09/10/2016 Sunday Politics Wales

Theresa May was cheered by the Tory faithful

as she charted her vision for Brexit.

We'll be talking about the plan - or what we know of it -

with Lib Dem leader Tim Farron and former Tory Cabinet

The olive branch might have withered but Jeremy Corbyn has

stamped his authority on the Labour Party

with a Shadow Cabinet reshuffle that's rewarded allies

And one Ukip MEP is still in hospital following an altercation

Just what exactly happened in a week which has seen

The man who wrote the blueprint for council reform says

he's disappointed it won't be implemented.

And what next for the Wales Bill as peers get the chance

But what can the mayor and London's councils expect to get?

And we'll be talking about the tape that's derailing Donald Trump's bid

We've also reshuffled our own top team here in the studio,

and we've ended up with three journalists who show all the unity

the humour of a Conservative Party conference speech,

and the anger management of a meeting of Ukip MEPS.

that means they'll probably be fighting in a few minutes.

Yes, it's Helen Lewis, Tim Shipman and Isabel Oakeshott.

So, where else would we start but with Brexit?

And the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has been talking

He coined a new term - full Brexit - and he was asked

if Britain was going to be leaving the EU's single market.

This is Brexit. This is full Brexit if you like. We are going to be

outside the European Union but we still, because it is over 40% of our

trade, we still want to maximise our trade with it. A final question in

the papers today. You see soft Brexiteers briefing against hard

Brexiteers and vice versa. This is terribly damaging for the Cabinet

presumably. We are all Brexiteers now. We have to make a success of

it. So, a lot of briefing against Mr Hammond after his speech to the Tory

conference. Then Mr Hammond's people briefing

against people like Liam Fox David Davis, Boris Johnson. Today, one

phrase was they were talking nonsense and garbage. When did we

get the first Brexit resignation? A good question. We have full Brexit,

open and close Brexit, hard and soft Brexit. The Prime Minister does not

want to provide a running commentary so ministers are trying to tell us

nothing but in interesting ways. I do not think anyone will resign but

what is interesting as you get a situation where everyone is a

Brexiteer now but there were very different views about how this is

going to go forward. The Prime Minister herself, she did two things

last week. She gave a speech for a domestic audience and a foreign

audience. She is trying to embody the hopes and dreams of a group of

people who feel they have been left out, the people who have been left

behind on the domestic front and also voted for Brexit. By embodying

those people fighting for their causes she is having to take a hard

line on immigration. There may be no one about to resign now but we are

only 100 days into this many government and the briefing on both

sides of the so-called hard Brexit versus the so-called soft Brexit was

the Treasury. It seems to embody the soft Brexit approach. The briefing

is fierce. It is going to lead to trouble, to blood. This is a

peak-time will stop we have just come away from the Tory Party

conference where every journalist worth their salt is working the

party circuit, going to dinners. It is an easy agenda to get every

cabinet minister you lunch or dine with to give you their version of

what Brexit said -- should mean. There is a melting pot here which is

bubbling away. Things may become more disciplined in the week ahead.

I do not think it is sustainable for Theresa May to say she will not give

a running commentary. It is a red rag to every journalist and all her

own Cabinet. You cannot keep that going for the next few months. She

will have to give a clearer guide as to whether it is hard, soft, in or

out, whatever it is. Theresa May is going to have to deploy the smack or

firm government. She has been smacking away already. All three

Brexit is happening to be airing personal opinions. The fact they are

ministers in charge of this is totally irrelevant. There is

political and economic things at work. What no one will say is that

you can have hard Brexit but it will probably almost certainly have

economic consequences. How do you go as a politician of the country and

say we hear you want to control Iraq -- immigration but that means the

country will be poorer? People will always be straddling it in a really

uncomfortable way. OK. We'll be talking more about this as the

programme goes on, you will not be surprised to hear.

This week, Theresa May closed her party's conference

with a speech designed to grab the centre ground

She positioned the Conservatives as champion of the working classes

and pledged to help those left behind by globalisation.

We'll wait to see what any of that that means in practice.

But it was what she had to say about Britain's exit

from the EU that had the biggest immediate impact,

not least on the value of the pound, as the world began to get a clearer

We now know when the process of leaving the EU will begin.

Theresa May has set a deadline of the end of next March

for triggering Article 50, which formally begins the Brexit

That allows only two years to do a deal, so we should be out

of the EU by the end of March 2019 by the latest.

The Government will also introduce a so-called Great Repeal

Bill next year, which will end our membership of the EU.

Theresa May talked of Britain being a fully

The Prime Minister also said she will prioritise

controlling immigration by ending the free movement

Because being subject to the European Court of Justice

and free movement are key requirements of membership

of the EU single market, this strongly suggests the Prime

Minister does not see Britain remaining a member.

But there were some mixed messages about life after Brexit.

The ability of EU citizens to stay in the UK remains a grey area.

Brexit secretary David Davis said they would be 100% able to stay

while Theresa May struck a more cautious tone.

And Home Secretary Amber Rudd's plan to shame firms that

take on foreign, rather than British, staff, faced a backlash

from business and political opponents.

There was also a range of mood music about life as we head for the door.

Chancellor Philip Hammond was at one end, warning the country

to brace for a roller-coaster ride ahead.

But Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson attacked what he called

gloomadon poppers and said Britain would be more active on the world

Well, I'm joined now by the Liberal Democrat Leader Tim Farron.

And the former Conservative Cabinet minister, Iain Duncan Smith.

Let me come straight to the point, first of all with you, Iain Duncan

Smith. Is it now clear that whatever relationship we will have with the

single market, we will not be a member of the single market when

Brexit is complete? I think when you add all these things together, it

becomes, I believe, is pretty clear that what the Prime Minister said,

what has been said by a number of Cabinet ministers, if the centre of

our negotiations is that we intend to control our borders and the flow

of migrants from the European Union, which has caused, in some cases, a

great deal of damage to workers and their incomes at the bottom level,

the skilled level, that means there is no way that the European Union

will be able to allow us to be a member of the single market. That is

not the same as access. Tim Farron, do you accept that is the way we are

going? Whatever access arrangements we have, and we will have some

arrangements. Even North Korea has access to the single market. But we

won't be a member. That looks to be the way the Government is taking us.

It is a massive mistake. I think Ian is wrong to say there has been a

massive decision in favour of us leaving the single market and if

that is what he is implying. It is given that a small majority voted to

leave the EU but no one voted to leave the common or single market.

It seems to me to be flying in the face of all the economic indicators

of whatever the British people want, or is best for British jobs. It

seems, for the Conservative Party, to be a reinterpretation of the

result for a hard Brexit that nobody voted for. That is strong point. We

do not have too much time this morning, so I'm going to try to keep

this moving quickly. How do respond to that, Iain Duncan Smith? It is

utter rubbish. The British people made it clear decision. They were

asked a simple question. Do you want to stay in or leave the European

Union? Were they asked whether they wanted to leave the single market?

You need to have a look at the rules around this. The single market as

part of the European Union, whether you like it or not. Do you think we

should be in the single market? Do you agree with the overwhelming

majority? No, no. I am sorry. The massive benefits which exist are

asked to be able to trade with the European Union and have access.

America has access. They sell more to the European Union than we do.

Hold on. There is no point talking over each other because you are too

far-away. Let me come to Tim Farron. If you want to be in the single

market, you have to accept free movement. You have to accept the

jurisdiction of the European port. In effect, that is membership of the

EU. Isn't that what we voted against? -- the European Court. Tim

Farron I am talking to. The reality is, and I accept the result of the

referendum. It is the direction of the United Kingdom being towards the

European Union as we stand. The deal we get at the end, as Lord Kurt, the

writer of Article 50, agreed with me overnight because destination is not

the same. You cannot start this process with democracy and end up

with a stitch up, which is what the British people will get. Many people

around the country voted to leave the European Union but there will

not agree, I am certain, with having imposed upon them complete exit from

any relationship with the nearest market and friends and neighbours,

which will cost tens and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Let me get you to

respond to that, Iain Duncan Smith. When article 50 was drafted, he did

not mean it to help any country leave, he deliberately designed it

so it would make it so difficult to leave it would almost be nigh on

impossible. The second thing about the point that Tim makes, which is

complete nonsense, is the added that we will lose tens of thousands of

jobs. What we are looking for is a free trade relationship with the

European Union. That is the key point. We are not leaving Europe, we

are leaving the European Union. This is the problem. There is not a

problem in that for common-sense and decent people. Hold on, Tim Farron.

Sterling has slumped at the prospect of hard Brexit as it has dawned on

the markets that the Government is heading for a so-called hard Brexit.

Doesn't that give you pause for thought? Doesn't it make you think

it might not be the right course? If you go to the airport at the moment,

you would be lucky to get 1 euro for ?1. Doesn't that make you think? Not

really. What you know about the free-flowing currency is it will

fall and rise in accordance with what people speculate about and the

prospects for the future. The point to look at is what the underlying

story is for UK business. It used to be that the BBC generally spent its

whole time telling us how terrible things work if you look at the FTSE

250 or the FTSE 100. In the same period we have seen the FTSE 250,

the small and medium companies, at record levels high. Much higher than

before we decided to leave the European Union. Here is the other

point. There is hugely a story about a strong dollar. The pound rose

against the yen was the dollar rose against the euro, the yen, and the

pout. Here is the deal. The pound is doing our supporters a of good. --

the pound. There is no point heckling. That is my job. The point

is that the pound having fallen means British business is doing very

well. And that is a very good thing. Other than the slump in Stirling,

what has gone wrong for the UK economy since the 23rd of June?

First of all, I am not saying everything is completely calamitous.

I take the views of all of the business leaders, people who wrote

to the Financial Times yesterday, people who are former members of the

Prime Minister's business advisory council, who say that whatever your

view on leaving the European Union, departure from the single market

would be calamitous. Really worrying indicator, this 31 year low drop in

the pound, and we have not even left yet. That is what worries me. And

what worries me more than anything else is that you've got the British

business community, who now feel that the Conservative Party are

listening to the English nationalist forces that have taken over the Tory

party, rather than to good common-sense business practice. When

Roger, who, the Ukip MEP, tells you that you have gone too far here,

then you probably have gone too far. Iain Duncan Smith, let me bring you

back in. We haven't got time for speeches this morning, from either

of you. Iain Duncan Smith - don't we need to give just a bit on free

movement, to secure open access? If we want really good access to the

single market, we will have to give something on free movement?

Actually, I wrote about a week ago in a paper which set out how you

have control of your migration policy which is flexible enough to

allow people to come into jobs inside the UK or outside the UK. And

that is the kind of flexibility which leaves the British Government

controlling the idea about how you access work through work permits.

That means for higher skilled people, it will be a very light

touch regime, but for the low skilled, which is where the most

damage has been done, you have tight regime. You say, listen to British

businesses - these are the self appointed losers of British

business. That meet you something - these are the same people who told

us before that Brexit... They told us, just like you did, Tim, that we

would crash and burn afterwards, there would be a calamitous fall,

the British economy would be destroyed. Some of us had a more

lofty view. I wish everybody would get calm because what we want is

Britain to do well. It is not my party... I have got one more

question for you, Tim Farron - why have you now lost a second here in

the House of Lords, Baroness Manzoor, who says you are not

recognising the will of the people in the referendum by calling for a

second referendum? She has joined the Tories, so that's Brive - how

many more to go? Well, we are 20,000 up, Andrew. It is a peculiar

decision which I totally respect. You only need to look at what's

happened since June, with the Liberal Democrats gaining 20,000

members. Thousands of them from the Conservatives, hundreds since their

conference last week. You look at the by-election gains, the Liberal

Democrats winning 18 in the last few months, and half of them... You are

not set to lose her? I am always sad to lose people, but I am joined

overjoyed to have gained 20,000. Come and joiners in the studio next

time, where we can get a proper grip on this debate!

With Parliament returning tomorrow, Jeremy Corbyn has been

reshuffling his Shadow Cabinet, following his thumping win in this

And unlike previous reshuffles, it's been a pretty decisive affair,

which has seen him give big jobs to his supporters.

Mr Corbyn has moved ally Dianne Abbott to Shadow

Home Secretary, keeping Emily Thornberry at Shadow

Foreign Secretary and moving Clive Lewis to Business.

He's been replaced on the Defence brief by Nia Griffith,

There's also a job for new Labour peer Shami Chakrabarti,

who recently carried out a report into anti-semitism in the party.

And chief whip Rosie Winterton is out.

She's replaced by the veteran whip Nick Brown.

You may remember him from the Gordon Brown years.

Mr Corbyn has also brought back a number

of Shadow Cabinet members, who resigned in protest

They include Jon Ashworth, as Shadow Health Secretary.

Although he's also been removed from the National Executive

Committee, Labour's ruling body, where power has been finely balanced

Well, to discuss this, we're joined by the Labour MP, John Mann.

John Mann, who is a Corbynite critic. Mr Corbyn says this is the

most diverse shadow cabinet ever, the best team to take Labour forward

- what do you say? Well, it's his choice of team. And I think we

should get on with the job now. Think he has won, whether people

like it or not. And the last and we want I think is a year of

internalised, inward looking navel-gazing. Like the last year?

Like the last year. And I have said, I was not in favour of the timing of

this challenge, but we actually have to get to grips with the referendum

result and the fact that quite a lot of Labour voters voted to leave,

unlike the general view in the Labour Party. There's lots of issues

we should be looking at, but we should not be looking inwards. Is

there much of an olive branch from Mr Corbyn to the Parliamentary

Labour Party in this? I would not call it an olive branch. But if I

was him, I would have done pretty much what he has done. He's won the

election. If I was leader, I might choose different people. That

probably goes for everyone of the 200-plus members of the

Parliamentary party. But I think there is a bit of a... The idea you

can negotiate a shadow cabinet or cabinet, I mean, it's important that

he has all viewpoints represented somewhere, otherwise we'll be much

weaker. And so we wait to see whether every view is going to get

proper Leanne Wood. That's vital. But he's got to make the choices. --

every view is going to get properly aired.. Quite a lot of London

representation - how does that help people like you in the north and the

Midlands? It's following the trends of Tony Blair, was always keen on

having lots of people who worked in London, and Ed Miliband even more

so. So it is not a new trait. He's chosen the people, but what's

crucial is, with ceremony people from the metropolitan area, that

they spend a lot of time out in areas like mean, not talking to the

members, not doing photocalls, they can do that if they want, but going

and talking to voters. If they do that, I've got no objection. If they

don't, then that will mean that there is not sufficient knowledge of

what the wider electorate is thinking. Those shadow cabinet

members, every week, should be out there knocking on real doors, in

areas that perhaps they are not too familiar with. Keir Starmer, your

new shadow Brexit secretary, he has said that there should be a vote on

article 50, that when the Government moves it, Parliament should vote.

What do you think of that? Well, let's see what... We are quite a way

away from seeing what Google is going to do. I think what is vital

in terms of Brexit is actually to get into the detail, because there's

a lot of slogans, the full Brexit, the soft Brexit, the hard Brexit...

Actually, the issue is, what access do we get to markets, what access do

we give to our markets? And is there any form of restriction on the free

movement of labour? They are the three big issues. We need detail.

And it's the negotiation not in the British Parliament but with the

Germans and the French in particular that is vital. And of course that

hasn't begun. Mr Corbyn told us at the Labour Party conference that he

was not really that interested in controlling immigration. Keir

Starmer said this morning on the BBC that immigration has become down -

you must encouraged by that? What a coalition! Keir Starmer as the

person responsible I hope we'll be talking to those of us who supported

the Leave campaign in the Vale, and more fundamentally, getting out of

those areas where the vast majority of Labour voters voted to leave. If

he's going to do his job properly, that is critical. I'm confident that

he will do that. Do you know yet what the party policy is on

immigration? I'm sure that will emerge over the time. I do not know

what the Conservative Party's ease, either. We do not know what the

response of the Germans and the French will be. They have got

elections next year. This is rather a movable feast in those countries.

Therefore, we should be in 20 new negotiations, as Labour. It's

crucial that our leadership talks and listens to Labour voters and to

those who have voted Labour in the past.

Jeremy Corbyn's re-shuffle has upset the Chair

He represents the party's backbench MPs.

In an e-mail, John Cryer said Mr Corbyn "did not

engage" in a promised plan to reunite the party by allowing MPs

Mr Cryer said he had been in talks with the leadership

with the aim of "striking an agreement which would allow

some places to be filled through elections, while the leader

But on Wednesday it became clear "a reshuffle was under way,

which had not been discussed or mentioned".

Well, we're joined now by Barry Gardiner.

He's kept his job as Shadow International Trade Secretary.

What happened to the idea of electing at least part of the Shadow

Cabinet? Well, I was part of the discussions in the Shadow Cabinet,

with Rosie Winterton, who was the chief whip. And she made it very

clear that what would need to happen is, there would need to be a vote

first of all at the NEC to change the party rules. So I don't think

anybody was under any illusion that we could have direct elections now

to the Shadow Cabinet without that change in the party rules. Is the

idea dead for the foreseeable future? Doormen, is the honest

answer. That is for Jeremy to decide. But I think what would be

clearly wrong is, if we now going to almost rerunning what was the

election contest. And it would be foolish to saddle a leader with a

group of people in the Shadow Cabinet that were out of sympathy.

And indeed, that was why the Parliamentary Labour Party, when Ed

Miliband asked us to give him the right to appoint the Shadow Cabinet,

rather than the previous system, which had been elected... What do

you make of the chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party, Mr

Cryer, complaining that Mr Corbyn did not engage with him in this

reshuffle? Look, I don't know what discussions took place. John is a

very good friend. He's a very good representative of the PLP, as its

chair. But he's one of the best connected people in the party, and

the idea that anything took face without his knowledge I find it

difficult to believe. He says, Niall Quinn OMP backing him up was a

charades in the negotiations? That is a separate question. And I don't

think that's true at all. Because the Shadow Cabinet said to the

previous NEC meeting delegation, to actually initiate those

negotiations. But I think John Mann, who sat here just a few moments ago,

got it absolutely right - the Labour Party now must not look inwards for

the next year, it must begin to look outwards. It must be challenging the

government on what it is doing in our education system and saying, it

is wrong to segregate our children. They must be challenging the

government on housing and homelessness. I am delighted that

John has come back into the Shadow Cabinet, nobody better to take

forward our fight for housing in this country. If you want to appeal

across the country, are there not too many London metropolitan types

at the top? The four great Shadow offices of state all seemed to come

from within walking distance of each other. It's a kind of shadow cabinet

of all BMW one talents? Well, you could ever welcomed the fact that

two of those great offices of state, for the first time ever, are held by

women. -- NW1 talents. Broomstick is, it is very London centric. It is

not because you have got five MPs from the north-east in the Shadow

Cabinet, four from Greater Manchester, all of whom are women.

You've got five from Yorkshire. In terms of the population of the

country as a whole, it's very representative of whether Labour

votes are. John Ashworth accepted the Shadow bridge but is no longer

on the National Executive Committee. Does Mr Corbyn now have a majority

on the NEC, the ruling body of the Labour Party? The majority would

always be on issue by issue. I don't think anybody goes to the NEC

determined to wage wall or battle. I assure that people go there to

listen to arguments and decide what is in the best interest of the party

and the country and take Ossetians accordingly. Why was it important

that Mr Ashworth stepped down? I don't know whether it was important.

John has been a superb member of the Shadow Cabinet. He has always

represented very clearly the views of party members, and I think he

will do a fantastic job at health. We will leave it there.

I still have energy and can. When we last spoke, I put it to you that we

were massive importers of energy including gas. I came here primed

for that. Next time I will bring the power with meat!

The party with the third highest vote share at the general election

has, just since Tuesday, lost a leader, seen

the return of Nigel Farage - even if only temporarily -

and seen the favourite to take over end up in hospital

after an altercation in the European Parliament.

Our Ellie's been watching the soap opera unfold.

So, we've all heard the rumours about the internal

Well, this week, they played out in front of our very eyes on the TV

screens in the most dramatic of ways.

It was only just over three weeks ago.

18 days later, she realised that wasn't going to happen.

In her resignation statement, she said she didn't have

sufficient authority, nor the full support, of her MEP

colleagues and party officers to continue.

There was also this clue in the official form she filled

in for the Electoral Commission, where she signed her name

In the meantime, Nigel Farage seemed pretty chipper, explaining

I keep getting over the wall and running for the hills.

Before I am finally free, they drag me back.

It doesn't have one because she's resigned.

The Ukip constitution is quite clear.

In these circumstances, the National Executive Committee has

the right to appoint an interim leader, which I presume it will do

at its meeting on the 17th of October.

I'm told the NEC might have met earlier but someone

is on is on a cruise, so it wouldn't be quorate.

It was starting to feel a bit like a soap opera.

It's almost like being a part of Dynasty.

By close of play, this man, who probably would have been leader

last time if he hadn't been barred from standing had thrown

But then things went really off script, when he, Steven Woolfe,

after a meeting with colleagues that went...

There are mixed accounts of what happened.

It's two grown men getting involved in an altercation.

We're talking about a dispute that finished up physically.

I understand there was an argument between some MEPs and Steven,

I think, picked a fight with one of them, and came off worst.

It later transpired that the MEPs had been arguing about reports that

Mr Woolfe had considered defecting to the Tories.

That had ended in a scuffle with this man.

It was, as people in Hull would say, handbags at dawn.

He even tweeted a picture of his hands to prove it.

But Mr Woolfe's team questioned that version of events and said his

Either way, the two men have been in touch and say

they want to meet - handbags and all -

But that might not be the end of the story.

So, part of Ukip's charm has always been to say and do

things the other party would never even dream of.

But this week has been different and a number of senior Ukip sources

have told me that what happens next will be make or break for the party.

They say that will depend on who the next leader is.

Before all this happens, Steven Woolfe, seen

as a disciple of Nigel Farage, would have been favourite.

It must surely have been obvious to anybody, having seen this,

that Steven Woolfe, and of course Mike Hookem,

I don't think Mike would put his hat into the ring.

Surely they can't now consider that either of them could stand

The party's biggest donor, Arron Banks,

It's fairly indicative of the party split between those who think

the new leader should be moulded in Nigel Farage's image,

and those who can think of little worse.

The party is bigger than any one individual.

Everybody has a responsibility within Ukip to safeguard

its reputation and that's what I'm asking all people to do now

The drama may be over for this week but with the leadership campaign

looming, there will be plenty more episodes to come.

And we're joined now by the Ukip MEP Bill Etheridge.

He was at the meeting where the "altercation"

between Steven Woolfe and Mike Hookem took place,

and he stood to be leader in the party's last

leadership contest, which only finished in September.

We have learned, while on-air, that Steven Woolfe has left the hospital

in Strasbourg. Bill Etheridge, were punches thrown? First of all, as all

MEPs we should apologise to our member ship and supporters for all

this nonsense. With regards to punches thrown, I was first on the

scene. I did not see punches thrown. I saw Mike with his hands down his

side and is Steven Wolfe halfway through and unlatched door. --

Steven Woolfe. He was on the floor. Before you got on the scene, there

could have been blows exchanged? In the 15 to 30 seconds before I got

there, there is a possibility but Mike has denied that there were any

punches thrown and I have not seen any evidence that their world. The

friends of Steven Woolfe has said independent medical examinations

suggests he does have wounds and bruising which cannot be explained

by simply a fall to the floor. I am sure the chairman of the party will

look into that and see the exact information being discussed. When it

is something put out by sources or friends, let's wait and see the

actual information. Was it the idea of Steven Woolfe that the dispute

should be settled outside? Yes, Stephen stood up and said, if this

is the temperature of your comments, I think we should sort out

man-to-man. He took off his jacket and walked outside. Unfortunately,

and he has said he regrets it, Mike went outside and did the same thing

himself was that neither of them should have done it. It was foolish.

If that is response by Steven Woolfe to an argument, no matter how

heated, among his own MEPs, does that disqualify him to stand as

leader? It does not disqualify him. It says something about his

temperament. What I will say is it was not heated argument at the

start. We were discussing the fact he had been in a conversation with

the Conservative Party about joining. Only a day or two earlier

he had said he was not going to join for that we asked if that was to do

with the fact that he heard Diane James was standing down. That was

the purpose of the meeting, to find out what Steven Woolfe was doing

about the Conservative Party. Due to this altercation, we never got an

answer. I personally would like need to know what he was doing. What was

said? I and stand this happened quite quickly into the meeting. What

was it that was said which meant, take the jacket off, we will settle

this outside? Steven Woolfe had said about how upset he was that he could

not stand in the summer, his form were late by 17 minutes. Mike said

whether it is your fault and no one else's. Steven Woolfe reacted

angrily and we could get no further conversation. That was the extent of

the provocation, to say it was your fault. He was not swearing but he

basically said, that's your fault, it is your responsibility. Are you

going to stand in this leadership contest now? Up until this happens,

I was seriously considering rolling in to try to make sure we did not

have people who had been negative towards the party and towards Nigel

taking over. Now I do not feel I can support Steven Woolfe and, yes, I

will be standing. Isn't the bitter truth, your previously the last for

18 days. Two MPs have now said to step outside and we will sort this

with jackets. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Ukip is not a

proper, functioning party without Nigel Farage at the helm? You cannot

survive without him. Nigel is a fantastic leader. He has led us very

strongly and powerfully. It is up to us to take responsibility. That is

one reason I want to do it to bring the party together. Every time he

goes quickly fall apart. There is no functioning Ukip I would suggest

without Nigel Farage. Up to us to make sure we get systems in place

and make sure we have strong leadership and pull the party

together. We can do it. We have 4 million voters than 30,000 members.

They must be feeling very let down. It is up to us to make sure we do

the right thing and look after them and be there to represent them.

Thank you. We say goodbye to

viewers in Scotland, who leave us now for

Sunday Politics Scotland. Coming up here in 20 minutes,

the Week Ahead, when we'll be talking about the recording,

which some think could derail Donald Trump's bid

for the White House. Hello and welcome to

the Sunday Politics Wales. Here in a few minutes, after many

twists and turns the Wales Bill is now well on its way

through Parliament, but what reception will

the Lords give it tomorrow? Is it really the bill

that will settle Welsh But first, the big political news

of the week in Wales is that our councils are not

going to be scrapped after all! Ministers say they want them

to co-operate instead. The Minister will tell

us in a few minutes. But the man who came up

with the original merger proposals Daniel Davies now on how those plans

bit the political dust. January 2014, and a report on how

to run public services lands The Williams Commission said

the number of local councils should be cut from 22 to as few as ten,

and one word rang out, the need Change is inevitable

and essential he told us, but political opponents and some

in his own party disagreed. When he didn't get what he wanted,

he brought Leighton Andrews back in to the government on a mission

to force heads together. Council bosses showed little

enthusiasm for Mr Andrews' map which reduced the number

of councils to eight or nine. Then another change in the political

map - Mr Andrews lost his seat So over to his successor,

Mark Drakeford, who this Councils won't merge,

instead they will deliver services So, two-and-a-half years down

the line, is Sir Paul Williams, the man who got the ball rolling,

disappointed at a lack of progress? I think probably my commission

members were disappointed given the depth of the evidence

we took, and at the time, virtually everyone we spoke

to expressed the view that But unless there is the political

will to see it through, then no I'm not surprised,

and I think what Mark is trying to do now is form that consensus,

but he's quite clear that partnership working as it has

operated previously, I'm going back as far

as Sir Jeremy Beecham's review Is there a danger that by getting

councils to work together even more on a regional basis,

with different services in different places,

it becomes even more And the danger is that you just

develop an overly bureaucratic landscape, where those operating

within it are spending more time working on process than on outcomes,

and I think that is where Mark has been quite clear,

that he wishes to mandate both on the new arrangements and reducing

existing partnerships In other words telling

them what to do. More importantly, to mandate

on the governance arrangements. I think that is going to be very

tricky because he is going to keep How are the governments arrangements

going to work where they are where they are going to have to seed

some of the authority When words like resilience

and capacity are thrown around, what we are talking about here

are councils that are I mean when we did our analysis,

of the performance of 22 authorities back in 2013-14,

five of the smallest I don't think across the whole

of South Wales there were substantive officers in key

roles, at director or deputy director level in education

or social services. You are competing in a market,

particularly in health, So you said in your report in 2014

that there was an urgent need Would you say now it

is even more urgent? And Mark recognises in his statement

the importance of leadership and that is why in a report we had

a significant section on leadership because we felt these changes

were not actually coming to pass unless we were having a change

of culture and a change of leadership, or leadership

approaches rather, both politically He said he wants to go through two

local government elections, he's looking at a ten year

time period here. And yet austerity is something

we are dealing with for a while. The amount of time this

is all taking. Yes, well, again I think

Mark is wanting to build stability into the system,

whilst he can achieve his reforms. The problem is that

because of the pressures financially and on the quality of services,

there's going to have to be some rapid movement in my view,

if the citizen is going And even more importantly now,

in a post Brexit environment, where Wales are going to have

to compete globally. Well, when I met Wales' local

government Secretary, I asked Mark Drakeford why he'd

decided not to force Well, the simple realities

of the matter, to be frank, the last Welsh government

here in the last Assembly term made, I think, a valiant effort to try

and take forward Sir Paul's recommendations, in terms

of the numbers of Local Authorities. I think that debate has changed some

of the nature of what we will do, but in the end it failed to obtain

a consensus within the Assembly and without with the Assembly

on that particular aspect But I am unclear as to

what your view is now. Are you saying it was wrong to aim

for ten or 12 councils, but you have Or do you think it is better

to continue with the current 22, My view is this, is that the debate

that was generated last time was important, but that it failed

to create a consensus And in the end, in this business,

you have to find a way in which you can carry

all the people who are important to this, Local Authorities

themselves and their partners, political parties at the Assembly,

and if you cannot do that, then you are never going to be able

to find a practical way. But with respect,

that is not your view. That's an explanation

of the situation, rather Well, my view is that it is my job

as a practical politician, is to find a way forward that can be

made to work. It may not be the ideal way forward,

as anyone of us may think, but my message to Local Authorities

is that we have a joint obligation to find a way forward

and if you want to create You said that there needed to be two

areas where you have to get the consensus,

the councils and the Assembly. Does that mean it is only

because you don't If you had 36 Labour Assembly

members, would be you be driving through the aim of getting down

to ten or 12 councils, but you're just faced

with the political reality, If you are asking my own approach

to it, it would be that even if we had a majority here,

I would still think it would be important to craft a solution that

would take others with you. Now having a majority

here might change the nature But I don't think it would be

enough simply to say, we have got the numbers,

we will do what we like and we don't It might change the nature

of the conversation, but nor did it change the realities

that as your predecessor and Paul Williams is saying,

there is a cost to continuing with having 22 local authorities,

there's a lack of effectiveness Those realities are unchanged

because of the numbers That is exactly what I say

to local authorities. But are you being harsh

enough with them? What you are offering

is you are asking them Are you really taking enough of us

stick to them to say, Look, the two words that I have been

very clear about and repeated in the statement I made

to the Assembly this week is that when we move

forward, as I hope we will, in the new regional arrangements,

there will be two things. They will be systematic

and they will be mandatory. So I moved well beyond the idea that

simply ask, persuade We need to agree what the regional

footprints will be, we need to agree the responsibilities that

will be discharged there. But once we have agreed,

this is how it will be done all over Wales,

that is why it will be systematic, It will be a requirement,

not a request. But what's the difficult,

I guess is when you have one of the things your colleague

for example education services. There is a problem there in terms

of democratically elected councils. If I live in Wrexham,

and I am unhappy with my schools, who do I vote out, the cos it is not

just the Wrexham councillors They will be merging

with Flintshire and elsewhere. There is a lack of

accountability there. There is a question certainly

about answerability and accountability which we have

to work through as part of the conversation I'm going

to have over the next three months. How do you overcome that? You would

do it the way they do now. We have regional consortia. They are not in

charge of the whole system, which I think you are getting at. The

principle is the same. Those educational improvement

responsibilities are not done by Wrexham. If you are not satisfied

with the way school improvement is being carried out in Wrexham, the

regional improve ability question is there too. If regional improvement

is the question, why not merge the councils. The stumbling block would

be the councillors. We do not want to voters also out of a job. I think

the role of local councillors will be even more important in the future

than in the past. If you are a citizen of Wrexham and want to know

where a decision is being made and want to influence it, your local

councillor will be your guide and your assistant and making sure that

happens. The Democratic accountability and the local is

that, having people close to that local area generally to speak on

people's the half is 22. And I think that citizens of Wales have had the

current system for nearly a quarter of a century. It has accumulated

knowledge in peoples minds. They are used to dealing with that local

authority. Fact that you will still through the front door of which ever

council area you live in, one that you are used in all, behind the

front door services that you receive will be operated on a regional

basis, that will not matter to you. But your sense of how to get into

them remains at that local level. It's been billed as the way

to settle Welsh devolution Others say it's a dog's dinner,

which if passed, would see powers Tomorrow the Lords get their chance

to look at the Wales Bill. But what would it do for Wales,

and why has it had If passed, the Wales Bill if passed

would give the Assembly new powers, over energy projects such

as fracking, deciding how taxis should be licenced and what speeds

should be allowed on Welsh roads. It would also let the Assembly

decide on how its own elections should be run, including possibly

altering the voting age. But the real row over

the Bill is which powers The UK Government says having

the Reserved Powers model - where everything is devolved

unless it's on a list of things that aren't - makes

things clearer. This week

a committee of AMs said was a danger of powers

being taken back. This bill is not good enough. There

are dangers that could roll the devolution settlement backwards.

That is the first time this has done that.

This is the fourth attempt to clarify, if that's the word,

Each of the previous Acts was said to be the final one -

Joining me in the studio is the devolution expert

Manon George and the Wales Office Minister Guto Bebb

Good morning. Have you been surprised by just how many people in

terms of academics, constitutional experts and assembly members, have

been so critical of the Wales Bill as it currently stands? Surprised

and disappointed because the bill has changed significantly over the

last nine months. It has passed through the House of Commons without

much trouble. The allocated time was not utilised because so few

amendments from the Labour Party and Plaid Cymru. To see the attack from

the asylum blade this week is surprising. What is generally

concerned is they are being somewhat dishonest in their attack. --

assembly. They say there is a removal of pearls from Westminster.

What they are talking about our powers which have been conferred on

the assembly as a result of court cases that need to be reserved. How

is that not a reversal of powers? You are reversing to the

agricultural powers board. The Welsh government has the power to

legislate in that area. That would be removed. I think it is very

clear. This was going against the will of the people of Wales. They

did not fought for a situation where the courts would decide. It is

important, if we take that supreme court finding, it could be feasible

for the Welsh government to defend. No one in Wales has voted to give

the Wales assembly powers over defence. The Supreme Court has

highlighted deficiencies and the wage we have legislated. The aim of

the bill is to put in the agreements we have and also to have a clarity

so that we know what is the responsibility of Westminster and

what is the responsibility of Cardiff. I am disappointed to see

this as the attack prepared by some in the assembly who should know

better. Let's take it to the constitutional experts who gave

evidence to the committee, a legal Tech expert on law saying that the

national Assembly, he thinks has the power to do -- Boulus the smacking

ban. He says the Wales Bill as it stands now, that would be removed.

How is that not rolling back of powers question mark it as providing

clarity. Clarity can still be rolling back the powers. Just as

importantly, we are building upon the 2011 referendum. It was clear,

it gave the Welsh assembly powers and 20 subject areas. We are going

far beyond that. We need clarity, the people of Wales are not well

served by decisions that are in a grey area. That is not serving

devolution. There has been a cross-party agreement to move to a

more clarified position. That was in place in Westminster is when you did

not see these types of issues raised and I think it is late in the day

and not very helpful to have this kind of overblown attack from some

grandees and this assembly at this point of time. Let's take it away

from the assembly members. What you are moving to know is powers system

whereby there are reserved powers. It will be written down what

Westminster does and the rest is up to the Welsh assembly. The concern

is that that list of what is reserved to Westminster is far too

long. There doesn't need to be any shorter now in this new reformed

wheels mill. There is one evidence as the committee said, in the past

you had a G1, health professionals and GEC was ordered to us. Now it is

shorter because you have G1 and that is auditors, architects and health

workers. Some would say you are pulling a fast one now. No, I think

it is something very clear. It is concerning that we reflect the vote

of the people of Wales in 2011. We are highlighting the agreement where

there was a cross-party consensus on some issues and not another's. What

we're trying to do is important where there is consensus. I think

the problem here resides as much in the Labour Party as in concerns

about the devolution settlement. We have a situation where he have wine

member of pose to... Do you think this Wales Bill isn't actually any

shorter than the last version of it. It is shorter and clearer and there

has been a welcome to the new bill by the First Minister himself who

said while it was not perfect in his view, it was a basis for moving the

settlement for it. The First Minister said that when it was

announced. I am surprised that this committee has taken such a different

view. I would like to get your view on another thing, your boss

essentially, the secretary for State of Wales, should apologise because

of comments he made others deny's Question Time when he was accusing

Plaid Cymru member as being part of a bombing campaign. Should he

apologised that work IMs apprised by Carwyn Jones's intervention. What I

saw was a robust debate. In terms of apology, there is a difference

between what happened on question Time and the collusion between the

Labour Party in Wales in attacking Welsh speaking communities in order

to be Plaid Cymru. If there is any apology required, it should come

from Carwyn Jones and his party. Thank you very much for your time

this morning. I did promise that we would have a constitutional expert

in the studio. What did you make of what the minister had to sleep. I

would disagree with the Minister, this bill clearly is rolling back

the assembly's powers. There is a long list of reservations, over 200

matters. Some would say that that is an improvement on the draft bill.

But we are still looking at over 200 reservations. The bill has just been

rewritten so that the reservations have been rewritten so they are a

bit cleaner. As was described there, they have been grouped together. So

you can count more than 200 individual reservations. The UK

Government did take on board the Welsh government's advice either of

having issues they could later perhaps die of -- vault to the

assembly, for example, things like criminal justice. Police think is

not mentioned at all. So still and huge reservations on the assembly's

powers. What about the point that actually a lot of things that were

proposed in the changes went beyond the scope of what should have been

devolved, saying the Supreme Court was essentially wrong to rule in

favour to see do not have these powers. The supreme court to the

agricultural wages cases suggested the assembly should be all to

legislate on anything as long as it realistically and fairly relates to

a devolved matter. So that means that some silent subjects, things

that are not confirmed in the assembly or not excepted from its

powers, the legislation can be made by the assembly. So an example of

that is employment. So that judgment definitely clarified the assembly's

lawmaking powers. But what this bill has done has tried to undo those

Supreme Court decisions and actually take back some of the powers that

the Welsh government and the assembly thought the ad. I guess I

know the answer to this question, one of the things that isn't there

in this bill is a promise of a single legal body for Wales. Does

that need to be there? Historically, the unified legal system between

England and Wales has always been the reason why Wales cannot have

more powers. But now that we are moving to a reserved powers model,

that model would work much better with a separate jurisdiction or even

distinct jurisdictions for Wales. Currently the law of Wales become

part of the law of England and Wales, so it would provide more

clarity if you had distinct arrangements for Wales. I was good

to ask you if you think this is good to be settling devolution

settlement. I will not ask you for announcer. Thank you for coming in

this morning. There's more coverage on twitter -

we're @walespolitics but for now Just what exactly is the

Government's see an asking fans to recall how many foreign workers they

employ? Has Donald Trump's is at a campaign been halted ill of the

water line? Two big questions for our Week Ahead. The Home Office is

pumping out briefings as we speak, trying to clarify what the Tubman

Palacios, announced by Amber Rudd at the Tory conference. -- the

Government plan is. They wanted companies having lists of people who

worked. Now it may be just industrywide for that we're not

going to name the companies or publish any lists. And it sounds

like a classic party conference kite flyers and it has gone hideously

wrong when even the brother of the Home Secretary is hitting out at it.

Lotsa people would not have a problem imprisonable with the idea

companies having to give an idea of the proportion of foreign workers

employed. Where it gets sinister is where you are naming people and that

becomes very difficult. Does not seem that the Government, even as it

badly briefed this out, posted the Amber red speech there was never the

intention of publishing a list of there being 500 migrants working for

this company and these are the names. That would be absurd. What is

the point? The latest line is it would be a private list for

government. It reflects a bigger problem. Individually, these

measures, you can see a principled argument. There was an avalanche

building up with a hostile climate towards migrants. That might start

making people queasy. Lots of parents have been text being and

saying whether their children have a passport. You are going to need to

do this data collection. It makes people uneasy. There was a plus in

the idea. Ed Miliband had proposed something similar. The Americans do

it. The idea that we look at those industries or companies where there

is a high proportion of migrant workers, it sends a message that

that is where our skilled effort should go. We should be training the

people here already in these skills because we are short of them. That

would seem to be part of a sensible labour market policy. But that, I

would suggest to you, is entirely lost in this. It has been a

catastrophe in the way has been put out. What you have is different

levels of what Brexit looks like. The Home Secretary voted for Remain

and the Prime Minister voted for Remain. They are all trying to be

tough. If you speak to Amber Road when she does not think there should

be any controls over skilled immigration. The message wit is

coming through is we are going to clamp down on this stuff. -- which

is coming through. She is broadly liberal in outlets. Was she trying

to be more Brexit than Brexit? It is a really difficult position for that

she is running the department that will have to implement all the

things she does not believe in. Theresa May is failing to implement

proper immigration controls. She is following Mrs May in the job she has

to do. Let's move on to something rather bigger. This is this video,

broadcast, which has emerged of the Republican presidential candidate,

Donald Trump. It seems to be a watershed moment in the presidential

campaign of 2016. He is caught on tape making lewd comments about

women. It is a long tape so let's have a look at a part of it.

And there is lots more where that came from. Yesterday other tapes

came out of Mr Trump making inappropriate remarks in the past

when the microphone was also running. Yesterday in the United

States has been a remarkable day, almost unprecedented. Senior

Republicans are now poised to abandon Mr Trump as Republican

candidate. Two dozen Republican lawmakers have already disowned him.

Senior figures like Senator Mike Leigh of Utah and John McCain, who

was the Republican candidate several years ago from Arizona. Senator --

the Senator in New Hampshire who has a tough race to work. We are joined

by Jan from publicans Overseas. This is a catastrophe for your party. It

is. It is not as catastrophic as people are making it. You have

listed the elites. They are the ones that loss throughout the primaries.

Jeb Bush wasted 154 million. Monitoring all the polls, it is only

making Trump's port is that much stronger. May be the elites were

right that Mr Trump was a wholly unsuitable person to be your party's

and did it. Is he unsuitable? How much of understanding what the

voters want and how much they messed up the Government plays into it? I

am beyond being able to defend him. Yes, I am. Is number of people in

your party are poised to disown him? There is another part for me. As a

psychologist I wrote an international bestseller where I

interviewed 4000 men and followed slides. Some of this is not

shocking. I have experienced men in power who speak as Donald Trump

does. You may not want someone like that as president. The Republican

National committee has, as of now, frozen any further spending on the

Donald Trump presidential campaign. The Republican National committee. I

agree that they needed to do this if they wanted to even retain any women

in the party. This has been a very smart move. Basically, we need to

watch the debate tonight. I can come on your show tomorrow and tell you

whether it is all over or not. This debate could well be major in Saint

Louis. Nine o'clock UK time cost of the people who are worried now are

the senators, who are up for re-election. There are a lot of

them, a lot more than Democrats. The House is all up. They are up every

two years, and governors are up for re-election as well. They are

terrified. They thought they could do is to budget with Donald Trump as

head of the ticket. Now they are really worried they cannot. There is

not time to get rid of him, as I understand it from legal opinions

which have come out. There is not enough time. Only if he is willing

to go. Clearly he is not. This interview says it all. The comments

are basically indefensible. What can you say apart from it being locker

room banter. The real danger is the debate tonight, I think this could

be the most explosive debate we have ever seen in American politics.

Donald Trump is that only play is to drag Bill Clinton into this. He said

that Bill Clinton said worse things on the golf course. There is a great

phrase from Ronald Reagan on Gary Hart back in 1988 saying, boys

should be boys but boy should not be president either. I think tonight

you will see boys being boys again. Some Republicans are saying that

Donald Trump should be replaced by the governor of Indiana. The problem

is, the ballot papers have already been printed. 400,000 have already

voted in the election in early voting and, constitutionally, it is

by no means clear that you can, at this late stage, drop the top of the

ticket and replace him with somebody else. They have not been a great

deal of opposition research done on Mike pence. This is the same as with

Bernie Sanders. You do not know until you get into the heat of the

election. There are prominent Republicans saying that is an

option. It is extraordinary to think this is the point where people have

ditched him. There has been comment after comment and relating to the

fact he was already falling in the polls after the Republican National

Convention who was becoming within a whisker that he was catching up with

Hillary Clinton. Now he has tailed away four. A senior Republican said

to me, we have lost the White House and need to do what we can to hold

on to the Senate figures really badly, we could lose that as well.

It is very serious right now. For one who would like a Republican in

the White House and to us to retain the Senate, and Congress, it is

going to be worrying. As I said, we need to see what happens tonight and

then we are going to really know. Live from Saint Louis it will be on

the BBC News Channel at nine o'clock London time. Get in the popcorn and

maybe an extra bottle of Blue None! The Daily Politics will be back from

midday tomorrow. Remember, if it is Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.