12/06/2016 Sunday Politics Wales

With just 11 days to go until the EU referendum,

we get two campaigners to interrogate each other.

Tory Chris Grayling for Leave and Labour's Mary Creagh for Remain.

We'll hear from two Labour MPs who have recently

declared their positions on In or Out.

And is the EU putting controversial legislation on ice and pushing it

off the agenda until after the referendum is out of the way?

Everything difficult, everything contentious has

What next for Welsh councils? until the 24th of June.

The new Minister tells us he wants a new plan for reorganisation

within months, and everything's up for debate.

So, all the highs and the lows, the ups and downs.

The European Football Championships started this weekend and I'm

joined by the France, Germany and Spain of political

commentary, Janan Ganesh, Julia Hartley Brewer

and Anushka Asthana, who'll be tweeting

So a series of stark economic warnings from David Cameron who says

he might not be able to protect spending on pensions,

the NHS and defence if the UK votes to leave the EU.

The Prime Minister said the strain on public finances caused by Brexit

would even threaten the "triple lock" which guarantees

Here is David Cameron talking to Andrew Marr earlier.

The fact is, if we did face a 20-40 billion black hole

in our public finances, we would have to make

Our pensions promise is based on a growing and succeeding economy,

and all of the experts, and I agree with them,

most people in business agree, if we leave the single market,

if we cut ourselves off from the most important market,

our economy will be smaller and that has consequences.

Cabinet minister, Leader of the House Chris Grayling

If the Prime Minister is saying we voted to leave, he cannot, in fact,

implement key parts of the 2015 manifesto, what legitimacy would

your government have to continue? Well, I don't buy the argument. I

have to completely disagree with him on this, it's only six months since

he was telling us if we chose to leave the European Union we would do

fine and well. This figure, 20 billion or 40 billion, it is based

on analysis by the National Institute Of Economic And Social

Research, it assumes the pound goes down, making exports cheaper, but

people buy fewer, which makes no sense, and it assumes we lose the

ability to sell within Europe, when the reality is that we buy far more

from Europe than they do from us. It would cost French, German, Spanish

and Italian jobs if they don't continue trading normally. He might

be right or wrong, but is it not remarkable that he should say, if

you vote to leave, all the things I promised I would do if you elected

me, the key things, defence, the NHS, the triple lock on pensions,

that is all of the agenda? I'm very surprised he has chosen to use those

examples. I don't believe that is right, I don't believe we would back

away from manifesto promises and I don't believe we would need to. I

think the economic statistics behind the figures he has quoted do not

hold up. They include some inherent contradictions and assumptions of

doom and gloom. We buy more from the rest of Europe than they do from us,

they are going to want to continue trading in the UK market. If we do

leave, there was a downturn, because of uncertainty, it might not be long

or deep, but if there was, it would hit public finances? It would mean

tax rises, more public spending because of the extra welfare due to

unemployment, or a, nation or both and more borrowing? Well, the

question is if. If you look at what some of the international bodies

have been saying, we heard from the IMF, that got the figures so wrong

to matter years ago it had to apologise to the Chancellor. The

chief economist at the World Bank says he thinks our trade situation

would improve if we left the European Union. What you make of the

Prime Minister's strategy? There is a certain level of sheer panic in

his eyes, if you look very closely. Amid the tiredness, because we

learned today he did 357 media appearances as part of this

referendum campaign. I think what he is trying to do is to take on the

argument that Chris and the Leave campaign are making around

migration, saying, we know you are really worried about your borders

and you want to close them, you want to do it because it is affecting

your livelihood. The Prime Minister is saying, actually, there is

something else here that might affect your livelihood and are

really trying to get into the idea that it is going to affect people's

lives. Even to the extent of saying all the things I promised you, key

things on defence spending, extra money for the NHS, the triple lock

on pensions, all of these things that probably got him elected, or

were a key part, he is prepared to say I can't do any of that? He's

just breaching even more of the trust of the British people. Another

key pledge he made was that he was going to get immigration down to

tens of thousands. He knows he has broken that because of the EU and

other failings in immigration policy. The reality is that they are

so desperate in Downing Street now because they thought they would be

ten points ahead at this point. It is still very close, if you would

still say that Remain would edge it on the day. He has even deployed his

own wife, she was never that Keane at even turning up at party

conferences and kissing on stage. He has got someone at Downing Street to

write an article from some Cameron. That is how desperate they are,

which is telling. When I spoke to the Chancellor on Wednesday night in

the interview and I raised the issue of pensions, I said, why would the

state pension be hit either way, in or out, because we have the triple

lock. By definition, it cannot fall in real terms, in or out. He didn't

really dispute that. He went along with that. Today, we have the Prime

Minister, only a few days later, saying we might not even be able to

afford the triple lock if you voted to leave. What is happening? What

makes it doubly confusing is that it was Cameron, above anybody else,

that was incredibly possessive over the pension commitment and the

pension benefit commitment in the previous parliament. Even when he

came under internal lobbying to soft in the policy, to create fiscal room

to maybe soft and cuts elsewhere, he resisted it. So he deserves

criticism now for seemingly weakening the position. In many

ways, Cameron himself is the least important Remain politician for the

next 11 days. They need Labour voters to vote by a margin of 2-1,

if not 3-1, four Remain to win the referendum. You don't do that with a

Prime Minister they do not like and voted against. For the remaining 11

days, I think that Remain need to push Cameron less and Jeremy Corbyn

more, if he is willing to do it. It's not that, Gordon Brown, who we

saw do a video, Harriet Harman, a few other Labour figures. I think

that is where it hinges, the Labour voters, especially in the north of

England. If it is down to Labour to Pollitt off, some of the leave

campaign should be opening the champagne early? -- pull it off. The

vast majority of Labour MPs want people to vote to Remain. Some

people were apparently in tears when they saw the latest poll. The Labour

problem in heartlands goes deeper than this. I don't think it is

whether or not David Cameron is campaigning or Jeremy Corbyn. In

some of those seats, there are the biggest fears about immigration, and

they wanted to see Labour talking their language. For all that said, I

think Chris and his colleagues also have questions to answer. You can't

just dismiss all of these reports like the IFS report, saying there

might be a ?40 billion black hole. I think only 15 Labour MPs have come

out for Leave, but 40% of Labour voters are Eurosceptic, and they

will be switching straight to Ukip, the next set of elections. They are

already the second party in the north of the country. If you are a

sensible Labour MP, you should be keeping quiet about Remain. Is the

biggest danger, in most referendums there are swings to the status quo

in the final days, it has a built-in advantage. The Scottish referendum,

the alternative micro referendum. Don't you risk that? We have to make

sure that doesn't happen and campaign relentlessly over the last

ten days. We have to keep getting messages across. We have new

revelations about the discussions taking place between the European

Union and Turkey. You will be dealing later in the programme with

this wave of more Europe due to come. There are all kind's of

different things that are going to hit the airwaves the moment we voted

to remain, if we do. I hope people realise that more Europe is on the

way and they have to votes to leave. You are not going away yet.

Last week we had campaigners for In and Out interrogate each other.

And we're going to repeat that today.

The Conservative Leader of the House of Commons Chris Grayling,

who wants to Leave and the Labour MP Mary Creagh, who's

They will put each other on the spot.

I'll mostly just be sitting back to watch.

Maybe I'll have a cup of tea. A short while ago they tossed a coin

to see who goes first. Mary was the winner, or loser, depending on your

point of view. She has chosen to cross-examine Chris. So, before we

start, let's see Chris's pitch to undecided voters as to why they

should vote to leave. In ten days' time, we are going to

be taking the biggest decision of this country has taken for a

generation. Should we remain or leave? What would be our future

relationship with Europe, given the fact we are already the biggest

customer for European products like these ones? When you take your

decision, I want you to ask yourself one simple question. Do I want to

live in a country that is free to take its own decisions in the

interests of its people? Or am I happy to be in a country that has

given up control over key decisions that affect all of our futures? We

have already given up control over a whole variety of areas of crucial

importance to us. We are not allowed to forge our own free-trade

agreements with Commonwealth partners, we are not allowed to set

limits on the number of people that come and work here and is

immigration pressures. All of that has happened already. There is more

to come. At the same time, we are spending a fortune on being part of

the EU. Our contribution is ?350 million overall every week. We only

see half of that money back, money that could be spent on our

priorities like the National Health Service and cutting fuel bills. If

you have any worries that if you vote to leave on the 23rd of June,

the Germans are still going to sell these cars, the French will still

sell us our wines and cheeses. What we will have done is taken back

control of our country. We will be in charge of the key decisions that

matter to all our futures. We will be a properly independent country

again and that is what I want for all our children and grandchildren.

Here are risk Grayling and Mary Cray. Mary has seven minutes to

interrogate Chris. Vote Leave have claimed that EU

regulations cost businesses ?600 million a week. It doesn't take into

account the benefits of the regulations, does it? The key issue

for most businesses in this country, you have to remember that most

businesses do no trade at all within the European Union, most operate

just in the United Kingdom. They are all subject to the regulations that

international businesses have to deal with. Typically, they are small

businesses, they don't have the staff, the compliance to do it. It

places a huge extra cost on small business. I've talked to small

businesses up and down the country. Again and again, they tell me they

have to do box ticking and form filling. It is nothing to do with

the environment they are operating in, it takes a huge amount of time

and money that could be spent on hiring more people. The same report

shows that these measures have a net benefit to the UK, so we will not

save ?600 million a week if we leave? There is not a cash saving of

?600 million a week. What you do is free of business to do new things,

to take advantage of new opportunities. On day one, you don't

just save ?600 million on the spot. As we gain the freedom to reduce the

regulation on small business, not to reduce worker rights, not to make

workplaces more dangerous, but to end some of the box ticking and form

filling that comes from Brussels, those businesses have more time to

sell... The figure includes the cost of rights at work, the rights of

four weeks paid holiday, paid maternity leave and equal pay for

fixed term and agency workers. Which would you scrap? We've always been

better than the rest of the European Union on workers' rights. One of the

things I would not do, after the gulf of Mexico oil disaster, even

though we have the best safety standards in the North Sea, they

decided to rewrite them. No benefit to safety or businesses, at a time

when jobs are being lost in the North Sea, companies have had to

deal with extra costs, to no benefit at all except to keep bureaucrats

happy. You've been clear we would not save ?600 million from leaving

the EU. Hundreds of thousands of women lost tens of thousands of

pounds when you changed the state qualifying age for the pension. Why

should they rely on you to protect their rights? You changed the

goalposts. It was the Labour Party that started changing the retirement

age, we've both chosen to do that because the life expectancy of

people in this country is rising. Inevitably, as retirement years

become longer, it becomes more of a challenge, and both we and the

Labour Party have said because of that we need to raise the state

retirement age. You would surely agree as a champion of equality it

is sensible for men and women to retire at the same age. I want to

move on to what you said about the Commonwealth. We do more trade with

Ireland than 53, Love countries put together. Europe puzzles would mean

we'd need to have a land border between Ireland and Northern

Ireland. I will that help? I don't buy that. We had the Common travel

area since 1923, before the European Union was streamed off. There's no

reason for that to change. -- dreams. The issue is about living

and working in the UK, getting a national insurance number,

registering for state support. That creates a back door for EU migrants

to coming to Northern Ireland and Ahern has decided Theresa Villiers,

because he says we are talking about EU citizens and non-EU nations

seeking a way into Britain. He says smuggling would undergo a revival,

endless profit-making opportunities for criminals. You're talking about

illegal immigration, I'm talking about a situation where we have

77,000 people a year arriving just looking for a job. I'm talking about

Northern Ireland. We've got 200 roads between the countries. Are you

going to have an army of bureaucrats checking passports? We never have

and we will not. If you are a European citizen crossing the border

and seeking to get a job, if you don't have the right to work year,

there will be set rules in place so you demonstrate you have a job

before you come to the UK. You will not be able to work legally. What is

your alternative economic plan? Do you want the UK to be like

Switzerland? I want the UK to be like the UK. The reason we will do

trade deals with the EU, Carry On trading freely, is because we buy

more from them than they buy from us. I buy more from Lidl than they

buy from me but I would say the economic power in that relationship

is on Lidl. They sent 8% of exports to us. Where is the power in that

relationship? I think the power is with you, the consumer, because you

can go to another supermarket. In what world would the French say to

their farmers, we are going to endanger your livelihood by taking

away your ability to sell your products to the UK? We represent 17%

of exports. Why would they put that in danger? Millions of EU jobs

depend on British consumers. One of your economists have said about to

leave would mostly eliminate Britain's manufacturing centre and

Michael Gove cannot guarantee people would not lose their jobs. Are you

happy with 18% of the British economy is stopping happening? He is

one of your economists. I don't accept that. So your saying he is

wrong? On this, I think he is. Is Michael Gove wrong when he says he

cannot guarantee jobs? Look at Patrick Bamford. Your colleague,

Michael Gove, said he cannot guarantee jobs. He said he could not

Darren T the jobs of the British members of the European Parliament

-- could not guarantee. On manufacturing, look at James Dyson,

these are people who are captains of industry, saying we should leave.

Have you ever join the gym? I never have. I see from your register of

interests you are an honorary member of the RSC club. If a member

cancelled their membership on Monday and turned up expecting to use the

swimming pool, what with the other members say? What would they say? We

will need to leave it there. It is now the turn of Mary to be cross

examined. Let's look at her pitch as to why voters should vote to remain?

In 1940, Churchill urged towns and cities to fund raise for the war

effort. These towns outside Wakefield he did that call and

raised enough money to buy a Spitfire. This Polish pilot flew

that plane in the Royal air force. He shot down four German planes

before losing his life over France. His bravery and that of thousands of

other service men is commemorated at this memorial. In 1000 years of

European history we've had 70 years of peace, largely because of the

European Union. Billions of pounds of British exports and millions of

jobs and on our membership of the EU. The pressure on the NHS, schools

and housing is not caused by European immigration but I had right

Tory Government failing to and staff the NHS, cutting budgets for schools

and overseeing the lowest house building since the 1920s. When you

thought on June 23, remember this pilot, Polish immigrant, shot down

over France, for the freedoms we enjoy today. Remember as well that

the people that want us to leave are not friends and allies in the USA,

but right wing politicians, Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Vladimir

Putin. Ask yourself, is that a risk you are willing to take with your

children's futures in this battle for Britain? As before, you've got

seven minutes to question merely. The trade figures show we have the

biggest ever trade deficit in the EU. Why do you think are trading

position has become so much worse in the single market? I think it is

important we stay in the EU, it gives us the largest domestic market

in the world, a market of 500 million people, and as I said to

you, it is important that we stay because 80% of the economy depends

on services freely traded and 20% of the economy is manufacturing. Those

sectors will be put at risk if we leave. You did not answer my

question. Why do you think the trading position has got worse over

the years? I think our economy is changing, we've had a big recession,

and we've had six years of Conservative government. I think

Britain is better off, safer and more secure as part of the European

Union. The issue around trading figures, do we create more jobs and

growth by remaining or should we take this leap in the dark with

security and prosperity? The trade position was getting worse even in

the Labour years. Why is that? The trade position is that we do more

trade with Ireland than with 53 members of the Commonwealth. That is

something your campaign wants to put at risk and I don't think that is a

risk we can take. It is important we stay in, we work on closing that

deficit, but we must not wreck the economy and have a new recession by

voting to leave. That is what every single economic forecaster has said

will happen. We will check recession, the economy will shrink,

and the trade deficit will get worse. We would be outside the club

and they would tell us what rules we would abide by. Why did they help

make the position worse by moving the production of Ford transit vans

from Southampton to Turkey. I don't know about that, but what is

clear... They gave grants to Turkey to move production from Southampton

to Turkey. It helped contribute to making it worse. I don't accept they

did that, I don't know about the details, but in a globalised world,

big companies are looking at this referendum, making decisions, we got

investment in the north-west, they think, if we are no longer the

Gateway to the European market we will not receive foreign direct

investment into the economy, harming jobs, growth, and the economy of the

UK. In that market, why do you think unemployment fell and is 50% in

Spain? Unemployment in those countries is unacceptably high and

in some cases that is because of structural factors at work. When I

was working in Brussels, the unemployment rate was always double

and there has been structurally higher levels of unemployment. There

is also the austerity policies that have been pursued by the European

Union. There have been imbalances in those markets, Spain had a market

based on selling houses, Greece had an economy where nobody collected

taxes properly. These have been shown up by the recession, leading

to consequences. Are you in favour of the UK having the ability to set

limits on the number of EU citizens who come and work here? What I want

us to do is have access to the single market. We are outside of the

passport free Schengen zone, we are not part of the asylum policy. We

choose the number of asylum seekers that come to this country. Your

government has control over who comes here from outside the EU.

There is more migration from outside the EU than from within the U. The

question is, that free movement of people is one of the factors that

gives us access. People have concerns. Do we throw the baby out

with the bath water and wreck the economy with a vote to leave? You

did not answer my question. Are you in favour of having any ability to

set limits on the number of people from the EU who live and work here?

Your Prime Minister has negotiated an opt out so that people who come

here have to contribute to the economy for four years before they

can access housing, social benefits, except try. -- etc. I think that is

welcome and it is important that your government starts making

investment in the NHS, housing, and in schools, the investment we need

for those coming here. There are more people coming here from outside

than from inside. You have control of that. Why are you not stopping

it? Do you think people should be able to come from elsewhere in the

EU to look for a job? There are 77,000 people who turn up at

Victoria Coach Station or to near Port. Do you think that is OK? I

think we have over a million people living in Spain have chosen to

retire there, live and work there. We have 2 million British citizens

who have chosen to live, work and invest in other European Union

countries. When people come here to look for work, they look for work

and generally find it, and we know that they generally put more into

the economy than they take out. You are happy for people to come in

unlimited numbers to look for work here. I've said there are more

people coming from outside the EU, given visas from your government,

and people make a contribution. What we don't want to do is throw the

baby out with the bath water, wrecked the economy. That would mean

less money for public sector services, and a weaker economy.

You're happy that there should be no limits. More people come from

outside the EU than come from inside.

One of the main arguments of the Leave campaign is that the EU

But are there signs that several EU initiatives have been put on ice

or pushed off the agenda in an effort to avoid

stirring up controversy until after the referendum?

Critics have suggested that the Budget and proposals paving

the way for a so-called EU army are being kept secret.

Others suggest some awkward legislation like new eco-friendly

regulations banning some kitchen appliances like toasters could be

The familiar sights, things people expect to see in this

great European city, the administrative home of the EU.

But, underneath it all, there's something else.

A place only a few people know about.

The Musee des Egouts - The Sewer Museum.

Do you get to see them on a daily basis?

So, there are still some surprises lurking here in Brussels.

The EU's critics say it is doing the same thing, that there

is some nasty business still in the pipeline.

They are keeping everything back until after the 24th,

and then there's going to be a deluge, a tsunami.

There's going to be all sorts of problems that

on others, regulations they've held back, especially on things

This is things like the Port Services Directive, which is ruinous

Things like the licensing for art imports, which is a disaster

The banning of high-power electrical appliances.

And then, a little bit further down the line,

more bailouts, higher budget contributions and, ultimately,

the harmonisation of military capacity, what the European

Commission describes as the strategic necessity

Is the commission holding back on certain legislation that would be

The commission is not saving up proposals.

We are continuing to work on the basis of our

Now, as to the question about the EU army, yes,

I can also say very clearly that we have no plans

But there are those in the European Parliament who think

Britain's referendum is playing a role in delaying EU business.

That's exactly what happened to the EU budget, according

to the vice chair of the European Parliament's

We would normally have the budget by now.

It is being delayed, yes.

I think everyone knows that Brexit and the vote, the referendum,

There is certainly the migration reason for delaying it.

But then, on the other hand, in politics commuting to say

that this is the reason, then there are other things.

The Green MEP that works on regulation to make kitchen

appliances more eco-friendly says toasters were never

Is there a sense here that there is much business in the EU

being held up before the British referendum?

Of course, the EU commission is very cautious, some legislative proposals

We do that because we do not want to create negative stories,

which often are completely out of the blue and without any proof,

because that is the reality of the British media.

The Toaster Unit is somewhere, hidden in a secret, locked corridor.

The Toaster Unit is what some journalists have called a special

task force set up within the EU commission to deal with issues

So called because of those stories in the British press that the EU had

decided to shelve plans to change our toasters.

It's led by the father of British Eurocrats,

He has been here since the 70s, plays cricket, drinks tea,

kind of understands some of what may explode in the UK.

But we do know there is a British task force that has been dubbed

Is that not evidence that you are at least prepared to hold

I appreciate the effort to introduce into the commission pressroom

tabloid terminology, there are issues to be addressed,

Parliamentary questions to be answered.

There is a whole internal work of coordination

between the services, advice to the commission.

So there is nothing special, extraordinary or toaster

related aspects in the work of our colleagues.

With less than two weeks to go until the referendum,

it's maybe not surprising those in Brussels are keen

the British public see the EU's best side.

But, for others, it belies a "selfie-interest" -

exactly what those wanting to leave say is wrong with the EU.

We are joined from Shipley by the Labour MEP Richard Corbett.

He is a former advisor to the President of the European

Council so knows the workings of the EU very well.

To your knowledge, is The Financial Times right to report that the EU

Commission has delayed a second eco-friendly assault on household

goods such as hairdryers and hostess trolleys until after the referendum?

You know, in general, it is one of those scare stories, isn't it? They

are about to spring proposals on us and they are holding them back. The

nastier and worse they are, the better it is for the story. When you

look into it, it is something as banal as the design of household

appliances, to save people money and make them more efficient, not

limiting their power but making them more efficient. Why were The

Financial Times, probably the most pro-EU paper in the United Kingdom

run a scare story? The Financial Times is also keen to ensure

balance, it gives a say to each side. This is a news story, not an

opinion piece? The question is, surely, so what? The European

Commission only proposes, it is not the side. The proposals have to come

to the Council of ministers, with a British minister around the table,

answer to the European Parliament, for a decision. We are part of the

decision taking process. It is not them telling us what to do, it is

sitting around the table with our neighbouring countries to work out

common rules for the common market to protect consumers, protect the

environment or whatever the subject might be. What is wrong with that?

What about the report in the Sunday Times this morning from diplomatic

cable traffic that it looks like the deal between the EU and Turkey on

controlling migration isn't going so well, and they are worried that

Turkey might just open the floodgates again, but they are

keeping it under wraps until after the vote on June the 23rd? Is that

another scare story? I think the ongoing negotiations with Turkey

have had their ups and downs for several months now. That is a very

difficult situation. It would be no easier if we were outside the

European Union or in. The flood of refugees coming out of Syria, going

through Turkey and other countries, some in, some outside the EU like

Macedonia and Serbia, that needs a cooperative effort at European level

to try to reach agreement to handle that better. It is far better that

we are in those negotiations than peripheral to them. It is in our

interest to our say. What about moves to an EU army? It's the,

quote, the framing of a progressive defence policy that might lead to a

common defence. Why would there not be moves to having a EU army? The

operational word is might. If you look at the procedure, it needs the

unanimous consent of every single member state. By the way, in law, in

Britain now, such a transfer of responsibilities to the European

Union would require another referendum. Nothing like that can

possibly happen without the British people agreeing with it. What I'm

trying to find out, is the idea... The idea has been around since the

early 1950s, the French national parliament rejected it in 1954.

Various people come out and say, wouldn't it be a good idea? And it

has never happened. It may never happen, but it doesn't mean it

won't. Many things have happened that you would think would never

have happened 40 years ago. Jean-Claude Juncker wants a EU army,

that is one powerful voice in favour? So do various people, but

the commission can't decide it, it can only make suggestions. It is the

member states. Every single member state has to agree, so it's not

going to happen. Well, we don't know, do we? There are many things

we were told would not happen, but they do. I'm trying to work out why

people are not talking about these things at the moment. Not without

our agreement, Andrew. The German defence minister says that the

future belongs to a European army, it would strengthen Europe's

security. We are told a German white Paper on this has been postponed

until after the referendum. There is a second powerful voice in favour of

it? Maybe it would, maybe it would not be a strengthening of European

defence. The point is, for that to happen you would need a British

government to agree it and it is enshrined in our national law that

the decision, itself, would need a new referendum. Of course lots of

people think X, Y, Z would happen, but they could not happen without

our agreement. Officials in Brussels are talking about or preparing

papers on a new treaty, higher budget, a EU intelligence service, a

European army, more economic integration, new powers over health

policy, scrapping zero rate VAT, mandatory sharing of gas, even a

common position on the IMF. We know that in the years ahead, some of

that, by no means all, some of that will happen, won't it? It is the job

of the European Commission to think of ideas, where it thinks it might

be a good idea for the whole of Europe to work together on those

subjects. But the commission does not decide. It puts that to the

member states, the Council of ministers, a minister from every

country around the table. Some of the things you have mentioned would

even need a treaty change. All of that needs the agreement of the

member states. The commission will come up with all kind of ideas,

weird and wonderful, or sensible. That is its job. It is up to our

ministers to accept or reject them. In many cases, it needs the approval

of parliament, or even a referendum, according to British law. We are

told this by people like you time and time again, it's not going to

happen, if it does it will need our approval and the rest of it. We were

told by a Labour minister... It might happen, if we were to agree to

it. We were told by a Labour minister that the Charter of

fundamental rights would have no more legal status than the Beano.

Now it turns out it is written into the European Court of Justice and

applies to Britain. It turned out to be a bit more important than the

Beano, didn't it? If you look into that, actually, what the charter

does is restrict what the European Union institutions can do. It more

or less binds them to follow the same rules that we apply in Britain

about human rights, which we negotiated in the separate deal on

the European Convention of human rights. It applies to Britain? The

fact is, it applies to Britain and we were told it didn't? What applies

to Britain is very different, it's nothing to do with the EU, the

European Convention On Human Rights. Churchill was a great champion not

of that. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the Charter of

fundamental rights and it is written into the European Court of justice?

We were told it wouldn't be? Yes. What it says very clearly, that was

clear when Britain ratified it, is that it binds the European

institutions and the field of European Union law, even when we are

applying it, to recognise and respect those fundamental rights

that we would expect everybody to follow, and now that is also binding

on the European institutions. It restricts them in what they can

propose and what they can do to make sure they respect the same rights

that we would want them to respect. Thank you for joining us today.

At this late stage in the EU referendum campaign,

the majority of MPs have announced their voting intentions.

But there are a few who are still making up their minds and some

This week, John Mann and Dennis Skinner put the number

of Labour MPs declaring they'd vote to leave the EU into double figures

And Labour MP Khalid Mahmood announced he's joining

the campaign to keep Britain in the European Union -

after previously backing the campaign to leave.

Khalid joins us from the Birmingham studio and John Mann

John Conner let me come to you first. You said you are going to

vote to leave. You told us that on Friday. Why did you leave it so late

to declare? I had to weigh up all of the issues, these are not

straightforward decisions. The big question for me is, the EU is

broken, fundamentally broken. Can it be reformed from the inside or not?

My conclusion is that it can't be. One of the reasons is that David

Cameron's negotiations, even on the absurdity of child benefits being

paid to children that have never been in this country, he could not

get agreement on that. It is because the structures of the European Union

do not allow that kind of common-sense change to take place.

It is there, in the rules, and it can't be changed. Khalid Mahmood,

you previously backed the campaign to leave, you now think we should

remain. You say you are worried about the threat to workers' rights

if we leave the EU. How have you only realise that now?

I wanted to look at the wider agenda and work to resolve that. A lot of

the debate has focused on issues that have frightened people,

particularly on the Leave side, and people trying to contextualise it

about immigration. The whole thing is about how we deal to it -- with

it. If you don't doctor Europe, it makes immigration far worse. We need

to look at how you to restrict borders,

stop people coming in. We've done that with an agreement with France

to put up fences to stop people coming onto the trains through the

tunnel. We've worked together to do that. What do you say to that? The

European Union has failed. Angela Merkel unilaterally decided on

behalf of Germany to have 1 million Syrians come to Germany. What was

less noticed was she a load huge numbers of Kosovans to come to

Germany. -- she allowed. The German economists said they needed 3

million workers. That has a huge impact on the rest of the European

Union. This concept of the European citizen rather than the British

citizen, the German citizen, is the fundamental fault line in the

European Union, that it cannot fix. If that was fixed it would be a

different proposition but it cannot be. That is why the issue of

immigration is so toxic. We don't know what will happen in ten, 20, 30

years. We have no control over it. The only way we will know is if we

engage with it and make the decisions from inside. We are the

final destination. If we don't cooperate with Europe and France,

and the Borders are open, and the French have no incentive not to let

people come through, we have to work together to resolve these issues.

We've only got a couple of minutes. We are being told by a number of

Labour politicians on both sides of the argument that it is proving a

struggle to get the Labour vote out for remain. Have you found that? The

reason I joined is we want to get the vote out more effectively. If it

is struggle? We are working hard to make sure we get people out. Yes,

that is why I wanted to join, push people forward. You think it's a

struggle. Most people are making up their own minds. The Westminster

bubble debate and the Leave campaign against the Remain campaign is not

the same as the debate going on in workplaces and households. There is

an entirely different debate going on. It is quite clear the Labour

Party is not entirely in touch with Labour voters on this issue. I thank

you both for joining us. It's coming up to 11.50,

you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland who leave us now Hello and welcome to

the Sunday Politics Wales. Is a new dawn about to break for

council reform in Wales? The new man in charge tells us

he wants a plan in And with the EU referendum debate

well into its final fortnight, what would remaining or leaving mean

for education in Wales? But first, the new man in charge

of reforming councils has told this programme he hopes

to have a new plan in place In his first interview since taking

the job, Mark Drakeford says his predecessor's plan

for a map with only eight or nine And he's open minded

about how to move things on. Council leaders have told us

they have plenty of ideas for him. Cemlyn Davies has been on a road

trip to find out more. Where does the road lead

now for Welsh councils? And we've parked just

here, about to head into Rhondda Cynon Taff,

looking down over And for several years,

up until last month, this whole area was represented

in the Assembly by Leighton Andrews. He had his own map of Wales,

a very different one to this Now, many people disagreed

with Mr Andrews's plan, but at least with him holding

the compass there was an idea Since he's lost his seat,

everything, it seems, It's almost a year since the then

public services Minister announced he wanted to reduce the number

of local authorities in Wales The aim was to improve efficiency,

but the plans were immediately criticised by several

council leaders. Including Bob Wellington who also

leads the Welsh local There's nothing more dangerous

in a combat zone, he said, So what is his position now

with the general in question Let's now join together again

and look for new solutions. The formula isn't going away,

austerity is still here. The bottom line is that I think

the best people to give direction to local government

are local authorities. And so put the past

behind us, let's move A month in the job Debbie Wilcox

Wales's newest council leader, but she already has strong opinions

about the future. Clearly, we won't end up

with the same model as we have, And there will be rationalisation

and there will be some But not this wholescale

throwing the baby out with the bath water,

you know, and the map as it was. Is that what Leighton

Andrews was doing? Clearly, he was because

the map was produced. But what remains is a real

engagement from Welsh local government to say, we know we need

to do things differently. We know we need to do things better,

but, you know what, listen to us Some councils like Swansea

are still open to Mergers may not be right

for everybody, but we were West Glamorgan authority previously

and we were happy with a proposed However, it has to be a major

for the right reasons. The one question I don't think

was answered properly the first time was what is it you want local

government to do? When you answer that question

properly then you'll get structure you need to deliver the services

that local governments deliver. Councillor Stuart is now looking

forward to hearing what Mr Andrews's successor,

Mark declared, has planned. Leighton was a different

character to mark. Mark conscillatory guy,

he is somebody who we feel we feel we can talk

through a detailed process with. I think we'll have an excellent

relationship with him. Over the past few days I've spoken

to a number of council leaders representing some of Wales's

largest local authorities, they've all told me

that the priority now has to be delivering services at such

a financially difficult time. They also told me they realise

they need to work together, and there is a willingness

to do that. Through projects like

the Cardiff City deal and Swansea Bay city region

there is already a great deal Their message now, to Welsh

government, seems to be this, There was a similar pitch from one

Conservative Assembly Member when he raised the issue

with the First Minister this week. Crime more than happy to meet

you for a point some time Well, I think these things are best

kept on a formal basis, but I thank the member

for that invitation nevertheless. Those discussions will now begin,

this seems to be general agreement that there is a need to move forward

with reform of local government, but there are very different views

about the format should take. Of course, the Cabinet Secretary

will have discussions on this over the course of the next few

weeks and months. I think consultation has got

to be the way forward. I think that, you know,

the Welsh local government Association will have a role to play

in that, council leaders But where officers are delivering

an effective and good service, overseen by councillors,

that needs to be brought to light where good

arrangements are in place. Let's look at those,

look at the governance and deliver good services

for the people of Wales. In the meantime the road

ahead remains unclear, and no doubt there'll be further

twists and turns before we know where Welsh

councils are heading next. Plenty of points to put

to the new Cabinet Secretary then. Mark Drakeford has been on a journey

of his own. He told me he was in the middle

of visiting all of Wales' councils. I asked him whether he's now

starting again with What I've got in front of me,

I think, is a period of talking, Of trying to work with people

who are in the sector, When I'm out talking to people,

by and large, people are very willing to agree

that there are challenges facing local government that have to be

faced up to and have to be solved. Now we can create a consensus around

the best way in which those Lines on a map is part of it,

but only one part of it. I want a discussion with the sector

that is not just about structures, but about purpose, services,

ways in which we can strengthen the relationship of local

authorities with their I think there's a real appetite

in the sector to have The last government put forward

the idea of a map of eight or nine local authorities,

where do you stand I understand that given

the political geography of the National Assembly

we would not be able to secure the votes necessary

to take forward that map. The First Minister said that that

map will have to be set aside. My job is to explore,

with local authorities and others, the options that may be

and to craft a consensus But will you be putting

forward a new map? I don't want to get hang out,

in my conversations, But eventually you will have

to do that. People agree that there is a need

to collaborate but you need to talk about numbers,

you need to talk about how the council map

will look in the end. Well, there are different

ways of collaborating. They don't all involve starting

with an obsession with I am more interested,

myself, in-house How the way in which we can get

councils to work together will strengthen services that

are there already and protect services that would otherwise be

under threat because of austerities. They will be changes

that are needed. I want a conversation

with those people who will be responsible for this,

and a search for consensus. Sounds like you're moving away

from the idea of mergers. There are more than one way

than mergers can be There are councils in Wales who have

come forward voluntarily, You rejected those ideas

in the previous government. In that period we were looking

at whether or not we would be better having a more fundamental

and wholesale moving of boundaries. But there are ways in which councils

can cooperate, in which we might be able to bring people together

from particular purposes while not Or not ruling out the local

authorities themselves, coming to the conclusion

that they would be stronger It sounds like more of a sort of mix

and match approach than, What I'm trying to do today,

and I've been trying to do for a while, is talking to local

authorities and being clear that at this point I'm not committed

to any particular solution. What I'm saying is,

there are a range of solutions We tried a particular way

in the last Assembly, we know we will not be able to make

that happen given the numbers So we've got to be prepared

to have a wider conversation in which all these possibilities

are rope and at the moment. I want to carry on those

conversations and then we will need to see if we can come

to a conclusion. OK, your predecessor was talking

about eight or nine councils, you don't want to talk

about numbers at all. Is it feasible that we could

have the same 22 local authorities at the end of this process,

whenever that is? Well, what I'm not going to do,

and I've said this directly to local authorities,

I'm not going to country number out of the air and say

the right number is X. What I'm interested in, as I say,

is how we have forms of local government,

structures of local government, powers of local government that

allow councils to go onto do a vitally important job,

that they do every day for almost How can we help them

to do that better? How can we protect them

against the ravages of austerity? There are other things to be

done as well. We've talked to council leaders,

and there's a strong sense that your predecessor,

his approach didn't They sort of talk

about you as somebody Is your approach

going to be different? He was definitely a tough talking

minister when he came to council reorganisation,

is your approach going to be softer? Look, as I said, Leighton

Andrews set an agenda. He attempted, with the Welsh

government, to take the lead Lots of that has been productive,

lots of that will play But given the numbers

and as a minority administration, I recognise that the only way

we'll be able to push through changes through

consensus-building. When I go out talking

to local authorities... But that was tried before

and it didn't work. Well, the difference this time,

I think, is that the need The recognition is greater,

people do understand that change I've had nobody suggest

anything different in my My job, as a politician,

is to try and find ways of bridging different points of view,

to have an agenda where there are choices that we can debate

and then to try and lead people to a point where we can

move forward together. And you bring me to the final

question about the timescale. You talked about these conversations

happening in a relatively short When you envisage this new setup,

whatever it is? I intend to give up a very large

part of my time over the next months, I hope by the end of July

to have met every council leader And I want a period over the summer

than with those conversations can settle on our minds,

where we can try and I will be disappointed if,

in the autumn, I couldn't come forward having had those discussions

with local authorities, with the political parties,

with those people who have such a strong interest in making local

authority services as good as they can be with a way forward

that would take people with us. And the changes are

actually implemented? Then it would depend

what the changes are, because different sorts of changes

will require different timetables. There is always a tension in public

services between wanting to get things done, which we certainly

need, but wanting to do things in a way that doesn't cause

disruption and difficulty by trying to force a timetable faster

than the system can absorb. Now many of you, and I include

myself in this, are still getting over the euphoria of Wales playing,

and winning, in the But there's another big European

fixture a week Thursday of course, the referendum on UK

membership of the EU. So let's give it our attention now,

particularly in terms Joining us are Professor Kent

Matthews who's Professor of Banking and Finance at Cardiff University

and wants to Leave the EU, and the Labour MP for

Cardiff Central, Jo Stevens Welcome both. When it comes to Welsh

universities, they are very pro-EU. They get a lot of money from the EU.

There is collaboration with other universities, why should they leave?

I am not pessimistic about leaving. I don't see any reason those

relationships should be changed at all. If they shouldn't be changed

why leave the EU? That is not the arguments for leaving. The arguments

are quite separate, they are to do with politics and the democratic

deficit. They are about economics. Regarding the higher education, I

don't see much is going to change. In fact, with higher education we

are blessed with having a team of universities in the top 100. That is

more than all of the EU put together. Academic excellence is

want to generate funding, and funding follows academic excellence.

Ken Matthews says nothing much would change if the EU UK left the EU. If

that is the case then I wouldn't expect to see universities UK, the

National union students and Nobel Prize winners saying that we should

definitely stay in. We gain massively from being members of the

EU in the university sector. 15.5% of EU funding to universities comes

to the UK and 228 member states would disproportionately benefit

from it. But the argument being made is that that though is not a good

enough reason to trump the economic reasons.

That depends what your view on those other reasons are. Universities are

our future and feeds directly into local economy and the UK economy.

?73 billion generated by universities in the UK as part of

the European single market. There will be huge disadvantages, I

believe, if we come out. Kent Matthews, these relationships are

already established, pulling out would be a huge shock to higher

education, wanted? Some of these funding streams won't survive. First

of all, it's not clear why that should happen if these relationships

are built on academic excellence. The second thing is that this

funding that the European gives to universities is the British

taxpayer. We are quite capable, in finding a universities, if we choose

to. For the next few years, if we did leave, nothing much would happen

to EU funding because the formulas in place will remain in place until

we negotiate our withdrawal. Of course, until the universities have

an interest group but there case for more funding. I, as an academic,

argue universities to get more money. But universities contributed

a lot to the Welsh economy. They provided a lot of jobs. Their view

is valid, isn't it? Absolutely. I argue we get more funding, but that

means somebody else has to get less. That is how democracy works. After

all, we are supposed to be good at that. The argument we leave from the

leave campaign on a lot of issues is that the EU is a conduit for UK

money. It is UK money that is going through Brussels and coming out in a

less efficient way. This money will come through universities through

the Government? There is no guarantee of that at

all. UK universities receive 15.5% of EU research money. We gain

massively. It's not just money going into Europe and coming straight

back, we get more back. We have a huge university sector in Wales, it

is incredibly important. 84% of published research in Wales comes

from a universities. So the argument is why the EU and UK benefit from

the money, and freedom of movement of staff and students across the EU,

that will continue if we leave? Not necessarily. We have the Rasmus

scheme where students and staff can go between EU countries, we've had

200,000 students take advantage of that scheme. But that's already

broader than the EU. That could continue? It could continue to an

extent but university research is all about collaboration. I wonder

how we can argue that coming out of Europe is going to help us

collaborate on a global market, an EU wide market when you've got

universities across the EU... If they want to collaborate they will

carry on doing that. The UK now collaborates with universities

outside the EU. They could carry on in the same

terms. But if you make it more difficult for that to happen and put

barriers on place, which would inevitably happen then it won't

happen as much. Restrictions on freedom of movement

are bound to hit academic staff, they wanted students. That's the bad

thing, isn't it? Certainly regarding collaboration, I don't think so. We

collaborate more outside the EU than we do inside. I think within the EU

funding it is available for academics outside the European Union

Horizon 2020 is open to anywhere in the world. But it is an EU

programme. You'd be silly to think that the European Union only finds

European Union project because we don't have a monopoly on human

capital and stop the whole idea of research projects is to reach out to

the rest of the world. But it will add uncertainty. No, I

don't think so. I'm going to China in a few hours' time to take part in

a research meat. That's exactly the same as the Erasmus, the research

collaboration that we are talking about. There's absolutely no deed to

think... So nothing would change at all? We are looking outside the

European Union. We find research outside the European Union, the

fundamental thing is academic excellence. That is what is

important. Britain does have academic excellence and that is

important. We attract people from the States, with the best start,...

Can you answer very quickly what will it look like for universities

if the UK pulls out? If we come out of the academic excellence that Kent

talks about will Di lived. The reason why we have more people

coming to a universities both to teach and to study is because of

freedom of movement which has allowed the best talent and best

brains to counter a universities. They set up businesses, create jobs

and grow the economy. To broaden the discussion, an the wider situation,

how do you think it's looking? How do you think it's going to go? The

polls are incredibly close. The only people I speak to other unacademic

trump rational that taxi drivers, and so far I haven't met a taxi

driver who said they are going to vote to stay in. Well, I've been

knocking doors in my constituency, it's a university constituency with

lots of young people and students. There was a very strong feeling in

Cardiff Central that people would like to stay in. Across Wales, and

across the UK I suspect there are different patches. It's very close,

isn't it? On balance, if I think we had to put money on it I would say

remain would win but it will be very close. Very close, but leave when a

small margin. Very quickly, what about the confusion that is still

out there. A lot of people still haven't decided. Lots of people

haven't decided, but a lot of people are not saying because there's a

slight hint of what we had in the Scottish referendum, that out of our

shelters and people who want to stay in scared to say so. You

Don't forget you can follow all the latest on twitter,

The House of Commons inquiry into the collapse of the HS rumbles on.

We're joined in the studio by the Conservative member

of the Business Select Committee Richard Fuller.

The former owner Sir Philip Green has been summoned to face

questioning by Richard's committee on Wednesday but the retail

billionaire yesterday declared he was "not prepared to participate"

unless the chair of the Work and Pensions committee Frank Field

My response is that the House of Commons appoints the chairman. The

select committees, because there are two expect Sir Philip to appear on

Wednesday. Sir Philip has a lot of key questions to answer. He calls

the shots, he is the person that can actually answer. Parliament expects

him to turn up on Wednesday. Richard, nobody expects Frank Field

to resign? No. Is full of green looking for a way of trying to avoid

appearing? -- Philip Green. He may call the shots at British Home

Stores, but no matter how big you are, you don't call the shots on

Parliament. Obviously he knows that, he must be trying to express his own

concerns. He thinks it is because of the committee. But lots of the

evidence against him has come from the people he sold the company to,

advisers to him on that transaction. They are going against each other

now, aren't they? Those that sold and bought the company, it is like

rats in a sack, isn't it? If I was an employee had British Home Stores,

I would be shocked at how little regard was paid by any of these

people in their employment, in their stores, and if I was someone with a

pension, I would be concerned why somebody was taken out of the

profits and the reserves, the important thing is that Philip Green

took the money out of the reserves. There was a need to put money back

in and he was found wanting. Can you force him to appear? I think the

force of public opinion will suggest that he should come. I don't know

that Parliament needs to send the Sergeant at Arms to drag him,

kicking and screaming. Why should he be susceptible, a billionaire, who

splits his time between Monaco and Park Lane, where does he come

face-to-face with public opinion? He has his own reputation, he made

assertions he was trying to do the right thing, come and show that two

us. Secondly, he relied on advisers, that he was the director of the

company and their response validity needs to answer. -- there are respot

abilities he needs to answer. If it's so important, you talk about

the pensioners, people who are retired, they depend on their

pension, 11,000 BHS workers who have done nothing wrong at all apart from

turn up every day and work hard for their store, they now lose their job

as well. Shouldn't Parliament, if you were a US congressional

committee, you would have the power to subpoena him.

We discussed on my committee with Mike Ashley. In the end he decided

to come. We did not need to take further action. My understanding is

opinion is divided on this, it is not clear if a Parliamentary select

committee can for somebody to give evidence. Exactly right. It is not

clear whether we have the ultimate sanction of forcing someone to come

under law. There has always been an expectation that if people are asked

to account for their actions they would come. If Sir Philip Green

wants to be the first person to stand against that then so be it.

VHS was sold for ?1. That puts a big neon sign above the whole

transaction. -- BHS. It was sold to a man who was three times bankrupt.

We don't know why the business department or the regulators let

this happen. If Parliament is to matter it surely has to be able to

force these people to come and speak to it? The moral pressure had an

excerpt is still fairly impressive. We did see Mike Ashley, a

billionaire. Rupert Murdoch was forced to turn up by pressure. What

happens if there is an empty seat? Mike Ashley, we're not suggesting he

did anything legally wrong. His company was not paying the minimum

wage. Even that moral pressure was enough to get him to turn up, as a

billionaire retailer. Parliament is still pretty impressive. My

understanding is it is a quasi judicial event, and he can be

dragged in front of the Speaker of the house, and absolutely we should

do that. It has been a terribly bad week for business, it put them in a

very bad light. The idea you can have a knighthood and be a

billionaire on your jot and put two fingers up to the representatives of

the British people, I don't think so. What is your take on this?

Thousands of jobs that they sold for a poem, the allegations that have

been made by the gentleman who bought the business are eye

watering. I'm sure the public would like to see Sir Philip Green brought

kicking and screaming. He can decide not to come but that would tell

everyone answers to the questions we want him to answer. It is a chance

for him to put the record straight if there is a story for him to tell

otherwise people will draw their own conclusions. He can bring Kate Moss

on his arm. What would we do if he does not turn up, would that be

grounds for being stripped of the knighthood? I have always said we

need to wait for him to come and answer the questions and there are

very serious concerns about his behaviour if he does not come, and

at that stage then within the rules of how you can be stripped of an

honour I think they would very seriously look at that.

Jeremy Corbyn's advisers are sceptical of what they call

Perhaps that's why, on Friday night, the Labour leader appeared

to explain his views on Europe, not on a political analysis

programme but on the Channel 4 comedy gig The Last Leg.

And if you thought the great Jezza was all allotments

It seems he also does Bentleys and bling.

Why? To show that he's up for a laugh. People will think that. There

is a risk because other people might open the newspaper and see the

pictures. So it was all right to do that? I think so. You never know?

People might think he does that at the weekend. Old jumpers during the

week. Fake fire at the weekend? You might be right. I find that a

stretch. They wanted to show he had a sense of humour. He came across

very well. It was very witty. Unless you want to be Prime Minister.

People who want to be by Minister cannot be the type of people who

want to have a laugh? -- Prime Minister. I do think people like to

take seriously people who want to become Prime Minister. Was it an

attempt to put more humanity on him? They must have thought long and hard

about doing this. I'm not sure they think long and hard about anything.

Your initial question was why, I think the answer is I don't think he

wants to be premature and I don't think he thinks he will ever be

Prime Minister and therefore the cost of this type of gesture is

minimal. He is not missing out on vote that he wants anyway. He said

one thing during the performance which the press interpreted as

embarrassing, he said 70% Remain. More than I thought he was. I think,

perversely, might resonate with more marginal voters than we think,

people who will grudgingly consider voting to stay in. I wonder whether

he has arrived at a line which is more persuasive than David Cameron.

I thought he performed quite well, this relief that he can open his top

button, Showtime. He could have a future with an acting career. We

have the tooting by-election. Don't mention any of the candidates or I

need to go through the lot. It is being overshadowed by the

referendum. Is it significant? It was reasonably tight at the last

election and before Sadiq Khan one, people said it could be lost for

Labour. I would be surprised, in the wake of the mayoral election, which

gave a boost to Labour. The money is on Labour to keep the seat. If the

Tories when it will be very significant, actually, by-elections

are not very significant. You say that but some of us needs to be up

on the night to cover them. It would be significant for the Tories to win

it. A long shot while they are knocking lumps out of each other.

The most telling thing is even in the current state they are three

points ahead of Labour. Tooting is trending long-term because there are

more prosperous people in it. This might be a bit too early to take

advantage of that but you could imagine it is one of those seats in

2020 that could turn blue if Jeremy Corbyn is still

leader. Thank you for being with us. We will look with interest to see

who is with you on Wednesday. Maybe with the fur coat? If you would like

to know the result, June in on ABC one on Thursday night. We will bring

you the live coverage of the result from the tooting by-election. That's

it from today. Remember, if it is Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.