91Èȱ¬

A few days ago I wrote a blog entry, telling you I was off to Pembrokeshire with my bucket and spade, swapping the chamber for a terrace, the office for the beach.

Just like the blazing hot sunshine they promised us, it was scheduled to appear over the weekend. Neither showed up. ("Ble, ble, ble, ble, ble'r aeth yr haul ..?")

Still my mac and brolly and I are having a great time and the next generation has learned a new motto: no such thing as bad weather, just the wrong clothes.

Thank goodness for a kind landlady who's online and a coastline that makes me weak at the knees.

A few weeks' holiday then it'll be back to the blogging - refreshed, fitter ... wetter!

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

My mother in law was a pretty cunning big sister.

She'd make herself a glass of orange squash and make one for her little sister at the same time. Her own would always be that little bit fuller. Hang on, said little sis after a while, I'm really thirsty too .Why do you always get a bit more than I do? Big sis would take a big gulp of her own squash, compare the glasses again and tell little sis she'd now got the better deal - so she'd take a small sip of hers just to even things out.

It took little sis a few years before she worked out that she'd have been better off saying nothing - or perhaps making her own squash.

The moral of the story? Never trust your big sister and what you need isn't always what you get.

I used to see those two glasses of squash every time journalists asked the former Secretary of State, Paul Murphy, whether the Barnett formula - the formula that determines the size of the block grant that's paid to the devolved nations - should be revisited. His answer would always be one version or other of 'be careful what you wish for'. Watch it, he'd say. You could end up with less, worse off then you are now. After all on average Wales gets about £7,000 per head in spending compared with just over £6,000 in England. Draw attention to it and you just might find the guys - in England - who make the orange squash decide that's not fair and take a sip of yours.

Last week . It was, they concluded "arbitrary" and out of date. It ought to be scrapped and a formula put in its place that takes account of need. Such a formula, they said, would be a complex one and it couldn't be introduced overnight but if need was its driving principle that would mean comparatively more squash for Wales, not less.

"In the absence of reform" said chairman Gerald Holtham, "we calculate that by the end of the next decade the Barnett formula could have underfunded Wales by as much as £8.5billion - equivalent to £2,900 per Welsh resident".

Now the House of Lords Committee on the Barnett formula has added "unfair" to "arbitrary". Its time, says the Committee, is over. After over 30 years the formula should be replaced with a different system, one that recognises the per capita need, the changing needs of each of the countries in the UK. Those changes

I haven't read it all yet but one line will jump out at Ministers in Cardiff Bay. It's this one:

"When the Committee considered a range of indicators of need it became clear that Wales and Northern Ireland have greater needs per head of population than Scotland and England - the current allocations made through the Formula give Scotland more funds, per head of population, than appears to be justified when compared to Wales and Northern Ireland and their needs".

In other words give Scotland a bit less but Wales and Northern Ireland? They should get a bit more. Hear hear Ministers will say, though surely not celebrating the conclusion that England and Scotland have "markedly lower" overall needs than we do in Wales.

There's an argument too that finding a different way of delivering the block grant is possible and absolutely desirable. Shaun Woodward, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, might think it "would amount to a reinvention of the wheel" says the report. The Committee disagrees.

None of this means Mr Woodward's boss has to scrap the Barnett formula of course. Mr Brown's hand won't be forced by this report and neither would Mr Cameron's either for that matter but it does surely mean the "be careful what you wish for" argument will be considerably harder to make in Wales in future.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Letter from First Minister Rhodri Morgan to Kirsty Williams AM.

Yesterday at the weekly press lobby briefing, I stated, on the clear and explicit advice from the relevant senior officials that no officials from IBW (International Business Wales) had flown first class.

Today I have learned that this is not the case. I apologise for having misled you and the wider public.

I need hardly say how disturbed I am by this latest information now to hand. I am instructing the Permanent Secretary to undertake an immediate and thorough investigation and audit of IBW's expenditure and audit systems. This review will be led from outside the Assembly Government. This will be in addition to, and quite separate from, the work which is being put in place to review our civil service expenses system and comparative exercise between IBW and other trade and investment bodies elsewhere in the UK.

We are now entering into recess, but I will write to you again by the end of July, in order that you and other members can be informed of progress.

Ouch.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

As I wrote here Rhodri Morgan was adamant yesterday that the Liberal Democrats were guilty of mishandling the story about .

It had been "repugnant" to allege that civil servants had flown first class. "Civil servants do not use first class travel" said the First Minister. "I don't think I've ever used first class travel. But certainly civil servants can't. I don't think I ever have to be honest. And if I can't I'm sure they can't".

It was, in fact, "an outright lie."

That sort of attack leaves no escape when copies of first class flight tickets turn up, as they have done. Four so far.

In February Geraint Jones, IBW's Head of Americas flew first class from New York to Los Angeles with Virgin America. Their blurb for first class flying goes like this:

"With roomy massage thrones, unlimited entertainment choices and fresh, hot food at your request, you will feel like royalty all flight long".

In November 2008 Christopher Williams, Vice President ICT, flew first class from New York to Los Angeles and then on to San Franciso. He returned, turning left when he got onto the plane once again, from San Francisco to New York three days later.

Is it wrong for civil servants to take first class flights? According to the First Minister, yes it is.

But what is undoubtedly wrong is letting that First Minister paint himself into the tightest of corners by accusing the Liberal Democrats of telling an "outright lie" - when they, apparently, did not. Using the First Minister's own yardstick, it seems he did. He, after all, made no allowances for good intentions.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Blaenau Gwent Labour have chosen their man to fight the next Assembly election - and its Alun Davies.

He will be relieved. Having nailed his colours quite so spectacularly to the mast, he had to win it. After all as one Labour source put it - bluntly I warn you - "he put his arse on the line and would have looked foolish if he hadn't won it".

It was, apparently, a close run thing between the current AM for Mid and West Wales and Welsh Labour's former head of policy, Dave Hagendyk. The counting got to fifth preferences tonight before one man pulled ahead of the other by the margin needed to win.

So in Nick Smith Labour have a parliamentary candidate who is softly spoken, an advocate of working quietly on the ground to win back support and trust for the party. He keeps his powder pretty dry. And one assembly candidate who'll go out all guns blazing and fight for it.

What was Alun Davies' pledge? I'll remind you of what he had to say about the current, independent AM, Trish Law:

"In the face of the current recession Blaenau Gwent needs an AM who will argue and fight for continued support and resources.

The current incumbent does little or nothing to fight for Blaenau Gwent. Her contributions to the Assembly are woeful. She has let down the people of Blaenau Gwent and broken the promises she made.

Enough is enough.

It's time for a change. It's time that Blaenau Gwent had an AM committed to fighting for the people in our communities and speaking up for them.

Blaenau Gwent needs a strong, articulate and powerful voice. I believe that I can be that voice".

Or put it another way: People's Voice watch out. Trish Law counts her support on the ground and simply says, bring it on.

He's got the Labour candidacy now. That's half the battle won. Did I say half? In Blaenau Gwent, that's surely being generous.

UPDATE: It sounds as though my source in Ebbw Vale last night was slightly too keen to over-dramatise. I gather it was done and dusted by the third round of voting. Plenty of drama to come though I suspect.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

In London yesterday I learn a new verb.

The word that's being used to describe the sometimes subtle, sometimes none too subtle wooing of the Liberal Democrats by both Labour and the Conservatives ahead of the General Election is "love bombing".

It seems no one has told Rhodri Morgan.

The First Minister has accused the Liberal Democrats of "over-egging" the story about . To paraphrase he suggested they were on to a good story but they'd overplayed it by suggesting officials had flown first class when they hadn't. In fact they way they'd handled the information had been "repugnant".

Then again perhaps it's a clever double bluff ...

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

This afternoon we find out - though not with any particular fanfare - what the government's legislative plans are for the coming year. You'd have thought by now that the Presiding Officer would have come up with an idea along the lines of nailing to the doors of the chamber the list of Legislative Competence Orders that will soon be sent on their way through the long, legislative pipeline.

(By the way I'm just thinking of the spectacle here, not making any comparisons with Luther's "95 Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences" ... just before you start).

No, the doors survive intact. The government will simply spell out in the chamber which areas of legislative responsibility it's seeking and spell out at the same time what its priorities are.

Meanwhile in London the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, whose members have played their own part in scrutinising what pops out of the pipeline at the other end of the M4, seems intent on reviewing their own role in the process. We know because the Chair, Hywel Francis, has told us clearly that this is the plan:

"My Committee's scrutiny of proposed Orders has been focused, thorough, and always with the intention to provide constructive contributions to the wider process.

It is within this spirit that my Committee plans to undertake a short review of our role in the LCO process".

Members of the committee are having an informal and private chat with the Counsel General and Leader of the House Carwyn Jones today to "discuss aspects of the scrutiny process and the role of the Welsh Affairs Committee".

Their most recent contribution has still got Ministers scratching their heads.

The report on the Welsh language LCO kicked off in exactly the way they'd expected. There was a recommendation to tighten the wording here, aim for more clarity in the scope there. So far, so as per the LCO process we've come to know, if not always love.

And then came the googlie. Ah yes, we're all into cricket in Cardiff now. Suddenly a delivery from Westminster that had looked familiar had turned into something quite unexpected that moved away from the bats waiting in Cardiff.

The committee seemed to say that in an effort to be comprehensive and legally water-tight the experts who'd toiled over the LCO had written themselves into a corner. They may have tried to cross every t and dot every i but there would inevitably be challenges in the courts from companies and bodies questioning why they - or their sector - were included in legislation in future but others were not.

Instead, they said, the Assembly Government should think in terms of broader principles. Having asked for more clarity in scope the recommendation was to move away from detailed lists and go back to basics.

It's not hard to get your committee united, all sides in the debate on board, muttered one senior source in Westminster, when your recommendations face both ways.

And hang on a minute, say emminent lawyers who've spent a decade or two getting to grips with legislation on the language. Broad principles and words like "reasonableness" and "proportionality" have 'legal challenge' written all over them. Try another few words for size: wrong call.

Whatever your views of this particular LCO and the right way forward, the Welsh Affairs Select Committee's role is now centre stage and there is an irony worth raising here.

We come to the end of the year with the very MPs who were so determined that bids for legislative responsibility were properly drafted and tied down tightly that ... now seemingly pointing the Assembly Government in the direction of broad principle.

A twist in the pipeline?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I was standing on the Llangollen International Eisteddfod field with my four year old, trying to join a huge, if a bit disjointed circle of festival goers, holding hands in the name of brotherhood and international understanding, when my mobile phone rang.

It turned out that anything but brotherhood and understanding had broken out at the Finance Committee meeting in Cardiff Bay. Perhaps it should be renamed the Feisty Committee.

Chair Angela Burns had been told that the Deputy First Minister, Ieuan Wyn Jones, would after all release to the committee the Ministerial Advice he's been given on the Heads of the Valley road, the advice they've been putting pressure on him to disclose for some time now. That's the good news. The bad news is he won't be handing it over until the end of term.

That means the committee won't have a chance to discuss it unless they meet during recess. That, said the Chair, was exactly what she'd ask them to do unless the paperwork turned up earlier, upping the ante and the pressure on the DFM.

While the cameras were turned on, things were heated enough. When they'd been switched off the accusations really started to fly. Plaid members accused others of targetting Mr Jones in order to undermine the coalition - in other words being considerably less bothered by the future of the Heads of the Valleys road than knocking the coalition off course. In return one member reportedly shouted back in less than brotherly fashion that "it's not this committee that's undermining the government it's your ... Minister".

Meanwhile it's been announced that Paul Starling, a man who knows a thing or two about making his voice heard and his feelings known - formerly of the Welsh Mirror - will be standing for People's Voice in Torfaen at the General Election. It's unlikely the incumbent, the other Paul - formerly of the Wales Office - will be tempted to raise his own voice in response. That's not his style after all. Unlikely, though, that brotherly love will be the theme of the battle in Torfaen.

And sticking to the subject of peace, understanding and brotherly love, just a thought .What happens if David Cameron decides that his Director of Communications Andy Coulson - formerly of the News of the World - is somehow tainted by the allegations surrounding the paper and should no longer remain in the job? Any number of ifs and buts there I grant you but ... just wondering whether

Back to the Eisteddfod tomorrow but this time, to sing with the choir. In other words it's competition day. Just as well I did my bit for brotherly love and international understanding today then.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Guests on AM/PM are always welcome but a much coveted programme mug goes to Conservative Assembly Commissioner William Graham for letting slip a few moments ago, live on air, that the Commission last night "agreed with ease" to accept in full

Labour's Commissioner, Lorraine Barrett, said that were "bits and pieces" in the report that not all AMs would like but "you can't unpick it". The recommendations are tightly woven, of course, for exactly that purpose.

There it is then. Our house, here in Wales, is in order. The changes will be accepted as a job lot. No tinkering. No unpicking. What you saw on Monday is what they will get.

I haven't spoken to a single Assembly Member who thought their hands were anything but tied - tied by an entirely justified public anger at greed and the sorts of claims made with abandon ... elsewhere. Right principles, they say but wrong targets.

The Commission includes representatives of the four parties and they'll be acutely aware that there are colleagues who feel utter fury at the lengths to which Roger Jones and his panel has gone to scrap and tighten allowances.

Even the most furious accept that AMs are not inately less greedy, or more public spiritied than those MPs who hit the headlines for getting away with excessive expense claims. Their argument says that the system - hand in hand with the culture here perhaps - has simply never allowed them to line their pockets, not freely at least. It might have felt like "a sweetshop" to some as panel chair Roger Jones put it but others stuck to a sensible diet. In future it'll be the F plan all the way.

The Commissioners will have been just as aware that some are happy to accept the new system is just and fair but are concerned that if "the best people" - whoever they may be - are to be attracted to the job of an AM in future, then £53,108 won't cut it. Will lawyers, school heads, medics, any number of officers in local government, men and women with experience in the private sector be beating a path to the returning officer's door for just over fifty grand? it is a rhetorical question but you know what they think the answer is. No way.

But you won't hear any of this, not for now. AMs don't expect arguments like those to hold any traction for a long time to come. They know too that if the principles are indeed spot on then you'll expect AMs to abide them - targets or not.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Yesterday it was Matt.

Today I'm reminded of Andy Capp and his wife Florrie and those annuals my brother used to get in his Christmas stocking, year in, year out. There was always a Chocolate Orange and for me, the Twinkle annual until I argued Father Christmas should give in and let me have the Jackie annual instead. Big brother stuck with Andy Capp throughout and so it became my favourite too.

One Andy moment has stuck with me. He's sitting on a bench, a beer in his hand, watching Florrie mowing the lawn in the midday sun. "Oh you shouldn't be mowing the lawn like that love" he says. Wow. A new, politically correct Andy? No. "You should be doing it like this. Get yer back into it!" or words to that effect.

Why did it spring to mind? Some chauvinistic commuter who tutted at the way I was lugging my laptop and shoulder bag on the train to Paddington? No, it's thanks to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee and .

In essence the upshot of the report is this: in principle? Yes, we agree that in future it's logical and appropriate that legislation with regard to the language ought to be made and put to work in Wales, where it's spoken - or as they put it "located in its social context". In other words they agree that the powers ought to be transferred to the Assembly Government, in principle.

Ah but principle must be turned into practice and there, the problems begin or as Andy would put it, "you shouldn't be doing it like that!"

The LCO as it stands lists the types of companies and bodies that would be affected by future measures, or laws. It states too that organisations who get more than £200,000 of public money would have to comply with future regulation with regard to the language.

Wrong call, says the Welsh Affairs Select Committee. At best you'll end up with anomalies, at worst you'll end up in court. You need clarity. You need drafting with a clearly defined scope.

So how do you do that?

"We suggest that a more sophisticated and appropriate way of dealing with the issues of definition would be for this Order to contain clear principles against which the Assembly Measures can be tested. One way to achieve this would be for the Welsh Assembly Government to insert in this draft Order tests that have to be met by any Measure subsequent to this LCO, rather than trying to insert definitions themselves in the text. These might include a test of reasonableness, a test of proportionality, and a consideration of the cost to demonstrate that the application of any Measure to particular
bodies or organisations will, in the long term, provide a cost-effective benefit to the public
in terms of the use of the Welsh language".

I get the idea but I'm not sure what that would mean in reality. I'm not sure the Welsh Assembly Government does either. You can certainly create future measures with principles in mind - principles like reasonableness, proportionality and so on - but can you transfer powers simply based on those principles?

The £200,000 threshold, says the Committee in its most damning passage, seems to have been chosen "more or less at random" and why include utilities and telecommunication companies in the scope of the LCO but leave out banks or insurance
services? They know the answer but know too it's not the sort of answer that can be included in the wording of an LCO. That's the political compromise struck between the Wales Office and the former Secretary of State.

What now? If there's substantial redrafting required - and it's hard to see how that will be avoided - the LCO will have to come back before both scrutiny committees in the Assembly and in Westminster. They'll have to get a move on, just like Flo. The job must done and dusted before a General Election remember.

But bear this in mind: Andy Capp wanted the lawn mowed. He wasn't out to stop Flo. He wanted the job done and he wanted it done properly. Put like that, the Welsh Affairs Select Committee might not mind the comparison after all. Not so sure about the Assembly Government.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It was the cartoonist Matt who recently envisaged two MPs chatting, one telling the other that he'd "gone into politics to improve my living room".

If anyone is thinking of going into Assembly politics in future because their living room is looking a bit drab, they'd better think again.

The independent panel looking at salaries and allowances has spoken and its spoken very bluntly.

Bottom line? If the panel's package of 108 recommendations is adopted, then Assembly members will be accepting that any opportunity they had to make money beyond their salaries will be gone. I use the word 'opportunity' because here's another bottom line for you: Assembly members never did milk the system to the extent some of their colleagues in Westminster did - a point the panel made over and again.

They weren't that oblique in making it either: "We would merely note that the actions of some Members of Parliament regarding their expenses claims have reflected badly on politicians in general, and inevitably Assembly Members have been tarred with the same brush in the eyes of the public".

Still, the door to those who fancied a bit of extra cash, "a trip on the gravy train" as one of the security staff here put it angrily the other day, was ajar. Now it's slammed shut.

Second home allowance as we know it? Gone.
Food allowance? Gone.
Link between MPs' salaries and AMs' salaries? Gone.

Does the panel think Wesminster ought to follow in these very footsteps? Absolutely. Does Roger Jones think Christopher Kelly. looking into expenses and allowances in Westminster, ought to follow in these very footsteps? "I can't see as how he can avoid it" came the response.

If you expected a whitewash, you were wrong. It's anything but. It had to be if there was any chance of the public believing it really means things are changing.

The Assembly Commission meets tomorrow night. If it votes to accept the panel's recommendations - and at a bet, it will - then what a message for Westminster. We did it - your turn now.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

First, swine flu seemed to stay away from Wales.

Health officials kept saying it would be coming soon and they were, of course, right. Why would Wales be immune? And with it has come the need to pay for the swine flu vaccination programme.

The question is, who pays?

Rhodri Morgan has written to the Chancellor in the past few weeks and his letter - probably - went something like this.

Dear Mr Darling,

This pandemic is what I'd call an exceptional emergency situtation so the costs should be borne by you lot. It should come from UK Government reserves. Yes, I know that health is devolved - it's about the only area of responsibility the man on the Canton omnibus knows is devolved - but this is the kind of one-off serious situation that affects the whole of the UK and so Westminster should foot the bill.

Yours ...

The costs of buying enough vaccine for us in Wales and administering it is likely to run into tens of millions of pounds. No surprise then that the First Minister's counterparts in the Scottish and Northern Irish administrations sent similar letters to Mr Darling some time ago.

But Mr Morgan's, remember, is a Labour-led administration and his case won't have been helped by Cathy Jamieson, Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing for Labour in the Scottish Parliament. She's called on the SNP to explain why they won't pay. Why are they, she demands to know, "apparently unwilling to pay for flu vaccinations when health is a fully devolved policy area".

Mmm. Thanks Cathy Mr Morgan must have muttered under his breath.

She told the Times "The Treasury have made it absolutely clear that Scotland will be treated in exactly the same way as the rest of the UK and the Health Secretary (Nicola Sturgeon) needs to concentraet on doing her job. The public will not forgive anyone who plays politics at a time like this".

I assume that 'anyone' includes the Labour First Minister in Wales?

The signs are that the Treasury is siding with Ms Jamieson in this one. Health is devolved. You wanted it? You got it. In good times and in bad.

If Mr Darling stands his ground what does that mean? It means the Assembly Government would either have to find the extra millions from within the health budget or raid its reserves - and those of you with good a memory will remember and realise it will really not want to do that.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

On what will Roger Jones and his panel, who've looking carefullly at what AMs can claim in expenses and allowances, have honed in I wonder? Will he have got up this morning and smiled quietly having read our story which reveals the very common practice of AMs and MPs renting offices from their own parties. Fine if done properly you might say. Why shouldn't political parties who have well-known offices in town centres house the office of the local AM? Not so fine when it looks as though the parties have done very well from the arrangements.

Will he have read and whispered to himself, not for long? Mind you he might have noticed that most claim nothing or next to nothing.

On Monday we find out what they think AMs should reasonably be allowed to claim for and what, in future, they should not.

Let's take a punt - not an informed one, I stress but it's not hard to work out which allowances might have caught Sir Roger's beady eye.

I'm prepared to bet my own mortgage that the rules surrounding the second home allowance will be tightened until some AMs' eyes water. Fewer who live within commutable distance of Cardiff Bay will be allowed to claim (following in the example of those - like WAG Ministers Andrew Davies AM and Edwina Hart AM - who could claim but don't).

Will they be allowed to buy at all? Or will they have to spend their allowance on renting properties? No more buying flats whose value can shoot up. No need to tell that to those who bought after the 2007 election, who'll have seen the value of their flats plummet. Can't you just see some transitional arrangements coming into place, allowing those who've already bought to keep their properties but preventing those who move to the bright lights of Cardiff Bay after future elections from following in their footsteps?

What about salaries - should they be linked to MPs' salaries and then there's pensions? Payments to those who lose their seats or who choose to stand down. Researching today's story alongside my eagle-eyed colleagues, I certainly spotted examples of AMs who'd stood down voluntarily - in other words they knew exactly when they'd be going - but who'd continued to claim top whack in office rent for three months after their departure - as per the current rules.

Will Sir Roger mind that Will he say he doesn't mind if the political party happens also to be the landlord but insist that rules around fair rent, proper agreements are tightened? What about regional members? Should they share offices? We know he's been considering whether their role, their job is different to that of constituency AMs. How might that effect the way they can claim their allowances in future?

Toll on Monday. (That should have read Roll obviously ... though come to think of it - tariffs/bells tolling .. quite an apt typo!) In the meantime I'm off to meet an estate agent who might persuade me to start renting a rather nice, empty and large office on a High Street ... somewhere.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

When Assembly Members came together in the chamber this afternoon to discuss the Enterprise and Learning Committee's report on the way the government has so far handled the economic downturn, they expected to see the man in charge of the economy standing up and standing his corner.

He is Ieuan Wyn Jones, the Deputy First Minister, , a man who came across like the Scarlet Pimpernel this afternoon, according to his fellow Assembly Members.

They seek him here, they seek him there ... or more appropriate after this afternoon's events perhaps, now you see him, now you don't.

The Deputy First Minister was in the chamber earlier, answering questions and facing flak. There's growing cross party pressure on him over the alleged delays in the scheme to dual the A465 Heads of the Valleys road. At economy questions today, he faced the wrath of Huw Lewis, whose increasingly vociferous campaign on the issue is reaching new levels of anger. He was joined by Mike German from the Lib Dems, and William Graham from the Tories - both reflecting deep unease that there are still no confirmed start dates for several key stretches of the road.

And as the rhetoric gets stronger, the positions become more entrenched. Mr Jones' opponents claim that precious capital resources are being sucked into improving north-south routes - at the expense of east-west, particularly the A465, the dualling of which is seen as vital to the economic regeneration of the Heads of the Valleys area. It's claimed what amounts to a Plaid Cymru nation building exercise is holding up much needed help for one of Wales's most deprived areas.

Not so, says Mr Jones. I've told you and I'll tell you again. I inherited the reprioritisation programme from my (Labour) predecessor in the job, who in turn made his decisions on the basis of expert advice on the complex issue of programming trunk road improvements. All I'm doing is sticking to a time table set by a Labour Minister.

The conflict derives from the four yearly cycle of announcing priorities for trunk roads - which means when it "crosses" ministers - 2004 report under Andrew Davies, then 2008 report under Ieuan Wyn Jones. There's no obvious way of divining who made which decision and when.

But having faced down the barrage of criticism in the chamber, Mr Jones then decided to hit the road himself.

He was gone.

Who stood up on behalf of the government to respond to a heated debate on the way they've handled the recession? John Griffiths, a deputy Minister in the Education department.

Where was Mr Jones, AMs demanded to know? The Minister for the Economy had "urgent ministerial business" to attend to, ventured Mr Griffiths. In fact his own appearance showed that there was joined up working between their respective departments.

They didn't buy it. The urbane and rarely ruffled Conservative Economy spokesman David Melding raised his voice. That in itself deserved raised eyebrows. This was "truly pathetic" he said. Was this "what passes for leadership in the Welsh Assembly Government?" The Lib Dems, with Jenny Randerson leading the charge, went for "a discourtesy" to his fellow AMs.

Even the - Plaid - chair of the committee, Gareth Jones couldn't help adding that he'd been "a little surprised" by the Deputy First Minister's absence.

So where was he?

He had "a long standing engagement dating back months to attend a conference this afternoon on the economic crisis organised by the Welsh Governance Centre." And anyway given the Enterprise and Learning Committee's report covered the work of the education department as well as the department for the economy, it was entirely appropriate that the Deputy Minister for Skills should respond to the debate.

We seek him ... and find him in the Hilton Hotel, where his speech, according to some anyway, was shifted from a quarter past four to four o'clock. Maybe.

What's significant here? That Mr Jones is gaining a reputation amongst an increasing number of AMs for not responding quickly enough to their queries, not taking them and their job of scrutinising what he does seriously enough; that it's hard to avoid the feeling he's being targetted by those who suggest that being DFM and holding such a crucial portfolio must be very hard work indeed. You know what they mean - perhaps a bit too hard these days.

Mr Jones may argue, as a good country solicitor might, that the facts suggest otherwise.
He's answered questions on the government's handling of the economy many times before .The ProAct and ReAct schemes - yes, those again - have generally gone down well. His department is working overtime to respond to what is a global crisis.

But perceptions and reputations are equally important and a good country solicitor ought to know that too.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?