This is the twenty-fourth tranche of emails from the correspondence between various people in Plaid Cymru and myself, following a complaint about what I had written on the subject of the Ynys Môn by-election last year. For easy reference, I've put together the all the previous correspondence on this page, which I will keep updating as further emails are published.
From: Michael Haggett Sent: Friday, 27 June 2014, 3:20pm To: Rhuanedd Richards Cc: Jocelyn Davies Subject: Re: Second Appeal
Dear Rhuanedd
I did not receive your email of 25 June (16:06) but Jocelyn has been kind enough to forward me a copy of it.
-
I am reticent to remind you of the procedure set out in Standing Orders for conducting an appeal, not least because there was never any provision in Standing Orders for anyone to "re-start" disciplinary proceedings against me in the first place. I have pointed out on several occasions in the email correspondence below that those trying to pursue action against me have often ignored the rules that do exist and then made up new rules out of thin air to suit themselves. I would only note that Eli had claimed in her email of 7 April that the new hearing panel would act as if the first disciplinary process had not taken place; therefore, even by that yardstick, this second appeal would need to follow the same course as was established for the first.
It would therefore be necessary for the appeal to be heard by members of the MDSP who have not previously been involved. So far as I am aware, Jocelyn is not on the MDSP, and I note that you do not mention who appointed her or her as yet unnamed colleagues. As the previous correspondence with Nerys shows, it took some time to appoint new members to the MDSP to form the second Hearing Panel and for their appointment to be ratified by the NEC. I would be very surprised if Jocelyn and the others can have been appointed and ratified so quickly. I suspect people are simply trying to hurry things through with even less pretence at doing things according to Standing Orders than before. I would therefore advise all concerned to take a step back, and think very hard about they do next in order not to repeat or exacerbate the previous failures in the way this whole process has been conducted. Please take things step-by-step, and don’t rush straight to the end without properly completing each of the earlier stages.
-
For my part, I would confirm the grounds for this appeal, as required by Clause 6.3 of Standing Orders. As you noted, they are:
6.3i That the procedure adopted by the Hearing Panel was flawed and therefore unjust.
6.3ii That the verdict and conclusions of the Hearing Panel demonstrate that they are based on factual inaccuracies.
Under Clause 6.4 it is incumbent upon me to be specific about about what aspects of procedure were breached and which facts are disputed. I am unable to do this fully because, despite my requests, I have not yet received several pieces of vital information. I will therefore outline only the broad headings at this stage, with the intention of producing a full written statement of evidence when this information has been received, in the same way as was established for the first appeal.
In respect of the procedure being flawed:
1. No-one has been able to set out any constitution grounds for "re-starting" disciplinary action against me. This was confirmed by Dafydd Trystan when he said in his email of 4 February that these were "uncharted constitutional waters".
2. Even if the procedure could be restarted, Ian Titherington would be totally unsuitable as Investigating Officer. To choose someone who had so obviously pre-judged the issue shows bias and lack of even-handedness on the part of the Hearing Panel.
3. Any investigation would need to be conducted with due diligence. Instead, Ian only asked me a few nominal questions for the sake of appearance, but then proceeded to ignore everything I said. Some of the questions I was asked were so vague that they could not be answered. I asked for clarification, but received no response. I also raised several questions that would need to be answered by other parties, but again received no response.
4. Eli said in her letter that Ian's Investigation Report contained evidence that was used to find me guilty. Every defendant has the right to know what evidence is being presented against them, and must be given a chance to refute it and ask questions about it. Despite my request, I did not receive a copy of that report, and have still not received one.
5. If a Hearing Panel were to decide there was a case for me to answer, I would need to be given precise details of what it was. This was not done. Even from the limited information available at present, it is clear that Ian's investigation chose to address only some aspects of Elin's complaint, but that it also addressed matters that were not part of her complaint. Additionally, it is clear from the Hearing Panel's decision that they considered matters which were neither part of Elin's complaint nor part of the questions I was asked during the investigation.
6. Any evidence being presented at a hearing would need to be disclosed to me beforehand so as not to take me by surprise and give me an opportunity to prepare a response to it. This was not done.
7. Arrangements would need to be set in place for cross-examination of anyone wishing to present evidence against me. It is absolutely vital that a defendant is given the opportunity to ask questions about the allegations and any evidence presented in support of them. I had asked some of the more obvious questions as part of the investigation but, as noted in point 3 above, because I do not have the report I do not know what the answers were, or whether those (or similar) questions were even asked.
8. It was wrong to punish me for an alleged breach of Clause 9.1 of Standing Orders without giving me any prior notice that this was a subject matter under consideration, and without giving me any opportunity to respond.
In respect of factual inaccuracies, these all stem from the decision of the Hearing Panel as conveyed to me in Eli's email of 20 June:
1. It was claimed that I had chosen not to acknowledge or respond to Eli's correspondence. This is untrue.
2. It was claimed that copies of the correspondence (which, crucially, might or might not include the investigation report, details of the case I was expected to answer, and prior disclosure of evidence) had been delivered by "recorded delivery". The Royal Mail tracking details I have now been given (one Royal Mail Signed For and one Special Delivery Guaranteed) prove beyond doubt that they were not delivered.
3. It was claimed that I had made no submission to the Hearing Panel, however I had informed Ian (as the Investigating Officer they had chosen to appoint) of everything I had said previously with the intention of him using this evidence in the investigation. I also engaged in the investigation process by asking for answers to a number of specific questions.
4. It was claimed that I have breached Clause 9.1 of Standing Orders. I have not. The restriction on making public statements only applies "until after the conclusion of any appeal". An appeal took place on 28 January so, since that date, the restriction no longer applies. In publishing details of the disciplinary procedure on Syniadau in the series How Plaid Cymru Works I have been careful to act in accordance with what this clause actually says, not what others might wish it said.
5. Finally, and most importantly, it was claimed that I had called Rhun a liar and a dishonest politician "without any evidence to support such serious allegations". I presented clear evidence to show beyond any doubt that Rhun was lying / being dishonest – in the posts on Syniadau at the time, on numerous other occasions on Syniadau, in the email correspondence below, and in the package of evidence to which I referred Ian. I would also note that the first investigation revealed that Rhun was dishonest in two other respects, detailed with full evidence here and here.
Conversely, I also asked others—including Rhun, Elin and Leanne—to provide any evidence that might show that what Rhun said on Sunday Supplement about our policy on nuclear was true. No-one has provided any such evidence.
In closing, I would repeat that this is an outline for the purposes of complying with Clause 6.4, as this information needs to lodged with you as Chief Executive by today. I will only be able to provide a full written statement of evidence for consideration at the Appeal Hearing when the outstanding information has been received, although I note that you wish me to ask Jocelyn rather than you to provide it. That’s not a problem. As with the first appeal, I don't care who provides it, as long as I get it.
Best regards
Michael
From: Michael Haggett Sent: Friday, 27 June 2014, 4:32pm To: Jocelyn Davies Cc: Rhuanedd Richards Subject: Re: Second Appeal
Dear Jocelyn
Thank you for fowarding Rhuanedd's email to me. I have replied to her, see below, as there are several matters that need to be addressed to her as Chief Executive. I would in particular ask you to note that there is a question mark over your appointment because I believe you are not a member of the MDSP, and if you and the others were to be co-opted this would need to be ratified by the NEC in the same way as happened with the three new members who formed the second Hearing Panel.
That doesn't mean I object to you becoming Chair of the second Appeal Panel, only that people seem to be rushing things through with even less pretence at doing things according to Standing Orders than before. As I said to Rhuanedd, I would advise everyone concerned to take a step back and make sure things are done properly. It has taken the best part of a year so far because of all the previous mistakes; a week or two more won't make any difference.
For this reason, and because so much information is still outstanding, my answer to your proposal of holding the appeal hearing next Wednesday remains a polite but firm No. I must insist on a proper procedure conducted to the same standard as was established for the first appeal, which you can read about in the email chain below. It is pointless to re-invent any wheels. It is not just a matter of you "viewing documentation" and, as it is now clear that this is what you meant by a "paper hearing", what you propose is definitely not acceptable.
-
The most pressing need at the moment is to provide me with the outstanding information necessary for me to prepare my appeal. As I said to Rhuanedd, I don't really mind who sends this to me. Sort it out amongst yourselves, but be sure you do sort it out and keep me informed of what is happening.
The information I require is the same as it was for the first appeal:
1. The dates of all meetings of the MDSP/Hearing Panel, subsequent to the information I was sent before as part of the first appeal.
2. The minutes or any other record of those meetings. These may be redacted to exclude items which do not relate to the subject matters referred to in Elin's complaint against me or my complaints against Elfyn, Bob, Dafydd and Rhun. If any meeting did not discuss these matters, a simple statement that it did not will suffice; however I require the dates of any such meetings because the fact that these matters were not discussed in them will be relevant in itself.
3. Copies of the correspondence, or the file notes of any conversations, of those acting in an official capacity (as either members of the MDSP/Hearing Panel/Appeal Panel, Investigating Officer, or any other officer of Plaid Cymru) which relate to these subject matters, subsequent to what I was sent before.
4. A copy of all the evidence, both written and oral, presented at the so-called hearing of 17 June, from all parties. In particular, this would include a copy of Ian's Investigation Report, which I know must exist but which I have not as yet received. It would also include any statement about the case I was expected to answer, which may or may not exist.
Please arrange to have this information emailed to me as soon as possible.
Assuming that you will in due course be ratified as a member of the MDSP by the NEC and then become Chair of the Appeal Panel you will need to decide, as Alun did when he chaired the first appeal, who (beside myself) you will invite to submit evidence. All evidence will then need to be disclosed to other parties so that matters can be accepted as either undisputed, or disputed, or for questions to be asked about it. As I said before, I am happy for this to be done entirely by email.
As for the timetable, it goes without saying that I will not be able to provide a statement of written evidence similar to the one I produced for the first appeal until I have received the outstanding information. Once it is received, I imagine that it will take about a week to prepare the initial statement of evidence, but that it might then need to be revised in the light of other disclosed evidence. Only after that can the hearing be held.
This is the twenty-third tranche of emails from the correspondence between various people in Plaid Cymru and myself, following a complaint about what I had written on the subject of the Ynys Môn by-election last year. For easy reference, I've put together the all the previous correspondence on this page, which I will keep updating as further emails are published.
From: Michael Haggett Sent: Tuesday, 24 June 2014, 1:20pm To: Rhuanedd Richards Subject: Re: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett
Dear Rhuanedd
I received an email from Eli Jones on 20 June, informing me of the decision of the new Hearing Panel set up as a result of "re-starting" disciplinary proceedings against me in relation to Elin's complaint last year. I wish to register an appeal with you as Chief Executive on the same grounds as I did after the decision of the original Hearing Panel; but before I can give fuller details, I would like your help in clarifying the following matters.
In her email, Eli says that:
The Panel received no response from Mr Haggett, despite having taken the precaution of ensuring a copy of our correspondence had reached its destination as it was sent by recorded delivery.
This is a mystery to me. Please could you find out when it was sent and provide me with a tracking number that might help determine what happened to it.
The second matter might be related. I have have not received a copy of Ian Titherington's report, nor the exact details of the case I was expected to answer, nor any prior disclosure of the evidence that would be presented against me. It may well be that these were included in the package that has gone astray, but I have no way of knowing this.
However, irrespective of exactly what was in the package and where it might have gone, I would like you to email me a copy of Ian's report and any other documentation which might have been included with it.
By doing these things you will clear up some of the question marks that currently exist, which will mean that the appeal can be based on hard information rather than "perhaps this / perhaps that" uncertainty.
Best regards
Michael
From: Jocelyn Davies Sent: Wednesday, 25 June 2014, 9:16pm To: Michael Haggett Cc: Rhuanedd Richards Subject: Re: Appeal
Dear Mr Haggett
As you'll be aware I have been asked by the Chief Executive to chair a panel to deal with your lodged appeal.
It is our intention to conduct a hearing next Wednesday evening at 7pm at Ty Gwynfor. My preference would be to hold a paper hearing. I'd be grateful if you'd let me know by 5pm on Friday if this is acceptable.
Anything you wish the panel to consider will need to be with me by midday on Monday.
I'm copying this email to the Chief Executive so that it can circulated to the other panel members.
Best wishes
Jocelyn Davies
From: Michael Haggett Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2014, 12:27pm To: Jocelyn Davies To: Rhuanedd Richards Subject: Re: Second Appeal
Dear Jocelyn
Thank you for your email of 25 June.
You start by saying "as you'll be aware", but this is not the case. Your email is in fact the first response I have received to my email to Rhuanedd. I would guess she is preparing a reply, but I have not received it yet. She might well be waiting for information from others before sending it.
The information I requested from her is needed to clarify matters in order for me to properly set out the grounds for my appeal. But I would also need other information, as was the case in the first appeal I made. I think it would be a good idea for you to read through the chain of correspondence below to make yourself familiar with what happened. Alun and Rhuanedd acted in a helpful and constructive way to establish a set of ground rules for the first appeal. The problems only arose by failing to stick to them, most notably in the handling of Chris Frank's evidence, which was neither disclosed beforehand nor recorded.
I'm not entirely sure what a "paper hearing" is, but if you mean that everything should be conducted in writing rather than needing a face-to-face hearing, I would not object in principle. In fact I would welcome it.
Because of the outstanding information, it is premature to be thinking of holding a hearing on the date you suggest. It would be better to wait until all parties have the information they need before setting a timetable.
Best regards
Michael
From: Jocelyn Davies Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2014, 5:58pm To: Michael Haggett Cc: Rhuanedd Richards Subject: Re: Appeal
Dear Michael
Thank you for your email and I'm grateful that you're happy for the appeal to be conducted by way for a paper hearing, that is, by us viewing documentation.
I'm sorry if I was mistaken when I assumed that Rhuanedd Richards had informed you that an appeal panel had been set up and I would be chairing it. I based that on being copied in on an email she sent to you. I had that at 16.06 yesterday.
We intend to hold the hearing next Wednesday evening based on your lodged appeal. Obviously the appeal will not be a re-run of the hearing but addressing the grounds of your appeal only. From memory, that is procedural unfairness to you and the panel basing their decision on factual inaccuracies. I'd very much like to stick to the original timetable. If you meet the Monday deadline it would be very helpful.
As an appeal panel we can't be entering into dialogue about the substance of the complaint or your response to it.
I hope that helps
Jocelyn
From: Jocelyn Davies Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2014, 6:49pm To: Michael Haggett Subject: Fwd: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett
Here is the email I had yesterday.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Rhuanedd Richards Sent: Wednesday, 25 June 2014, 4:06pm To: Michael Haggett Cc: Jocelyn Davies Subject: Re: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett
Dear Michael
Thank you for your email outlining your wish to register an appeal against the decision of the Hearing Panel.
You say in your previous email that you wish to do so on the same grounds as the appeal you made after the decision of the original Hearing Panel and therefore they will be noted as:
6.3i That the procedure adopted by the Hearing Panel was flawed and therefore unjust.
6.3ii That the verdict and conclusions of the Hearing Panel demonstrate that they are based on factual inaccuracies.
I can provide you with two tracking numbers for items of correspondence sent to you: BZ144209325GB and AD792767722GB
An Appeal Panel has been appointed and will be chaired by Jocelyn Davies who will contact you shortly. Any requests for further information should be made through Jocelyn.
Kind regards
Rhuanedd
Entering these tracking numbers on the Royal Mail website, I found that even though Eli had said in her email of 20 June that she had "taken the precaution of ensuring a copy of our correspondence had reached its destination as it was sent by recorded delivery", this was in fact a complete lie.
I can prove beyond doubt that neither package was in fact delivered to me. If anyone wants to check this for themselves, please click the links below and you will see that both were returned to sender.
Who on earth was Eli trying to fool, and what on earth made her think she could get away with such deception? The clear fact is that she and her colleagues went ahead with the hearing knowing that I had not received these packages. They must have known this at two stages: first, because it is silly to pay for a service which tracks delivery but not then use it to check whether and when the packages were in fact delivered; and second, when the packages were returned undelivered. It is exactly the same sort of behaviour as her trying to claim that there was no evidence that Rhun had lied, even though I had provided links to the evidence in my original post.
It is clear that their whole mentality is one of stopping at nothing to try and convict me of bringing Plaid Cymru into disrepute for telling the truth, not realizing that is it lies and deception like this which bring the party into disrepute.
Yesterday, I published an email from Eli Jones advising me of the verdict of the second Hearing Panel. There are many things that could be said about it, but because whether Rhun did or did not lie is the central issue in this matter, I'd like to concentrate on that first. This is the relevant paragraph:
What the Panel found was evidence of a distressingly vicious and personalised escalating attack on one of its members. The Panel was appalled by the degree of vitriol and unsubstantiated allegations targeted at the candidate. Criticism of our candidate’s views on any topic is unhelpful in the context of a by-election, but Mr Haggett went far beyond acceptable comment by referring to him, inter alia, as a “liar” and a “dishonest politician” without any evidence to support such serious allegations. The Panel would consider the making of such scurrilous allegations against a member of another Party as inappropriate and unacceptable, but to make them against a member of one’s own party is beyond belief.
If anyone needed proof that the whole disciplinary process against me has been a farce from the beginning, this one paragraph should convince them. Eli was clearly trying to make out that there was no evidence to support what I said about Rhun misleading people over Plaid Cymru's policy on new nuclear power stations by blatantly lying about it ... specifically saying that these allegations were "unsubstantiated", "serious" and "scurrilous".
Of course I won't deny that they are serious allegations, but they are definitely not unsubstantiated or scurrilous. I provided evidence to back up what I said at the time, and I'm happy to repeat it now by republishing the posts concerned.
-
There is no doubt whatsoever about what Rhun said on Sunday Supplement. I provided a link to a recording of the programme which anyone can listen to, as well as a transcript of the exchange between Rhun and Vaughan Roderick. There is no doubt whatsoever about what Plaid Cymru's policy is. I provided a link to the motion endorsed by Plaid's Conference which anyone can read. Putting the two together, we can all see and hear for ourselves that Rhun was definitely not telling the truth.
What I find "beyond belief" is what might motivate people like Eli Jones, Peter Fenner and Sian Powell to put their names to something which they must know to be totally false. Their eyes are shut tight, their fingers are in their ears, but their mouths are working nineteen to the dozen to spread misinformation that cannot fool anyone who takes the trouble to check the facts for themselves. No wonder their reaction to me publishing every single word of what they are are doing is one of, to use their own words, abject horror.
Today's Sunday Supplement was largely devoted to the Ynys Môn by-election on Thursday. The full debate can be heard below or downloaded here but, as readers would expect, I want to focus on what was said about Wylfa B, and in particular this exchange between Vaughan Roderick and Rhun ap Iorwerth:
VR: But, to be clear, Plaid Cymru want decisions over power stations to be devolved. If Wylfa B was on the table in the Assembly, and you had to vote yes or no, which way would you vote?
RhapI: I am being quite clear, and I can't make it any clearer: I am saying yes to Wylfa B.
VR: But your party doesn't say that.
RhapI: Plaid Cymru is a party, unlike many of the other parties, that actually discusses decisions and decides what's best for Wales. You know that there's been a policy in Plaid Cymru going back 40 years where we've said, "Develop nuclear power stations on the sites where there are nuclear power stations in the past." It's nothing new for a member of Plaid Cymru, and somebody who wants to be an elected member for Plaid Cymru, to say let's support the continuation of nuclear power generation on the site where that has been happening for decades.
VR: I'm sorry, that does sound an awful lot like having your cake in Dwyfor Meirionnydd and Ynys Môn and eating it elsewhere.
If Rhun wants clarity, then we need to be absolutely clear that he is misleading people on this issue by telling blatant lies.
Plaid Cymru does discuss issues and makes policy decisions that we believe are in the best interests of Wales (although it is a bit naïve for Rhun to think that most other parties don't make decisions in a similar way), and while it might or might not be true to say that Plaid used to have a policy of developing nuclear power stations on existing sites at some time in the past, it has most definitely not been Plaid Cymru's policy for some years. The decision made at conference is that Plaid Cymru are totally opposed to the construction of any nuclear power station in Wales, including a new nuclear power station at Wylfa B [click to display] and Rhun is deliberately misleading people by pretending otherwise.
This is the full text of the motion as approved by Plaid Cymru at our conference in 2011:
NUCLEAR ENERGY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
(Newport Branches / European Parliamentary Group)
Conference notes:
1. The tragic consequence of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan which led to the dangerous situation at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, namely that fuel in the reactors produced considerable amounts of heat which led to a full meltdown, causing radioactive material to leak.
2. That the incident at Fukushima, occurring on the 25th anniversary of Chernobyl, heightens concerns for the safety of nuclear energy.
3. That as a result the European Commission has proposed stress tests on all current nuclear reactors, and the UK government has called on the Chief Nuclear Inspector to carry out a review of nuclear installations.
4. That as a result, Germany has announced that all the country’s nuclear power plants will be phased out by 2022. Switzerland has also committed to phasing out nuclear power by 2034.
Conference further notes:
1. The essential principle of energy independence given Plaid’s long term ambition for devolved sovereignty and independence.
2. That as a net exporter of energy with massive undeveloped renewable energy potential new nuclear developments are not required in Wales in the long term in order to meet energy demand. Further investment is required into developing the potential of wave and tidal technologies which when commercialised could lead to Wales becoming more self sufficient in renewable energy.
3. That cost per KW of production for some forms of renewable power generation are lower than nuclear.
4. That the long term costs of nuclear decommissioning are not calculated.
5. The proven evidence of the effect of carbon emissions towards catastrophic climate change, also the growing pressure on fossil fuel resources including significant commodity price escalation as we approach peak fossil fuel production.
6. That the current coalition government’s policies on the carbon price floor will serve in the short term to raise consumer fuel bills and will leave the nuclear industry by the far the biggest beneficiary and also therefore fail to optimise the potential investment in renewable energy that variants of this legislation could bring.
Conference reaffirms:
1. Plaid Cymru’s belief that all energy decisions should be devolved in full to Wales.
2. Plaid Cymru’s total opposition to the construction of any new nuclear power stations. If the Westminster government gives the go ahead for a new nuclear power station at Wylfa, we should make sure that the investment recognises the need to employ local people, invest in training to maximise local employment and make sure that indigenous companies benefit from supply chain opportunities.
Conference calls:
1. For Plaid at all levels to lobby the coalition Westminster government to restructure Carbon Price Floor legislation in order to exempt nuclear power from receiving any form of public funded subsidy.
2. For the EU’s nuclear stress tests to be carried out by independent experts and to be based on robust criteria.
3. On Plaid Cymru to welcome Germany’s decision to phase out all nuclear power stations and to encourage other governments across the world, including the United Kingdom, to follow their lead.
4. For greater investment by the Welsh government in renewables and energy efficiency measures.
Although it is nothing new for a member of Plaid Cymru to support the continuation of nuclear power, those members are definitely in a minority within the party. However it is of much more concern to me that Rhun did not make his position on nuclear power clear to party members at the hustings when he was selected as Plaid's candidate. The position he presented at that time was "more or less identical" to that of Ann Griffith and Heledd Fychan, and Heledd made it clear that she was opposed to nuclear power. Nor did he make his support for Wylfa B clear in the statements he made immediately after he had been selected; instead he hid his position behind tortuously ambiguous words both in his interview with the Daily Post and on his own blog. I've commented on what he said here and here.
His support for Wylfa B (as opposed to support for maximizing local employment opportunities if Wylfa B were to be built, which is entirely different) only came out in a careless tweet last week. It should therefore be obvious to anyone that Rhun deliberately misled Plaid members in Môn in order to be selected.
We do not need dishonest politicians like Rhun ap Iorwerth. If he's elected on Thursday he will be a liability to Plaid Cymru for years to come, because he clearly isn't interested in Plaid's policies for Wales. He is a cuckoo who has duped his way into our nest in order to follow a private agenda of his own, or the agenda of a narrow interest group within the party that refuses to accept democratic decisions made by the membership as a whole.
The only person who sounded convincing on the issue of nuclear power was Kathrine Jones of the Socialist Labour Party. Her position was far closer to that of Plaid Cymru than Rhun's.
This is why I called Rhun a liar and said we do not need dishonest politicians like him in Plaid Cymru, and the evidence I provided proves beyond any doubt that he did lie. However, as a result of the first official investigation conducted by Shaughan Feakes, it became clear that this was not the only lie Rhun had told.
One of the other lies he told was in fact far, far worse. As can be seen from the post below, Rhun is two-faced, for he was telling different sets of people completely different things about his views on nuclear power. He was told the public that he was pro-nuclear power, but told people within the party that he was against nuclear power. This is what I posted in February.
In my last post I published the package of information that had been sent to me after I had asked Leanne to intervene because Chris Franks was not doing his job properly. Prior to that, Chris had fully expected me to turn up to a formal hearing without knowing any details about the complaint, who would judge me, what the evidence against me was ... or what the official investigation report which formed the basis of the decision to hold a formal hearing, and was supposed to reflect my position as well as that of my accuser, said. I had now got some answers, though not all of them.
By far the most important piece of information was the investigation report, and in these next posts I want to look at what it contains. One thing in it stands out above everything else.
I have spoken to Rhun and he has confirmed that he is against nuclear energy but if it is imposed by Westminster he will ensure that Ynys Môn gets the maximum benefit of the job and economic opportunities.
If anyone had to sum up Plaid's policy on nuclear energy in one sentence, that's as good a way of putting it as any. It is in two parts, and each part is essential. The first part is that we in Plaid Cymru are opposed to nuclear energy. The second part is that we will fight to get the best from Wylfa B if it is imposed on us by Westminster. The if is all-important.
-
In the early stages of the Ynys Môn by-election campaign, Rhun was quite happy to stress the second part, but did not say anything at all about the first part. He refused to be clear about whether he supported or was against a new nuclear power station at Wylfa. I described his position at the time as "tortuously ambiguous" in this post, and went on to say:
Up until now I have not known where Rhun stood on this issue. My objection to him being allowed to stand or being selected was based on the fact that we could not properly assess his suitability to stand as a Plaid Cymru candidate in such a short time. I had hoped that his first statement would be something much more positive:
I had hoped Rhun would say that he is totally opposed to Wylfa B and will fight to stop it happening.
I had hoped Rhun would say that it is being forced on us by a Westminster government that will not let Wales decide our own energy policy for ourselves.
I had hoped Rhun would say that we in Wales can produce more electricity than we consume from renewable sources, a major part of which are around the coast of Ynys Môn, and that we will create better jobs on the island by developing these than by building a new nuclear power station.
I had hoped Rhun would say to those already working in the nuclear industry who are concerned about their jobs that there will be plenty jobs for decades to come in decommissioning Wylfa A, making it safe and cleaning up its toxic legacy.
I had hoped Rhun would say that the cost of dealing with new and very much more toxic nuclear waste—which would have to be kept on the island indefinitely rather than moved to Sellafield as happens now—will be a millstone round the neck of future generations that Wales as a nation will struggle to afford.
... and I had hoped Rhun would also say that if, and only if, a Westminster government forces Wylfa B onto us despite all our objections, it had damn well better ensure that we at least get something out of it in terms of construction jobs, supply chain opportunities and the skills necessary for the operation of the station once completed.
If he has any political sense at all, Rhun will say all of these things. It is not too late for him to do so. What is wrong with Rhun's statement to the Daily Post is that he makes the last point without making all the other points. He cannot hope to get away with that. He needs to unequivocally express his opposition to nuclear power before he gets to the "if".
Fair play to him, as I noted in my next post, Rhun did then go on to make some of these points, in particular about the problem of nuclear waste and energy policy being decided in Westminster rather than in Wales, but he still wouldn't say whether he was or was not opposed to nuclear energy.
Because of this ambiguity, he was put under ever-increasing pressure about it from all sides, and he eventually snapped. On 19 July, well over half-way through the campaign, he tweeted this:
@theNukeGuy Ha!Yes,I'm pro Wylfa B,& will fight to ensure our young people& communities benefit.Can't put it clearer than that!All the best.
As I noted at the time, if Rhun was a person of principle or character, why had he been afraid to make it clear that he supported Wylfa B in his previous statements to the Daily Post and on his own blog? But whatever the reason, the cat was now out of the bag, and in the last ten days of the campaign Rhun made it abundantly clear that he was in favour of nuclear energy at Wylfa B, openly acknowledging that he did not agree with Plaid Cymru's policy. So far as I am aware, that has been his position in public ever since.
-
What is completely scandalous is that Rhun said one thing in public, but then—only six weeks after he had been elected—said the exact opposite when formally questioned about it as part of an official Plaid Cymru investigation.
This shows Rhun for what he is: a man without principles who will flip-flop on the issues. He will say one thing to one set of people at one time because he thinks it's what they want to hear, and then say completely the opposite thing to a different set of people at another time. This is two-faced hypocrisy of the very worst sort and there should be no place for such behaviour in politics.
-
It's not down to me to decide which is the truth and which is the lie. All I can say with certainty is that one of them must be a lie. Perhaps what he did was deliberately lie to the investigation in order to make it appear that his beliefs were in line with Plaid Cymru policy. If so, I guess his purpose would have been to make it appear that I had no reason at all to criticize him, and therefore that my criticism of him was unreasonable and unjustified.
But that is to miss the point. I never called Rhun a liar on the basis of whether or not he agreed with Plaid Cymru policy. I called him a liar because he misrepresented our policy by saying that we support the construction of new nuclear power stations on existing nuclear sites. We don't. We are totally opposed to the construction of any new nuclear power stations in Wales.
-
But there is perhaps another possibility: that he is in fact against nuclear power, but that he lied to everyone in Môn and Wales about it because he thought that telling this lie was the only way he would be elected ... and that being elected was more important to him than telling the truth.
I'm sure it is a story that has been told many ways in many languages, but in the novel Dirgel Ddyn by Mihangel Morgan is a character called Mr Schloss. He is the landlord of the house in which the author has a bedsit, and his idea of conversation revolves around praising Thatcher and saying that Hitler had the right idea about the Jews. Not exactly the most endearing of people. But one day he finds his cat has been killed and is distraught. In his grief he confides to the author that his cat was the nearest thing to a family he had, and tells the story of his childhood. As a small boy in Germany he sees the Nazis kill his entire family, but he manages to stay hidden and survives. When he asks the man who rescues him why the Nazis would do this, he learns that it is because his family was Jewish, and is told that he must never, ever tell anyone that he is Jewish. So what does the small boy do? He reckons that no-one will suspect him of being a Jew if he goes round telling everyone how much he hates the Jews. So that's what he does, and it then becomes a part of his life that he can't change ... even though every time he says how much he hates the Jews, he twists the knife a little deeper into his own heart.
Immediately after the Ynys Môn by-election, I summed up my thoughts in this post, and said something which I am still sure is true, although maybe one word now needs to be changed. For me, the big question in the by-election campaign was why Rhun started by being ambiguous about whether or not he supported Wylfa B, and only made his position clear in that infamous tweet of 19 July:
One explanation is that he was being goaded by Labour, who were making all sorts of silly accusations to try and catch him off balance. At one time they were saying that his ambivalence about whether or not he supported Wylfa B was a sign that he secretly supported it; but when another Labour goon suggested that it was a sign that he was secretly against Wylfa B it proved so -------- to him that he felt he had to say he supported it.
At the time, the word I used was "offensive". But what if his ambiguity at the start of the campaign was not to hide the fact that he supported Wylfa B, but to hide the fact that he opposed it? Perhaps the word should have been "embarrassing", and what motivated him to jump that way was the fear that telling the truth would cost him the election. He had tried to sit on the fence about it, but when the fence was shaken he made the mistake of choosing the easy way out and is now living a lie on the wrong side of it. So far as the public is concerned he has put his cards on the table and is unambiguously pro-nuclear ... and now that he's said it, he can't go back on it for fear of being exposed as someone unscrupulous enough to tell lies in order to save his electoral skin.
-
As I've said, I don't know which one is true. If Rhun is against nuclear energy, then he lied to the people of Ynys Môn and to Wales as a whole, probably because he thought that he needed to lie in order to get elected. If he is in favour of nuclear energy, then he lied to an official Plaid Cymru investigation, either in an attempt to make it appear that my criticism of him was unjustified or, far worse, because he wanted to stitch me up.
With the publication of this report it will now be obvious to everyone that, one way or the other, Rhun has lied about where he stands on the issue of nuclear energy.
But this was not the only new lie that came to light as a result of the first official investigation. It turns out that Rhun also lied about his previous membership of Plaid. This is what I wrote about it:
In case you hadn't realized it, Lyndon, my position on nuclear power is not a "personal obsession". It is an opinion shared by the majority of Plaid members. It is my party's policy, and I am not prepared to sweep it under the carpet for the sake of some Johnny-come-lately who has only been a member for a few weeks and who only made his support for Wylfa B clear after he had been selected as Plaid's candidate.
So don't get angry with me, direct your anger at those responsible for undermining party policy instead.
I was then taken to task for this and accused of telling lies about Rhun in an anonymous comment on Blog Menai. This is the exchange:
MH 'di'r un sydd 'di deud celwyddau. Roedd m'ond angen iddo godi'r ffôn i rywun call ac mi fyddai wedi darganfod y canlynol:
... 2. dydi Rhun ddim yn rhyw "Jonny Come Lately" i Blaidd Cymru – fuodd o'n aelod yn yr 80au/90au cynnar cyn troi ei law at newyddiadura
... Y cyfan yr oedd MH angen ei wneud i sefydlu'r ffeithiau hyn oedd i godi'r ffôn i Rhun neu eraill yn y Blaid – dyna fyddai aelod cyfrifol wedi ei wneud. Yn hytrach mi ddaru fo gychwyn grwsâd anheg ac anghywir gan wneud niwed iddo fo'i hun a'r Blaid. Siomedig.
MH is the one who is telling lies. He only needed to phone anyone with any sense and he would have discovered the following:
... 2. Rhun is not some "Jonny Come Lately" to Plaid Cymru – he was a member in the 80s/early 90s before turning his hand to journalism
... All that MH needed to do to establish these facts was to lift the phone and speak to Rhun or someone else in Plaid – that's what a responsible member would have done. But instead he embarked on an unfair and incorrect crusade, doing damage to both himself and Plaid. Disappointing.
Am aelodaeth y Blaid: Rhun yw'r un a oedd yn disgrifio ei hun fel "aelod newydd" o'r blaid, yma, nid fel rhywun sy'n ail-ymuno i'r blaid. Celwydd arall? Ydoedd, os oes hynny ddim yn wir.
Dwi'n cael fy meirniadu am alw Rhun yn "Johnny come lately", a dwi'n ymddiheuro am hynny'n llwyr os oedd Rhun yn aelod yn yr 80au. Byddai e'n "Johnny come back lately" yn hytrach. Ond, rili, beth yw'r ots am hynny? Os oedd Rhun yn aelod yn gynt, Rhun roedd yn gamarweiniol am y peth, nid y fi.
About [his] membership of Plaid: Rhun was the one who described himself as a new member of the party, here, not as someone who was rejoining the party. Another lie? Yes it was, if that wasn't the truth.
I'm being criticized for calling Rhun a "Johnny come lately", and I completely apologize for that if Rhun was a member in the 80s. He would be a "Johnny come back lately" instead. But really, what does it matter? If Rhun was a member before, Rhun was the one being misleading about it, not me.
From my point of view, all I was being presented with were assertions in an anonymous comment with no evidence to back them up. That is why my response was "if". But the matter came up again in the comments to my post on 15 August:
The story that Rhun was a former member of Plaid has been doing the rounds, Beard. I don't think it's particularly important either way, but I'll point you to what I said about it here on BlogMenai. Rhun described himself as a new member here on his blog, not as someone who was rejoining the party. So if he was in fact a former member, it would be another example of him misleading people.
In the investigation report, this was twisted into the following bald statement:
August 15 (post-election)
MH claims Rhun had stated he was a new member of Plaid Cymru and was therefore misleading people if he was in fact a former member.
It's a distortion for a number of reasons. First, it implies that I was making the accusation, when I was in fact responding to the accusation that I was telling lies. Second, it's hardly a "claim", as if to cast a shadow of doubt over whether what I said was true. It's a simple indisputable fact that Rhun did describe himself as a new member of the party. Isn't the whole point of an investigation to find out whether "claims" are or are not true?
-
Let's be clear, this is not a big lie on Rhun's part, and I wouldn't even be mentioning it except for the fact that it was considered important enough to be included in the official investigation report and used as evidence against me for supposedly bringing the party into disrepute. I'm presenting it as an example of how certain people in Plaid Cymru had lost all sense of perspective, and were scraping the barrel looking for any tiny thing that could be bent out of shape to use against me.
I'm equally sure that those in positions of power in Plaid Cymru who were responsible for trying to stitch me up will now try and point the finger at Shaughan and say that the contents of the report are his and his alone. But that's not entirely fair on Shaughan. As this accusation was not mentioned in Elin's letter of complaint, it seems clear that Elin must have pointed him to it ... but not pointed him to the context in which it was said. If I had not been shut out of the investigation, I could have told Shaughan all of this at the time. I could have directed him to what was said in the context in which it was said. But, as only became clear to me several months after the event, he was given specific legal advice by Plaid Cymru's lawyers not to contact me by email to ask me any questions.
-
What is so tragic is that this was a completely pointless and unnecessary thing for Rhun to lie about. Why say anything at all about being a "new member"? Nobody was putting him under any pressure or asking him any awkward questions about it. If he can't be honest and straightforward about himself, even on a completely uncontentious issue, how on earth can anybody trust him to be honest and straightforward about what he believes on more contentious political issues?
Yet Elin, in her letter of complaint about me, says she is sure that the people of Ynys Môn "would have known Rhun's integrity enough to trust him over an unknown blogger". My answer is that integrity is something Rhun needs to do rather more work on than I do.
This is the twenty-second tranche of emails from the correspondence between various people in Plaid Cymru and myself, following a complaint about what I had written on the subject of the Ynys Môn by-election last year. For easy reference, I've put together the all the previous correspondence on this page, which I will keep updating as further emails are published.
From the emails in the previous post people will see that I had asked Nerys, as Deputy Chair of the party, to intervene in the same way as Leanne had asked Dafydd to intervene before (Dafydd was now disqualified by reason of his previous involvement, which is why Nerys had taken over his role in overseeing this matter) because it was clear that the second Hearing Panel was rushing headlong into making almost exactly the same mistakes as the first Hearing Panel had made. Just as Chris Franks had done last year, Eli Jones also expected me to turn up and be judged without having seen a copy of the investigation report, without knowing exactly what the case against me was supposed to be, and without any prior disclosure of the evidence that would be presented.
But this time round nothing happened, and so the hearing went ahead anyway. The next I heard was this email from Eli Jones, which I will publish without comment for now. I think everyone who has been following this series will be able to make up their own minds about it.
From: Eli Jones Sent: Friday, 20 June 2014, 4:54pm To: Undisclosed recipients Subject: Complaint made by Elin Jones AM aganst Michael Haggett, August 2013
To: Michael Haggett and the Director of Communications
Copy to: Hearing Panel members, Chief Executive, and Party Chair
Without prejudice
Dear Mr Haggett and Ms Jones
Further to my earlier correspondence informing you that the Panel had reached a decision that there was a case to answer concerning the allegation that Mr Haggett had engaged in -
Actions or statements damaging or potentially damaging to the public reputation of the party
contrary to Standing Order 3.1iii, and that there would therefore be a formal hearing to consider the evidence, I now write to you to inform you of the outcome of that formal hearing, held at Tŷ Gwynfor on 17th June 2014.
You will recall that both parties were invited to attend to present their case, and/or to submit a written statement in advance. Both parties were asked to acknowledge receipt of that communication and to indicate whether it was their intention to attend the hearing.
The Panel was informed that Ms Jones would not be submitting a written statement nor would she be attending, as she felt she had nothing further to add to the complaint she had submitted in August 2013.
The Panel received no response from Mr Haggett, despite having taken the precaution of ensuring a copy of our correspondence had reached its destination as it was sent by recorded delivery.
The Panel therefore proceeded with the formal hearing in the absence of both parties to the complaint.You are invited to present your case before the Hearing Panel at that time.
The Panel formally received the Investigating Officer’s Report, (Standing Order 4.6i), and considered the evidence set out in the original complaint and in the Report. The Panel was also prepared to consider any submission received through appropriate channels from Mr Haggett, but none was forthcoming. The Panel expressed its total dismay at the lack of co-operation, and the lack of contrition or remorse, but also its abject horror to learn of the breach of paragraph 9.1 of the Standing Orders for Membership, Discipline and Standards, and the reminders included in both direct communications from the Panel to the parties, concerning public statements regarding the circumstances or persons involved in a disciplinary procedure. These make it quite clear that:
No public statement regarding the circumstances or persons involved in a disciplinary Procedure shall be made by any member other than the Chair of the Party until after the conclusion of any appeal or until after the last day for the making of an appeal in the event of no appeal being made.
The Panel had been made aware that not only had Mr Haggett been blogging about the proceedings, and that this was the source of a non-helpful article in The Western Mail published on 14 June 2014, but that Mr Hagget had published verbatim within his blog the correspondence he had received from the Panel.
This action on Mr Haggett’s part confirmed to the Panel that Mr Haggett had received our correspondence, and that he had chosen not to respond to us, contrary to our request, but also that he had deliberately flouted the requirements of paragraph 9.1. In turn, that implied that he was acting audaciously towards the Panel, and by extension, towards the Party.
The Panel considered whether to refer such disregard and deliberate impudence onwards as a further, separate complaint against Mr Hagget, but having concluded that no useful benefit would be derived form further referral, the Panel regarded this latest inappropriate behaviour as an extension to, and part of, the subject matter of the complaint currently under review.
In addressing the core subject matter of the complaint, the Panel found that there was evidence to support the allegation of
Actions or statements damaging or potentially damaging, the public reputation of the party (Standing Order 3.1.iii).
Plaid Cymru is a party which is united by the aims outlined in its constitution but naturally encompasses a broad range of views and opinions. Like any other organisation, our members are not always going to agree on everything – but we do manage to get along with one another and we respect each other, and each other’s standpoints.
We understand that Mr Haggett had concerns about the manner of Rhun ap Iorwerth’s selection, but there is provision in our Constitution for such circumstances. We understand that Mr Haggett had different views and opinions to Rhun’s (and others), and we understand that annoyance and frustration can arise when events take a path contrary to our wishes. This is why Plaid has robust and wide-ranging internal democratic mechanisms in place which allow for discussion and debate and resolution of our differences – even if it lands up as an agreement to disagree. There was no evidence whatsoever that Mr Haggett had attempted to utilise such mechanisms. Mr Hagget’s concerns, whether in relation to the selection process or any of the other issues featured in his blog during the election campaign, appear not to have been raised through the proper constitutional channels Plaid provides.
What the Panel found was evidence of a distressingly vicious and personalised escalating attack on one of its members. The Panel was appalled by the degree of vitriol and unsubstantiated allegations targeted at the candidate. Criticism of our candidate’s views on any topic is unhelpful in the context of a by-election, but Mr Haggett went far beyond acceptable comment by referring to him, inter alia, as a “liar” and a “dishonest politician” without any evidence to support such serious allegations. The Panel would consider the making of such scurrilous allegations against a member of another Party as inappropriate and unacceptable, but to make them against a member of one’s own party is beyond belief.
There did not appear to have been any attempt to apologise to Rhun ap Iorwerth, whether directly, or as part of the disciplinary process, for this slur on his personal integrity, nor was any contrition shown for the verbal assault impugning Rhun’s reputation nor for undermining the efforts of loyal Plaid members during such a significant by-election. The absence of a response from Mr Haggett to the Panel is indicative of how even he himself could not defend such behaviour.
Any democratic party will have to deal with contentious issues which divide opinion. Some of these debates may become heated but it is the responsibility of all members to avoid personalising disputes and to respect and tolerate the views of members who are of a different persuasion. Plaid values diversity. But Plaid also expects respect for different views, and from all its members towards all its members. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel found that in the course of his blog attacks on Rhun ap Iorwerth, Mr Haggett had manifestly failed to respect a fellow member, had undermined the efforts of fellow members, and had shown unacceptable intolerance of views that differed from his own. This transgression was further compounded by the open contempt shown for the workings of this Panel, and thereby, Plaid in general.
The Panel regards Mr Haggett’s behaviour in this matter as not the behaviour that members of Plaid Cymru have the right to expect from their party colleagues - indeed, no major organisation would tolerate such behaviour from a member.
It is therefore the unanimous decision of the Panel that the complaint made by Elin Jones in August 2013 be upheld, and that recent behaviour, towards the Panel, (and therefore Plaid), contrary to paragraph 9.1, compounds and exacerbates an untenable situation. The Panel considers both these aspects of the same complaint to be sufficiently serious to require a sanction.
The Panel concluded that Mr Haggett’s party membership be suspended for a period of not less than two years, with immediate effect. Any future application for membership from Mr Haggett will be subject to the scrutiny and approval of the Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Committee.
Incidentally, the provisions of paragraph 9.1, remain applicable, for the time being.
This is the twenty-first tranche of emails from the correspondence between various people in Plaid Cymru and myself, following a complaint about what I had written on the subject of the Ynys Môn by-election last year. For easy reference, I've put together the all the previous correspondence on this page, which I will keep updating as further emails are published.
From: Eli Jones Sent: Tuesday, 13 May 2014, 1:37pm To: Undisclosed recipients Subject: Complaint made in August 2014 by the Director of Communications
To: Michael Haggett and the Director of Communications
Copy to: Hearing Panel members and the Investigation Officer
Without prejudice
Dear Mr Haggett and Ms Jones
Further to my e-mail to you both on 7 April, 2014, I am now writing to you, as a courtesy update to inform you that the Panel has received the Investigating Officer’s Report, and that I can confirm that we will be meeting on 19th May, 2014, as had been provisionally arranged previously, to determine, with the benefit of that Report, whether there is a case to answer, and, the Panel’s further action (if any), in the light of that decision.
It is still intended that all parties will be advised of the Hearing Panel's resolution within one week of that meeting.
It may be that the Panel finds no case to answer, but, equally, the Panel may decide differently, in which case one option before the Panel would be to convene a formal hearing.
Should the Panel decide that a formal hearing would be appropriate, the likelihood is that this would be arranged to take place in Cardiff about a fortnight or so later.
Sincerely
Eli Jones
From: Eli Jones Sent: Friday, 23 May 2014, 12:55pm To: Undisclosed recipients Subject: Outcome of the Hearing Panel held on 19 May 2014
To: Michael Haggett and the Director of Communications
Copy to: Hearing Panel members and the Investigation Officer
Without prejudice
Dear Mr Haggett and Ms Jones
As previously indicated, I am now writing to you to inform you of the outcome of the meeting of the Hearing Panel, held on 19 May 2014, to consider the Investigating Officer’s Report concerning the complaint originally brought by the Director of Communications, against Mr Haggett in August 2013.
The Panel decided unanimously that there was a case to answer concerning the allegation that Mr Haggett engaged in
Actions or statements damaging or potentially damaging to the public reputation of the party,
contrary to Standing Order 3.1.iii.
Consequently, a formal hearing, to consider the evidence has been arranged for
6.30 pm on Tuesday 17th June, 2014
at Ty Gwynfor, Marine Chambers, Anson Court, Atlantic Wharf, Cardiff, CF10 4AL.
You are invited to present your case before the Hearing Panel at that time.
Should you wish to submit a written statement in advance of, or instead of, attending the hearing in person, please ensure that I have received it, (on behalf of the Panel), by 10th June 2014, at the latest. Submissions received after that date cannot be considered.
Written statements can be received either by e-mail to my e-address, or, in hard copy by recorded delivery to Plaid's HQ at Ty Gwynfor, (as above), clearly marked CONFIDENTIAL - F.A.O. ELI JONES.
Additionally, also by 10th June 2014, please –
1) Acknowledge receipt of this communication, and,
2) Indicate whether you intend to attend the hearing,
Meanwhile, as before, I would wish to remind all parties of the continuing applicability of the provision of paragraph 9.1 of the Standing Orders for Membership, Discipline and Standards
9.1 Public Statements
No public statement regarding the circumstances or persons involved in a disciplinary Procedure shall be made by any member other than the Chair of the Party until after the conclusion of any appeal or until after the last day for the making of an appeal in the event of no appeal being made.
Yours sincerely
Eli Jones
Chair - Hearing Panel
From: Michael Haggett Sent: Monday, 2 June 2014, 11:35pm To: Nerys Evans Subject: Re: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett
Dear Nerys
I have received an email from Eli Jones dated 23 May. I was asked to confirm that I have received it, and am happy to do this.
Unfortunately I am not yet in a position to confirm whether I will attend the meeting or not. It appears that the new Hearing Panel intends to press ahead regardless of our constitution and standing orders, and in doing this they are making exactly the same mistakes as the previous Hearing Panel made. The previous Hearing Panel expected me to turn up without having seen a copy of the investigation report, without knowing exactly what the case against me is supposed to be, and without any prior disclosure of the evidence that will be presented.
As in any quasi-judicial proceedings, the onus is on the prosecution to set out their case, disclose the evidence they will provide to support it, and make themselves available for cross-examination about it. All these things must happen first, and only then will I be in a position to make any decision about how to conduct a defence.
I only received a copy of the first investigation report after Leanne asked Dafydd, as Chair of the party, to intervene. I am therefore addressing this to you as Deputy Chair (Dafydd having been disqualified by reason of his past involvement) to give you the opportunity of acting now, so as to prevent yet another appeal on the grounds of flawed procedure.
This is the twentieth tranche of emails from the correspondence between various people in Plaid Cymru and myself, following a complaint about what I had written on the subject of the Ynys Môn by-election last year. For easy reference, I've put together the all the previous correspondence on this page, which I will keep updating as further emails are published.
From: Michael Haggett Sent: Wednesday, 7 May 2014, 1:48pm To: Nerys Evans Subject: Re: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett
Dear Nerys
As yet another month has now elapsed, I think it would be appropriate to remind you that you have still not answered my questions. This continued silence makes it perfectly clear that you have no constitutional basis for renewing the previous disciplinary action against me.
As our constitution does not allow you to proceed in the way you would like, I would repeat my offer for Elin's complaint against me and my complaints against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd to be properly investigated by a person of standing from outside the party. If the party leadership is remotely interested in justice or fairness, this is the course of action you would adopt. However any competent independent investigation will of course confirm that what these four members of the party said was not true; that I was completely justified in calling them liars; and that it was they who brought the party into disrepute by attempting to mislead the public about our policy on nuclear power.
If you are not prepared to conduct a proper investigation, then the only course of action is to let all these matters drop. Please let me know what you intend to do.
Best regards
Michael
From: Nerys Evans Sent: Wednesday, 7 May 2014 6:59pm To: Michael Haggett Subject: Re: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett
Dear Michael Haggett
As you are aware the MDSP has appointed a panel to investigate the complaint made by Elin Jones.
As outlined below, in order to deal with one complaint at a time, I have asked the MDSP, and they have agreed, to ------------------------------------------------------- until the process in relation to the complaint made by Elin Jones has concluded. The complaints that you made have been investigated and concluded.
This is a mater for the MDSP panel and I would recommend you take part in the disciplinary process.
Many thanks
Nerys
From: Michael Haggett Sent: Thursday, 8 May 2014, 1:32am To: Nerys Evans Subject: Re: Complaints by Elin Jones and Michael Haggett
Dear Nerys
It is patently obvious that you can't be bothered to answer my questions, but they will not go away because you refuse to answer them. However I would offer you this advice: when you're flustered and out of your depth, don't resort to telling lies. You are only making yourself look stupid and, because you are Deputy Chair of Plaid Cymru, making us as a party look stupid.
You say that the complaints I made against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd "have been investigated and concluded". If so, who was the Investigating Officer and where is his or her report?
If you had actually read the chain of emails you would see that the MDSP chose not to investigate my complaints. They were free to make that decision, of course, but it showed them for the two-faced hypocrites they are. However I only found out about this by accident as a result of my "freedom of information" request to Rhuanedd. No-one has ever answered my repeated questions about it directly. But the clear fact is that the MDSP were guilty of breaking our rules as a party by not telling me about their decision and, more importantly, failing to tell me the reasons for their decision as they are required to do under clause 3.5 of Standing Orders. I pointed this out in my email of 3 February, and suggest you take the trouble to read it, as it is now your responsibility to deal with it.
Because of this blatant wrongdoing the party leadership would, if it wanted to be seen as having any integrity or credibility, insist that this is put right by "re-starting" disciplinary processes against them as well. That is why it should be part of the proper, independent investigation that I have requested.
-
However as the party leadership seems determined to ignore our rules and go through with "re-starting" another one-sided disciplinary procedure against me, using a new Hearing Panel who have already shown their bias by appointing a blatantly prejudiced Investigating Officer, then you must accept the consequences of that decision. I would remind you (and through you Eli, who quoted clause 9.1 in her email of 7 April, but has ignored the crucial clause it contains) of what I said in my email of 9 February:
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the disciplinary process could be re-started. There would be a second Hearing Panel, which would appoint a second Investigating Officer, who would conduct a second investigation and produce a second report. That second report would be considered by the second Hearing Panel who would decided if there was a case for me to answer and set out what that case was. There would then be a second hearing with a second verdict, which might be followed by a second appeal heard by a second set of previously uninvolved members of the MDSP.
If the second appeal was successful, the disciplinary process could then be re-started again. There would be a third Hearing Panel, which would appoint a third Investigating Officer, who would conduct a third investigation and produce a third report. That third report would be considered by the third Hearing Panel who would decided if there was a case for me to answer and set out what that case was. There would then be a third hearing with a third verdict, which might be followed by a third appeal heard by a third set of previously uninvolved members of the MDSP.
If the third appeal was successful, the disciplinary process could then be re-started again. There would be a fourth Hearing Panel, which would appoint a fourth Investigating Officer, who would ...
Apart from how ridiculous you will look if your idea of justice includes making me subject to double, triple, quadruple or unlimited jeopardy, the point is this. Clause 9.1 does not say "until after the conclusion of the final appeal". It says "until after the conclusion of any appeal". The wording is precise and unambiguous. An appeal (whether it turns out to be the only one or not) has now been concluded, therefore I am perfectly free to make any public statement I wish.
Put bluntly, the price the MDSP must now pay for making a dog's breakfast of the disciplinary process first time round is that, even if you could "re-start" the disciplinary process, you could no longer rely on what you are doing being done behind closed doors shut away from the light of scrutiny. You would not be able to get away with the previous disregard for SOs or failure to act in a fair and even-handed way, because everybody who has an interest in Welsh politics would be laughing at you as you did it.
So please don't think that I am going to ignore this new Hearing Panel. Quite the opposite. I will take part in order to expose it for the farce that it is, and that means giving the those in positions of power in this party enough rope with which to tie yourselves up in even tighter knots than you are in right now ... and eventually hang yourselves.
The only concession I will make is that I won't publish this correspondence until after the European Elections, primarily because Jill Evans does not deserve to have the uphill struggle to keep her seat made any harder. This also gives you a window of opportunity to see sense before it is too late.
-
When politicians lie to the public, their lies should be exposed and condemned. This principle applies to all politicians, irrespective of party, and I applied this principle in my post entitled Rhun ap Iorwerth is lying about Wylfa B.
The only real question to be determined in this case is whether Rhun did or did not lie, because everything else hinges on it. There is no doubt about what Rhun said: I provided a link to the recording which anyone can listen to, as well as a transcript of the exchange. There is no doubt about what Plaid Cymru's policy is: I provided a link to the motion endorsed by conference which anyone can read. Anyone who does these things will see for themselves that Rhun was not telling the truth.
Therefore there can be no possible objection to me calling Rhun a liar. Telling blatant lies is what damages the public reputation of the party. Telling the truth is something that the party should welcome, even though it might be painful or embarrassing.
So choose your side carefully, because truth always wins in the end. It is bad enough for the leadership of Plaid Cymru to close ranks in a vain attempt to cover up Rhun's dishonesty; but by choosing to take action against me for telling the truth, you have already damaged the public reputation of the party and are set to damage it even more.
This is the nineteenth tranche of emails from the correspondence between various people in Plaid Cymru and myself, following a complaint about what I had written on the subject of the Ynys Môn by-election last year. For easy reference, I've put together the all the previous correspondence on this page, which I will keep updating as further emails are published.
-
As I noted a few days ago when I published the previous tranche, Nerys Evans was stubbornly refusing to answer any of the questions I had put to her, in just the same way as Chris Franks, Dafydd Trystan, Leanne Wood and Alun Cox had each done before her. Throughout this matter, the openness, transparency and accountability that any member has a right to expect from Plaid Cymru's leadership have been thrown out of the window.
Even though there are no constitutional grounds for "re-starting" disciplinary proceedings against me, I had said I would be willing for there to be a proper, independent investigation to get to the truth of the matter provided that it was conducted by a person of standing from outside the party, but they refused to do this. This shows that the leadership of Plaid are no more interested in truth now than they were when they rode roughshod over the rules in order to try and stitch me up first time round. The only way they can control the outcome is by choosing people who they can rely on to made the decision they want.
I don't think I've ever met Eli Jones, Sian Powell or Peter Fenner (the three new members co-opted onto the Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel) before; but my suspicions about why they had been appointed were confirmed by their choice of Ian Titherington as "investigating officer".
They could hardly have chosen a less suitable person. For not only is he a Plaid insider, but he has already made his views on the matter perfectly clear. This is what he wrote in a comment on one of my posts last August:
Ian Titherington said ...
MH. To claim that your attacks on Rhun have not been personal but are just based on policy differences, is frankly a joke. It has clearly been personal from as soon as he was considered.
As for your attack on the NEC, you once again are completely out of line. The NEC has the clear right to allow an individual who has been a member for less than 12 months to stand. This was included specifically for individuals who could not stand due to their politically restricted jobs. This rule is not treated lightly, but is there to enable individuals to stand for Plaid from such roles as journalists. Do you really expect people to resign, live on nothing for 12 months then put their names forward? Get real.
You have every right to raise the nuclear issue, but your very personal attacks on Rhun have gone well beyond this. Whatever your personal grudge, it clearly runs deep.
Ian is of course free to hold any opinion he wishes, but it is absolutely impossible for someone who holds such views to even pretend to act as an impartial, even-handed "investigation officer". Ian clearly pre-judged the issue, and in any reputable organization such prejudice would automatically disqualify him from such a role.
So why was he, of all people, chosen? There is only one explanation: that the three new appointees wanted the matter to be investigated by someone who would could be relied on to go through the motions of asking a few standard questions, while carefully steering clear of the issues the Plaid Cymru leadership are so anxious to sweep under the carpet.
-
And why did I bother to answer him? Because I have always said that I am prepared to answer questions about what I write on Syniadau from anyone at any time. As I extend that courtesy even to people who make anonymous comments on this blog, I certainly won't shy away from answering questions from people who give their names. Besides that, I could hardly criticize Chris, Rhun, Dafydd, Leanne, Alun and Nerys for refusing to answer the questions I put to them if I refused to answer the questions put to me.
The two emails below are, as things currently stand, the sum total of the correspondence between us.
From: Ian Titherington Sent: Thursday, 24 April 2014, 5:00pm To: Michael Haggett Subject: Investigation into Elin Jones’ complaint
I am writing to you having been appointed investigating officer by the Hearing Panel of Plaid Cymru’s Membership, Disciplinary and Standards Panel. Please find below the documentation relating to this complaint, together with a covering letter. You will have received a hard copy of this documentation in the post.
From: Michael Haggett Sent: Monday, 28 April 2014, 11:50am To: Ian Titherington Subject: Investigation into Elin Jones’ complaint
Dear Ian
Thank you for your email. I have not received a paper copy of what you sent, but it is better to handle things by email anyway. Why kill trees and waste money on postage?
As I'm sure you will know (and if not, you can read all the details here) the matter of Elin's complaint against me has already been dealt with and, despite several requests, no-one within Plaid Cymru has been able to show any constitutional grounds for "re-starting" the process against me. For this reason your appointment as "investigating officer" is meaningless.
Indeed it would be difficult to imagine anyone less suited than you for such a role, not only because you are a member of the party, but because your previous comment on Syniadau clearly shows that you have prejudged the issue. I have no doubt that this is exactly why you were chosen.
A credible investigation would need to be conducted by an impartial person of standing from outside the party, and include my complaints against Rhun, Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd. But truth is clearly something that terrifies those in positions of power within Plaid Cymru ... which is, of course, why they refuse to do hold one.
-
However I have always said that I will answer any questions that anyone wishes to raise about what I write on Syniadau at any time. So on that basis I am happy to answer yours.
1. Are you responsible for all blog posts which appeared on the Syniadau blog during June and July 2013? If your answer is ‘no’, please could you state who was responsible for these posts.
I am responsible for all posts and comments on Syniadau under the initials MH.
2. If your answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, what is your response to the allegation that you brought the party into disrepute through your comments?
Assuming that by "comments" you mean both the posts and the comments, you would first need to identify what particular statements you are referring to. I wrote 28 posts in June and July 2013 (as well as some in August, which for some reason you haven't asked about) and made many comments in the discussion threads of those posts.
In general terms it is very hard to see how anything I wrote could have "brought the party into disrepute". However I would say that by telling a blatant lie about our policy on nuclear power, Rhun ap Iorwerth misled the public about our policy and damaged the public reputation of the party when he did so. It is a matter of shame for Plaid Cymru that neither Rhun himself nor anyone in the leadership of Plaid has made any effort to correct the lie he told. Because of this, any reputation we might once have had as a party of honesty is in tatters.
3. Do you accept that the blog posts were damaging or potentially damaging to the public reputation of the party?
Of course they weren't. With regard to Rhun's dishonesty, what I wrote was intended to correct the lie he told and and therefore restore the public reputation of the party which he had damaged. That was also my motivation when I criticized Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd for telling similar lies about our nuclear policy.
4. If you were responsible for these blog posts, did you raise the concerns which you published online within the party beforehand? (If you did so please outline the steps you took.)
You will need to be specific about "the concerns" you are referring to. However I am rather amused by the suggestion that what I write on Syniadau needs to be raised "within the party" beforehand. From what you say, it seems that people in positions of power in the party have embarked on a crusade of control freakery ... which only goes to show how far the rottenness at the top of the party has set in, and why things need to be put right.
5. Do you have any further points you would like to make as part of this investigation?
As I said before, there is no constitutional basis for the "investigation" you are purporting to conduct. However, if you want to know my views about what has happened, I suggest you start by reading How Plaid Cymru Works. I will be happy to answer any further questions that you or anyone else cares to ask.
-
Of course a proper investigation would not only ask questions of me, but ask questions of other parties. I would be interested to know what questions you have asked Rhun. Among the questions that should be asked are:
• Does he now accept that what he said about Plaid's nuclear policy is untrue and, if so, what efforts has he made to correct it?
• From where did he get the idea that Plaid has a policy of building new nuclear power stations on existing nuclear sites (this would almost certainly implicate Elfyn, Bob and Dafydd, who had all told essentially the same lie before he did; therefore they would need to be asked the same question)?
• What in fact are his views on nuclear power, and how does he reconcile the fact that what he said in public is the complete opposite of what he said at the previous investigation (see here)?
Similarly, I would expect a proper investigation to ask Elin about her allegations. Among the questions that should be asked are:
• Does she still dispute the fact that Rhun was dishonest, and that we do not need dishonest politicians in Plaid Cymru?
• Does she now accept that Rhun mislead the public about our position on nuclear power by telling a blatant lie?
• Does she accept that it is in fact a tragedy for Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn and Wales to now be lumbered with a politician who resorts to telling lies ... for he has now shown that he was not only lying about Plaid's policy on nuclear power, but also lied about his previous membership of the party (see here), and has in fact told two completely different versions about his own views on nuclear power, being for it on public, but against it in private (see here). This two-faced behaviour would strongly suggest that he misled people within the party in order to be selected.
• Does she accept that it is two-faced and hypocritical of her to point out in public that Dafydd was not telling the truth about Plaid's policy on nuclear power when she wanted to be elected as party leader, but thinks it acceptable for to try and get me thrown out of the party for pointing out that Rhun was telling essentially the same lie?
• If, in the light of these questions, she still stands by her allegations, what evidence can she produce to refute the accuracy of what I said?
Will you please inform me of the answers you receive to these questions (and any others you ask) because follow up questions might well be appropriate, depending on the answers given.
-
It is clear to me that those in positions of power in Plaid Cymru are, having made such fools of themselves first time round, now just going through the motions in order to try to reach the same pre-determined conclusion. If they want to continue to demonstrate just how rotten the leadership in Plaid Cymru has become, I won't stop them. It will only make ordinary members more determined to put things right by replacing them with people who aren't afraid of the truth.
Best regards
Michael Haggett
Ian did not respond to my e-mail, and I'm not surprised by that. This is because there is a fundamental flaw in what the leadership of Plaid Cymru is trying to do. They keep wanting to pursue disciplinary action against me for exposing Rhun as a liar while, at the same time, deliberately turning a blind eye to the fact that Rhun lied. It is Rhun who brought the party into disrepute by resorting to lies in order to mislead the public about our nuclear policy ... just as Elfyn Llwyd, Bob Parry and Dafydd Elis-Thomas had done before him. I was therefore perfectly justified in exposing these lies.
The questions that I listed are simply too awkward and embarrassing for them to answer.
This blog has been set up to complement the Syniadau Forums.
Much of what will appear on this blog will also appear in the Syniadau Forums, but the emphasis on this blog is slightly different. The forums are focused more on the structures and institutions that Wales will need to develop in order to become a successful independent nation, arranged on a subject by subject basis, but the blog will have more of an emphasis on day to day political news and developments.
People are welcome to reply or leave comments either here or on the Syniadau Forums. If anyone wants to initiate a new subject they are very welcome to do so there.
