01/11/2015 Sunday Politics Wales

Morning, folks, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

The spectre of surveillance as the Government outlines new

powers in the digital age for our security services and new

Are they enough to allay worries about the prying eyes of the state?

It's been a frightful week on Downing Street for George Osborne.

Has the Chancellor's reputation suffered lasting damage?

International Women's day gets debated by MPs every year,

Later in the programme: a debate on men's issues to mark

Should it be illegal to change historic place names in Wales?

The Welsh Language Commissioner tells us why she thinks it should.

The Welsh Language Commissioner nearly half of all the capital's air

pollution and the Mayor is being urged to do more to clean up that

And with me on All Hallows' day three saintly political journalists

Nick Watt, Polly Toynbee and Janan Ganesh who'll be tweeting

So, it's been rumbling for weeks but the row over the Chancellor's

cuts to tax credits finally came to a head last week with a defeat

in the Lords and serious dissent among Tory MPs in the Commons.

George Osborne has gone back to the drawing board on tax credits

and promised to "deal with" the House of Lords, whose actions

The Prime Minister set up a review of the Lord's powers.

That review is being headed by hereditary Tory peer

He had agreed to do an interview with us this morning but 10

Downing Street phoned us yesterday to pull him from the show.

We think the government does not want us to talk about tax credits,

so let's talk about tax credits. Janan, will the Chancellor now get

away with some fine tuning, with some tweaking, or does he have to

start from scratch? Even the tweaking is very difficult. It is

technically difficult to reform the policy while simultaneously helping

people who stand to lose out. It is fiscally difficult because the

current policy saves about ?4 billion, a third of the ?12 billion

he pledged to fine from welfare. There is no managerial way of doing

it. What could be done is either projecting, or hoping for

projections of higher tax receipts so he has to cut less. The deficit

is not as bad. Or move the target for getting rid of the deficit and

achieving the surplus year later. It is a much more fundamental solution.

It was only a few months ago the Tory press thought Mr Osborne walked

on water. His reputation has taken a real battering from this. In a very

short time, three weeks since the Tory party conference when they

walked out in a state of Triumph and euphoria. This budget looks like

another omnishambles and considerably more serious. Last time

it was funny with pasty taxes. This time, can he really drive through

all these cuts? At the moment he is trying to put imposed 40% cuts which

are undoable, like local government. This is only the first of many more

that will come, this undertaking. Ministers will cave in and accept

the cuts, but their departments will fall apart and they will rebel.

Against a weaker Chancellor. Yes. As Janan says, there is no tweaking

available. He gives back exactly the same amount of money he takes away,

or these hard-working people will be out of pocket. What do you hear

about what might be in the pipeline? We have got the Autumn

Statement and a comprehensive review, a three-year rolling

spending plan. It is on the last Wednesday of this month and now we

are in November, what is he up to? He is going to pony up and pony up

megabucks thanks to Rupert Harrison, his former economics

adviser and he devised the deficit reduction plan in the last

Parliament and the plan to target the surplus in this Parliament. It

sounds really hard line, there is no change from plan A, but it always

has written into it plan B and planned sea. He has delayed by one

year the targeting of the surplus and he could delay it by a further

year and still reach it by the time of the general election. Or he could

say because the OBE I will revise down economic growth forecasts by

the time of the Autumn Statement, the 10 billion he is meant to

achieve by 2019-2020, that could come down. The Chancellor is in a

hole and he is not stupid and he is going to get out of it and he is

going to spend a lot of money, but he will sound hard line by duffing

up the House of Lords. Do we take it seriously, the duffing up of the

House of Lords to reflect from the tax credits strimmer? Strimmer,

rumpus, whatever you want to call it. There was a lot of talk about

them stuffing the Lords... With Tory peers? Which ended badly the last

time it happened about 100 years ago. I cannot believe they will do

anything as provocative as that, but if he wired House of Lords another

incident like this and you make the argument for your own abolition.

There is a good argument for reform and abolition. I do not see why the

Lords should not do this as often as they want as long as the government

refuses to have a democratic debate. Willie Whitelaw is not of the most

ferocious people in the entire political system. We could have put

him through the fire this morning, but at least we did not talk about

Now, how far should the security services be able to spy

This week the Government will publish draft legislation to create

new powers and a new framework for the security services as they adapt

to the ever-growing challenges of digital communications being used by

the bad guys - terrorists, criminals,

paedophiles. But is there still a danger the privacy of innocent

Joe public gets gets violated as the power to intrude is extended?

There is not one person at MI6 who is not talking about it.

What, the upcoming draft Investigatory Powers Bill?

Sadly, my invite to the premiere of the new film got lost in the post,

so I am at this display of Bond cars at the London Film Museum instead.

In the new Bond film in which he drives this, one of the themes is

surveillance in the Internet age, and Westminster is revving up

for a potential row about how much the police and intelligence agencies

Because in the Goldfinger years of the '60s, it was easy to spy

on the villains, tail their Rolls or tap their phone.

Now, in the Daniel Craig era, the spooks need new weapons to track

One source told me that the work at places like the listening post

GCHQ has shifted from looking for a needle in a haystack to finding a

piece of hay in a haystack, and so a big question will be, how does the

goverment handle what is called bulk data? In other words,

looking at everyone's web activity to isolate the dodgy stuff.

Not something to worry about, say security types.

They are not interested in whether Lord West is having

They do not care, they do not look at that.

What they want to know is, am I talking to a bomb maker in the

Yemen who is talking to someone who they know has carried out an attack

in the Middle East before, who is talking to some American group that

we know are terrorists, that is talking to some people

When they get all these linkages, they hone it down and hone it down,

they use big data in the sense they use other techniques to refine it,

then they will say, this is extremely worrying, there is

something going on and then they will say, we want to go and look

at the detail of what is in these e-mails, or on social media.

But it scares the living daylights out of

The big issue for her, whether judges get to be involved.

At the moment, if someone wants to tap your telephone,

it is the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary who decides.

Normally in democracies we think there is a role for the judiciary in

This has not happened in the UK compared to the US or elsewhere

We also need to look to see the extent to which the security

agencies seek more power, do they want the power to hack our

Something that was considered outrageous when journalists did it,

is it now going to be OK for the spooks?

When the last Bond film came out three years ago, Parliament was

fighting over the so-called snoopers' charter, which would have

compelled Internet companies to keep and hand over a lot of our data.

It was thrown out when Nick Clegg played the role of Dr No

A security minded Conservative told me this could be another car crash,

because there are enough Tory MPs worried about civil liberties that

the government will need Labour support in the Commons,

So, will your browsing history remain for Your Eyes Only,

do you trust Her Majesty's Secret Service, or are the worriers just

Stay tuned for Theresa May's new legislation, coming soon.

Hopefully they do not ban bad James Bond puns.

Well, James Bond puns are unlikely to be outlawed but on the

Andrew Marr Show this morning the Home Secretary, Theresa May,

did confirm that internet service providers would have to keep

She was also asked about whether judges would need to

As I say, the three reviews came up with three

David Anderson was clear that he thought, partly

in relation to future proofing on future legislation, future legal

challenges, perhaps, judicial authorisation was the right way.

The parliamentary committee, the intelligence and security committee

of Parliament, said there should be executive authorisation, i.e.

the Secretary of State should still do it because

We have looked at all of those arguments and listened to what

people have said, and we will be bringing forward the government's

position on Wednesday, but as I say, I am very clear that what we will

bring forward has very strong oversight arrangements.

We're joined now by the Shadow Home Office Minister and former Director

of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer.

Welcome, this is the first time we have had due on. It is. As a general

principle do you support stronger powers for the intelligence services

in accessing digital data? There is a case for a new law. We have been

patching up for a very long time, the law is out of date. It is very

important we have no go areas for those involved in serious offending

like terrorism and child sexual abuse. And organised crime. And

organised crime and when I was DPP we rarely prosecuted without relying

on data and this is important for protecting the public. Is judicial

as opposed to ministerial approval of warrants to be able to do this,

is that a red line issue? It is. We have the chance to have a modern,

comprehensive law that sets out the powers for law enforcement and the

security services and at the same time we have the chance, a historic

chance, to get the safeguards right. One of the safeguard is

judicial authorisation of intercept roles. There is a big difference

between data and content. By content you mean what are people actually

saying to each other? That should be signed off by a judge. That is what

happens in other countries. That is the real issue. In fairness, Theresa

May has backed off from the original plans and faced up to some of the

criticism, but it is really a chance now for all of us to agree a

framework for the future that is on the one hand giving the authorities

the powers they need, but on the other hand entrenching in law the

right safeguards and judicial oversight is important in that. We

do not know exactly what she is going to say, she has to tell

Parliament first, but in the Sunday Times there is the ideal of a 2 tier

system that an initial warrant, for example what is my browsing history?

The initial one would be issued by the Home Secretary, but if you want

to get into the content of what is in these websites and what I have

been sending, that needs to be a judge. That is one idea that has

been mooted, what is your reaction to that? I am not in favour of took

your system. If you're going to go for content, we should go to a judge

straightaway. Roughly speaking, there are about 2500 warrants per

year for interceptions. That is a very high number for a Home

Secretary to deal with. In reality, that means that a lot of the

preparation is done by her team, for her to look at. There is nothing

wrong with that and I am not being critical of the team, but it would

be far better if it was done by a judge, independent of any of the

operations, independent from all the parties. It is a classically judge

test, is it necessary, proportionate, focused on the right

person? This is what is done in other countries and this would

settle this dispute and allow everybody to move on, the consensus

is important. This could be a historic moment if the Home

Secretary will allow it. She has stepped in the right direction. If

she completes on that by having the right safeguards, that is a prize

worth having. However, who would be accountable if a judge refused a

warrant, not a politician, what a judge, and as a result, there was a

terrorist attack? Who do we hold accountable? One idea would be to

have a panel of judges, a commission of judges. There are many judges

that are clear to do this sort of work. Individual decisions have to

be made. In the main, we hope the decisions are right. We could not

hold a judge accountable? If the Home Secretary gets it wrong, she's

accountable, she has to appear before Parliament, come on

television, it could be the end of her job. The judge would be

accountable? We have always had a system of accountability with judges

that relies on the right person making the decision in the first

place and after the event, investigation and looking at the

warrants that had been issued. That system did continue. It is

difficult, we are arguing in the dark, but I do not accept the

proposition that if you put it to an independent judge that is a lesser

safeguard than if you put it to the Home Secretary. These are decisions

about how privacy is too precious to be left with the Home Secretary. It

should be done by a judge. Within these constraints, I take it you

think that the Internet browsing history of every computer net device

should be kept by Internet providers by 12 months? That is the position

that David Anderson, the independent reviewer, proposed. We will have to

see what is in the bill, but it needs to be as clearly can just

rained -- clearly constrained as possible for as short a time as

possible. How much, who accesses it, and what conditions, this is key.

Your leader and deputy leader in the Labour Party has been opposed to

this type of legislation. Mr Corbyn called previous attempts a massive

intrusion into people's lives. What do you say to him? It is a massive

intrusion, any interception of Communications is. The question is

whether it is justified. I have worked with the police, Lauren

Forstmann and the security services for five-year is, when I was

Director of Public Prosecutions. I know how important it is that we get

access to the material we need to get access to, not just in terrorist

cases. As you say, you have been director of public and is. How much

more difficult would it have been for you to get major convictions in

serious cases without both the 2004 and 2006 terrorist acts which Mr

Corbyn opposed? Very difficult. We use them on a regular basis. I said

that when I was in the job. I made the case that we should not lose

capability and I am not going to change my mind. It is not just your

leader or his deputy, many of the 22 Labour MPs who voted against this

previous piece of legislation on this subject area, they are the ones

who nominated Mr Corbyn for Nader and they are now in power is the

position and influence in your party. Do you see a serious split on

this issue? I do not think so. I think Jeremy Corbyn listens to

colleagues in policy response to the government. We will make a response

when we have heard what the Home Secretary has said. We should seize

the opportunity for proper safeguards. In fairness, in the

past, Mr Corbyn and others were emphasising the case for safeguards

which they did not think were strong enough. To clarify, I have been told

that you have squared Mr Corbyn on this. In your view, if it is proper

judicial oversight, then Mr Corbyn will go along with those measures? I

would not use that expression but we have had a discussion. There is

clarity in agreement that proper powers where they are needed, it is

right to have proper safeguards. He is with you on that? Uncompromising

on the safeguards is the position we should adopt, but do not stand in

the way of the powers that are necessary for law enforcement and

the security services where they are needed. You squared it, because you

have got the agreement of the Labour leader on that. That is the position

on what we have agreed. As an Andy Burnham biker in the election, how

is Jeremy Corbyn doing, better or worse than you expected? Jeremy

Corbyn got a massive mandate to lead the party. He has put together a

broad team to lead the party. We are developing policy in response to the

government's programme. We have a government at the moment that is

extreme in the sense that it is pushing through provisions furiously

and fast that it odd to be holding back and looking out to be

scrutinised more carefully. I think we are doing fairly well in this

exercise. You are London MP. London Labour got easily the most votes in

the capital at the general election. Many people say this is a Labour

city by and large. If Labour does not win the 2016 election for mayor,

does that indicate that a general election victory under Mr Corbyn is

a long, tough stretch? Listen, this time last year I was about to start

a selection exercise to be selected as Frank Dobson's replacement as

Labour candidate. We were all predicting what the general election

would hold. I am not going to fall into the trap of trying to work out

what will happen in 2020. I will say it is really important that Labour

win that election. You need to win? We need to win London, local

elections and the general election in 2020. It is an important test for

Mr Corbyn, London? If you cannot win London, how would you win the

country? It is a test for all of us. I accept that. We must win next

year, the local election and the general election. We should focus on

that. You have said that Jeremy Corbyn is not the Messiah. I do not

think that came as a surprise even to those who voted for him or even

Jeremy Corbyn. Is he John the Baptist? I said that Jeremy has

broken or a space in which we could have a discussion about the project

for the future. We had been lacking that. That space is there. Jeremy

Corbyn is not the Messiah. He does not have all the answers and if you

touch on, you are not healed. I was seeing, the heavy lifting for the

future has to be done by all of us. Keir Starmer, thank you. It has been

awhile since somebody has led the Labour Party with your name. Thank

you. Now, it's been a torrid few weeks

for the government on the issue of tax credits with senior

Conservatives such as Boris Johnson and David Willets expressing unease

about the Chancellor's proposed cuts,

unease which turned into a pretty frightful week for the inhabitants

of 10 and 11 Downing Street. Peers created a nightmare

for the Chancellor by voting, in the House of Lords, to delay tax

credit cuts and to compensate Later in the week, 20 Tory

backbenchers, including Bernard Jenkin, Heidi Allen and Jacob

Rees-Mogg, also sent shivers up Mr Osborne's spine when they backed

a motion from Labour's Frank Field calling

on the government to mitigate And there may have been sleepless

nights for the Prime Minister over at number

10, too, with the EU once more He jetted off to Iceland where he

courted controversy by appearing to some to be scare-mongering

about life outside the EU. Mr Cameron had said

the so-called "Norway option" of having access to the EU single

market but little say over EU rules wrong for the UK and that he would

"guard very strongly" against it. Now there's trouble brewing

for the government over the spooks', Next week the government will unveil

a draft Investigatory Powers Bill which former Lib Dem leader

Nick Clegg described as And we're joined now by the former

Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis. Welcome back to the Sunday Politics.

If you go -- but judicial review, would I do it for you? Almost, it is

not judicial review, it is judicial authorisation. I beg your pardon,

authorisation of warrants by a judge, not a politician. That is 90%

of the way they are. We have too much surveillance because they are

not proper constraints or checks. If we got back, I would largely lose

interest in the area, because it is no longer a real threat to our

liberties. What about your attitude towards what I was speaking about

with Keir Starmer, because it was briefed on from the Home Office, the

2-tier approach, an initial approach to find out what websites I am

looking at, that comes from the Home Office, but to dig down to get into

the content of what I have been doing, that needs a judge? No. The

best guidance on this is the independent reviewer of terrorism

legislation, David Anderson, who issued a strong report on this. He

said it has got to be independent and ideally overseen by the

judiciary. It cannot be a policeman in the office next door, it cannot

be a spy in the office next door, or the Home Secretary, it has to be

independent. If you do that, you do not need a 2 tier system, you have a

uniform approach. Our politicians not more accountable than judges?

Any time I have asked a question of any minister on a security matter,

even what Lord did you do this under, they never comment. There is

no accountability. -- law. Look at America. 9/11. There were clear

errors in the handling of intelligence. The head of the CIA

went. Nobody paid a price for that. They should not have done in my

view, but they did not pay a price. We take a very soft approach to

this. Ministers are not really accountable. If they were, and

string questions in Parliament, it would be different, but they are

not. They may not be accountable enough, but many people will think

they are more accountable than judges who have jobs for life. One

minister said, judicial oversight of interception warrants is a bad idea,

he did not mean oversight, he meant authorisation. If a bomb gets

through because a judge refused to sign a warrant, what will happen?

There is a much better way of doing it. Anderson points this out. Also,

the other important report on this points this out. You have a proper

oversight procedure as well. It backs up things. You have judges

that do it, a single panel. They look in retrospect? Yes, add

everything that is done, before or after any mistakes. They find them.

The aim is to protect the public, that is aim. At the moment the Home

Secretary does about ten of these warrants in a working day. It is

impossible forward person to do this. It is bad practice, bad

managerially, bad legally and bad in terms of counterterrorism. People

who take your view of the quarter are lies, Canada, Australia, the

United States, New Zealand also of judicial authorisation of warrants.

I was looking at the figures, US judges approved 99.6% of all

warrants. In the end, it makes no difference. The warrants are given.

The warrants are given. The US Judges have been pulled up on this,

it has been tightened up. They have somebody to put the other case which

they did not have before. If you have a decent system, you do not

take a bad warrant. You do not go to them with the expectation of being

turned on, you make sure you have the right person at the rate basis.

The percentage does not tell you much. If you do not get judicial

authorisation, will you challenge this bill in the courts as you did

the last bill? No, because the last one went through the Commons in the

courts as you did the last bill? No, because the last one went through

the Commons on Wednesday it had not been properly tested, so I thought,

let's tested elsewhere. Parliament is a better test than court if it is

allowed to do the job. I do not think this bill will get through the

Commons or the House of Lords without judicial authorisation. Even

if the government comes out without it this week, it will have to change

again? There is a new consensus on this across the board, across the

experts, the Spriggs, the parties and the Houses of Parliament. The

Prime Minister consistently claims that he rules nothing out in Europe,

but is it not the case that by rubbishing the Norwegian option as

he did last week, it is clear he is determined to stay" Mac -- to stay.

He wants to get an outcome which allows him to stay in. Attacking the

Norwegian option is irrelevant. Sure, he wants to be able to

negotiate to stay in. But the EU is in crisis. Many people on your side

say it is such a crisis at the moment that a British exit could be

a catalyst for the whole demise of the EU project. So why doesn't the

Prime Minister make much tougher demands as the price for staying in?

It would be a catastrophe if Europe was to lose us. He is caught in a

conundrum. I broadly would agree with that argument. He should make

extremely tough demands. Tell the British public it is a negotiation,

you will not get everything, but we will put the outcome to you. The

problem is any failure to achieve a complete success would be used as a

weapon to beat him with and therefore he will aim lower in the

hope to gain 100% success. It is the wrong analysis. The high bar with an

acceptance you will not get everything would have been smarter.

Like the trade union leader asking for five quid a week more and you

settle for four? Exactly. When I negotiated with the European Union

we try to get tough demands, but we did not get everything because we

were outnumbered, 14-1. But here for the very reason you said Europe is

no longer in a strong position. Its primary experiment the euro is in a

terrible state and we have got the stronger argument. Is it not

inevitable, given that, that when we finally get to know what the Prime

Minister is asking for in some detail, and we may get that in

December, is it not the truth that a huge chunk of your party, made the

most of them, is going to be deeply disappointed by the paucity of his

demands? I do not think so. The truth of the matter is that

everybody has got a condition to the fact the demands will not be

substantial, constitutional changes, and people are changing their

position to whatever stance they want to take. One thing is that

unlike Maastricht there is the option of a referendum. They have

got that option to exercise and they will try and get a resolution. That

will pacify people. Let me come to tax credits. Should Mr Osborne tweak

his tax credit plan to make it more acceptable, or should he in effect

junk it and go back to the drawing board? Two things. He needs to

achieve a reform of tax credits. It is a bad system, it is too

expensive. He also needs to achieve fiscal balance by 2020. Those two

things are requirements. But what he does not need to do is do it next

year. That is the issue. Along with Frank Field I sponsored a debate on

Thursday in the Commons which got amazing uniformity and what came out

of that was the feeling that what ever you do, so long as it does not

penalised the working poor, particularly dependent, then we will

go with it. That is the criteria. That is more than a tweak. It is a

lot more than a tweak. If you are a single parent working and raising

two kids, you could lose ?2000. You cannot afford to lose a pound. What

we will do is a lot more than a tweak, but it is getting to the same

place in 2020. The financial markets will accept that. They will say it

is the endgame that matters. Thank you for being with us today.

It's coming up to 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

Hello, and welcome to Sunday Politics Wales.

We'll hear from one Welsh MP about plans he claims would give

thousands of NHS patients access to life-saving treatments

And why are the First Minister and Welsh Secretary at loggerheads

But first, the Welsh Language Commissioner says it

should be made an offence to change historic place names in Wales.

Meri Huws says some place names should be

It's an issue which has been brought into focus

by a recent controversy about the name of an estate near Caernarfon.

The name Glynllifon has been associated with this estate near

Caernarfon since the 16th century, and so there was uproar when this

grade-one listed building was recently referred to

as Wymbourne Mansion in marketing material

belonging to a company which had agreed to buy the property.

The Yorkshire-based firm has now pulled out of the deal,

as a result of what it describes as an unexpected negative reaction.

MBI Consulting insists they never intended to change Glynllifon's

name, but the story has led to renewed calls for more to be done

And with the historic Environment Bill

progressing through the Assembly, the Welsh Language Commissioner

I think what we need to do to ensure the protection of place names is,

in the first instance, to record, and then place statutory protection,

with good reason, on those names, whatever their derivation.

So that it would become an offence to change them?

Yes, and that is done in other places in the world.

I think Wales should really look at those examples of places

in Australia, New South Wales, Victoria, where there is a

a panel that maintains that register, and it's an offence if

those place names are not used appropriately.

I think it's a wonderful opportunity here, with this legislation,

Across Wales, there are countless examples of Welsh language place

names which have either had their spelling anglicised,

been translated, or changed altogether.

Faerdre Fach offers accommodation to holiday-makers looking to spend

but those staying here will be more familiar with

the name used to advertise the business online - Happy Donkey Hill.

Most of our visitors are only here for seven days at best,

and if they trot off back to Yorkshire or Sunderland, or

and say, "We stayed at Faerdre Fach."

They won't say it properly, they definitely can't spell it,

and the person they are talking to will never remember it

It is a vehicle for people to remember

and to find us on the internet, and the place is called Faerdre Fach.

It will always be called Faerdre Fach.

Nevertheless, Faerdre Fach was given as an example

of a place which has already lost its Welsh name, during a recent

There is nothing to stop any name being changed.

We could end up with a whole series of Seaviews, Oceanviews,

These ancient names are part of our heritage, as much as the buildings.

Mike Hedges is a member of the Communities, Equality

which has been scrutinising the historic Environment Bill.

The committee has said it's concerned to hear place names can be

changed with little or no challenge, and the lack of consideration given

However, the committee accepts that providing statutory protection

for historic place names may be difficult to deliver.

In line with the committee's recommendation,

the Deputy Minister For Culture is taking steps to ensure historic

place names like Glynllifon will be added to local records, so their

But that won't make it an offence to change them.

Statutory protection will be very difficult to deliver.

It would require considerable bureaucracy and administration,

I wouldn't entirely shut the door on the possibility

of statutory protection, but as it's been presented so far,

it would probably not be workable or enforceable either.

Ken Skates also said he is pleased Glynllifon's name is safe -

and he is glad the controversy over the mansion's future has sparked

such a passion discussion about the value of our heritage.

I'm joined now by the Conservative AM and Shadow Culture

Thanks for joining us. Let's cover the issues raised in the peace

there. We heard the Welsh line which Commissioner called for statutory

protection for historic place names. Do you agree?

I think it is interesting that the Assembly has itself as opposed to

the Government raised this issue. I was pleased to the deputy ministers

say he is looking to bring something in the historic environment act are

to do with the issues raised there. I am sceptical about the rush to

legislation, because the last thing the Assembly needs to be associated

with is legislation that perhaps does not work. I think the deputy

minister was right to say, this is tricky to deal with eye statute.

Having said that, there is merit in having local records dealing with

this. I think there is a lot of confusion about how we use names.

Certainly in the case of happy donkey held. That is a change name,

not a change from the Faerdre Fach. If you are trying to get people to

come into Wales, you need to use all of the things you have for years. If

that is using English and Welsh, that is brilliant.

So you don't think it should be an offence?

Many of the problems are made into offences... Rather than if you get

the name of a place wrong through bad taste or ignorance. I think he

meant makers of Oceanviews. Also not offensive.

He says, we can protect historic businesses, why not -- buildings,

why not names? Who would take the responsibility

for making sure that either businesses are people moving into an

area and buying property know the importance of those names to that

area. I don't think it is encouraging to say, if you get that

wrong, you are committing an offence.

If we look at the Welsh language in a wider sense, policy on Welsh

language. Recently we had the first wave of Welsh language standards

published. That will apply to councils and other parts of the

public sector, about what services they must provide in Welsh. You have

had concerns. Are you confident they can be effective?

I won't say I have doubts about the concept of standards. They are game

changers. If you are serious about not just protecting Welsh language

but making it relevant to everyday lives of their businesses,

individuals and teachers understand that this is something that does

have value, not just to us and our identity, but to us as a trading

nation. I think standards are a good idea. Where I had some concerns is

that with the first round of standards, the application of those

is really important to get those rights, so they were not too

heavy-handed. And not to like a touch either.

Are you happy with what was published?

Yes I'm happy. What will apply differently in different local

authorities is... It'll be a question of seeing how those

different local authorities react. I think to jump to conclusions about

how efficient and effective it will be is too early at the moment to do

that. I would like some time to see... Particularly with the second

round. The second round will be more public

sector bodies, then eventually some private sector will be covered. You

comfortable with that? Yes. The party supported the Welsh

language measure when it was introduced in the last Assembly. At

the moment it only covers utilities. The real range of Government in the

public sector bodies... If they don't get that right, I think there

is a possibility of further legislation on that, but I would not

rush to that, because things need a chance to show they can work.

Are you concerned about private companies, beyond the utilities?

I don't think we need to legislate for that. Let the utilities do what

they can do properly first, because I think they may act as good

examples for larger private sector companies.

Is unhappy with what the Welsh Government is doing at the moment in

terms of Welsh language, is that fair? -- you sound happy.

What I am not happy about is the fact they spent a lot of time with

the first round of standards. They have taken a long time to deal with

the influential report about how we introduce Welsh more effectively

through education. It is not all good news for the Welsh

Government... What with the Welsh Conservatives do

differently? I cannot give our manifesto secrets

away. The report I just talked about has had an influence on our

thinking. It has been to three years since we announced our trial policy,

which predates that report, and had some ideas which were in that

report, before she did. Can we expect radical ideas about

how to defend the Welsh line which? You will see a Welsh Conservative

manifesto that recognises there is a lot of time and money on previous

Welsh language policy, which has been good for Wales, and for people

to genuinely use it, we would do things differently.

Thank you. A Welsh MP believes

a new law he's trying to introduce could give thousands of NHS patients

across the UK access to affordable Labour's Nick Thomas-Symonds

says his Off-Patent Drugs Bill is designed to make drugs that were

licensed for one use, but have fallen out of patent,

available for other uses on the NHS. Some drugs have been found to be

effective for other conditions, not covered by their original licence,

but at the moment, there is no financial

incentive for pharmaceutical companies

to get them approved. The MP for Torfaen has been

explaining the bill to At the moment, the position is that

there are drugs on a patent for a certain period of time, and they

will have a licence for that use. But drugs then can have a secondary

implementation, a different use. But they will not then have

a licence for that repurposed use. Neither will there be any incentive,

any financial incentive for a pharmaceutical company to step

in and do that. At the moment, these drugs,

they are called "off-label" drugs. They are extraordinarily cheap.

We are talking about pennies a day. But they are not routinely

prescribed across the UK - not routinely prescribed and

consistently prescribed in different geographical areas, nor indeed

in different spheres of medicine. What my bill, the Off-Patent Drugs

Bill, which has its second reading this coming week on the 6th

of November, does, is that it puts the duty on the Government, and the

Secretary of State for Health at a UK level, to step in

and to seek licences for these drugs They will then have that Kitemark,

of a licence to be able to be routinely prescribed, together with

a Nice technological appraisal. What it does is plugs a gap

in the market, where there is a market failure, for

our Government to step in, and to make the prescribing of these drugs

are consistent across the country. If a drug, though,

has been discovered to have benefits beyond its original intention,

but is no longer in the license, what is to stop the NHS doctors,

using it anyway? Could they just say, well, actually,

it turns out this does something It can theoretically happen, and

in certain sphere - a good example is paediatrics -

it does happen. But it doesn't happen

consistently across the board. That is because in the system we

currently have, there are disincentives to

prescribing off-label. Just to give you an example of that,

for example, a physician would have to take a personal responsibility

for doing that. There may be information that

just simply isn't available in that very short period

of time that physicians have to make And what this bill does

as it seeks to address that and replace it with an actual system,

so that these drugs can be routinely the body that gives the OK to use

these drugs, unless it has that sort of Kitemark

of being able to give it, the doctors then won't use

the drugs unless Nice approve it? As I said, they can be prescribing

of-label, but clearly, the licence, and the Nice technology appraisal

would introduce a system whereby it could be done consistently.

-- off-label. I want to say, as well, that this

is a nonparty political bill. It has a breadth of support

across political parties, It got some support from

the Medical Royal Colleges, 40 top clinicians have written

a letter in the Daily Telegraph The Association of

British Pharmaceutical Industry says it prefers the legal system that is

in my bill, to a situation where drugs would be routinely prescribed

off-label, where there was The National Health Service

Commissioning Centre, which, of course, the body of the

Clinical Commissioning Groups So I would suggest that this bill is

a common-sense solution to a problem The Welsh and UK Governments have

been slugging it out this week over the latest plans for further

devolution - the draft Wales Bill. In the red corner, Carwyn Jones,

and in the blue, Stephen Crabb. The Secretary of State for Wales

says the bill would give the Assembly more powers

and greater clarity on its devolution settlement, but

the First Minister says it amounts In a speech in Cardiff this week,

Mr Crabb said he was totally open to ideas about improving the draft

bill, but wanted to draw a line There is a real danger in Wales that

our full economic potential is being hamstrung by a never-ending

constitutional debate focused on a largely theoretical discussion about

powers, which is entirely divorced of what these powers can actually

achieve. But Mr Jones told BBC Wales it was

the Welsh Secretary who had been "I haven't mentioned it once,"

he said. What he needs to realise,

is that what he has produced is a rusty old banger,

given it a paint job and then tried That's not what the people of Wales

want. At the end of the day, we have to

sit down and happy settlement that's that's going to work, so the people

don't have to talk about it in the future. What he has presented

so far is something unstable. We could be talking about the

constitution for ever. Some strong words,

and a lot of heat. Let's try and shed some light

on it now, with Cathy Owens, a former Welsh Government adviser,

and Craig Williams, the Wellcome. Cathy, very emotive,

colourful language this week about some pretty dry constitutional

issues. What is going on? It is an interesting bill. There are

some areas I can agree with, like the fact we should make sure the

Assembly can make it on rules. There is a bit in the middle that is

complex, about having consensus with UK ministers, and an extra layer of

expedient and necessary consensus, and the third bit, the reservations.

You can have a bit of this but not less. It is complex.

And that is the bit causing the conflict?

It is actually the middle bits, about the consent. I think everybody

realises that Stephen Crabb, complete with its predecessor, is

relatively strong on devolution. He has been seen as a bridgebuilder. He

can build a good relationship with the Welsh Government and I think...

The public at home know that. A lot of the big infrastructure of things,

a lot of investment requires good relationships. Either end of the M4.

The strange complexity of the legal system here, the extra consents,

which means the UK Government would have to give consent in perpetuity.

That will inject conflict into the system, and that is the opposite of

what people want. Craig Williams, there has been

conflict in the way they have been speaking to each other through the

media over the past week. It is damaging, isn't it, but they're

talking to each other on those terms?

It could be damaging to the process. It has been emotive and I am not

sure why. There has been an Assembly election, a political environment,

but the first word of the bills draft is... Stephen Crabb is the

most pragmatic politician I have met and he will sit down and build those

bridges. Wendy has not been building bridges

this week. He set out the draft and I think he

was expecting mature debates around the bill. Some of the comments from

the commentators and politicians must be seen in context of the

Cardiff Bay bubble. If we had the same emotion when Cadwallader was

put into the situation G is in... If we had the same emotion around

education, I would have time for the First Minister. But the back you can

get so emotive, and furious over the draft Wales Bill, giving the final

project, is ridiculous. It is political code for what I have

been able to get out of Whitehall so far. If you don't agree with me, you

don't agree with me, you're putting the constitution ahead of prosperity

and the health service. That is an issue here.

But is it is not emotive to say the help of the nation, the economy is

not your priority? It is political code. The same way

that one politician will say to another, you are playing politics

with the people of Wales. This is the political code and what we could

do here is happy sensible conversation where people get to

agree. That is not what happened here. This is effectively what

Whitehall will allow. Perhaps we could... We have this election

coming up which will make it more heated. Perhaps we need a rethink.

It is this consents that is causing a problem. We might have a situation

where we have a different colour of Government, either end of the M4,

possibly for five or ten years. We have to make sure there is a system

where you cannot have one Government is giving a veto to watch the

directly elected Senedd would like to do.

Candy resolve these issues? The committee at the start of this

process, are starting a way of coming down to this, and a joint

committee between the Welsh affairs and the legislation committee in the

Assembly. We will have a mature debate on the point that the chair

of the amity and Stephen Crabb have been making, is that this is

scrutiny, this is ongoing. If you have a body of evidence out there,

the jurisdiction of our Government. Come forward and present that

evidence, because at the moment is there is no evidence behind some of

these assertions. Let's not forget that Stephen Crabb is delivering the

reserve bubble that everyone jumped up and down about. Now delivering

that, you do not hear everyone going, great step forward.

That is because these added layers have been included. The perpetual

consent veto and the issue about necessity. We have had over the last

five years, the UK Government and Secretary of State for Wales

challenging nearly every bill that has come out of the Assembly. We

must try and stop that. Do you think it will become law in

the end? The powers that is the important

bit. Then we will start getting onto some of the really interesting

reservations, where you have got Wales well now, after this bill

comes through, be able to decide on speed limits for Wales, and able to

incentivise people in terms of energy efficiency, but not a

disincentive. And in the end, you think the First

Minister will have to take what we've got?

There is no doubt there will be enough people in terms of the

leadership and members of various parties in Wales will say, let's

take the bits we can out of it, like the electoral system, but I'm afraid

I don't think there are not enough people in terms of consensus that

will allow for the perpetual veto to be included. That Israel out of the

decisions need to be done. We can fix other things later -- that is

where a lot of the decisions need to be done.

One example, to take that one power, and actual power the SMB will get.

It will have legislation for enforcement of that law as long as

it is appropriate. That is for you to choose whether it

is appropriate? Know it is for the Assembly to

choose whether it is appropriate and four Whitehall to step in if not.

You should not for example say someone should be jailed for ten

years for committing a 30 mph... What we must remember in the

difference with Scotland as we have got the Welsh and English legal

system. This is a quick fix. Any landlord tenant would say there is a

Welsh jurisdiction for a law at the moment. I have seen no evidence

anywhere that says that there has been a problem.

In one word, do you think it will become law in the end, as it

stands? Not in this current position.

Thank you. Don't forget, you can follow all

the latest on Welsh politics To you both,

thank you very much indeed. Now, each year the House of Commons

holds a debate to coincide with But should the same courtesy

be extended to men? That was the question posed

by the Conservative MP Philip Davies when he appeared in front

of the backbench business committee His suggestion was met with

disbelief by the The opportunity

for men to raise issues that are Just to give you a flavour,

Mr Chairman, of the type of things which may come up and which will be

part of international men's day, I am not entirely sure why it is so

humorous, but to discuss issues such as men's shorter life expectancy,

wider male health issues, many of which go unreported through

embarrassment of men to go along You'll have to excuse me

for laughing but the idea that men don't have the opportunity to ask

questions in this place is a frankly laughable thing and I say this as

the only woman on this committee. The idea that this chamber,

these Houses, both of them, in any way reflect gender equality

is to me a laughable thing. And Philip Davies joins me now

from Leeds. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Jess

Phillips is right, Parliament is still dominated by men? Business is

dominated by men. Most power centres are dominated by men, you do not

need a separate day or debate? There is a difference between how many men

are in Parliament and the debate about men's issues. There are

serious issues such as the high suicide rate among men, the

underachievement of boys in school, the low life expectancy of men, the

underreporting of health issues like testicular cancer, the

underreporting of male victims of domestic violence. You could bring

that up at any time, there are not many in the Commons, to bring that

up whenever you want? -- there are enough men. There are few

opportunities to bring up these particular issues. There are few

times when these issues have been debated. Lots of women are concerned

about these issues. Lots of women are married to men, they have

fathers and sons. These things should be important to everybody.

These are serious issues. Are you surprised at the appalling

abuse that clip about? I am not suggesting you did it, but are you

surprised at the abuse Jess Phillips found herself on the end of? I very

much hope she has reported some of these people to the police. We have

a democracy and a debate and she is perfectly entitled to her opinion. I

do not agree with them, but she is entitled to her view. Maybe you need

a debate about men not behaving in that way over something they do not

agree with? We should have debate about what we should do with these

morons who contact people in the way they contacted Jess. It is

unacceptable, I hope she goes to the police, but that should not take

away from the importance of the issues that I want to debate on

International Man's Day. You spoke for 90 minutes this week on a bill

that would have allowed carers, just carers, to have free parking at

hospitals. You talked it out for 90 minutes soak it did not get any

further. Why did you do that? I do not know if you have read my speed,

but I made it clear why I did not support the bill and what might

objections were and they are all there on public record for people to

read. It would mean higher car parking costs for other people like

disabled people and other vulnerable groups. It would mean a reduction in

revenue for hospitals which would mean they would not be able to

employ as many doctors or nurses. Why should carers...? They do

not... They do have to pay. There are many hospitals that do not

charge carers for parking, or hospitals are free to not charge

carers from parking if they choose. My view is it is best described at a

local level. I have got the picture of you in June holding up a banner

and speaking up for carers. I do not think this is what they thought you

should be speaking up about. You have not read my speech. I have read

bits of it, 90 minutes is a long time. Read it all because I spoke up

warmly about carers. OK. Do not say OK, I spoke about things that would

have been far better for carers than that ill thought through piece of

legislation. If you think I did not speak up for carers, that is a

complete and utter lie. Let me move on to Mr Cameron and the European

Union. He is now warning about life outside the EU and an associate

tight relationship with the EU. Is he really pre-empting the

renegotiation? He has really made his mind that he has to do what ever

it takes to stay in. Is that a fair conclusion? Yes, absolutely. He will

get next to nothing from his negotiation, but will come back and

say it was a great triumph and based on that we should stay in the EU. I

have never yet come across any Prime Minister in history that has come

back from a renegotiation and said, I got nothing out of it, but I did

my best. They all claim it is a triumph and we all know it is not

going go anywhere. He will campaign for us to stay in. My job is to tell

people that any claim of re-negotiation has been a complete

farce. On Europe what is the logic other than a sense of panic that the

Prime Minister goes to Iceland and talks about the Norwegian option and

does not mention the Icelandic option because 80% of the Icelandic

people like it. The logic is he can drive a wedge into the anti-EU

movement by bringing to our attention that they cannot agree on

what being out means. Does that mean being completely out, Donal Meech

and model, the Swiss model, a mythical third or fourth option

which Britain negotiates for itself? The more the Cameron talks

about it, even though it is quite specious, the more attention he

brings to the fact that being in means something quite clear. Does

it? We do not know which way the eurozone is going to go in the

future and Angela Merkel and President Hollande have been talking

about greater integration in the eurozone. We do not know what it

means in five years' time, but if you voted yes to stay in, you know

what the world would be like the following day, but you would not

know what it would be like if you voted to stay out. The burden is on

the Eurosceptics to say what being out would mean literally

immediately. I do not think you can sustain a referendum campaign

without having a strong position on that. Is there a sense of panic in

Downing Street about Europe? They are losing a sense of control. They

do not want out and they think they might end out against their will?

That is true. There was a complacency around on all sides of

the people in favour of staying in. Business, the CBI, common sense, but

the polls are going the wrong way. The longer he leaves it to the

referendum the worse the migration crisis is going to look and that is

at the heart of this. Nigel Farage was rather convincing earlier today

on television, and if he can persuade people, in my opinion

wrongly, but somehow that the migration crisis can be solved if we

are out of Europe, he might be onto a winner. This has dawned on Downing

Street. It is not going away any time soon. The migration crisis is

likely to get worse as we get closer to the winter and these asylum

seekers, refugees, families, whatever you call them, that will

stay on the screens and the moment Mr Cameron tells his party what he

is looking for, that is another crisis because they will not be

happy. Yes, they will not be happy and Theresa May was putting the big

question over the UK's involvement in terms of freedom of movement and

Prime Minister will not get that fundamental point changed. David

Cameron came out of the election and he thought he could concentrate on

his re-negotiation and he would achieve a success and make the case.

What they have now realised is that the in campaign and the ad campaign

are on the pitch and the government is not. They are running a very

effective insurgent campaign. What the government is trying to do is

hit on the head the fundamental weakness of the leading campaign is,

which is what Janan was talking about, is they cannot say what the

future will be. When you leave you trigger Article 50 of the treaty and

you leave the European Council. It .2 member states to negotiate with

you your departure. That takes two years and that is voted on not by

you, but by the other 27 on the basis of a qualifying vote. The UK

could not count on friends like Germany to rally to our support. The

Prime Minister is trying to say you have no ability to say what sort of

arrangement we will have and that is where they are finally coming onto

the pitch. George Osborne goes to Berlin this week to make speech on,

I assume, to outline what he and the government wants from the European

Union. But this is becoming a problem for the Chancellor as well.

It has not been the best ten days for him. We are told he did not give

enough attention to tax credits because he was so worried about the

speech on re-negotiation. He goes down with this ship as well if it

all goes pear shaped, that is a mixed metaphor. It is easy to see

that the Conservative Party will get a radically Eurosceptics leader in a

few years' time. There is a personal political problem there. The visit

to Berlin is interesting because six months ago it made sense to put all

your eggs in Angela Merkel's basket because she was the Empress of

Europe and she would do a deal because she has got political cloud.

She is the walking wounded. Will she run again? She is in much more

trouble than anyone in this country understands. The trip to Berlin

makes less sense now. He wants to get the protection for those members

not in the eurozone to ensure that on the rules of the single market

they cannot be ganged up on and he might get an emergency brake and not

a veto. That will appeal to people's heads, but where these negotiations

really matter is in people's hearts on issues like migration and on that

ban of migrants not getting benefits for four years, it looks like the

government is struggling. They are backtracking. Cameron started off

saying they were not going to have a referendum. What is more having a

referendum at the lowest peak for any government, two years in, they

will be really unpopular in the middle of all of these cuts and they

will be an antiestablishment mood. People will be voting against

government. How is Jeremy Corbyn doing? Not as badly as people have

predicted. What about all these people he has been appointing? There

is a sense that he is only appointing around Tim people who

agree with him, but that is his small, local group. By ministers and

leaders tend to do that. It is not a good idea, but it is your natural

instinct. They will be watching your back. Will the Corbin supporters,

along with Mr McDonnell, will they want their own person in for the

Golden West by-election? We shall wait and see and it will be watched

by a lot of people in Labour as to whether the momentum movement gets

going, which is mobilising all the people who have joined the party to

see whether they can select somebody. It is so important they

win this by-election. You hope the local party have quite a lot of say

in the election and they choose whoever they think can win the best.

They will be up against Ukip? Absolutely and Jeremy Corbyn would

be in bad trouble if they lost this. They must choose somebody who

is a winner. Any inside information on this? It is a 3-member panel of

the Ennis -- in EC who draws up the short list. It has Keith Vaz on it

and other mainstream people, so I am not sure this is a Trotskyist

moment, it is quite an established thing. Is it a significant milestone

in Labour moving against Trident? No, because it is a symbolic vote

and I find it difficult to believe that Jeremy Corbyn's personal

position on Trident will ever carry a party with lots of MPs in the

manufacturing constituents with trade unions to the old right. I am

not sure the Scottish or even Jeremy Corbyn with a personal mandate can

carry that kind of thing. We shall see how the vote goes.

We'll be back at the same time next week here

on BBC 1 and you can catch the Daily Politics on BBC 2 from noon

Remember if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.