Welsh government should sell Cathays Park complex, insider says
Before Covid struck, around 2,500 people worked at Cathays Park every day.However, since the pandemic most have continued to work from home.The most recent attendance figures, for March, show that on average the number of people attending the Cathays Park office each day was 576 (19%).The highest daily attendance was 799 (26%).Speaking to BBC-produced Newyddion S4C, Des Clifford said the days of staff working in the office five days a week were over and the time had come to sell Cathays Park."It's an ugly and unfriendly building," he said."I would close it down and perhaps sell it to the university or somebody else and set up a new office in the Bay so that the government and the Senedd are side by side."This would provide "a greater opportunity for mixing between civil servants and government and the Senedd, which might, in certain ways, create a certain kind of coherence," he added.
What is Cathays Park used for?
The Cathays Park complex consists of two buildings joined by a bridge.The older building, dating from the 1930s and Grade II listed, originally housed the UK government's Welsh Board of Health.After the position of secretary of state for Wales was created in the 1960s, it became home to the Welsh Office.The newer building, completed in 1979, provided additional office space for a Welsh Office that had acquired an increasing range of responsibilities.The two-building complex became the home of Wales' fledgling devolved government 20 years later, in 1999.
'Awkward questions'
The Welsh government has a total of 20 sites across Wales including 15 so-called "core offices".The costs of running these offices in 2023-24 was £24.5m.Across the Welsh government's estate in March the average daily attendance was 16%.Asked what should happen to those offices, Mr Clifford said there were "all sorts of awkward questions that arise if you have an office in Llandudno Junction and you have another one in Caernarfon"."Are the two justifiable in the circumstances that we're describing when you've got two buildings 30 miles (48km) apart?"The same set of questions arise between Penllergaer in Swansea and Carmarthen, which I think again, is about 30 miles distance between the two."The Welsh government expects its staff to spend 40% of the week - the equivalent of two days - in the office.Last week First Minister Eluned Morgan told the Senedd: "Clearly, there will come a point where you have to say 'if you don't turn up, we cannot justify keeping this particular office open'."A review of the government's Powys offices - in Llandrindod Wells and Newtown - is already underway.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
11 hours ago
- Spectator
The leaked email that blows apart the BBC's impartiality claims over Gaza
A leaked internal email from a BBC executive editor reveals that the Corporation has issued prescriptive instructions to staff on how to cover the humanitarian situation in Gaza. The memo, titled 'Covering the food crisis in Gaza', amounts to a top-down editorial diktat that discards impartiality, elevates one side of a deeply contested narrative, and imposes a specific anti-Israel legal-political framing as settled fact. The existence of this email is a telling sign of how the Corporation works to ensure its journalists stick to its own ideological angles. The email, which was sent to BBC staff on Friday, begins by declaring that 'the argument over how much aid has crossed into Gaza is irrelevant' and instructs staff that 'we should say' the current distribution system 'doesn't work'. It explicitly favours a particular explanation of suffering in Gaza: one that blames the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a relatively new aid body established with US and Israeli cooperation, while glossing over the role of Hamas, the rulers of Gaza and a proscribed terrorist organisation under British law. But the quantity of aid entering Gaza is not irrelevant. If Hamas is hijacking, obstructing, or reselling aid, as Israeli and independent reports suggest, and as documented footage and testimony have supported, then the location, handling, and efficacy of aid delivery become vital indicators of where the problem lies. Blaming Israel alone for the humanitarian breakdown while exonerating or ignoring Hamas is not responsible or fair journalism, especially as Israel argues it is going to extreme lengths to try to mitigate the jihadi terrorists' efforts to persecute and deprive Gazan citizens. The BBC's memo labels the GHF system a failure and instructs staff to say so. Yet the evidence is far from conclusive. Hunger and deprivation levels in Gaza remain unclear, with wildly varying estimates depending on source and political posture. The BBC – which declined to comment on the email – appears content to accept casualty figures and starvation claims from Hamas-linked bodies or sympathetic NGOs as definitive, while dismissing or omitting Israeli data and counterclaims. The email directs staff to reference 'mounting evidence' of starvation and deaths around aid centres, yet makes no mention of Hamas operatives looting convoys, obstructing access, or even firing on civilians attempting to collect food – allegations which have been made publicly by Israel and backed at times by video and eyewitness testimony. Even the photographic evidence used by some UK newspapers has been limited and uncertain: photos clearly taken in the same photo shoot, by one photographer linked to a far from impartial Turkish photo agency, show an emaciated child, but tragic as that is, one child does not indicate a famine. Indeed, it has been speculated by some that the child in question demonstrates visual signs of other pre-existing health conditions which would potentially cause wasting and malnutrition, a possibility backed up by the presence of other healthy and well-fed children appearing alongside him in the same photo set, apparently living in the same family home. Nor is the GHF model simply an improvised, amateur system as the memo suggests. On the contrary, it is a tightly managed, military-grade distribution network designed to ensure aid reaches civilians directly and safely. Operated by vetted personnel with logistical oversight, GPS tracking, and on-the-ground medical and security staff, the GHF has reported a zero aid diversion rate. By contrast, the UN system the BBC nostalgically defends saw multiple convoys looted at gunpoint, with documented losses reaching 90 per cent in some cases. It is therefore tendentious to assert that the older model 'did work' when, in fact, the BBC itself breathlessly reported widespread hunger under that very system well before the GHF system was in place: on 10 February 2024, for example, the BBC's Lucy Williamson reported that in northern Gaza, 'children are going without food for days' and that some residents had resorted to 'grinding animal feed into flour to survive.' Most egregious is the email's declaration that it is 'indisputable' that Israel is the occupying power in Gaza and therefore legally responsible for preventing hunger. This claim is presented without qualification, despite the fact that the status of Gaza under international law is disputed. Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005, removing all settlers and military presence. It argues, with some legal backing, that it does not meet the criteria of occupation, since it neither governs Gaza nor maintains a permanent presence. Even under post-October 7 operations, Israel maintains that its actions constitute temporary military engagement, not sovereign control. International legal opinion may be divided on this. The BBC's own editorial guidelines insist that politically contested labels such as 'occupation' should be attributed and contextualised, not asserted. That rule has been disregarded. The internal memo presumes a singular legal reality, eliding complexity in favour of moral indictment. The BBC memo mirrors the line taken by BBC presenters, including Nick Robinson, who recently interviewed the Israeli government spokesman David Mencer. It sounded like institutional ventriloquism, from the body which insists it won't call Hamas terrorists, but has no room for debate over whether Gaza is 'occupied'. In asserting the infallibility of its chosen narrative, the BBC omits basic journalistic standards: to interrogate all sides, to distinguish between fact and allegation, and to treat political and legal claims with appropriate scrutiny. Instead, it has opted to police language internally, enforce ideological conformity, and condemn without due diligence. When the Corporation insists that only one party bears responsibility, and instructs its reporters accordingly, it is no longer informing the public. It is persuading them. Why is it our national broadcaster seems so desperate to attack the one non-Israeli body which is doing the most to undermine the Hamas stranglehold over Gaza and its people? The closer the GHF and Israeli army get to finally defeating the terrorists, the more shrill the BBC's insistence that the Jewish state is deliberately starving children. They have trouble believing a self-declared Islamic jihadist dictatorship might have designed this level of suffering and torture, but none in believing the Jewish democratic state did so. The BBC is publicly funded and legally obligated to remain impartial. This latest leaked email suggests it is failing in that duty. As ever, there is virtually no chance the organisation will admit, redress or be penalised for this failing. They never are.
Spectator
12 hours ago
- Spectator
What Trump gets right about Britain's windfarms
Donald Trump is often treated in Britain as a know-nothing who speaks off the top of his head on subjects he does not understand. No one is keener to try to make this point than the BBC. Yet not for the first time, it turns out that he is bit more on the ball than some of his critics. After his game of golf at his Turnberry course in Ayrshire, western Scotland on Sunday, the president retorted: 'It's probably the best course in the world. And I look over the horizon and I see nine windmills at the end of the 18th. I said: 'Isn't that a shame?''. It was enough to provoke the BBC into providing what it saw as an explainer. Scottish environmental correspondent Kevin Keane was especially excited by Trump's comment suggesting that Britain 'get rid of the windmills and bring back the oil'. Protesting, somewhat pedantically, that there are no 'windmills' in the sea off Britain, just wind turbines which generate electricity rather than mill corn, Keane went on to assert that it isn't possible to 'bring back the oil' because North Sea oil in running out and will decline even were it not for the UK government's refusal to issue licenses for oil and gas extraction there. There are, in fact, several oil and gas companies which are very keen to invest in new exploration – but the government has made their lives near impossible. Not only has the search for new oil and gas fields there been effectively banned, but companies exploiting established fields are subject to a 'windfall' tax which increases the effective levies on their operations to nearly 80 per cent. The extra tax was introduced by the previous government in 2022 when there really were windfalls being made owing to high global prices following the end of the Covid pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Yet the tax has lived on in spite of prices falling back a long way. The BBC also ignores the potential for shale gas in Britain – a putative industry which has since been banned by the present and the previous governments. Various estimates have put the amount of shale gas available beneath Britain to be equivalent to between 10 and 50 years' current usage. That certainly could be a growing industry – if only it were allowed. Britain's energy sector, asserts the BBC, 'needs wind…to replace the jobs which are already being lost in oil and gas'. That overlooks two problems with the UK's wind industry. Firstly, it has been pretty feeble at creating jobs. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) the UK has 0.3 per cent of global jobs in renewable energy – yet it has one per cent of the Earth's population and has set itself tougher 'net zero' targets than all but a handful of other countries. Why hasn't it landed more jobs? One important factor is that Britain has the highest industrial energy prices in the world – thanks in large part to net zero targets, carbon levies and so on. It is just so much cheaper to produce wind turbines – and other manufactured goods – in China, where 60 percent of electricity generation still comes from cheap coal. Secondly, Britain does not have the grid infrastructure to support the large number of turbines which have been built in and around Scotland in recent years. On windy days, turbines there often have to be switched off because the transmission wires cannot cope. When this happens, owners of wind farms receive generous compensation in the form of what are known as 'constraint payments' – which cost energy consumers £1.5 billion last year. The wind farms which Trump feels are spoiling the view from his Scottish golf courses are not just unsightly – they are costing UK consumers a fortune and struggling to keep the lights on.
Daily Record
13 hours ago
- Daily Record
Donald Trump promises to 'look' at whisky tariffs for Scotland after calls for better deal
The President made the commitment at the Turnberry golf course he owns, flanked by Prime Minister Keir Starmer. President Trump has promised a review of tariffs on whisky ahead of a meeting with Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Trump said he would 'look' at the 10% import levies as he said he wanted to make Starmer 'happy'. He made the comments on the steps of the Tunberry golf course he owns, with the PM and his wife standing next to him. The President is on the third day of a five day trip to Scotland. Trump has slapped a 10% tariff on UK exports into the US and whisky producers say the policy is hitting them hard. Asked by a reporter if there is a better deal to be had on whisky, Trump replied: 'Whisky? Well we'll talk about that. I didn't know whisky was a problem. I'm not a big whisky drinker.' He added: 'Well, we're going to take a look at it.' Trump and Starmer will travel to Aberdeenshire where the President will visit his second golf club. He will have dinner with John Swinney this evening and the First Minister is expected to push him on whisky tariffs. The First Minister told the BBC tariffs are currently costing the local whisky industry £4 million a week. 'Tariffs are very important for the Scottish economy and obviously scotch whisky is a unique product,' said. 'It can only be produced in Scotland. It's not a product that can be produced in any other part of the world. So there's a uniqueness about that, which I think means there is a case for it to be taken out of the tariffs arrangement that is now in place. 'Obviously the trade deal with the United States provides a degree of stability for economic connections with the United States, but the application of tariffs is increasing the costs for the Scotch whisky industry. 'So one of my objectives will be to make the case to President Trump that Scotch whisky should be exempted from those tariffs.'
