancellor Alistair Darling over the proposal.

Labour MP Emily Thornberry was among those who branded the conduct “treachery”.

Further disclosures suggest Mandelson also shared market-sensitive information about the 2010 General Election, including the progress of coalition negotiations and advance notice that Brown would step down. Even if intended as political gossip, such information could have delivered a significant trading advantage to well-placed investors.

Whether profits were made is beside the point. The mere possibility that privileged Cabinet intelligence reached a convicted sex offender is politically toxic.

Now the Metropolitan Police Service has launched an investigation into whether any criminal offences were committed, placing the Prime Minister in an increasingly awkward position. Detectives have warned against the release of potentially relevant documents, complicating calls for full transparency.

Although the Intelligence and Security Committee will review the material, public confidence may already be too badly shaken.

Mandelson’s long and controversial career in public life appears finished. The unresolved question is whether his downfall will drag the Prime Minister down with him.

With Labour sliding in the polls, internally divided, facing elections in Scotland and Wales and a looming by-election in Manchester, the political crunch may not be far away.

Party insists he lives in Wales despite owning home across the border

REFORM UK has confirmed that its newly appointed Welsh leader Dan Thomas owns a house in the English city of Bath, but maintains he is currently living in Wales with his family.

The row follows reporting by Nation.Cymru, which questioned whether Mr Thomas had relocated to Wales as claimed when he was unveiled as the party’s figurehead ahead of the next Senedd Cymru election.

Mr Thomas was introduced to supporters at a rally in Newport by Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, who said the former London Conservative council leader had “returned to his roots” in the Valleys to raise his young family.

Mr Thomas has also publicly stated that he lives in Wales.

However, the Welsh news site reported that he had sold his London home and told former colleagues he was moving to the Bath area for work and to be closer to family.

Following publication of the story, a Reform UK press officer contacted the outlet insisting: “Dan lives in Wales. Any claim to the contrary is entirely false. He lives here in Wales, where he is raising his young family.”

When pressed further, the party acknowledged that Mr Thomas owns property in Bath, but said it is rented out and not his main residence.

The clarification prompted a series of additional questions from journalists, including when the Bath property was purchased, whether he ever lived there, and why it was bought if the intention had always been to relocate to Wales.

They also sought confirmation of where Mr Thomas is registered to vote and the circumstances around his appointment as Reform UK’s Welsh leader.

According to the publication, those questions were not answered directly. Reform UK instead repeated that Mr Thomas “lives here in Wales with his wife and children” and called for the original article to be removed.

In a subsequent video statement, Mr Thomas described the coverage as a “smear”, saying political opponents were “rattled” and inviting “credible, trustworthy journalists” to visit him for “a cup of tea” to prove he lives in Wales.

The issue matters because candidates seeking election to the Senedd are expected to demonstrate a clear residential link to Wales.

Reform UK has not provided further detail about Mr Thomas’s living arrangements.

This article is based on reporting first published by Martin Shipton at Nation.Cymru and is rewritten with attribution.