Y Byd ar Bedwar last night focused on solar farms in Wales. As most readers of Syniadau will know, I am entirely in favour of renewable energy ... although that doesn't mean I don't have concerns over some individual proposals or the financial framework which applies to energy projects in general.
In particular, I think local communities should either partially own or receive a fair share of the profits made by developers and landowners for renewable schemes such as solar and wind farms. Much of the programme examined complaints that local communities were not in fact benefiting in the way that had been promised/expected when these schemes were given permission. I think there would be a better chance of it happening if that financial framework were administered by the Welsh Government rather than the UK Government in Westminster.
The full programme (with subtitles) is available here, but I would like to highlight something that Llyr Gruffydd said in it:
"The Westminster Government, as we've seen, has done nothing less than attack the renewables sector since the British General Election last May; through cutting subsidies, through changing the rules, and so on.
"And of course they, in London, are now looking to invest more and more in fracking and in nuclear – the sort of methods which are not, in my opinion, going to allow us to fulfil our climate change and environmental obligations here in Wales."
I agree with him entirely on this. But what I find sad is that he is only able to offer this as a personal opinion, rather than as the policy of Plaid Cymru. If he were to say that Plaid Cymru's policy is one of total opposition to any new nuclear power stations in Wales (which is in fact true, because that's the position endorsed repeatedly in party conferences) he would immediately be contradicted by other prominent Plaid Cymru politicians saying how much they support new nuclear power. Similarly, if he were to say that Plaid supported other renewables such as onshore wind farms, he would immediately be contradicted by other Plaid Cymru politicians saying that they oppose them. In fact it has become something of a mantra for Plaid politicians to talk about personal opinions rather than party policy when interviewed in the media, in an attempt to avoid highlighting these divisions.
As everyone knows, Plaid Cymru is all over the place when it comes to energy policy, because no-one in the party leadership is strong enough to unite the party around one policy for the whole of Wales. The same is true in other policy areas, too.
As things stand, Plaid Cymru is not a party for the whole of Wales, but better thought of as a set of local parties with often different local policies. This is the main reason it is going to continue go backwards in terms of the seats it will hold in the National Assembly after the May elections, and why it is in danger of falling to fourth place in terms of the vote across most of Wales. Yes, it will still hold on in its local heartlands, and perhaps even increase its level of support there, but it will do so at the price of becoming more and more irrelevant at a national level.
I was surprised to see, as reported here and here, that talks about an electoral pact between the Greens, Plaid Cymru and LibDems for the Assembly elections in May had come to naught. There was a lot to be gained from such cooperation, although not as much as the total of 22 seats mentioned in the ITV report.
The reason for this is that the election system for our National Assembly is heavily weighted in favour of constituency seats. Two-thirds of the seats are decided on the first-past-the-post system, leaving only one-third of them to help correct that bias. Yes, these additional seats do correct it to some extent, by not to the same extent as in Scotland, where there is a 73/56 or 57%/43% split. So the key to electoral success in the Assembly is winning constituency seats.
A quick look at the results from 2011 shows that there are five constituency seats that could be won from either Labour or the Tories if the Greens, Plaid and LibDems were able to work together. Ordered by the size of the margin they are:
Cardiff Central
won by Labour with 37.9%, combined three party vote 44.9%
Aberconwy
won by the Tories with 34.0%, combined three party vote 40.4%
Llanelli
won by Labour with 39.7%, combined three party vote 41.5%
Montgomery
won by the Tories with 43.7%, combined three party vote 44.9%
Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire
won by the Tories with 35.8%, combined three party vote 33.6%
Of course a lot has changed since 2011. Opinion polls show that the LibDems have plummeted and that UKIP have risen. But UKIP are not likely to win any constituency seats, so whatever they get is irrelevant to winning seats from Labour and the Tories. The LibDem collapse is rather more pertinent. It means that Kirsty Williams will have to fight hard to hold Brecon and Radnor, and could do with all the help she can get. So negotiating an electoral pact could positively affect that seat too, making six constituency seats in total.
So why on earth did they fail to do it?
-
There are two answers. Squabbles over which party was chosen to fight these seats, and the complicating effect of the regional lists.
As I see it, the LibDems are in prime position to win Cardiff Central and Montgomery, and Plaid in prime position to win Llanelli, Aberconwy and, as a long shot, Carmarthen West. Put bluntly, the Greens aren't in prime position to win any of these seats, so if Plaid Cymru and the LibDems wanted to reach a bi-lateral agreement without the Greens, they could do so and gain from it.
-
Looking at the North Wales region first. The LibDems have no hope of winning any constituency seat and Plaid are certain to win two: Ynys Môn and Arfon. Both parties won a list seat in 2011, but the problem this time round is that UKIP are certain to win one list seat, and might well win two. As there are still only four list seats, the last thing Plaid wants is to be in the scrap to win one of them. The win-win situation would be for Plaid to gain Aberconwy with LibDem help, thereby dropping out of the running for a list seat. This would mean that the LibDems only have to fight the Tories and UKIP to hold their one list seat, although it's still a long shot because a Tory loss in Aberconwy would just result in them winning a list seat instead. If the LibDems were really clever they would encourage people to vote for a Tory win in Clwyd South ... but that might be a step too much for them.
-
The next interesting region is Mid and West Wales. This is where the LibDems have most to gain from an electoral pact. Looked at from an "unambitious" perspective, Kirsty Williams probably feels quite safe. Provided she is first on the LibDem list, losing Brecon and Radnor would just mean that she got a list seat instead. But the general collapse in LibDem support means that the LibDems would find it all but impossible to win two list seats. So the only realistic way for the LibDems to keep two seats overall would be for them to hold Brecon and Radnor and gain Montgomery from the Tories.
Plaid, from the same unambitious perspective, probably think in a similar way. Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Ceredigion and Carmarthen East were safe seats in 2011 and will remain safe this year. It didn't really matter to them that they narrowly lost Llanelli in 2011, because they made up for it by getting a list seat instead. However this time round they will almost certainly not get a list seat if they lose Llanelli, because of UKIP. I also think Plaid are far from certain of winning Llanelli this time, not least because Lee Waters is an exceptionally good choice of candidate for Labour. As a bonus, the pact would also give them an outside chance of gaining Carmarthen West from the Tories, a seat which they can have no serious prospect of winning without that help. Even if they didn't win it, they would have absolutely nothing to lose.
For the Greens, the advantage of a pact is that if the LibDems and Plaid were to win these constituency seats, they would then be completely out of the running for any list seats. The four available seats would instead be contested between Labour, the Tories, UKIP and the Greens. So even though a three party pact would not benefit the Greens in constituency seats, it could make all the difference in terms of them gaining a list seat. They might well be able to win the seat anyway, without a pact, but the pact would turn possibility into probability.
-
I don't think an electoral pact will make any difference to the outcomes in South Wales West and South Wales East, which leaves South Wales Central.
Despite all the optimism in the world Plaid and the Greens are not going to win any constituency seats on their own, and especially not Rhondda. Leanne Wood never stood a chance. In constituency terms, the only one of the three parties that could win on their own is the LibDems in Cardiff Central. Yet it would be far from easy because they have slipped a very long way.
There are two ways of looking at things, both dependent on the strength of the Green vote. In 2011, the Greens got a higher percentage of the list vote in Cardiff Central (9.1%) than in any other constituency in Wales.
In the first scenario, if the Greens had wanted the other two parties to stand down in one of the five constituency seats I listed above (leaving the others to Plaid and the LibDems) it would be this one. I wasn't involved in the negotiations, so I don't know whether the Greens made a stand on this. But from a LibDem perspective, they made up for losing Cardiff Central by gaining a list seat in 2011, and they would certainly win a list seat this time round if they stood down in favour of the Greens. So the LibDems had nothing to lose; one way or the other, they could only win one of the twelve seats in SWC ... and couldn't possibly win two.
The second way of looking at it is that if the LibDems won with Green and Plaid support in Cardiff Central they would then not win a list seat, and this would make it more likely for Plaid to win two list seats rather than one, or for the Greens to win one list seat.
The first option is better than the second, but either way, the overall result for the three parties is increased by an electoral pact. However the main factor will be how well the Tories do in the two SWC constituencies in which they stand a chance: if they win Cardiff North and/or the Vale of Glamorgan it will mean that they are that much less likely to win a list seat. With a pact (and Tory luck) the three parties could win four seats out of twelve if the Greens won Cardiff Central, or three if the Lib Dems won it. Without a pact they might end up with only two.
-
In short, an electoral pact was a no-brainer which would give the three parties a fair chance of winning five more seats than they are likely to win on their own. That's a lot to throw away.
During the campaign for the Westminster election in May, the Tories promised that they would deliver £12bn of welfare cuts ... but refused point-blank to tell us what, exactly, they were going to cut. Of course nobody doubted that they could make this level of cuts, but if they'd been specific about what they were going to cut, a lot of people might have had second thoughts about voting for them.
Yesterday, Plaid Cymru took a leaf directly out of that Tory book. They made a promise that, if elected next May, they would generate all Wales' electricity from renewable sources within 20 years ... but refused point-blank to tell us how they intended to do it.
As with the Tories and their welfare cuts, nobody doubts that Wales can produce more electricity from renewable sources than we consume. Although, to be precise, this isn't the same as saying that all Wales' electricity would come from renewables, but is probably what Plaid would have said if they'd thought more clearly about it. That in itself should give people a good idea of how seriously Plaid have thought this through.
But, to make that point more forcibly, we need to ask why Plaid only intend to produce this "route map" after they've been elected. What new information will be available next summer that isn't available right now? It's not as if there is some "secret" information that will only be available to Plaid Cymru if they form the next government.
In short, this policy announcement, as it stands, is nothing more than a confidence trick.
So what are Plaid Cymru playing at?
As I see it, there are two factors at play.
The first is blunt, but honest. There is no way that Plaid Cymru have a hope in hell of forming the next government of Wales. Plaid Cymru might, if they're very lucky, win one or two more seats next May, but (especially with the rise of UKIP) it is actually far more likely that they will lose one or two seats. In other words, they're pretty sure that they will never be called upon to deliver this "route map". It's the luxury of being in opposition.
The second is that if they were clear about how they intended to achieve it, they think (wrongly, in my opinion) they would alienate people and therefore stand even less chance of winning any new seats. However they formulate the renewable energy generating mix, it will mean many more wind farms and/or solar parks and/or tidal lagoons in Wales ... and will also mean new grid connexions to link these to the gird. Remember that only about 10% of our electricity is currently generated from renewables. We have a very long way to go.
From my time as a Plaid Cymru insider, I know that the party is all over the place when it comes to energy. Their policies in this area are hopelessly contradictory, and no-one is strong enough to unite the various factions and narrow interest groups within the leadership.
So, as it stands, this announcement should be, and will be, seen as nothing more than a joke. If Plaid Cymru want to be taken seriously, the answer is simple. Produce this "route map" now—before the election, not after it—and, if it's any good, they might be pleasantly surprised at how many people vote for Plaid because of it.
That's the way honest politics is meant to work. Only a party of charlatans could expect the public to buy a pig in a poke.
There are many things to criticize Plaid Cymru for, but the one thing that has disturbed me most is in fact the central plank of their election campaign: namely that they want parity with Scotland both in terms of devolved powers and in terms of funding.
I don't have a particular problem with parity of devolved powers because, as things stand, our National Assembly has fewer powers than the Scottish Parliament, and therefore parity would be a practical first step. I would only qualify this by saying that I wouldn't want the powers of the Scottish Parliament to act as a limit. To give one example: it looks likely that powers to set the rate of Corporation Tax will be devolved to the Six Counties, but not to Scotland. Therefore I would want Wales to have this power too, irrespective of whether or not Scotland gets it.
For me, the principle is that I want everything that is currently decided at Westminster to be decided by our National Assembly ... in other words, independence.
-
But I do have a very big problem with the idea that Wales should get parity of funding with Scotland. And I am frankly amazed that Plaid Cymru has abandoned its previous position of wanting fair funding for Wales, and now wants something that is patently unfair.
Of course I understand why and how it happened, but that doesn't excuse Plaid's behaviour. The Holtham Commission did a good piece of work, demonstrating that Wales was underfunded relative to need on the basis of an objective formula. At that time, the block grant to the National Assembly fell short of what we would get by applying this needs-based formula by roughly £300m a year. This was set to get worse because of the Barnett Squeeze, but in fact has not got worse because cuts in public expenditure have put the Squeeze into reverse. However the shortfall will increase again when public expenditure starts to rise over the next few years.
Because of this shortfall, coupled with general discontent with the way Barnett worked anyway with regard to Scotland, there seemed to be consensus among all the parties in the Assembly (the Tories, Labour and LibDems as well as Plaid Cymru) that Barnett had reached the end of its working life and needed to be replaced. The problem is that just before the Scottish independence referendum, those three Unionist parties panicked in the face of closer than expected opinion polls, and made a vow to retain Barnett.
It was at this point that Plaid Cymru panicked ... with the result that they came up with a policy to demand the same amount of funding per head as Scotland gets. Of course not all public spending in Scotland is channelled through the Scottish Parliament (for example most benefits and pensions are paid directly to individuals and families) but if the same "block grant per head" were paid to our National Assembly as is paid to the Scottish Parliament it would indeed, after making allowance for different devolved functions, result in Wales getting something like an additional £1.2bn in block grant.
Now what's wrong with that? Well, to put it bluntly, any child could see what's wrong with it. Why pick Scotland? Why not pick England instead and demand that Wales gets a block grant equivalent to the same level of funding per head as England? Simple, because if Plaid Cymru picked England, Wales would get much less of a block grant than we do now. In other words, picking Scotland is a blatantly biased choice. If the principle you adopt is equal spending per head, then that has to apply across the whole of the United Kingdom—which, by the way, is UKIP's policy—it cannot be applied selectively.
In effect what Plaid Cymru are doing is asking English taxpayers to give Wales much more than we need on any objective basis, and very much more than they give themselves. It is a wicked and stupid idea, and I have to say I'm very glad that I am no longer associated with a party that can come up with something that can only be described as a total perversion of any concept of either fairness or reason.
-
In principle there are some very basic rules about how to redistribute funding between different parts of a state. We need to consider two things: how much each part of the state produces in terms of tax revenue, and how much each part of the state needs. One sum will be usually be higher than the other, and an equitable funding formula must be somewhere between the two. It cannot be outside that range.
A needs-based formula on its own will not work because, as the Holtham Commission noted, if it were applied to Scotland, it would result in Scotland getting maybe £4bn a year less in block grant than it does now. However that does not mean that Scotland is over-funded, because Scotland provides more per head in tax revenue to the Treasury than most other parts of the UK. In Scotland's case, the proportion of tax revenue it contributes to the Treasury is more than its relative needs, therefore it is right that Scotland gets more than it needs.
But in the case of Wales, what we produce in tax revenue per head is quite a bit lower than other parts of the UK, and the sum is also lower than what we objectively need, based on the formula used by Holtham (which, by the way, is based on the way money is distributed by departments within England). It is therefore reasonable and justified to say that Wales deserves more money, but only as much as will bring us up towards what we objectively need ... not more than that. To ask for or expect more is nothing but greed. Yet this is what Plaid Cymru have sunk to. It's sickening and shameful.
-
It's also deceitful, because it is undeliverable. As I showed in the last post, even if the SNP win upwards of 50 seats on Thursday, they will not get to determine the direction of government. The same would be just as true if Plaid Cymru won 35 seats in Wales. 533 English MPs will never vote to give Wales more than it either contributes to the Treasury or needs.
That's not to say that there are other aspects of the way Wales is funded that can't be improved. In addition to the £300m shortfall in the block grant (or whatever it now is when the Holtham formula is applied) we can rightly call for our fair share of infrastructure investment so that, for example, Wales gets a pro-rata share of rail infrastructure investment or research funding relative to the rest of the UK. But we must make a reasoned and rational case for this, and we weaken any case we make if we, at the same time, are making unreasonable and irrational demands.
-
In closing, I would also ask people to consider, in practical terms, what the result of getting more money from England than we either need or contribute to the Treasury would be. How on earth would it help us stand on our own two feet as a nation? It would simply tie us closer into dependency on England. Yet this is party policy ... from a party that supposedly wants independence! Perhaps, under better leadership, Plaid Cymru might become a party that is worth voting for again ... but it certainly isn't worth voting for them now.
A couple of weeks ago, Leanne Wood was on a BBC3 programme called Free Speech, facing an audience of people aged 16-34. The full programme is here, but I want to concentrate on this question about badgers:
It might be worth reminding people about the context of the question. The badger cull was a key part of the policy to control Bovine TB introduced by Elin Jones as Minister for Rural Affairs during the One Wales Labour-Plaid coalition between 2007 and 2011.
A number of legal challenges were made, but Elin was determined to press ahead with the cull. After several legal hurdles were overcome, the policy was eventually declared lawful in a judicial review in April 2010, but the Badger Trust was given leave to appeal a few months later, and uncertainty over the outcome coupled with the looming Assembly elections meant that although plans were made for it to go ahead, the cull was never implemented.
The election in 2011 resulted in Labour being able to govern Wales without having to rely on Plaid Cymru support. One of the first things they did was put the cull on hold pending a review of the scientific evidence. Plaid's criticism of this decision was fierce. Elin Jones called the decision a "slap in the face" for farmers, and said to John Griffiths, the new minister: "In your first act you've let farmers down."
Towards the end of 2011, following the announcement that the Tory-led government in Westminster was to go ahead with a badger cull in England, Plaid's new spokesperson on Rural Affairs, Llyr Huws Gruffydd, again re-iterated that Plaid's policy in favour of a badger cull had not changed, saying:
“This announcement is another severe embarrassment for the Labour Welsh Government and highlights its policy of inactivity.
“With a Plaid Cymru Minister in the previous Welsh Government, Wales had a comprehensive Bovine TB eradication plan. Now under Labour, eradication plans are on hold and the Minister is refusing to say what, if anything, he intends to do about this massive problem for our rural areas."
The scientific review concluded that vaccination was a better option that culling, and John Griffiths announced that the cull would not go ahead in March 2012. But, even so, Plaid Cymru still maintained that culling was necessary. This was Llyr Huws Gruffydd's response:
"The Labour minister has displayed blind ignorance by disregarding the scientific evidence, and all because he has to fall in line with Labour's new policy in London. Wales is now swimming against the tide of scientific evidence that has seen England adopt a culling policy, with Northern Ireland also moving in that direction."
Elin Jones' response was even more revealing: it was personal, petulant and irresponsible. In fact, it would probably be construed as an incitement for farmers to break the law:
"Farmers will now have to decide how best to protect their cattle and I for one would not blame them for anything they do."
So it should be perfectly clear that Plaid Cymru's policy has been to cull badgers, even after a review of the scientific evidence had concluded that vaccination was a better option that culling.
-
So how is it possible to reconcile these facts with what Leanne Wood has just said in the video clip above?
She said that Plaid had "moved on" because there were now better alternatives to culling. But, as we can see from the evidence above, even after the scientific review had concluded that vaccination was a better option than culling, Plaid was still in favour of culling.
-
I think this highlights how deep-rooted Plaid Cymru's problems are when it comes to formulating what their policy on any issue is, and then how to communicate that policy to the public at large.
An anecdote might help. A few years ago I attended the Plaid Cymru Summer School at Bala. One of the sessions was on tricky policy issues and was headed by Nerys Evans, who was Plaid's Director of Policy. The emphasis was not on stating, let alone explaining, what party policy was. In fact, it was often far from clear what Plaid's policy was even to the hard-core activists who go to an event like a Summer School. Instead the emphasis seemed to be on being able to give what I can only call a "sweet" answer to the interviewer or member of the public who might ask an awkward question. Something that showed you understood their concern and agreed with it, rather than run the risk of alienating them by giving an answer that they might not like.
As I got to move among the leadership over my years in Plaid, I came to realize that this attitude pervades the leadership of the party; and I think this, more than anything else, explains why Plaid are so inconsistent when it comes to tricky policy issues. The answer that anyone in a position of leadership gives at any time is tailored to suit the people they are addressing. In extreme cases, it results in people giving two different and opposite answers to the same question depending on who they are talking to – but more usually it results in people giving an answer that suits them and which they personally feel comfortable with, simply because they would find it too awkward to go out on a limb and defend a policy they might not agree with or which they thought the people they were talking to might not agree with.
-
I found this attitude disappointing and increasingly annoying. For me, what is important is what Plaid Cymru's policy on any issue actually is, and why it is what it is. So, on the particular issue of badger culling, I'd want to know whether they are for or against it. Any straight question deserves an objective, and consistent, answer.
I've now done some fairly thorough research, and I cannot find anything that would indicate that Plaid Cymru had or has changed its policy on culling badgers. It may well be the case that Plaid has now reversed its policy, but if the party has indeed made a U-turn of such magnitude (bearing in mind how fervently they were once in favour of culling and how viciously they castigated Labour for cancelling the cull) they owed it to their membership and, more importantly, to the public at large to first say that they had changed their policy and then explain why they had done so. A professional party would surely have issued a statement or press release to that effect. It would have been headline news.
But they didn't. What Leanne said in the video clip above is, so far as I can ascertain, the first indication of any change.
And this raises a rather disturbing possibility. Given Plaid's track record on tricky policy issues, I have to say that it is just as likely that the party's policy on culling badgers was never changed, and that Leanne was simply giving an answer that she thought would go down well with the audience she happened to be addressing. To put it bluntly, that she thought giving a "sweet" answer was more important for Plaid's electoral chances at this election than telling the truth.
The latest YouGov poll for ITV Cymru Wales provides, as always, some very useful information about the state of the parties in Wales. This time round, it was quite startling to see that Plaid Cymru's overall support for the upcoming Westminster election has fallen to 10%, but that support for the Greens in Wales has risen by 3% points to 8%, putting them within touching distance of Plaid.
Plaid Cymru's response to this was to launch into an unabashed love-bombing campaign aimed at Green Party supporters in Wales, and what better person to do it than Dafydd Wigley. This is what he said to Adrian Masters.
Unsurprisingly, I agree entirely with the idea that the Green Party is the best party to support in England, after all, I've been advocating that for years. But, as Adrian noted, the second part of Plaid's agenda is to ask people in Wales who might be inclined to vote for the Greens to vote for Plaid Cymru instead ... and, as Dafydd admitted, he would be delighted if they did.
The problem is that neither he nor the other leaders of Plaid Cymru have thought things through clearly enough.
-
Plaid's biggest electoral problem is that their support in Wales is disproportionately concentrated in just some parts of Wales. Yes, given the unfair nature of the first-past-the-post voting system, Dafydd is right to say that it would make sense for Green voters in the parts of Wales where Plaid is strong to consider voting for Plaid. But, by that same logic, the opposite is true in those parts of Wales where Plaid has now become weaker than the Greens.
For although the headline voting intention in the YouGov poll for Wales as a whole puts Plaid marginally ahead of the Greens, we just need to look at the regional breakdown to see that in some parts of Wales Plaid is now a very poor second behind the Greens. In South Wales Central (which includes Cardiff) support for the Greens is now double the support for Plaid Cymru.
Westminster Voting Intention
All Wales ... Plaid 10% ... Greens 8%
North Wales ... Plaid 9% ... Greens 6%
Mid and West Wales ... Plaid 19% ... Greens 6%
South Wales West ... Plaid 10% ... Greens 6%
South Wales Central ... Plaid 6% ... Greens 12%
South Wales East ... Plaid 5% ... Greens 8%
Obviously things will vary on a constituency by constituency basis. But in general terms, if the Greens, the SNP and Plaid Cymru are to make any inroads in May as a group of parties working together to oppose the austerity agenda that the Tories, Labour and LibDems have each signed up to, then it is better for those who would normally be inclined to vote for Plaid in South Wales Central and South Wales East to vote Green instead. The same is probably true for those in the eastern half of the North Wales electoral region.
The logic of what Dafydd was saying is perfectly valid. He and the rest of the Plaid leadership just hadn't looked carefully enough at the detail.
This is the twenty-sixth tranche of emails from the correspondence between various people in Plaid Cymru and myself, following a complaint about what I had written on the subject of the Ynys Môn by-election last year. For easy reference, I've put together the all the previous correspondence on this page.
From: Jocelyn Davies Sent: Tuesday, 1 July 2014, 9:51pm To: Michael Haggett Cc: Rhuanedd Richards Subject: Fwd: Second Appeal
Michael
I'm forwarding the email below from Rhuanedd, and thank you for email you sent me earlier this evening. I'll arrange for it to be circulated it to the other panel members.
Best wishes
Jocelyn
Begin forwarded message:
From: Rhuanedd Richards Sent: Tuesday, 1 July 2014, 9:29am To: Jocelyn Davies Subject: Fw: Second Appeal
Dear Jocelyn
Would you be so kind as to send this on to Michael please. I sent a ‘read receipt’ with the email yesterday morning in light of the problems with the previous email but I haven’t received anything to confirm that it has been read. I am not aware of any current problems with our email system but Michael may want to check the way his computer is filtering emails in case they are going somewhere other than his inbox.
Thank you
Rhuanedd
From: Rhuanedd Richards Sent: Monday, 30 June 2014, 9:22am To: Michael Haggett Cc: Jocelyn Davies Subject: Re: Second Appeal
Dear Michael
I’m grateful to Jocelyn for passing on the email that you did not receive and to you for confirming the grounds of the appeal.
The names of those who will serve on the Appeal Panel, as confirmed by the National Executive Committee, are Jocelyn Davies (Chair), Rebeca Lewis and Alun Ffred Jones.
Kind regards
Rhuanedd
From: Michael Haggett Sent: Wednesday, 2 July 2014, 10:43pm To: Jocelyn Davies Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood, Nerys Evans Subject: Re: Second Appeal
Dear Jocelyn
Thank you for forwarding a copy of Rhuanedd's email of 30 June. If you had read the chain of previous correspondence in my email to you yesterday (which was copied to Rhuanedd) you would have seen that I had received it. But I don't mind confirming it again.
Best regards
Michael
From: ---------- [member of staff at Ty Gwynfor] Sent: Friday, 4 July 2014, 10:30am To: Michael Haggett Cc: Jocelyn Davies Subject: Decision of Appeal Panel
Message sent of behalf of Jocelyn Davies
Dear Michael
Please see attached the decision of the Appeal Panel, July 2nd 2014.
Decision on MH appeal against Judgement of the Hearing Panel formal hearing on 17th June 2014
The Background
A complaint was lodged by EJ in August 2013 following the Ynys Mon by-election. EJ claimed that comments by MH on his public blog during the campaign period undermined the integrity of the candidate resulting in negative attention for Plaid Cymru; MH’s comments were used against the Party by political opponents; and was the subject of a national newspaper article. EJ also claimed the blog content deliberately undermined not only the candidate but also national and local efforts on Ynys Mon and brought the Party into disrepute.
The complaint proceeded to a Panel Hearing following an investigation in December 2013. The Hearing Panel upheld EJ’s complaint and found MH in breach of the relevant Standing Orders. There followed an appeal by MH on procedural grounds and a reliance on factual inaccuracies.
The appeal was held in January 2014 and found in favour of MH in that there had been (i) a failure to inform him of the agreed timetable and (ii) potential factual inaccuracies may have been presented to the Hearing Panel. The Appeal Panel determined that the complaint should restart from the point prior to any possible problems occurring. The decision of the Hearing panel was rescinded.
A second Hearing Panel was set up in April 2014 and a second investigation was initiated. A formal hearing was held in June 2014 which upheld EJ’s complaint and additionally found MH in breach of Standing Orders in relation to behaviour towards the Hearing Panel and placing information about the disciplinary process in the public domain. The Hearing panel concluded MH’s membership of the Party should be suspended for two years and any future application for membership should be subject to scrutiny by the Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel.
The Appeal
This Panel was convened in order to deal with MH’s appeal against the decision of the Hearing Panel. Conflicts of interest and prior involvement had depleted the availability of any members of the MDSP. A member must have the right of appeal and so it was decided to invite myself, along with Alun Ffred Jones AM and Rebeca Lewis, who are both NEC members, to form an Appeal Panel. I was invited to Chair as I had served on the Assembly’s Standards Committee for a number of years.
MH appealed on the procedural unfairness grounds and on factual inaccuracies potentially influencing the decision. The Standing Orders on the Right to Appeal are explicit that an appeal will not be a re-hearing of the case but contain no details on how an Appeal Hearing shall be conducted. I decided to proceed utilizing, as far as reasonably practicable, the Assembly’s procedures in dealing with appeals which have been developed over time with the assistance of the independent Standards Commissioners. The broad thrust of it provided a useful guide. The Party may want to consider developing a Code of Procedures to assist future Hearing Panels and Appeal Panels.
A paper hearing was convened on 2nd July. We considered:-
The MH appeal bundle
EJ’s complaint
The Investigation Report
The Hearing Panel Judgement
Information placed in the public domain by MH
Bearing in mind that this hearing is not a re-opening of the case, we agreed we should consider whether or not the Hearing Panel addressed the question of whether MH brought, or potentially brought, the Party into disrepute by the comments EJ complained of; if they drew any conclusions from factual inaccuracies which, if they were known at the time, would have likely led to a different outcome; and if there were procedural irregularities that may have prejudiced a fair and impartial hearing.
Before considering these we noted the dismay and frustration of the Hearing Panel as evident in their Judgement that MH had placed a verbatim record of the correspondence sent to him by them into the public domain in direct contravention of Standing Orders. They decided that they would consider that action as an extension of the complaint they were considering. We concluded they were entitled to take into consideration MH’s behaviour towards them during the process in their deliberations.
We found the Hearing Panel did address the central question of whether MH brought or potentially brought the Party into disrepute. In fact they make a reference to “the core subject matter” and the evidence before them on specific comments made.
In assessing whether factual inaccuracies had been relied upon we considered the Investigator’s Report. It states that no response was received from MH in the course of it being compiled. MH disputes this, evidencing an email he sent to the Investigator. Evidence of sending is not evidence of receiving. However, the Investigator’s findings of fact relies entirely on blog posts that were within the public domain that MH posted. The Panel makes little reference to the Investigator’s Report other than they formally received it at the Hearing. They do not give significant weight, if any, to the reference that was written without response from MH. They make several references to the fact that they themselves had not received responses from MH despite their requests. We therefore concluded the outcome was not significantly influenced by the Report’s reference to MH not responding to the Investigator.
The Investigation Report concludes that, in the view of the Investigator, MH’s actions, i.e. the published blog posts, were damaging or potentially damaging to the public reputation of the Party. We felt this was not a matter for the Investigator as investigations should be confined to establishing facts rather than expressing opinion. We feel it is for the Hearing Panel to draw its own conclusions. However, the Judgement makes it clear that the Panel found evidence in the complaint; in the report; and in the public domain in addition to their own experience that led them to their own conclusion. We did not feel the Investigator’s opinion influenced the conclusions reached by the Hearing Panel. For the avoidance of doubt we suggest that future investigations are confined to establishing facts.
We considered if any procedural irregularities had occurred by reference to the Standing Orders. We found the Hearing Panel followed the procedure as laid down, to the letter. For example, the Investigator’s Report was not shared with MH prior to this appeal. Nor was it shared with EJ. The Standing Orders makes it clear that the formal hearing will “receive and examine the report from the Investigating Officer”. It appears from a strict reading of that Standing Order that there is no expectation of sharing the report findings beforehand and the Investigator’s report does not represent the case against those who are subject to any complaint. We therefore concluded that MH was not disadvantaged.
In contrast to that, the Standing Orders are silent on how Appeal Hearings are to be conducted and I had no hesitation in sending MH the Investigation Report. It is our view that had the Report been shared beforehand the accusation that the Investigator was not impartial might not have arisen at all as the Report is clearly even-handed and fair. We therefore recommend a re-visiting of the standing Orders to rectify this so that all parties have access to reports prior to any Hearing in the future.
The Hearing Panel took the precaution of also posting a copy of their electronic communications to MH and sending it via recorded delivery. Evidence of sending is not evidence of receiving. However, the Judgement makes the point that the electronic version appeared on MH’s public blog. We agree with the Hearing Panel this is proof MH received it. We concluded it was irrelevant that MH did not also receive, for some reason we do not know, the hard copy version and no unfairness resulted to MH from not having both versions.
Conclusion
This Appeal Panel found no procedural irregularities nor did we find that the Hearing Panel relied on any factual inaccuracies when they addressed the central question as to whether MH’s actions brought or potentially brought the Party into disrepute. We found the Hearing Panel’s conclusions were based on the facts before them. We therefore dismiss the Appeal.
In doing so we recommend that the Party revisit the Standing Orders in light of experience and produce a Code of Practice to assist in any future disciplinary proceedings and we would be pleased to assist in that if required.
This is the twenty-fifth tranche of emails from the correspondence between various people in Plaid Cymru and myself, following a complaint about what I had written on the subject of the Ynys Môn by-election last year. For easy reference, I've put together the all the previous correspondence on this page, which I will keep updating as further emails are published.
From: Jocelyn Davies Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2014, 2:24pm To: Michael Haggett Cc: Rhuanedd Richards Subject: Fwd: Appeal
Michael
Thank you for your email. I am disappointed that you've changed your view about a paper hearing. I do not agree with your reasons and I intend to proceed next Wednesday. I imagine you may be disappointed. So we are clear, this is not a re-run of the hearing that you are appealing against so this must not be confused with a review. The standing orders are very specific on that point although silent on how it should be done.
Appeals on fairness/factual accuracy are well established and it is also commonplace for them to be undertaken by people with no prior involvement and by way of a paper hearing. I'm therefore undertaking this appeal as best I can along the lines of normal good practice.
As this appeal is not a re-run of the complaint hearing we will be considering:-
Your documentation, including your appeal notice
The complaint
The investigation report
The report of the hearing
The information you have placed in the public domain
And possibly any further documentation you'd like us to consider specific to your appeal
You have all this information, except the investigation report. You were required to to be specific about what aspects of the hearing procedure were breached and which facts you are disputing when you registered your appeal. As you have yet to see the investigation report I accept you were not able to fully meet this requirement. I'm therefore sending it to you. It is very brief. If you dispute any of the facts in it or in the report of the hearing please let me know by Monday midday as originally timetabled.
Many thanks for your cooperation. I am copying this to Rhuanedd so she can circulate it to the other panel members as I don not have their personal email addresses.
Report of Investigation into Elin Jones’ Complaint of 02/08/13
(Syniadau Blog – Michael Haggett)
The following report has been written without a response from Michael Haggett (MH), despite written requests being sent to him by myself (a hard copy and by e-mail). As the Syniadau blog has been updated since the e-mail was sent, I am assuming that MH has received the documentation and chosen not to respond in this instance. With this in mind, I have also made the assumptions that MH is responsible for both the content of the Syniadau blog and the specific blog posts relating to this complaint. I have concentrated specifically of the blog posts published prior to the actual Ynys Mon by-election, including any comments as part of the posts.
In Elin Jones’s (EJ’s) complaint letter of 02/08/13, she accuses MH of ‘bringing the party into disrepute’ – ‘undermining the efforts of Plaid Cymru to win Ynys Mon’ – ‘the content of the blog undermined the integrity of the candidate’ – ‘the blog brought negative attention to Plaid’s campaign’.
MH’s consistent argument throughout his blogposts on this matter, was that Rhun ap Iorweth (RapI) was responsible for any damage being done to the party and not himself. He bases this primarily on his position on the development of Wylfa B, although his criticisms go beyond this. He also questions RapI‘s loyalty to the party, the selection process and his inexperience.
EJ’s complaint in terms of the party’s standing orders, relates to 3.1.iii which refers to: -
Engaging in “actions or statements damaging or potentially damaging the public reputation of the party”
This standing order must in my opinion be treated with caution, as it should not be used to stifle debate within the party either in relation to policy or actions of others. However, there are constitutional mechanisms within the party which allow members to both set policy, question actions and if necessary criticise individuals. Yet in this particular case, MH, does not appear to have taken this route.
I do not believe that it is the role of this report to speculate on RapI’s stance on nuclear power; the issue which has largely led to this complaint. During the by-election campaign in Ynys Mon, he along with the all the candidates was open to public scrutiny on this and Plaid’s political opponents were given every opportunity to challenge him. It could be argued that MH did not have the opportunity to raise his concerns internally due to the short timescale, so chose to do so through his blog posts. This would have some credibility, if there was evidence that he had contacted the party nationally or locally to raise concerns, but I have not been made aware of such communication.
Having read all of MH’s blog comments leading up to RapI’s selection and the subsequent campaign, there is a pattern of more and more antagonism towards RapI. Phrases such as ‘a stitch-up’ and ‘a political liability’ were used during the campaign by MH to describe the candidate, then the language became far harsher towards the election day when the candidate was labelled ‘a liar’.
Two statements are of particular significance for me, both published just before the election date:-
‘We do not need dishonest politicians like RapI’
‘If RapI is elected, it would be a tragedy for Plaid Cymru, Ynys Mon and Wales’
Whatever context you care to refer to, these two statements alone are without doubt, damaging or potentially damaging to the public reputation of the candidate. During such a high profile by-election where the former party leader held the seat, such strongly worded attacks on the candidate are effectively attacks on the party, so the only conclusion I can come to is that MH has demonstrably engaged in statements that potentially damaged the public reputation of the party.
There is an argument that as Plaid Cymru were so successful in this election, that the blog posts referred to had little or no effect on the result, or the reputation of the candidate. However, this is not the issue, as Plaid’s political opponents not only used the statements to attack us, but will no doubt use these statements in future campaigns. Even if it could be argued that the statements were not damaging, they were most certainly potentially damaging.
Conclusions
I believe that MH has engaged in actions or statements damaging or potentially damaging to the public reputation of the party.
His published attacks on RapI leading up to the Ynys Mon by-election were personal, arguably libellous and most certainly detrimental to the Party. There is no evidence that MH made any effort to raise his concerns internally through the party structure and he has to my knowledge, not apologised to RapI or retracted any of the published blog posts I assume he is responsible for.
MH is clearly a very bright and eloquent political thinker who cares passionately about Wales, including all issues relating to nuclear power. However, as a member of Plaid Cymru, he has responsibilities as well as rights and in this particular case, I believe that he has been irresponsible in his blog posts, to the detriment of the party.
From: Rhuanedd Richards Sent: Monday, 30 June 2014, 9:22am To: Michael Haggett Cc: Jocelyn Davies Subject: Re: Second Appeal
Dear Michael
I’m grateful to Jocelyn for passing on the email that you did not receive and to you for confirming the grounds of the appeal.
The names of those who will serve on the Appeal Panel, as confirmed by the National Executive Committee, are Jocelyn Davies (Chair), Rebeca Lewis and Alun Ffred Jones.
Kind regards
Rhuanedd
From: Michael Haggett Sent: Tuesday, 1 July 2014, 6:26pm To: Jocelyn Davies Cc: Rhuanedd Richards, Leanne Wood, Nerys Evans Subject: Re: Second Appeal
Dear Jocelyn
Thank you for your email of 28 June. I suggest you read what I actually wrote more carefully. I have not "changed my mind". I said I would be happy for there to be a "paper hearing" if what you meant was that the process should be conduced entirely by email. When you said that you meant something different, namely that you thought it should involve only you viewing the documentation, I made it clear that this was unacceptable.
It is not just a case of you viewing documentation, but for all the parties involved to be able to view it, ask questions about anything that is unclear, and refute it if necessary. To give you an example of why prior disclosure of evidence is so necessary, I would ask you to look back at the evidence Shaughan gave at the first appeal. On the surface, the first Appeal Panel might well have concluded that I had received phone messages from him but not answered them; but when his evidence was disclosed to me, I was able to explain what had in fact happened.
As what I have shown so far reveals several very large irregularities in the way the procedure was conducted, I find it very hard to believe that the Appeal Panel would not seek evidence from the other parties involved to help clarify what happened, most notably from Elin, Rhun, Nerys, Ian and Eli. Indeed I think it would be remiss of you not to.
It would be quite bizarre for you to refuse to do this, especially because these were the procedures set out for the first appeal. For this reason I would again ask whether you are qualified to sit on the Appeal Panel. When did the NEC meet in order to ratify your (plural, including Rebeca and Alun Ffred) appointments to the MDSP? Have the three of you received the necessary training, and when did you receive it? People have the right to a consistency of approach, not for different people to go off in totally different directions.
-
Turning now to the matter of outstanding information, thank you for forwarding me a copy of Ian's investigation report. I will make some preliminary comments on it below. But I am still waiting the other information I requested, and because of this I am unable to produce a complete statment of evidence for the appeal. This is a reminder of the information I requested:
1. The dates of all meetings of the MDSP/Hearing Panel, subsequent to the information I was sent before as part of the first appeal.
2. The minutes or any other record of those meetings. These may be redacted to exclude items which do not relate to the subject matters referred to in Elin's complaint against me or my complaints against Elfyn, Bob, Dafydd and Rhun. If any meeting did not discuss these matters, a simple statement that it did not will suffice; however I require the dates of any such meetings because the fact that these matters were not discussed in them will be relevant in itself.
3. Copies of the correspondence, or the file notes of any conversations, of those acting in an official capacity (as either members of the MDSP/Hearing Panel/Appeal Panel, Investigating Officer, or any other officer of Plaid Cymru) which relate to these subject matters, subsequent to what I was sent before.
4. A copy of all the evidence, both written and oral, presented at the so-called hearing of 17 June, from all parties. In particular, this would include a copy of Ian's Investigation Report, which I know must exist but which I have not as yet received. It would also include any statement about the case I was expected to answer, which may or may not exist.
Taking items 1 and 2 together, this is important because when I made the same request for the first appeal, they showed discrepancies and malpractice on the part of the MDSP. It would also include the "report of the hearing", something you say I have been given but which I have not received.
Items 3 and 4 are important because there is always the possibility that correspondence or a document has gone astray, or that its existence was not revealed to me. As you can see, I have been scrupulous in making sure that every email I send includes with it the complete chain of previous correspondence, so as to leave nobody in any doubt about who said what and when they said it, or any excuse for not acting upon it. Those who have written to me have not always done this.
Having now received a copy of the investigation report, the next most pressing need is to get an answer to my question about the two packages that were sent by Royal Mail Signed For and Special Delivery Guaranteed but returned to sender. What was in these packages and when were they sent? I would remind you that in Eli's first email, dated 7 April, she had indicated that all correspondence would be by email, so it might well be that these packages only contained copies of her emails of 7 April, 13 May and 23 May, and that no attempt was made to send me a copy of the investigation report, details of the case I was expected to answer, or prior disclosure of evidence.
-
Turning now to Ian's Investigation Report, I would note the following.
1. Ian says the he wrote this report "without a response from Michael Haggett". I would refer you to my email to him dated 28 April.
2. Ian claims that what I wrote was based "primarily on [my] position on the development of Wylfa B". This entirely misses the point, I called Rhun a liar and said he was misleading the public not on the basis of what I believe, but because he was misrepresenting the position of Plaid Cymru. Our policy is one of total opposition to the construction of any new nuclear power station in Wales, including Wylfa B, and it makes no distinction whatsoever between new sites and sites on or near existing or previous nuclear power stations.
3. Linked to this is the rather strange suggestion that I should have adopted "constitutional mechanisms". With regard to our party's policy on nuclear power, I have no need to do this because I am happy with the policy that has been adopted and confirmed overwhelmingly at previous conferences. It is for those who disagree with what we as a party have decided to make the case for change, and to bring a motion before conference to effect such a change. If a majority votes for it, then our policy on nuclear power will change; but unless or until that happens our policy is going to remain exactly what it is now.
4. Ian also suggests that any criticism of individuals should be done through "constitutional mechanisms". This is absurd. Rhun told a blatant lie in public, therefore I have every right to criticize him for this immediately and in public, so as to correct the misinformation he put out.
5. Ian says he does "not believe that it is the role of this report to speculate on RapI’s stance on nuclear power". I would agree that it is not his job to speculate; as investigating officer it is his job to ask direct questions about it, especially if he believes it is this which had largely led to Elin's complaint. Indeed I would go further and remind the Appeal Panel that the Investigating Officer is required to make enquires of all parties under clause 4.2 of Standing Orders. In addition to Ian not asking Rhun any questions, he did not ask Elin any questions either. This is a complete dereliction of his duty, and it completely invalidates his report.
6. Ian’s report point-blank refuses to address the main issue, namely whether or not what Rhun said about Plaid’s policy on nuclear was true or not. I provided irrefutable evidence to show that what he said was not true. Therefore there can be no possible objection to me calling Rhun a liar or saying that he misled the public by telling that lie.
7. It might also be worth repeating the point I made in my email of 27 June about needing to know exactly what the case against me was before being in a position to decide how to defend myself. It was clear from Eli's email of 20 June that the second Hearing Panel had considered matters which were not part of Elin's complaint, but having at last been given a copy of Ian's so-called investigation report, it is now clear that they were prompted to do so by opinions Ian had expressed on matters which seem to have very little connexion to what Elin had complained about.
-
Finally, on the matter of timetable, it is silly of you to ask or expect me to meet impossible deadlines. I have been away for the weekend, and have only today learned that you expected me to respond to Ian's report by yesterday. I had hoped you would see sense and delay the Appeal Hearing until all the outstanding information has been provided, but you seem determined to close your eyes and press ahead anyway.
I can't stop you pressing ahead, but if you do this without full information being available to enable me to properly prepare my appeal you will simply add more weight to the perception that there has been wrongdoing which Plaid Cymru is desperate to keep hidden.
For this reason, I am copying this email to Leanne as party leader and Nerys as Deputy Chair, so as to give them an opportunity to prevent your undue haste bringing the party into yet greater disrepute.
This is the twenty-fourth tranche of emails from the correspondence between various people in Plaid Cymru and myself, following a complaint about what I had written on the subject of the Ynys Môn by-election last year. For easy reference, I've put together the all the previous correspondence on this page, which I will keep updating as further emails are published.
From: Michael Haggett Sent: Friday, 27 June 2014, 3:20pm To: Rhuanedd Richards Cc: Jocelyn Davies Subject: Re: Second Appeal
Dear Rhuanedd
I did not receive your email of 25 June (16:06) but Jocelyn has been kind enough to forward me a copy of it.
-
I am reticent to remind you of the procedure set out in Standing Orders for conducting an appeal, not least because there was never any provision in Standing Orders for anyone to "re-start" disciplinary proceedings against me in the first place. I have pointed out on several occasions in the email correspondence below that those trying to pursue action against me have often ignored the rules that do exist and then made up new rules out of thin air to suit themselves. I would only note that Eli had claimed in her email of 7 April that the new hearing panel would act as if the first disciplinary process had not taken place; therefore, even by that yardstick, this second appeal would need to follow the same course as was established for the first.
It would therefore be necessary for the appeal to be heard by members of the MDSP who have not previously been involved. So far as I am aware, Jocelyn is not on the MDSP, and I note that you do not mention who appointed her or her as yet unnamed colleagues. As the previous correspondence with Nerys shows, it took some time to appoint new members to the MDSP to form the second Hearing Panel and for their appointment to be ratified by the NEC. I would be very surprised if Jocelyn and the others can have been appointed and ratified so quickly. I suspect people are simply trying to hurry things through with even less pretence at doing things according to Standing Orders than before. I would therefore advise all concerned to take a step back, and think very hard about they do next in order not to repeat or exacerbate the previous failures in the way this whole process has been conducted. Please take things step-by-step, and don’t rush straight to the end without properly completing each of the earlier stages.
-
For my part, I would confirm the grounds for this appeal, as required by Clause 6.3 of Standing Orders. As you noted, they are:
6.3i That the procedure adopted by the Hearing Panel was flawed and therefore unjust.
6.3ii That the verdict and conclusions of the Hearing Panel demonstrate that they are based on factual inaccuracies.
Under Clause 6.4 it is incumbent upon me to be specific about about what aspects of procedure were breached and which facts are disputed. I am unable to do this fully because, despite my requests, I have not yet received several pieces of vital information. I will therefore outline only the broad headings at this stage, with the intention of producing a full written statement of evidence when this information has been received, in the same way as was established for the first appeal.
In respect of the procedure being flawed:
1. No-one has been able to set out any constitution grounds for "re-starting" disciplinary action against me. This was confirmed by Dafydd Trystan when he said in his email of 4 February that these were "uncharted constitutional waters".
2. Even if the procedure could be restarted, Ian Titherington would be totally unsuitable as Investigating Officer. To choose someone who had so obviously pre-judged the issue shows bias and lack of even-handedness on the part of the Hearing Panel.
3. Any investigation would need to be conducted with due diligence. Instead, Ian only asked me a few nominal questions for the sake of appearance, but then proceeded to ignore everything I said. Some of the questions I was asked were so vague that they could not be answered. I asked for clarification, but received no response. I also raised several questions that would need to be answered by other parties, but again received no response.
4. Eli said in her letter that Ian's Investigation Report contained evidence that was used to find me guilty. Every defendant has the right to know what evidence is being presented against them, and must be given a chance to refute it and ask questions about it. Despite my request, I did not receive a copy of that report, and have still not received one.
5. If a Hearing Panel were to decide there was a case for me to answer, I would need to be given precise details of what it was. This was not done. Even from the limited information available at present, it is clear that Ian's investigation chose to address only some aspects of Elin's complaint, but that it also addressed matters that were not part of her complaint. Additionally, it is clear from the Hearing Panel's decision that they considered matters which were neither part of Elin's complaint nor part of the questions I was asked during the investigation.
6. Any evidence being presented at a hearing would need to be disclosed to me beforehand so as not to take me by surprise and give me an opportunity to prepare a response to it. This was not done.
7. Arrangements would need to be set in place for cross-examination of anyone wishing to present evidence against me. It is absolutely vital that a defendant is given the opportunity to ask questions about the allegations and any evidence presented in support of them. I had asked some of the more obvious questions as part of the investigation but, as noted in point 3 above, because I do not have the report I do not know what the answers were, or whether those (or similar) questions were even asked.
8. It was wrong to punish me for an alleged breach of Clause 9.1 of Standing Orders without giving me any prior notice that this was a subject matter under consideration, and without giving me any opportunity to respond.
In respect of factual inaccuracies, these all stem from the decision of the Hearing Panel as conveyed to me in Eli's email of 20 June:
1. It was claimed that I had chosen not to acknowledge or respond to Eli's correspondence. This is untrue.
2. It was claimed that copies of the correspondence (which, crucially, might or might not include the investigation report, details of the case I was expected to answer, and prior disclosure of evidence) had been delivered by "recorded delivery". The Royal Mail tracking details I have now been given (one Royal Mail Signed For and one Special Delivery Guaranteed) prove beyond doubt that they were not delivered.
3. It was claimed that I had made no submission to the Hearing Panel, however I had informed Ian (as the Investigating Officer they had chosen to appoint) of everything I had said previously with the intention of him using this evidence in the investigation. I also engaged in the investigation process by asking for answers to a number of specific questions.
4. It was claimed that I have breached Clause 9.1 of Standing Orders. I have not. The restriction on making public statements only applies "until after the conclusion of any appeal". An appeal took place on 28 January so, since that date, the restriction no longer applies. In publishing details of the disciplinary procedure on Syniadau in the series How Plaid Cymru Works I have been careful to act in accordance with what this clause actually says, not what others might wish it said.
5. Finally, and most importantly, it was claimed that I had called Rhun a liar and a dishonest politician "without any evidence to support such serious allegations". I presented clear evidence to show beyond any doubt that Rhun was lying / being dishonest – in the posts on Syniadau at the time, on numerous other occasions on Syniadau, in the email correspondence below, and in the package of evidence to which I referred Ian. I would also note that the first investigation revealed that Rhun was dishonest in two other respects, detailed with full evidence here and here.
Conversely, I also asked others—including Rhun, Elin and Leanne—to provide any evidence that might show that what Rhun said on Sunday Supplement about our policy on nuclear was true. No-one has provided any such evidence.
In closing, I would repeat that this is an outline for the purposes of complying with Clause 6.4, as this information needs to lodged with you as Chief Executive by today. I will only be able to provide a full written statement of evidence for consideration at the Appeal Hearing when the outstanding information has been received, although I note that you wish me to ask Jocelyn rather than you to provide it. That’s not a problem. As with the first appeal, I don't care who provides it, as long as I get it.
Best regards
Michael
From: Michael Haggett Sent: Friday, 27 June 2014, 4:32pm To: Jocelyn Davies Cc: Rhuanedd Richards Subject: Re: Second Appeal
Dear Jocelyn
Thank you for fowarding Rhuanedd's email to me. I have replied to her, see below, as there are several matters that need to be addressed to her as Chief Executive. I would in particular ask you to note that there is a question mark over your appointment because I believe you are not a member of the MDSP, and if you and the others were to be co-opted this would need to be ratified by the NEC in the same way as happened with the three new members who formed the second Hearing Panel.
That doesn't mean I object to you becoming Chair of the second Appeal Panel, only that people seem to be rushing things through with even less pretence at doing things according to Standing Orders than before. As I said to Rhuanedd, I would advise everyone concerned to take a step back and make sure things are done properly. It has taken the best part of a year so far because of all the previous mistakes; a week or two more won't make any difference.
For this reason, and because so much information is still outstanding, my answer to your proposal of holding the appeal hearing next Wednesday remains a polite but firm No. I must insist on a proper procedure conducted to the same standard as was established for the first appeal, which you can read about in the email chain below. It is pointless to re-invent any wheels. It is not just a matter of you "viewing documentation" and, as it is now clear that this is what you meant by a "paper hearing", what you propose is definitely not acceptable.
-
The most pressing need at the moment is to provide me with the outstanding information necessary for me to prepare my appeal. As I said to Rhuanedd, I don't really mind who sends this to me. Sort it out amongst yourselves, but be sure you do sort it out and keep me informed of what is happening.
The information I require is the same as it was for the first appeal:
1. The dates of all meetings of the MDSP/Hearing Panel, subsequent to the information I was sent before as part of the first appeal.
2. The minutes or any other record of those meetings. These may be redacted to exclude items which do not relate to the subject matters referred to in Elin's complaint against me or my complaints against Elfyn, Bob, Dafydd and Rhun. If any meeting did not discuss these matters, a simple statement that it did not will suffice; however I require the dates of any such meetings because the fact that these matters were not discussed in them will be relevant in itself.
3. Copies of the correspondence, or the file notes of any conversations, of those acting in an official capacity (as either members of the MDSP/Hearing Panel/Appeal Panel, Investigating Officer, or any other officer of Plaid Cymru) which relate to these subject matters, subsequent to what I was sent before.
4. A copy of all the evidence, both written and oral, presented at the so-called hearing of 17 June, from all parties. In particular, this would include a copy of Ian's Investigation Report, which I know must exist but which I have not as yet received. It would also include any statement about the case I was expected to answer, which may or may not exist.
Please arrange to have this information emailed to me as soon as possible.
Assuming that you will in due course be ratified as a member of the MDSP by the NEC and then become Chair of the Appeal Panel you will need to decide, as Alun did when he chaired the first appeal, who (beside myself) you will invite to submit evidence. All evidence will then need to be disclosed to other parties so that matters can be accepted as either undisputed, or disputed, or for questions to be asked about it. As I said before, I am happy for this to be done entirely by email.
As for the timetable, it goes without saying that I will not be able to provide a statement of written evidence similar to the one I produced for the first appeal until I have received the outstanding information. Once it is received, I imagine that it will take about a week to prepare the initial statement of evidence, but that it might then need to be revised in the light of other disclosed evidence. Only after that can the hearing be held.
This is the twenty-third tranche of emails from the correspondence between various people in Plaid Cymru and myself, following a complaint about what I had written on the subject of the Ynys Môn by-election last year. For easy reference, I've put together the all the previous correspondence on this page, which I will keep updating as further emails are published.
From: Michael Haggett Sent: Tuesday, 24 June 2014, 1:20pm To: Rhuanedd Richards Subject: Re: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett
Dear Rhuanedd
I received an email from Eli Jones on 20 June, informing me of the decision of the new Hearing Panel set up as a result of "re-starting" disciplinary proceedings against me in relation to Elin's complaint last year. I wish to register an appeal with you as Chief Executive on the same grounds as I did after the decision of the original Hearing Panel; but before I can give fuller details, I would like your help in clarifying the following matters.
In her email, Eli says that:
The Panel received no response from Mr Haggett, despite having taken the precaution of ensuring a copy of our correspondence had reached its destination as it was sent by recorded delivery.
This is a mystery to me. Please could you find out when it was sent and provide me with a tracking number that might help determine what happened to it.
The second matter might be related. I have have not received a copy of Ian Titherington's report, nor the exact details of the case I was expected to answer, nor any prior disclosure of the evidence that would be presented against me. It may well be that these were included in the package that has gone astray, but I have no way of knowing this.
However, irrespective of exactly what was in the package and where it might have gone, I would like you to email me a copy of Ian's report and any other documentation which might have been included with it.
By doing these things you will clear up some of the question marks that currently exist, which will mean that the appeal can be based on hard information rather than "perhaps this / perhaps that" uncertainty.
Best regards
Michael
From: Jocelyn Davies Sent: Wednesday, 25 June 2014, 9:16pm To: Michael Haggett Cc: Rhuanedd Richards Subject: Re: Appeal
Dear Mr Haggett
As you'll be aware I have been asked by the Chief Executive to chair a panel to deal with your lodged appeal.
It is our intention to conduct a hearing next Wednesday evening at 7pm at Ty Gwynfor. My preference would be to hold a paper hearing. I'd be grateful if you'd let me know by 5pm on Friday if this is acceptable.
Anything you wish the panel to consider will need to be with me by midday on Monday.
I'm copying this email to the Chief Executive so that it can circulated to the other panel members.
Best wishes
Jocelyn Davies
From: Michael Haggett Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2014, 12:27pm To: Jocelyn Davies To: Rhuanedd Richards Subject: Re: Second Appeal
Dear Jocelyn
Thank you for your email of 25 June.
You start by saying "as you'll be aware", but this is not the case. Your email is in fact the first response I have received to my email to Rhuanedd. I would guess she is preparing a reply, but I have not received it yet. She might well be waiting for information from others before sending it.
The information I requested from her is needed to clarify matters in order for me to properly set out the grounds for my appeal. But I would also need other information, as was the case in the first appeal I made. I think it would be a good idea for you to read through the chain of correspondence below to make yourself familiar with what happened. Alun and Rhuanedd acted in a helpful and constructive way to establish a set of ground rules for the first appeal. The problems only arose by failing to stick to them, most notably in the handling of Chris Frank's evidence, which was neither disclosed beforehand nor recorded.
I'm not entirely sure what a "paper hearing" is, but if you mean that everything should be conducted in writing rather than needing a face-to-face hearing, I would not object in principle. In fact I would welcome it.
Because of the outstanding information, it is premature to be thinking of holding a hearing on the date you suggest. It would be better to wait until all parties have the information they need before setting a timetable.
Best regards
Michael
From: Jocelyn Davies Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2014, 5:58pm To: Michael Haggett Cc: Rhuanedd Richards Subject: Re: Appeal
Dear Michael
Thank you for your email and I'm grateful that you're happy for the appeal to be conducted by way for a paper hearing, that is, by us viewing documentation.
I'm sorry if I was mistaken when I assumed that Rhuanedd Richards had informed you that an appeal panel had been set up and I would be chairing it. I based that on being copied in on an email she sent to you. I had that at 16.06 yesterday.
We intend to hold the hearing next Wednesday evening based on your lodged appeal. Obviously the appeal will not be a re-run of the hearing but addressing the grounds of your appeal only. From memory, that is procedural unfairness to you and the panel basing their decision on factual inaccuracies. I'd very much like to stick to the original timetable. If you meet the Monday deadline it would be very helpful.
As an appeal panel we can't be entering into dialogue about the substance of the complaint or your response to it.
I hope that helps
Jocelyn
From: Jocelyn Davies Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2014, 6:49pm To: Michael Haggett Subject: Fwd: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett
Here is the email I had yesterday.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Rhuanedd Richards Sent: Wednesday, 25 June 2014, 4:06pm To: Michael Haggett Cc: Jocelyn Davies Subject: Re: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett
Dear Michael
Thank you for your email outlining your wish to register an appeal against the decision of the Hearing Panel.
You say in your previous email that you wish to do so on the same grounds as the appeal you made after the decision of the original Hearing Panel and therefore they will be noted as:
6.3i That the procedure adopted by the Hearing Panel was flawed and therefore unjust.
6.3ii That the verdict and conclusions of the Hearing Panel demonstrate that they are based on factual inaccuracies.
I can provide you with two tracking numbers for items of correspondence sent to you: BZ144209325GB and AD792767722GB
An Appeal Panel has been appointed and will be chaired by Jocelyn Davies who will contact you shortly. Any requests for further information should be made through Jocelyn.
Kind regards
Rhuanedd
Entering these tracking numbers on the Royal Mail website, I found that even though Eli had said in her email of 20 June that she had "taken the precaution of ensuring a copy of our correspondence had reached its destination as it was sent by recorded delivery", this was in fact a complete lie.
I can prove beyond doubt that neither package was in fact delivered to me. If anyone wants to check this for themselves, please click the links below and you will see that both were returned to sender.
Who on earth was Eli trying to fool, and what on earth made her think she could get away with such deception? The clear fact is that she and her colleagues went ahead with the hearing knowing that I had not received these packages. They must have known this at two stages: first, because it is silly to pay for a service which tracks delivery but not then use it to check whether and when the packages were in fact delivered; and second, when the packages were returned undelivered. It is exactly the same sort of behaviour as her trying to claim that there was no evidence that Rhun had lied, even though I had provided links to the evidence in my original post.
It is clear that their whole mentality is one of stopping at nothing to try and convict me of bringing Plaid Cymru into disrepute for telling the truth, not realizing that is it lies and deception like this which bring the party into disrepute.
Yesterday, I published an email from Eli Jones advising me of the verdict of the second Hearing Panel. There are many things that could be said about it, but because whether Rhun did or did not lie is the central issue in this matter, I'd like to concentrate on that first. This is the relevant paragraph:
What the Panel found was evidence of a distressingly vicious and personalised escalating attack on one of its members. The Panel was appalled by the degree of vitriol and unsubstantiated allegations targeted at the candidate. Criticism of our candidate’s views on any topic is unhelpful in the context of a by-election, but Mr Haggett went far beyond acceptable comment by referring to him, inter alia, as a “liar” and a “dishonest politician” without any evidence to support such serious allegations. The Panel would consider the making of such scurrilous allegations against a member of another Party as inappropriate and unacceptable, but to make them against a member of one’s own party is beyond belief.
If anyone needed proof that the whole disciplinary process against me has been a farce from the beginning, this one paragraph should convince them. Eli was clearly trying to make out that there was no evidence to support what I said about Rhun misleading people over Plaid Cymru's policy on new nuclear power stations by blatantly lying about it ... specifically saying that these allegations were "unsubstantiated", "serious" and "scurrilous".
Of course I won't deny that they are serious allegations, but they are definitely not unsubstantiated or scurrilous. I provided evidence to back up what I said at the time, and I'm happy to repeat it now by republishing the posts concerned.
-
There is no doubt whatsoever about what Rhun said on Sunday Supplement. I provided a link to a recording of the programme which anyone can listen to, as well as a transcript of the exchange between Rhun and Vaughan Roderick. There is no doubt whatsoever about what Plaid Cymru's policy is. I provided a link to the motion endorsed by Plaid's Conference which anyone can read. Putting the two together, we can all see and hear for ourselves that Rhun was definitely not telling the truth.
What I find "beyond belief" is what might motivate people like Eli Jones, Peter Fenner and Sian Powell to put their names to something which they must know to be totally false. Their eyes are shut tight, their fingers are in their ears, but their mouths are working nineteen to the dozen to spread misinformation that cannot fool anyone who takes the trouble to check the facts for themselves. No wonder their reaction to me publishing every single word of what they are are doing is one of, to use their own words, abject horror.
Today's Sunday Supplement was largely devoted to the Ynys Môn by-election on Thursday. The full debate can be heard below or downloaded here but, as readers would expect, I want to focus on what was said about Wylfa B, and in particular this exchange between Vaughan Roderick and Rhun ap Iorwerth:
VR: But, to be clear, Plaid Cymru want decisions over power stations to be devolved. If Wylfa B was on the table in the Assembly, and you had to vote yes or no, which way would you vote?
RhapI: I am being quite clear, and I can't make it any clearer: I am saying yes to Wylfa B.
VR: But your party doesn't say that.
RhapI: Plaid Cymru is a party, unlike many of the other parties, that actually discusses decisions and decides what's best for Wales. You know that there's been a policy in Plaid Cymru going back 40 years where we've said, "Develop nuclear power stations on the sites where there are nuclear power stations in the past." It's nothing new for a member of Plaid Cymru, and somebody who wants to be an elected member for Plaid Cymru, to say let's support the continuation of nuclear power generation on the site where that has been happening for decades.
VR: I'm sorry, that does sound an awful lot like having your cake in Dwyfor Meirionnydd and Ynys Môn and eating it elsewhere.
If Rhun wants clarity, then we need to be absolutely clear that he is misleading people on this issue by telling blatant lies.
Plaid Cymru does discuss issues and makes policy decisions that we believe are in the best interests of Wales (although it is a bit naïve for Rhun to think that most other parties don't make decisions in a similar way), and while it might or might not be true to say that Plaid used to have a policy of developing nuclear power stations on existing sites at some time in the past, it has most definitely not been Plaid Cymru's policy for some years. The decision made at conference is that Plaid Cymru are totally opposed to the construction of any nuclear power station in Wales, including a new nuclear power station at Wylfa B [click to display] and Rhun is deliberately misleading people by pretending otherwise.
This is the full text of the motion as approved by Plaid Cymru at our conference in 2011:
NUCLEAR ENERGY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
(Newport Branches / European Parliamentary Group)
Conference notes:
1. The tragic consequence of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan which led to the dangerous situation at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, namely that fuel in the reactors produced considerable amounts of heat which led to a full meltdown, causing radioactive material to leak.
2. That the incident at Fukushima, occurring on the 25th anniversary of Chernobyl, heightens concerns for the safety of nuclear energy.
3. That as a result the European Commission has proposed stress tests on all current nuclear reactors, and the UK government has called on the Chief Nuclear Inspector to carry out a review of nuclear installations.
4. That as a result, Germany has announced that all the country’s nuclear power plants will be phased out by 2022. Switzerland has also committed to phasing out nuclear power by 2034.
Conference further notes:
1. The essential principle of energy independence given Plaid’s long term ambition for devolved sovereignty and independence.
2. That as a net exporter of energy with massive undeveloped renewable energy potential new nuclear developments are not required in Wales in the long term in order to meet energy demand. Further investment is required into developing the potential of wave and tidal technologies which when commercialised could lead to Wales becoming more self sufficient in renewable energy.
3. That cost per KW of production for some forms of renewable power generation are lower than nuclear.
4. That the long term costs of nuclear decommissioning are not calculated.
5. The proven evidence of the effect of carbon emissions towards catastrophic climate change, also the growing pressure on fossil fuel resources including significant commodity price escalation as we approach peak fossil fuel production.
6. That the current coalition government’s policies on the carbon price floor will serve in the short term to raise consumer fuel bills and will leave the nuclear industry by the far the biggest beneficiary and also therefore fail to optimise the potential investment in renewable energy that variants of this legislation could bring.
Conference reaffirms:
1. Plaid Cymru’s belief that all energy decisions should be devolved in full to Wales.
2. Plaid Cymru’s total opposition to the construction of any new nuclear power stations. If the Westminster government gives the go ahead for a new nuclear power station at Wylfa, we should make sure that the investment recognises the need to employ local people, invest in training to maximise local employment and make sure that indigenous companies benefit from supply chain opportunities.
Conference calls:
1. For Plaid at all levels to lobby the coalition Westminster government to restructure Carbon Price Floor legislation in order to exempt nuclear power from receiving any form of public funded subsidy.
2. For the EU’s nuclear stress tests to be carried out by independent experts and to be based on robust criteria.
3. On Plaid Cymru to welcome Germany’s decision to phase out all nuclear power stations and to encourage other governments across the world, including the United Kingdom, to follow their lead.
4. For greater investment by the Welsh government in renewables and energy efficiency measures.
Although it is nothing new for a member of Plaid Cymru to support the continuation of nuclear power, those members are definitely in a minority within the party. However it is of much more concern to me that Rhun did not make his position on nuclear power clear to party members at the hustings when he was selected as Plaid's candidate. The position he presented at that time was "more or less identical" to that of Ann Griffith and Heledd Fychan, and Heledd made it clear that she was opposed to nuclear power. Nor did he make his support for Wylfa B clear in the statements he made immediately after he had been selected; instead he hid his position behind tortuously ambiguous words both in his interview with the Daily Post and on his own blog. I've commented on what he said here and here.
His support for Wylfa B (as opposed to support for maximizing local employment opportunities if Wylfa B were to be built, which is entirely different) only came out in a careless tweet last week. It should therefore be obvious to anyone that Rhun deliberately misled Plaid members in Môn in order to be selected.
We do not need dishonest politicians like Rhun ap Iorwerth. If he's elected on Thursday he will be a liability to Plaid Cymru for years to come, because he clearly isn't interested in Plaid's policies for Wales. He is a cuckoo who has duped his way into our nest in order to follow a private agenda of his own, or the agenda of a narrow interest group within the party that refuses to accept democratic decisions made by the membership as a whole.
The only person who sounded convincing on the issue of nuclear power was Kathrine Jones of the Socialist Labour Party. Her position was far closer to that of Plaid Cymru than Rhun's.
This is why I called Rhun a liar and said we do not need dishonest politicians like him in Plaid Cymru, and the evidence I provided proves beyond any doubt that he did lie. However, as a result of the first official investigation conducted by Shaughan Feakes, it became clear that this was not the only lie Rhun had told.
One of the other lies he told was in fact far, far worse. As can be seen from the post below, Rhun is two-faced, for he was telling different sets of people completely different things about his views on nuclear power. He was told the public that he was pro-nuclear power, but told people within the party that he was against nuclear power. This is what I posted in February.
In my last post I published the package of information that had been sent to me after I had asked Leanne to intervene because Chris Franks was not doing his job properly. Prior to that, Chris had fully expected me to turn up to a formal hearing without knowing any details about the complaint, who would judge me, what the evidence against me was ... or what the official investigation report which formed the basis of the decision to hold a formal hearing, and was supposed to reflect my position as well as that of my accuser, said. I had now got some answers, though not all of them.
By far the most important piece of information was the investigation report, and in these next posts I want to look at what it contains. One thing in it stands out above everything else.
I have spoken to Rhun and he has confirmed that he is against nuclear energy but if it is imposed by Westminster he will ensure that Ynys Môn gets the maximum benefit of the job and economic opportunities.
If anyone had to sum up Plaid's policy on nuclear energy in one sentence, that's as good a way of putting it as any. It is in two parts, and each part is essential. The first part is that we in Plaid Cymru are opposed to nuclear energy. The second part is that we will fight to get the best from Wylfa B if it is imposed on us by Westminster. The if is all-important.
-
In the early stages of the Ynys Môn by-election campaign, Rhun was quite happy to stress the second part, but did not say anything at all about the first part. He refused to be clear about whether he supported or was against a new nuclear power station at Wylfa. I described his position at the time as "tortuously ambiguous" in this post, and went on to say:
Up until now I have not known where Rhun stood on this issue. My objection to him being allowed to stand or being selected was based on the fact that we could not properly assess his suitability to stand as a Plaid Cymru candidate in such a short time. I had hoped that his first statement would be something much more positive:
I had hoped Rhun would say that he is totally opposed to Wylfa B and will fight to stop it happening.
I had hoped Rhun would say that it is being forced on us by a Westminster government that will not let Wales decide our own energy policy for ourselves.
I had hoped Rhun would say that we in Wales can produce more electricity than we consume from renewable sources, a major part of which are around the coast of Ynys Môn, and that we will create better jobs on the island by developing these than by building a new nuclear power station.
I had hoped Rhun would say to those already working in the nuclear industry who are concerned about their jobs that there will be plenty jobs for decades to come in decommissioning Wylfa A, making it safe and cleaning up its toxic legacy.
I had hoped Rhun would say that the cost of dealing with new and very much more toxic nuclear waste—which would have to be kept on the island indefinitely rather than moved to Sellafield as happens now—will be a millstone round the neck of future generations that Wales as a nation will struggle to afford.
... and I had hoped Rhun would also say that if, and only if, a Westminster government forces Wylfa B onto us despite all our objections, it had damn well better ensure that we at least get something out of it in terms of construction jobs, supply chain opportunities and the skills necessary for the operation of the station once completed.
If he has any political sense at all, Rhun will say all of these things. It is not too late for him to do so. What is wrong with Rhun's statement to the Daily Post is that he makes the last point without making all the other points. He cannot hope to get away with that. He needs to unequivocally express his opposition to nuclear power before he gets to the "if".
Fair play to him, as I noted in my next post, Rhun did then go on to make some of these points, in particular about the problem of nuclear waste and energy policy being decided in Westminster rather than in Wales, but he still wouldn't say whether he was or was not opposed to nuclear energy.
Because of this ambiguity, he was put under ever-increasing pressure about it from all sides, and he eventually snapped. On 19 July, well over half-way through the campaign, he tweeted this:
@theNukeGuy Ha!Yes,I'm pro Wylfa B,& will fight to ensure our young people& communities benefit.Can't put it clearer than that!All the best.
As I noted at the time, if Rhun was a person of principle or character, why had he been afraid to make it clear that he supported Wylfa B in his previous statements to the Daily Post and on his own blog? But whatever the reason, the cat was now out of the bag, and in the last ten days of the campaign Rhun made it abundantly clear that he was in favour of nuclear energy at Wylfa B, openly acknowledging that he did not agree with Plaid Cymru's policy. So far as I am aware, that has been his position in public ever since.
-
What is completely scandalous is that Rhun said one thing in public, but then—only six weeks after he had been elected—said the exact opposite when formally questioned about it as part of an official Plaid Cymru investigation.
This shows Rhun for what he is: a man without principles who will flip-flop on the issues. He will say one thing to one set of people at one time because he thinks it's what they want to hear, and then say completely the opposite thing to a different set of people at another time. This is two-faced hypocrisy of the very worst sort and there should be no place for such behaviour in politics.
-
It's not down to me to decide which is the truth and which is the lie. All I can say with certainty is that one of them must be a lie. Perhaps what he did was deliberately lie to the investigation in order to make it appear that his beliefs were in line with Plaid Cymru policy. If so, I guess his purpose would have been to make it appear that I had no reason at all to criticize him, and therefore that my criticism of him was unreasonable and unjustified.
But that is to miss the point. I never called Rhun a liar on the basis of whether or not he agreed with Plaid Cymru policy. I called him a liar because he misrepresented our policy by saying that we support the construction of new nuclear power stations on existing nuclear sites. We don't. We are totally opposed to the construction of any new nuclear power stations in Wales.
-
But there is perhaps another possibility: that he is in fact against nuclear power, but that he lied to everyone in Môn and Wales about it because he thought that telling this lie was the only way he would be elected ... and that being elected was more important to him than telling the truth.
I'm sure it is a story that has been told many ways in many languages, but in the novel Dirgel Ddyn by Mihangel Morgan is a character called Mr Schloss. He is the landlord of the house in which the author has a bedsit, and his idea of conversation revolves around praising Thatcher and saying that Hitler had the right idea about the Jews. Not exactly the most endearing of people. But one day he finds his cat has been killed and is distraught. In his grief he confides to the author that his cat was the nearest thing to a family he had, and tells the story of his childhood. As a small boy in Germany he sees the Nazis kill his entire family, but he manages to stay hidden and survives. When he asks the man who rescues him why the Nazis would do this, he learns that it is because his family was Jewish, and is told that he must never, ever tell anyone that he is Jewish. So what does the small boy do? He reckons that no-one will suspect him of being a Jew if he goes round telling everyone how much he hates the Jews. So that's what he does, and it then becomes a part of his life that he can't change ... even though every time he says how much he hates the Jews, he twists the knife a little deeper into his own heart.
Immediately after the Ynys Môn by-election, I summed up my thoughts in this post, and said something which I am still sure is true, although maybe one word now needs to be changed. For me, the big question in the by-election campaign was why Rhun started by being ambiguous about whether or not he supported Wylfa B, and only made his position clear in that infamous tweet of 19 July:
One explanation is that he was being goaded by Labour, who were making all sorts of silly accusations to try and catch him off balance. At one time they were saying that his ambivalence about whether or not he supported Wylfa B was a sign that he secretly supported it; but when another Labour goon suggested that it was a sign that he was secretly against Wylfa B it proved so -------- to him that he felt he had to say he supported it.
At the time, the word I used was "offensive". But what if his ambiguity at the start of the campaign was not to hide the fact that he supported Wylfa B, but to hide the fact that he opposed it? Perhaps the word should have been "embarrassing", and what motivated him to jump that way was the fear that telling the truth would cost him the election. He had tried to sit on the fence about it, but when the fence was shaken he made the mistake of choosing the easy way out and is now living a lie on the wrong side of it. So far as the public is concerned he has put his cards on the table and is unambiguously pro-nuclear ... and now that he's said it, he can't go back on it for fear of being exposed as someone unscrupulous enough to tell lies in order to save his electoral skin.
-
As I've said, I don't know which one is true. If Rhun is against nuclear energy, then he lied to the people of Ynys Môn and to Wales as a whole, probably because he thought that he needed to lie in order to get elected. If he is in favour of nuclear energy, then he lied to an official Plaid Cymru investigation, either in an attempt to make it appear that my criticism of him was unjustified or, far worse, because he wanted to stitch me up.
With the publication of this report it will now be obvious to everyone that, one way or the other, Rhun has lied about where he stands on the issue of nuclear energy.
But this was not the only new lie that came to light as a result of the first official investigation. It turns out that Rhun also lied about his previous membership of Plaid. This is what I wrote about it:
In case you hadn't realized it, Lyndon, my position on nuclear power is not a "personal obsession". It is an opinion shared by the majority of Plaid members. It is my party's policy, and I am not prepared to sweep it under the carpet for the sake of some Johnny-come-lately who has only been a member for a few weeks and who only made his support for Wylfa B clear after he had been selected as Plaid's candidate.
So don't get angry with me, direct your anger at those responsible for undermining party policy instead.
I was then taken to task for this and accused of telling lies about Rhun in an anonymous comment on Blog Menai. This is the exchange:
MH 'di'r un sydd 'di deud celwyddau. Roedd m'ond angen iddo godi'r ffôn i rywun call ac mi fyddai wedi darganfod y canlynol:
... 2. dydi Rhun ddim yn rhyw "Jonny Come Lately" i Blaidd Cymru – fuodd o'n aelod yn yr 80au/90au cynnar cyn troi ei law at newyddiadura
... Y cyfan yr oedd MH angen ei wneud i sefydlu'r ffeithiau hyn oedd i godi'r ffôn i Rhun neu eraill yn y Blaid – dyna fyddai aelod cyfrifol wedi ei wneud. Yn hytrach mi ddaru fo gychwyn grwsâd anheg ac anghywir gan wneud niwed iddo fo'i hun a'r Blaid. Siomedig.
MH is the one who is telling lies. He only needed to phone anyone with any sense and he would have discovered the following:
... 2. Rhun is not some "Jonny Come Lately" to Plaid Cymru – he was a member in the 80s/early 90s before turning his hand to journalism
... All that MH needed to do to establish these facts was to lift the phone and speak to Rhun or someone else in Plaid – that's what a responsible member would have done. But instead he embarked on an unfair and incorrect crusade, doing damage to both himself and Plaid. Disappointing.
Am aelodaeth y Blaid: Rhun yw'r un a oedd yn disgrifio ei hun fel "aelod newydd" o'r blaid, yma, nid fel rhywun sy'n ail-ymuno i'r blaid. Celwydd arall? Ydoedd, os oes hynny ddim yn wir.
Dwi'n cael fy meirniadu am alw Rhun yn "Johnny come lately", a dwi'n ymddiheuro am hynny'n llwyr os oedd Rhun yn aelod yn yr 80au. Byddai e'n "Johnny come back lately" yn hytrach. Ond, rili, beth yw'r ots am hynny? Os oedd Rhun yn aelod yn gynt, Rhun roedd yn gamarweiniol am y peth, nid y fi.
About [his] membership of Plaid: Rhun was the one who described himself as a new member of the party, here, not as someone who was rejoining the party. Another lie? Yes it was, if that wasn't the truth.
I'm being criticized for calling Rhun a "Johnny come lately", and I completely apologize for that if Rhun was a member in the 80s. He would be a "Johnny come back lately" instead. But really, what does it matter? If Rhun was a member before, Rhun was the one being misleading about it, not me.
From my point of view, all I was being presented with were assertions in an anonymous comment with no evidence to back them up. That is why my response was "if". But the matter came up again in the comments to my post on 15 August:
The story that Rhun was a former member of Plaid has been doing the rounds, Beard. I don't think it's particularly important either way, but I'll point you to what I said about it here on BlogMenai. Rhun described himself as a new member here on his blog, not as someone who was rejoining the party. So if he was in fact a former member, it would be another example of him misleading people.
In the investigation report, this was twisted into the following bald statement:
August 15 (post-election)
MH claims Rhun had stated he was a new member of Plaid Cymru and was therefore misleading people if he was in fact a former member.
It's a distortion for a number of reasons. First, it implies that I was making the accusation, when I was in fact responding to the accusation that I was telling lies. Second, it's hardly a "claim", as if to cast a shadow of doubt over whether what I said was true. It's a simple indisputable fact that Rhun did describe himself as a new member of the party. Isn't the whole point of an investigation to find out whether "claims" are or are not true?
-
Let's be clear, this is not a big lie on Rhun's part, and I wouldn't even be mentioning it except for the fact that it was considered important enough to be included in the official investigation report and used as evidence against me for supposedly bringing the party into disrepute. I'm presenting it as an example of how certain people in Plaid Cymru had lost all sense of perspective, and were scraping the barrel looking for any tiny thing that could be bent out of shape to use against me.
I'm equally sure that those in positions of power in Plaid Cymru who were responsible for trying to stitch me up will now try and point the finger at Shaughan and say that the contents of the report are his and his alone. But that's not entirely fair on Shaughan. As this accusation was not mentioned in Elin's letter of complaint, it seems clear that Elin must have pointed him to it ... but not pointed him to the context in which it was said. If I had not been shut out of the investigation, I could have told Shaughan all of this at the time. I could have directed him to what was said in the context in which it was said. But, as only became clear to me several months after the event, he was given specific legal advice by Plaid Cymru's lawyers not to contact me by email to ask me any questions.
-
What is so tragic is that this was a completely pointless and unnecessary thing for Rhun to lie about. Why say anything at all about being a "new member"? Nobody was putting him under any pressure or asking him any awkward questions about it. If he can't be honest and straightforward about himself, even on a completely uncontentious issue, how on earth can anybody trust him to be honest and straightforward about what he believes on more contentious political issues?
Yet Elin, in her letter of complaint about me, says she is sure that the people of Ynys Môn "would have known Rhun's integrity enough to trust him over an unknown blogger". My answer is that integrity is something Rhun needs to do rather more work on than I do.
This blog has been set up to complement the Syniadau Forums.
Much of what will appear on this blog will also appear in the Syniadau Forums, but the emphasis on this blog is slightly different. The forums are focused more on the structures and institutions that Wales will need to develop in order to become a successful independent nation, arranged on a subject by subject basis, but the blog will have more of an emphasis on day to day political news and developments.
People are welcome to reply or leave comments either here or on the Syniadau Forums. If anyone wants to initiate a new subject they are very welcome to do so there.
