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
Labour’s refusal to compensate WASPI women sparks outrage
THE UK LABOUR GOVERNMENT has ignited controversy by refusing to compensate the 3.8 million Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) campaigners affected by changes to the state pension age. The decision has drawn fierce criticism from opposition figures and campaigners, who accuse Labour of breaking election promises made to these women.
The WASPI women are campaigning because they believe they were unfairly impacted by changes to the state pension age, which were poorly communicated and left many born in the 1950s financially unprepared. The sudden shift from receiving pensions at 60 to later ages caused significant hardship, as many were unable to adjust their retirement plans in time. They argue the changes disproportionately affect them due to limited financial opportunities earlier in life, and the lack of transitional arrangements or compensation exacerbates the harm caused. WASPI women seek fair redress for the financial and emotional distress they have endured.
Andrew RT Davies, Senedd Member for South Wales Central and former Welsh Conservatives leader, condemned the decision. Speaking to The Herald, he said: “This decision shows what a bunch of shameless opportunists Labour are. Many of the Labour great and good, including Eluned Morgan, said their party would compensate WASPI women when they were trying to get votes, and now haven’t kept up their end of the bargain.
“People across Wales will see this decision and conclude that they cannot trust Labour again.”
The controversial decision
The announcement follows a long-standing campaign by WASPI women, who argue that the government failed to notify them adequately about changes to the state pension age. These changes left many women facing financial hardship.
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) previously recommended compensation ranging from £1,000 to £2,950 per affected individual. However, the Labour Government has rejected providing financial redress, citing financial constraints.
Key points from the decision include:
- Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall described compensation as “unfair and poor value for taxpayers’ money.”
- Chancellor Rachel Reeves defended the move, claiming most women were aware of the pension age changes and suggesting the reforms had “significant awareness.”
- Ministers argued there was no evidence of “direct financial loss” and that compensation could cost up to £10.5 billion, which they deemed disproportionate.
- The government plans to introduce an action plan addressing issues raised in the Ombudsman’s report, aiming for clearer communication in future pension reforms.
Backlash from campaigners
The WASPI campaign group condemned the decision as “bizarre and totally unjustified.” A spokesperson said: “This is a devastating blow for the millions of women who have been waiting for justice. It raises serious questions about the government’s commitment to fairness and accountability.”
Liberal Democrat Welsh Affairs Spokesperson David Chadwick MP called the decision a “day of shame” for Labour.
“The new government has turned its back on millions of pension-age women who were wronged through no fault of their own. Ignoring the Ombudsman’s recommendations is disgraceful.
“For years, Liberal Democrats have pushed the government to fairly compensate WASPI women. Today’s heartless decision cannot be allowed to stand, and we will press ministers to give those affected the fair treatment they deserve.”
Political ramifications in Wales
In Wales, where Labour has traditionally held strong support, the decision has caused outrage among affected women.
“We trusted Labour to stand up for us,” said a WASPI campaigner in Cardiff. “They promised us compensation, and now they’re turning their backs. How can we ever trust them again?”
Andrew RT Davies warned of potential long-term political consequences. “Labour’s actions send a clear message to voters: when push comes to shove, they cannot be trusted to deliver on their promises,” he said.
Financial and social impact
The refusal to compensate exacerbates the financial struggles faced by many WASPI women. Campaigners argue the decision undermines their financial stability and fails to acknowledge the harm caused by the sudden changes.
“This isn’t just about money,” said another campaigner. “It’s about fairness. Many of us lost years of financial stability and retirement dreams. That’s not something you can sweep under the rug.”
Next steps for campaigners
The WASPI group vowed to continue fighting for justice, with plans for legal challenges and further demonstrations to keep the issue in the public eye.
As Labour faces backlash, particularly from older voters, the decision could have significant repercussions in the next general election, especially in battleground areas like Wales. The plight of WASPI women remains a stark reminder of the challenges facing today’s pension system.
Politics
Pembrokeshire Long Course Weekend changes could be made
PEMBROKESHIRE’S annual Long Course Weekend triathlon event could be run on a different route in future, in an attempt to alleviate what is said to be some south county communities “at breaking point” from road closures.
Billed as ‘Europe’s largest multi-sport festival’, the event features swim, bike and run over a variety of distances, with the elite athletes completing all three disciplines at maximum distance to earn the coveted Long Course Weekend medal.
The Tenby-based multi-day triathlon events have been held in the summer since 2010 in the county, but concerns have been raised about loss of trade and inconvenience due to road closures associated with it, particularly the cycling events.
Local members Cllr Chris Williams and Cllr Alec Cormack had asked, at the December meeting of Pembrokeshire County Council’s full council, that the council withdraw support for the annual Long Course Weekend.
That support takes the form of ‘in-kind’ support such as road closures and car parking rather than a direct financial input.
Their Notice of Motion says: “This multi-day triathlon event, typically taking place in June, has been a significant success in terms of showcasing our county and promoting physical activity. However, as the event has grown in scale, it has increasingly led to disruption for residents and businesses along the course, many of whom report inconvenience or loss of trade due to road closures spanning up to three days.”
It ended, proposing that “PCC withdraw all support for the Long Course Weekend moving forward, ensuring that council resources are directed towards services and initiatives that directly benefit the wider community”.
In a supporting statement, the two councillors said: “Our community is at breaking point; residents and businesses in Saundersfoot, Amroth, Wisemans Bridge and Coppet Hall are effectively cut-off for the majority of a Saturday each June/July by the Long Course Weekend two-lap bike race. Many other areas of South Pembs are similarly affected, some on both Saturday and Sunday if they are also on the run course too.”
Since their notice of motion was publicised, an alternative arrangement was mooted by the Long Course organisers on the eve of the council meeting.
Members at the December meeting were told the alternate routes could see the cycling element take place in a single loop, reaching further into the northern part of the county.
Cllr Williams asked, in light of the late proposals for alternative routes to alleviate the issue, his joint notice not be proceeded with, calling for the latest changes to be considered by council scrutiny committee ahead of any decision by Cabinet.
“The most important consideration is the Long Course route, matters in this notice of motion can therefore then be considered.”
Chief Executive Will Bramble said the alternate proposals which may minimise disruption and may not lead to road closures may alleviate much of the “negative feedback,” with the potential new route taking the cycling event out towards Angle and up towards Fishguard.
Members supported an officer report detailling the organisers’ proposals be sent to scrutiny committee in early 2025, ahead of any Cabinet decision early in the new year.
Community
Newport Parrog car park takeover is bid to save toilets
A CALL for a north Pembrokeshire beach-side car park to be given to the local town council to use as a source of funding to keep its closure-threatened public toilet open has been backed by the national park.
Members of the December meeting of Pembrokeshire Coast National Park were recommended to approve the surrender of the existing National Park Authority lease of the 40-vehicle Newport Parrog car park and listed lime kiln to Newport Town Council.
A report for members said the Park acquired an 80-year lease at a “nominal rent” of £268 a year on the site back in 1996.
The report says the continued existence of the lease prevents the Park or anyone else from introducing parking charges, with a special covenant in its conditions.
Adjoining the car park is a public toilet which the county council intends to close in early 2025, unless another party is willing to step forward and assume responsibility for its continuing management and operation, members heard.
“Newport Town Council has stated their willingness to assume that responsibility conditional upon them being able to generate a long-term revenue stream to cover its operating costs. They have identified the introduction of parking charges for the car park as a means of raising that revenue stream.
“It is an unusual step for a local community to advocate for the imposition of car park charges upon itself, although their reasons for doing so in this instance are quite clear, and has already received a mandate of support from within the local community.
“To give effect to that mandate, Newport Town Council need to secure two principal objectives: Long-term control of the subject land: they have already agreed terms with our landlord (The Baroney of Cemmas, Alex Hawksworthy) to acquire his freehold of the subject land and the public toilets. Secure full vacant possession of the subject land by taking a surrender of the Authority’s remaining unexpired lease term thereby allowing them to introduce parking charges in their capacity as the owner-operator of the subject land.”
The report, recommending delegated approval be given to its chief executive to complete the surrender, concluded: “The continuation of the National Park lease represents an unfunded long-term liability for the Authority and also frustrates Newport Town Councils ability to protect and secure the at-risk public toilet facilities.
“The proposal put forward by Newport Town Council is considered to be a creative and practical long-term solution which would see both the freehold of the car park, lime kiln and public toilet facility pass from private control into local public ownership and remain available for public use under the direct control of Newport Town Council.”
Speaking at the meeting, local member Cllr Mike James, who moved approval, said a recent meeting in Newport’s town hall unanimously passed support for the proposal being brought before the national park.
The proposal for a delegated decision was passed by Park members.
-
Top News2 days ago
Pembrokeshire man jailed after repeatedly punching pregnant wife
-
Entertainment5 days ago
Reef’s 30th Anniversary Tour hits Tenby in 2025
-
Top News1 day ago
Police investigate dogs seen persistently chasing sheep on Pembrokeshire airfield
-
News5 days ago
Thai mother’s harrowing 999 call: “I felt like a robot, I felt twisted, I killed my son”
-
News7 days ago
Pembrokeshire loses out as Labour ‘rewards its heartlands’
-
News3 days ago
Dyfed-Powys Police launches attempted murder investigation
-
Health6 days ago
As many as 100,000 people in Wales could have Long Covid
-
Crime6 days ago
Seventeen deaths at Parc Prison: Calls for action after MP inquiry