Leanne Wood AM - What of Wales? Putting Wales at the heart of the Constitutional debate in Britain. from Department of Political Science on Vimeo.
That used to make two of us, Leanne
In my previous post, I had asked Leanne why she was unwilling to make a public statement that Plaid Cymru's policy is one of total opposition to any new nuclear power stations in Wales, with no distinction between whether they are on new or existing nuclear sites.
The issue at hand is public perception about Plaid's policy on nuclear energy. A series of high-profile members of the party have made public statements in the media which are untrue, and the general public (and probably a good number of Plaid Cymru members as well) have therefore been misled about what our policy is. This is what needs to be corrected.
You as leader of the party, backed up by Llyr Huws Gruffydd as our Environment, Energy and Agriculture spokesman, need to make prominent public statements saying, explicitly, that it has not been our policy to treat a new nuclear power station on or next to an existing nuclear site any differently from a new nuclear power station somewhere else, and that Plaid's policy is one of total opposition to the construction of any new nuclear power stations.
... So please help me out on this. Is there a reason why you would be unwilling to make such a statement?
I was saddened and a little disappointed that she didn't reply, and that neither she nor Llyr has made any attempt to correct the misleading impression that has been put out by people in our party such as Rhun ap Iorwerth, Elfyn Llwyd, Bob Parry and Dafydd Elis-Thomas.
I think it might be worth repeating a comment I made earlier. The question is whether Plaid Cymru's leadership is going to cave in to the lies and misinformation put out by this narrow interest group; or whether they will stop letting this group get away with it, and speak out for what the membership of the party has decided and confirmed time after time.
If people like Leanne and Llyr refuse to do this, then it will be clear that this narrow interest group has won. The problem is that the membership have elected a leader who is definitely against nuclear power, but that the real power in Plaid Cymru does not rest with her. It rests with a National Executive that is doing everything it can to frustrate her and stop her from speaking out. She is rather like a US Democratic President whose hands are tied by a Congress with a Republican majority.
Leanne needs to remember only two things. The first is that it is not the National Executive that makes policy. As it clearly says in Clause 15.2 of our Constitution, it is Conference that is responsible for determining the party's policy. The second is that she has been directly elected leader by the same membership that only last October reaffirmed this policy on nuclear and renewable energy.
-
But if a democratic mandate isn't enough, perhaps this short extract from an interview between Leanne and Lee Waters at Prifysgol Glyndwr last November might help her find her voice.
We used to think the same way, Leanne.
Is it now only me who is prepared to speak up?
The Investigation Report
Before I publish the investigation report, there are some things which I need to make clear. I've taken the decision to make what has happened public in order to highlight the hypocrisy and double-standards of the people involved in these disciplinary proceedings.
As is already clear from the correspondence with Chris Franks, he was determined to press ahead irrespective of the rules set out in Standing Orders, and ignored nearly all of the questions I asked and the warnings I gave him about it. Because of this wall of silence, I had no way of knowing exactly what was happening behind the scenes. I'm sure that I still don't know everything, but I now know an awful lot more than I did at the time.
-
The investigation and the Investigating Officer's report are key parts of Plaid Cymru's new disciplinary procedure that did not exist before. The investigation is crucially important because it forms the basis on which the Hearing Panel must decide whether there is a case to answer, and it is also an important piece of evidence in its own right at the disciplinary hearing. In normal circumstances [see Clause 4.2 of Standing Orders] the investigation would be carried out by Plaid Cymru's Chief Executive, Rhuanedd Richards. But she, entirely properly, declined this role because she had worked with Rhun ap Iorwerth for a number of years at the BBC, and therefore might have been seen to have a conflict of interest. The responsibility was therefore passed to Shaughan Feakes.
In a previous comment, I described Shaughan as a "senior member of staff" at Plaid Cymru's head office in Cardiff. I have been taken to task for using that description, because it might be taken to imply that he was one of those included in my phrase "people in positions of power". I did not mean to give that impression. By senior, I only meant that he was rather older than most of the other people who work in Ty Gwynfor.
I don't want to embarrass him in any way by giving a few personal details, but he is semi-retired and works for Plaid on a part-time basis. He is one of many people who give their time and effort to the party out of commitment and dedication, and without these people the party simply couldn't function. I've spoken to him on the phone a few times in the past about other things, and he has always been helpful and courteous to me.
-
Chris told me in his email of 16 September that Shaughan would contact me "to go into the detail of the complaint and receive [my] comments in a comprehensive manner". This never happened, and I specifically told Chris, twice, that I was waiting for this to happen. I copied Shaughan in on my email correspondence with Chris, and expected him to email me. I didn't see how it would be possible for him to "go into the detail of the complaint" without sending me a copy of it, though I could perhaps understand that some parts of the complaint might need to be redacted. The idea that he would read it out to me over the phone was, to me at least, unthinkable.
As will become clear, the investigation was conducted and concluded without me being asked a single question. I therefore made some very harsh criticisms of Shaughan, both for not getting in touch with me, and for what he wrote in the report because it presented a completely one-sided picture. Yet even at the time I realized that he had been put in an awkward, if not impossible, situation. This is what I said in an email on 11 December:
Shaughan conducted his so-called investigation without contacting me or asking me a single question, in direct contravention of Clause 4.2. This was despite him being copied in on all correspondence, in which I specifically noted on more than one occasion that I was still waiting to hear from him. He was also instructed to contact me to "go into the detail of the complaint", but did not do so. I was kept entirely in the dark about the complaint, only receiving a copy of it five weeks after his so-called investigation had been completed and the report written.
By attaching his name to this joke of a document, he must bear personal responsibility for it and fully deserves to be reprimanded. However I would not want to be overly critical of his behaviour. As someone who works in Ty Gwynfor, he was severely compromised and probably put into an impossible position, and it is only fair that these mitigating circumstances are taken into account.
Nevertheless, the end result is that Plaid Cymru staff resources have been improperly used to prepare and present evidence in favour of one member of the party, while deliberately and completely ignoring the right of another member of the party to receive the same consideration. I had every right to expect that an equivalent amount of time and effort should have been given to investigating and presenting evidence that would show that what I said about Rhun's untruthfulness was justified.
Yet even this was premature. For as I was later to discover (on 20 January to be precise) Shaughan did in fact try to contact me by phone, but didn't get through because he was using old contact details. At the same time I also discovered that he was given legal advice that he should conduct the investigation by phone rather than by email or letter. This puts things in a completely different light.
It is now clear that Shaughan was not to blame for failing to contact me. From my point of view, I can't see what would have prevented him from sending me a short email to say that he had tried to get in touch with me, but there is probably a good explanation for this too. Shaughan might well have thought that it was Chris's responsibility to tell me this. I don't know for sure, but I think it is quite possible that Chris might even have instructed him to ignore what I said in the emails I copied to him and not contact me by email, for he specifically went so far as to tell the other members of the Hearing Panel (Lisa Turnbull and Farida Aslam) that if they received any emails from me they should delete them.
In short, while I do still have some criticisms of Shaughan, I have to say that with hindsight they are minor and completely outweighed by the mitigating circumstances of the impossible position he was put into. So I want to take this opportunity to apologize to Shaughan for the harshness of my criticism. Others are far, far more to blame for what happened than he was. I think it is important to say this now, before I publish the report, rather than wait for it to become apparent later.
How Plaid Cymru Works - 1
Be on your guard against the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be shouted from the rooftops.
Luke 12:1-3
In September last year I received an email from Chris Franks telling me that a complaint had been made about articles I had written on the subject of the Ynys Môn by-election.
A lot has happened since then which I have not been able to make public before, but am able to make public now. Rather than present it all in one go, I am going to break it down into a series of individual posts, in order to give a sense of how things unfolded over time.
Everything was done by email, so I am publishing the email correspondence in its entirety. I have redacted only personal details such as addresses and phone numbers for obvious, and I hope understandable, reasons.
From: Chris Franks
Sent: Monday, 9 September 2013, 12:35pm
To: Michael Haggett
Subject: Complaint
Dear Mr Haggett
The Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel of Plaid Cymru has held an initial meeting to consider a complaint received from a member regarding your Blog postings concerning the Mon By election. The initial procedure is for the Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel to determine if there are sufficient grounds to pursue the complaint.
I would confirm that the Panel has decided to appoint a Hearing Panel to investigate this complaint. Shaughan Feakes of Ty Gwynfor has been appointed the investigation officer. Shaughan will contact you directly as appropriate.
You will understand that this matter will be dealt with in the strictest confidence and only the chair of the party is authorised to make any public comment, if at all. My mobile is ----------- if you require clarification regarding the process.
Regards
Chris Franks
Chair
Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel of Plaid Cymru
From: Michael Haggett
Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 3:50am
To: Chris Franks
Cc: Rhuanedd Richards [Chief Executive], Shaughan Feakes, Leanne Wood
Subject: Complaint
Dear Chris
Thank you for your email.
You have said that a complaint has been made by a member of the party. I need hardly remind you that under the terms of the constitution no disciplinary action can be initiated against a member unless the complaint has been signed by no fewer than five members of the party. A complaint by one member alone cannot be entertained ... unless that member happens to be the President, Leader of the Party Group in the National Assembly or Party Chair. For the complaint to be valid it would also need to be served on both the Chief Executive and myself. I can confirm that I have not received anything.
Unless or until a valid complaint has been made there are no grounds for investigating anything or appointing a Hearing Panel. So I would advise you and the Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel not to be premature and I, for my part, will not consider what you have said to have any relevance to me or my standing in the party unless or until that changes.
-
However, having made that clear, I would very much welcome answering any criticisms of what I wrote on Syniadau from anyone who wants to take issue with it. Anybody has been able to do that at any time. However I would warn those in positions of responsibility in the party to tread very carefully, for in this matter I have upheld our party, our democratic values and our policies against those in the party who have tried to undermine them. Don't be so foolish as to attempt to take disciplinary action against me when such action would be better directed at prominent members of the party who openly oppose party policy, tell lies about it, and bring our party into disrepute as a result. Better still would be for those in positions of responsibility in the party to follow my lead and try to repair the damage that has been inflicted on us as a party by not being afraid to publicly reaffirm what our policies are.
Best regards
Michael Haggett
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
