17/04/2016 Sunday Politics Wales

David Cameron thinks we'll be stronger, safer

Leave campaigners say the real risk would be a vote to remain.

So what are the dangers if we decide to stay?

On his final presidential visit to the UK, Barack Obama

will back the idea of Britain remaining in the EU.

But is the leader of the free world right to wade into our debate?

And before the referendum, there's the small matter

of national and local elections right across the UK.

Later in the programme, the parties roll out their plans for Wales after

the election. We will be reading In London, with less than three

weeks to go to polling day, we hear from mayoral hopefuls

Sian Berry of the Greens And with me, as always,

our panel of the best and brightest political brains in the business,

Nick Watt, Isabel Oakeshott Now, the referendum isn't the only

vote looming on the horizon. Before the EU vote on June 23rd,

voters across the UK will get a chance to cast their ballot

in a range of elections There are seven sets

of elections happening in May, all of which will take place

on the same day, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

will hold national elections. There are 60 seats up for grabs

in the Welsh Assembly. The Scottish Parliament,

in which the SNP has held a majority since 2011,

will elect 129 members, and in Northern Ireland,

there are 108 seats that will be decided for representatives

to the assembly at Stormont. Across England there

are local government elections. 124 councils have

seats up for election. 35 metropolitan councils,

19 unitary authorities and 70 district councils,

and four cities in England will elect mayors, London, Bristol,

Liverpool and Salford. Londoners will also elect members

to the London Assembly Finally, voters in 41 police force

areas in England and Wales will elect a Police And Crime

Commissioner. Joining me now from Glasgow

is our election guru, Professor John Curtice

of Strathclyde University. Let's start with the local elections

in England. How should we judge the performance of Jeremy Corbyn's

Labour Party in these elections? We have to appreciate that the seats up

for grabs on me the these elections were for the most part fought for

three year is ago. We are looking at the time of George Osborne's

so-called a shambles budget when support for the Conservatives fell

away. These were the only set of elections during the last parliament

where the Labour Party began to put in a performance where you might

have thought they would have been capable of winning the next

election. Jeremy Corbyn's misfortune, he is defending not a

brilliant baseline, but a relatively good one. Labour six or seven points

ahead, as judged by their share of the vote. The truth is that Jeremy

Corbyn is not 67 points ahead. In contrast to what we might have

expected a few weeks ago, he is no longer 67 points behind. Labour and

the Conservatives seem to be quite close to each other. That means that

in practice Mr Corbyn may well be facing losses. The figure of 150 has

been bandied around. Will that be good? Better than it might have been

a few weeks ago. Is it the sort of performance to persuade you that the

Labour Party is on course to win the general election? Certainly not. Is

the biggest threat that they would lose London, and would that be

unlikely? I agree it would be unlikely. If they were to fail to

win the London mayoral election, that would be a serious reverse for

Labour. Back in 2012, although Boris Johnson on the London mayoral

election, Labour was clearly ahead in the parallel election. Neither

Sadiq Khan, the Labour candidate, Northside Goldsmith, the concerted

of the -- the Conservative candidate, has the same kind of

attractiveness to the public. Labour did relatively well in London 12

months ago. If David Cameron were not to win that election, Labour

would have questions to ask itself. Could Labour even come third behind

the Scottish Tories? The answer is that they could. There is another

opinion poll lead this morning that put Labour on the Conservatives neck

and neck with each other. Some opinion polls put Labour and the

Conservatives together, but not by much. Labour neglect the heading for

a very bad performance. It would be the worst result in any election

since 1918. I do not think it will tell you much about Jeremy Corbyn

and his popularity. We have to remember that what happens in

Scotland is very distinct and separate from what happens in the

rest of the UK. The election in Scotland is going to be, primarily,

framed by people's views about independence. The truth is the

overall majority of people that voted for independence are still

determined to vote for the SNP. So long as that remains the case,

Labour will struggle another the border. It has to do with Scottish

politics and little to do with what is happening in the rest of the UK.

Is there really a Ukip surge in Wales? The opinion polls suggest

that Ukip are doing well in Wales. But that is roughly where the

opinion polls are putting Ukip across the UK as a whole. In Wales,

as in Scotland, and the London assembly elections, the elections

are being held by proportional representation, not first past the

post, so if Ukip can get the 15% that the opinion polls suggest that

the might get, they will get significant representation in the

Welsh assembly. Getting Ukip grade is one of the things in which the

opinion polls tend to disagree with each other. Ukip will perhaps not do

as well as that, they will get some seats, but perhaps not as well as

the parties hoping. Northern Ireland, and the executive almost

collapsed there last year. Will the turmoil at Stormont, is it likely

expected to change people's voting patterns this time? We not expecting

a vast in Northern Ireland. Not only is the assembly elected

proportionally, but so is the elected -- the executive. The larger

of the two Unionist parties and the Nationalist parties might not be

quite as strong as last time. No one is expecting very much in way of a

major change. Thank you for joining us. Nick Watt, let me come to you.

These elections are widely being seen as Mr Corbyn's first serious

test. What a Labour's real expectations? The expectation is

there going to do badly in Scotland. That is in. They will do badly in

Wales but the expecting that. They will not admit that they could do

very badly in the English local elections, and that they could lose

seats. If the Labour Party lost seats in the local elections, it

would be the first time since 1985 that an opposition party had

suffered losses in local elections in a non-general election year. It

would be woolly bad. What did is down two at the end of the day, I

know we should not wish think about London, a great picture of Glasgow

behind John Curtice, but it is down to London. Jeremy Corbyn needs one

victory and he looks like he will get one, Sadiq Khan in London. That

will probably enough. He can do badly everywhere else but as long as

he holds onto London years save? I think because the others are just

priced in. If he can be seen to notch up one victory, it is a bit

like the old and Royston by-election at the end of last year. Everyone

assumes that they will do badly. They did well, it stabilises the

leadership. He would probably be safe even if you lost London? I

think he would be. Those who would like to see the back of have the

difficulty that essentially his supporters control the party

membership. It is an interesting question, how this is going to be

judged. I spoke to one of Jeremy Corbyn's critics within the

parliamentary party this morning and was surprised how upbeat he sounded.

He said, I think we might put on a couple of hundred seats. This is a

terrible time for the Tory leadership. I came off the phone and

thought, this is about expectation management. This is the critics of

Jeremy Corbyn saying that we should put on a few hundred seats. When

they do not, they will see it as a disaster. The setting him up to

fail. The Tories are expected to do quite well in these elections, even

in Wales. We have had the budget, the Panama Papers, the steel crisis,

the split over the referendum. It has got to take its toll on the

Tories? It has in the opinion polls, which are Sean at the minimum of the

Tory lead, narrowing, and in some cases Labour pulling ahead. I

suspect some Tories would not mind doing badly in the local elections

in England if it relieves the pressure on Jeremy Corbyn, who they

want in place over the next four years and contesting the 2020

general election. Even if Labour do badly in Scotland, Jeremy Corbyn

owes a debt to Sadiq Khan, because his likely but not certain victory

in London, judging by the opinion polls, will attract more attention

than elections everywhere, not before it deserves -- not because it

deserves to, but because the media has a slight skew towards London. It

is a slightly sexier office. It will drown out any underperformance that

Labour have in the rest of the country. Is it too cynical to say

that some Tories will not be too upset if they do not win London

because Mr Corbyn will then be secure? I do not think that is

cynical. That is absolutely the case. Janan is right. There will be

lots of post-analysis about how the billionaire's son, Zac Goldsmith,

lost the election. It is interesting that the people who want to get rid

of Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour Party, the window they are talking

about is not after the local elections, but after the referendum

at the end of June. We might be focused on the Conservatives by

then. I think the troubles of the Tory party will take the focus then.

So the referendum campaign has begun.

The official campaign groups have been designated and the arguments

The Prime Minister says we'll be stronger, safer, and better off in.

And a vote to leave, says to Mr Cameron,

But it won't have escaped your attention that the EU

is also facing challenges, a migration crisis, economic

So, if we do decide to remain, what are the risks ahead of us?

For some, the consequences of this EU referendum are crystal clear.

For the rest of us, it is difficult to see the future

after June the 23rd, hard to predict.

Of course, the politicians claim to know our fortunes.

This cannot be described as anything other than risk, uncertainty,

We have clearly elevated Brexit as one of the serious downside risks

I firmly believe that leaving the EU would leave our country less secure.

This lot, Vote Leave, call it Project Fear.

They say the other side is trying to scare people into thinking that

Instead they say that the uncertainty is staying in.

What will the EU look like in five, ten, 15 years?

For me, it would be an outdated bloc, something that was created

in the last century, something that can neither control

It has been foretold that migration will be one of the dominant

David Cameron insists his negotiated emergency brake on migrants' in work

benefits as well as changes to child benefits will discourage EU

migration, but some experts say it will have little impact.

Figures from the Migration Observatory this week suggest that

continuing economic instability in the Eurozone is encouraging

an increasing number of southern European migrants to head to the UK

Looking forward, it is very difficult to know

It is possible that if the gap in economic performance

between the UK and other countries, for example,

Italy, Portugal and Spain, remains significant,

there could be quite a pull factor for some time.

It is also possible if there is more economic convergence

that we could see the numbers start to fall.

Much has also been made this week about the risk to both the British

and the global economy if Britain voted to leave the EU,

In the single market we trade freely right across Europe

and we have a say in making the rules across the Continent.

If we leave, we give all of that up with no idea

The real economic risks are for staying in the European Union.

We might find ourselves on the hook for bailouts for countries that

are having difficulty staying in the euro in the future.

We might find that our rebate comes under assault in the future,

we might find that the amount of money overall that we have

to give the European Union goes up and up and up.

A few weeks ago, the Governor of the Bank of England said that

leaving the EU was the biggest domestic risk to

Membership of the European Union brings risks as well,

and the principal risk, risks I should say,

because there are more than one, are associated with the unfinished

On the issue of whether our laws are made in Westminster or Brussels,

for those wanting to leave the EU, a vote to remain would mean handing

Fewer and fewer things over which we have the authority

Fewer and fewer of our decisions can be upheld in British courts

And I also know that fewer and fewer decisions will be made

on European Union level which will be in British interests.

And yet one former minister told me that pooling some decision-making

The truth is that if you enter into any international agreement,

then you may agree that those decisions should be

Our Nato membership involves exactly the same kind of arrangement.

We allow Nato to take a decision for our collective strength.

Both sides seemed to agree a vote to remain is not a vote

Those who want to stay in are confident, at least publicly,

that the renegotiation will change for the better our relationship

Those who want out say that relationship will only get worse.

Quite how persuasive those two visions are,

I predict we will find out on June the 24th.

Joining me now is Labour MP Tristram Hunt, he was a member

of the Shadow Cabinet under Ed Miliband.

He is now campaigning for Britain to remain in the EU.

Do you accept, let's look at some of the risks that could be associated

with remaining, start with immigration. Do you accept that as

long as we remain in the EU we have no real control of the numbers

coming to our country? The European Union is not perfect and it is quite

right to have this debate about how we reform Europe in the future. When

it comes to our borders, we check who comes in. There will remain

passport controls but we have to make sure that we explain to people

that if we left Europe but still wanted to trade with the single

market, we would also have to have the free movement of people just as

Norway and Switzerland does. But in the long run I think there is an

interesting question about the degree of free movement of people

across the European Union. My point is that Britain should be a part of

that conversation. We should be involved in that reform and change

and if we are not at the table than our voice won't be heard. The

numbers would seem to be beyond our control because that's the price of

membership. Over the past five years the number of EU nationals living in

the UK has risen by 700,000, it is now 3.3 million, it has doubled in

ten years. As long as we remain in the EU it is surely a risk that at

least another 700,000 could come in the next five years, it could be

even more. Or it could be markedly less. If we go back to a time when

the British economy was worse in the 1980s, we saw large numbers of

people going abroad to work in the European Union. We are taking a

snapshot at the moment and the point about pooling risk across the single

market is that when your economy is in difficulty you can take

opportunities in other parts of the country. In the UK we should be

supporting reforms to make sure there are not benefit attractions to

coming to the UK so I think the Prime Minister's point about having

to pay in before you take out, the point about fairness is really

important and I think people in Britain think that if people are

coming here to work, to pay their taxes and contribute to society,

that is fine. You say it's a snapshot but let's look at this

chart. Over the last five years, as you can see from that, from about

2012, under five years in fact, these are the absolute number,

immigration from the EU has risen dramatically. My point is it is not

a snapshot, it is a clear trend. The part of immigration over which we

have no control is rising the fastest, isn't that a risk? But we

go back to 1975 so historically this is a snapshot, and overtime this

well change. We cannot have a system whereby you turn up in the UK and

claim benefits from day one. You have to have a contributory

principle. Also, those parts of the country, Boston in Lincolnshire,

parts that have experienced high levels of immigration and we should

be open and honest about this that we have seen statistics show big

changes and may have impacted communities in big ways sometimes,

they need the extra resource for schools and hospitals that this

brings in. The case I'm putting to you this morning is that that is not

necessarily a snapshot or that it will necessarily change. Let's look

at the risks we would face in the years to come. Angela Merkel, the

German Chancellor, decided that last year over a million Syrian

immigrants could go to Germany. Eventually they could come here if

they wish. Why should we be at the risk of unilateral decisions taken

by a foreign leader? Obviously there are issues about residency rights in

Germany or Italy before anyone could come to the UK. We retain border

controls. If they become German citizens they will be allowed to

come here. This is a balance of risks, on June the 23rd of voters

have to weigh up these may bes. What we have heard clearly from the

governor of the Bank of England, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the

head of the IMF, that there will be a seismic economic shock to the

British economy. I understand that and there has been plenty of

coverage of the risks of coming out, but I'm looking at the risks of

staying in. Let me give you another one, I've given you the Angela

Merkel example. Albania, Turkey and others all want to join the EU. More

people that could have a right to come and live and work in the UK.

That is a risk. We are already seeing the risk of Brexit. The pound

is falling in value, economic decisions are not being taken at the

moment. I'm not arguing that there are risks to coming out, I perfectly

understand that. I'm looking at the risks if we stay in. Address this

issue that the risk is of another 87 more people with the right to come

to Britain. My point is the risks are happening now,... What is your

answer to the 87 million? The extension of Europe has to be

managed carefully. The broader conversation about the total free

movement of people across the European Union is something that

needs to be addressed but firstly we won't have any say over that if we

have left the European Union. Secondly, those countries which

trade with Europe like Norway and Switzerland also have to accept the

free movement of people. There's no free ticket on this. What I want is

a strong Great Britain at the negotiating table making the case

for our borders and security. When it comes to the free movement of

people you raised the issue of Syrian refugees and concerns about

security in the aftermath of Brussels and Paris, being part of

Europe and having security connections with Europe makes us

stronger. There's talk of another Greek financial bailout, fears of an

Italian banking crisis looming this summer. If the eurozone plunges into

another recession, the numbers coming here could easily hit new

record highs. We have also seen we are not part of the Europe... They

will come here looking for jobs. We are not on the hook for the Greek

bailout. We were with the last one. Not to the same degree as other

European members. We negotiated a strong exemption from that. This is

about Britain having a strong voice at the negotiating table and you are

offering up your own Project Fear. I am taking a methodical look at the

risks. The eurozone is stagnating at the moment, that's why Spaniards,

Italian and Portuguese are pouring into this country in huge numbers.

If the eurozone was to tilt into another recession, that risks a lot

more. It is a risk, and the British answer to that should be to deepen

the single market, to make it more effective, to have growth across

Europe. You do, if you have a strong British voice arguing for growth

across Europe. You're talking about these potential threats in the

future, we have a threat now. Businesses in my constituency,

Stoke-on-Trent, are not making investment decisions. Indecision,

two years of negotiation if we leave. Hold on... Two years of

indecision if we vote to leave. Why are they eyeing the British stock

exchange if there is indecision? There will always be levels of flow

and investment but what we are seeing is fear and concern about the

future. I think of workers in Staffordshire who go to work at the

Toyota plant in Derby, they have jobs because of being part of the

single market. I'm talking about the risks if we remain. Do you deny that

if we stay in we face further integration? We have had a clear

commitment from the Prime Minister that we won't be involved in ever

closer union and that is a big philosophical moment, that Britain

has a distinct and different stance to the rest of the European Union. I

think people will benefit from the best of both worlds. If that is the

case, you will be familiar with D5 president report, the official road

map for greater integration into the European Union. It calls for

financial, fiscal and political union by 2025. That could affect us.

We have a clear commitment we will not be involved in ever closer

union. Have you read this report? Not all of it. It is not a long

report. It says much of what I have just named, not all, but much of

that could be achieved already through a deepening of the single

market, which is important for all 28 EU members, so we would not

necessarily be excluded. I am in favour of a deep into single market

so that those 200,000 businesses in the UK, exporting to Europe, have

greater growth and opportunities. People become richer. So there could

be deeper integration. I would like to see the digital and service

economy grated more, we want more jobs and growth across Europe that

Britain will benefit from. Why would we, when we face a global fear about

downturn, decide to cut ourselves off from the richest market in the

world. You say it is the richest, it is also stagnating. Because we

cannot do our own trade deals with the part of the world that is

growing, our trade is therefore hindered. It has taken seven years

to reach a deal with Canada, it is not complete, the free trade deal

with Australia has been blocked by Italy. These are all growth markets,

unlike Europe, and we are unable to do free trade deals with them. That

is a risk. Do you honestly think that if we left Europe and there

were negotiations with India about a free trade deal, the UK, 60 million

people, would be ahead of the queue of the European Union... Nothing is

happening with India for nine years. We had historic links with India.

What about Australia and Canada? We are not owed a living in the world.

We have to make our businesses grow on their own terms and you do that

by being part of the European Union. You have a much greater weight

around the world by being part of this. My point is that we have the

best of both worlds. We have the historic connections with the

Commonwealth, with America. But why does the American trade

representative say to us you would be crazy to leave Europe. Why do our

allies around the world say you should be part of Europe? You say we

won't be part of any further political integration, you say we

won't join the euro, we won't be part of Schengen, and yet it is

clear Europe will become at least within the eurozone more and more

integrated. We will have less influence on that, we will

essentially become a semi detached country club. What is the point? The

point is a growing market for British businesses of 500 million

people, and yes, this is the point about the best of both worlds, we

don't want ever closer political union. We want access to the single

market. The best of both worlds, safer, stronger and better off in

Europe. Now, this week President Obama

will make his valedictory He'll even have lunch with the Queen

to celebrate her ninetieth birthday, presumably after she's

watched the Daily Politics. But it's another aspect

of Mr Obama's visit While he's here, the leader

of the free world is expected to endorse the idea of the UK

remaining in the Those campaigning

to leave the EU are, surprise, surprise,

Here's what Boris Johnson had to say yesterday.

I just find it absolutely bizarre that we are being lectured

by the Americans about giving up our sovereignty,

The United States, for their own reasons, their own history,

traditions, based on the ideas of no taxation without representation,

a fervent belief in the inviolability of American democracy,

they would not dream of sharing sovereignty.

Is he in danger of making America look like a hypocrite?

Not in danger of it, I am afraid there is an intrinsic hypocrisy.

I do not know what he's going to say, but if that is

the American argument, of course it is nakedly hypocritical.

To discuss this I'm joined by James Rubin.

He was a spokesman in the US State Department during Bill

And Liam Fox, former Defence Secretary, and a leading

light in the campaign to leave the EU.

Why should the leader of her closest allies, with whom we have a special

relationship, on your regard as crucial to this country, not say

what he thinks is in our national interest? He is entitled to say what

he thinks is an America's national interest, but whether it is in the

interests of Britain is a different question. Of course the president is

entitled to say what he thinks, but we have to add a couple of caveats.

That is his view. There are other views in America, Senator Rubio for

example expressing a different view, he has expressed what he thinks

about the special relationship if Britain were to leave the European

Union. Tell me one previous American administration, Democratic or

Republican, that thought we should not be in the EU, or did not care if

we left? It is not a question of what the express, it is that they

should respect what Britain does. They all want us to stay? There were

strong elements of the last Republican administration, strong

Republican leaders at present, who do not think... I do not remember

the second President Bush saying that Britain should leave the EU.

The debate is now, about our future, our relationship with the rest of

the world. It is fair to say, though I might not use the same

terminology, it is unthinkable that the United States would allow a

court to overrule the Supreme Court or someone else to determine their

external borders, in a way that the European Union does for the United

Kingdom. Boris Johnson has made that point. President Obama, supporting

things for Britain, things that no European -- that no American

president would contemplate. Maybe we would be more inclined to listen

to the president if he favoured an open border with Mexico, and if

Congress was no longer the ultimate decider of federal law? Let me see a

couple of things. I am glad that my colleague agrees that the president

is attacked -- entitled to express his view of what is in the

President's interest. -- America's interest. America and the EU

together, they are the most powerful force for free markets and democracy

around the world. If Britain leads the European Union, we will be

weaker. We will might be able to pursue the great values that our

countries have pushed around the world. Written working with the

United States and the EU is able to do that. We have a joke in America,

but it is a serious matter. Friends do not let friends drive drunk. This

is not in our interest, or the interests of the world. What about

our interest? You will make that judgment. Is the president simply

going to say it is in the interests of America? I think he will avoid

telling Britain what is in Britain's interest. About the point on

hypocrisy, I know Boris Johnson likes to read biographies of the

past. Maybe he is living in the past when he thinks that America is a

very large country, a superpower, it has the world's largest military. It

does not have to do only what you choose is compared to the British.

Britain is a different country, not the superpower any more. Just

because we will not do something does not mean that the British

ignored. If the US president was coming here to support Leave, you

would be shouting it from the rooftops? I do not think we will

find out if that is true or not. There is an element of hypocrisy. We

need to get the balance. We need to stick to the issues. We recognise

the president is alleged to have his view, but it is not the only

American view of what is in America's interests. We have to

recognise it is a British debate ultimately. We will make our

decision. As to this point about pushing our values, Britain had the

same values before we joined the European Union in 1973. The fact we

will be changing our philosophical approach because we are part of the

group in union is not true. I mean that the EU is a very powerful

instrument in our world. The United States has great military power, but

there are other powers we need to achieve order and stability, and

promote free markets. We need the ability to promote sanctions and

provide aid. We need the ability to promote democracy. The EU is good at

that working with the United States. We are better able to do that when

our closest ally is within the EU. Let him come back on that. We think

that the European Union is failing and that the structural failures of

the European Union are not good for the West. We are seeing the

re-emergence of nationalist tensions across Europe. We are seeing fence

building. That is not the fault of the EU. It is a failure of the EU.

We are seeing a whole generation of young Europeans unemployed as a

result of the single currency. It is creating tensions. You did not have

a problem with foreigners weighing in during the Scottish referendum.

You told the Scandinavian countries, if your analysis is that Scottish

independence is a threat to your security, why are you not standing

up and saying it? President Obama probably thinks it is a threat to

allow security, so why should they not see that? I thought it was a

risk to the security of Britain in the Scottish referendum if we left

Natal. If Britain pulls out of the EU, the Scottish will pull out of

Britain and there will be a hold-mac in Natal. I do not believe that to

be true. When were you last in Scotland? I was recently there and I

sat with the Scottish party leader. They have been clear that if the EU

does not include Britain, the Scottish want to lead. Interest is

one thing, having an opinion about what the SNP will do is different.

THEY ALL SPEAK AT ONCE What about Senator Cruise, he is

fighting for the Republican nomination with Donald Trump. He

said that Mr Obama's comments will make it more likely that England, he

means Britain, that England will pull out of the EU? I do not think

it will have a massive impact either way in terms of the British result.

I think it is important for us to recognise that this is a decision

for the United Kingdom. I do not agree with this assessment that the

European Union in its current model is good for the United States. It is

unstable. Now you're giving an opinion for us. You just asked me

not to do that. The United States and Britain working together have

made the world a better place for democracy, for a free market. We are

only able to do that successfully when our closest ally is part of the

EU. American foreign policy will be weaker, Western foreign policy will

be weaker if the British leave the EU. We look forward to the

President's visit, whatever he has to say. Thank you.

It's just gone 11:35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

Hello, welcome to the Sunday Politics Wales. They may look glossy

but you should never judge a book by its cover. The party manifestos have

been coming out they can't fast, as we move closer to made a fifth. Over

the next two weeks, we will look closely at the promises each of the

main parties are making. Labour and the Tories bring out their plans

next week. As it stands, Plaid Cymru have been joined by the Lib Dems and

UK having pitted together their ideas and getting them out there.

More from them in a moment. First we are discussing Clive Comrie's

promises in the manifesto. Your changes to tuition fee plans. At the

moment, a Welsh student -- a Welsh students can go anywhere and pay no

more than ?3500. You are changing that. Will you pay the entirety of

their tuition after Mark is a difficult decision.

In an ideal world, we would probably want to be able to divide -- provide

free education but that isn't possible. We know our higher

education institutions are suffering badly. The current system means we

are hugely subsidising higher education institutions. They would

be able to take out loans to make their tuition fees wherever they

went. If they come back and work in Wales for five years, we will repay

those loans up to the sum of ?18,000. We think that's fair for

individuals but also better for Wales. How many graduates are doing

that at the moment? Figures vary but it is roughly 70,000 earlier, off

the top of my head. It was not my strong point. We believe we can save

by doing what we are doing, to ?50 million per year, which could go

back into the higher education budget. If you don't know how many

graduates would be coming back, taking advantage of this new system,

how can you know how much it would save? We cannot predict exactly.

What we have done is put 10% on those students who we know are

coming back this year, to give us a bit of space. They will be working

in the Welsh economy, making a contribution and growing the wealth

of Wales. Was about those students who graduate and find an initial job

on a trainee scheme, somewhere in England which takes more than five

years but want to come back. It was in them at a disadvantage. It is

tough but we are offering to every person under 25 in Wales who can't

find, or hasn't yet found a full-time job, we will guarantee to

find a job for that person and help them get access. It's not an easy

decision of these budgets are always about priorities. We feel that money

should be invested in education in Wales and growing the economy.

Looking at budgets, there is a whole raft of savings here from Plaid

Cymru. What happens to the party of anti-austerities? When George

Osborne proposed savings, is shouted cups. We are talking about genuine

savings, being able to make ?1 million worth of savings. That's the

kind of savings you would get on a budget our size. Just by looking at

doing things differently, we would bring business people in to help us

do that. A further ?300 million worth of savings, mostly efficiency

savings, over the whole of the budget. Looking at things like

buying more effective -- more effectively in bulk. We wouldn't be

spending the money on the motorway which the government are puzzling.

10% savings within the NHS, that's a huge amount. It is a huge amount,

but at the moment we have seven local health boards and a lot of

complex and expensive administration. Let's be clear about

this, this isn't saying it can't be done. We know that it can be done.

The greatest uncertainty was concerning the efficiency savings.

It's possible but not going to be easy or painless. What happens the

party of austerity? This is about taking the money that we got on

spending more effectively. We need to do a zero budget approach, to

look and say, instead of doing what you usually do with a budget, look

at what we spent last year and how much we need to spend this year, we

look at the whole budget and said, where can we say something? It isn't

easy but we have a certain amount of money. If we carry on as we are, our

NHS is going down the pan and we are achieving what we want education. We

have to make difficult decisions so we can reinvest, to reinvigorate our

economy, to create a world-class education system and transform

health care. Will patients be happy that you are making these huge

savings to the NHS, while giving a pay increase to teachers watermarked

that is about driving up the quality of the education our children get,

which is just not good enough. It's based on models that have been

effective elsewhere. Those cuts won't affect patients. We are

talking about efficiency cuts and investing some of that money we save

in 1000 extra doctors over five years. Patients will be better off.

I want to go back to this teacher premium payment. An extra 10% in

their salary if they go on a course. How does that make them better

teachers? It just gives them more money. A Masters of education isn't

just some course. People aren't always incentivised to be able to do

it. They had always given time off to do it and we would do that. There

would be a cost which we think would be about ?40 million per year. Even

the state of our education system and the way it is failing our young

people, that is a good investment. Education is all about people. To

have the best people, you need to train them and paid for them.

When it comes to the NHS and reorganisation, one of the big plans

you have berries to get rid of decision-making on hospitals and

have it centralised to Cardiff. Can you see how people locally will say

that's not a local decision? We are proposing a thing -- single NHS for

wealth but would set high priorities. We don't think people in

Wales should wait more than 28 days from finding out they are at risk of

cancer to getting a diagnosis. We set a high priority and it's

different because we then have another level of management in the

middle, which is the health board. We would have doctors and nurses

managing our hospitals as they used to do. These are your high-level

national priorities and you work out how you deliver them.

One last one, on councils being in charge of GPs services. Is this the

right time to get this extra work to the councils? It in the context of

our proposals to bring councils together into regional bodies. It

will be a lap -- that level. What we certainly cannot do is carry on with

the way things are. The Liberal Democrats launch their

manifesto this week. I will be joined by Peter Black. I keep coming

in. And carry on with education. One of your big pitches for the election

is smaller class sizes for infant classes, no more than 25. What's the

rationale behind that? If you get children young enough and educate

them and give them the right attention, they will do better in

life. There's lots of educational evidence to back that up. There are

three -- this research and the foundation is based on region --

research which says if you give children at a young age, get them

involved in education, they will go on in life and perform better in the

education system. Our proposal is that every child should not be in a

class of more than 25. It's a long-term thing and won't happen

overnight. We believe it is crucial. So that teachers have the time to

teach properly. The research is from the OECD. They said that many

countries invested additional resources to reduce classroom sizes

but performance has improved in only a few. They say at teachers is what

we need. Why make the class sizes the priority? And better leadership

in our classrooms is important as well, but they are talking about

across the whole educational spectrum. We're talking about

concentrating on infant class sizes were the infants, as they come to

school, need to be getting to the education system properly, getting

the attention they need, getting their reading and spelling and

arithmetic right. At that stage, learning those basics, they will go

on to do better in the education system at the evidence does back

that up. Moving to tuition fees, you would be reintroducing tuition for

students from Wales, paying the full feeds wherever they go. But he would

be offering student living support at ?2500 per year. Students in Wales

benefit from over ?5,000 per year at the moment. They would be a lot

worse off. Is that fair? Students benefit in the sense that the

tuition fees they are going to have to repay once they reach a certain

income level will be the same as those in England. Most of those

students will end up not repaying the loan anyway. The real problem

will be for many students that they will have dad from living costs. If

we increase the amount of money available for students at

university, having them that extra support for the living costs, much

about student debt will be reduced. You don't repay the tuition fees

until you are ?21,000 per year. It doesn't count against your mortgage

or anything else. At the end of the time, the vast majority will end up

not repaying it. Why not get it higher? ?5,000 is what we currently

contribute. Why not more? This figure is open for discussion. This

is on top of the assembly support grant which they already get. We are

saying that the extra money which is available needs to be reallocated

back into higher education. The universities have been starved for

cash in recent years and are unable to offer the courses and conditions

which students expect of them. It is a balance between investing in

students, giving them that supports adults were investing in

universities. Urals and talking about building 20,000 new affordable

homes. What you class as an affordable home? In this context,

anything which has a state subsidy. There is a whole range of different

types of affordable home, whether it's delivered directly by a local

council, housing association, planning. A builder to build a

certain number of properties at a reduced rate. Those of the

affordable homes we are talking about. We believe we need that

investment. House-building drives the economy. You will also be able

to stimulate the economy right from that investment. There will be local

opposition, all sorts of hurdles in your way in what you want to do and

what you will be able to do. I think I see thousands will be guaranteed

by making sure we have the capital money there to deliver. It's always

difficult but there is a huge amount of Brownfield land out there which

needs to be developed. In Swansea, we are developing large part of

Swansea City centre into affordable homes. That can be done all-round

wealth. You can develop these houses and you have got the space to do it.

If you can that the investment upfront, you will get that

affordable housing. You say you want to see an extra 140,000

apprenticeships over the next five years. Why did you arrive at that

number? 140,000 is roughly double what is currently being delivered

over five years. We believe investment in young people,

investment in all people, giving them the skills they need to get

jobs, the opportunities to get a job, and a job which is meaningful,

not just a training programme. Actually giving people proper

training. That is actually crucial to get the economy started again.

The figure we decided on, we need to double that figure and I think

that's achievable. It reflects the needs that Wales has for the skills

we need the future. Like it very much for being my first

guests this morning. We have a lot to get through so let's just take a

look at how the assembly campaign has been going this week. There was

a pair of manifesto launches, a revelation over lunch and even some

farmyard frolics. Welsh Labour said this election

is all about who we want to be the next First Minister,

so these party members and candidates gathered

in Barry Island to tell us Anyway, Carwyn Jones was given

a very warm welcome, and then he went on to give a speech

where he said it wasn't actually I know you've been out

on the streets, knocking doors, making phone calls,

getting our message across. I want to thank all of you for

what you are all doing and I'm fortunate to have such a fantastic

selection of colleagues. Over in Cardiff, lunch

was interrupted at this nursery. What's your favourite food to

make, kids? Welsh Conservatives leader Andrew RT

Davies said there will be a promise to treble free childcare for three

and four-year-olds But what everyone really wanted

to know was what he'd And so to this GP surgery in Penarth

where the Welsh Lib Dems got pulses racing with the launch

of their 100 page manifesto. Kirsty Williams told NHS staff

what her prescription would do Make sure we get the basics right

for people so when they do need to rely on services

the Government provide, Not just average, not just good, not

just getting by, but great service. Over in Carmarthenshire,

a strong voice for agriculture was being promised by Plaid Cymru,

the party said farmers would be represented at the Cabinet table

if it wins the election. I'd like to think the voice

of agriculture will be properly reflected within Welsh

government of whatever colour. I would love to see it

back where it belongs. Not only within government,

but generally within society. UKIP launched its

manifesto on Friday. A bright, glossy document

full of promises. And so another week of hard

campaigning came to an end. With polling day less

than three weeks away, it's time to belt up for the ride

and present a united front. the campaigning week there. You may

have spotted my final test at Ukip's launch on Friday. Thank you for

coming in. One of the things I'd like to discuss is the proposal you

have to reintroduce Grammar schools in Wales. I guess it clear enough

what it would mean. 11 plus exam, some people get in and others won't.

Those who get in will go on through the grammar school. What happens to

those pupils who don't pass the 11-plus? He wouldn't propose to go

back to the old system where you had an 11-plus and, although there was a

13 plus, it didn't make much difference. We would want to have a

flexible system where every year, 11, 12, 13 and 16, pupils would be

reassessed. It's also about technical and vocational schools. We

will come onto that is, but what proportion of 11-year-olds will pass

and what proportion will have to reapply or go to the technical and

vocational courses? We don't propose to impose a system of grammar

schools, but it gives the opportunity to schools, governing

bodies, parents, to decide for themselves whether they want to

change their school into an academic school or a technical and vocational

one. It's all about giving power to the people who use it, use these

institutions, not having a government taking decisions for

them. If you are 11 and don't get into a grammar school and try to get

into that might try to get in at 12, 13, are you getting the right

education to make it more likely that you will get in later, if you

are following the vocational courses? Kids learn at different

speeds and we need to have a certain amount of flexibility. In the old

days, when I went to grammar school, in Carmarthenshire, the secondary

modern was the alternative. Those Cinderellas of the system. We want

to get away with that that might get away from that. What we need to look

at is the capacity of children and not putting them up with the wrong

educational model for them to develop into the world of work. The

other headline issues in your manifesto is a cancer nurse per be

one given the diagnosis. How many more nurses would that mean and what

is the cost? The health service in Wales is a complete mess. It's very

poorly managed and it's failing to meet lots of targets. Cancer

treatments is very bad. That's why did is badly underfunded. We have

covered that many times on this programme and elsewhere. How many

more nurses and what is the cost? I don't know the actual figure, but we

need to reconfigure the health service budget. The main thing I

want to get people to understand here is we need to introduce more

democracy into the health service so the local health boards are not just

full of the point are also elected representatives of patients.

Patients can decipher themselves what their local priorities will be.

I'm not want to provide a national target for this because it's not

something which is going to be imposed upon the system by the Welsh

government. How would letting an entire health board change anything?

Presumably all the political parties will put their candidate ahead and

we will have a board made up of different little parties arguing as

they do now. 75% of all... The point is, if we have publicly elected

bodies, they were representations not party interests. What we want to

do is reduce the size of these boards from their current 1822 about

11 or 12. More than half of whom will be elected by the people. They

can then decide priorities for their areas, not happen impose upon them

whether Welsh government. That's why I say we won't have a national

target as such, because each individual authority will be able to

decipher it is of what its local needs are and how they will be met.

One of the things you are saying is that MPs would have the right to

scrutinise the work of the assembly. Do you think MPs should have a sort

of veto in that regard? No. What we want to do is use these

underemployed MPs because Welsh MPs are not able to participate in the

wealth of the House of Commons in respect of English legislation. Once

you bring them into the work of the assembly and give them a role in the

committee system, and also to bring local councillors into the assembly

system. Rather than what the other parties want to do which is increase

the number of assembly members in Cardiff. That would be a cheaper,

better and more flexible way of improving the work of the assembly.

There is an awful lot of's fewer that like there aren't any costings

or any idea of how much more you will spend in some areas and save

another areas. How do people know how serious you are about things if

you do that any prices down? We are making savings. We are spending

money on climate change programme which we scrap. There are lots of

other ways in which we would save money at the micro level as well. We

are not proposing that we have a blueprint for everything in this

manifesto. This is a broadbrush document which gives people a

general idea of the kind of change we would deliver. A manifesto was

meant to be your detailed promises over the next five years, surely?

There's no point in making detailed promises you can't keep. We've seen

other parties do that before. The Liberals in particular had big

problems the last parliament. Of course, we have got costings in

respect of something. Not in terms of others. This is a programme for

five years, of course. Economic circumstances will determine our

capacity to deliver on also of things. Thank you very much for

being the third of our manifesto speakers this morning. Next week, I

said we expect to speak to labour and the Tories about their manifesto

plans. Don't forget also we have the special Wales report debate on

education. At this Tuesday at 10:40pm. For now, you can follow all

the promotion on the election and the political stories as well is

politics. For now, for mayor, and you can find full

details of the election Polling day is on

Thursday 5th of May. I do hope you can join us next week,

when our guest is the Labour Now, the Treasury wading

into the referendum campaign, the government will get its first

look at the Chilcot report, Janan, we're going to get the

Treasury report on what it would mean for the economy we leave the

EU. The Chancellor will wade in as well. It is supposed to be pretty

bad, the consequences. Given that the Chancellor's stalk is not as its

highest, does it matter? Probably not. Even if his stock were much

higher, it is still the government advocating for its own positions are

your average water might look at it and think, they would say that,

wouldn't they? On its own, the Treasury report and the IMF does not

matter, Mark Carney's interventions do not matter, the big business

interventions do not matter. Combine them in the run-up to the June 23rd

vote, the drip, drip of mainstream opinion, however you want to phrase

it, probably does impinge on the minds of the nervous swing voter.

There is a massive antiestablishment Zeitgeist in this country and

internationally. You can resent the establishment and still take them

seriously when the unified on the question of pounds and pence and the

family budget. That is the issue. The Remain campaign has all the big

battalions on its side. The issue is, if you listen to the big

battalions and you read them, then you would vote to remain. As Janan

says, as we see in America, we can see here as well, lots of

antiestablishment sentiment is around. If you have David Cameron,

Lord Ashdown, Neil Kinnock, the president of America, Goldman Sachs,

the IMF, the CBI, it could be these are the people that they want to

take it out on? Absolutely. I was speaking to someone prominent from

the Brexit lot yesterday, and they said the cheered when they saw the

photograph of Neil Kinnock and David Cameron lined up. They think that

plays to their cause. I agree with pretty much everything that Janan

said, it is the drip. People do not go into the details, but get a sense

of things. The antiestablishment feeling is something that is

accumulating. You feel it out there, definitely. George Osborne takes the

view that he could actually lose the argument in one area, the process

argument, which is, it is outrageous the government is spending ?9

million on this leaflet, this is not the done thing, the Electoral

Commission are not happy, and Brexit, when that arrogant, but the

actor Mickey needs to win is the substance argument, what Janan was

talking about. The electorate do not tune into the process argument. We

do and we get excited, but the electorate get tuned into the

substance arrogant, and that is where he thinks he will prevail. In

terms of the intervention by the Treasury, the Treasury has form on

this. If you think back to the Scottish referendum they had a very

meticulously prepared document. At the time, they were sitting on it

and waiting for the exact moment with the thought it would be most

powerful. Of course the Brexit side of things will have a very prepared

for battle for everything that that report says, so I wonder if it will

disappear into the key says, she says, on the one hand, on the other,

and it will cancel out. This is the issue I cannot quite understand. If

you look at the reports on the line the Treasury and the Cancellara

going to take, it is scary. They say the economy will be in a mess,

billions lost on investment, rising unemployment, interest rates on

mortgages might go up. Growth will be hit. Let's say all of that is

true. All of that was true whether or not Mr Cameron had done his deal

with Europe. Even if he had not done a deal with Europe, surely it would

follow that we should still stay in a view except all that? Does that

not undermine the government's credibility? It undermines the deal

which no one has talked about since February. Tristram Hunt was the

first one to mention it for a long time this morning. It is a complete

irrelevance. If you believe, as the Treasury will I do, that Brexit is

to Mendis existential economic risk, even calling a referendum, you would

wonder why risk it. These are good arguments against David Cameron,

George Osborne, the government and its handling. I do not think it

translates into an argument in favour of voting to leave. Jeremy

Corbyn made his intervention last week with the speech. Do we know

what else he's to do? Campaign with great enthusiasm to keep Britain in

the European Union. We all know what Jeremy Corbyn things. He is from

that element of the Labour Party, Tony Benn supporters, who campaigned

for no in 1975. The signed up to the 1983 manifesto that said that

Britain should leave the European Union. He was in the element of the

Labour Party that did not buy into the famous French intervention. He

is ticking the box. When he was leader, he found himself boxed into

a corner, signed up with Hilary Benn and membership of the European

Union. The calculation the Jeremy Corbyn made was that he had much

bigger battles to fight. Trident was a bigger issue for him. It is a

problem for David Cameron. From the look of the opinion polls at the

moment, a majority of Conservative inclined voters will vote to leave.

To win, David Cameron needs to get out the Labour vote and the

centre-left vote. If that is all Mr Corbyn is going to do, it may be

more difficult. He sounded so have hearted. If I was on a Sunday

newspaper, I would be deploying people to track Jeremy Corbyn at all

these low profile events that he ghosted, where no one thinks there

is any press, and let's hear what he really thinks. In private, I beg you

would get the comments that would expose his true position. Howdy

Remain get the Labour vote added? We need other votes. They need other

advocates, Alistair Darling, a strong figure, still held an immense

respect by many members of the Labour Party. It is difficult. We

keep coming back to this point about turnout in the referendum. Yes. What

about the president of America coming here? We know what line he's

going to take, but we do not know how he will coach it. Will that

influence how people think about our position in Europe? To the extent

that it is another voice on top of the ones that we mentioned earlier.

In combination they matter more than they might matter individually. The

reason that Obama matters disproportionately is a big part of

the Leave argument rests on the idea that if you were to leave the

European Union, there is a world of opportunity out there, and trade

deals with countries like the US. We have made to answer one. Yes, so if

one of the biggest foreign governments of the Lott intervenes,

it undercuts the Leave argument by quite a bit. I imagine that before

the referendum that the interventions by foreign governments

will be more decisive than the interventions by big business

domestically. It will not be phrased more strongly than that, do not

expect any big trade deals. Will the president have much of an impact? I

think the Brexit campaigners are surprisingly relaxed about this,

which suggest to me that they do not think he will have much impact.

There is a sense that perhaps America, I am not saying President

Obama himself, but America may not understand the real detail of this

debate. I think that is clear. What did is that many people find so

objectionable about the EU. There is always that thing about do not waltz

over here and tell us what to do. The Brexit campaigners were not

initially relaxed. There was a letter to the embassy saying that he

should not be intervening. They got their act together and thought, that

is a silly process argument, let's focus on the substance. Boris

Johnson on the BBC saying that the president is a hypocrite, because he

would not surrender that level of sovereignty, that is an argument on

substance, where they should be focusing their attention. The

Chilcot Report, of great longevity, it is going to Downing Street later

this week. Downing Street will look through to see of their any national

security implications before it is published. Should the report be

published during the referendum campaign? I cannot see a principal

reason why it should not. You could argue that if it pains the

establishment, and leaving the EU is an antiestablishment thing to do, it

favours one side over another. That is almost an indirect thing. If the

report is ready and all the editing has been done, there is no reason in

principle it cannot come out. I would agree. Does this favour one

side of the other? It seems to me it does not. No doubt everything at the

moment is being seen through the prism of the EU referendum campaign.

At the end of the data is about the lessons that need to be learned and

the families desperate for it to come out. We are desperate to see

it. I am not arguing it should be delayed, I wondered about the

principle. If you're antiestablishment minded and the

establishment get some candid kicking in the report, or it

confirms all you ever thought about it, it could have a marginal impact.

Or you could say that Jacques Chirac and other EU leaders back in 2003

said the conflict was a disaster, and maybe we should have a common

foreign and Security policy. It would be more of an issue if Tony

Blair was playing a massive role in the campaign. Where is he, with its

Tony Blair? I heard he wanted to be more involved and he was advised to

keep his head down. For some reason, the Remain people do not seem keen

on having him. We are always available for interviews. Thank you.

Next week, we're on at the later time of 1:40

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