05/03/2017 Sunday Politics Wales

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

The Chancellor says that to embark on a spending spree

in Wednesday's Budget would be "reckless".

But will there be more money for social care and to ease

The UK terror threat is currently severe,

but where is that threat coming from?

We have the detailed picture from a vast new study of every

Islamist related terrorist offence committed over the last two decades.

What can we learn from these offences to thwart future attacks?

The government was defeated in the Lords on its

We'll ask the Leader of the House of Commons what he'll do if peers

Leanne Wood on council elections,

And Neil McEvoy, And what's in the box?

What can Wales expect from this week's budget?

All that coming up in the next hour and a quarter.

Now, some of you might have read that intruders managed

to get into the BBC news studios this weekend.

Well three of them appear not to have been ejected yet,

so we might as well make use of them as our political panel.

Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.

They'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

Philip Hammond will deliver his second financial

statement as Chancellor and the last Spring Budget

for a while at least - they are moving to the Autumn

There's been pressure on him to find more money

for the Health Service, social care, schools funding,

But this morning the Chancellor insisted that he will not be

using the proceeds of better than expected tax receipts to embark

What is being speculated on is whether we might not have borrowed

quite as much as we were forecast to borrow. You will see the numbers on

Wednesday. But if your bank increases your credit card limit, I

do not think you feel obliged to go out and spent every last penny of it

He is moving the budget to the autumn, he told us that in his

statement, so maybe on Wednesday it will be like a spring statement

rather than a full-blown budget. Tinkering pre-Brexit and in November

he will have a more clear idea of the impact of Brexit and I suspect

that will be the bigger event than this one. It looks as if there will

be a bit of money here and there, small amounts, not enough in my

view, for social care and so on, possibly a review of social care

policy. A familiar device which rarely get anywhere. I think he has

got a bit more space to do more if he wanted to do now because of the

politics. They are miles ahead in the polls, so he could do more, but

it is not in his character, he is cautious. So he keeps his powder dry

on most things, he does some things, but he keeps it dry until November.

But also, as Steve says, he will know just how strong the economy has

been this year by November and whether he needs to do some pump

priming or whether everything is fine. He said it is too early to

make those sorts of judgments now. What is striking is the amount of

concern there is an Number ten and in the Treasury about the tone of

this budget, so less about the actual figures and more about what

message this is sending out to the rest of the world. I think some

senior MPs are calling it a kind of treading water budget and Phil

Hammond has got quite a difficult act to perform because he is

instinctively rather cautious, or very cautious, and instinctively

slightly gloomy about Brexit. He wanted to remain. But he does not

want this budget to sounded downbeat and he will be mauled if he makes it

sound downbeat, so he has to inject a little bit of optimism and we may

see that in the infrastructure spending plans. He has got some room

to manoeuvre. The deficit by the financial year ending in April we

now know will not be as big as the OBR told us only three and a half

months ago that it would be. They added 12 billion on and they may

take most of that off again. He is under pressure from his own side to

do something on social care and business rates and I bet some Tory

backbenchers would not mind a little bit more money for the NHS as well.

He is on a huge pressure to do a whole lot on a whole load, not just

social care. There is also how on earth do we pay for so many old

people? There is the NHS, defence spending, everything. But his words

this morning, which is I am not going to spend potentially an extra

30 billion I might have by 2020 because of improved economic growth

was interesting. You need to hold something back because Brexit might

go back and he was a bit of a remain campaign person. If you think

Britain is going to curl up into a corner and hideaway licking its

wounds, you have got another think coming. That 30 billion he might

have extra in his pocket could be worth deploying on building up

Britain with huge tax cuts in case there is no deal, a war chest if you

like. He will have more than 27 billion. He may decide 27 billion in

the statement, the margin by which he tries to get the structural

deficit down, he will still have 27 billion. If the receipts are better

than they are forecast, some people are saying he will have a war chest

of 60 billion. That money, as Mr Osborne found out, can disappear. He

clearly is planning not to go on a spending spree this Wednesday. It is

interesting in the FTB and the day, David Laws who was chief Secretary

for five minutes, was also enthusiastic about the original

George Osborne austerity programme and he said, we have reached the

limits to what is socially possible with this and a consensus is

beginning to emerge that he will have to spend more money than he

plans to this Wednesday. This is not just from Labour MPs, but from a lot

of Conservative MPs as well. People will wonder when this austerity will

end because it seems to be going on for ever. We will have more on the

budget later in the programme. Now, the government was defeated

last week in the House of Lords. Peers amended the bill that

will allow Theresa May to trigger Brexit to guarantee the rights of EU

nationals currently in the UK. The government says it will remove

the amendment when the bill returns But today a report from

the Common's Brexit committee also calls for the Government to make

a unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU

nationals living here. If the worst happened,

are we actually going to say to 3 million Europeans here,

who are nurses, doctors, serving us tea and coffee in restaurants,

giving lectures at Leeds University, picking and processing vegetables,

"Right, off you go"? No, of course we are not

going to say that. So, why not end the

uncertainty for them now? will help to create the climate

which will ensure everyone gets to say because that's

what all of us want. That is why we have unanimously

agreed this recommendation that the government should make unilateral

decision to say to EU citizens here, yes, you can stay, because we think

that is the right and fair thing to do.

And we're joined now from Buckinghamshire by the leader

of the House of Commons, David Lidington.

Welcome back to the programme. The House of Lords has amended the

Article 50 bill to allow the unilateral acceptance of EU

nationals' right to remain in the UK. Is it still the government was

my intention to remove that amendment in the comments? We have

always been clear that we think this bill is very straightforward, it

does nothing else except give the Prime Minister the authority that

the courts insist upon to start the Article 50 process of negotiating

with the other 27 EU countries. On the particular issue of EU citizens

here and British citizens overseas, the PM did suggest that the December

European summit last year that we do a pre-negotiation agreement on this.

That was not acceptable to all of the other 27 because they took the

view that you cannot have any kind of negotiation and to Article 50 has

been triggered. That is where we are. I hope with goodwill and

national self interest on all sides we can tackle this is right that the

start of those negotiations. But it is not just the Lords. We have now

got the cross-party Commons Brexit committee saying you should now make

the unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU nationals in the

UK. Even Michael go, Peter Lilley, John Whittington, agree. So why are

you so stubborn on this issue? I think this is a complex issue that

goes beyond the rise of presidents, but about things like the rights of

access to health care, to pension ratings and benefits and so on...

But you could settle back. It is also, Andrew, because you have got

to look at it from the point of view of the British citizens, well over 1

million living elsewhere in Europe. If we make the unilateral gesture,

it might make us feel good for Britain and it would help in the

short term those EU citizens who are here, but you have got those British

citizens overseas who would then be potential bargaining chips in the

hands of any of the 27 other governments. We do not know who will

be in office during the negotiations and they may have completely

extraneous reasons to hold up the agreement on the rights of British

citizens. The sensible way to deal with this is 28 mature democracies

getting around the table starting the negotiations and to agree to

something that is fair to all sides and is reciprocal. What countries

might take on UK nationals living in the EU? What countries are you

frightened of? The one thing that I know from my own experience in the

past of being involved in European negotiations is that issues come up

that maybe have nothing to do with British nationals, but another issue

that matters a huge amount to a particular government, it may not be

a government yet in office, and they decide we can get something out of

this, so let's hold up the agreement on British citizens until the

British move in the direction we want on issue X. I hope it does not

come to that. I think the messages I have had from EU ambassadors in

London and from those it my former Europe colleague ministers is that

we want this to be a done deal as quickly as possible. That is the

British Government's very clear intention. We hope that we can get a

reciprocal deal agreed before the Article 50 process. That was not

possible. I understand that, you have said that already. But even if

there is no reciprocal deal being done, is it really credible that EU

nationals already here would lose their right to live and work and

face deportation? You know that is not credible, that will not happen.

We have already under our own system law whereby some people who have

been lawfully resident and working here for five years can apply for

permanent residency, but it is not just about residents. It is about

whether residency carries with it certain rights of access to health

care. I understand that, but have made this point. But the point is

the right to live and work here that worries them at the moment. The Home

Secretary has said there can be no change in their status without a

vote in parliament. Could you ever imagine the British Parliament

voting to remove their right to live and work here? I think the British

Parliament will want to be very fair to EU citizens, as Hilary Benn and

others rightly say they have been overwhelmingly been here working

hard and paying taxes and contributing to our society. They

were equally want to make sure there is a fair deal for our own citizens,

more than a million, elsewhere in Europe. You cannot disentangle the

issue of residence from those things that go with residents. Is the

Article 50 timetabled to be triggered before the end of this

month, is it threatened by these amendments in the Lords? I sincerely

hope not because the House of Lords is a perfectly respectable

constitutional role to look again at bills sent up by the House of

commons. But they also have understood traditionally that as an

unelected house they have to give primacy to the elected Commons at

the end of the day. In this case it is not just the elected Commons that

sent the bill to be amended, but the referendum that lies behind that. It

is not possible? We are confident we can get Article 50 triggered by the

end of the month. One of the other Lords amendments

will be to have a meaningful vote on the Brexit deal when it is done at

the end of the process, what is your view on that? What would you

understand by a meaningful vote? The Government has already said there is

going to be a meaningful vote at the end of the process. What do you mean

by a meaningful vote? The parliament will get the opportunity to vote on

the deal before it finishes the EU level process of going to

consideration by the European Parliament. Parliament will be given

a choice, as I understand, for either a vote for the deal you have

negotiated or we leave on WTO rules and crash out anyway, is that what

you mean by a meaningful choice? Parliament will get the choice to

vote on the deal, but I think you have put your finger on the problem

with trying to write something into the bill because any idea that the

PM's freedom to negotiate is limited, any idea that if the EU 27

were to play hardball, that somehow that means parliament would take

fright, reverse the referendum verdict and set aside the views of

the British people, that would almost guarantee that it would be

much more difficult to get the sort of ambitious mutually beneficial

deal for us and the EU 27. Your idea of a meaningful vote in parliament

is the choices either to vote to accept this deal or we leave anyway,

that is your idea of a meaningful vote. The Article 50 process is

straightforward. There is the position of both parties in the

recent Supreme Court case that the Article 50 process once triggered is

irrevocable. That is in the EU Treaty already but we are saying

very clearly that Parliament will get that right to debate and vote. I

think the problem with what some in the House of Lords are proposing, I

hope it is not a majority, is that the amendments they would seek to

insert would tie the Prime Minister's hands, limit and

negotiating freedom and put her in a more difficult position to negotiate

on behalf of this country than should be the case. One year ago you

said it could take six to eight years to agree a free-trade deal

with the EU. Now you think you can do it in two, what's changed your

mind? There is a very strong passionate supporter of Remain, as

you know. I hope very much we are able to conclude not just the terms

of the exit deal but the agreement that we are seeking on the long-term

trade relationship... I understand that, but I'm trying to work out,

what makes you think you can do it in two years when only a year ago

you said it would take up to wait? The referendum clearly makes a big

difference, and I think that there is an understanding amongst real the

other 27 governments now that it is in everybody's interests to sort

this shared challenge out of negotiating a new relationship

between the EU 27 and the UK because European countries, those in and

those who will be out of the EU, share the need to face up to massive

challenges like terrorism and technological change. All of that

was pretty obvious one year ago but we will see what happens. Thank you,

David Lidington. Now, the Sunday Politics has had

sight of a major new report The thousand-page study,

which researchers say is the most comprehensive ever produced,

analyses all 269 Islamist telated terrorist offences

committed between 1998-2015. Most planned attacks were,

thankfully, thwarted, but what can we learn

from those offences? For the police and the intelligence

agencies to fight terror, Researchers at the security think

tank The Henry Jackson Society gave us early access to their huge

new report which analyses every Islamism related attack

and prosecution in the UK since 1998, that's 269 cases

involving 253 perpetrators. With issues as sensitive

as counterterrorism and counter radicalisation, it is really

important to have an evidence base from which you draw

policy and policing, This isn't my opinion,

this the facts. This chart shows the number

of cases each year combined with a small number

of successful suicide attacks. Notice the peak in the middle

of the last decade around the time of the 7/7 bombings

in London in 2005. Offences tailed off,

before rising again from 2010, when a three-year period accounted

for a third of all the terrorism cases since the researchers

started counting. What we are seeing is a combination

of both more offending, in terms of the threat increasing,

we know that from the security services and police statements,

but also I believe we are getting more efficient in terms

of our policing and we are actually A third of people were found to have

facilitated terrorism, that's providing encouragement,

documents, money. About 18% of people

were aspirational terrorists, 12% of convictions were related

to travel, to training And 37% of people were convicted

of planning attacks, although the methods have

changed over time. Five or six years ago,

we saw lots of people planning or attempting pipe bombs and most

of the time they had Inspire magazine in their possession,

that's a magazine, an Al-Qaeda English-language online

magazine that had specific More recently we have seen

Islamic State encouraging people to engage in lower tech knife

beheading, stabbings attacks and I think that's why we have

seen that more recently. Shasta Khan plotted with her

husband to bomb the Jewish In 2012 she received

an eight-year prison sentence. She's one of an increasing

number of women convicted of an Islamism related offence

although it is still overwhelmingly a crime carried out

by men in their 20s. Despite fears of foreign terrorists,

a report says the vast Most have their home in London,

around 43% of them. 18% lived in the West Midlands,

particularly in Birmingham, and the north-west is another

hotspot with around 10% Richard Dart lived in Weymouth

and tried to attend a terrorist He was a convert to Islam, as were

60% of the people in this report. He was a convert to Islam, as were

16% of the people in this report. Like the majority of cases,

he had a family, network. What's particularly interesting

is how different each story is in many ways,

but then within those differences So your angry young men,

in the one sense inspired to travel, seek training and combat experience

abroad, and then the older, recruiter father-figure types,

the fundraising facilitator types. There are types within

this terrorism picture, but the range of backgrounds

and experiences is huge. And three quarters of those

convicted of Islamist terrorism were on the radar of the authorities

because they had a previous criminal record, they had

made their extremism public, or because MI5 had them

under surveillance. To discuss the findings of this

report are the former Security Minister Pauline Neville-Jones,

Talha Ahmad from the Muslim Council of Britain, and Adam Deen

from the anti-extremist group The report finds the most segregated

Muslim community is, the more likely it is to incubate Islamist

terrorists, what is the MCB doing to encourage more integrated

communities? Its track record on calling for reaching out to the

wider society and having a more integrated and cohesive society I

think is a pretty strong one, so one thing we are doing for example very

recently I've seen we had this visit my mosque initiative, the idea was

that mosques become open to inviting people of other faiths and their

neighbours to come so we were encouraged to see so many

participating. It is one step forward. Is it a good thing or a bad

thing that in a number of Muslim communities, the Muslim population

is over 60% of the community? I personally and the council would

prefer to have more mixed communities but one of the reason

they are heavily concentrated is not so much because they prefer to but

often because the socio- economic reality forces them to. But you

would like to see less segregation? Absolutely, we would prefer more

diverse communities around the country. What is your reaction to

that? Will need more diverse communities but one of the

challenges we have right now with certain organisations is this

pushback against the Government, with its attempts to help young

Muslims not go down this journey of extremism. One of those things is

the Prevent strategy and we often hear organisations like the MCB

attacking the strategy which is counter-productive. What do you say

to that? Do we support the Government have initiatives to

counteract terrorism, of course we do. Do you support the Prevent

strategy? We don't because it scapegoats an entire community. The

report shows that contrary to a lot of lone wolf theories and people

being radicalised in their bedrooms on the Internet that 80% of those

convicted had connections with the extremist groups. Indeed 25% willing

to Al-Muhajiroun. I think this report, which is a thorough piece of

work, charts a long period and it is probably true to say that in the

earlier stages these organisations were very important, of course

subsequently we have had direct recruiting by IS one to one over the

Internet so we have a mixed picture of how people are recruited but

there's no doubt these organisations are recruiting sergeants. You were

once a member of one of these organisations, are we doing enough

to thwart them? If we just focus on these organisations, we will fail.

We -- the question is are we doing enough to neutralise them? The

Government strategy is in the right place, but where we need to focus on

is the Muslim community or communities. The Muslim community

must realise that these violent extremists are fringe but they share

ideas, a broad spectrum of ideas that penetrate deeply within Muslim

communities and we need to tackle those ideas because that is where it

all begins. Are you in favour of banning groups like Al-Muhajiroun?

Yes, it was the right thing to do and I can tell you the community has

moved a long way, Al-Muhajiroun does not have support. Do you agree with

that? Yes, but it is very simplistic attacking Al-Muhajiroun. ISIS didn't

bring about extremism, extremism brought about ISIS, ISIS is just the

brand and if we don't deal with the ideological ideas we will have other

organisations popping up. The report suggests that almost a quarter of

Islamist the latest offences were committed by individuals previous

unknown to the security services. And this is on the rise, these

numbers. This would seem to make an already difficult task for our

intelligence services almost impossible. Two points. It is over

80% I think were known, but it shows the intelligence services and police

have got their eyes open. But the trend has been towards more not on

the radar. That has been because the nature of the recruitment has also

changed and you have much more ISIS inspired go out and do it yourself,

get a knife, do something simple, so we have fewer of the big

spectaculars that ISIS organised. Now you have got locally organised

people, two or three people get together, do something together,

very much harder actually to get forewarning of that. That is where

intelligence inside the community, the community coming to the police

say I'm worried about my friend, this is how you get ahead of that

kind of attack. Should people in the Muslim community who are worried

about individuals being radicalised, perhaps going down the terrorist

route, should they bring in the police? Absolutely and we have been

consistent on telling the community that wherever they suspect someone

has been involved in terrorism or any kind of criminal activity, they

should call the police and cooperate. As the so-called

caliphate collapses in the Middle East, how worried should we be about

fighters returning here? Extremely worried. They fall into

three categories. You have ones who are disillusioned about Islamic

State. You have ones who are disturbed, and then you have the

dangerous who have not disavowed their ideas and who will have great

reasons to perform attacks. What do we do? Anyone who comes back, there

should be evidence looked into if they committed any crimes. But all

those categories should all be be radicalised. You cannot leave them

alone. Will we be sure if we know when they come back? That is

difficult to say. They could come in and we might not know. There is a

watch list so you have got a better chance. And you can identify them?

This is where working with other countries is absolutely crucial and

our border controls need to be good as well. I am not saying and the

government is not saying that anyone would ever slip through, but it is

our ability to know when somebody is coming through and to stop them at

the border has improved. An important question. Given your

experience, how prepared are away for a Paris style attack in a

medium-size, provincial city? The government has exercised this one.

It started when I was security minister and it has been taken

seriously. The single biggest challenge that the police and the

Army says will be one of those mobile, roving attacks. You have to

take it seriously and the government does. All right, we will leave it

Now, Brexit may have swept austerity from the front pages,

but the deficit hasn't gone away and the government is still

Just this week Whitehall announced that government departments have

been told to find another ?3.5bn worth of savings by 2020.

Last November the Independent office for Budget Responsibility

said the budget deficit would be ?68 billion in the current

It would still be ?17 billion by 2021-22.

On Wednesday the Chancellor is expected to announce

that the 2016-17 deficit has come in much lower than the OBR forecast.

Even so, the government is still aiming for the lowest level

of public spending as a percentage of national income since 2003-4,

coupled with an increase in the tax burden to its highest

So spending cuts will continue with reductions in day-to-day

government spending accelerating, producing a real terms cut of over

But capital spending, investment on infrastructure

like roads, hospitals, housing, is projected to grow,

producing a 16 billion real terms increase by 2021-22.

The Chancellor's task on Wednesday is to keep these fiscal targets

while finding some more money for areas under serious

pressure such as the NHS, social care and business rates.

We're joined now by Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Welcome back to the programme. In last March's budget the OBR

predicted just over 2% economic growth for this year. By the Autumn

Statement in the wake of the Brexit vote it downgraded back to 1.4%. It

is now expected to revise that back around to 2% as the Bank of England

has again. It is speculated on the future. It looks like we will get a

growth forecast for this year not very different from where it was a

year ago. What the bank did was upgrade its forecast for the next

year or so, but not change very much. It was thinking about three or

four years' time, which is what really matters. It looked like the

OBR made a mistake in downgrading the growth in the Autumn Statement

three months ago. It was more optimistic than nearly all the other

forecasters and the Bank of England. It was wrong, but not as wrong as

everybody else. We don't know, but if it significantly upgraded its

growth forecast for the next three or four years, I would be surprised.

It also added 12 billion to the deficit for the current financial

year in the Autumn Statement, compared with March. It looks like

that deficit will probably be cut again by about 12 billion compared

to the last OBR forecast. It is quite difficult to make economic

policy on the basis of changes of that skill every couple of months.

That is one of the problems about having these two economic event so

close together. My guess is the number will come out somewhere

between the budget and the Autumn Statement numbers. There was a nice

surprise for the Chancellor last month which looked like tax revenues

were coming in a lot more strongly than he expected. But again the real

question is how much is this making a difference in the medium run? Is

this a one-off thing all good news for the next several years? If

growth and revenues are stronger, perhaps not as strong as the good

news last month, but if they are stronger than had been forecast in

the Autumn Statement, what does that mean for planned spending cuts? It

probably does not mean very much. Let's not forget the best possible

outcome of this budget will be that for the next couple of years things

look no worse than they did a year ago and in four years out they will

still look a bit worse, and in addition Philip Hammond did increase

his spending plans in November. However good the numbers look in a

couple of days' time, we will still be borrowing at least 20 billion

more by 2020 than we were forecasting a year ago. Still quite

constrained. George Osborne wanted to get us to budget surplus by 2019.

That has gone. Philip Hammond is quite happy with a big deficit and

is not interested in that. But what he is thinking to a large extent, as

you have made clear, there is a lot of uncertainty about the economic

reaction over the next three or four years. He says he wants some

headroom. If things go wrong, I do not want to announce more spending

cuts or more tax rises to keep the deficit down. I want to say things

have gone wrong for now and we will borrow. And I have got some money in

the kitty. He will not spend a lot of it now. I understand the

Chancellor is worried about the erosion of the tax base and it is

hard to put VAT up by more than 20%, millions have been taken out of

income tax, only 46% of people pay income tax, fuel duty is frozen for

ever, corporation tax has been cut, the growth in self-employed has

reduced revenues, is that a real concern? These are all worries for

him. We have as you said in the introduction to this, got a tax

burden which is rising very gradually, but it is rising to its

highest level since the mid-19 80s, but is not doing it through

straightforward increases to income tax. Lots of bits of pieces of

insurance premium tax is here and the apprenticeship levied there, and

that is higher personal allowance of income tax and a freeze fuel duty,

but at some point we will have to look at the tax system as a whole

and ask if we can carry on like this. We will have to start increase

fuel duties again, or look to those big but unpopular taxes to really

keep that money coming in to keep the challenges we will have over the

next 30 years. He is going to set up a commission on social care. He has

had quite a few commissions on social care. Thank you for being

with us. It's just gone 11.35,

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

in Scotland who leave us now Coming up here in twenty

minutes, the Week Ahead. Hello and welcome to

the Sunday Politics Wales. Everyone wants

a bit of what's in the red box, but how does Wales ensure it

gets its fair share? With Brexit set to be

triggered soon, where does Labour's Derek Vaughan

will be here live. But first, Plaid Cymru kicked off

the Spring conference season The party was keen to discuss

the upcoming council elections, a bit of Brexit, and its proposals

to increase income tax to pay But the event was overshadowed

after one AM, Neil McEvoy, was suspended as a councillor

for bullying an official, and other AMs saying he should be

suspended from the party. As the conference ended,

our political editor Nick Servini, caught up with the party leader,

Leanne Wood, and began Well, Leanne Wood, welcome

to Sunday Politics Wales. Let's start off with really the big

story of the day which is Now, the problem for

you is, in an official complaint of bullying has been

upheld and you yourself campaigned so strongly against bullying,

you are going to have to take some Let me put it straight

to you, we are very serious about the way

in which we take bullying and this matter has been referred

to the party chair and he is now undertaking a process

and I take internal processes very, And because there is

a process going, I am not at liberty to comment any further

on this case and so it is a matter But, look, you know

the accusations that will come your way, you've already had it from

Rhianon Passmore, Labour AM, saying by allowing him to speak today,

you have condoned bullying. Well, the conference

timetable was as it was and the party chair and

the conference steering committee is a process ongoing now

and I don't want to comment any Just on the process of caught up

with the timing on this, there are only two eventualities

from this adjudication You knew the conference,

why wasn't the process quicker because you could have

dealt with this? We have got our conference this

weekend, the priority is our conference and the smooth running

of our conference and other matters will be dealt with by the party

chair through due process and I'm not going to comment

on this any more. Big focus this weekend

was the council elections, Now, you lead in four local

authorities at the moment, what are you targeting and how many

councils are you going My target is to get

as many councillors as we possibly can in parts

of the country where we might not have had councillors before,

as well as those We are leading in four local

authorities, as you have said. We've got a strong record in those

four local authorities and we have This local election

campaign is going to be a There are numerous different things

that could happen at that local The key thing for Plaid Cymru

is that we get out there and We don't have the same media

coverage as some other parties might get so those doorstep conversations,

two-way dialogue, really, really important and that has been one

of my messages to our delegates here this weekend, if you want to see

Plaid Cymru strong in the local elections in May, get out

there and knocks on doors. And really you are going to be up

against Labour in so I wonder to what extent are

you hamstrung in this fight against Labour by the fact that you have got

a very close working relationship We are using every

opportunity to get as many of Plaid Cymru's manifesto commitments

through and we won serious gains for people in communities right

throughout Wales in the last budget Look at the example

of the new drugs and The First Minister said that

wasn't possible before the election and Plaid Cymru has used

our influence to make that happen and that's a real concrete gain for

people who are suffering from cancer So, you know, I think

it's really important that we are constructive

and that we use our time as opposition party

to try and bring about change and

improvement for people's lives and Whilst at the same

time as holding the I just wonder, are you

tempted at all when you look at a result like Copland,

and you look at the real vulnerability that Labour

are in at the moment, and you think, they may not be in such a state ever

again and that there you are supporting

them in Cardiff Bay. Do you ever get a sense

of maybe now is the time to go full, full

on opposition against that? Well, I would argue

that we are full on opposition. If you watch First

Minister's Question Time and other debates in the assembly,

you will see how critical Yes, but it's not

full on opposition, You don't make life that tough

for them because you allow them to get their budgets

through every year. Well, we are gaining things,

improvements in people's lives in There may be budget deals

in the future, we are not signed up to anything

beyond that first budget deal. We have a compact with Labour

in the assembly that -- but these local elections are

going to be fought on local issues. Already people are talking

about things like local services, the concerns about

losing their libraries, paddling pools, day centres, you name it,

people want something different to happen and they understand the

budget difficulties but people are prepared, I think, to come together

more now and provide those services that have been taken away from them

themselves in a self-sufficient way. In a way, like we haven't seen

before, and Plaid Cymru councils will enable communties to come

together and do that. One of the big policies,

ideas later today, increase, potential

increase anyway in income tax to pay for health

and education is an indication

of the new financial powers that are going to be devolved

in the future years, not a great message

at the moment, is it? Plaid, the party is going

to put your taxes up. Well, we are consulting

on this best of all. We want to take the

temperature and see what people think about it but we

have to have an honest conversation about how we fund

our public services The education system could do

with an injection of cash. We have got a growing

elderly population and care How are we going to do

all of this if people aren't prepared to

consider extra taxes? Now, of course nobody wants

to pay any taxes, do they? But if we want good

public services, we have to be prepared to pay for them

and we have to have an honest Now, I can see you would

want to raise taxes for the highest earners

but you are talking about across the board

here There aren't many highest

earners in Wales. We are talking about a very

small number of people. So you'd be happy to talk about

increase in taxes for really low I'm not saying I'm happy,

what I want to do is guarantee a future for our health

service in Wales and I can't see how we can guarantee that future

without investing in those Leanne Wood, thanks

very much indeed. This week there'll

be a new man opening Philip Hammond isn't known

for flamboyant gestures, and he may not have much to play

with when he announces his All the hard work will already have

been completed by now, of course, so how does Wales ensure it gets

a fair crack of the whip? David Cornock now on getting a good

deal from the Budget. From David Lloyd George's people's

budget to George Osborne's so-called omnishambles, budget day combines

political theatre with dry I mean, Gordon brought

in the prebudget report And whoever waves that red box

to the cameras, their Well, budget day is a hugely

important event in the political calendar and the challenge for

Secretary of State for Wales and his team of ministers and officials is

to make that date matter for Wales. Stephen Crabb was a member of David

Cameron's government for six years. He says a Prime Minister

may want eye-catching announcements but it

is the Treasury that ultimately

has to pay for them. So this is really

where the battle is. How do you convince

the Treasury in cold economic arguments and warm, colourful

political arguments why certain So, in my day, we talked

to them about the Cardiff city deal, about slashing

the tolls on the Severn bridge, about investing

in the upgrade of the M4 motorway,

rail electrification, it's all these kind of big,

chunky projects that we were engaged with with Number Ten Downing

Street and the Treasury. And, like I say, it's

about winning hearts and Some of those chunky projects

are still works in progress, as But that doesn't mean Philip Hammond

finds himself short of advice. The business and

enterprise department is still considering a review it

commissioned which backed the And if that is not ready, what about

the Swansea bay city deal? Ministers sent in Lord Heseltine

to check plans to bring in investment to the land

of his fathers. And the Chancellor did drop a hint

of progress to MPs last Well, Mr Speaker, this

discussion is still ongoing. I hope we may bring

it to a conclusion within, let's say,

the next eight days. Local authorities in that area,

as a part of that region deal and universities and key stakeholders

have been working hard on their proposals, the plan has been

published and provided I think there's some concern

the region that perhaps the UK Government is sitting on it it

a bit and I would like to see confirmation one way or the other

on that as soon as possible. Brexit may dominate

politics at the moment that -- but no Chancellor

here at the Treasury can afford that force themselves

into his budget red box. So the Welsh government

will hope for a share of any extra spending that

Philip Hammond can find to alleviate problems with business rates

and social care in England. Philip Hammond is

fond of referring to Britain's eye-wateringly large debt

but there may still be areas where a little Treasury cash

could go a long way. Carolyn Harris' eight year old son

Martin died after being knocked She had to borrow money to pay

for his funeral and now wants the government to help

families in this situation. My message to the Chancellor is,

I speak as a mother I tried to give him a little insight

into just how painful that time is and how you don't

consider cost on anything, you just consider how you're

going to get through every day. So to remove the cost would be doing

such a marvellous thing for any family, not to even

have to consider that because the pain, dealing

with the pain is so unbearable that

unless you have been through it, This is just one way

of making life slightly Gordon Brown used to joke that there

are two types of Chancellor, those who fail and those who get

out in time. Don Touhig was his right-hand man

all the way back in 1997. He said some staff

got rather annoyed with last-minute budget

script alterations. Sue and I, who was Gordon's

gatekeeper, and the other senior staff were keen to get

Gordon away from the keyboard because he kept adding

this or changing And so, I had a call from Sue,

could I come over to the Treasury. And she gave me a brown paper

envelope and the budget was in there because they weren't going to let

Gordon change any more and alter any more and then

on the budget morning, of course, Gordon stood

on the steps "In there is the first Labour budget

for 18 years," the media was saying. It was never in there, it was locked

in a drawer in my room. The red box was empty,

it was locked in my drawer Gordon Brown, like George Osborne

after him, was a highly political Chancellor,

with an eye on any announcement that I went in as Gordon Brown's PPS

a couple of days after we came into government,

the day he announced the independence of

the Bank of England and... We had a drink that

evening, a few of us and he had some of his officials there

and his announcement about the Bank of England that day,

what was staggering the officials is that he just didn't announce it,

said tell me how it works, he told them how

it was going so it was all worked out, the economics was worked

out and the politics was worked out. It's fair to say that Philip Hammond

known at Westminster as spreadsheet Phil isn't famous for magic

tricks or excitement. Philip Hammond takes a much more

accountant like approach. He's interested in cold, hard facts,

cold, hard numbers and this is where the challenge is for Welsh

politicians in terms of securing more investment into Wales, is to

make winning economic arguments. With George Osborne,

it was much more about the politics, particularly in the run-up

to the 2015 general election. We are now in a phase

where actual cold, hard arguments will sway the Treasury,

probably little else. So that's how you manage

to win Treasury friends We will find out

on Wednesday who has managed to catch Philip Hammond's

ear but there is no doubt that his first budget will be

pored over by politicians and accountants alike,

as Wales and the rest of the UK prepares for an uncertain post

Brexit world. David Cornock there,

and speaking of a post-Brexit world, How are they seen in Brussels

with Brexit ongoing? And how do our current

partners in the EU see us? The Labour MEP Derek Vaughan

is here with me now. Good morning. Thank you for coming

in. What is it like especially for a remain MEP? I guess that those

wanted to leave, those who wanted to remain in the European Union, what

is it like now in Brussels? I think all of us are trying to carry on as

normal in the European Parliament. For example, I still have the best

attendance record of any UK MEP. I have just been re-elected as the

first vice-chair of the budget committee. On a personal level,

things are OK. Things are starting to change already, I was in line to

write the rules for the structural funds post-2020, it was a huge job,

I cannot do that any more. It would have been one of the biggest jobs in

the parliament. Important for Wales but important for the rest of the

European Union. I cannot do that any more. The European union is

rewriting the financial regulations again on regional funding to make it

easier and simpler for applicants to apply, I was asked to do that job,

the other groups objected. Basically saying how can somebody from the UK

do this job when they are not going to be in the EU any longer? Is that

the sense you are getting, the other 27 countries are saying, let's not

deal, let's not give too much to the UK lot because they will not be

here? I think it's a lot of frustration there at the moment. The

restoration is fed by the view that the UK is heading for a hard Brexit.

Essentially the UK is linked to the European Union, we do not want to be

in the EU, we don't want to be a mystical market, the customs market,

we want a free trade agreement. -- single market. It is a back door way

of getting into the single market, I can say at this stage, any

discussions we have with the EU on a trade agreement, the discussions

will be long and complicated and difficult and at the end of the day,

whatever deal we get is going to be much worse, much inferior than we

have got now. We will go on to the deal at the moment. Your MEP

counterparts from the rest of the EU, how do they feel about the fact

that the UK voted to leave? Is it a sense of anger, remorse? I think

they are sorry. They are sorry that the UK are leaving the European

Union. We were seen as an important member and partner. Frustrated

because they have heard the speeches from the Prime Minister and others

and they accept that we are heading for a hard Brexit. It will cause

even more difficulties for the UK. We have seen this week from the car

industry, huge economic damage if we are not in the single market. We

have seen this week the possibility of the UK breaking up if we are not

in the single market. It is causing huge problems in the EU but it will

cause even bigger problems in the UK. That issue of EU leaders on the

Brexit deal, how certain are you that they mean that 100%? Or are

they grandstanding because they know there is a negotiation to come and

they know as well as we know that in the end, it will be somewhere in the

middle? I am certain they mean what they say. One of the things that has

struck me is how united the EU has been. All the EU institutions,

including the Parliament, or the member states are saying exactly the

same thing and they are saying no negotiations before Article 50 is

triggered. They are saying no cherry picking the UK and they are saying

any deal we get must be inferior to the deal we get now. When the EU

dustup in negotiations, the EU will be looking at the political not

their priority in the future will be keeping the EU together. That is

going to make them worse off if they have a tough deal with the UK. As

well as being European politicians, they are domestic politicians. There

are elections in France, Germany, Holland this year. The politicians

that are not going to go to the electorate saying we could have a

tough deal with Britain, it will make is worse off but it will make

them worse off as well. That will not wash with their electorate. In

France and Germany, the thing that already, the person who is probably

going to win the French elections has been quite open on that. He is

saying that his priority is to keep the European Union together and we

have to drive a hard bargain with the UK. German politicians think the

same thing. Including front runner, a friend and colleague of mine. He

is saying that we have to keep the European Union together and that is

the most important thing. The German industry think the same thing. They

think that the economics isn't as important as the integrity of the

European Union. We have to give the 27 members states working. Did you

get a sense of how they react when they hear Theresa May saying unless

there is a deal at the end of this, the UK could just turn into this low

tax, low regulation economy just to be more competitive and attract

companies from the EU? Do they take that seriously? They listen. They

will focus on politics and not economics. Philip Hammond said this

morning and this money, you should worry us. He was to turn the UK into

a low tax economy with local regulation including low

environmental protection and low workers' rights. Is that the kind of

economy and future we want in the UK? I hope not. Do they take it

seriously? I know you say they are concentrating on their side of

things, they need to believe that Hammond and Theresa May will do

that. Do they believe it? I think they hear it and already some of the

leaders, have said in the negotiations that the EU will try to

ensure that the UK is not able to do that, that the UK is not able to

undercut the rest of the European Union in terms of taxation. That

will be part of the negotiations. They hear it and they will

understand it but they will try to avoid it. Talking about fractures in

relationship, you are a Labour politician but removed from the

domestic issue and from Assembly Members and domestic politics, but

you must see what has been happening in by-elections in Copeland and so

on. How do you assess the situation facing the party at the moment? In

Wales, we have done pretty well in the past. I am pretty confident with

the council elections this year, our councils have been performing pretty

well. The party nationally is not brilliant. You have to see the

opinion polls for it, sorry to go back to the issue of Brexit but I

think the party will be doing much better if we are provided stronger

opposition on hard Brexit. For example, in the House of Commons a

couple of weeks ago, I think it was legitimate for the Labour Party to

say to the UK Government, we want you to commit to negotiation full

access to the single market and we want a proper boat at the end of the

day on the final deal. And without that, we should not be voting to

trigger Article 50. Is Jeremy Corbyn, is he wrong on that one? I

was looking at an opinion poll a couple of weeks ago and that opinion

poll found that every vote the Labour Party has lost a Ukip since

the last election, we are now losing four to five voters to the Lib Dems.

I think there was a strong case for a party who is arguing against hard

Brexit and has put in jobs and Brisbane two of this country ahead

of everything else. If you are seeing that poll and away is that

information, why is not Jeremy Corbyn changing things? He says we

have to be tough as the Tories on Brexit. What you are saying and a

lot of Labour MPs think seems quite different. I could understand lots

of my MP colleagues, we are in a difficult position, in many of the

constituencies they voted to leave the European Union and they may feel

they have to reflect the position of their voters. My concern is when

this all go pear shaped and it will go pay shape, my party, the Labour

Party will be located in the Tory Brexit and I do not want to see that

happen. -- pear shaped. We write that there will be any UK MEPs in

the 20 19th election? The obvious time for leaving the EU... Sorry,

that is it from me this week. Look out for our Budget coverage,

particularly on Wednesday, and don't forget we're always

on Twitter, walespolitics. need Crossrail as well. We will be

poring over the entrails of the budget next week. Thank you very

much indeed. So the Brexit Bill is back in

the Lords next week and the Lib Dems They've ordered pizza and camp beds

to encourage their peers to keep talking all night,

only to be told by the Lord's authorities that their plans fall

foul of health and safety laws. Laws that they probably voted for.

What did you make of David Liddington's remarks on the Lords

amendments, particularly not just the one on EU nationals, but on what

is regarded as a meaningful vote at the end of the process? Let's be

clear, as ministers like to say, the meaningful vote vote is by far the

biggest thing that will happen in Parliament. It puts EU citizens into

a tiny corner. It will decide not just who is going to have the final

say on this, but who the EU is negotiating with. Is it directly

with Theresa May or is it with Parliament? Who will decide the

shape of Brexit, Parliament or Theresa May? The Lords amendment is

just the first chapter. They have voiced Theresa May to give them a

veto on everything she does, and there is a possible chance in the

Commons could uphold this amendment. The meaningful vote amendment? The

meaningful vote amendment. But is it a meaningful vote if the choice is

to either back the deal or crash out of the deal? That is what the remain

supporting MPs or hardline people who want to remain fear. What they

want is the power to be able to send Theresa May back to the negotiating

table. Why is that anathema to many Brexit supporters? They believed it

would crucially and critically undermine Theresa May's negotiating

hand and also create a long period of uncertainty for business. There

is already great uncertainty and this could extend it. The

government's position is in there was a proper, meaningful vote which

Parliament could reject what was on offer, that would be an incentive to

the EU to give us a bad deal? I think that is the fear. If you are

saying to the people you are negotiating with that that is

another authority and Theresa May will have to go back and have all of

this approved, I think it would have a very significant undermining

effect on her negotiating hand. Things change from day to day. We

are talking about 2019 and 2018 at the earliest, but if the government

lost a vote on the Brexit deal, would he not have to call in someone

else? That is why the vote will be meaningful even if the amendment on

this meaningful vote will be lost. You cannot do a deal on something as

historic as Brexit and have Parliament against you. So, whatever

form this vote takes, whenever it happens, it will be hugely

meaningful. Whatever label that is given and if she lost it she would

call a general election. She could not impose it. To call a general

election now you need a majority of MPs which she will not have, so

maybe she will not get her election after all. It would be very unlike

Labour not to vote for an election. It would be very unlike Labour not

to vote for an election. The elections to Stormont have given

a boost to the republicans and put the long term status

of Northern Ireland in some doubt. Sinn Fein's leader Gerry Adams

spoke to reporters Yesterday was in many,

many ways a watershed election, and we have just started a process

of reflecting what it all means, but clearly the union's majority

in the Assembly has been ended, and the notion of a permanent

or a perpetual unionist majority Is he right? Is this a watershed?

The nationalist vote in the assembly will now come to 39 and the

Unionists 38. It is only one member, but it is significant. This is a

very serious moment and because of everything else going on with Donald

Trump and Brexit it is taking a while for people here to realise

just how significant this is. Talking to someone who only recently

left a significant role in Northern Ireland politics last night, they

said they were very worried about what this means. It is likely there

will be a call for some kind of international figure to chair the

talks to try and see if there is a way of everybody working together.

All sides will probably try to extract more money from the

Treasury, but it is a very dangerous moment. Should we regard Michelle

O'Neill, who has replaced Mr McGuinness as the leader, it is she

the First Minister death probably not quite. An interesting thought.

Indeed, the daughter of an IRA man, a fascinating concept in itself. But

there are are still a large amount of MLAs who will not give Sinn Fein

what they need. But what effect does this have on the legacy of the

prosecutions and the great witchhunts which the British

Government has vowed to end. There is a majority left on the Stormont

assembly to end those. But some would keep them going for time

continuing, which is a headache for Theresa May. You have now got 27

Sinn Fein members, 28 DUP, then the SDLP bumps up the numbers a little

bit. You have got the British Government transfixed with Brexit

which has huge implications for the border between North and South in

Ireland, and the Irish government is pretty wavering as well and if there

is an election there, Sinn Fein could do well in the Dublin

parliament as well. There are a lot of moving pieces. There are and

there is a danger that we look at everything through the prism of

Brexit, but I found Friday and this weekend fascinating. Theresa May and

Scotland were Nicola Sturgeon is framing Brexit entirely through an

argument to have a second referendum on independence which she wants to

hold it she possibly can. And the Irish situation with the prospect of

a hard border with Northern Ireland voting majority to remain, quite a

substantial majority, again a few of the instability at the moment. That

We will be keeping an eye on it for sure.

Yesterday, US President Donald Trump tweeted allegations

that his predecessor, Barack Obama, had ordered

his phones to be tapped during the election campaign.

"Terrible!", Trump wrote, "Just found out that Obama

had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory.

I'm not quite sure what McCarthyism that is.

He followed up with a series of tweets comparing it to Watergate.

"How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very

The sacred election process, I think at one stage he said it was a dodgy

election process, but now it is sacred.

You are frightened to go to bed at night, you do not know what you are

going to wake up to. Completely uncharted territory here. Little

more than a month ago at the inauguration they were making the

veneer of small talk and politely shaking hands. He saw Barack Obama

and Michelle off on the helicopter. You do not know what is coming next.

Is there a scintilla of evidence to back up Donald Trump's claims? Yes,

there is, although he is very muddled about it all. I will

explain. Remember what happened to Mike Flynn, talking to the Russian

and Ambassador will stop they were listening. Barack Obama does not

sign of warrants, but somebody else did. So why on earth would you not

want to listen to the president elect himself in case he might also

be breaking the law. Does that sound to you like convincing evidence or

just a supposition? I think Tom should go and work for him, that is

the most credible interpretation I have heard for a long time. Start

tweeting the case for the tweet. What is interesting about this is my

theory is he does not really like the idea of being a president. That

wild press conference he gave a couple of weeks ago there was one ad

lib that did not get repeated which was, I suppose I am a politician

now, as if he was humiliated at the idea of being a president. He likes

being the businessman with a swagger tweeting around the clock. And

campaigning again. He keeps going to what looked like campaign rallies. I

disagree with you about him not liking being president. I think he

loves the idea of being the president, but the reality is so

frustrating on every level, finding he does not have unlimited room for

manoeuvre and so many things have been put in place to stop them doing

things he would do in the business environment. We have had two more

tweets from him this morning, I guess when he woke up. Who was it

who secretly said to the Russian president, tell Vladimir that after

the election I will have more flexibility? Who was that? Possibly

Hillary Clinton. Is it true the Democratic National committee would

not allow the FBI access to check server or other equipment after

learning it was hacked? Can that be possible? This was all an issue in

the campaign. He is now a president. Shall I point out the flaw in Tom's

theory. They were not bugging Michael Flynn's phone, it was the

Russian Ambassador's telephone they were barking. Mr Neil, I would never

contradict you on this programme. But if you suspect there was

criminal activity going on, as there was by Michael Flynn, why would you

not want to put on a tap? I don't know. That is it for today.

I'll be back next week here on BBC One at 11am as usual.

The Daily Politics is back tomorrow at midday on BBC Two.

But remember - if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.

The thing that's so clear is that it's 100% honest.