:00:37. > :00:41.Morning, folks, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.
:00:42. > :00:43.The spectre of surveillance as the Government outlines new
:00:44. > :00:45.powers in the digital age for our security services and new
:00:46. > :00:53.Are they enough to allay worries about the prying eyes of the state?
:00:54. > :00:56.It's been a frightful week on Downing Street for George Osborne.
:00:57. > :01:00.Has the Chancellor's reputation suffered lasting damage?
:01:01. > :01:02.International Women's day gets debated by MPs every year,
:01:03. > :01:09.Later in the programme: a debate on men's issues to mark
:01:10. > :01:11.Should it be illegal to change historic place names in Wales?
:01:12. > :01:16.The Welsh Language Commissioner tells us why she thinks it should.
:01:17. > :01:19.The Welsh Language Commissioner nearly half of all the capital's air
:01:20. > :01:26.pollution and the Mayor is being urged to do more to clean up that
:01:27. > :01:30.And with me on All Hallows' day three saintly political journalists
:01:31. > :01:32.Nick Watt, Polly Toynbee and Janan Ganesh who'll be tweeting
:01:33. > :01:38.So, it's been rumbling for weeks but the row over the Chancellor's
:01:39. > :01:41.cuts to tax credits finally came to a head last week with a defeat
:01:42. > :01:45.in the Lords and serious dissent among Tory MPs in the Commons.
:01:46. > :01:48.George Osborne has gone back to the drawing board on tax credits
:01:49. > :01:51.and promised to "deal with" the House of Lords, whose actions
:01:52. > :01:58.The Prime Minister set up a review of the Lord's powers.
:01:59. > :02:01.That review is being headed by hereditary Tory peer
:02:02. > :02:06.He had agreed to do an interview with us this morning but 10
:02:07. > :02:15.Downing Street phoned us yesterday to pull him from the show.
:02:16. > :02:25.We think the government does not want us to talk about tax credits,
:02:26. > :02:29.so let's talk about tax credits. Janan, will the Chancellor now get
:02:30. > :02:34.away with some fine tuning, with some tweaking, or does he have to
:02:35. > :02:40.start from scratch? Even the tweaking is very difficult. It is
:02:41. > :02:43.technically difficult to reform the policy while simultaneously helping
:02:44. > :02:47.people who stand to lose out. It is fiscally difficult because the
:02:48. > :02:52.current policy saves about ?4 billion, a third of the ?12 billion
:02:53. > :02:59.he pledged to fine from welfare. There is no managerial way of doing
:03:00. > :03:02.it. What could be done is either projecting, or hoping for
:03:03. > :03:09.projections of higher tax receipts so he has to cut less. The deficit
:03:10. > :03:15.is not as bad. Or move the target for getting rid of the deficit and
:03:16. > :03:21.achieving the surplus year later. It is a much more fundamental solution.
:03:22. > :03:26.It was only a few months ago the Tory press thought Mr Osborne walked
:03:27. > :03:33.on water. His reputation has taken a real battering from this. In a very
:03:34. > :03:36.short time, three weeks since the Tory party conference when they
:03:37. > :03:41.walked out in a state of Triumph and euphoria. This budget looks like
:03:42. > :03:47.another omnishambles and considerably more serious. Last time
:03:48. > :03:52.it was funny with pasty taxes. This time, can he really drive through
:03:53. > :04:00.all these cuts? At the moment he is trying to put imposed 40% cuts which
:04:01. > :04:06.are undoable, like local government. This is only the first of many more
:04:07. > :04:10.that will come, this undertaking. Ministers will cave in and accept
:04:11. > :04:19.the cuts, but their departments will fall apart and they will rebel.
:04:20. > :04:23.Against a weaker Chancellor. Yes. As Janan says, there is no tweaking
:04:24. > :04:28.available. He gives back exactly the same amount of money he takes away,
:04:29. > :04:33.or these hard-working people will be out of pocket. What do you hear
:04:34. > :04:37.about what might be in the pipeline? We have got the Autumn
:04:38. > :04:41.Statement and a comprehensive review, a three-year rolling
:04:42. > :04:47.spending plan. It is on the last Wednesday of this month and now we
:04:48. > :04:54.are in November, what is he up to? He is going to pony up and pony up
:04:55. > :04:58.megabucks thanks to Rupert Harrison, his former economics
:04:59. > :05:01.adviser and he devised the deficit reduction plan in the last
:05:02. > :05:06.Parliament and the plan to target the surplus in this Parliament. It
:05:07. > :05:12.sounds really hard line, there is no change from plan A, but it always
:05:13. > :05:16.has written into it plan B and planned sea. He has delayed by one
:05:17. > :05:20.year the targeting of the surplus and he could delay it by a further
:05:21. > :05:26.year and still reach it by the time of the general election. Or he could
:05:27. > :05:30.say because the OBE I will revise down economic growth forecasts by
:05:31. > :05:36.the time of the Autumn Statement, the 10 billion he is meant to
:05:37. > :05:40.achieve by 2019-2020, that could come down. The Chancellor is in a
:05:41. > :05:44.hole and he is not stupid and he is going to get out of it and he is
:05:45. > :05:50.going to spend a lot of money, but he will sound hard line by duffing
:05:51. > :05:55.up the House of Lords. Do we take it seriously, the duffing up of the
:05:56. > :06:01.House of Lords to reflect from the tax credits strimmer? Strimmer,
:06:02. > :06:08.rumpus, whatever you want to call it. There was a lot of talk about
:06:09. > :06:14.them stuffing the Lords... With Tory peers? Which ended badly the last
:06:15. > :06:18.time it happened about 100 years ago. I cannot believe they will do
:06:19. > :06:24.anything as provocative as that, but if he wired House of Lords another
:06:25. > :06:27.incident like this and you make the argument for your own abolition.
:06:28. > :06:34.There is a good argument for reform and abolition. I do not see why the
:06:35. > :06:41.Lords should not do this as often as they want as long as the government
:06:42. > :06:45.refuses to have a democratic debate. Willie Whitelaw is not of the most
:06:46. > :06:51.ferocious people in the entire political system. We could have put
:06:52. > :06:55.him through the fire this morning, but at least we did not talk about
:06:56. > :06:58.Now, how far should the security services be able to spy
:06:59. > :07:02.This week the Government will publish draft legislation to create
:07:03. > :07:05.new powers and a new framework for the security services as they adapt
:07:06. > :07:07.to the ever-growing challenges of digital communications being used by
:07:08. > :07:09.the bad guys - terrorists, criminals,
:07:10. > :07:11.paedophiles. But is there still a danger the privacy of innocent
:07:12. > :07:14.Joe public gets gets violated as the power to intrude is extended?
:07:15. > :07:26.There is not one person at MI6 who is not talking about it.
:07:27. > :07:31.What, the upcoming draft Investigatory Powers Bill?
:07:32. > :07:34.Sadly, my invite to the premiere of the new film got lost in the post,
:07:35. > :07:38.so I am at this display of Bond cars at the London Film Museum instead.
:07:39. > :07:45.In the new Bond film in which he drives this, one of the themes is
:07:46. > :07:49.surveillance in the Internet age, and Westminster is revving up
:07:50. > :07:53.for a potential row about how much the police and intelligence agencies
:07:54. > :08:02.Because in the Goldfinger years of the '60s, it was easy to spy
:08:03. > :08:06.on the villains, tail their Rolls or tap their phone.
:08:07. > :08:09.Now, in the Daniel Craig era, the spooks need new weapons to track
:08:10. > :08:19.One source told me that the work at places like the listening post
:08:20. > :08:22.GCHQ has shifted from looking for a needle in a haystack to finding a
:08:23. > :08:26.piece of hay in a haystack, and so a big question will be, how does the
:08:27. > :08:30.goverment handle what is called bulk data? In other words,
:08:31. > :08:35.looking at everyone's web activity to isolate the dodgy stuff.
:08:36. > :08:39.Not something to worry about, say security types.
:08:40. > :08:41.They are not interested in whether Lord West is having
:08:42. > :08:45.They do not care, they do not look at that.
:08:46. > :08:49.What they want to know is, am I talking to a bomb maker in the
:08:50. > :08:52.Yemen who is talking to someone who they know has carried out an attack
:08:53. > :08:55.in the Middle East before, who is talking to some American group that
:08:56. > :08:58.we know are terrorists, that is talking to some people
:08:59. > :09:04.When they get all these linkages, they hone it down and hone it down,
:09:05. > :09:07.they use big data in the sense they use other techniques to refine it,
:09:08. > :09:10.then they will say, this is extremely worrying, there is
:09:11. > :09:14.something going on and then they will say, we want to go and look
:09:15. > :09:19.at the detail of what is in these e-mails, or on social media.
:09:20. > :09:21.But it scares the living daylights out of
:09:22. > :09:29.The big issue for her, whether judges get to be involved.
:09:30. > :09:33.At the moment, if someone wants to tap your telephone,
:09:34. > :09:36.it is the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary who decides.
:09:37. > :09:39.Normally in democracies we think there is a role for the judiciary in
:09:40. > :09:44.This has not happened in the UK compared to the US or elsewhere
:09:45. > :09:50.We also need to look to see the extent to which the security
:09:51. > :09:54.agencies seek more power, do they want the power to hack our
:09:55. > :10:02.Something that was considered outrageous when journalists did it,
:10:03. > :10:08.is it now going to be OK for the spooks?
:10:09. > :10:13.When the last Bond film came out three years ago, Parliament was
:10:14. > :10:16.fighting over the so-called snoopers' charter, which would have
:10:17. > :10:23.compelled Internet companies to keep and hand over a lot of our data.
:10:24. > :10:26.It was thrown out when Nick Clegg played the role of Dr No
:10:27. > :10:36.A security minded Conservative told me this could be another car crash,
:10:37. > :10:39.because there are enough Tory MPs worried about civil liberties that
:10:40. > :10:42.the government will need Labour support in the Commons,
:10:43. > :10:49.So, will your browsing history remain for Your Eyes Only,
:10:50. > :10:53.do you trust Her Majesty's Secret Service, or are the worriers just
:10:54. > :11:03.Stay tuned for Theresa May's new legislation, coming soon.
:11:04. > :11:11.Hopefully they do not ban bad James Bond puns.
:11:12. > :11:15.Well, James Bond puns are unlikely to be outlawed but on the
:11:16. > :11:17.Andrew Marr Show this morning the Home Secretary, Theresa May,
:11:18. > :11:19.did confirm that internet service providers would have to keep
:11:20. > :11:25.She was also asked about whether judges would need to
:11:26. > :11:31.As I say, the three reviews came up with three
:11:32. > :11:36.David Anderson was clear that he thought, partly
:11:37. > :11:38.in relation to future proofing on future legislation, future legal
:11:39. > :11:41.challenges, perhaps, judicial authorisation was the right way.
:11:42. > :11:44.The parliamentary committee, the intelligence and security committee
:11:45. > :11:47.of Parliament, said there should be executive authorisation, i.e.
:11:48. > :11:50.the Secretary of State should still do it because
:11:51. > :11:56.We have looked at all of those arguments and listened to what
:11:57. > :11:59.people have said, and we will be bringing forward the government's
:12:00. > :12:03.position on Wednesday, but as I say, I am very clear that what we will
:12:04. > :12:05.bring forward has very strong oversight arrangements.
:12:06. > :12:08.We're joined now by the Shadow Home Office Minister and former Director
:12:09. > :12:14.of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer.
:12:15. > :12:23.Welcome, this is the first time we have had due on. It is. As a general
:12:24. > :12:29.principle do you support stronger powers for the intelligence services
:12:30. > :12:35.in accessing digital data? There is a case for a new law. We have been
:12:36. > :12:40.patching up for a very long time, the law is out of date. It is very
:12:41. > :12:43.important we have no go areas for those involved in serious offending
:12:44. > :12:52.like terrorism and child sexual abuse. And organised crime. And
:12:53. > :12:56.organised crime and when I was DPP we rarely prosecuted without relying
:12:57. > :13:01.on data and this is important for protecting the public. Is judicial
:13:02. > :13:07.as opposed to ministerial approval of warrants to be able to do this,
:13:08. > :13:14.is that a red line issue? It is. We have the chance to have a modern,
:13:15. > :13:17.comprehensive law that sets out the powers for law enforcement and the
:13:18. > :13:22.security services and at the same time we have the chance, a historic
:13:23. > :13:28.chance, to get the safeguards right. One of the safeguard is
:13:29. > :13:33.judicial authorisation of intercept roles. There is a big difference
:13:34. > :13:37.between data and content. By content you mean what are people actually
:13:38. > :13:42.saying to each other? That should be signed off by a judge. That is what
:13:43. > :13:49.happens in other countries. That is the real issue. In fairness, Theresa
:13:50. > :13:56.May has backed off from the original plans and faced up to some of the
:13:57. > :14:01.criticism, but it is really a chance now for all of us to agree a
:14:02. > :14:04.framework for the future that is on the one hand giving the authorities
:14:05. > :14:09.the powers they need, but on the other hand entrenching in law the
:14:10. > :14:14.right safeguards and judicial oversight is important in that. We
:14:15. > :14:19.do not know exactly what she is going to say, she has to tell
:14:20. > :14:28.Parliament first, but in the Sunday Times there is the ideal of a 2 tier
:14:29. > :14:35.system that an initial warrant, for example what is my browsing history?
:14:36. > :14:39.The initial one would be issued by the Home Secretary, but if you want
:14:40. > :14:43.to get into the content of what is in these websites and what I have
:14:44. > :14:48.been sending, that needs to be a judge. That is one idea that has
:14:49. > :14:58.been mooted, what is your reaction to that? I am not in favour of took
:14:59. > :15:03.your system. If you're going to go for content, we should go to a judge
:15:04. > :15:08.straightaway. Roughly speaking, there are about 2500 warrants per
:15:09. > :15:12.year for interceptions. That is a very high number for a Home
:15:13. > :15:16.Secretary to deal with. In reality, that means that a lot of the
:15:17. > :15:21.preparation is done by her team, for her to look at. There is nothing
:15:22. > :15:25.wrong with that and I am not being critical of the team, but it would
:15:26. > :15:29.be far better if it was done by a judge, independent of any of the
:15:30. > :15:35.operations, independent from all the parties. It is a classically judge
:15:36. > :15:40.test, is it necessary, proportionate, focused on the right
:15:41. > :15:43.person? This is what is done in other countries and this would
:15:44. > :15:48.settle this dispute and allow everybody to move on, the consensus
:15:49. > :15:53.is important. This could be a historic moment if the Home
:15:54. > :15:56.Secretary will allow it. She has stepped in the right direction. If
:15:57. > :16:04.she completes on that by having the right safeguards, that is a prize
:16:05. > :16:08.worth having. However, who would be accountable if a judge refused a
:16:09. > :16:14.warrant, not a politician, what a judge, and as a result, there was a
:16:15. > :16:20.terrorist attack? Who do we hold accountable? One idea would be to
:16:21. > :16:24.have a panel of judges, a commission of judges. There are many judges
:16:25. > :16:29.that are clear to do this sort of work. Individual decisions have to
:16:30. > :16:38.be made. In the main, we hope the decisions are right. We could not
:16:39. > :16:41.hold a judge accountable? If the Home Secretary gets it wrong, she's
:16:42. > :16:43.accountable, she has to appear before Parliament, come on
:16:44. > :16:48.television, it could be the end of her job. The judge would be
:16:49. > :16:51.accountable? We have always had a system of accountability with judges
:16:52. > :16:55.that relies on the right person making the decision in the first
:16:56. > :16:59.place and after the event, investigation and looking at the
:17:00. > :17:02.warrants that had been issued. That system did continue. It is
:17:03. > :17:07.difficult, we are arguing in the dark, but I do not accept the
:17:08. > :17:11.proposition that if you put it to an independent judge that is a lesser
:17:12. > :17:17.safeguard than if you put it to the Home Secretary. These are decisions
:17:18. > :17:20.about how privacy is too precious to be left with the Home Secretary. It
:17:21. > :17:23.should be done by a judge. Within these constraints, I take it you
:17:24. > :17:29.think that the Internet browsing history of every computer net device
:17:30. > :17:34.should be kept by Internet providers by 12 months? That is the position
:17:35. > :17:38.that David Anderson, the independent reviewer, proposed. We will have to
:17:39. > :17:44.see what is in the bill, but it needs to be as clearly can just
:17:45. > :17:50.rained -- clearly constrained as possible for as short a time as
:17:51. > :17:58.possible. How much, who accesses it, and what conditions, this is key.
:17:59. > :18:04.Your leader and deputy leader in the Labour Party has been opposed to
:18:05. > :18:08.this type of legislation. Mr Corbyn called previous attempts a massive
:18:09. > :18:14.intrusion into people's lives. What do you say to him? It is a massive
:18:15. > :18:17.intrusion, any interception of Communications is. The question is
:18:18. > :18:22.whether it is justified. I have worked with the police, Lauren
:18:23. > :18:26.Forstmann and the security services for five-year is, when I was
:18:27. > :18:30.Director of Public Prosecutions. I know how important it is that we get
:18:31. > :18:39.access to the material we need to get access to, not just in terrorist
:18:40. > :18:42.cases. As you say, you have been director of public and is. How much
:18:43. > :18:47.more difficult would it have been for you to get major convictions in
:18:48. > :18:51.serious cases without both the 2004 and 2006 terrorist acts which Mr
:18:52. > :18:56.Corbyn opposed? Very difficult. We use them on a regular basis. I said
:18:57. > :19:00.that when I was in the job. I made the case that we should not lose
:19:01. > :19:06.capability and I am not going to change my mind. It is not just your
:19:07. > :19:09.leader or his deputy, many of the 22 Labour MPs who voted against this
:19:10. > :19:14.previous piece of legislation on this subject area, they are the ones
:19:15. > :19:19.who nominated Mr Corbyn for Nader and they are now in power is the
:19:20. > :19:26.position and influence in your party. Do you see a serious split on
:19:27. > :19:30.this issue? I do not think so. I think Jeremy Corbyn listens to
:19:31. > :19:36.colleagues in policy response to the government. We will make a response
:19:37. > :19:43.when we have heard what the Home Secretary has said. We should seize
:19:44. > :19:48.the opportunity for proper safeguards. In fairness, in the
:19:49. > :19:51.past, Mr Corbyn and others were emphasising the case for safeguards
:19:52. > :19:56.which they did not think were strong enough. To clarify, I have been told
:19:57. > :20:02.that you have squared Mr Corbyn on this. In your view, if it is proper
:20:03. > :20:09.judicial oversight, then Mr Corbyn will go along with those measures? I
:20:10. > :20:13.would not use that expression but we have had a discussion. There is
:20:14. > :20:18.clarity in agreement that proper powers where they are needed, it is
:20:19. > :20:22.right to have proper safeguards. He is with you on that? Uncompromising
:20:23. > :20:26.on the safeguards is the position we should adopt, but do not stand in
:20:27. > :20:30.the way of the powers that are necessary for law enforcement and
:20:31. > :20:35.the security services where they are needed. You squared it, because you
:20:36. > :20:42.have got the agreement of the Labour leader on that. That is the position
:20:43. > :20:47.on what we have agreed. As an Andy Burnham biker in the election, how
:20:48. > :20:51.is Jeremy Corbyn doing, better or worse than you expected? Jeremy
:20:52. > :20:59.Corbyn got a massive mandate to lead the party. He has put together a
:21:00. > :21:04.broad team to lead the party. We are developing policy in response to the
:21:05. > :21:08.government's programme. We have a government at the moment that is
:21:09. > :21:11.extreme in the sense that it is pushing through provisions furiously
:21:12. > :21:16.and fast that it odd to be holding back and looking out to be
:21:17. > :21:23.scrutinised more carefully. I think we are doing fairly well in this
:21:24. > :21:28.exercise. You are London MP. London Labour got easily the most votes in
:21:29. > :21:34.the capital at the general election. Many people say this is a Labour
:21:35. > :21:41.city by and large. If Labour does not win the 2016 election for mayor,
:21:42. > :21:47.does that indicate that a general election victory under Mr Corbyn is
:21:48. > :21:51.a long, tough stretch? Listen, this time last year I was about to start
:21:52. > :21:56.a selection exercise to be selected as Frank Dobson's replacement as
:21:57. > :22:00.Labour candidate. We were all predicting what the general election
:22:01. > :22:05.would hold. I am not going to fall into the trap of trying to work out
:22:06. > :22:09.what will happen in 2020. I will say it is really important that Labour
:22:10. > :22:13.win that election. You need to win? We need to win London, local
:22:14. > :22:19.elections and the general election in 2020. It is an important test for
:22:20. > :22:26.Mr Corbyn, London? If you cannot win London, how would you win the
:22:27. > :22:30.country? It is a test for all of us. I accept that. We must win next
:22:31. > :22:35.year, the local election and the general election. We should focus on
:22:36. > :22:39.that. You have said that Jeremy Corbyn is not the Messiah. I do not
:22:40. > :22:44.think that came as a surprise even to those who voted for him or even
:22:45. > :22:51.Jeremy Corbyn. Is he John the Baptist? I said that Jeremy has
:22:52. > :22:56.broken or a space in which we could have a discussion about the project
:22:57. > :23:01.for the future. We had been lacking that. That space is there. Jeremy
:23:02. > :23:06.Corbyn is not the Messiah. He does not have all the answers and if you
:23:07. > :23:15.touch on, you are not healed. I was seeing, the heavy lifting for the
:23:16. > :23:23.future has to be done by all of us. Keir Starmer, thank you. It has been
:23:24. > :23:24.awhile since somebody has led the Labour Party with your name. Thank
:23:25. > :23:26.you. Now, it's been a torrid few weeks
:23:27. > :23:29.for the government on the issue of tax credits with senior
:23:30. > :23:31.Conservatives such as Boris Johnson and David Willets expressing unease
:23:32. > :23:33.about the Chancellor's proposed cuts,
:23:34. > :23:35.unease which turned into a pretty frightful week for the inhabitants
:23:36. > :23:38.of 10 and 11 Downing Street. Peers created a nightmare
:23:39. > :23:40.for the Chancellor by voting, in the House of Lords, to delay tax
:23:41. > :23:43.credit cuts and to compensate Later in the week, 20 Tory
:23:44. > :23:48.backbenchers, including Bernard Jenkin, Heidi Allen and Jacob
:23:49. > :23:51.Rees-Mogg, also sent shivers up Mr Osborne's spine when they backed
:23:52. > :23:53.a motion from Labour's Frank Field calling
:23:54. > :23:55.on the government to mitigate And there may have been sleepless
:23:56. > :23:59.nights for the Prime Minister over at number
:24:00. > :24:02.10, too, with the EU once more He jetted off to Iceland where he
:24:03. > :24:08.courted controversy by appearing to some to be scare-mongering
:24:09. > :24:12.about life outside the EU. Mr Cameron had said
:24:13. > :24:21.the so-called "Norway option" of having access to the EU single
:24:22. > :24:24.market but little say over EU rules wrong for the UK and that he would
:24:25. > :24:27."guard very strongly" against it. Now there's trouble brewing
:24:28. > :24:30.for the government over the spooks', Next week the government will unveil
:24:31. > :24:34.a draft Investigatory Powers Bill which former Lib Dem leader
:24:35. > :24:37.Nick Clegg described as And we're joined now by the former
:24:38. > :24:56.Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis. Welcome back to the Sunday Politics.
:24:57. > :25:02.If you go -- but judicial review, would I do it for you? Almost, it is
:25:03. > :25:08.not judicial review, it is judicial authorisation. I beg your pardon,
:25:09. > :25:13.authorisation of warrants by a judge, not a politician. That is 90%
:25:14. > :25:19.of the way they are. We have too much surveillance because they are
:25:20. > :25:23.not proper constraints or checks. If we got back, I would largely lose
:25:24. > :25:27.interest in the area, because it is no longer a real threat to our
:25:28. > :25:30.liberties. What about your attitude towards what I was speaking about
:25:31. > :25:36.with Keir Starmer, because it was briefed on from the Home Office, the
:25:37. > :25:42.2-tier approach, an initial approach to find out what websites I am
:25:43. > :25:46.looking at, that comes from the Home Office, but to dig down to get into
:25:47. > :25:52.the content of what I have been doing, that needs a judge? No. The
:25:53. > :25:55.best guidance on this is the independent reviewer of terrorism
:25:56. > :26:01.legislation, David Anderson, who issued a strong report on this. He
:26:02. > :26:06.said it has got to be independent and ideally overseen by the
:26:07. > :26:10.judiciary. It cannot be a policeman in the office next door, it cannot
:26:11. > :26:14.be a spy in the office next door, or the Home Secretary, it has to be
:26:15. > :26:25.independent. If you do that, you do not need a 2 tier system, you have a
:26:26. > :26:28.uniform approach. Our politicians not more accountable than judges?
:26:29. > :26:30.Any time I have asked a question of any minister on a security matter,
:26:31. > :26:40.even what Lord did you do this under, they never comment. There is
:26:41. > :26:46.no accountability. -- law. Look at America. 9/11. There were clear
:26:47. > :26:54.errors in the handling of intelligence. The head of the CIA
:26:55. > :26:58.went. Nobody paid a price for that. They should not have done in my
:26:59. > :27:03.view, but they did not pay a price. We take a very soft approach to
:27:04. > :27:06.this. Ministers are not really accountable. If they were, and
:27:07. > :27:13.string questions in Parliament, it would be different, but they are
:27:14. > :27:15.not. They may not be accountable enough, but many people will think
:27:16. > :27:22.they are more accountable than judges who have jobs for life. One
:27:23. > :27:28.minister said, judicial oversight of interception warrants is a bad idea,
:27:29. > :27:33.he did not mean oversight, he meant authorisation. If a bomb gets
:27:34. > :27:37.through because a judge refused to sign a warrant, what will happen?
:27:38. > :27:44.There is a much better way of doing it. Anderson points this out. Also,
:27:45. > :27:49.the other important report on this points this out. You have a proper
:27:50. > :27:55.oversight procedure as well. It backs up things. You have judges
:27:56. > :28:01.that do it, a single panel. They look in retrospect? Yes, add
:28:02. > :28:05.everything that is done, before or after any mistakes. They find them.
:28:06. > :28:10.The aim is to protect the public, that is aim. At the moment the Home
:28:11. > :28:14.Secretary does about ten of these warrants in a working day. It is
:28:15. > :28:20.impossible forward person to do this. It is bad practice, bad
:28:21. > :28:25.managerially, bad legally and bad in terms of counterterrorism. People
:28:26. > :28:31.who take your view of the quarter are lies, Canada, Australia, the
:28:32. > :28:36.United States, New Zealand also of judicial authorisation of warrants.
:28:37. > :28:42.I was looking at the figures, US judges approved 99.6% of all
:28:43. > :28:47.warrants. In the end, it makes no difference. The warrants are given.
:28:48. > :28:52.The warrants are given. The US Judges have been pulled up on this,
:28:53. > :28:56.it has been tightened up. They have somebody to put the other case which
:28:57. > :29:01.they did not have before. If you have a decent system, you do not
:29:02. > :29:04.take a bad warrant. You do not go to them with the expectation of being
:29:05. > :29:09.turned on, you make sure you have the right person at the rate basis.
:29:10. > :29:13.The percentage does not tell you much. If you do not get judicial
:29:14. > :29:18.authorisation, will you challenge this bill in the courts as you did
:29:19. > :29:22.the last bill? No, because the last one went through the Commons in the
:29:23. > :29:24.courts as you did the last bill? No, because the last one went through
:29:25. > :29:28.the Commons on Wednesday it had not been properly tested, so I thought,
:29:29. > :29:33.let's tested elsewhere. Parliament is a better test than court if it is
:29:34. > :29:36.allowed to do the job. I do not think this bill will get through the
:29:37. > :29:40.Commons or the House of Lords without judicial authorisation. Even
:29:41. > :29:45.if the government comes out without it this week, it will have to change
:29:46. > :29:49.again? There is a new consensus on this across the board, across the
:29:50. > :29:53.experts, the Spriggs, the parties and the Houses of Parliament. The
:29:54. > :29:57.Prime Minister consistently claims that he rules nothing out in Europe,
:29:58. > :30:01.but is it not the case that by rubbishing the Norwegian option as
:30:02. > :30:15.he did last week, it is clear he is determined to stay" Mac -- to stay.
:30:16. > :30:29.He wants to get an outcome which allows him to stay in. Attacking the
:30:30. > :30:35.Norwegian option is irrelevant. Sure, he wants to be able to
:30:36. > :30:41.negotiate to stay in. But the EU is in crisis. Many people on your side
:30:42. > :30:45.say it is such a crisis at the moment that a British exit could be
:30:46. > :30:51.a catalyst for the whole demise of the EU project. So why doesn't the
:30:52. > :30:56.Prime Minister make much tougher demands as the price for staying in?
:30:57. > :31:01.It would be a catastrophe if Europe was to lose us. He is caught in a
:31:02. > :31:07.conundrum. I broadly would agree with that argument. He should make
:31:08. > :31:11.extremely tough demands. Tell the British public it is a negotiation,
:31:12. > :31:17.you will not get everything, but we will put the outcome to you. The
:31:18. > :31:22.problem is any failure to achieve a complete success would be used as a
:31:23. > :31:27.weapon to beat him with and therefore he will aim lower in the
:31:28. > :31:34.hope to gain 100% success. It is the wrong analysis. The high bar with an
:31:35. > :31:39.acceptance you will not get everything would have been smarter.
:31:40. > :31:45.Like the trade union leader asking for five quid a week more and you
:31:46. > :31:50.settle for four? Exactly. When I negotiated with the European Union
:31:51. > :31:56.we try to get tough demands, but we did not get everything because we
:31:57. > :32:05.were outnumbered, 14-1. But here for the very reason you said Europe is
:32:06. > :32:10.no longer in a strong position. Its primary experiment the euro is in a
:32:11. > :32:15.terrible state and we have got the stronger argument. Is it not
:32:16. > :32:18.inevitable, given that, that when we finally get to know what the Prime
:32:19. > :32:24.Minister is asking for in some detail, and we may get that in
:32:25. > :32:31.December, is it not the truth that a huge chunk of your party, made the
:32:32. > :32:36.most of them, is going to be deeply disappointed by the paucity of his
:32:37. > :32:42.demands? I do not think so. The truth of the matter is that
:32:43. > :32:47.everybody has got a condition to the fact the demands will not be
:32:48. > :32:51.substantial, constitutional changes, and people are changing their
:32:52. > :32:57.position to whatever stance they want to take. One thing is that
:32:58. > :33:01.unlike Maastricht there is the option of a referendum. They have
:33:02. > :33:06.got that option to exercise and they will try and get a resolution. That
:33:07. > :33:13.will pacify people. Let me come to tax credits. Should Mr Osborne tweak
:33:14. > :33:17.his tax credit plan to make it more acceptable, or should he in effect
:33:18. > :33:24.junk it and go back to the drawing board? Two things. He needs to
:33:25. > :33:29.achieve a reform of tax credits. It is a bad system, it is too
:33:30. > :33:35.expensive. He also needs to achieve fiscal balance by 2020. Those two
:33:36. > :33:42.things are requirements. But what he does not need to do is do it next
:33:43. > :33:46.year. That is the issue. Along with Frank Field I sponsored a debate on
:33:47. > :33:49.Thursday in the Commons which got amazing uniformity and what came out
:33:50. > :33:54.of that was the feeling that what ever you do, so long as it does not
:33:55. > :34:00.penalised the working poor, particularly dependent, then we will
:34:01. > :34:06.go with it. That is the criteria. That is more than a tweak. It is a
:34:07. > :34:12.lot more than a tweak. If you are a single parent working and raising
:34:13. > :34:18.two kids, you could lose ?2000. You cannot afford to lose a pound. What
:34:19. > :34:24.we will do is a lot more than a tweak, but it is getting to the same
:34:25. > :34:29.place in 2020. The financial markets will accept that. They will say it
:34:30. > :34:34.is the endgame that matters. Thank you for being with us today.
:34:35. > :34:36.It's coming up to 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.
:34:37. > :34:45.We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now
:34:46. > :34:48.Hello, and welcome to Sunday Politics Wales.
:34:49. > :34:51.We'll hear from one Welsh MP about plans he claims would give
:34:52. > :34:54.thousands of NHS patients access to life-saving treatments
:34:55. > :35:01.And why are the First Minister and Welsh Secretary at loggerheads
:35:02. > :35:06.But first, the Welsh Language Commissioner says it
:35:07. > :35:10.should be made an offence to change historic place names in Wales.
:35:11. > :35:12.Meri Huws says some place names should be
:35:13. > :35:17.It's an issue which has been brought into focus
:35:18. > :35:21.by a recent controversy about the name of an estate near Caernarfon.
:35:22. > :35:30.The name Glynllifon has been associated with this estate near
:35:31. > :35:35.Caernarfon since the 16th century, and so there was uproar when this
:35:36. > :35:37.grade-one listed building was recently referred to
:35:38. > :35:40.as Wymbourne Mansion in marketing material
:35:41. > :35:45.belonging to a company which had agreed to buy the property.
:35:46. > :35:48.The Yorkshire-based firm has now pulled out of the deal,
:35:49. > :35:52.as a result of what it describes as an unexpected negative reaction.
:35:53. > :35:56.MBI Consulting insists they never intended to change Glynllifon's
:35:57. > :36:00.name, but the story has led to renewed calls for more to be done
:36:01. > :36:06.And with the historic Environment Bill
:36:07. > :36:08.progressing through the Assembly, the Welsh Language Commissioner
:36:09. > :36:16.I think what we need to do to ensure the protection of place names is,
:36:17. > :36:20.in the first instance, to record, and then place statutory protection,
:36:21. > :36:23.with good reason, on those names, whatever their derivation.
:36:24. > :36:26.So that it would become an offence to change them?
:36:27. > :36:30.Yes, and that is done in other places in the world.
:36:31. > :36:33.I think Wales should really look at those examples of places
:36:34. > :36:36.in Australia, New South Wales, Victoria, where there is a
:36:37. > :36:44.a panel that maintains that register, and it's an offence if
:36:45. > :36:48.those place names are not used appropriately.
:36:49. > :36:51.I think it's a wonderful opportunity here, with this legislation,
:36:52. > :36:56.Across Wales, there are countless examples of Welsh language place
:36:57. > :36:59.names which have either had their spelling anglicised,
:37:00. > :37:03.been translated, or changed altogether.
:37:04. > :37:06.Faerdre Fach offers accommodation to holiday-makers looking to spend
:37:07. > :37:11.but those staying here will be more familiar with
:37:12. > :37:16.the name used to advertise the business online - Happy Donkey Hill.
:37:17. > :37:19.Most of our visitors are only here for seven days at best,
:37:20. > :37:24.and if they trot off back to Yorkshire or Sunderland, or
:37:25. > :37:28.and say, "We stayed at Faerdre Fach."
:37:29. > :37:31.They won't say it properly, they definitely can't spell it,
:37:32. > :37:34.and the person they are talking to will never remember it
:37:35. > :37:37.It is a vehicle for people to remember
:37:38. > :37:41.and to find us on the internet, and the place is called Faerdre Fach.
:37:42. > :37:44.It will always be called Faerdre Fach.
:37:45. > :37:46.Nevertheless, Faerdre Fach was given as an example
:37:47. > :37:50.of a place which has already lost its Welsh name, during a recent
:37:51. > :37:55.There is nothing to stop any name being changed.
:37:56. > :37:58.We could end up with a whole series of Seaviews, Oceanviews,
:37:59. > :38:06.These ancient names are part of our heritage, as much as the buildings.
:38:07. > :38:11.Mike Hedges is a member of the Communities, Equality
:38:12. > :38:15.which has been scrutinising the historic Environment Bill.
:38:16. > :38:18.The committee has said it's concerned to hear place names can be
:38:19. > :38:24.changed with little or no challenge, and the lack of consideration given
:38:25. > :38:29.However, the committee accepts that providing statutory protection
:38:30. > :38:33.for historic place names may be difficult to deliver.
:38:34. > :38:35.In line with the committee's recommendation,
:38:36. > :38:39.the Deputy Minister For Culture is taking steps to ensure historic
:38:40. > :38:42.place names like Glynllifon will be added to local records, so their
:38:43. > :38:50.But that won't make it an offence to change them.
:38:51. > :38:52.Statutory protection will be very difficult to deliver.
:38:53. > :38:56.It would require considerable bureaucracy and administration,
:38:57. > :39:00.I wouldn't entirely shut the door on the possibility
:39:01. > :39:03.of statutory protection, but as it's been presented so far,
:39:04. > :39:08.it would probably not be workable or enforceable either.
:39:09. > :39:11.Ken Skates also said he is pleased Glynllifon's name is safe -
:39:12. > :39:16.and he is glad the controversy over the mansion's future has sparked
:39:17. > :39:23.such a passion discussion about the value of our heritage.
:39:24. > :39:27.I'm joined now by the Conservative AM and Shadow Culture
:39:28. > :39:39.Thanks for joining us. Let's cover the issues raised in the peace
:39:40. > :39:44.there. We heard the Welsh line which Commissioner called for statutory
:39:45. > :39:47.protection for historic place names. Do you agree?
:39:48. > :39:51.I think it is interesting that the Assembly has itself as opposed to
:39:52. > :39:55.the Government raised this issue. I was pleased to the deputy ministers
:39:56. > :40:02.say he is looking to bring something in the historic environment act are
:40:03. > :40:06.to do with the issues raised there. I am sceptical about the rush to
:40:07. > :40:09.legislation, because the last thing the Assembly needs to be associated
:40:10. > :40:13.with is legislation that perhaps does not work. I think the deputy
:40:14. > :40:19.minister was right to say, this is tricky to deal with eye statute.
:40:20. > :40:22.Having said that, there is merit in having local records dealing with
:40:23. > :40:28.this. I think there is a lot of confusion about how we use names.
:40:29. > :40:34.Certainly in the case of happy donkey held. That is a change name,
:40:35. > :40:37.not a change from the Faerdre Fach. If you are trying to get people to
:40:38. > :40:41.come into Wales, you need to use all of the things you have for years. If
:40:42. > :40:45.that is using English and Welsh, that is brilliant.
:40:46. > :40:50.So you don't think it should be an offence?
:40:51. > :40:53.Many of the problems are made into offences... Rather than if you get
:40:54. > :41:04.the name of a place wrong through bad taste or ignorance. I think he
:41:05. > :41:06.meant makers of Oceanviews. Also not offensive.
:41:07. > :41:12.He says, we can protect historic businesses, why not -- buildings,
:41:13. > :41:16.why not names? Who would take the responsibility
:41:17. > :41:20.for making sure that either businesses are people moving into an
:41:21. > :41:23.area and buying property know the importance of those names to that
:41:24. > :41:26.area. I don't think it is encouraging to say, if you get that
:41:27. > :41:31.wrong, you are committing an offence.
:41:32. > :41:35.If we look at the Welsh language in a wider sense, policy on Welsh
:41:36. > :41:40.language. Recently we had the first wave of Welsh language standards
:41:41. > :41:44.published. That will apply to councils and other parts of the
:41:45. > :41:50.public sector, about what services they must provide in Welsh. You have
:41:51. > :41:54.had concerns. Are you confident they can be effective?
:41:55. > :41:59.I won't say I have doubts about the concept of standards. They are game
:42:00. > :42:01.changers. If you are serious about not just protecting Welsh language
:42:02. > :42:04.but making it relevant to everyday lives of their businesses,
:42:05. > :42:09.individuals and teachers understand that this is something that does
:42:10. > :42:13.have value, not just to us and our identity, but to us as a trading
:42:14. > :42:18.nation. I think standards are a good idea. Where I had some concerns is
:42:19. > :42:22.that with the first round of standards, the application of those
:42:23. > :42:26.is really important to get those rights, so they were not too
:42:27. > :42:29.heavy-handed. And not to like a touch either.
:42:30. > :42:34.Are you happy with what was published?
:42:35. > :42:36.Yes I'm happy. What will apply differently in different local
:42:37. > :42:41.authorities is... It'll be a question of seeing how those
:42:42. > :42:45.different local authorities react. I think to jump to conclusions about
:42:46. > :42:49.how efficient and effective it will be is too early at the moment to do
:42:50. > :42:52.that. I would like some time to see... Particularly with the second
:42:53. > :42:56.round. The second round will be more public
:42:57. > :43:00.sector bodies, then eventually some private sector will be covered. You
:43:01. > :43:06.comfortable with that? Yes. The party supported the Welsh
:43:07. > :43:12.language measure when it was introduced in the last Assembly. At
:43:13. > :43:17.the moment it only covers utilities. The real range of Government in the
:43:18. > :43:21.public sector bodies... If they don't get that right, I think there
:43:22. > :43:25.is a possibility of further legislation on that, but I would not
:43:26. > :43:29.rush to that, because things need a chance to show they can work.
:43:30. > :43:34.Are you concerned about private companies, beyond the utilities?
:43:35. > :43:39.I don't think we need to legislate for that. Let the utilities do what
:43:40. > :43:44.they can do properly first, because I think they may act as good
:43:45. > :43:46.examples for larger private sector companies.
:43:47. > :43:49.Is unhappy with what the Welsh Government is doing at the moment in
:43:50. > :43:55.terms of Welsh language, is that fair? -- you sound happy.
:43:56. > :44:00.What I am not happy about is the fact they spent a lot of time with
:44:01. > :44:06.the first round of standards. They have taken a long time to deal with
:44:07. > :44:08.the influential report about how we introduce Welsh more effectively
:44:09. > :44:11.through education. It is not all good news for the Welsh
:44:12. > :44:14.Government... What with the Welsh Conservatives do
:44:15. > :44:19.differently? I cannot give our manifesto secrets
:44:20. > :44:23.away. The report I just talked about has had an influence on our
:44:24. > :44:30.thinking. It has been to three years since we announced our trial policy,
:44:31. > :44:36.which predates that report, and had some ideas which were in that
:44:37. > :44:40.report, before she did. Can we expect radical ideas about
:44:41. > :44:46.how to defend the Welsh line which? You will see a Welsh Conservative
:44:47. > :44:50.manifesto that recognises there is a lot of time and money on previous
:44:51. > :44:54.Welsh language policy, which has been good for Wales, and for people
:44:55. > :44:55.to genuinely use it, we would do things differently.
:44:56. > :44:57.Thank you. A Welsh MP believes
:44:58. > :44:59.a new law he's trying to introduce could give thousands of NHS patients
:45:00. > :45:02.across the UK access to affordable Labour's Nick Thomas-Symonds
:45:03. > :45:07.says his Off-Patent Drugs Bill is designed to make drugs that were
:45:08. > :45:10.licensed for one use, but have fallen out of patent,
:45:11. > :45:16.available for other uses on the NHS. Some drugs have been found to be
:45:17. > :45:19.effective for other conditions, not covered by their original licence,
:45:20. > :45:23.but at the moment, there is no financial
:45:24. > :45:25.incentive for pharmaceutical companies
:45:26. > :45:28.to get them approved. The MP for Torfaen has been
:45:29. > :45:30.explaining the bill to At the moment, the position is that
:45:31. > :45:39.there are drugs on a patent for a certain period of time, and they
:45:40. > :45:43.will have a licence for that use. But drugs then can have a secondary
:45:44. > :45:49.implementation, a different use. But they will not then have
:45:50. > :45:56.a licence for that repurposed use. Neither will there be any incentive,
:45:57. > :46:01.any financial incentive for a pharmaceutical company to step
:46:02. > :46:05.in and do that. At the moment, these drugs,
:46:06. > :46:09.they are called "off-label" drugs. They are extraordinarily cheap.
:46:10. > :46:14.We are talking about pennies a day. But they are not routinely
:46:15. > :46:17.prescribed across the UK - not routinely prescribed and
:46:18. > :46:21.consistently prescribed in different geographical areas, nor indeed
:46:22. > :46:25.in different spheres of medicine. What my bill, the Off-Patent Drugs
:46:26. > :46:28.Bill, which has its second reading this coming week on the 6th
:46:29. > :46:33.of November, does, is that it puts the duty on the Government, and the
:46:34. > :46:37.Secretary of State for Health at a UK level, to step in
:46:38. > :46:41.and to seek licences for these drugs They will then have that Kitemark,
:46:42. > :46:48.of a licence to be able to be routinely prescribed, together with
:46:49. > :46:54.a Nice technological appraisal. What it does is plugs a gap
:46:55. > :46:58.in the market, where there is a market failure, for
:46:59. > :47:01.our Government to step in, and to make the prescribing of these drugs
:47:02. > :47:04.are consistent across the country. If a drug, though,
:47:05. > :47:08.has been discovered to have benefits beyond its original intention,
:47:09. > :47:11.but is no longer in the license, what is to stop the NHS doctors,
:47:12. > :47:16.using it anyway? Could they just say, well, actually,
:47:17. > :47:19.it turns out this does something It can theoretically happen, and
:47:20. > :47:25.in certain sphere - a good example is paediatrics -
:47:26. > :47:29.it does happen. But it doesn't happen
:47:30. > :47:32.consistently across the board. That is because in the system we
:47:33. > :47:35.currently have, there are disincentives to
:47:36. > :47:42.prescribing off-label. Just to give you an example of that,
:47:43. > :47:45.for example, a physician would have to take a personal responsibility
:47:46. > :47:47.for doing that. There may be information that
:47:48. > :47:50.just simply isn't available in that very short period
:47:51. > :47:52.of time that physicians have to make And what this bill does
:47:53. > :47:59.as it seeks to address that and replace it with an actual system,
:48:00. > :48:03.so that these drugs can be routinely the body that gives the OK to use
:48:04. > :48:10.these drugs, unless it has that sort of Kitemark
:48:11. > :48:14.of being able to give it, the doctors then won't use
:48:15. > :48:20.the drugs unless Nice approve it? As I said, they can be prescribing
:48:21. > :48:24.of-label, but clearly, the licence, and the Nice technology appraisal
:48:25. > :48:32.would introduce a system whereby it could be done consistently.
:48:33. > :48:34.-- off-label. I want to say, as well, that this
:48:35. > :48:37.is a nonparty political bill. It has a breadth of support
:48:38. > :48:39.across political parties, It got some support from
:48:40. > :48:43.the Medical Royal Colleges, 40 top clinicians have written
:48:44. > :48:50.a letter in the Daily Telegraph The Association of
:48:51. > :48:54.British Pharmaceutical Industry says it prefers the legal system that is
:48:55. > :49:00.in my bill, to a situation where drugs would be routinely prescribed
:49:01. > :49:03.off-label, where there was The National Health Service
:49:04. > :49:08.Commissioning Centre, which, of course, the body of the
:49:09. > :49:11.Clinical Commissioning Groups So I would suggest that this bill is
:49:12. > :49:18.a common-sense solution to a problem The Welsh and UK Governments have
:49:19. > :49:27.been slugging it out this week over the latest plans for further
:49:28. > :49:32.devolution - the draft Wales Bill. In the red corner, Carwyn Jones,
:49:33. > :49:37.and in the blue, Stephen Crabb. The Secretary of State for Wales
:49:38. > :49:39.says the bill would give the Assembly more powers
:49:40. > :49:42.and greater clarity on its devolution settlement, but
:49:43. > :49:46.the First Minister says it amounts In a speech in Cardiff this week,
:49:47. > :49:52.Mr Crabb said he was totally open to ideas about improving the draft
:49:53. > :49:56.bill, but wanted to draw a line There is a real danger in Wales that
:49:57. > :50:06.our full economic potential is being hamstrung by a never-ending
:50:07. > :50:10.constitutional debate focused on a largely theoretical discussion about
:50:11. > :50:14.powers, which is entirely divorced of what these powers can actually
:50:15. > :50:18.achieve. But Mr Jones told BBC Wales it was
:50:19. > :50:21.the Welsh Secretary who had been "I haven't mentioned it once,"
:50:22. > :50:27.he said. What he needs to realise,
:50:28. > :50:30.is that what he has produced is a rusty old banger,
:50:31. > :50:32.given it a paint job and then tried That's not what the people of Wales
:50:33. > :50:36.want. At the end of the day, we have to
:50:37. > :50:40.sit down and happy settlement that's that's going to work, so the people
:50:41. > :50:44.don't have to talk about it in the future. What he has presented
:50:45. > :50:47.so far is something unstable. We could be talking about the
:50:48. > :50:50.constitution for ever. Some strong words,
:50:51. > :50:52.and a lot of heat. Let's try and shed some light
:50:53. > :50:55.on it now, with Cathy Owens, a former Welsh Government adviser,
:50:56. > :51:07.and Craig Williams, the Wellcome. Cathy, very emotive,
:51:08. > :51:10.colourful language this week about some pretty dry constitutional
:51:11. > :51:14.issues. What is going on? It is an interesting bill. There are
:51:15. > :51:19.some areas I can agree with, like the fact we should make sure the
:51:20. > :51:25.Assembly can make it on rules. There is a bit in the middle that is
:51:26. > :51:33.complex, about having consensus with UK ministers, and an extra layer of
:51:34. > :51:37.expedient and necessary consensus, and the third bit, the reservations.
:51:38. > :51:42.You can have a bit of this but not less. It is complex.
:51:43. > :51:44.And that is the bit causing the conflict?
:51:45. > :51:49.It is actually the middle bits, about the consent. I think everybody
:51:50. > :51:53.realises that Stephen Crabb, complete with its predecessor, is
:51:54. > :51:57.relatively strong on devolution. He has been seen as a bridgebuilder. He
:51:58. > :52:02.can build a good relationship with the Welsh Government and I think...
:52:03. > :52:05.The public at home know that. A lot of the big infrastructure of things,
:52:06. > :52:11.a lot of investment requires good relationships. Either end of the M4.
:52:12. > :52:18.The strange complexity of the legal system here, the extra consents,
:52:19. > :52:23.which means the UK Government would have to give consent in perpetuity.
:52:24. > :52:28.That will inject conflict into the system, and that is the opposite of
:52:29. > :52:30.what people want. Craig Williams, there has been
:52:31. > :52:34.conflict in the way they have been speaking to each other through the
:52:35. > :52:37.media over the past week. It is damaging, isn't it, but they're
:52:38. > :52:41.talking to each other on those terms?
:52:42. > :52:46.It could be damaging to the process. It has been emotive and I am not
:52:47. > :52:53.sure why. There has been an Assembly election, a political environment,
:52:54. > :52:56.but the first word of the bills draft is... Stephen Crabb is the
:52:57. > :52:59.most pragmatic politician I have met and he will sit down and build those
:53:00. > :53:02.bridges. Wendy has not been building bridges
:53:03. > :53:07.this week. He set out the draft and I think he
:53:08. > :53:10.was expecting mature debates around the bill. Some of the comments from
:53:11. > :53:14.the commentators and politicians must be seen in context of the
:53:15. > :53:21.Cardiff Bay bubble. If we had the same emotion when Cadwallader was
:53:22. > :53:26.put into the situation G is in... If we had the same emotion around
:53:27. > :53:30.education, I would have time for the First Minister. But the back you can
:53:31. > :53:36.get so emotive, and furious over the draft Wales Bill, giving the final
:53:37. > :53:40.project, is ridiculous. It is political code for what I have
:53:41. > :53:43.been able to get out of Whitehall so far. If you don't agree with me, you
:53:44. > :53:45.don't agree with me, you're putting the constitution ahead of prosperity
:53:46. > :53:51.and the health service. That is an issue here.
:53:52. > :53:55.But is it is not emotive to say the help of the nation, the economy is
:53:56. > :53:59.not your priority? It is political code. The same way
:54:00. > :54:02.that one politician will say to another, you are playing politics
:54:03. > :54:04.with the people of Wales. This is the political code and what we could
:54:05. > :54:08.do here is happy sensible conversation where people get to
:54:09. > :54:13.agree. That is not what happened here. This is effectively what
:54:14. > :54:17.Whitehall will allow. Perhaps we could... We have this election
:54:18. > :54:22.coming up which will make it more heated. Perhaps we need a rethink.
:54:23. > :54:27.It is this consents that is causing a problem. We might have a situation
:54:28. > :54:31.where we have a different colour of Government, either end of the M4,
:54:32. > :54:35.possibly for five or ten years. We have to make sure there is a system
:54:36. > :54:38.where you cannot have one Government is giving a veto to watch the
:54:39. > :54:45.directly elected Senedd would like to do.
:54:46. > :54:48.Candy resolve these issues? The committee at the start of this
:54:49. > :54:53.process, are starting a way of coming down to this, and a joint
:54:54. > :54:57.committee between the Welsh affairs and the legislation committee in the
:54:58. > :55:00.Assembly. We will have a mature debate on the point that the chair
:55:01. > :55:05.of the amity and Stephen Crabb have been making, is that this is
:55:06. > :55:10.scrutiny, this is ongoing. If you have a body of evidence out there,
:55:11. > :55:14.the jurisdiction of our Government. Come forward and present that
:55:15. > :55:17.evidence, because at the moment is there is no evidence behind some of
:55:18. > :55:21.these assertions. Let's not forget that Stephen Crabb is delivering the
:55:22. > :55:24.reserve bubble that everyone jumped up and down about. Now delivering
:55:25. > :55:30.that, you do not hear everyone going, great step forward.
:55:31. > :55:34.That is because these added layers have been included. The perpetual
:55:35. > :55:38.consent veto and the issue about necessity. We have had over the last
:55:39. > :55:40.five years, the UK Government and Secretary of State for Wales
:55:41. > :55:46.challenging nearly every bill that has come out of the Assembly. We
:55:47. > :55:49.must try and stop that. Do you think it will become law in
:55:50. > :55:54.the end? The powers that is the important
:55:55. > :55:58.bit. Then we will start getting onto some of the really interesting
:55:59. > :56:02.reservations, where you have got Wales well now, after this bill
:56:03. > :56:08.comes through, be able to decide on speed limits for Wales, and able to
:56:09. > :56:11.incentivise people in terms of energy efficiency, but not a
:56:12. > :56:16.disincentive. And in the end, you think the First
:56:17. > :56:18.Minister will have to take what we've got?
:56:19. > :56:21.There is no doubt there will be enough people in terms of the
:56:22. > :56:26.leadership and members of various parties in Wales will say, let's
:56:27. > :56:30.take the bits we can out of it, like the electoral system, but I'm afraid
:56:31. > :56:33.I don't think there are not enough people in terms of consensus that
:56:34. > :56:36.will allow for the perpetual veto to be included. That Israel out of the
:56:37. > :56:41.decisions need to be done. We can fix other things later -- that is
:56:42. > :56:45.where a lot of the decisions need to be done.
:56:46. > :56:52.One example, to take that one power, and actual power the SMB will get.
:56:53. > :56:55.It will have legislation for enforcement of that law as long as
:56:56. > :56:58.it is appropriate. That is for you to choose whether it
:56:59. > :57:02.is appropriate? Know it is for the Assembly to
:57:03. > :57:06.choose whether it is appropriate and four Whitehall to step in if not.
:57:07. > :57:10.You should not for example say someone should be jailed for ten
:57:11. > :57:13.years for committing a 30 mph... What we must remember in the
:57:14. > :57:18.difference with Scotland as we have got the Welsh and English legal
:57:19. > :57:23.system. This is a quick fix. Any landlord tenant would say there is a
:57:24. > :57:27.Welsh jurisdiction for a law at the moment. I have seen no evidence
:57:28. > :57:30.anywhere that says that there has been a problem.
:57:31. > :57:33.In one word, do you think it will become law in the end, as it
:57:34. > :57:34.stands? Not in this current position.
:57:35. > :57:35.Thank you. Don't forget, you can follow all
:57:36. > :57:38.the latest on Welsh politics To you both,
:57:39. > :57:47.thank you very much indeed. Now, each year the House of Commons
:57:48. > :57:52.holds a debate to coincide with But should the same courtesy
:57:53. > :57:59.be extended to men? That was the question posed
:58:00. > :58:01.by the Conservative MP Philip Davies when he appeared in front
:58:02. > :58:04.of the backbench business committee His suggestion was met with
:58:05. > :58:09.disbelief by the The opportunity
:58:10. > :58:14.for men to raise issues that are Just to give you a flavour,
:58:15. > :58:27.Mr Chairman, of the type of things which may come up and which will be
:58:28. > :58:30.part of international men's day, I am not entirely sure why it is so
:58:31. > :58:33.humorous, but to discuss issues such as men's shorter life expectancy,
:58:34. > :58:36.wider male health issues, many of which go unreported through
:58:37. > :58:38.embarrassment of men to go along You'll have to excuse me
:58:39. > :58:44.for laughing but the idea that men don't have the opportunity to ask
:58:45. > :58:46.questions in this place is a frankly laughable thing and I say this as
:58:47. > :58:51.the only woman on this committee. The idea that this chamber,
:58:52. > :58:54.these Houses, both of them, in any way reflect gender equality
:58:55. > :59:02.is to me a laughable thing. And Philip Davies joins me now
:59:03. > :59:15.from Leeds. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Jess
:59:16. > :59:21.Phillips is right, Parliament is still dominated by men? Business is
:59:22. > :59:26.dominated by men. Most power centres are dominated by men, you do not
:59:27. > :59:31.need a separate day or debate? There is a difference between how many men
:59:32. > :59:35.are in Parliament and the debate about men's issues. There are
:59:36. > :59:45.serious issues such as the high suicide rate among men, the
:59:46. > :59:48.underachievement of boys in school, the low life expectancy of men, the
:59:49. > :59:50.underreporting of health issues like testicular cancer, the
:59:51. > :59:52.underreporting of male victims of domestic violence. You could bring
:59:53. > :00:01.that up at any time, there are not many in the Commons, to bring that
:00:02. > :00:07.up whenever you want? -- there are enough men. There are few
:00:08. > :00:09.opportunities to bring up these particular issues. There are few
:00:10. > :00:13.times when these issues have been debated. Lots of women are concerned
:00:14. > :00:18.about these issues. Lots of women are married to men, they have
:00:19. > :00:19.fathers and sons. These things should be important to everybody.
:00:20. > :00:32.These are serious issues. Are you surprised at the appalling
:00:33. > :00:36.abuse that clip about? I am not suggesting you did it, but are you
:00:37. > :00:42.surprised at the abuse Jess Phillips found herself on the end of? I very
:00:43. > :00:47.much hope she has reported some of these people to the police. We have
:00:48. > :00:52.a democracy and a debate and she is perfectly entitled to her opinion. I
:00:53. > :00:57.do not agree with them, but she is entitled to her view. Maybe you need
:00:58. > :01:01.a debate about men not behaving in that way over something they do not
:01:02. > :01:06.agree with? We should have debate about what we should do with these
:01:07. > :01:10.morons who contact people in the way they contacted Jess. It is
:01:11. > :01:14.unacceptable, I hope she goes to the police, but that should not take
:01:15. > :01:21.away from the importance of the issues that I want to debate on
:01:22. > :01:29.International Man's Day. You spoke for 90 minutes this week on a bill
:01:30. > :01:33.that would have allowed carers, just carers, to have free parking at
:01:34. > :01:38.hospitals. You talked it out for 90 minutes soak it did not get any
:01:39. > :01:42.further. Why did you do that? I do not know if you have read my speed,
:01:43. > :01:47.but I made it clear why I did not support the bill and what might
:01:48. > :01:51.objections were and they are all there on public record for people to
:01:52. > :01:56.read. It would mean higher car parking costs for other people like
:01:57. > :02:00.disabled people and other vulnerable groups. It would mean a reduction in
:02:01. > :02:04.revenue for hospitals which would mean they would not be able to
:02:05. > :02:15.employ as many doctors or nurses. Why should carers...? They do
:02:16. > :02:20.not... They do have to pay. There are many hospitals that do not
:02:21. > :02:24.charge carers for parking, or hospitals are free to not charge
:02:25. > :02:29.carers from parking if they choose. My view is it is best described at a
:02:30. > :02:35.local level. I have got the picture of you in June holding up a banner
:02:36. > :02:41.and speaking up for carers. I do not think this is what they thought you
:02:42. > :02:47.should be speaking up about. You have not read my speech. I have read
:02:48. > :02:56.bits of it, 90 minutes is a long time. Read it all because I spoke up
:02:57. > :02:59.warmly about carers. OK. Do not say OK, I spoke about things that would
:03:00. > :03:06.have been far better for carers than that ill thought through piece of
:03:07. > :03:11.legislation. If you think I did not speak up for carers, that is a
:03:12. > :03:15.complete and utter lie. Let me move on to Mr Cameron and the European
:03:16. > :03:23.Union. He is now warning about life outside the EU and an associate
:03:24. > :03:27.tight relationship with the EU. Is he really pre-empting the
:03:28. > :03:32.renegotiation? He has really made his mind that he has to do what ever
:03:33. > :03:40.it takes to stay in. Is that a fair conclusion? Yes, absolutely. He will
:03:41. > :03:43.get next to nothing from his negotiation, but will come back and
:03:44. > :03:48.say it was a great triumph and based on that we should stay in the EU. I
:03:49. > :03:52.have never yet come across any Prime Minister in history that has come
:03:53. > :03:57.back from a renegotiation and said, I got nothing out of it, but I did
:03:58. > :04:02.my best. They all claim it is a triumph and we all know it is not
:04:03. > :04:08.going go anywhere. He will campaign for us to stay in. My job is to tell
:04:09. > :04:15.people that any claim of re-negotiation has been a complete
:04:16. > :04:20.farce. On Europe what is the logic other than a sense of panic that the
:04:21. > :04:23.Prime Minister goes to Iceland and talks about the Norwegian option and
:04:24. > :04:30.does not mention the Icelandic option because 80% of the Icelandic
:04:31. > :04:35.people like it. The logic is he can drive a wedge into the anti-EU
:04:36. > :04:39.movement by bringing to our attention that they cannot agree on
:04:40. > :04:45.what being out means. Does that mean being completely out, Donal Meech
:04:46. > :04:47.and model, the Swiss model, a mythical third or fourth option
:04:48. > :04:58.which Britain negotiates for itself? The more the Cameron talks
:04:59. > :05:01.about it, even though it is quite specious, the more attention he
:05:02. > :05:07.brings to the fact that being in means something quite clear. Does
:05:08. > :05:10.it? We do not know which way the eurozone is going to go in the
:05:11. > :05:13.future and Angela Merkel and President Hollande have been talking
:05:14. > :05:20.about greater integration in the eurozone. We do not know what it
:05:21. > :05:24.means in five years' time, but if you voted yes to stay in, you know
:05:25. > :05:28.what the world would be like the following day, but you would not
:05:29. > :05:37.know what it would be like if you voted to stay out. The burden is on
:05:38. > :05:42.the Eurosceptics to say what being out would mean literally
:05:43. > :05:46.immediately. I do not think you can sustain a referendum campaign
:05:47. > :05:50.without having a strong position on that. Is there a sense of panic in
:05:51. > :05:56.Downing Street about Europe? They are losing a sense of control. They
:05:57. > :06:01.do not want out and they think they might end out against their will?
:06:02. > :06:06.That is true. There was a complacency around on all sides of
:06:07. > :06:11.the people in favour of staying in. Business, the CBI, common sense, but
:06:12. > :06:16.the polls are going the wrong way. The longer he leaves it to the
:06:17. > :06:23.referendum the worse the migration crisis is going to look and that is
:06:24. > :06:26.at the heart of this. Nigel Farage was rather convincing earlier today
:06:27. > :06:32.on television, and if he can persuade people, in my opinion
:06:33. > :06:36.wrongly, but somehow that the migration crisis can be solved if we
:06:37. > :06:42.are out of Europe, he might be onto a winner. This has dawned on Downing
:06:43. > :06:49.Street. It is not going away any time soon. The migration crisis is
:06:50. > :06:55.likely to get worse as we get closer to the winter and these asylum
:06:56. > :06:58.seekers, refugees, families, whatever you call them, that will
:06:59. > :07:03.stay on the screens and the moment Mr Cameron tells his party what he
:07:04. > :07:07.is looking for, that is another crisis because they will not be
:07:08. > :07:11.happy. Yes, they will not be happy and Theresa May was putting the big
:07:12. > :07:18.question over the UK's involvement in terms of freedom of movement and
:07:19. > :07:20.Prime Minister will not get that fundamental point changed. David
:07:21. > :07:24.Cameron came out of the election and he thought he could concentrate on
:07:25. > :07:31.his re-negotiation and he would achieve a success and make the case.
:07:32. > :07:34.What they have now realised is that the in campaign and the ad campaign
:07:35. > :07:41.are on the pitch and the government is not. They are running a very
:07:42. > :07:46.effective insurgent campaign. What the government is trying to do is
:07:47. > :07:51.hit on the head the fundamental weakness of the leading campaign is,
:07:52. > :07:56.which is what Janan was talking about, is they cannot say what the
:07:57. > :08:06.future will be. When you leave you trigger Article 50 of the treaty and
:08:07. > :08:10.you leave the European Council. It .2 member states to negotiate with
:08:11. > :08:17.you your departure. That takes two years and that is voted on not by
:08:18. > :08:22.you, but by the other 27 on the basis of a qualifying vote. The UK
:08:23. > :08:26.could not count on friends like Germany to rally to our support. The
:08:27. > :08:31.Prime Minister is trying to say you have no ability to say what sort of
:08:32. > :08:36.arrangement we will have and that is where they are finally coming onto
:08:37. > :08:44.the pitch. George Osborne goes to Berlin this week to make speech on,
:08:45. > :08:48.I assume, to outline what he and the government wants from the European
:08:49. > :08:52.Union. But this is becoming a problem for the Chancellor as well.
:08:53. > :08:58.It has not been the best ten days for him. We are told he did not give
:08:59. > :09:02.enough attention to tax credits because he was so worried about the
:09:03. > :09:06.speech on re-negotiation. He goes down with this ship as well if it
:09:07. > :09:15.all goes pear shaped, that is a mixed metaphor. It is easy to see
:09:16. > :09:22.that the Conservative Party will get a radically Eurosceptics leader in a
:09:23. > :09:27.few years' time. There is a personal political problem there. The visit
:09:28. > :09:31.to Berlin is interesting because six months ago it made sense to put all
:09:32. > :09:35.your eggs in Angela Merkel's basket because she was the Empress of
:09:36. > :09:41.Europe and she would do a deal because she has got political cloud.
:09:42. > :09:46.She is the walking wounded. Will she run again? She is in much more
:09:47. > :09:51.trouble than anyone in this country understands. The trip to Berlin
:09:52. > :09:55.makes less sense now. He wants to get the protection for those members
:09:56. > :10:00.not in the eurozone to ensure that on the rules of the single market
:10:01. > :10:05.they cannot be ganged up on and he might get an emergency brake and not
:10:06. > :10:09.a veto. That will appeal to people's heads, but where these negotiations
:10:10. > :10:16.really matter is in people's hearts on issues like migration and on that
:10:17. > :10:20.ban of migrants not getting benefits for four years, it looks like the
:10:21. > :10:26.government is struggling. They are backtracking. Cameron started off
:10:27. > :10:31.saying they were not going to have a referendum. What is more having a
:10:32. > :10:35.referendum at the lowest peak for any government, two years in, they
:10:36. > :10:42.will be really unpopular in the middle of all of these cuts and they
:10:43. > :10:45.will be an antiestablishment mood. People will be voting against
:10:46. > :10:52.government. How is Jeremy Corbyn doing? Not as badly as people have
:10:53. > :10:57.predicted. What about all these people he has been appointing? There
:10:58. > :11:01.is a sense that he is only appointing around Tim people who
:11:02. > :11:07.agree with him, but that is his small, local group. By ministers and
:11:08. > :11:13.leaders tend to do that. It is not a good idea, but it is your natural
:11:14. > :11:20.instinct. They will be watching your back. Will the Corbin supporters,
:11:21. > :11:26.along with Mr McDonnell, will they want their own person in for the
:11:27. > :11:33.Golden West by-election? We shall wait and see and it will be watched
:11:34. > :11:36.by a lot of people in Labour as to whether the momentum movement gets
:11:37. > :11:41.going, which is mobilising all the people who have joined the party to
:11:42. > :11:47.see whether they can select somebody. It is so important they
:11:48. > :11:50.win this by-election. You hope the local party have quite a lot of say
:11:51. > :11:57.in the election and they choose whoever they think can win the best.
:11:58. > :12:01.They will be up against Ukip? Absolutely and Jeremy Corbyn would
:12:02. > :12:08.be in bad trouble if they lost this. They must choose somebody who
:12:09. > :12:18.is a winner. Any inside information on this? It is a 3-member panel of
:12:19. > :12:26.the Ennis -- in EC who draws up the short list. It has Keith Vaz on it
:12:27. > :12:33.and other mainstream people, so I am not sure this is a Trotskyist
:12:34. > :12:48.moment, it is quite an established thing. Is it a significant milestone
:12:49. > :12:52.in Labour moving against Trident? No, because it is a symbolic vote
:12:53. > :12:57.and I find it difficult to believe that Jeremy Corbyn's personal
:12:58. > :13:01.position on Trident will ever carry a party with lots of MPs in the
:13:02. > :13:11.manufacturing constituents with trade unions to the old right. I am
:13:12. > :13:15.not sure the Scottish or even Jeremy Corbyn with a personal mandate can
:13:16. > :13:19.carry that kind of thing. We shall see how the vote goes.
:13:20. > :13:23.We'll be back at the same time next week here
:13:24. > :13:28.on BBC 1 and you can catch the Daily Politics on BBC 2 from noon
:13:29. > :13:38.Remember if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.