27/11/2016 Sunday Politics Wales

It's Sunday morning and this is the Sunday Politics.

Was Fidel Castro a revolutionary hero or a murderous dictator?

After the Cuban leader's death, politicians divide over his legacy.

Can the NHS in England find billions of pounds' worth of efficiency

The Shadow Health Secretary joins me live.

Should we have a second Brexit referendum on the terms

of the eventual withdrawal deal that's struck with the EU?

Former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown and former Conservative cabinet

minister Owen Paterson go head-to-head.

How changes to the Labour rule book could decide who'll be

the next First Minister, and what really happens behind

the scenes when political leaders get together?

And with me, Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.

They'll be tweeting throughout the programme

Political leaders around the world have been reacting to the news

of the death of Fidel Castro, the Cuban revolutionary who came

to power in 1959 and ushered in a Marxist revolution.

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson described the former leader

as an "historic if controversial figure" and said his death marked

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said Castro was "a champion of social

justice" who had "seen off a lot of US presidents"

President-elect Donald Trump described the former Cuban leader

as a "brutal dictator", adding that he hoped his death

would begin a new era "in which the wonderful Cuban people

finally live in the freedom they so richly deserve".

Meanwhile, the President of the European Commission,

Jean-Claude Juncker, said the controversial leader

was "a hero for many" but "his legacy will be judged

I guess we had worked that out ourselves. What do you make of the

reactions so far across the political divide? Predictable. And I

noticed that Jeremy Corbyn has come in for criticism for his tribute to

Castro. But I think it was the right thing for him to do. We all know he

was an admirer. He could have sat there for eight hours in his house,

agonising over some bland statement which didn't alienate the many

people who want to wade into attacked Castro. It would have been

inauthentic and would have just added to the sort of mainstream

consensus, and I think he was right to say what he believed in this

respect. Elsewhere, it has been wholly predictable that there would

be this device, because he divided opinion in such an emotive way.

Steve, I take your point about authenticity and it might have

looked a bit lame for Jeremy Corbyn to pretend that he had no affection

for Fidel Castro at all, but do you think he made a bit of an error

dismissing Castro's record, the negative side of it as just a floor?

He could have acknowledged in more elaborate terms the huge costs. He

wanted to go on about the health and education, which if you actually

look up the indices on that, they are good relative to other

countries. But they have come at such a huge cost. He was not a

champion of criminal justice. If he had done that, it would have been

utterly inauthentic. He doesn't believe it. And he would have

thought there would be many other people focusing on all the epic

failings. So he focused on what he believed. There are times when

Corbyn's prominence in the media world now as leader widens the

debate in an interesting and important way. I am not aware of any

criticisms that Mr Corbyn has ever announced about Mr Castro. There

were four words in his statement yesterday which is spin doctor would

have forced him to say, for all his flaws. He was on this Cuban

solidarity committee, which didn't exist to criticise Castro. It

existed to help protect Castro from those, particularly the Americans,

who were trying to undermine him. And Corbyn made a big deal yesterday

saying he has always called out human rights abuses all over the

world. But he said that in general, I call out human rights abuses. He

never said, I have called out human rights abuses in Cuba. In the weeks

ahead, more will come out about what these human rights abuses were. The

lid will come off what was actually happening. Some well authenticated

stories are pretty horrendous. I was speaking to a journalist who was

working there in the 1990s, who gave me vivid examples of that, and there

will be more to come. I still go back to, when a major figure diet

and you are a leader who has admired but major figure, you have to say

it. That is the trap he has fallen into. He has proved every criticism

that he is a duck old ideologue. But he is not the only one. Prime

Minister Trudeau was so if uses that I wondered if they were going to

open up a book of condolences. I think it reinforces Corbyn's failing

brand. It may be authentic, but authentic isn't working for him.

When I was driving, I heard Trevor Phillips, who is a Blairite, saying

the record was mixed and there were a lot of things to admire as well as

all the terrible things. So it is quite nuanced. But if you are a

leader issuing a sound bite, there is no space for new ones. You either

decide to go for the consensus, which is to set up on the whole, it

was a brutal dictatorship. Or you say, here is an extraordinary figure

worthy of admiration. In my view, he was right to say what he believed.

There was still a dilemma for the British government over who they

sent to the funeral. Do they sent nobody, do they say and Boris

Johnson as a post-ironic statement? There is now a post-Castro Cuba to

deal with. Trump was quite diplomatic about post-Castro Cuba.

And Boris Johnson's statement was restrained. The thing about Mr

Castro was the longevity, 50 years of keeping Marxism on the island.

That was what made it so fascinating.

Before the last election, George Osborne promised the NHS

in England a real-terms funding boost of ?8 billion per year by 2020

on the understanding that NHS bosses would also find ?22 billion worth

Since last autumn, NHS managers have been drawing up what they're calling

"Sustainability and Transformation Plans" to make these savings,

but some of the proposals are already running into local

opposition, while Labour say they amount to huge cuts to the NHS.

Help is on the way for an elderly person in need in Hertfordshire.

But east of England ambulance call operators

they're sending an early intervention vehicle

with a council-employed occupational therapist on board.

It's being piloted here for over 65s with

When they arrive, a paramedic judges if the patient can be

treated immediately at home without a trip to hospital.

Around 80% of patients have been treated this way,

taking the strain off urgently-needed hospital beds,

So the early intervention team has assessed the patient and decided

The key to successful integration for Hertfordshire being able

to collaboratively look at how we use our resources,

to have pooled budgets, to allow us to understand

where spend is, and to let us make conscientious decisions about how

best to use that money, to come up with ideas to problems

that sit between our organisations, to look at things collaboratively.

This Hertfordshire hospital is also a good example of how

You won't find an A unit or overnight beds here any more.

The closest ones are 20 minutes down the road.

What's left is nurse-led care in an NHS-built hospital.

Despite a politically toxic change, this reconfiguration went

through after broad public and political consultation

with hospital clinicians and GPs on board.

It's a notable achievement that's surely of interest to 60% of NHS

trusts in England that reported a deficit at the end of September.

It's not just here that the NHS needs to save money and provide

The Government is going to pour in an extra ?8 billion into the NHS

in England, but it has demanded ?22 billion

worth of efficiencies across the country.

In order to deliver that, the NHS has created 44 health

and care partnerships, and each one will provide

a sustainability and transformation plan, or STP, to integrate care,

provide better services and save money.

So far, 33 of these 44 regional plans, drawn up by senior people

in the health service and local government,

The NHS has been through five years of severely constrained spending

growth, and there are another 4-5 years on the way at least.

STPs themselves are an attempt to deal in a planned way

But with plans to close some A units and reduce the number

of hospital beds, there's likely to be a tough political battle

ahead, with many MPs already up in arms about proposed

This Tory backbencher is concerned about the local plans for his

I wouldn't call it an efficiency if you are proposing to close

all of the beds which are currently provided for those coming out

of the acute sector who are elderly and looking

That's not a cut, it's not an efficiency saving,

All 44 STPs should be published in a month's time,

But even before that, they dominated this week's PMQs.

The Government's sustainability and transformation plans

for the National Health Service hide ?22 billion of cuts.

The National Health Service is indeed looking for savings

within the NHS, which will be reinvested in the NHS.

There will be no escape from angry MPs for the Health Secretary either.

Well, I have spoken to the Secretary of State just this week

about the importance of community hospitals in general,

These are proposals out to consultation.

What could happen if these plans get blocked?

If STPs cannot be made to work, the planned changes don't come

to pass, then the NHS will see over time a sort of unplanned

deterioration and services becoming unstable and service

The NHS barely featured in this week's Autumn Statement

but the Prime Minister insisted beforehand that STPs

are in the interests of local people.

Her Government's support will now be critical for NHS England

to push through these controversial regional plans,

which will soon face public scrutiny.

We did ask the Department of Health for an interview,

I've been joined by the Shadow Health Secretary,

Do you accept that the NHS is capable of making ?22 billion of

efficiency savings? Well, we are very sceptical, as are number of

independent organisations about the ability of the NHS to find 22

billion of efficiencies without that affecting front line care. When you

drill down into the 22 billion, based on the information we have

been given, and there hasn't been much information, we can see that

some of it will come from cutting the budget which go to community

pharmacies, which could lead, according to ministers, to 3000

pharmacies closing, which we believe will increase demands on A and

GPs, and also that a lot of these changes which are being proposed,

which was the focus of the package, we think will mean service cuts at a

local level. Do they? The chief executive of NHS England says these

efficiency plans are "Incredibly important". He used to work from

Labour. The independent King's Fund calls them "The best hope to improve

health and care services. There is no plan B". On the sustainable

transformation plans, which will be across England to link up physical

health, mental health and social care, for those services to

collaborate more closely together and move beyond the fragmented

system we have at the moment is important. It seems that the ground

has shifted. It has moved into filling financial gaps. As we know,

the NHS is going through the biggest financial squeeze in its history. By

2018, per head spending on the NHS will be falling. If you want to

redesign services for the long term in a local area, you need to put the

money in. So of course, getting these services working better

together and having a greater strategic oversight, which we would

have had if we had not got rid of strategic health authority is in the

last Parliament. But this is not an attempt to save 22 billion, this is

an attempt to spend 22 billion more successfully, don't you accept that?

Simon Stevens said we need 8 billion, and we need to find 22

billion of savings. You have to spend 22 billion more efficiently.

But the Government have not given that 8 billion to the NHS which they

said they would. They said they would do it by 2020. But they have

changed the definitions of spending so NHS England will get 8 billion by

2020, but they have cut the public health budgets by about 4 million by

20 20. The budget that going to initiatives to tackle sexually

transmitted diseases, to tackle smoking have been cut back but the

commissioning of things like school nurses and health visitors have been

cut back as well. Simon Stevens said he can only deliver that five-year

project if there is a radical upgrade in public health, which the

Government have failed on, and if we deal with social care, and this week

there was an... I understand that, but if you don't think the

efficiency drive can free up 22 billion to take us to 30 billion by

2020, where would you get the money from? I have been in this post now

for five or six weeks and I want to have a big consultation with

everybody who works in the health sector, as well as patients, carers

and families. Though you don't know? I think it would be surprised if I

had an arbitrary figure this soon into the job. Your party said they

expected election of spring by this year, you need to have some idea by

now, you inherited a portfolio from Diane Abbott, did she have no idea?

To govern is to make choices and we would make different choices. The

budget last year scored billions of giveaways in things like

co-operating -- corporation tax. What I do want to do... Is work on a

plan and the general election, whenever it comes, next year or in

2020 or in between, to have costed plan for the NHS. But your party is

committed to balancing the books on current spending, that is currently

John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor's position. What we are

talking about, this extra 30 billion, that is essentially current

spending so if it doesn't come from efficiency savings, where does the

money come from? Some of it is also capital. Mainly current spending. If

you look at the details of the OBR, they have switched a million from

the capital into revenue. Why -- how do you balance spending?

That is why we need to have a debate. Every time we ask for

Labour's policy, we are always told me a debate. Surely it is time to

give some idea of what you stand for? There's huge doubts about the

Government 's policy on this. You are the opposition, how would you do

it? I want to work with John McDonnell to find a package to give

the NHS the money it needs, but of course our Shadow Chancellor, like

any Shadow Chancellor at this stage in the cycle, will want to see what

the books look like a head of an election before making commitments.

I am clear that the Labour Party has to go into the next general election

with a clear policy to give the NHS the funding it needs because it has

been going through the largest financial squeeze in its history.

You say Labour will always give the NHS the money it needs, that is not

a policy, it is a blank cheque. It is an indication of our commitment

to the NHS. Under this Conservative government, the NHS has been getting

a 1% increase. Throughout its history it has usually have about

4%. Under the last Labour government it was getting 4%, before that

substantially more. We think the NHS should get more but I don't have

access to the NHS books in front of me. The public thinks there needs to

be more money spent on health but they also think that should go cap

in hand with the money being more efficiently spent, which is what

this efficiency drive is designed to release 22 billion. Do you have an

efficiency drive if it is not the Government's one? Of course we

agree. We agree the NHS should be more efficient, we want to see

productivity increased. Do know how to do that? One way is through

investments, maintenance, but there is a 5 million maintenance backlog.

One of the most high risk backlogs is something like 730 million. They

are going to switch the capital spend into revenue spend. I believe

that when you invest in maintenance and capital in the NHS, that

contribute to increasing its productivity. You are now talking

about 5 billion the maintenance, the chief executive says it needs 30

billion more by 2020 as a minimum so that 35 billion. You want to spend

more on social care, another for 5 billion on that so we have proper

care in the community. By that calculation I'm up to about 40

billion, which is fine, except where do you get the and balance the

account at the same time? We will have to come up with a plan for that

and that's why I will work with our Shadow Treasury team to come up with

that plan when they head into the general election. At the moment we

are saying to the NHS, sorry, we are not going to give you the

investment, which is why we are seeing patient care deteriorating.

The staff are doing incredible things but 180,000 are waiting in

A beyond four hours, record levels of people delayed in beds in

hospitals because there are not the beds in the community to go to save

the NHS needs the investment. We know that and we know the

Government's response to that and many think it is inadequate. What

I'm trying to get from you is what your response would be and what your

reaction will be to these efficiency plans. Your colleague Heidi

Alexander, she had your job earlier this year, she warned of the danger

of knee jerk blanket opposition to local efficiency plans. Do you agree

with that? Yes. So every time a hospital is going to close as a

result of this, and some will, it is Labour default position not just

going to be we are against it? That is why we are going to judge each of

these sustainability plans by a number of yardsticks. We want to see

if they have the support of local clinicians, we want to see if they

have the support of local authorities because they now have a

role in the delivery of health care. We want to see if they make the

right decisions for the long-term trends in population for local area.

We want to see if they integrate social care and health. If they

don't and therefore you will not bank that as an efficiency saving,

you will say no, that's not the way to go, you are left then with

finding the alternative funding to keep the NHS going. If you are

cutting beds, for example the proposal is to cut something like

5000 beds in Derbyshire and if there is the space in the community sector

in Derbyshire, that will cause big problems for the NHS in the long

term so it is a false economy. An example like that, we would be very

sceptical the plans could work. Would it not be honest, given the

sums of money involved and your doubts about the efficiency plan,

which are shared by many people, to just say, look, among the wealthy

nations, we spend a lower proportion of our GDP on health than most of

the other countries, European countries included, we need to put

up tax if we want a proper NHS. Wouldn't that be honest? I'm not the

Shadow Chancellor, I don't make taxation policy. You are tempting me

down a particular road by you or I smile. John McDonnell will come up

with our taxation policy. We have had an ambition to meet the European

average, the way these things are measured have changed since then,

but we did have that ambition and for a few years we met it. We need

substantial investment in the NHS. Everyone accepts it was

extraordinary that there wasn't an extra penny for the NHS in the

Autumn Statement this week. And as we go into the general election,

whenever it is, we will have a plan for the NHS. Come back and speak to

us when you know what you are going to do. Thank you.

Theresa May has promised to trigger formal Brexit negotiations

before the end of March, but the Prime Minister must wait

for the Supreme Court to decide whether parliament must vote

If that is the Supreme Court's conclusion, the Liberal Democrats

and others in parliament have said they'll demand a second EU

referendum on the terms of the eventual Brexit deal before

And last week, two former Prime Ministers suggested

that the referendum result could be reversed.

In an interview with the New Statesman on Thursday,

Tony Blair said, "It can be stopped if the British people decide that,

having seen what it means, the pain-gain cost-benefit analysis

John Major also weighed in, telling a meeting

of the National Liberal Club that the terms of Brexit

were being dictated by the "tyranny of the majority".

He also said there is a "perfectly credible case"

That prompted the former Conservative leader

Iain Duncan Smith to criticise John Major.

He told the BBC, "The idea we delay everything simply

because they disagree with the original result does

seem to me an absolute dismissal of democracy."

So, is there a realistic chance of a second referendum on the terms

of whatever Brexit deal Theresa May manages to secure?

Lib Dem party leader Tim Farron has said, "We want to respect

the will of the people and that means they must have their say

in a referendum on the terms of the deal."

But the Lib Dems have just eight MPs - they'll need Labour support

One ally is former Labour leadership candidate Owen Smith.

He backs the idea of a second referendum.

But yesterday the party's deputy leader, Tom Watson, said that,

"Unlike the Lib Dem Brexit Deniers, we believe in respecting

To discuss whether or not there should be a second referendum

on the terms of the Brexit deal, I've been joined by two

In Somerset is the former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown,

and in Shropshire is the former Conservative cabinet minister

Paddy Ashdown, let me come to you first. When the British people have

spoken, you do what they command, either you believe in democracy or

you don't. When democracy speaks, we obey. Your words on the night of the

referendum, what's changed? Nothing has changed, Andrew, that's what I

said and what I still believe in. The British people have spoken, we

will not block Parliament debating the Brexit decision, Article 50, but

we will introduce an amendment to say that we need to consult the

British people, not about if we go out but what destination we would

then achieve. There is a vast difference in ordinary people's

lives between the so-called hard Brexit and soft Brexit. Soft Brexit,

you remain in the single market, you have to accept and agree on

immigration. Hard Brexit you are out of the single market, we have many

fewer jobs... Why didn't you say before the referendum there would be

a second referendum on the terms? Forgive me, I said it on many

occasions, you may not have covered it, Andrew, but that's a different

thing. In every speech I gave I said this, and this has proved to be

true, since those who recommended Brexit refused to tell us the

destination they were recommending, they refuse to give any detail about

the destination, if we did vote to go out, it would probably be

appropriate to decide which destination, hard Brexit or soft

Brexit we go to. They deliberately obscure that because it made it more

difficult to argue the case. It wasn't part of the official campaign

but let me come to Owen Paterson. What's wrong with a referendum on

the terms of the deal? We voted to leave but we don't really know on

what conditions we leave so what's wrong with negotiating the deal and

putting that deal to the British people? This would be a ridiculous

idea, it would be a complete gift to the EU negotiators to go for an

impossibly difficult deal because they want to do everything to make

sure that Brexit does not go through. This nonsense idea of hard

Brexit and soft Brexit, it was never discussed during the referendum

campaign. We made it clear we wanted to take back control, that means

making our own laws, raising and spending the money agreed by elected

politicians, getting control of our own borders back, and getting

control of our ability to do trade deals around the world. That was

clear at all stages of the referendum. We got 17.4 million

votes, the biggest vote in history for any issue, that 52%, 10% more

than John Major got and he was happy with his record number of 14

million, more than Tony Blair got, which was 43%, so we have a very

clear mandate. Time and again people come up to me and say when are we

going to get on with this. The big problem is uncertainty. We want to

trigger Article 50, have the negotiation and get to a better

place. OK, I need to get a debate going.

Paddy Ashdown, the EU doesn't want us to leave. If they knew there was

going to be a second referendum, surely there was going to be a

second referendum, surely their incentive would be to give us the

worst possible deal would vote against it would put us in a

ridiculous negotiating position. On the contrary, the government could

go and negotiate with the European Union and anyway, the opinion of the

European Union is less important than the opinion of the British

people. It seems to me that Owen Paterson made the case for me

precisely. They refuse to discuss what kind of destination. Britain

voted for departure, but not a destination. Because Owen Paterson

and his colleagues refused to discuss what their model was. So the

range of options here and the impact on the people of Britain is huge.

There is nothing to stop the government going to negotiate,

getting the best deal it can and go into the British people and saying,

this is the deal, guys, do you agree? Owen Paterson? It is simple.

The British people voted to leave. We voted to take back control of our

laws, our money, our borders. But most people don't know the shape of

what the deal would be. So why not have a vote on it? Because it would

be a gift to the EU negotiators to drive the worst possible deal in the

hope that it might be chucked out with a second referendum. The

biggest danger is the uncertainty. We have the biggest vote in British

history. You have said all that. It was your side that originally

proposed a second referendum. The director of Leave said, there is a

strong democratic case for a referendum on what the deal looks

like. Your side. Come on, you are digging up a blog from June of 2015.

He said he had not come to a conclusion. He said it is a distinct

possibility. No senior members of the campaign said we would have a

second referendum. It is worth chucking Paddy the quote he gave on

ITV news, whether it is a majority of 1% or 20%, when the British

people have spoken, you do what they command. People come up to me and

keep asking, when are you going to get on with it? What do you say to

that, Paddy Ashdown? Owen Paterson has obviously not been paying

attention. You ask me that question at the start. Owen and his kind have

to stick to the same argument. During the referendum, when we said

that the Europeans have it in their interest to picket tough for us,

they would suffer as well. And that has proved to be right. The European

Union does not wish to hand as a bad deal, because they may suffer in the

process. We need the best deal for both sides. I can't understand why

Owen is now reversing that argument. Here is the question I am going to

ask you. If we have a second referendum on the deal and we vote

by a very small amount, by a sliver, to stay in, can we then make it

best-of-3? No, Andrew! Vince Cable says he thinks if you won, he would

have to have a decider. You will have to put that income tax, because

I don't remember when he said that. -- you have to put that in context.

Independent, 19th of September. That is a decision on the outcome. The

central point is that the British people voted for departure, not a

destination. In response to the claim that this is undemocratic, if

it is democratic to have one referendum, how can it be

undemocratic to have two? Owen Paterson, the British government, on

the brink of triggering article 50, cannot tell us if we will remain

members of the single market, if we will remain members of the customs

union. From that flows our ability to make trade deals, our attitude

towards freedom of movement and the rest of it. Given that the

government can't tell us, it is clear that the British people have

no idea what the eventual shape will be. That is surely the fundamental

case for a second referendum. Emphatically not. They have given a

clear vote. That vote was to take back control. What the establishment

figures like Paddy should recognise is the shattering damage it would do

to the integrity of the whole political process if this was not

delivered. People come up to me, as I have said for the third time now,

wanting to know when we will get article 50 triggered. Both people

who have voted to Remain and to Leave. If we do not deliver this, it

will be disastrous for the reputation and integrity of the

whole political establishment. Let me put that you Paddy Ashdown. It is

very Brussels elite - were ask your question but if we don't like the

answer, we will keep asking the question. Did it with the Irish and

French. It is... It would really anger the British people, would it

not? That is an interesting question, Andrew. I don't think it

would. All the evidence I see in public meetings I attended, and I

think it is beginning to show in the opinion polls, although there hasn't

been a proper one on this yet, I suspect there is a majority in

Britain who would wish to see a second referendum on the outcome.

They take the same view as I do. What began with an open democratic

process cannot end with a government stitch up. Contrary to what Owen

suggests, there is public support for this. And far from damaging the

government and the political class, it showed that we are prepared to

listen. We shall see. Paddy Ashdown, have you eaten your hat yet? Andrew,

as you well know, I have eaten five hats. You cannot have a second

referendum until you eat your hat on my programme. We will leave it

there. Paddy Ashdown and Owen Paterson, thank you much. I have

eaten a hat on your programme. I don't remember!

It's just gone 11.35, 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.

On today's programme: The British-Irish Council

met in Wales this week, but what really happens at these

And the Welsh Conservative leader Andrew RT Davies will be here live

to talk about a fairer future for Wales after,

yes, you've guessed it, Brexit.

But first, no-one likes a good root around the rule book more

This programme has learned the party in Wales is to consider

changing its leadership election rules to the system

which saw Jeremy Corbyn become UK party leader.

Any changes could have a major impact on which person eventually

Paul Martin has been reading between the lines for us...

Check the rule book, where would our political parties be without them?

For many Labour members, the rules are sacred. Written, revered and

amended down the ages by comrades of the past. Last year, Jeremy Corbyn

won the Labour leadership after a major change to the Labour rule

book. He got in under a symbol -- simple one member, one-vote system,

with registered supporters given a thought, too. Many saw the change is

a big factor his victory, but the rules for electing the leader of

Welsh Labour or not changed at the same time. The system here remains

what is known as an electoral college. The vote is weighted

equally between three sections. Elected members, that is AMs, MPs

and Welsh Labour's MEP, ordinary members and trade unions and other

affiliated groups. Welsh Labour now has the power to decide whether to

stick with this system or move to one member, one vote. The decision

will affect the future contest over who succeeds Carwyn Jones. The man

himself is not saying when he plans to stand down. I have no plans to

change in the near future. The gossip is that he may go sometime in

2019. The new rules would also apply to a potential deputy leader

contest. But there is a battle looming. Many on the left of the

party having seen Jeremy Corbyn when two victories under one member, one

vote, want the same system here. I fully support one member, one vote.

And they did as a fairer system. Every member has a vote that counts

the same. But others often described as more centrist or moderate think

the electoral college is the better option. We are a broad church. The

electoral college represents all wings of the party and,

fundamentally, ensures that whoever leads Welsh Labour has the support

of the Labour group in the National Assembly. A left-wing candidates

like Finance secretary Mark Drakeford could in theory benefit

from one member, one vote. Other potential candidates, like Health

Secretary Von Gavin, economy secretary Ken skates and some of the

new intake of Labour AMs are seen as more centrist. They may favour the

electoral college. One former adviser thinks advocates of either

system are being pragmatic rather than principled. What people are

saying now in terms of the time they vote -- where they will get more

votes for their particular candidate. We did have a discussion

about democracy but what it comes down to is what the direction of the

party and two you want to be the First Minister, when you think you

would get more votes. Given the recent blood-letting within the

party, I asked the man who will oversee the consultation if it is

going to become another big and divisive row. I'm sure some

individuals would like that to be the case, but as the chair of the

party and will be looking to try and unite both sides of that argument.

And to take it forward in the way that I have outlined. Quietly,

gently, thoroughly and methodically, so at the end of this we get a

process that everybody can say, I have had an opportunity to have my

say. Welsh Labour will start studying the views of members after

the spring conference, and the consultation will last one year. The

final say will either by the executive committee or a full vote

at the 20 18th conference. Welsh Labour is taking its time over

writing its own chapter in the rule book, but with potential

implications of the future direction of the party, it is going to be an

interesting read. Just a bumpy Brexit

and a few ring roads". The words of the First Minister

today, as has called for the UK Government to work more closely

with Wales over Brexit. Carwyn Jones' article was written

shortly after he hosted a meeting Now everyone's in favour

of more co-operations, but what actually happens at these

events and how much use are they? We sent Cemlyn Davies along

to have a good scout One after the other, the heavyweight

arrived. Ready to talk politics, but rugby, too, as Alan Kane to London

to Wales international Jamie Roberts ahead of the summit's kick-off.

Created as a result of the Good Friday agreement, the British -

Irish Council brings together eight different administrations. With the

aim of promoting good relations and co-operation. The focus of today's

discussion is Brexit. The meeting is just getting under way in there so

we have be asked to leave. We will get to speak to the leaders in a

couple of hours when they hold a press conference here. What's goes

on behind closed doors at these meetings? I have been speaking to

one former Welsh government adviser who has attended Harrow fair share

of British- Irish summits. In this shot, Joe Kiernan can been seen --

can be seen sitting behind Nick Clegg and the Welsh First Minister,

Carwyn Jones. Allan there are opportunities and plenary sessions

for everyone to centrepiece, but really it is the meetings that

happened behind closed doors, maybe between Carwyn Jones and Nicola

Sturgeon, or the Northern Ireland First Minister and Deputy First

Minister. Both the discussions around the dinner where a few

glasses of wine are hands, or over breakfast, are as important if not

more important than the formal plenary sessions. It gives us a

framework for practical cooperation in areas where we can do more by

working together. The first meeting was held in London in December,

1999, when Tony Blair chaired the talks and Wales was represented by

the first secretary Matt Alun Michael. This is the 28th summits

and the individuals and personalities involved have changed

quite a bit of good years. The Low personalities are obviously very

different. When Alex Salmond was there, he took a more kind of desk

banging, I want to tell you what is going on, kind of attitude to it. If

Carwyn Jones was cross and about lack of economic stimulus with the

fact that we were not getting our fair share of money in terms of the

consequential, he would let them know in no uncertain terms. I could

do hotel at last, time for the politicians to face the press. From

our perspective, there are two issues that need to be emphasised.

The market access issue. From a constitutional perspective, we would

not well, in any way shape or form any reduction in the powers of the

people of Wales and they're elected assembly in government. One of the

key objectives is to get the best arrangements for UK business to

operate with and trade within the single markets of the European

Union. We also recognise the outcome of the EU referendum, are very clear

message was given in to migration. I didn't like the decision of the UK

electorate but I respected and we now have to deal with it. The best

outcome would be something as close to what we have at the moment. The

imposition of tariffs and border checks would be of enormous

inconvenience, time wasting delays, like of investment and costing jobs

at the end. We are getting to a position where we are hearing the

views, concerns and getting to a position where, by the time we

invoke Article 50, we can get the best deal for the whole of the UK.

Alun Cairns was one of four UK Government representatives at the

summit. The Prime Minister did not attend. How frustrated you do

Theresa May is not here? I think the prime ministers should come to the

British Irish Council meetings. I have long thought that. I have been

coming to these meetings are quite some time, even before I was First

Minister. I might be wrong here but I don't think you COBRA minister has

been to any of the meetings that I have to. The Taoiseach, but Enda

Kenny and his predecessors, have always come to the Council meetings.

Generally I think the UK prime ministers should attend, but

particularly now when the issues impacting on all of us are so

serious. I think it would be a good idea if the Prime Minister could

come to the next one. It has been suggested she doesn't take this

forum seriously. I won't fade out by typing she would send an important

signal that she does take it seriously. Why is the Prime Minister

not here? I think this is a forum which, traditionally, territorial

departments have taken the lead. It was right that the Welsh Secretary

of the Northern Ireland Secretary, because of the relationship of this

organisation to the Belfast agreement, play their role. The

Prime Minister has meant personally with the Taoiseach and each of the

leaders of the devolved administrations. This room is pretty

much deserted now. That is apart from a few conscientious reporters,

still working hard. We have had a press conference, than the

interviews and the packing up is well under way. Shortly afterwards,

it was time to say goodbye, until they meet again at the next summit

in Northern Ireland. That is in June.

Remember the big red bus and its promise of ?350

million extra a week for the NHS after Brexit?

This week the Chancellor said far from freeing up

funds, Brexit would cost the country billions instead.

This morning the Welsh Conservatives have said they want to see a fairer

way of distributing structural funds after we leave.

Well, the leader of the Welsh Conservatives,

and a leading Brexiteer, of course, Andrew RT Davies

Good morning. We can start by looking at your plans, your

proposals, this morning. It is to do with the grant aid, hundreds of

millions, billions of pounds which came to West Wales and the valleys

and other parts of Wales. What you want to see change? We don't know

how much money will be coming but how would you like to see it used?

These are the things we should be looking at in the assembly, as

political parties. I can fully understand why people are fixated on

Brexit, Article 50, but when the wishes of the British people are

enacted and we leave the EU, there will be a new landscape for

delivering social cohesion funding, regeneration, agriculture. We need

to be focusing on how we are going to do that. It is a very tight

timetable. We don't believe it should be just narrow geographical

limitations on the way the money is spent, which is how it has been done

up until now. You had areas of Wales that were identified on a map that

said, you get this amount of money to regenerate yourselves and

increase economic performance. That failed miserably. Areas like Barry

have been excluded from that. Areas of mid-wells had been excluded. But

that is not true. It is true! I have the figures. Between 2014 2020, two

.4 euros billion are due to come to Wales. 2 billion went to West Wales

and the valleys, 400 million went to East Wales which included Barry,

Wrexham, Vale of Glamorgan. In Barry, 100,000 on Barry town Hall,

one point million on the hub. Barry was getting a fair share of that

money for the needs of Barry. What was wrong there? It wasn't because

of you look at Barry and some of the words in Barry, I have social

deprivation indices as high as any in the valleys. If you look at some

areas in mid Wales, where you have deep pockets of rural deprivation,

and have had very little luck assistance. Some money has gone in

and structural funds, but when we look at the performance they have

not done what they were supposed to do. I think what we need to be

looking at is getting greater community involvement in these

projects. I was chairman of creative rural communities which is a

regeneration partnership set up in the Vale of Glamorgan, with limited

funds, that was community land. People don't want these great big

government structures dictating how they spend the money or regenerate

their communities. They have got the ideas. Let's unlock the ideas by

working with them. You want to see more areas, more projects, sharing

however much money will come down from the UK Government in future?

Maybe one of the problems with that is that weakness, according to be a

valuations of the objectives, were this sprinkling of money everywhere

rather than focusing on fewer, larger projects. You seem to be

suggesting going to gut wriggling of money everywhere which might not

lead to any improvements. We are saying that we need to have that

conversation and start this thinking. We want to see more

community led projects that actually take their leadership from the

community rather than a top-down approach which is what most

governments have done since 1999. By identifying their own pet projects

which have redundantly failed because we haven't seen the

performance in economic and Richmond in areas where the money has gone,

such as the valleys, West Wales. And exclusion of vast areas of Wales to

the detriment of the economic performance of those areas. I get

the point that people are fixated on Article 50 and also on the

negotiations. The point I'm making is that that is the big picture

stuff, but our perspective, we have to be looking at what we want in

Wales after we come out of the EU. That conversation has been pushed

out because of the big picture of Article 50 and the Brexit

negotiations. I am trying to stick on to the grant aid that we are

discussing before you started imagine Article 50. We talk about

pet projects from the Welsh government which have failed. The

areas of these 12 that haven't prospered. Areas like Cardiff

Wrexham, they have prospered over the last few years. It's not like

those areas are struggling desperately. The money from

objective one was areas like the valleys, West Wales, really

struggling. Perhaps the failure is there, if they have not increased

the GDP, the economy there, he doesn't seem that you are offering

any answers. Other than, let's have all the communities involved in

certain projects. There are plenty of examples you can take that show

that with community led projects, working with businesses in

particular, rather than the public sector lead, you can achieve better

results. The city Deal concept is a great way of looking assets, putting

public private sector development together. Public money and private

money put together to unleash greater potential. What we haven't

done in Wales since 1999 is embraced the private sector, work with them

as partners in those communities. They have said no, the public sector

are the only ones who have the answers. They don't. You need a

partnership approach. You also need to be looking at areas of mid-Wales

and the South as well, Harry, which have not developed as they should

because they have been excluded from much of the generation. You won't

like this next bit because I want to talk about Article 50 and the

process of exiting the EU. It is undoubtedly very important. One of

the things we have heard over the last few days, Mark Drakeford,

Carwyn Jones's right-hand man, he was saying that when it comes to

negotiations, they want to be fully involves on outlining the UK's

negotiation positions. They also want to be in the room, part of

those negotiations, when they involve devolved areas. Is that

something you agree with? Environment, agriculture, fisheries.

What is the Prime Minister's clamoured the moment? She has

identified that she wants to work with the devolved administrations do

make sure they're having their input into the UK position when

negotiating the exit from the European Union. The UK Government

have the point on this. That is that they're the ones who will leave the

crochet since. That is clearly understood. The prime ministers that

they structure where, periodically, overtime, the governments of

Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, will come together with the UK

Government, or come areas of mutual interest, but ultimately it is the

UK Government which is on points. The UK Government... You are

outlining the situation as it is. Mark Drakeford would like to see

more involvement from the Welsh government on devolved areas, and

considers their responsibility, not the UK Government's responsibility.

It is a devolved area. Shouldn't they be in the room? I would quietly

and firmly say to Mark Drakeford, deal with the areas you have

responsibility over. That is what they want. Use the it is to shape

policy that are to you. There was it is many because the prime ministers

set up the structures for Mark Drakeford -- Mark Drakeford and

Carwyn Jones to negotiate on behalf of wealth. On one side, you have

Labour Cabinet secretaries and the First Minister as saying they wanted

me in the room, taken notice of. They are being taken notice of. When

I offered to work with Carwyn Jones to make sure Wales got the best

possible deal but they could out of all these negotiations, he flatly

rejected the offer of help at the hand of friendship. There are two

faces to Carwyn Jones and Welsh Labour on this. They believe they

are the only ones who should represent Wales, when his own

constituency and many others are voted out. If he had a more

inclusive approach, politically, he can achieve for more. One of the

issues raised in a conference in Swansea on Friday about Brexit was

looking at the Autumn Statement, and Philip Hammond setting out quite a

gloomy picture in terms of increasing borrowing, job losses

because of Brexit, a ?60 million black hole in the economy. A

question was put to Mark Reckless. If that turns out to be true, if

Brexit turns out to be economically disastrous, would you change of

mind? He seemed to suggest that he didn't think it would happen but if

it did he would change his mind. Would you? It is a hypothetical but

indulge me. He was responding to the budget office and he has responded

that officially because that is in law and he have to make an

observation of the predictions that they have made. Let's look at the

actual figures that came out last week. The real figures that show the

real economy performing well, creating quality jobs, record

investment by businesses, more than all the experts predicted. We have

not had the recession but everyone predicted when we have a referendum

campaign. If people carry on talking about it, I am sure with the

economic cycle we will get to the point that some of the remainder is

want us to be in. That shaped the economy to be one that continues to

create prosperity, jobs and opportunity. Those opportunities

taking us forward in the Brexit negotiations can be achieved and can

be... The UK Government can want to have its own way on the negotiations

but it is a two-way street. The EU will have their own views. Looking

ahead, and the ISS, a well-respected economic forecaster, DOB yard, the

official forecasters, and Philip Hammond, all suggesting there could

be a very bumpy road ahead. I recall those people predicting the same

thing in the referendum. Of course there will be bumped on the road,

that is the normal economic cycle. We have the Italian referendum next

week which could potentially put out the Italian government. We have to

grasp the opportunities and the real economy is powering ahead with

record investment, job creation and confidence in people's ability to

get on in life. We want a shape that through negotiations and we will.

Thank you much. I'm sure we will return to this subject.

Don't forget were @walespolitics on Twitter, but for now,

diolch am wylio - time to go back to Andrew.

have got to make sure London is open. Thank you. Andrew, back to

you. Is Theresa May serious

about curbing executive pay? Who will be crowned Nigel Farage's

successor as Ukip leader? And can the Lib Dems pull off

a by-election upset in Richmond? So,,, on pay talk about the

executive of what executives get compared to the average worker in

the company, giving shareholders real power to vote down pay rises if

they don't like them, which is pretty much what Ed Miliband

proposed in the general election in 2015. Is she serious about this? She

is very serious, and the Tory party probably does owe Ed Miliband an

apology for trashing his ideas and 2015 and then putting them all up

for votes in November 20 16. She is very serious, and this all comes

back to her desperate fear that unless capitalism reforms itself and

becomes more acceptable to the just about managing or even 78% of the

country who are not earning vast wealth at anywhere near the figures

you see in the City, serious things will happen and the political sense

of trust will implode. She has already been bartered down by her

own Cabinet on this. She wanted to go further and make workers on the

board mandatory. They have managed to stop that. What will her fallback

position be on workers on the board if she is not able to get it into

some claw? We would like to have workers on the board, but whatever

they do on the board there will have no voting powers on the board. When

you look at what was leaked out over the weekend, that we should know the

ratio of the top to the average and that shareholders who own the

company should determine, in the end, the highest-paid salaries, you

kind of think, what could the possible objection be to any of

that? Two things. One, I agree with Tom that she is deadly serious about

this agenda and it comes under the banner, that sentence in the party

conference speech about "It's time to focus on the good that government

can do". She is by instinct more of an interventionist than Cameron and

Osborne. But she is incredibly cautious, whether it is through the

internal constraints of opposition within Cabinet, or her own small C

Conservative caution in implementing this stuff. Part of the problem is

the practicalities. George Osborne commission will Hutton to do a

report which came out with similar proposals, which were never

implemented. It is quite hard to enforce. It will antagonise business

leaders when she's to woo them again in this Brexit furore. So there are

problems with it. And judging by what has happened so far, my guess

is that the aim will be genuinely bold and interesting, and the

implementation incredibly cautious. Does it matter if she annoys some

business leaders? Isn't that part of her brand? Will there be problems on

the Tory backbenches with it? I think there will be and I think it

does matter at this sensitive time for when we are positioning

ourselves as a country and whether we are going to brand ourselves as a

great city of business, implementing quite interventionist policies. Any

suggestion that the government can control how much the top earners

get, I think would be received in a hostile way. What would be wrong

with the shareholders, who own the company, determining the pay of the

higher hands, the executives? Morally, you can absolutely make

that argument but to business leaders, they will not like it.

Ultimately, this will not come down to more than a row of beans. There

was a huge debate about whether there should be quotas of women on

boards. In the end, that never happened. All we get is figures. But

quotas of women, for which there is a case and a case against too, that

was a government mandate. This is not, this is simply empowering

shareholders who own the company to determine the pay of the people they

hire. There is a strong moral argument for it. Strong economic

argument. But the Tory backbenchers will not like this. The downside is

that this is a world where companies are thinking about upping sticks to

Europe. No, they say they are thinking of that. Not one has done

it yet. Others have made massive investments in this country. But is

it not an incentive for those making these threats to actually do it? In

Europe, bankers' pay is now mandated by Brussels. It is a vivid way of

showing you are addressing the issue of inequality. I think she will go

with it, but let's move on to Ukip. I think we will get the result

tomorrow. There are the top three candidates. Paul Nuttall, Suzanne

Evans and on my right, John Reid Evans. One of them will be the next

leader. Who is going to win? It is widely predicted to be Paul Nuttall

and is probably the outcome that the Labour Party fears most. Paul

Nuttall is a very effective communicator. He is not a household

name, far from it, but people will begin to learn more about him and

find that he is actually quite a strong leader. Can people Ukip

together again after this shambolic period since the referendum? If

anyone can, he can. And his brand of working collar, Northern Ukip is the

thing that will work for them. Do you think he is the favourite? It

would be amazing if he doesn't win. His greatest problem will be getting

Nigel Farage off his back. He is going on a speaking tour of North

America. A long speaking tour. Ukip won this EU referendum. They had the

chance to hoover up these discontented Labour voters in the

north, and all he has done is associated with Ukip with Farage.

But Nigel Farage is fed up of Ukip and will be glad to be hands of it.

The bigger problem is money. If it is Paul Nuttall, and we don't know

the results yet, but he is the favourite, if it is him, I would

suggest that that is the result Labour is frightened of most. To be

honest, I think they are frightened of Ukip whatever the result.

Possibly with good cause. The reason I qualify that is that what you call

a shambles over the summer has been something that goes beyond Monty

Python in its absurdity and madness. That calls into question whether it

can function as a political party when you have what has gone on. The

number of leaders itself has been an act of madness. In a context which

should be fantastic for them. They have won a referendum. There is a

debate about what form Brexit should take, it is a dream for them, and

they have gone bonkers. If he can turn it around, I agree that he is a

powerful media communicator, and then it is a threat to Labour. But

he has got to show that first. Indeed. The by-election in Richmond

in south-west London, called by Zac Goldsmith over Heathrow. Has it

turned out to be a by-election about Heathrow, or has it turned into a

by-election, which is what the Lib Dems wanted, about Brexit? We will

know on Thursday. If the Lib Dems win, they will turn it into an EU

referendum. It seems incredibly close now. The Lib Dems are swamping

Richmond. They had 1000 activists there yesterday. That is getting on

for 100th of the population of the place! If the Lib Dems don't manage

to win on Thursday and don't manage to turn it into an EU referendum

despite all their efforts, it will probably be a disaster for the

party. What do you hear, Isabel? I hear that the Lib Dems have

absolutely swamped the constituency, but this may backfire. I saw a bit

of this myself, living in Witney, when the Lib Dems also swamped and

people began to get fed up of their aggressive tactics. I understand

that Zac Goldsmith is cautiously optimistic that he will pull this

one off. Quick stab at the result? I don't know. But we are entering a

period when by-elections are acquiring significant again. If the

Lib Dems were to make a game, it would breathe life into that near

moribund party like nothing else. Similarly, other by-elections in

this shapeless political world we are in are going to become

significant. We don't know if we are covering it live on Thursday night

yet because we have to find at the time they are going to declare.

Richmond are quite late in declaring, but if it is in the early

hours, that is fine. If it is on breakfast television, they be not. I

want to show you this. Michael Gove was on the Andrew Marr Show this

morning. In the now notorious comment that I made, I was actually

cut off in midstream, as politicians often. The point I made was not that

all experts are that is nonsense. Expert engineers, doctors and

physicists are not wrong. But there is a subclass of experts,

particularly social scientists, who have to reflect on some of the

mistakes they have made. And the recession, which was predicted that

we would have if we voted to leave, has gone like a puff of smoke. So

economic experts, he talks about. The Chancellor has based all of his

forward predictions in this Autumn Statement on the economic expert

forecasters. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said it is 50-50,

which is the toss of a coin. But what was he supposed to do? You

would ideally have to have a Budget that had several sets of scenarios,

and that is impossible. Crystal ball territory. But you do wonder if

governments are right to do so much of their fiscal projections on the

basis of forecasts which turn out to be wrong. They have nothing else to

go on. The Treasury forecast is to be wrong. No doubt the OBR forecast

will prove not to be exact. As you say, they admitted that they are

navigating through fog at the moment. But he also added that it

was fog caused by Brexit. So Brexit, even if you accept that these

forecasts might be wrong, is causing such a level of uncertainty. He put

the figure at 60 billion. That could come to haunt him. He hasn't got a

clue. He admitted it. He said, Parliament mandates me to come up

with something, so I am going to give you a number. But I wouldn't

trust it if I were you, he basically said. I agree with you. The man who

borrowed 122 billion more off the back of a coin toss was Philip

Hammond. It begs the question, what does that say about the confidence

Philip Hammond has in his own government's renegotiation? Not a

huge amount. I agree. Philip Hammond quoted the OBR figures. He basically

said, this is uncertain and it looks bad, and on we go with it. It is a

very interesting situation, he said. He was for Remain and he works in a

department which regards it as a disaster, whatever everyone else

thinks. I have just been told we are covering the by-election. We are

part of the constitution. Jo Coburn will have more

Daily Politics tomorrow And I'll be back here on BBC One

next Sunday at 11. Remember - if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics.