31/01/2016 Sunday Politics Wales

Morning folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

George Osborne called it a "major success".

Google say they're paying what's due.

But Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell's not impressed -

we'll ask him how he'd get big business to pay more tax.

David Cameron says he wants an emergency brake on access

to welfare benefits for EU migrants to be applied immediately

But will that be enough for the PM to clinch a deal and head

And will it be best for business if we stay in or we get out?

Later in the programme, as the debate over the UK's

relationship with the EU intensifies, what's best or Wales?

The Secretary of State gives us his view.

And taking time out from their protracted negotiations

with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs over how much tax

they should pay on their enormous fees - the best and the brightest

political panel in the business - Nick Watt, Polly Toynbee

and Janan Ganesh who'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

First this morning, George Osborne hailed Google's back tax bill

Since then the settlement's been condemned as too lenient by -

among others - Boris Johnson, The Sun, Rupert Murdoch

and the Labour Party, which has accused the Chancellor

of offering the internet giant "mates' rates".

In a moment, I'll be talking to Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell.

First here's Google executive, Peter Barron, defending the company

on the Andrew Marr Show this morning.

What I would say is that in the UK we pay corporation tax at 20%.

It's absolutely the same corporation tax rate as everybody else,

Yes, but you keep coming back to this point about sales.

We are taxed as corporation tax dictates on the activities,

the economic activities of Google UK.

So, we pay corporation tax in the UK at 20%,

and, actually, globally, our effective tax rate over the last

five years or so is round about 20%, which is very close to the UK rate,

And I'm joined now by the Shadow Chancellor,

Welcome. What single step would you take to make sure that companies

like Google, Apple, Amazon, pay a fair and appropriate level of tax?

Openness and transparency. I want the information about how this deal

has been arrived at and I want them to publish in the future there tax

records. So that we can have openness and transparency, see what

is fair. The Chancellor said this was a major success. But we cannot

tell because we have not got the information. Would you extend that

to British major companies publishing their tax? Six out of ten

of the UK's biggest companies are not paying any corporation tax. Yes,

I would. The suggestion has been put forward about the FTSE 100. That is

a good idea. There would be no commercial disadvantage. Do you

think that transparency would be a major step forward? It is one step

forward. We want country by country reporting as well. I supported

George Osborne on as negotiations in Europe with that. We're not going to

get enough. I found quite angry making this morning that we have

allegation -- allegations that their Conservatives were voting their MEPs

to vote against this. I find that frustrating. I want HMRC to be

properly resourced so they can do the job. There are too many job

cuts. We have lost too much expertise. There is time now to

start thinking about how we review our tax system. The Treasury select

committee has undertaken a review. Corporation tax is levied on

profits. Even if you got your transparency, you would quickly find

that the concept of profits that can be moved around geographically, they

can be manipulated depending on costs, would you consider replacing

corporation tax with, for example, a tax on corporate sales? Revenues are

less malleable than profits. That is one of the issues to be addressed.

Nigel Lawson has done an article to that effect. One of the most

important things is to secure international agreement. We cannot

have the situation where companies are shopping around the world to

find the lowest tax regime and inventing company structures to

enable that to happen. But if you had a tax on the revenues, it would

not happen what they moved around. Revenues are revenues. You would

levy a tax on the revenues in the UK. That is why it is worth looking

at. It might be a combination of that and economic activity as well.

One professor said if you raise corporate taxes too high, companies

may move to island macro or elsewhere. Do you accept there has

to be a limit? There has to be a limit, there has to be some

reasonableness. If we can get international cooperation, you can

avoid this development of virtual tax havens taking place. Would you

want a common rate of corporation tax? Not necessarily. You would like

to make sure that what you charge is reasonable and fair and you would

expect those companies to abide by that. I listened to the Google

representative this morning. The reputational damage to Google is

immense. The savings they have made in taxes not worth the reputational

damage. Let's move on to the other big issue, Europe. And membership.

How did you vote in the 1975 referendum? Against. In the 1983

Labour manifesto it claimed that a commitment to radical socialist

policies was incompatible with membership of the European Union. It

proposed withdrawal. Did you agree with that at the time? I did at the

time. That is long gone. We're within Europe. We are working within

Europe with other parties to see how we can make Europe fair,

particularly with regard to the rights of workers. Take this tax

issue. We need to be in Europe to ensure we can secure fair agreement

on tax. That is why, by remaining within, we have got to remain within

with their own reform agenda, that is one of the issues we need to

reform. To take that phrase radical socialist policies, you are

committed to radical socialist policies. How is that now compatible

with remaining in the EU when it was not in 1983? Because we have

demonstrated with the work we have undertaken within the EU that we

have secured some benefits. Employment rights. In addition,

there are real opportunities now where we can work with others to

secure that radical change. Withdrawal from Europe at the moment

would not be beneficial. It would lose jobs. It would undermine the

benefits we have gained in terms of employment. That is why we want to

work to reform it. The issue that I have got with the Prime Minister, we

will see what he comes back with... On the social Europe issue, you want

a more social Europe. In France you have got a socialist government that

has moved to the right. In Germany, a centre-right government. Other

countries have either the hard right in power or the hard right at the

top of the polls. Where is your social Europe in that? That is why

we will work with socialist and social Democrats. I think you will

see in the coming years that a wider debate is taking place. In some way

the referendum debate will enable us to then look at those ideas.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that like Jeremy Corbyn, you are pretty

lukewarm about our membership of the European Union? I signed up to

remain within the EU. That does not mean to say that we accepted as a

perfect institution. We want to see reform. I come back to the tax

issue. Unless we get international cooperation, particularly across

Europe, we will not solve this problem. You have got a Eurosceptic

track record. Kate Hoey, a leader -- leading Labour Eurosceptic, she said

that you and Jeremy Corbyn consistently voted with Eurosceptic

MPs on the EU. That is true, isn't it? On a number of issues, because

we were frustrated with the slow pace of reform. That does not mean

we are in favour of coming out. It is better to argue from within to

secure a commonality of agreement. Do you broadly support the changes

that David Cameron is trying to renegotiate? I don't know what they

are yet. Let's see what he comes back with. My fear is if he does not

treat this issue seriously and it is just about party management, he

could blow it. We could be outside of Europe and have the economic

penalties as a result. Even if he comes back with something you do not

regard as satisfactory, you will campaign to stay in? We will

campaign for our own agenda. The government wants to get this done by

the end of June. Will you cooperate with that timetable? We will see

what he comes back with. Let's have it as soon as possible. We want the

debate to take place. Delaying it would not help. We want the debate

to start now. It would be better for him to come back fairly soon. Get

the debate going. Even if the campaign overlaps with important

elections in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, Wales? That is the

problem but it will overlap with something. Immigration is good to be

a huge issue. The IMF says that almost 4 million immigrants will

arrive in the EU between 2015 and 2017. Almost 4 million. Should

Britain take a fair share of that? I think is important we cooperate with

our European partners to make that we can accommodate those that need

to come to this country. In addition, that we have systems in

place that protect wages, so that immigration is not used to undermine

wages. But should we take a fair share of the 4 million? I think we

should. We should cooperate with others and carry the burden. The

majority of Britons want us to rise to it and ensure we assist others

and that others are not suffering, and that we do not stand on one side

when people suffer. Could you give an indication of how many? Young not

at this stage. That would be a matter to negotiate with our

European partners. Should we volunteered to be part of the EU

quotas system? Mrs Merkel and others want 160,000 to be relocated through

Schengen. Should we be part of Schengen? Should we be part of the

160,000? We should be doing more in terms of assisting refugees coming

from Syria. We should be doing more to help those in desperate need.

People are drowning in the Mediterranean. We cannot stand

aside. This country has a history of receiving refugees. People watching

this would want some sort of idea of numbers because numbers are

important. It is important. That is why we need to get into these

negotiations quickly and come back with practical proposals. In 2013

you told a gathering of the people's assembly at a rally on immigration

that they should be open borders? I was arguing then... There was

re-search looking at the long-term structure of the globe. Inevitably

in this century we will have open borders. The movement of peoples

across the globe will mean that borders will almost become

irrelevant by the end of the century. We should be preparing for

that and explaining why people move. Conflicts, poverty and destitution,

and also climate change. In our policy-making we should be working

now to see how we address that. It will mean that we need to look at

how we resolve conflicts, how we make the world more equal and also

how we tackle climate change. In that way we can deal with the

reality of the world, which means that people are not forced to move

but there will be movement. Total open borders? At the end of this

century that is what will occur. People are ignoring borders already

as they fly from Syria. We should be making sure that if there is no

forced movement, we look at the push and pull factors. Conflict

prevention, the tackling of inequality and policies that tackle

climate change. In that way we can cope with the global pressures with

regard to population movement. To do that, for a Labour government to

prepare for that, would be loosening controls as you move towards that?

No. What I am saying is if you look at the analysis of what is happening

over the next 75 years, the movement of people is such that borders are

very difficult to maintain. That will happen by the end of the

century. We should be opening up the debate of how we handle that. One of

the issues we have to tackle is why people are moving. It is about

conflict and climate change. It is about poverty as well. That means

greater equality not just in our country but across the globe. I

wanted to talk to you about Google and the EU. I hope you will come

back and give me an interview on economic policy. Let me finish with

a taster? Back to Professor Blanchflower, he said about you and

Mr Corbyn that you have to accept the realities of capitalism and

modern markets, like it or not. No more silly stuff about companies not

being able to pay dividends if they do not do X or Y. Do you accept

that? That is why I appointed him as an advisor. I wanted objective

advice. I have established the architecture for the future

development of economic policy. Are you going to accept his advice

on that? We will listen to his advice and take it on board. But we

will also listen to other advisers. But those advisers, what's the point

of them if you will not listen? We will test every policy we put

forward. On that one, we are hoping that we would avoid any need for

that by introducing as we come into covenant a real living wage. In the

meantime, we want to campaign with shareholders so they pressurise

their companies to abide by a real living wage. I think there is an

alliance to be built there. Is it party policy that if companies don't

pay what you regard as a living wage, until it's made mandatory,

that they shouldn't be allowed to pay dividends? it's one of ideas we

have floated for discussion. We have put it to the economic advisers to

get their view. Angela Eagle said it's unworkable. That's why it's

open for discussion. It's a really good campaigning tool for us to work

with shareholders to make sure they exert their influence to ensure

their companies, on things like the living wage and paying their taxes

as well, to make sure their companies are acting appropriately.

John McDonnell, I hope you come back to continue the debate with us. I

certainly well. So, David Cameron once dismissed

the idea of an emergency This morning, Downing Street

is indicating that a brake on welfare benefits for EU

migrants might be acceptable if it was applied immediately,

but only as a stop-gap measure. This evening, the Prime Minister

meets EU Council President Donald Tusk as he tries to broker a deal

ahead of a crunch summit of European leaders next month -

but will the fractious leave campaigns be in any position to take

advantage if he's seen to fail? Right now the future of Britain

inside or outside the European Union You might think it started here

in Brussels, or that the media's massed ranks are awaiting

the outcome in the European Parliament in Strasbourg,

or that we are hovering with baited breath for a decision

in our own Parliament, but no. This week the decision was made

in Havering, in Essex. In this chamber right now,

Havering councillors are debating If they do, of course nothing

will change, because the smart among you know, no council,

not even the British Parliament, Nevertheless Havering Council

deliberately didn't deliberate on the leisure centre

or meals on wheels. However the Prime Minister meanwhile

was hurrying for a deal on wheels - not with councillors,

but with 27 EU member states. It's his plan to block in-work

benefits for EU migrants for four years that's getting

the bumpiest ride. The EU counter proposal

of an an "emergency brake" on access to benefits - if a country can prove

it's welfare system's under strain - has not gone down well

with Eurosceptics back home. They are saying we are

allowed to go to Brussels, and ask their permission

to change the benefit rules, David Cameron still wants that

benefit ban, and knows accepting the emergency brake as is would only

accelerate any campaign to leave. We want to end the idea

of something for nothing. It's not good enough,

it needs more work, I believe we've got to put

country before party, country before personality, vote

for freedom, and vote for leave. In Havering they aren't waiting

for a date or a settlement. The Prime Minster knows Brexit

supporters are eyeing his own Cabinet to see who might be tempted

do the same. Michael Gove might come

out for leave. Boris Johnson, though

it's rather doubtful, might just possibly come out

for leave, to vote for leave. Theresa May, who almost

certainly is preoccupied And finally, Sajid Javid,

the Business Secretary, who has the most

Eurosceptic record of all. But it's very difficult,

when you are a government minister, and you've got real feelings

of loyalty to your party and your Prime Minister,

to depart from the line. And a lot of pressure,

moral pressure, if you like, A Havering Borough MP thinks that

kind of pressure is wrong. I think that this is a decision

that we all have to make And it shouldn't impede

on people's political careers. People should be able

to make up their own minds, and not worry about whether they are

going to be sidelined or punished Those who do out themselves for out,

will need campaign wizards who can Which, of two battling groups,

that is yet undecided, but so far both have seen a bad

spell of personality clashes and darkening moods way over

the heads of most grassroots The chance of winning over

undeclared MPs is the magic What we did discover,

it's like the dementors slowly sucking the people up out

of the air, body I do think that there will be

a coming together now, probably for very good reasons,

there have been divisions But I think this campaign will not

be just politicians. It's about the people

versus the elite in many ways. In fact, you have a referendum

really in many ways when politicians Meanwhile back in Havering...

is they want to do. party motion is therefore

carried by 30 votes to 15. So, councillors in Havering have

voted for a motion that says Now, there are plenty of councillors

who said they don't have any business debating this,

they have far more important things But what it might show

is that for some people - and in this case,

an official elected body - never mind what the date is,

and never mind the renegotiation, they would like to make

clear their views right now. I'm joined now by the Conservative

MP, Steve Baker, co-chairman of Conservatives for Britain

and a director of the Vote Leave If the Prime Minister can get an

agreement that there will be a break in welfare payments for migrants the

day after the referendum, isn't that a powerful thing to take to the

country? It's not powerful at all. Bernard Jenkin is the Conservative

director of Vote Leave, but we have been told by the OBR that it

wouldn't make much difference even if the Prime Minister got this

break. They would only take one case brought forward by activist lawyers,

and we would expect the European Court of Justice to strike down such

a measure. We think it's a red herring, and as John Redwood said, a

bad joke. They have ended up trying to manufacture the appearance of

success out of very little. As things stand at the moment, there's

nothing the Prime Minister would bring back that would make you want

to stay in? I've been clear through the whole period that most of us

want to end the supremacy of the EU in the UK. Make our own laws in

Parliament. The prime ministers had something similar about the European

Court of Human Rights. Demanding an opt out from the charter is subbing

the Prime Minister has had to give up. So money inconsistencies. The

answer is no. I expect a good number of colleagues to join me and

campaign to leave at this stage. How many Tory MPs will campaign for out?

Of the 150 on the list who have expressed interest, and about a

fifth have made up their minds, I think about 50-70. No more than 50

or 70 Tory MPs campaigning on your side of the referendum to leave?

That would be my expectation at this stage. John McDonnell said he wanted

to get this out of the wear it, the referendum. Didn't sound to me like

Labour would join with the SNP on delaying tactics for the referendum.

Would you like the referendum to be later? Realistically we are

campaigning out to leave the EU and we have secured our objectives for

the campaign. But there is a good case to be made that a June date

would trust us. There are elections in neigh, and I think there's a good

case for a delay until September. I would prefer the government brought

forward a measure that went through the Commons without a row, but if

Labour and the SNP and conservative colleagues wish to put something

through, then we will be able to what's the biggest beach from the --

beast on the cabinet you would like to get? I haven't ruled anybody out.

But I'm happy to go into the campaign without any Cabinet big

beasts. It would be surprised this point if Chris Grayling didn't join

us. He would count as a big beast, leader of the house. People know

which Cabinet members are discussed. Theresa May? She made a speech on

immigration which would be difficult to recalibrate with the EU. It's a

matter for her. You've given up on Bryce Johnson? He occasionally

flirts with it in the press. But he's a typical conservative, he

loves Europe, he would like Europe to be different, but we'll see what

he does when the comes. The different leave campaigns, it's

flawed with blood, when will you stop knocking lumps out of each

other? I'm not knocking lumps out of anybody and I regret this week that

we've had distractions from the core aim of leaving the EU and I regret

they have got their way to the press. Everybody involved needs to

reach a resolution, everybody involved wants to move on and I hope

we do so quickly, let's fight a winning campaign. You are not the

director of Vote Leave but you are on the Parliamentary planning

committee for Vote Leave, so you are associated. Did you agree with the

attempts to get rid of the two full-time people running it, Dominic

Cummings and Matthew Elliott? This is a matter for the board. Do you

agree with whether they should have gone? At this stage it's very late

in the day to make such a profound change. But given the severe

concerns of my colleagues, it is clear there will have to be material

changes in Vote Leave in order to carry parliamentarians with the

campaign. What this material change mean? There has to be a greater

degree of involvement with planetary and so they think they are shaping

the campaign to win over those voters we need. Will there be a

merger in the end? Surely that's what all of you need, you are up

against the government, is huge machine, don't you need to be

united? It's a David and Goliath battle and we need to be united. The

process of unity will come through designation. Realistically, leave.

EU is looking at the Courville, where as Vote Leave knows we need

the swing vote. -- looking at the core vote. I'm confident that Vote

Leave can and will win the referendum. I wouldn't give away the

mop in case there is more blood to wipe up.

One of David Cameron's four key demands in his EU

renegotiation concerns competitiveness.

The Prime Minister says the burden of regulation on businesses is too

high, and that the EU needs to strengthen the single market

and accelerate trade agreements with America and China.

Arguments about the economic costs or benefits of membership will form

a large part of the referendum campaign, with both sides keen

Those campaigning to remain within the EU say our membership

is worth ?3000 to every household in Britain.

It's based on a CBI claim that the UK's economy is 5% bigger

They also claim that 3 million jobs are linked

to trade within the EU, that 45% of UK exports of goods

and services go to the EU, and that the value of

trade with the EU is ?133 billion higher than it would be if we left.

Those who argue we would be better off if we left claim that

regulations imposed on business by the EU cost over

They say the 3 million figure on jobs is

dependent on trade with the EU, not membership.

They argue that the trade would continue if we voted to leave,

because we currently import more than we export from the EU.

So its members would want free trade to remain.

They further point out that the importance of UK trade

They cite ONS figures showing that the proportion

of UK exports heading for the EU fell from 54.8% in 1999

But an analysis by the House of Commons Library in 2013

of numerous studies into the economic

impact of EU membership found no consensus either way,

So, which side will manage to convince voters?

I'm joined now by the former trade minister Digby Jones

and Richard Reed, who founded Innocent Smoothies,

who is campaigning for Britain to stay in the EU.

Welcome. Digby Jones, the EU accounts for 45% of our exports. Why

would you risk any of that? That will not change. Because in the

morning after any referendum result, Germany, it is pivotal on Germany,

would immediately want some form of tariff free arrangement with

Britain. They make a million cars they sell in Britain a year. 75 to

80% of all the trains in this country are built in Dusseldorf. We

do not know for sure? No. Germany does it and the others follow. There

are many arguments to stay in. But the one thing we should kill now is

that not one job in Britain is at risk because of EU membership. Not

one. There would be a free-trade agreement because we are so

important to Europe. And by the way that does not mean there are not

other reasons why not -- why we might not want to be in or out. I

get so frustrated when people talk about jobs at risk. It is rubbish.

That is very easy thing to call total nonsense. It is clear that if

your biggest market is suddenly interfered with, that it will not

somehow affect trade, does not make sense. You know more than most

people that businesses need certainty. What we have right now is

unfettered access to the largest market in the world. The fact that

we want to start playing around with this and that is good for business,

it does not make sense. I do not see the added value in belonging to a

club that fetters small businesses in this country every day.

I am a small business. I have done it for years. This is a colossal

opportunity. If you are an entrepreneur in the UK. You're

making it sound like it makes it more difficult. It makes it much

easier because it is one set of regulations and 500 million

consumers. If you have a shop, would you want 60 million people walk by

our 500 million people walk by? You can achieve that through a

free-trade agreement. You get the sales prevention team in Brussels

marching valiantly towards 1970, trying to save this is how you will

lead your small business in Hartlepool. But we all know that

Sutherland Europe, compliance is a voluntary event. We all know that

the French do not obey these rules. Then we and northern Europe, we are

by no means the best, we obey this stuff. And a small business who

doesn't have lobbyists in Brussels, and you know this... I know this.

Britain loves a bit of regulation. You are absolutely right. If we come

out and you say we will still trade, we will still have to comply with

the regulation. That is the condition of free trade. We will not

avoid regulation. The regulation is there whether we are in or out. If

we are in, we get to influence the regulation. We get to have the voice

heard. You tell that to the money men in the City who have seen

legislation come down from Brussels. You see what happens when we're not

there when the big decisions are made. You think we have no

influence? We're one of the three big forces in Europe. We are one of

the three biggest economies in Europe. Digby Jones, I want to ask

you this. You assume we will still have unfettered access to the single

market. But it has been pointed out by Richard Reid that that means we

would have to meet the conditions of getting into the single market.

Could there be other costs? Free movement of people may be a cost.

That is a price Switzerland and Norway pay. Let's Explorer that. I'm

concerned this referendum is going to become a referendum purely on a

migration on the street, when we ought to be discussing how can

European Union reform and improve the life of an unemployed

25-year-old in Madrid and a single mother in Athens? How can the power

of Britain, economic and otherwise, how can it be seen as a driver to

get the standard of living up? If you base your economy on exporting

our lives and importing BMWs, you will go bust. They are asking Europe

to subsidise the growth of our lives, in the hope that for some

reason on skilled people in Europe will do this. You are going to get

on skilled people in Europe coming to rich countries instead of

actually getting skilled people in Europe being marketable in northern

Europe. You can only pull that off with reform. We should not be

campaigning to stop these people coming. We should be campaigning to

get the skills base of Europe up so they get wealthy, but more

importantly, they are more marketable in our market. The

British government has enough trouble getting the skills base

right in Britain without trying to get it right in southern Europe.

Richard Reid, you say that we are in the club that we can influence the

rules. Let me put the question. The British have been on the wrong end

of EU majorities on these rules more than any other country that is a

member of the EU. We really get away on these things. You are joking. We

have got the best possible setup. We are part of the EU. We said no to

the euro, no to Schengen, no to force migratory bird it is. Why so

many majority votes? This is a macro decision. Once in a generation. We

have got to get it right. The big picture is it is a colossal

opportunity and we have got the best version of the deal. When you and I

were arguing cases about whether we should join the euro years ago, I

can remember sitting in television studios and being told the world was

going to end and we were going to go to Armageddon and back if we did not

join the euro. We made the right decision about the euro. This

interview has come to an end. I thank you both.

It's just gone 11:35 - you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now

Coming up here in 20 minutes, we'll be hearing from our political panel.

Are plans to devolve the rail franchises

to the Welsh Government about to hit the buffers?

We hear concerns about plans to split control of trains running

And with a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU possibly months

away, we ask "what's best for Wales?"

But first what's next for Welsh railways?

Ministers here will be given responsibility for running many

services from next year, but the UK Government may retain

control over trains that run from here into England.

One rail expert told us this would be "a completely daft idea",

while the Welsh Transport Minister says UK officials are ignorant.

More from her in a moment, but first Cemlyn Davies reports

on what's coming down the track for Welsh railways.

Britain had a nationalised rail service and there were no franchises

The steam of yesteryear has now given way to a much foggier picture,

where borders and responsibilities are blurred.

Like most roots in Wales, the Aberystwyth to Birmingham

International line is part of the Wales and Borders rail

franchise, which will soon become the Welsh Government 's

responsibility but it seems the map could be very different and much

There is a suggestion now that certain services like this one

starting in Wales but ending in England could be broken up

with different companies providing the service either side

of Offa's Dyke and that could leave passengers travelling to places

like Birmingham from Aberystwyth having to change at a station

That is a very bad situation, especially for people

going to Birmingham International Airport, which is people

from university, hospital, travelling a lot, going

I am going to Manchester, I have to change over

It is only about 20, 25 minutes, maybe a half-hour

It is just the best option for me really.

I remember the sunny days when you could get a train

to Aberystwyth once-a-day, all the way to London.

Most of the passengers go as far as Shrewsbury, about 75%,

and about 50% of passengers are actually going beyond Shrewsbury

to mostly Birmingham, Birmingham International

or of course London, which is a major destination.

The UK Government has said it expects that services primarily

serving English passengers will be remapped and taken out of the Wales

and Borders franchise to ensure proper accountability.

The Welsh Government meanwhile has launched a consultation

into the future of the Wales and Borders franchise and though

the document makes no reference to any possible redrawing

of the rail network, Carwyn Jones did have this to say

It is the suggestion of the Department for Transport

that they do not want to see rail services exist between a departure

point in Wales and a terminus point in England and vice versa.

We are more than happy to make that case to the UK Government.

But it is important to understand that is the attitude that has been

taken so far by the Department for Transport.

As well as the Aberystwyth to Birmingham line,

there are questions over the future of the Milford Haven to Manchester

service and the route between Holyhead and Manchester

Despite running through England, it is understood the Cardiff

to Holyhead line would not be affected because that journey

And neither would the route between London and Swansea

or Holyhead because they are part of separate franchises.

The suggestion has baffled industry experts, including Christian Wolmar.

The transport journalist, who does have strong Labour ties,

has written extensively about the British railway system.

I think this is a completely daft idea.

It is the sort of thing that has arisen out of the fact

that the railway is privatised, so the English government seems

to be worried that the Welsh Government would have control of say

a train that ran from Aberystwyth to Birmingham and in the English

part of it, the Welsh Government would be running it and therefore

might say in things like the timetable and services

I think that is a completely ridiculous notion and hopefully,

The UK Government says it is working closely with the Welsh ministers

and no decision will be made without taking local

The strength of opposition to any change is already clear.

It is ludicrous, it is impractical, it is being done behind-the-scenes

with a lot of secrecy initially anyway, and we are determined

It is not in the interest of passengers.

It would affect the tourist industry.

This train left Aberystwyth on time for its journey through mid Wales

and into England but it is unclear how far it will be allowed to travel

Our reporter Carl Roberts caught up with the Transport Minister in

Edwina Hart's standing down in a few weeks of course,

after a ministerial career where she's been known

Carl asked Mrs Hart for her take on this situation.

We understand that this has been mooted in discussions at official

level and obviously, we are very unhappy about that

because we want to ensure that those services remain

within the franchise, it makes it a very value added

So obviously we will be pressing our case to ensure

that the franchise arrangements include cross-border.

What do you think the motivation is for these suggestions?

Why are these being discussed from a Department for Transport

Some people say it would be to sabotage any franchise and make

it less appealing to anybody who might want to bid for it.

Yes, I think people do try and say things, that there are these

I sometimes think that some people that you deal with do not actually

understand Wales and they do not understand how things work

I mean sometimes there are officials at various levels within the DFT

but I have to say at the end of the day, my job is to ensure

we have the best possible service and the best franchise

and that is not the right way to go ahead.

I am basing my comments on ignorance rather than conspiracy theory.

You have said in the past that any future franchise, you think

that the people of Wales would like to see rail services

You say that is what the people of Wales think.

I don't think I have used the word nationalised in that way.

There is much more accountability for the public, which I think

there will be when we look at how we might set things up

Because I don't think it has been really well-run,

in terms of what happens now with rail.

We have all the problems with Network Rail, which are very

real to us in Wales, projects overrunning,

costs overrunning, and you have no control over Network Rail really

because they are judge, jury and executioner,

Do you foresee a situation where the Welsh Government would be

running those services, perhaps putting an arm 's length

company to do the work for you, but firmly managed and run

with responsibility with the Welsh Government?

Yes, and I do see that as being the future and we have a lot

of support for locking up these issues like this.

We have already indicated what we would do with the Metro

And that is very important because people can have confidence

that they will actually have input in to what is happening.

There is such a lot going on in terms of transport.

You have the franchise discussions, all the issues

about electrification, and with electrification,

there is great disappoint but where we are now in Swansea

because they really wanted to be part of the electrification straight

They are going to a different control period.

They are worried it might never happen.

And the impact then further west if electrification does not come

to Swansea, so people do want to feel that there

is a government fighting for them to have more control over things.

We asked people about you and the kind of person you are,

They say you make decisions, you get things done.

Is it with regret that by the time you leave office that the future

of any new M4 relief road is still up in the air?

No, I think we have gone through a process with

I think there is a lot of hot air around the M4 relief road.

At the end of the day, we will end up with a public

enquiry, we have all the environmental considerations

I think when you leave politics, there will always be things

you would have liked to have been there, but that would mean

you would have to carry on and live long enough to do it

And I am not one of those politicians who think you have

to keep on forever, things can get done when you're not there.

In public life, there have been to many that have thought that.

And the final question from me, if you are not on the train

going from Swansea to London, do you think you will be driving

Well, I would very much hope that we can proceed

with the project, we are very committed to the project.

Obviously, there are other hurdles to go through.

There will be a public enquiry and everything.

But I know one thing, that I will be retired,

but there are a lot of people that require that for work and the CBI

and all of them are very strong behind the need to ensure we have

economic prosperity and they regard that as being a key issue,

It's possible that we're less than six months away

from a referendum on whether the UK should remain in or leave

David Cameron wants to apply a so-called emergency brake

on the ability of EU migrants to receive in-work

And he wants to apply that brake the day after a referendum.

There's an important meeting tonight at Downing Street .

If Mr Cameron gets his own way, the vote could take place in June.

In a moment we'll discuss this with one person who wants to leave,

In Wales, we have already had some of the issues debated

when Carwyn Jones went head-to-head with Nigel Farage

Last week, the Secretary of State for Wales, Stephen Crabb,

set out his stall, as being in favour of staying

in if David Cameron gets the changes he wants,

so when I met him, I asked him if there were any circumstances

where he would not back the Prime Minister.

Well, we are going into this renegotiation process

with confidence that we can get a deal and if you look at the track

record of the Prime Minister, even when every other commentator

has been predicting that he would not be able to get

reform in Europe, whether we are talking about securing the rebate

or getting a real terms reduction in the European Union budget,

he achieved that, so we have got confidence that he can get a good

I have got confidence in that, which is why I am confident that

when the referendum comes, when we get that successful

renegotiation, I can go out as Secretary of State for Wales

and campaign on a strong and pragmatic case for Wales

and Britain to remain inside a reformed European Union.

What we don't have yet is the exact meaning of what a good

The proposal for a four-year period before which European migrants

would not be able to claim in work benefits, that proposal

is still on the table, that proposal is still

being discussed with our European partners.

Now, if our European partners come back to us and say,

look, there is another way we can help you which even the same

objective, and let's recognise what the broad objective is,

which is to reduce the pull factor of welfare policy,

increasing immigration into the UK, of course, we want skills,

we want talent to come to Wales and to come to Britain,

what we don't want is our welfare policies providing

Now, the European member states, the other member states,

know this is a difficult area that they get where we are coming

from and although it is painstaking, it is difficult discussions,

I am confident that they will see sense and help us reach

When it comes to the campaign itself, whenever that might be,

do you think there needs to be a different emphasis on the campaign

in Wales, considering Wales is the only part of the UK receiving

Does that sway how the debate should be held in Wales?

The point I am making in this speech is this should be about weighing up

the risks and opportunities, both options, either staying

And of course, in Wales, we have issues with a greater

than average proportion of farming subsidies and structural payments

like objective one, those are clearly factors that we need

What I don't like is to see the debate in Wales simply

focus on those issues, which is the traditional evidence

and arguments that politicians in Wales tend to use to back up this

kind of unthinking stay the European Union

I am saying we need a bit more of a considered approach,

one that actually look as at the risks and the

opportunities, weighs it up, it is a hard-headed,

In Wales, we have got issues that are important.

But the hard-headed pragmatic approach will be over the last seven

or eight years, ?1 billion of structural funds has come

The leave side will say, well, that is British money that

That is why I am asking, do you think that element should

This referendum that we are going to have in the next year or so,

this will be a once in a generation decision.

Now, it is a decision for the long-term.

Now, we should not be making arguments for the long-term based

on the fact that we are getting temporary payments from

the European Union because of economic failure in Wales.

Objective one is not an accolade for Wales.

We should be aiming and working and doing everything we possibly can

Because that is actually a mark of economic failure,

So let's weigh up the pros and cons, we will take into account

all of these different issues, structural funds, farming payments,

Our ambitions should be for Wales to be punching well above its weight

within the European economy, rather than trailing behind.

You will be aware of this letter that has been sent by Carwyn Jones

and the leaders of all four political parties in the assembly,

as well as the views of Nicola Sturgeon,

which is that the referendum should not be held too close

to the assembly and local elections in May.

That would rule out a June referendum.

Can I ask, what is your view on that?

I was really surprised that Carwyn Jones put his name to that

letter, given that it was Carwyn Jones who kicked

off his own assembly campaign at the start of this year

with a head-to-head debate against Nigel Farage

I think he is trying to have it both ways.

They all made the case last year that they should not

have the referendum on the same day as the elections

to the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament.

I happen to believe that there is no great problem in combining elections

on a particular day, but we listened to the arguments

and we made a commitment not to have it on the same day.

Now they have moved the goalposts and say, we don't want

the referendum happening within a number of months or weeks

of the assembly and the Scottish Parliament elections.

I think there is a bit of silliness going on here.

I think people in Wales are well able to handle debates

about different issues in roughly the same time period and I think it

I'm joined now to chew over some of those points by Eluned Parrott

who speaks on Europe for the Lib Dems and Sam Gould

These changes, these proposals that David Cameron wants to see to limit

in work benefits for migrants for four years, what does that mean?

Does that make the European Union a less attractive policy for you? Not

at all. Regardless of the package of changes that evict Cameron is hoping

to achieve on a pragmatic basis, the long-term picture for Europe is one

of partnership with our nations. Looking to the long-term, the

economic opportunities to help collaborate together across Europe,

to fight against the threat of jobs being lost to the Far East, it is

about tackling climate change over the long-term, it is about those

international relationships we have developed for a long period of time

that have helped to bring as security and stability. I do not

think what David Cameron achieves will sway either of you too but do

you think for the British voters, if he can come back and say he has a

good deal on for example benefits, that may sway some of the uncertain

voters? I think the voters will see through the smoke and mirrors being

created from David Cameron. I do not think in any way he's gone to get a

good deal. This emergency brake on migration, it is allowing him to go

back to Brussels and actually request for rest to then have

another break on migration. It is not giving them any real power. The

fact that he has to go around Europe and the different states begging for

his own right to actually change his own laws is not a leader of an

independent nation. What do you think about this matter of him

having the emergency brake the day after a referendum and it would he

in place for seven years while they work on a more permanent fixture?

Doesn't that undermine one of the key plus points for the remainder

said which is that uncertainty? It just be tinkering again if the UK

remains. Not at all. Over a period of time it is the challenges facing

Europe. There will be changes negotiated between the European

states but of course those decisions for the European Parliament and our

elected heads of states as part of the Council of Europe. There are

inevitably going to be different crises that approach Europe and we

will need to take those into account and deal with them as they arise but

what I am talking about is those long-term challenges that can mean

constant, climate change, making sure that we are economic leverage

the time that we can brave the swings and fortunes of the global

market. And also things like making sure we have research and

development in our universities, investment going there and making

sure that we have things like the common agricultural policy, a stable

food base and farmers that are able to survive without it. That is a

good point, isn't it? For the remainder said, you can list off a

whole load of attractive things. From the leave said, there is a

danger that it is unlawful lot of uncertainty when you are looking

things like trade and so on. Is that a concern as a mark not at all. I

think there is more uncertainty of we remain. If you look at the case

of Welsh steel and the uncertainty that has been there. We have lost

hundreds of jobs we simply as a result of the European Union doing

absolutely nothing. We need our own control over the UK markets to

ensure we can protect British jobs first. That is the steel industry

but there are an awful lot of other issues, trade for example with the

European Union, a huge amount of exports from the UK. You would have

to sort of renegotiate all those different factors without knowing

exactly what the end point would be? The EU will offer a trade deal

within 24 hours of us leaving. That is not cast is your opinion. That

would have to remain. We would regain our seat on the World Trade

Organisation, enabling us to make our own trade arrangements. PE you

has not made trade arrangements with United States of America or China,

some of the biggest market in the world. We will be able to do that as

an independent nation. We import billions of pounds worth of projects

from the EU. We import more than we actually export to it. It is in

their interest to make sure we have a free-trade arrangement with them.

It makes freedom far easier for trade. That is absolute nonsense.

They are undergoing those negotiations over a union with

America. But it is an absolute nonsense. 44% of Britain's trade

goes to European nations. Emerging, developing countries, that is about

it said, according to the latest figures. It would be absolutely

devastating to the British economy and to Wales in particular if people

who have come and invested in Wales decided all of a sudden that they

would have to leave because the reason the game here is it was an

entry point to the European market. The European market is half a

billion consumers and ?10 trillion in value. The UK market as an entry

point is nowhere near as attractive. A separate issue, to pick up on what

Stephen Crabb said in the interview there, does it need to be a

different emphasis in Wales when you consider the billions of pounds over

the last ten years or so that have come from EU structural objective

one funds # I have heard the argument, it is edition money that

will come to Wales anyway. Again, that is not a guarantee. When the

European Union is growing, there is the fact that when Turkey joins the

European Union, Stephen Crabb is more than aware that the funding

into Wales will then also decrease. There is far more sense -- certainty

when we take control of our funds. In terms of trade negotiations, the

transatlantic trade negotiation partnership is being negotiated in

secret, it puts many of our things in Wales at risk. It puts the NHS at

risk and could lead to privatisation of the NHS, which we want to stop.

Actually, that is not true. It is your policy in the UK as Ukip to

scrap the NHS. That is not the case. Thank you very much for coming in.

Don't forget you can follow all the latest on Twitter.

talk about themselves and the mayoral budget. Back to Andrew.

Welcome back. Let's return to the issue of Google's tax bill. It is

not just Google. Earlier I spoke to John McDonnell and asked him what he

would do to make sure that companies like Google pay a fair and

appropriate level of tax. First of all, I want the information about

how the deal was arrived at and I want them in future to publish their

tax records, the British part. So we can have openness and transparency,

we can see what is fair. The Chancellor said this was a major

success, but we cannot tell because we have not got the information.

I would suggest that the Google row rumbles on by Google appearing with

Andrew Marr this morning. There are other companies in the frame like

Amazon, Apple, big investigation by the European Commission --

commission. And we discover that a lot of major British multinationals

do not pay any are very small amounts of corporation tax. This

issue has got a long way to go, I would suggest? Yes, and it could end

up in a transatlantic almost cold war between the EU and the US and in

particular US companies. Each side thinks the other is trying to

exploit its site disproportionately. I wonder if eventually the people

who ultimately lobby for International corporate tax reform

and clarity will be corporations themselves. At the moment they are

getting into trouble of what is ultimately observing the letter of

the law, and certainly observing their duty to pay the legal minimum

of tax, the duty they have to their shareholders. If that is getting

them into trouble, I think they have an incentive in the long run to

press for a clarity and reform internationally, even if it means

their aggregate tax payment goes slightly upwards. The irony is that

this row comes after there has been major changes at the OECD level, at

EU level, on trying to simplify and get multinationals to pay their due

tax. And yet we seem to be no further forward than before. I

wonder if people start looking harder at corporation tax and

whether that is the right way to proceed? S there are other ways of

doing it. You can do it on turnover, sales. These large companies that

are taking bigger and bigger slabs of the British markets are not

paying their tax. Think of the people competing against Amazon.

Argos, the local book shop... It is not fair. Their sense of

indignation... Then to discover that the Conservative Party, while

talking about how they are trying to clean this up and they are doing

more than Labour, which possibly they are, meanwhile instructing

their MEPs to vote against moves in Europe, to try to get a proper

European agreement on this, it will not work unless we get a European

agreement, and to find out that the Government says one thing speaking

here but secretly in the European Parliament does something else.

There are a lot of legs on this. A lot of trouble for the Conservative

Party because it plays to their weakness, sick -- just a security

and defence place to be Labour weakness. They are in bed with the

big corporations. Do you think they are in bed with them? Politicians

love meeting cutting edge companies. They do not spend that much time

with steel companies. It is a bit of a stretch to then think that they

were ever doing anything about Google's tax returns. I think it is

quite a stretch. The Google top executive right at the heart of

Downing Street, just as Andy Coulson from the Murdoch empire was right at

the heart of Downing Street. You have got Seamus Milne at the heart

of the Corbyn Empire. There is quite a difference! It is ironic, the

International rules were meant to be cleaned up. They were meant to have

done something about the double Irish and Dutch sandwich. I speak in

tongues because that is how you have to do it these days. Unless there is

a major radical change, I would suggest, if they carry on the

current way, it will be another ten years before there are further

changes? Yass and not only were the international rules meant to have

been cleared up, George Osborne talked about how reprehensible

aggressive tax avoidance is. Then last week he said the deal with

Google is a special deal. The problem with George Osborne is he

has forgotten the second part of Peter Mandelson's famous sentence

about being relaxed about people getting rich... As long as they pay

their tax. The problem for George Osborne is that he sees everything

through a 2010 lens. This deal is much better than anything that

happened under new Labour. That is six years ago. We have moved on.

People are now judging this government on what they have done.

It has been a long slow burning campaign. The tax Justice campaign

has been brilliant. UK uncut Ren fantastic demonstrations against top

shop, Vodafone, boots, people avoiding their taxes in elaborate

ways. Witty campaigns the public saw. I think it is at the centre of

it now. With other cases coming up, Apple and Amazon, Vodafone always in

the frame... Just finally, I thought it was fascinating that Peter Borren

of Google explained in effect that the money made in Britain and other

places is then sent to Bermuda, essentially warehoused in Bermuda.

It is a tax haven. If they repatriated back to California

headquarters, they would pay corporation tax in America and they

think that is too high. America corporate tax is run about 40%.

Apple has about 200 billion US dollars in cash reserves

internationally. Let's move on to the referendum. I got the impression

from listening to John McDonnell and other Labour shadow ministers I have

interviewed that there is no appetite on the Labour front bench

to delay this referendum. I think they would like to get on with it? S

they want to get on with it, then wanted to succeed. They want the yes

campaign to win. At the moment Labour is not doing very well with

it. It ought to be a great hallmark for them. Labour is almost

unequivocally pro-EU. They should be making a lot of capital against

every split Tory party and they are not, really. It is not clear why.

Maybe their hearts are not in it. It is led by two people who voted to

come out into -- 19 75. Alan Johnson woman who is leading the campaign,

does not appear to be making much headway. Maybe they are waiting

until Cameron comes back with a package. I think they are missing a

trick. The Eurosceptics want more time. They fear if it is rushed,

they will definitely lose. But for a June referendum in the Commons, it

would need Labour as well. It is clearly not going to happen. The

only thing that could stop it, because the numbers are now not in

the Commons, is if the electoral commission, bearing in mind you have

the leaders of the three devolved administrations saying they're not

happy, that is the only thing that could potentially stop it. Now that

the Labour Party is saying we should get on with it, it looks like that

will happen. People like Steve Baker needs to be careful. They have been

saying for 20 years we need a referendum. Here it is coming down

the stream and they say, we are not sure about it. That potentially

shows they are nervous about the case. One of the most telling thing

is Steve Baker said was the number of Tory MPs who would vote to leave

would be no more than 70, which is clearly expectations management on

his party that's my part. What you have seen in the past 72 hours is

expectations management on all sides. Downing Street is dampening

down expectations. We are all massively impressed. I hope you are

right that he is that clever. What worries me is that he has been

reckless. He has put things out there that he could never get. He

has not put everybody square. If not clever, certainly cynical. Steve

Baker and the sceptics are playing down their expected numbers, even

Cabinet ministers. The area where George Osborne thinks he will make

the most fundamental and important changes as the exceptions for those

countries not in the eurozone. That gets very little coverage. George

Osborne says that is the most important thing we could get because

it will play for decades to come. The territory they are fighting on

is the area where they are quite weak, benefits reform. We will have

another referendum in 2021 when treaty change takes place and the

eurozone becomes a proper monetary union. I don't think anybody is go

to do a treaty change for a long time. The mood across Europe,

particularly about immigration and refugee is, I think nobody will want

a treaty. It is all talk. I do not see it. I don't think anybody will

trust their own electorate sufficiently at any particular

point. They will look at hours with great interest. And they will say,

don't go there. Before we go, a sad morning today. We learned that

veteran broadcaster Terry Wogan has died at the age of 77 after a short

battle with cancer. Over his many years in broadcasting, he

interviewed a great number of people, including politicians. He

really is talking to Margaret Thatcher.

What do the next ten years hold for us and for our Prime Minister?

Mrs Margaret Thatcher. You ever apprehensive? Are you ever nervous

before you get up and speak? Always. And you would not speak well if you

were not. I have been answering questions in the House every Tuesday

and Thursday for ten years. And I am still just as nervous as I was at

the beginning. It requires immense preparation. You have seen your

share of trouble and strife and success. What have been your worst

moments? The worst moment on totally was when the Argentinians invaded

the Falkland Islands. I will never forget it. With the worries and some

of the terrible problems you have had, do you have any time for

personal worries? We have been very lucky. You know Dennis very well.

You both belong to Lord's Tavern is. Everyone knows Dennis. He is

marvellous! Why did your audience laugh when you mentioned him? He is

held in great affection by everyone because he has the tremendous knack

for saying things people would love to say but they're not.

Terry Wogan, one of the most accomplished and professional,

charming broadcasters in modern times. Sadly died this morning. We

learn from his family. Terry Wogan. That is it for today. I thank all of

my guests. The daily politics will be on BBC Two from noon tomorrow and

every day next week, including Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday. I

am back your macro same time, same place next week. We will know more

about the American election campaign by them. If it is Sunday, it is the

Sunday Politics.