Mark James - back in Private Eye

This week's Private Eye, with Mark James CBE back in the Rotten Borough's column, and featuring a cameo performance from his faithful sidekick, Rev Emlyn Dole.

You may recall that the cat was let out of the bag here.
Readers who have been following this blog over the past few months will be aware of my own struggle to have the officer's report to CRWG concerning unlawful libel indemnities, and the minutes of the meeting, made publicly available. I have now had to go to the Information Commissioner. The ongoing secrecy is quite simply, ridiculous.

Incidentally, Mark James' prestigious 'Shit of the Year' award from Private Eye formed part of his failed complaint to the police for 'harassment', the complaint was against me, of course, and not the well-resourced team at Private Eye. 
Mr James is not only a bully but a coward too.

My most recent post on the CRWG documents can be found here, and Cllr Rob James video on the subject, here. 
For further background, including Mr James' numerous previous appearances in Private Eye, please use the searchbox on the right.

A Wellness hiccup? - Updated

Later post 6th Dec; The Wellness Village - the end?

Update 30th November; 
According to a report in the Daily Mail the suspensions at Swansea Uni do indeed relate to Mark James' Wellness Village. According to the newspaper, the Vice Chancellor and Prof Marc Clement, and two others were suspended over 'conflicts of interest' and the purchase of shares  by an 'unnamed individual'. According to the Mail, that individual was making 'key decisions' about the project, so may well refer to the appointments to the City Deal board as detailed in my main post below, published on Monday. If this is the case then presumably they should be suspended from the Board immediately.

'There were concerns of an ‘inappropriate conflict of interest’ whereby the employee could profit from public money invested in the project, despite making key decisions about it, a source said....Swansea University’s registrar later obtained emails in which the shares were discussed and began an investigation'  (Daily Mail)

In other words it is alleged that certain individuals were prepared to personally profit from public money over this development, (which has already cost millions of pounds of public cash), and the City Deal.

After researching and writing about this tangled web of familiar names and private business interests for over two years, I am quite certain that it all stinks and the whole project should be shelved.

Whatever the case for the Uni professors, the spotlight should now be on the City Deal 'Accountable Officer', Mark James. And before he claims it is 'nothing to do with him, guv', it should be remembered that he has something of a track record in failing to declare his own private interests and he has been involved with all the key players, including our friends from Sterling/Kent Neurosciences right from the start. I've said all along that with his extended rap sheet, he was the wrong man for the job.

I look forward to his imminent suspension.

For more on all this, the Wellness Village and the City Deal, please search this blog.

Update 29th November;
WalesOnline reports today that Swansea Uni's Prof Marc Clement 'vehemently denies wrongdoing' and has instructed lawyers to act on his behalf. The Uni, meanwhile, is sticking to its guns.

 * * *

News reports today reveal that the Vice-chancellor of Swansea University, Prof Richard Davies, and Prof Marc Clement have been suspended (on full pay), along with two other employees, whilst an internal investigation continues. The university are not releasing further details at the moment only to say that the investigation does not concern "the academic performance of the university or its financial wellbeing".

Whatever the case, for those following the Swansea Bay City Deal saga this is interesting news. Both of them are key players, particularly Prof Clement, and both are part of the 'ARCH' project and both were very recently appointed to influential positions within the exclusive SBCD club; Richard Davies as a non-voting member of the Joint Committee and Marc Clement to the Economic Strategy Board as the representative of higher education.

We can only speculate as to the reason for the investigation and there has been no suggestion, of course, that there is a connection with the City Deal, but regardless of the reason, the suspension of two of its high profile figures is undoubtedly significant.

Llanelli born Prof Clement has had something of a controversial past, and several interesting news stories pop up on google, including his leading role in the disastrous Technium project.
He is also a director of several companies, the latest venture being Vardiola Ltd set up in February this year with fellow Swansea academic Georgios Dimitropoulos.
Listed on Companies House as providing 'hotels and similar accommodation', Prof Clement resigned from Vardiola Ltd on Saturday. (Update; the company is now in the process of voluntary dissolution)
Funnily enough, Mark James is also in the property business. And also a director of Trinity St David Uni.

With regards to the City Deal, and more particularly, Mark James' private healthcare Wellness Shed down at the Great Swamp, Marc Clement was a director of Kent Neurosciences, resigning shortly before the Exec Board, behind closed doors, signed a 12 month 'exclusivity deal' with the company to develop the Village in May 2016.

As I have set out in detail here, the deal was not renewed and company dissolved last year, only to re-emerge as Sterling Health, with the Dickmann clan still at the helm, and landed the council's contract to develop the Village. Kent Neurosciences had been behind the development of a private hospital in Maidstone, Kent which required a £20m bail-out.

Questions about the council's appointment of Sterling Health were brought up at the last full council meeting, Mark James' Emlyn Dole's responses were evasive and hostile. Carmarthenshire Council is the lead authority for the City Deal, and Mark James is the chief officer...

L to R; Phillipa Holt-Dickmann, Mark James, Prof Richard Davies, Emlyn Dole, Franz Dickmann and Prof Marc Clement

Legal Professional Privilege, County Hall style

Since the end of July, the 27th to be precise, I have been trying to obtain documents concerning officers' libel indemnities discussed at the CRWG meeting held on that date.

To recap, the Labour opposition leader Cllr Rob James tabled a Motion for the Constitution Review Working Group (CRWG) for the purpose of completely removing the suspended libel clause from the council's constitution.

Despite the cross-party CRWG being set up to improve governance and transparency following the pension and libel indemnity scandals, and the equally damning governance audit by the WLGA, the agendas and minutes are not published and the meetings are held in private.

The group, which is not properly constituted (conveniently), is overseen, and advised by Mark James and Monitoring Officer Linda Rees Jones, the former to blame for the scandals, and the toxic culture in the first place and the latter his personal legal rubber stamp.

With the Motion arriving on the chief executive's desk several days prior to the meeting, Ms Rees Jones was tasked with writing a report to accompany Cllr Rob James' Motion.

Not only does Mark James have a conflict of interest with this issue but so does Ms Rees Jones; as a witness for Mark James in the libel trial, her witness statement concerned itself with the 'legality' of the libel indemnity clause, the slush fund.
As I said here, neither of them should be advising councillors on these matters.

At the meeting, with Emlyn Dole in the Chair and Ms Rees Jones on hand to impart her master's voice, (Mark James had kept away, pulling the strings from afar, delegating liability again and not wishing to get his hands any dirtier than they already are, if that's possible), things took an unexpected turn.

Instead of a unanimous and sensible decision to immediately remove the unlawful clauses, which would also have removed the potential for a massive financial risk, it was resolved, by a majority vote, to write to the WAO to 'clarify the legal position' with a view to reinstate the clause.
I understand that at least one senior Plaid councillor wanted to know if Members too could be provided with libel indemnities if they so desired....

I published an outline of what transpired at the meeting on this blog but not the details and documents, as I did not have that information. This blog post was classed as a 'leak' and tempers flared accordingly.
See also here.

Since then I have asked the council, and the Wales Audit Office, for a copy of the letter that CRWG resolved to send, and which would have been written by Mark James and signed by Ms Rees Jones.

Nearly four months have now passed and no letter has been written. The clause remains suspended, but is still there, and the issue is once again being shovelled under those lumpy carpets of the Presidential Suite.

I'm not sure what 'writing to the WAO' would have achieved anyway, I understand that their legal position remains the same.

What is interesting though, as an issue of governance, is the nature of CRWG Resolutions. How soon after the meeting, and a formal Resolution no less, did someone say, ahh, let's not bother, let's not open that can of worms. I have asked Ms Rees Jones to clarify the nature of a CRWG resolution, is it binding? Or is it not?
She is refusing to tell me.

Anyway, I also asked for her report to the CRWG meeting and this, as you can see here, was refused under legal professional (advice) privilege. I have now made a complaint to the ICO and I await their response. As I have said, her conflict of interest is obvious.

My arguments against the use of legal professional privilege; and for the overriding public interest to disclose, include the fact that this whole issue arose from a WAO report, published IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, and also the fact that the substantive legal advice has already been published, back in 2014, on the council website, when Mark James and the then Exec Board were expensively defending the indefensible. The council waived its claim to legal privilege at that point.

In addition, the implications of publicly funding libel actions for senior officers is very much in the public interest, across the UK.
This is not an issue which is just of interest to some members of the public, it is in the public interest that the information is released. There is a significant difference between the two. Public money should not be used for this purpose anywhere, and legislation prevents it, unless you are Mark James.

To bring you bang up to date, I recently asked for the 'Minutes' of the CRWG meeting.

The 20 day limit came and went last Friday the 9th November. After a couple of prompts, including a final nudge yesterday, the response duly arrived about an hour later. I am certain that the delay is down to the fact that it is Mr James who is actually providing the response.

The response, which is published in full at the end of this post, was a refusal. The Minutes (or 'Action Notes') are being withheld under Legal Advice Privilege, just like Ms Rees Jones' report, because, so it says, the minutes refer to the report.

What?!
This, as before, is utter nonsense. It also has the potential to prevent the disclosure of anything written by a council solicitor to elected members, if it suits the agenda of Mark James.

It is totally absurd that the minutes from a meeting of a few cross-party councillors will not be shared with the rest of the elected members. The discussion at the meeting referred to a paragraph in the council's constitution, not anything commercially or personally sensitive. The Constitution is an important, publicly available document and there is an inherent requirement for full transparency.

I will, of course, ask for an internal review etc etc but the secrecy over this is inexplicable, bonkers really. Mr James is quite accustomed to flouting the law, undertakings, the truth etc but playing fast and loose with Legal Professional Privilege to this extent, widening its scope to prevent public debate on a controversial subject, is a relatively new venture. He continues to change the rules to protect his own back.

I don't know what the ICO will say, but I will take this refusal, and the refusal to disclose the officer's report, as far as I can, if necessary

It is absolutely remarkable that anyone at that council is continuing to pander to Mr James over this. With the authority facing £28m cuts over the next three years, does anyone, other than him, think it right that potentially, a cool million or two should be spent on massaging his fragile ego?
The cash he took last time, and the thousands spent fruitlessly fighting with the WAO, would have been better spent on vital services. Not that he cares a jot.

One of the reasons that it is in Mr James' interest for the clause to remain 'suspended' is that any change to the constitution, reinstatement or removal, will have to be decided, eventually, by full council, in the full glare of publicity. If it's removed, he's lost the argument and he'll have a bloody nose, if there is any attempt to reinstate, he's definitely lost the plot.

As I have mentioned above, this is all very much in the public interest. I personally will never let the matter drop until the clause is removed and this disreputable and dishonest chief executive brought to account, whether he's at the council, moved on elsewhere, or retired, with, or preferably without, a massive pay out.
That's a promise.



The Freedom of Information response;

Dear Mrs Thompson,

I refer to your request for information, which was received on 5th October, 2018 and has been dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  Please accept my apologies for the delay in providing this response.

The specific information you requested was as follows:

"1. Thank you for your reply dated 20th September. Could you please tell me if the letter to the Wales Audit Office regarding unlawful libel indemnities has been sent yet? If so then could you please provide me with a copy.

2. I would also be grateful for a copy of the minutes from the CRWG meeting held on the 27th July."

In response to the first part of your request, the Council does not hold this information.

With regard to the second part of your request, this information is held.

However, the substantive content of the action notes is information relating to a report which is subject to legal professional privilege. We therefore believe that the content of the notes is itself privileged, as it is information relating to a communication between a legal professional and a client.
In responding to you on previous requests, I have set out our position and the relevant case law regarding legal professional privilege and the Freedom of Information Act.  For ease of reference, I will revisit this here.

A determination by the Information Tribunal, in Bellamy v the Information Commissioner and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (EA/2005/0023, 4th April, 2006), provides a clear definition of legal professional privilege:

“a set of rules or principles which are designed to protect the confidentiality of legal or legally related communications and exchanges between the client and his, her or its lawyers, as well as exchanges which contain or refer to legal advice which might be imparted to the client, and even exchanges between the clients and [third] parties if such communications or exchanges come into being for the purposes of preparing for litigation.”

The Bellamy decision also defined two types of privilege, namely litigation and advice privilege.  I believe in this case that the report is subject to advice privilege, which applies where no litigation is in progress or being contemplated.  This would include confidential communications between the legal professional and the client, for the main purpose of seeking or giving legal advice.  A report which in which a lawyer provides advice is by definition, legal advice, as are notes which refer to or discuss that information.

Under Section 42 of the Act, a public authority may refuse to provide information where a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained.  In view of the above, I believe this exemption is therefore engaged.

However, the Section 42 exemption is qualified and subject to a public interest test.  In doing so, I must make a distinction between what is genuinely in the public interest and what may merely be of interest to a member of members of the public.

I accept that there are public interest factors which favour disclosure in this case, namely transparency and furthering public knowledge in relation to a matter which has been subject to some publicity in the past.

However, there is an inherent public interest in maintaining this exemption, which will always be strong due to the importance of the principle behind legal professional privilege, which is to protect the privacy of communications between client and lawyer to ensure access to full and frank legal advice, which in turn is fundamental to the administration of justice.

I am not persuaded on this occasion that this is outweighed by the factors favouring disclosure set out above.  Accordingly, I believe the exemption should be maintained and the information withheld from disclosure.
                                                                                     
As I am refusing to provide the requested information, please therefore consider this email to be a formal notice of refusal under Section 17 of the Act.

John Tillman
Rheolwr Llywodraethu Gwybodaeth a Chwynion
Adfywio a Pholisi
Adran y Prif Weithredwr
Cyngor Sir Gaerfyrddin

Information Governance & Complaints Manager
Regeneration & Policy
Chief Executive’s Department
Carmarthenshire County Council

November meeting, and some Sterling questions...

(Later post 26th November, 'A wellness hiccup' here)

A few words about today's meeting.

As the whole meeting can be viewed on the archived webcast I'll focus on the questions from Cllr Rob James (Lab), and the responses from council leader Emlyn Dole (Plaid), as detailed in my previous post.

The responses from Emlyn Dole were predictable, shed no light on some of the stranger aspects of the collaboration with Sterling, offered no reassurance that the taxpayers' were not at risk, failed to mention the word 'accountability', and he confirmed Plaid's commitment to setting up lots of arms-length companies. And, indeed, Rob James was attacked, as I said he would be, for jeopardising the future prosperity of Mark James Inc. the children of the county.
Mark James himself didn't speak, there was no need, having had a week to primp and prime Emlyn and to prepare the answers. Cllr Dole didn't let his boss down. As I've mentioned before, Mr James never delegates authority, only liability.

The questions are in bold.

Could the Leader of Council please give a brief overview on the process that was undertaken in choosing a private sector partner for the Wellness Village, outlining how many organisations took part in the Competitive Dialogue process and the reason Sterling Health was chosen?

Cllr Dole started by criticising Labour's Rob James for 'undermining democracy' by 'sharing his questions' and corresponding with a Journal reporter prior to the meeting. Presumably the journalist had already read the questions published on the council website last week anyway. And presumably he's allowed to ask questions, even in Carmarthenshire...

Whatever the case, this cardinal sin was the same as Plaid's own Cllr Alun Lenny sharing a copy of his Motion over the libel damages in December 2016 to a reporter, this was also prior to the meeting. (The Motion was blocked by the chief executive).
Mind you, I don't suppose Emlyn approved of Cllr Lenny's actions, he didn't get to become leader by criticising Mark James, no siree!

The upshot of this is, in my opinion, that no councillor should be afraid to discuss questions, motions, policy or whatever, with the local press. Not even in Carmarthenshire.

As for answering the question, it turned out, as I thought, that despite '34 viewings' of the tender (whatever that may mean), Sterling was the only bidder. It wasn't clear whether the other 33 decided not to touch it with a barge pole, or were mysteriously put off from bidding, the council has had problems with tenders before...

Anyway, according to Cllr Dole there was then a robust Competitive Tendering process with the, erm, one bidder.

Rob James' supplementary question referred to the fact that Sterling was virtually the same company as Kent Neurosciences Ltd, see my post here. In April 2016 the council had entered a 12 month exclusivity agreement with KNS to develop the village but this had not been renewed and the company was dissolved, with a deficit of £128k, a couple of months later. Then KNS popped back up again as Sterling, and away to go!

KNS were behind a private hospital in Kent which opened in 2014 but by 2016 required a £20m refinancing deal due to heavy losses. Most of the original directors had, by that time, moved on.

He asked whether or not the council leadership were concerned about any of this, and added that none of it appeared either fair nor transparent.

Emlyn Dole, clearly having learned from the master, completely avoided the issue at hand and went on the attack. He accused Cllr James of trying to undermine the process and attacking their ambition. He then drifted into a robot like trance listing all the exciting things which would be part of this Wellness extravaganza. Followed by a round of applause from the Plaid ranks. Curiously, the words 'private health care', and 'luxury spa' had slipped his mind.

Rob James moved on to his second question.

Could the Leader of Council highlight who the Directors are behind the Joint Venture Partner and what experience they bring to the project?

Another curious thing about Sterling is the number of sister companies it has, Sterling Operating, Sterling International, Sterling Property, Sterling Holdings, etc. Emlyn Dole was careful just to identify one.

Another curious thing was that former leader, Meryl Gravell was, in July, made a Director of two of them. This was Cllr James area of interest.

With some smug satisfaction Cllr Dole listed the Directors, which did not include Dear Meryl. What he failed to add was that although she had resigned from Sterling Health Security Holdings Ltd (which was the one he had carefully identified) last week, she is still, as of today, listed as a director of Sterling Health Security Operating Ltd.

The latest accounts for Sterling Health Security Holdings Ltd show a net liability of £137,822 in the red, it requires a loan from the directors to continue as a going concern. There are four sister companies altogether which will ensure that it becomes very difficult to follow the public money.

So Cllr Dole was being very economical with the truth. Furthermore, he failed to explain why she was/is a director at all. Maybe he's developed another u-turn and become an adoring fan.

The Collaboration Agreement for the projects on Delta Lakes with Swansea University and Sterling Health is said to cost £200 million, please could the Leader of Council detail how each partner will be expected to contribute to this cost?

Cllr Dole resorted to spin by saying that this was not a cost, oh no, this was an investment! The council would be contributing their £32m with the leisure centre and land value (planning permission still undecided). There was no mention of the borrowing (and the interest payable) which will be required for the upfront costs, estimated, I understand, to be at least £55m. The private investment couldn't be determined until the investors had been secured, through 'due diligence', of course...

Rob James' supplementary question asked how Sterling, currently £137k in the red, were going to come up with £127m.

Cllr Dole then wandered into the world of global networks, stakeholders and new Corporate Vehicles to enable public/private investment, liability and risk assessments and local governance requirements. Careful to avoid the toxic term 'PFI'.

None of which reassured anyone that the taxpayers' wouldn't be picking up a big bill if, and when, things go pear-shaped, and when the originators of this project have long gone.
Neither does it address the question as to what, exactly, the mysterious global investors hope to get as a return, unless they're doing it out of the kindness of their hearts of course.

Not sure that Cllr Dole was convinced by what he was saying either.

Could the Leader of Council outline how much this Authority has paid in consultancy fees since May 2015, including those connected with projects relating to the Swansea Bay City Deal?

Rather than give a figure, Cllr Dole went on the attack, it would be a huge ask for council directors to know how much they'd spent on consultants! Fancy asking such a thing. And as for the City Deal, that would also involve other councils and the Welsh Government! He again accused Cllr James of not wanting the Wellness Thing and in so many words, scuppering the process, presumably by asking awkward questions...

Rob James replied stating that the Plaid leadership clearly didn't like scrutiny. Would they promise, he asked, not to spend any more on consultants? "No", said Cllr Dole.

Scrutiny, of course, was what this was all about.

In fact, through my own research, I found that the council had already spent £564k on 'Wellness Village' reports by August 2017. That figure will have gone up sharply in the last twelve months.

Mark James remained silent throughout this 'debate' but I suspect that he has already started compiling one of his 'dossiers' with Cllr James name on the cover, and marked an entry in his little black book, especially after the CRWG libel indemnity episode back in the summer. He must be so proud of Emlyn, he's like a well-trained poodle.

The remainder of Cllr James' questions concerned the recent spate of arms-length companies set up by the administration. Essentially the concern is with the lack of democratic oversight, the future job security, and terms and conditions for employees and the secrecy cloaked in 'commercial sensitivity'.

Cllr Dole confirmed that Mark James Plaid's agenda to set up even more arms-length companies would continue, It was NOT 'outsourcing' at all and he blamed the Labour Welsh Government for making such 'innovations' necessary. He may have a point but Plaid have supported Labour's budget in the Senedd since 2016.

Funnily enough, back in March 2015, with just one arms-length company (Cwm Environmental) in existence, and just before Plaid took 'power', this was what they had to say about 'arms length' companies;

"The obsession of the Labour council with effectively outsourcing services and removing democratic oversight inevitably reduces the operational control the council has over our public services."

How the tables turn in politics.

I am not a fan of Labour, or Plaid, or any of them really, but I am a fan of scrutiny and transparency. Whether it's Rob James, or Sian Caiach and a few others before him, someone has to have the bottle, whatever their motivation, to ask 'awkward' questions in Carmarthenshire. Emlyn Dole's response, a mixture of belligerence and evasiveness is disappointing, and worse still, uncannily similar to Meryl Gravell.

Update 18th November; The agenda for Thursday's (22nd) meeting of the Swansea Bay City Rollers (the Joint Committee) has been published and, no less than three items, including Yr Egin and the Wellness Village will be heard behind closed doors; no doubt citing 'commercial sensitivity', which will be the order of the day as far as access to information is concerned.

The council hope to push the planning application through for itself at an Extraordinary Planning Committee meeting in January.

(For further posts about the Wellness project and the City Deal, please use the searchbox on the right.)

* * *

Before I go, and with the Wellness spending extravaganza well underway and little clarity on how much has been spent setting up the latest raft of arms-length companies, it's worth mentioning that the latest budget proposals will be on the agenda for Monday's Exec Board meeting. The full list, here, will then go out for consultation.

The current proposals are to cut £28m over three years and include closing more primary schools and charging for post-16 transport, withdrawing funding support for vulnerable young people attending a town centre youth project, three Welsh Language medium youth clubs, specialist provision for Harmful Sexual Behaviour and county youth club provision. Council tax will increase 4.89%.

As I've said, it's not clear just how much has been, and will be, siphoned off into the Delta Lakes swamp. Sacking the chief executive, or securing his well-deserved detention at Her Majesty's Pleasure would save £200k a year, but sadly that's not in the proposals, although I may suggest this in my consultation response.
The cost of senior management continues to rise and according to the accounts, all directors had pay increases last year, of varying amounts, and the number of other employees upwards of £90k, went from nine to fourteen.

One of the proposals being put forward is to reduce full council meetings from monthly to quarterly, ie from eleven, to three or four a year. As the saving will be a mere £7000 I find it unlikely that this will be supported but, you never know.

In some ways, given that this council is so officer-led, full council meetings are almost superfluous, as are most of the 74 councillors. They are regarded as a minor irritant and a necessary evil by the chief executive. They do not make 'decisions', they accept, by and large, the recommendations presented to them by officers and nod them through accordingly.
This reduction is almost certainly Mark' James' idea, it will suit him just fine, and perhaps give him more time to spend on his private affairs....

The level of democracy, and democratic debate in Carmarthenshire is dire, and always has been but it's all we've got, and as @mjmilan put it rather well on Twitter;

"@caebrwyn @CarmsCouncil You absolutely must not drop to quarterly full council meetings, lest the last faint whiff of accountability on the carcass of democracy in your town be lost forever..."

Agenda for full council, some 'Wellness' questions, and more. Updated with this week's 'Cadno'

(10th November update; For the Carmarthenshire Herald's 'Cadno', please scroll down)


Next week's full council meeting features several interesting questions concerning the 'Wellness Village' and, more specifically, the partnership between the council and Sterling Health. The latest craze for setting up arms-length companies also comes under the spotlight. It should be interesting.

The questions, listed below in bold, are pretty self-explanatory and are from opposition leader Cllr Rob James (Lab) to Plaid's Emlyn Dole, (the comment or link in italics are mine);

Could the Leader of Council please give a brief overview on the process that was undertaken in choosing a private sector partner for the Wellness Village, outlining how many organisations took part in the Competitive Dialogue process and the reason Sterling Health was chosen?

It seems that as well as Sterling Health being a reincarnation of the now-dissolved Kent Neurosciences (which were the original partners) they were the only bidders for the contract. It is not known whether any other organisations actually tried to tender, maybe Emlyn will tell us.
Wellness Village 'Private partners - something oddly familiar? 

Could the Leader of Council highlight who the Directors are behind the Joint Venture Partner and what experience they bring to the project?

I'm thinking here of one recent, and inexplicable addition to Sterling's directors, Meryl Gravell... her notable achievements as leader of Carms Council included calling protesters campaigning against closure of their local A & E 'rabble'; calling the workforce lazy; and when the council were busy closing all the little schools, accused councillors of 'displaying weakness' for listening to parents' concerns. For more, please search this blog.
She was also known, in some quarters, as Mark James' cash cow, keeping him in the manner to which he's become accustomed, unlawful payments included.

The Collaboration Agreement for the projects on Delta Lakes with Swansea University and Sterling Health is said to cost £200 million, please could the Leader of Council detail how each partner will be expected to contribute to this cost?

Yes please, do tell us. The last set of ever-changing figures I saw showed a £127m contribution from the private sector, it will be interesting to know the details... Hopefully we will also be told exactly how much the council will be borrowing, with it's current tally of debt already at £400m.

Could the Leader of Council outline how much this Authority has paid in consultancy fees since May 2015, including those connected with projects relating to the Swansea Bay City Deal?

Funnily enough I've recently made a Freedom of Information request for consultancy fees, currently awaiting a response. By August 2017 the council had already spent £564k on 'Wellness Village' reports. That will have gone up sharply in the last twelve months. 

Earlier this year, the governance and management structures of Cwm Environmental Limited, were changed to a Teckal company.  Could the Leader of Council please indicate what impact, if any, these changes have had on pay and conditions of the employees?

Could the Leader of Council please provide information on the remuneration package attached to the new Operations Director post of Delta Wellbeing Limited?

This Authority has established several companies in the last eighteen months that has resulted in reduced oversight for services that ordinarily are carried out by the Council; Councillors and the public being unaware of what is happening in these companies; and public finances in connection with public sector ventures being questioned.  Will the Leader of Council, therefore, pledge to halt the continuing outsourcing of services to teckal companies and promise not to create any new companies, including any relating to the City Deal, for the remainder of this term?

For some background to the arms-length outsourcing ventures (and of course the whole Wellness/City Deal thing) there have been numerous mentions on this blog, if you wish to search. My previous post, Mark James and the 'Sicilian Cartel', also gives a viewpoint.

As I am writing this, the responses, no doubt, are being dreamed up by the chief executive, for Emlyn to deliver, so I hope there's a few follow-up questions being lined up.
Whether related to the arrival of these questions on the chief executive's desk or not, the council/City Deal PR machine has been in overdrive again, this week the fanfare's been out for the exciting and amazing prospect of a new leisure centre, or the 'Wellness Hub' in the Wellness thing. Presumably this is to attract public support, with far less emphasis, funnily enough, on the private health care, the 'Wellness Hotel' and the holisitc therapy pods...

We can safely predict that the answers will be used as an opportunity for further spin and half truths, and anyone who suggests that this may not be the best thing since sliced bread will be accused of jeopardising the future prosperity of Mark James and Co the little children of Carmarthenshire.

In actual fact, after two years of nothing but PR puffery, this whole business is screaming for some proper scrutiny. Especially with Mr James CBE in charge.

We'll see.

* * *

Update 10th November; The 'Cadno' opinion piece from the Carmarthenshire Herald;

Cadno and the Monster

Coulrophobia is an ugly sort of neologism, readers.
It’s like the million and one made up names for conditions that seek to create distinct clinical definitions for the million and one shocks to which the flesh and psyche are equally heir. 

Among the popular tropes of modern horror fiction, stretching back to the nineteenth century, evil clowns have come out of the eerie twilight carnivals of Ray Bradbury in the mid-twentieth century to accelerate through schlock horror B movies of the 1960s to their apotheosis as Pennywise in Stephen King’s ‘It’ – or, perhaps more to the point, Tim Curry’s performance as Pennywise in the TV series of the same name. 

There is a theory – there is always a theory – about why people – particularly children are afraid of clowns. 

If you think about it, most clown outfits distort natural features. The staring eyes, pale skin, large feet, make-up, outsize hands – the grotesquery of the clown’s appearance and behaviour - are close enough to ‘normal’ appearance to create a feeling of unease and discomfiture. 

It’s rather like Frankenstein’s feelings of revulsion for his creation – the similarity to human is close enough to draw attention to its defects of appearance so that Frankenstein cannot bear to set eyes upon it. The cues for humanity are both present and absent at the same time. There’s more than a hint of that in Philip K. Dick’s ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep’. The simulacra – Replicants - are too inhumanly human to be allowed to endure, they remind the real humans of their mortality and imperfections. 

Which might be why Cadno is so worried about the Council’s attachment to building the great Wellness Thingy on a swamp. 

Look at the pictures – ooh, shiny!
Look at what it is claimed it will deliver – ooh, prosperity!
Look at what it is going to cost – ooh, umm… yes. 

Cadno will spell it out, readers. In order to fund its end of this project, the Council has to borrow money. It will do so at a much lower rate than you or I could perhaps obtain, but the Council will repay the principal and interest upon it to the institution from which it borrows. Or rather, the Council won’t. 

Council Tax payers will. Council Tax payers in Llanmiloe, Council Tax payers in Llandovery, Council Tax payers in Llanybydder. Bills will go up across Carmarthenshire to line the pockets of property speculators, private equity companies, and those of the merchant bankers with whom the Council will strike its Faustian deal. Carmarthenshire’s financial future mortgaged to support a speculative project which could end up pouring hundreds of millions into a swamp. 

Llanelli needs a new leisure centre. Of that, there is no doubt. But does it really need what has elsewhere been described as nothing more than a series of white elephants huddled around a stagnant pond? 

There’s the grotesquery, readers. 

The Wellness Monster looks enough like a leisure centre, but its defects repel. The hubris, the over-confidence, the cosying up to a development partner whose directors’ track records are less than stellar, and most of all the smirking presence of Mark James CeeBeeBees at the project’s heart. 

Mr James is, by all accounts, quite a clever fellow.
Cadno has it on good authority that when it comes to operating the old grease can to oil his way in and around of less biddable characters on the City Region Board, Marky Mark is quite the artist. 

But when you look at someone to guide a multi-million-pound project, does the person who delivered the ongoing financial black hole of Parc y Scarlets strike you like the best bet? 

It is at this point that Cadno would normally bung in a few insults at local politicians past and present. On this occasion, however, Cadno is going to say something surprising.
He thinks Rob James has this one almost exactly right. 

The original City Deal was a truly regional vision – expanding digital networking across South West Wales – bringing the disparate parts of the area together by better and smarter infrastructure linked to projects intended to embed better business structures to generate wealth. 

It was one heck of a vision. So much blue-sky piche, of course, but one heck of a vision. Now, what do we have? 

We can forget the connectivity, what the Deal has boiled down to – at least now the regional part of it has been quietly dropped – is no more than a network of random white elephants designed so that everyone gets to dip their beak.
It’s a sodding disgrace. 

Llanelli needs a new leisure centre. Does it need – god help us – a Wellness Hotel? Llanelli needs a new and properly-funded residential care home. Does it need the Bide-a-Wee supported housing complex for retired gentlefolk? Most importantly, if healthcare provision is so central to the Wellness Monster, why aren’t either Hywel Dda UHB or ABM-UHB putting their own money into it? 

Rob James has this spot on, readers. 

The money being blown on lunatic vanity projects, envisioned and designed by those who know responsibility for paying for the bloody things will not be their problem, could do some actual good. Improving rail links. A Metro system connecting Carmarthenshire with points east and south. Investment in digital infrastructure to actually spread economic benefits across the region. Efforts to do more than engage in the sort of Field of Dream economics beloved of people who look less at results than ‘leaving a legacy’.
If you build it readers, or so the aphorism goes, they will come. 

No, readers. Look at Parc y Scarlets: a half-empty concrete shed on match days. 

Readers, if you intend to deliver prosperity to the largest number of people over the widest area you look at regenerating or supporting small and medium-sized businesses that support long-term employment in return for lower investment risk. 

 The Council – the City Deal – is too wrapped up in the vision of the big and flashy to consider that in a region in which private enterprise is almost universally based around small and medium-sized businesses, it is better to create an environment in which they might thrive and survive, than in building a Frankenstein’s Monster of disparate parts adding up to a repellent and unnatural whole.

See also Cllr Rob James' video, Swansea Bay City Deal - A missed opportunity?

* * *

Elsewhere on the agenda there's a question on the £500k development fund trumpeted by Plaid last year as a pot to help out struggling schools. According to Cllr Morgan (Ind), it's main use seems to be related to 'efficiency savings' rather than direct help. Nothing is ever quite as it seems.
As for the SEN budget there's been a £800k overspend as schools struggle to cope with demand.

As an aside, a recent meeting of the Education Scrutiny Committee tried to get to grips with the 'Performance Monitoring Report for the period 1st April to 30th June 2018 (Quarter 1); progress against actions and measures in the New Corporate Strategy 2018-23 to deliver the 2018/19 Well-being Objectives' 

As the garbled Minutes below illustrate, there is clearly a problem with this type of report, and all Scrutiny meetings are stuffed with them;

"Concern was expressed that of the 27 measures reported, 20 have either not started or data is not collected for quarter 1 and 2 are not available.  Also the with regard to the 67 actions reported as being on target, it was pointed out that the targets dates are not until 2019/20.  The Head of Education Services explained that the term “on target” is historic and what is meant is that in relation to performance in quarter 1, officers do not perceive any challenges to meeting the targets;
Concern was expressed over the format of the report in that themes 11 and 13 appeared between themes 1 and 2.  Officers agreed to look at the formatting of future reports"

* * *

Finally, a quick mention about the Planning Committee next Thursday, only because I've taken a passing interest in the use of 'commercially sensitive' viability appraisals to reduce the level of affordable homes or community contributions by large developers.
An application for 48 homes in Llannon, by Pennant Homes is on the agenda, (incidentally the Council's own Local Development Plan recommended 38, but never mind)

I'm not against housing developments nor am I in favour of unreasonable demands on developers, but viability appraisals are being used more and more and councils, when faced with stark figures, are held over a barrel. The problems arise when the figures are calculated specifically to satisfy the requested reduction (I'm not suggesting that this is the case here at all), and as these reports are withheld as 'commercially sensitive', it is impossible for councillors to question the basis of the reduction.

In this case an unspecified amount of community contributions (S106 obligations) have been agreed, "on the basis of a viability report", the viability being compromised by the "necessary engineering to achieve a suitable highway gradient".
Out of 48 dwellings, only three will be 'affordable', far less than the usual 30%. And as this is in Cllr Emlyn Dole's ward I'm sure he won't want to send Plaid's affordable housing 'journey' off track...

The developers, Pennant Homes, are part of Coastal Housing, a housing association providing affordable accommodation and in receipt of government grant funding.

The officers report goes on to state that the "viability report is commercially sensitive, however it shows a developer return at a significantly lower level than would be normally acceptable, so further contributions would make the development commercially unviable."

The issue of viability appraisals across the UK has been a subject of investigation in the past by the Guardian newspaper, an editorial on the subject can be read here.  

Mark James and his 'Sicilian cartel'

Interesting piece over on Jac O'the North's blog (see 'A little place in the west') about our chief executive Mark James CBE who, when not Commanding the British Empire is busy building his own little fiefdom in west Wales, and wider afield with the Swansea City Deal. Control has always been the order of the day for Mr James, from deciding the set up of political 'power' to ensuring total compliance with his distorted world view. That view, unfortunately, has no one but himself at the centre, with councillors kept in the dark and the taxpaying residents no more than a means to an end. Remember, this public servant has used you to unlawfully bankroll his private vendettas and, some might say, look after his friends.

Jac considers the recently established arms-length housing company, Cartrefi Croeso. If there was ever going to be any democratic oversight it evaporated when full control was delegated to Mr James. The council is the only shareholder which means that he has the power to act on their behalf, he can also appoint and dismiss the directors (currently two, both council directors) and decide when funding will be released. You can also forget freedom of information requests. He will be answerable to no one.
What he likes to make certain of, with everything, is that if anything goes wrong, which it will, it will be his underlings who take the flak.
Jac o'the North is not the first person to liken Mr James to a mafia don, you may also recall a similar sentiment from the former police commissioner.

The Wellness village vanity project is another case in point. The track record and 'rebirth' of the company appointed to develop the private healthcare project is curious to say the least and the appointment of Mr James' devoted number one fan, former council leader Meryl Gravell on the board of directors would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. The project, if it ever materialises will be of very little benefit to the people of Llanelli, apart from a few low paid jobs, and none at all to the rest of the county. On the other hand, a few short term investors and some overseas bank balances might do rather well.

What I find even more remarkable is that alongside all this, Mr James, part time council CEO and Cardiff property magnate, has his own private property management business, he's a co-director in a company which, amongst other things, boasts access to planning and legal advice, and he's also a landlord. When I asked the council, last year, whether all this featured on the Register of Officers' Interests, it seems he hadn't thought it was worth the bother.

The delegation of liability, whilst retaining control can backfire of course, which it did over the unlawful libel indemnity. Mr James was so concerned with trying to make sure that the Executive Board took the blame for his actions that he had the 2014 draft Court of Appeal slush fund judgement amended to mention this.
What he conveniently failed to add was the fact that he had deliberately misled the Executive Board and stayed in the meeting to ensure their total compliance, that latter point itself made his indemnity illegal, even without the fact that he'd broken the law. This behaviour from both him and the Monitoring Officer, Linda Rees Jones, continues to this day.

As for the arms-length companies, if that is a road this council wishes to go down then it should be remembered that it is the council who is the shareholder, delegation is something which should be carefully thought through.
With the council's blind blessing Mr James has, over the years, been given the authority to do just about anything he pleases, he has lied, bullied and manipulated his way to total power, attempting to emasculate the local press on the way, whilst always trying to ensure he is liable for nothing. He keeps dossiers on his 'enemies' but, as the saying goes, he keeps his 'friends' even closer.

When Mr James went on gardening leave in 2014 whilst Gloucestershire Police carried out their criminal 'investigation' a fair few thought, and secretly hoped, he wouldn't come back. He did of course, as if nothing had happened. In 2015 he announced he was leaving but the collective sigh of relief was shortlived when he changed his mind a couple of months later, due solely to the fact that there was going to be opposition to his half a million quid pay off.

I am of the view that he should be brought to account before he goes anywhere, he has pocketed tens of thousands of pounds of public cash which he shouldn't have (fraud, in any other walk of life), including tax avoidance; he's lied, outrageously, to his employers, and misled the courts and he's used the council as his own personal office space, and the legal department as his personal defence lawyers.

Jac o'the North concludes; "It is quite amazing how, in a Western democracy, the employee of a public body can take over that body and run it as if it were some private company he had created himself! Which would be bad enough, but neither the elected representatives of those that employ him, nor the superior level of government that should be holding him to account, are prepared to do anything!"
Nov 9th; Later post and follow-up from Jac o'th North here.

Full council and planted questions

After noticing a pointless question about tourism figures from a Plaid Cymru backbencher to the Plaid administration at last month's full council meeting, I see there are two more highly suspect, planted questions on the agenda for Wednesday's meeting. One question concerns the affordable housing 'journey' and the other relates to school performance. This is a worrying trend.

Spontaneity and topical debate was stopped a couple of years ago when the chief executive removed Any Other Business, and relegated all the committee minutes to the tail end of the agenda, just for 'noting'. Much of each meeting is now taken up with death-by-power point presentations, leaving little time for any serious debate. It is largely a sanitised, polite and dull affair.

There are usually a handful of tightly controlled 'Councillor Questions' and Motions covering issues which are often unrelated directly to the Council, and, as the administration has seven days to come up with an answer to any questions, not exactly cutting edge stuff. Public questions have dwindled to zero. The agenda is, of course, controlled by the chief executive, as is the council itself.
Full council meetings have become little more than a platform for propaganda, a showpiece of spin and half truths. 

This latest trend, where a Plaid councillor asks a Plaid Executive Board Member to 'explain' the 'wonderful success' of something-or-other, is such a blatant piece of propaganda as to be laughable.
Wikipedia informs me, reliably I'm sure, that in Australian politics, such questions are know as 'Dorothy Dixers'

Opposition questions can be equally staged of course, although last month a Labour councillor came up with an interesting supplementary. His question, on homelessness and affordable housing prompted a lengthy response from Emlyn Dole's sister-in-law, Exec Board Member Linda Evans who waxed lyrical over their achievements and commitment to accommodate those less fortunate than themselves. (perhaps Emlyn's got a couple of spare rooms at Pontyberem's very own Southfork..).

He then asked how many young people were currently holed up in unsatisfactory HMOs. Ah, there were some, she said, unavoidable, I'm afraid, er, something we're addressing, she faltered.
Mind you, she could always ask Mr James for advice, he knows a thing or two about trying to make people homeless..

As for the council's Scrutiny Committees as hotbeds of executive questioning, they were recently subject to a review by the Wales Audit Office which found that they were still officer-led; Executive Board members were not being held accountable and presentations from external bodies took up a disproportionate amount of time. They found little evidence that Scrutiny took forward either internal audit or Wales Audit Office reports; public engagement was minimal and the meetings are not webcast; some members wandered out before the end of the meetings and attendance at training sessions was low.

Of course Caebrwyn can think of lots of questions to put to full council, from plunging the county into terminal debt for Mr James' Wellness Dream, to wasteful complaints to the Ombudsman, to the latest nonsense over the unlawful libel indemnities. And everything in between.
Including a £3.9m black hole in the revenue budget.
Though I was one of the first, in over ten years, to ask a public question back in 2015. Essentially it concerned a bung to Scarlets Regional Ltd by the chief executive, contrary to the advice of his own Finance Director.

If political groups want to put out propaganda, which obviously they all do, and at any opportune moment, they have their own party machine and means to do it, and in Carmarthenshire, the current, and indeed previous administration, also have a well-resourced, and publicly funded press office who will happily oblige.
Whilst an element of political grandstanding and cross-party bickering at full council meetings is to be expected, full council meetings are not the place for these questions and take the already dire proceedings to a new low.
It would seem that the Plaid leadership are perhaps composing the 'questions' for their own councillors to read out. This is not what 'Councillor Questions' are for and are an abuse of the provision.

Perhaps it's time for the great Carmarthenshire public to get back down to County Hall ask a few questions ourselves. 

FOI Review, the Monitoring Officer and the declaration of interests

Last week I received the outcome of the internal review following the refusal, by the council, to disclose the officer's report to 'CRWG' on the subject of unlawful libel indemnities.

The unsurprising upshot of the 'review' being that the council are still, (despite all this arising from the WAO public interest report), refusing to release the CRWG report under Legal Advice Privilege. One of the reasons given against the disclosure of the report was, incredibly and hilariously, 'The significant public interest in the observance of law and the administration of justice'
My previous post concerning details of the request is here.

I have now appealed to the Information Commissioner.

Interestingly Mr Edgecombe (council solicitor who responds to FOI reviews) confirmed in his response, that Head of Law/Monitoring Officer, Linda Rees Jones was the author of the report to CRWG.

Ms Rees Jones

One can only wonder whether she declared any sort of interest given that she was a witness in the libel proceedings. It would, of course, be highly improper to declare such an interest several weeks after the meeting (and as we know with historic allegations against Mr James, tampering with documents is not allowed...)

It is a safe bet that both she and Mr James closely monitored the freedom of information request and, as I have said, it is they who are reluctant to disclose the report. Not only does Ms Rees Jones provide a legal rubber stamp for the chief executive's nefarious activities but owes her position as Monitoring Officer directly to his, erm, warm generosity, rather than the inconvenient formalities of Appointment Committee 'B'.

Ms Rees Jones was not just a witness for the council in the 2013 libel trial but also for Mark James and his unlawfully funded counterclaim. Her Witness Statement, of which I still have a copy, was concerned, incidentally, with an attempt to defend the thorny issue of libel indemnities and the constitution...

Mr James and Ms Rees Jones, High Court 2013 (Pic source @BrokenBarnet)

Ms Rees Jones has appeared to have forgotten this small matter of her being a witness over recent years, and whilst she has been keen to mention, as recently as last year to the Ombudsman in Mr James' failed complaint, that Sian Caiach, and Cneifiwr were witnesses for myself, her role in the proceedings is conveniently brushed over.

She will, no doubt, have an absurd and implausible get out of jail free card which, for reasons best known to her and Mr James, exempt her from having to make such a declaration. It was Ms Rees Jones who found absolutely nothing untoward with Mr James remaining in the Exec Board meeting, and not declaring any interest, when he was personally and unlawfully bankrolled for the counterclaim. The Appointed Auditor thought differently... Neither did she see anything wrong in 'informally' co-writing the report with Mr James, prior to the meeting, recommending his own indemnity.

You can guarantee that the report to CRWG was 'informally' co-written with Mr James in exactly the same way. Mr James was, I understand, not present at the CRWG meeting in July, well, not in body anyway. He didn't have to be, he was there in the dutiful spirit of Ms Rees Jones, and of course the now equally dutiful Cllr Dole.

The Members of CRWG should be made aware of Ms Rees Jones' interest, surely they are already aware of Mr James' direct involvement. If she has not declared an interest then CRWG should make a formal complaint.
Declaration or not, she shouldn't be advising on this matter full stop. It is quite remarkable.
If a letter is ever written to the WAO, as was decided at the CRWG meeting, then Ms Rees Jones and Mr James should definitely not be the ones to do it.

In fact the ability of Mark James and Ms Rees Jones to advise council on anything related to the issue of libel indemnities is completely compromised, and biased, by their own direct involvement.

Whilst the issue remains live it is in their personal and professional interests to ensure that no one challenges their unique view that they have done nothing wrong. From defrauding the public purse to manipulating councillors with misleading advice, from failing to declare interests to downright dishonesty, Mark James is the culprit but Ms Rees Jones is his taxpayer funded personal defence lawyer.

It was eminent lawyer and former lay member of the council's Audit Committee, Sir David Lewis, who described the council's internal legal advice in 2014 as 'cavalier' and incompetent', and not without good reason. This whole farce is a testament to that, and I, personally, would add the words 'deceitful' and 'unscrupulous' to the list.

Smoke and mirrors - Indemnities, restrictions and Ombudsman costs

The row over the unlawful indemnity clause, and the 'leak' from the Constitutional Review Working Group (CRWG) meeting held at the end of July continues, with further coverage in this week's Carmarthenshire Herald.
Cllr Rob James, Labour opposition leader who is pushing for the removal of the clause, claims that his group are now barred from all sensitive information related to decisions made by the Plaid/Indie coalition, scrutiny of spending will be limited. I have heard similar claims and, furthermore, council leader Emlyn Dole confirms it in a statement to the Herald saying that it was now questionable whether confidential information could be trusted to the Labour leader.

This restriction came about following my blog post here which revealed the fact that the libel indemnity clause had been discussed at the CRWG meeting. No graphic details were published, there were no personal or commercially sensitive material, nor did anyone imagine that the whole business was top secret.
CRWG, you may recall, was set up to improve governance and make the council more transparent, not, as it now appears, as a secret conduit for the chief executive to challenge the qualifications of the Auditor. Something he has tried before.

Clearly the auditor's findings are still keeping Mr James awake at night. Only last year, in his complaint to the Ombudsman against Sian Caiach he rambled on at length about his unlawful indemnity, not that it was unlawful of course. He attacked, yet again, the then Appointed Auditor, Anthony Barrett claiming, in so many words, that his findings were based on little more than shifting sands and a passing whim.
As we know, the WAO have not changed their view and their finding has never been overturned in court.

Cllr Dole's previous enthusiasm to fully accept the Auditors findings and remove the clause in 2014, and his 'pledge' to promote 'a new mindset as we seek to ensure full openness and transparency' in May 2015, all mysteriously evaporated when he was given the key to the Presidential Toilet. It must all be a bit embarrassing, poor man...
He probably hopes that the whole sordid business will find the long grass, or those lumpy carpets in Mark James' Presidential Suite, and as yet, no letter has been written to the WAO, as resolved at the CRWG meeting.

And as for the CRWG item on libel indemnities being 'confidential', it's completely ridiculous and entirely without basis - legal advice, information, reports, judgements and numerous press reports have all been in the public domain for five years. And as I have explained before, there is an inherent and significant public interest for transparency over this issue.
And who do you think is so annoyed with the 'leak' that councillors' access to information has been restricted?
The same control freak who restricted Sian Caiach access a few years back for 'asking too many questions' and who threatened councillors with court action, to give just two examples.
This secretive, controlling nonsense lies squarely at the door of Mark James and his personally appointed legal umbrella, Linda Rees Jones. Our Leader, Cllr Dole is just grateful for his £48k a year, and does exactly what he's told. Just like every other council leader since the chief executive arrived from Boston all those years ago.

* * *

Ombudsman investigation costs

Previous post; Mark James' complaints against Sian Caiach - the Ombudsman's conclusion

A few weeks ago I made Freedom of Information requests to the council, and the Ombudsman's office, for the cost of the investigation. With Mark James CBE having wasted 18 months of everyone's time, I wondered what it had also cost the taxpayers' of Carmarthenshire and indeed Wales.

The council's response

Remarkably, for the 18 months investigation, the only thing that the council had actually written down was an hour and a half of officer time amounting to £92.40.

This response was bizarre on so many levels. They could, for all we know, have spent £100,000 but if they only 'recorded' one little bit, ie £92.40, then that's all they have to disclose under FOI.

Mr James' complaint ran to 32 pages, assisted by free use of the council legal department rather than instructing his own solicitor; there was 'evidence gathering' in the form of statements from several council officers, there were documents obtained from the police, letters from council solicitors; the trawling of several blogs and assorted tweets, computer and printing costs, and whatever else occurred during the 18 months.
£92.40 probably just about covered the cost of printing out, yet again, Mr James' favourite bedtime reading, Tugenhat's lengthy judgement.

Mr James has form of course in using public resources, including hard cash, to pursue his personal vendettas and has habitually treated publicly funded resources as a mean to his own ends, or a means to failure, particularly in respect of his complaints to the police about me or his complaint against Sian Caiach.

What this deliberate omission to log expenditure means is that not only are the press and taxpaying public kept in the dark, but, more importantly perhaps, so are the auditors, and without a paper trail Mr James could have, and indeed did, spend and utilise whatever wanted. The true cost of this little exercise is probably the equivalent of at least couple of years pay for a junior council worker.

The FOI request and response can be seen here.

The Ombudsman's response

The Ombudsman's office would 'neither confirm or deny' that they held the information. This kind of response enables a public body to refuse to confirm that an investigation took place to protect sensitive information from disclosure and is usually reserved for FOI requests concerning police investigations or matters of national security.

The refusal by the Ombudsman to 'confirm or deny' in this case was somewhat unexpected, with their response bringing up issues of 'confidential investigations' and 'data protection'. I asked for the costs of course, not any documents or personal information about anyone. As for the investigation being confidential, the outcome was reported in the press.

I have now asked for an internal review which, along with the response etc, can be seen here.

Unlawful libel clauses - Cllr Rob James' video

Cllr Rob James, leader of the Labour opposition group on Carmarthenshire Council gives his views recent developments over the unlawful libel indemnity clause. Refreshingly clear and straight to the point, it's worth a watch.

* * *

I have made my views on the matter crystal clear and my efforts to obtain documents from the recent 'working group' meeting can be read here. There's plenty of background on this blog, including the CRWG meeting here.
(Just to be clear, the opinions expressed below, and on this blog are mine alone, not views expressed by Cllr Rob James)

I don't need to elaborate, I've done so many times but I will say, yet again that this clause is unlawful, or, in the real world, illegal. Despite the endless denials and desperate attempts to discredit the Auditor, and anyone else, Mark James knows it too. Since the Auditor's findings in 2014 he, and head of law Ms Rees-Jones have deliberately and continually misrepresented the legal position and misled councillors, and used precious public resources to do so.
What is worse, perhaps, is that our pious church-going chief executive 'persuaded' Plaid council leader Rev Dole to betray his own conscience, u-turn, and sing from the same, profoundly un-Christian-like hymn sheet.

It is very much in Mark James' interest, and it is his intention, to try and reinstate the clause or at least overturn the label 'unlawful'. Who knows, perhaps he's hoping for a knighthood... He has never repaid the unlawful cash and, without a pang of conscience, breached the undertaking to hand over the damages back to the council.

Whatever happens this issue will not go away, despite the administration's best attempts to muddy the waters, kick it into the long grass, or any similar metaphor.
Whatever your views on the libel case itself, it is extremely important that the clause is completely removed.
As for accountability, it is my honestly held opinion that Mr James and Ms Rees-Jones should both have been sacked over this fiasco four years ago. There's still time.

FOI news - Carmarthenshire council and the culture of secrecy

Some interesting stats about Freedom of Information requests were released earlier this week after the Welsh Conservatives, via FOI of course, collected figures for Welsh government, councils and health boards. The full dataset can be found under the article 'Culture of Secrecy' on their website here, naturally there's a bit of a Tory slant, but never mind.

As I am a regular user of the Freedom of Information Act, Carmarthenshire-style, their stats were interesting. Out of 1235 requests made from January to December 2017 only 50%, were answered in full, ie full disclosure of the information requested. A grim statistic. Out of the remaining 50%, 317 were refused and 193 partly refused.
In 2016 the full disclosure figure was 58% so there's been a decline of 8%.

This puts Carmarthenshire towards the bottom of the public body barrel. The Welsh Government were worse with only 46% full disclosures. At the top of the tree was Gwynedd council with 95% full disclosures out of 1002, a comparable number of requests as were made to Carmarthenshire.

According to to the stats, Carmarthenshire has improved it's response rate to reply within the 20 day limit from 84% in 2016 to 97% in 2017. My personal experience of delayed responses would put this figure at around 10%, but perhaps that's just because it's me...

I acknowledge that the variables in the world of FOI can be endless, but the range of figures for full disclosure suggests that the legal criteria for disclosure or refusal are not being applied with much consistency across Wales.

One surprisingly quick Carmarthenshire response was to a request (not one of mine) for expenditure details for the month of June 2018. Over recent years I've suggested that Welsh councils should follow the legal requirement, now statutory in England, to publish monthly expenditure, but Carmarthenshire have consistently refused to do so.
This particular request, which was responded to in full in just three days, showed that publishing these details every month might not be such a problem after all...

The latest Caebrwyn FOI farce concerns my request for the officer's report to the Constitutional Review Working Group meeting held on the 27th July. The report related to the agenda item on the unlawful and notorious libel clause, recent posts, here and here explain the details, and the possibility that reinstatement of the clause is being sought.

I originally asked Monitoring Officer Linda Rees Jones for a copy of the report. She eventually replied to say that she had passed on my request to FOI as I was asking her to "divulge information about what might or might not have been discussed at a private meeting of councillors".
It is interesting that CRWG has now been classified as a 'private meeting of councillors'... I understand that calls are being made for CRWG, which is overseen by Mark James and Ms Rees Jones to become a properly constituted committee.

The predictable FOI response arrived on Monday stating that my request had been refused under the legal privilege exemption. There are two parts to this exemption; litigation privilege and advice privilege, the request was refused under the latter as no actual litigation was (or is) being contemplated. Which is something I suppose.

The basic principle that correspondence between lawyer and client is protected from disclosure is, of course, well established in law. Where it becomes something of a grey area is when the exemption is applied to reports written by council legal officers for councillors, committees or, in this case, a 'working group'.
The danger in a democratic society is that as a matter of convenience, the net can be arbitrarily widened to include anything written by a solicitor, including a council solicitor, about anything that elected members are discussing or deciding upon.

The exemption is also subject to a public interest test and in this case the council FOI officer, no doubt under the direct instruction of Mark James and Ms Rees Jones, decided that the public interest for transparency did not outweigh the need for secrecy.
Legal privilege is also a difficult one to appeal as there is such a long-standing presumption against disclosure. As the council well know.

Carms Council FOI Exemptions Department.

However, I have asked for an internal review of the refusal and will take this to the Information Commissioner if necessary. (Both the refusal and my request for an internal review are posted in full at the end of this post). So, we'll see.

In this case I believe that the document is being wrongfully withheld as a means to avoid public discussion on what is essentially a matter of significant public interest. The status of the clauses, ie the reinstatement, removal or the status quo (remain 'suspended') of the provision to use public money to fund officers' defamation claims has significant implications for the public and the press, financially and ethically, not just here in Carmarthenshire but across the UK.

The fact that this is sensitive and embarrassing subject matter for the chief executive and the monitoring officer, whose illegal actions sparked this long running scandal in the first place, should have nothing to do with a FOI response; but this is Carmarthenshire, with it's toxic culture of secrecy.

As I mention in my request for a review below, advice relating to the same issue was published in 2014, but this was when their backs were against the wall, so to speak. It does raise the question though of whether they have already waived their claim to legal privilege, or whether, as I have also mentioned in my email, it is engaged at all...
All in all I fail to understand why the report hasn't just simply been released. It is farcical.

The letter to the WAO, which I also requested, is 'not held by the council' which, in plain speaking, means it probably hasn't been written yet. Maybe they're getting legal advice...

On a wider point, it's about time that FOI legislation was widened to include commercial entities who carry out public services, from council owned 'arms-length companies, to housing associations and even City Deal partners, for example. If they're spending public money then they should be open to a degree of scrutiny.

Anyway, I am digressing, here's the refusal notice (3rd September), with my request for a review (5th September) below;

Dear Mrs Thompson,

I refer to your request for information, which was received on 3rd August, 2018 and has been dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The specific information you requested was as follows:

“1. I understand that at the CRWG meeting held last Friday (27th July) it was resolved to write to the Wales Audit Office concerning the unlawful libel indemnity clauses. I would be grateful for a copy of this letter or confirmation of its intended purpose if has not yet been composed.”

“2. … the officer's report which accompanied the item on the unlawful libel indemnity clauses which might or might not have been discussed at the 'private' CRWG meeting.”

In response to the first part of your request, the Council does not hold this information.

 With regard to the second part of your request, this information is held by the Council.

However, it is evident that the report in question is comprised of advice provided by a legal professional to the CRWG on this particular matter.

It is therefore a form of communication between a legal professional and a client. 
As we have advised you previously, a decision by the Information Tribunal, in Bellamy v the Information Commissioner and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (EA/2005/0023, 4th April, 2006), provided a clear definition of legal professional privilege:

“a set of rules or principles which are designed to protect the confidentiality of legal or legally related communications and exchanges between the client and his, her or its lawyers, as well as exchanges which contain or refer to legal advice which might be imparted to the client, and even exchanges between the clients and [third] parties if such communications or exchanges come into being for the purposes of preparing for litigation.”

The Bellamy decision also defined two types of privilege, namely litigation and advice privilege.  I believe in this case that the report is subject to advice privilege, which applies where no litigation is in progress or being contemplated.  This would include confidential communications between the legal professional and the client, for the main purpose of seeking or giving legal advice.  A report which in which a lawyer provides advice is by definition, legal advice.

Under Section 42 of the Act, a public authority may refuse to provide information where a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained.  In view of the above, I believe this exemption is therefore engaged.

However, the Section 42 exemption is qualified and subject to a public interest test.  In doing so, I must make a distinction between what is genuinely in the public interest and what may merely be of interest to a member of members of the public. 

I accept that there are public interest factors which favour disclosure in this case, namely transparency and furthering public knowledge in relation to a matter which has been subject to some publicity in the past. 

However, there is an inherent public interest in maintaining this exemption, which will always be strong due to the importance of the principle behind legal professional privilege, which is to protect the privacy of communications between client and lawyer to ensure access to full and frank legal advice, which in turn is fundamental to the administration of justice. 

I am not persuaded on this occasion that this is outweighed by the factors favouring disclosure set out above.  Accordingly, I believe the exemption should be maintained and the information withheld from disclosure.
                                                                                       
As I am refusing to provide the requested information, please therefore consider this email to be a formal notice of refusal under Section 17 of the Act.

Yours sincerely
John Tillman

And here's my request for a review;

Dear Mr Edgecombe

I am requesting a review of the refusal of  FOIA/11379, I have copied the response below for ease of reference.

My request for a review relates to the second part of my request, namely the officer's report relating to the unlawful libel clauses to the CRWG meeting held on 27th July 2018.

I believe that the public interest favours disclosure and the use of legal advice privilege is incorrect, if engaged at all. The report should be disclosed for the following reasons;

The council waived its right to legal privilege on February 27th 2014 when the legal advice, directly relating to this same issue, was published on the council's website. 

There has been a historic lack of transparency over this issue and the misrepresentation of previous legal advice, as documented in the Wales Audit Office Public Interest Reports 2014. This in itself is a compelling reason for disclosure.

The Monitoring Officer, who I believe is the author of the report, must ensure councillors are not misled and act unlawfully. Despite the overwhelming findings by the WAO, both she, and the chief executive, continue to misrepresent the legal position as 'lawful'.

The response minimises the importance of the issue which is significant enough for a councillor to place on the agenda for a group which reviews the Constitution.

There is also significant public interest in that the removal, resinstatement or status quo of the libel cost clauses has financial, legal and moral implications for public bodies, members of the public and journalists across the UK, not just in Carmarthenshire. This has been reflected in the widespread interest and publicity over several years.

CRWG is by definition a 'Working group' and is not properly constituted as a committee. Reports cannot be classed as 'exempt' without the publication of an agenda, the application of the public interest test and a formal vote on the exemption sought. Even if CRWG is classed as a 'client', as you maintain, then it is they who own that advice and for them to vote on whether it should be released or not.

Legal advice privilege is not engaged at all if the communications between solicitor and client are to further criminal purpose. This also extends to civil fraud or other conduct which is a breach of the duty of good faith, contrary to public policy or in the interests of justice.  In this case the matter was subject to a finding of unlawfulness by external independent Appointed Auditor. Further to this, the provision in the constitution is contrary to legislation and the subsequent policy was adopted by the council themselves in 2006.

CRWG was established following the WLGA Governance report which found serious failing in the way in which the council was run, including the lack of transparency. The WLGA governance review itself was a direct result of the findings of the Wales Audit Office in January 2014. It is ironic that a document relating to the very issue which was the subject of one of those public interest reports is now being withheld.

I believe that the refusal to release the report is based solely on a reluctance for this controversial issue to be subject to public engagement and wider discussion. My own request to Cllr Dole for the matter to be placed on a CRWG agenda last year was refused as he didn't want to 'resurrect' the issue. However, the matter remains unresolved, transparency over the process remains imperative and the report should be disclosed forthwith.

I would be grateful for an acknowledgement of this email.

Yours sincerely

Jacqui Thompson

* * *

The libel cost clauses, aka slush fund. Potential reinstatement on the cards.