30/10/2016 Sunday Politics Wales

Morning folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Theresa May says she wants to help people who are

"just about managing" - so should she reverse

George Osborne's cuts to benefits that are supposed to help people

Prominent London Imam Shakeel Begg is an extremist speaker,

says the High Court, after claims made on this programme.

So why is Mr Begg still being allowed to advise the Police?

Hillary Clinton fights back over the FBI's renewed investigation

into her use of a private email server - is this the boost

Donald Trump needed to reignite his chances of winning the White House?

The Minister answers criticism of a lack of action.

And the only Welsh member of Parliament's new Brexit

And the only Welsh member Now it is just a question of

building that runway with the political problems that lie ahead.

And haunting the studio on this Halloween weekend,

the most terrifying political panel in the business -

Tim 'Ghost' Shipman, 'Eerie' Isabel Oakeshott and

First this morning, two new models of car to be built,

securing 7,000 jobs at the car plant in Sunderland and a further 28,000

The news from Nissan on Thursday was seized on by Leave campaigners

as evidence that the British economy is in rude health

This morning, the Business Secretary, Greg Clark, was asked

what assurances were given to the Japanese firm's bosses

Well, it's in no-one's the interest for there to be tariff

barriers to the continent and vice versa.

So, what I said is that our objective would be to ensure that we

have continued access to the markets in Europe and vice versa, without

tariffs and without bureaucratic impediments.

That is how we will approach those negotiations.

We're joined now from Newcastle by the Shadow Business

Welcome to the programme. Labour has been a bit sceptical about this

Nissan decision. Can we begin by making it clear just what a great

achievement this is, above all for the workers of Sunderland who have

some of the highest productivity in the world, have never been on strike

for 30 years, and produce cars of incredible quality. This is their

victory, isn't it? Andrew, you are absolutely right. The Nissan plant

in Sunderland is among the most productive in the world. The workers

of Nissan are amongst the most productive as well. And it's really

a victory for them and for the trade unions and the business

organisations, and everybody who campaigned to make sure that the

government couldn't ignore their future. It's our future. I'm the MP

for Newcastle. It makes a huge difference to the region. We are a

region that still likes to make things that work. It is a huge part

of our advanced manufacturing sector. So it's really something we

welcome as well as the job security. I'm glad we have got that on the

record from the Labour shadow business secretary. But your Shadow

Chancellor, John McDonnell, claims the government is ignoring

manufacturers and cares only about a small banking elite. In what way is

safeguarding 30,000 industrial jobs in the North safeguarding a

financial elite? As I said, we're really pleased that the campaigning

by trade unions and the workforce, and business organisations, meant

the government felt they couldn't ignore Nissan workers. Let's also be

clear that we want that kind of job security for all of those working in

manufacturing and in other sectors as well. And sweetheart deals for

one company, no matter how important they are, that does not an

industrial strategy make. Why'd you say it is a sweetheart deal? Greg

Clark told the BBC this morning that what was assured to Nissan is an

assurance he gives to the whole industrial sector? I was really

pleased to see Greg Clark felt he had to say something, even though

it's sad that we having our industrial strategy, you like, or

our approach to Brexit delivered piecemeal to the media rather than

to the British people and Nissan, actually. But he want published the

letter. He said he has told us what is in the letter and that

reassurances given on training, on science and on supporting the supply

chain for the automated sector. You must be in favour all -- of all of

that? We are in favour of an industrial strategy. Greg Clark,

unlike Sajid Javid, cannot say industrial strategy. I'm still

puzzling to find out what it is you disagree with. Let me put the

question. You said the assurances he has given to Nissan are available to

the car manufacturing sector in general and indeed to industry in

general. What is your problem with that? Two things. Let him publish

the letter so we can see that, let him have the transparency he's

pretending to offer. But also, we need an industrial strategy that

values -- that is values based and joined. He talked about electric

cars and supporting green cars. That was in regard to Nissan. At the same

time the government has slashed support for other areas of green

technology. So what is it? That is not to do with the Nissan deal.

Labour implied at some stage there was some financial inducement, some

secret bribes, that doesn't seem to be the case. You are not claiming

that any more -- any more. Then you claimed it was a sweetheart deal for

one company. That turns out not to be the case. What criticism are you

left with on this Nissan deal? I would be really surprised if all

that Nissan got was the reassurances that Greg Clark is shared with us.

He didn't answer the question of what happens if we can't get

continued tariff free access to the single market, if we are not within

the single market or the Customs Union. Do you really think a

negotiator like Nissan, who are very good at negotiating, they would have

excepted making this significant investment without some further

reassurances? Do you think there is some kind of financial bride and if

so what is the evidence? I would like to see the letter published and

I would also like to understand what would happen... There are 27

countries which need to agree with the deal we have from Brexit. What

will Nissan, how will Nissan remain competitive? How will the automotive

industry remain competitive? Greg Clark says he reassured them on

that. But how will that be so if we do not get access? We haven't heard

anything about that. He talks about reassurances given to Nissan. We

need to make -- to know where we're going to make sure Brexit is in the

interest of all workers, not only those who work for a Nissan and not

only those who can get the attention of Greg Clark. He assured Nissan

that Britain would remain a competitive place to do business.

That was the main assurance he gave them. He would help with skills and

infrastructure and all the rest. Since you are -- intend to repeal

the trade union laws that have made strikes in Britain largely a thing

of the past, and you plan to raise corporation tax, you couldn't give

Nissan the same assurance, could you? We could absolutely give Nissan

the assurance that we will be, our vision of the future of the UK, is

based on having a strong manufacturing sector. Repealing

trade union laws? As we have seen at Nissan, the industrial sector is

dependent on having highly trained, well skilled workers. -- highly

skilled, well-trained. You don't have that by getting -- having an

aggressive policy and trade union laws or by slashing corporation tax

and not supporting manufacturing investment. Remember, the last

government took away the Manufacturing allowances which

supported Manufacturing and slashed corporation tax. That is their

solution. It is a low tax, low skill economy they want.

Thank you. Sorry I had to rush you. I'm grateful for you joining us.

I'm still struggling to see what is left of Labour's criticism? Yeah,

except for this. This was a valid point she just made. What we know

for sure is that Greg Clark could say to Nissan, my aim is to get

tariff free deal. There is no way he could guarantee that. None of us

know that. I don't think that was enough. I think clearly there was a

more detailed package involving training and other things. He has

acknowledged this, albeit we do not know the precise mechanism. What I

think is interesting about this is if you reverse what happened this

week, at a time when the government says Britain is open for business

and it is going to have an industrial strategy, so far it is a

bit vaguely defined. Nissan hadn't made this commitment. Imagine what

would have happened? It is an impossible scenario. The government

seems to me was obliged to make sure this didn't happen. Let's not forget

Nissan has invested hundreds of millions in the north-east. It has

been a huge success story. When I spoke to workers from Nissan, they

were so proud because they went to Japan to teach the Japanese had to

be more productive. The idea that Nissan was just going to walk away

from this given its track record, its importance, wasn't really

credible. The government had some bargaining chips. Absolutely, of

course they weren't going to walk away. The majority of people in the

area in which Nissan is braced -- based, voted for Brexit. Nissan

knows it is in a powerful position because it is an emotive sector.

Clearly the government didn't want to have some big showdown. I

honestly don't think this is a smoking gun. The Labour Shadow

minister really struggled to articulate what exactly she thinks

the government is hiding. I think the reassurances were given were

pretty anodyne, really. They were anodyne and general. And what Greg

Clark was setting out was an objective and he made the right

noises, and Nissan exercised its right to sabre rattle. It does have

a history of doing that. The one thing that would now be clear given

Greg Clark's performance this morning on the BBC, is that if we

were to discover some kind of financial incentive directly linked

to this investment, not more for skills or infrastructure, that is

fine, but some direct financial investment, compensation for

tariffs, which would be illegal under World Trade Organisation

rules, what you might call a financial bride, the sect -- the

business Secretary's position would be untenable? He would be in a very

difficult position indeed. Just released the letter. There is

nothing to hide. Put it out there. The most revealing thing is that

people are getting wildly excited about the fact Greg Clark announced

Britain's negotiating position would be that we would like tariff free

trade with Europe. This is regarded as an insight into what this comment

is doing and it says a great deal about how little we have been told

in Parliament and the media about what they are up. Do you think it is

exciting we are going for tariff free trade? We're easily excited

these days. We don't know. This is where these things are at such a

tentative phase. We don't know how the rest of the European Union is

going to respond to Britain's negotiating hand. We know Britain

once the best of everything, please. It is a starting point. But that is

not how it is going to end up. We are getting wider than that. We have

will have to see. Now, Universal Credit,

a single payment made to welfare claimants that would roll together

a plethora of benefits whilst encouraging people into work

by making work pay. But have cuts to the flagship

welfare scheme reduced work incentives and hit the incomes

of the least well-off? Well, some of the government's

own MPs think so, and, as Mark Lobel reports,

want the cuts reversed. Theresa May says she wants

a country that works for everyone, that's on the side

of ordinary, working people. It means never writing off people

who can work and consigning them to a life on benefits,

but giving them the chance to go out and earn a living and to enjoy

the dignity that comes But now some in her party

are worried that the low earners will be hit by changes

to Universal Credit benefit system originally set up to encourage

more people into work. We also need to focus tax credits

and Universal Credit Concern centred on the Government's

decision in the July 2015 budget to find ?3 billion worth of savings

from the Universal Credit bill. Conservative MP Heidi Allen

is working on a campaign to get MPs in her party to urge

the Prime Minister to think again. I want her to understand for herself

what the outcomes might be if we press ahead

with the Universal Credit, Do you think Theresa May, right now,

understands what you understand? To be fair, unless you really

get into the detail, and I have through my work

on the Work and Pensions Select Committee, I don't

think anybody does. Independent economic analysts

at the IFS agree with Heidi Alan that cuts to Universal Credit weaken

incentives to work. One of the key parts

of the Universal Credit system That is how much you can

earn before your credit As the Government has

sought to save money, both under the Coalition and now

they Conservative Government, both under the Coalition and now

the Conservative Government, that work allowance has been cut,

time and time again. The biggest cuts happened

in the summer budget of 2015. That basically reduces the amount

of earnings you get to keep It weakens the incentive people have

to move into work. What do changes to the Universal

Credit system mean? The Resolution Foundation think-tank

has crunched the numbers. If you compare what would have

happened before the July 2015 summer budget to what will happen by 2020,

even if you take into account gains in the National Living Wage

and income tax cuts, recipients will be hit

by annual deductions. Couples and parents would receive,

on average, ?1000 less. A dual-earning couple with two

children under four, with one partner working full-time

on ?10.50 an hour and the other working part-time on the minimum

wage for around 20 hours a week, they would

receive ?1800 less. Hit most by the changes

would be a single parent with a child under four,

working full-time I think, if I'm honest,

it is unrealistic, given the economic climate,

to expect everything to be reversed. What I would like to see

is an increase in the work allowances to those people

who will be hardest hit. That is single parents and second

earners hoping to return to work, because they are the people we need

to absolutely make The Sunday Politics understands that

about 15 to 20 Conservative MPs are pushing for changes ahead

of the Autumn Statement. A former cabinet minister told us

that they believed further impact analysis should be done to find out

if any mitigation measures Former Work and Pensions Secretary

Iain Duncan Smith, an architect of the system, now says

the cuts should be reversed. But his former department has told

us that it has no plans to revisit the work allowance changes announced

in the budget last year. What I would say to Heidi Allen

and IDS, they got it right the first time and they should stick

to the vote they cast last year, because these reforms actually

do make sense. What interests me is the fact

we are trying to move people off welfare into work,

we are raising the wages people earn by massively increasing

the minimum wage and this People are coming off

welfare and into work. Campaigners are pushing for savings

to come from other areas to relieve The other thing we have to start

looking at is the triple Financially it has been a great

policy, and it was absolutely right that we lifted pensioners

who were significantly behind, for many years, in terms of income

levels, but they have I think it is time for us to look

at that policy again, because is costing us an awful

lot of money. With just over three weeks to wait

until the Conservative leadership's new economic plan is unveiled

in the Autumn Statement, its top team is under pressure

from within its own ranks to use it And I'm joined now by former Work

and Pensions Secretary, Welcome back to the programme.

Theresa May said she is on the side of the just managing, the working

poor. But they are about to be hit from all sides. Their modest living

standards are going to be squeezed as inflation overtakes pay rises,

they will be further squeezed because top-up benefits in work are

frozen. Incentives to work are going to be reduced by the cuts in

universal benefits. So much for being on the side of those just

managing? Theresa was right to focus on this group. The definition has to

be the bottom half, in economic terms, of the social structure. It

doesn't look good for them? This is the point I am making, it is an

opportunity to put some of this right. One of the reasons I resigned

in March is because I felt the direction of travel we had been

going in had been to take far too much money out of that group of

people when there are other areas which, if you need to make some of

those savings, you can. The key bit is that the group needs to be helped

through into work and encouraged to stay in work. There was a report

done with the IFS, when we were there, at Universal Credit. It said

Universal Credit rolled out, as it should have been before the cuts,

people would be much more likely to stay in work longer and earn more

money. It is a net positive, but that is now called into question.

Let's unpick some of the detail, but first, do you accept the words of

David Willets? It says on the basis of the things I read out to you that

the just managing face a significant and painful cut in real terms if we

continue on the way we are going. I do, in essence. That is the reason

why I resigned. I felt Heidi raised that issue as well, that we got the

balance wrong. It is right that pensioners get to a certain point,

when they are on a level par, doing the right thing over five years.

Staying with that process has cost us ?18 billion extra this year, in

total. It will go on costing another 5 billion. Then there is the issue

of tax allowances. I want to remind you and viewers what David Cameron

told the Conservative conference in 2009. If you are a single mother

with two children, earning ?150 a week, the withdrawal of your

benefits and the additional taxes that you pay me on that for every

extra you earn, you keep just 4p. What kind of incentive is that? 30

years ago, this party won and election fighting against 98% tax

rates for the Rex richest. I want us today to show even more anger about

96% tax rates for the very poorest in our country. Real anger, and

effective rate of over 90%. Universal Credit reduces that. Some

will still face, as they lose benefits and pay tax, a marginal

rate of over 75%. That is still too high? Yes, it is the collision

between those going into work at the moment they start paying tax. A

racial Universal Credit is set at 65%. You can call that the base

marginal tax rate. 1.2 million will face 75%? That is the point about

why the allowances are so important. The point about the allowances which

viewers might not fully understand is that it was set, as part of

Universal Credit, to allow you to get certain people, with certain

difficulties, as they cross into work, to retain more benefit before

it is tapered away as they go up in hours. A lone parent, who might have

various issues, you want her to have a bigger incentive than a single

person that does not have the same commitments. It is structured so

that somebody who has difficulty going to work, they all have

slightly different rates. What happened is that last year a

decision was taken to reduce tax credits, and, on the back of that,

to reduce allowances. I believe, given everything that happened now,

we need to restore that to the point where it helps those people crossing

over. You say a decision was taken, it was a decision by the former

Chancellor George Osborne in the summer budget. Other decisions were

taken in successive Budgets to raise the Universal Credit budget, which

resulted in the disincentive being higher than many people wanted. Do

you accept that has been the consequence of his decisions? I was

in the Government, we take collective responsibility. I argued

this was not the right way to go, but when you are in you have to stay

with it if you lose that argument. There was another attempt before the

spending review last year to increase the taper, so the marginal

rate would have gone up. I managed to stop that. I'm Sibley saying,

what we made as a decision last year, given the circumstances and

given that the net effect of all of that, I think it is time for the

Government to ask the question, if we are in this to help that group of

people, Universal Credit is singularly the most powerful tool.

One of the Argentine aid in the paper published on Thursday, we are

set going on doing two more races of the tax threshold, taking more

people out of tax. That has a diminishing effect on the bottom

section. Only 25p in that tax rate will help any of those. Most of it

goes to middle income? You and I will benefit more from that. With

Universal Credit, every pound you put into that will go to the bottom

five tenths. That is why I designed it like that. He pressed the button

and immediately start to changed circumstances. Should the cuts in

Universal Credit that Mr Osborne introduced, against your argument,

should they be reversed? I believe so. I believe you can do it even if

there is concern about spending. I don't believe you need to go through

with the continuing raise the tax threshold. Cost is dependent on

inflation, but give or take. It is in the Tory manifesto? Has more than

doubled. What is in the manifesto, and Lasse Prime Minister made this

clear in conference, we want to improve the life chances of people.

Today's announcement on the Green paper is what I wrote over the last

two and a half years. Big changes necessary to how we deal with

sickness benefit. That can now be done because of Universal Credit,

because people can go back to work and it tapers away their benefits.

It is the most powerful tool to sort our people that live in poverty,

Universal Credit. We need to make sure it lands positively. If Mr

Osborne's cuts were reversed, what you and some of your backbench Tory

colleagues want to do, how would that improve the incentives of the

working poor, as they try to get on in life? They have to pay more tax,

they lose some benefits. How would it improve it? Would many still face

a 75% rate? The key question is, first and foremost, as people move

through income to the point where they are getting taxed, that group

will be enormously benefited by the re-emergence of these allowances at

the right level. That is what the IFS have said, that is what the

Resolution Foundation are saying, and the Centre For Social Justice is

saying. You have to get that group, because they are most likely to be

drifting into poverty and less incomes are right. Would it help

those who face a 75% margin? We don't face that. Exactly right.

People much poorer than us do. I would love to get the marginal rate

down to testify percent, and lower,. -- down to 65%. It is a balance of

how you spend the money. I would prefer to do that rather than

necessarily go ahead with threshold razors. I think the coronation of

the marginal reduction of 65%, getting it down to 60%, plus more

allowances, will allow Universal Credit to get to the group that is

going to be, and the report written by the IFS and ourselves, it shows

it is going to be the most dynamic and direct ability of a Government

to be able to influence the way that people improve their incomes in the

bottom five deciles. Would you take on extra work if you knew you were

going to lose 75% of it? Even 65%? This has been my argument all along.

Universal Credit can help that enormously. One point that goes

missing, 70% of the bottom five deciles will be on Universal Credit.

Whatever change you make to Universal Credit has a dramatic and

immediate effect I am arguing, genuinely, it is time to rethink

this. The Prime Minister wants to make this a priority. I am

completely with her on this. I think she made a really good start. To

deliver this, we need to... You have a lot of work to do to deliver it.

Because it is a manifesto commitment, or because they want to

do it, stopping increasing the personal allowances are not

acceptable, what about bringing to an end, by the end of the

parliament, the pension triple lock that pensioners enjoy to improve and

put more money to the working poor? What about that? Well, you are

absolutely right that there is now the danger, I think, of a mess

balance between the generations. Quite rightly at the beginning, when

we came in, we have a commitment as a Conservative Party in a manifesto

to get pensions back onto earnings. It was moved to a triple lock that

guaranteed a minimum. What about ending up now? I understand it is a

promise through the Parliament, but after 2020? I am in favour of

getting it back to innings and allowing it to rise at reasonable

levels. Moving from earnings to the triple lock has cost ?18 billion

this year. Here was a high, under pressure, as the Government was

scratching around to pay more money out of working age areas, when the

budget was almost out of control on the pension side. I'm in favour of

helping pensioners, but now they are up to a reasonable level, at a

steady rate, that can be afforded by Government, which takes the pressure

off, working age people have to pay for that. In years to come, time to

end the triple lock and use the savings to help these

people we have been talking about? As part of a load of packages, yes.

It would also help with the intergenerational fairness argument.

Thank you for being with us. Now, a prominent London Imam

called Shakeel Begg - who is Chief Imam the Lewisham

Islamic Centre - is an extremist. That was the verdict of the judge

in a libel action that Mr Begg took against the BBC, after we described

him as an Islamic extremist Mr Begg had complained about a short

segment in an interview in November 2013 with Farooq Murad,

the then head of the Muslim Council of Britain, an organisation

which claims to represent British In that interview, we described

Mr Begg as an extremist speaker who had hailed jihad

is the greatest of deeds. From his base of the Lewisham

Islamic Centre, Mr Begg has been involved in a number of community

organisations, including the Police Independent

Advisory Group in Lewisham, Lewisham Council's Advisory Council

on Religious Education and as a volunteer chaplain

at Lewisham Hospital. But in his judgment,

Mr Justice Haddon-Cave called Mr Begg a Jekyll and Hyde character

- a trusted figure in his local community, but when talking

to predominantly Muslim audiences he shed the cloak of respectability

and revealed the horns of extremism. The judge cited one speech made

by Mr Begg at a rally outside Belmarsh Prisonm-

the high security prison that houses terrorists -

as particularly sinister. The judge said the imam

was expressing admiration and praise Following Friday's judgment,

the hospital trust have told us that Mr Begg's status as a voluntary

chaplain has been terminated. We have been told by

Lewisham Council he is no longer on their Religious

Education Committee. The Metropolitan Police

have confirmed that Mr Begg remains a member

of their Independent Advisory Group in Lewisham, as well as

the borough's faith group. I am joined by Haras Rafiq, chief

executive of the Quilliam Foundation. Welcome to the

programme. I have here in my hand a statement from the trustees of the

Lewisham Islamic Centre. They reject the judge's ruling as fanciful and

say they are unequivocal and unwavering in their support of

Shakeel Begg as their head imam. What do you make of that? To be

honest, it doesn't surprise me. At the end of the day he is only the

imam of that mosque because he belongs to the same theological

fundamentalist views that the mosque would portray. If they were to say

he was an extremist, they would be saying in fact that they have

allowed extremist preaching and extremist theology within their

walls. I think this is a very important decision and a very

important judgment by the judge. First of all, these people like to

operate in a linear, under a veneer of respectability. When that veneer

is taken away, there are a number of things that can happen. First of

all, the BBC did very well to stand by their guns and say, we're not

going to be intimidated by somebody who is threatening to taking -- to

take us to court for potential libel. Many other media companies

have done that in the past and people have capitulated. Also, this

has exposed him. Legally now, here's some deal can be classified as an

extremist preacher, somebody who promotes religious violence. I think

the mosque really needs to take a step back and say, how we part of

the problem that we are facing within society? Or are we going to

be part of the solution? It really concerns me. The High Court judge

says that Mr Begg's speeches were consistent with an extremist

Salafist is the most worldview. What is Salafist is and how widespread is

it in UK mosques? -- mosque. It comes from the Middle East. It is

from Saudi Arabia. The enemy for them was the old colonial Ottoman

Empire. There is the quiet Salafist to get some with their lives, lives

outside society. There is a revolutionary who tries to convert

other people to their worldview. And then there is the Salafist jihad

ease. People like Islamic State etc. We have seen of increased in recent

decades because of money that has, growing from the Middle East. When

that is mixed with a political ideology, it becomes potent. Do we

have a political -- particular problem in Britain with this in our

mosques? Absolutely. Without the theology that says hate the other,

hate other Muslims, that excommunicate other people, that

says it is OK to fight and is good to fight when you have got an enemy,

we wouldn't really have a jihadi problem. Really that is something we

have to tackle. The number of mosques and institutions supporting

Salafist and Islam is has been on the increase. Do we have a problem

with what the judge called Jekyll and Hyde characters who hide their

extremism except when they are speaking to specific groups?

Absolutely. One of the things we have focused on in the past, a

number of hate preachers now in prison, people like Anjem Choudary,

and everybody focused on them. But there is a range of people operating

under that level. People who will show one face to the community

because they actually need that for a respectability. They need that for

a legitimacy. They need that to operate. When they are behind closed

doors and talking to their constitution, that is when you will

see the real face of what these people believe. It is an increasing

phenomenon. We are seeing it more. And we're going to carry on seeing

it. Not just has the Lewisham mosque stuck by him, but given the clarity

of the judge's ruling, are you surprised that the Metropolitan

police would wish to continue with Mr Begg as an adviser? I'm

absolutely shocked that that decision. What Uzzy going to do?

Advise them on how to deal with extremist preachers and promote

religiously motivated violence? I don't know what he's going to advise

them on. Because we now have a judge that has ruled against him and

actually classified him as an extremist and somebody who promotes

religious violence, we actually have a possibility for the CPS to

actually prosecute him. There is a law that has been in place since

2005 called religiously motivated violence. If he has been classified

as somebody who promotes this, there is a potential for the CPS to

prosecute. I want to called into question other organisations,

interfaith organisations, other Muslims groups, who say they want to

fight extremism, I call on them to say, this guy is an extremist

preacher, we should cut our ties from him. This was a very high risk

strategy by the BBC. The exposure could have been over ?1.5 million of

licence payers money. Will this make it more difficult for Jekyll and

Hyde characters to behave as Mr Begg has behaved? Absolutely. It will do.

One of the things they will now have to make sure is that they are a lot

more careful. Careful with what they say to their own constituency. It

won't solve the theological problem. But it will actually stop other

people from operating in this manner and allow other media organisations

to have the confidence to expose them when they do. Haras Rafiq,

thank you for joining us. It's just gone 11.35,

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

in Scotland, who leave us now Coming up here in 20 minutes,

the Week Ahead. Hello and welcome to

the Sunday Politics Wales. In a few minutes, the former head

of a teaching union tells us what needs to be done

about education here, and the only Welsh member

of the Commons Brexit Committee tells us how he's going to use his

new role. But first, do we need

legislation to make sure people in Wales who have autism

get the help they need? The opposition parties think so,

but the Minister responsible says First, James Williams has been

talking to one family who live Half-term fun for these children

at the special needs action Among them, four-year-old Mason

and six-year-old Logan, two brothers from Swansea whose

autism means they don't speak. Logan was two years

old when he was diagnosed. I knew from a very, very young age

that he was autistic, And the same with Mason,

it was just very obvious. You literally get a diagnosis

and you get handed a book, 'this is autism,' and sent

on your way with nothing, You see all the differences

in your child and then you see other people's children and think,

my kid should be doing Mason and Logan are two

of an estimated 34,000 children and adults in Wales who have autism,

a lifelong developmental disability that affects how people perceive

the world and interact with others. It is a condition that affects

a wider community of around 136,000, including families and carers,

all with very different experiences. In Wales at the moment it's

currently a postcode lottery, It depends where you live

as to what services you can access So whereas in Swansea, for most,

the diagnosis process is very good, in places like Carmarthenshire,

Bridgend, they're just seriously lacking or there are delays,

years and years of waiting. And it's because of that patchy

provision Louise and other campaigners came here to the Senedd

a few weeks ago to hear a debate calling on the Welsh Government

to introduce a law that would specifically guarantee

the rights of autistic people. If this vote is not unanimous,

then there are members in this chamber who should

hold their heads in shame. We will be here in six months' time,

in 12 months' time, and in 18 months' time to make sure

that this eventually happens. The introduction of an autism bill

was included in every party's manifesto for May's Assembly

election, apart from Labour, whose AMs, along with

Liberal Democrat Kirsty Williams, who's now a member of

the Welsh Government, voted against it

in the Senedd debate. At the end of 2014 we had a meeting

of the cross-party autism group in the Assembly with representatives

of people with autism, autism communities and

National Autistic Society branches and groups,

which is member-led, from across Wales, and every one

of them got up and explained how hopeful they had been

when the strategy was launched, why it hadn't worked for them,

and why they were now The strategy he is referring

to was launched by the Welsh Government back in 2008,

the first of its kind in the UK. Since then, an Autism Act has been

introduced in both England and Northern Ireland,

and campaigners say it's time Ultimately, we've had the strategy

since 2008, people are still not getting the right services,

they're not getting the right And remember, when the strategy

was published in 2008, the National Assembly

for Wales couldn't legislate. It now can, it's now got

those legislative levers. Some in Labour argue that

if you introduce an act for autism then why not introduce an act

for other conditions as well? The difference is that autism

is a condition in its own right, so if you look at the way social

services are set up, you have a learning disability team

and you have a mental health team, and autism is neither of those,

so what tends to happen is that autistic people fall down the gap,

and it's about giving autism a statutory identity so that

that doesn't happen. Ultimately, whether it's

a strategy or an act, it's about ensuring that Mason,

Logan and others with autism get When I spoke to the Minister,

Rebecca Evans, I began by asking her why she didn't

want to have an Autism Act. I think the most important thing

to remember at the moment is actually we are keeping an open

mind as to whether there is a need for a specific piece of legislation

for autism in the future. But at the moment it's actually

a really exciting time in terms of the services and support

that we offer people with autism in Wales because we have the Social

Services And Well-being Act, just six months old,

and that's intended to transform the way we deliver services

and support for people who have care and support needs,

whatever their condition might be. But the problem we've

heard with that is it looks at the health side,

the social services side, but it's not really a joined-up

piece of legislation, it doesn't look at the education

needs of people with social services I guess those gaps are where

the problems will lie, I suppose? We intend to close those gaps

with our new national integrated autism service,

and that brings together health, social care, but also education

and support to find employment, for example, and it will take

a holistic look at the needs But then, a service doesn't put any

concrete guarantees for people If it was an Act, then it would be

statutory, councils would have Surely that's a stronger way

of going about this? We've taken a look at the proposed

autism bill and also the Autism Act which is in place over

the border in England, and there's nothing in either

the bill or the Act across the border which actually

we're not either delivering now or don't have powers to deliver,

so in that sense we prefer to get on with the action of delivering

for people with autism rather than creating more legislation

when actually we're keen But the people using these services

are saying they have to wait seven years in some examples

just for a diagnosis We're hearing of some councils that

don't even know how many people have Those are the kinds

of things essential, needed to provide services,

which simply aren't there, which an Act would be able

to force them to provide. We're creating a new diagnostic

system for children with autism in Wales, and by March 2017 children

shouldn't be waiting more than 26 weeks for an assessment,

and that's backed up by ?2 million But they are, they are waiting,

people will be falling Why not just have a piece

of legislation which will be muscular in achieving the objectives

of providing services The integrated autism service places

a need on a local authority to assess the number of people with

autism in that area. I think it's also really

important to remember as well that we are constantly monitoring

implementation of both the Act and our national

integrated autism services, in particular with the integrated

autism service we are involving people with autism themselves

in that piece of work. That work will look at whether there

are gaps that need to be addressed by a new bespoke piece

of legislation as well, So what will that

bespoke legislation be? You're talking about filling

the gaps, almost anticipating that there will be problems rather

than going straight to the answer, I think what we have in place

is actually really competitive in terms of the Act,

the national integrated autism service, the new work we are doing

on additional learning needs in schools and a new learning

with autism programme as well, which has early years intervention,

extra support for parents coming on board as well, so I do feel

we have a comprehensive package. However, we are keeping that

open mind to explore whether people with autism tell us

that there are gaps in services and we will obviously work

with them to close it. But the people who work

with the people who have autism, the National Autism Society Cymru,

say the Act is needed, They are the ones talking

to the people day in, day out that need the services,

highlighting the problems. We work closely with

the National Autistic Society and a number of other charities

representing people with autism and we also listen to people

affected by autism as well and their families, their carers,

professionals working We take on board those ideas

and particularly with our refreshed action plan, that is a result

of listening to people with autism. We had 76 responses to our

consultation talking about things like need

for improved diagnosis times, need for improvement in education,

and we are dealing with those things in our refreshed autism plan,

that is a result of listening In terms of having an Autism Act

or not, it seems to be you are saying the door is open,

you want to see how the current legislation may or may not work

and if it doesn't work then you might have an Act,

is that a fair portrayal Absolutely, the door is very much

open and we have everything However, as I say, the Act

and the integrated autism service are both major things in terms

of delivering for people with autism and they are only six months old,

so we need to give them the chance in six months, 12 months, 18 months'

time, how confident are you that they will have led to those

improvements? I am confident that the improvements

will be put in place because we've developed this very much in terms

of listening to people with autism and what they need,

spotting the problems that are there and working to deal

with those problems, so I'm confident that

what we have in place now will lead Rebecca Evans speaking to me a few

moments ago. Wales gained a new voice

on Brexit this week. Plaid Cymru's Jonathan Edwards

is the only Welsh MP on the Commons Committee

which will scrutinise ministers Thank you very much for coming in,

bore da. How do you see your role on the committee, are you Plaid Cymru's

voice on the committee or do you think you are a cross-party Welsh

voice on the committee? Let me first state delighted there will be this

committee, one of the first thing we called for in the aftermath of the

referendum was the creation of a Brexit ministry, the Secretary of

State responsible for the huge undertaking that now faces politics

in the United Kingdom and in Wales, the former Prime Minister of course

wanted to create a unit in Downing Street to deal with this. The

benefit of having a department, a specific department, is that huge

civil service resource needed to undertake this task but also if

there is a department and Secretary of State it leads to the creation of

a select committee to scrutinise their work and we were delighted

when that happened, we made the case strongly that every party in

parliament should have a role on that Select Committee, and I'm

delighted that the Leader of the House of Commons has agreed to that

request and ensured that Plaid Cymru now has a representative. My initial

role is to represent Plaid Cymru but I'm the only Welsh member on that

Select Committee, for me the interests of Wales or Plaid Cymru,

you cannot separate them, it is why Plaid Cymru exists. I would expect

that from a Plaid Cymru member! My point was, will you be taking

soundings and abuse from other MPs from other parties in Wales? Plaid

Cymru takes notice of all sorts of information and evidence, that is

the point of Select Committee, it is very detailed work, access from all

sorts of sources of information and making objective decisions. I'm not

going in there with a precondition mind but there seems to me to be

four key areas. Firstly the economy, we know the Welsh economy delivers a

huge trade surplus, the UK has a trade deficit. Around 200,000 jobs

in Wales are reliant on the single market and the economic activity it

creates. Second, the various financing and funding streams that

come to Wales from the European Union and whatever type of Brexit we

have will have an impact on those different funding and financing

sources. We had a very good debate in Westminster Hall led by Stephen

clinic talking about structural funding -- Stephen Kinnock, talking

about structural funding, money far higher education, financing for

Welsh infrastructure. But how difficult will it be to scrutinise

this Secretary of State David Davis on exiting the EU when we are told

there would be a running commentary? How willing for baby to engage with

you and therefore what purpose is therefore this committee? The

committee can summon whoever they want. But you cannot make them

answer the questions. All we have had from the UK Government, the

referendum happened four months ago, is Brexit means Brexit, the most

vacuous political statement I've ever heard in my political life

time, probably for a century. We need more answers than that and it

will be difficult for the Prime Minister and her three Brexiteers to

appear before a select committee as powerful as the one that has now

been set up by the House of Commons and try to reel off those sorts of

lines. I think the public will quickly grow

tired of that. Equally they might justify it by saying it is a

negotiation, why would we want to set out our plan and structure

before we have entered those negotiations? I think the public

deserve answers in terms of what are the principles... Sorry to

interrupt, perhaps the public would rather not have the answers but have

a better deal at the end of the process? That means giving your full

faith to the executive and I thought the whole point of the referendum

was to return sovereignty to the parliament and the assemblies and

parliaments across the United Kingdom. It seems that the

Government running from the executive undermines one of the key

arguments put forward by those who wanted to leave the European Union

in the first place. Talking on a Plaid Cymru point, you mentioned the

importance of remaining in the single market, you will have heard

this accusation before that you are eventually ignoring a large purpose

of the referendum, people in Wales and elsewhere saying immigration was

a problem and you can't doesn't really get to grips with immigration

whilst remaining a full member of the single market? Firstly the

referendum question was about leaving the political union and I

think the type of Brexit we will see is still up for grabs, and we are

fighting for the best economic interests of Wales and that means

being part of the single market. I'm sorry to interrupt, but before the

referendum we were told by David Cameron, George Osborne, Michael

Gove and George Osborne -- Boris Johnson that leaving the EU would

mean leaving the single market. That was not on the ballot paper, and in

that case the referendum should have been on leaving the economic union.

The one thing we have had from the UK Government is the fact that they

want to keep the Common travel area between the British state and

Republic of Ireland. I welcome that wholeheartedly but the Republic of

Ireland is in the European Union so if you are keeping the Common travel

area between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, it means

there is an open land border between the European Union and the British

state, so I think that shoot that point. I wish you all the best with

your role, hopefully you can come back and update us later on when you

know exactly what you will be doing. Thank you for joining us this

morning. education has been one of those

areas where we've seen big changes. A very different way

of teaching our youngest children, the Welsh bacc for older pupils,

and, for now at least a very different way

of looking at tuition fees. But there have been concerns, a

relative decline in standards compared

to the UK and internationally. So what's been going

on behind the scenes? One man who's had a front row

seat is Dr Phil Dixon - a former teaching union head who has

just written a book looking He is in the studio with me now.

Thank you for coming in. The book is cut into two pieces, before Carlin

and after that. Explain to me why you think that? I think you have

that period before Carwyn, you had Jane Davidson largely enjoyed for

about seven years comment telling us this was the Garden of Eden,

everything was wonderful, this was the place to be, Wales was world

leading, cutting-edge, then into that comes Leighton Andrews and his

own style in 2011, crashing into it all and saying, things aren't as

good as you have been told, and there is a very sharp reality check,

so you could save a deep is after Davidson and we have lived with that

ever since, and abrupt change of policy in the education system. We

have been trying to scrutinise ministers in the past, for example

the last education minister saying they took their eye off the ball in

the mid-2000s. They would not blame former colleagues and name names but

do you think when they talk about taking their eye off the ball they

are referring to that period? BC? I think so, I think some would go

further and say it was an own goal. It is a problem, we were virtually a

1-party state in those 16, 17 years. It is a question of trying I think

to set the record straight and that is what the book is trying to do,

said this is the record of Labour's time in Government, this is what the

Department has done, this is what has happened in Welsh education.

Some has been a great success but some of it has been a failure and

some are fiasco. One of the chapters refers to these international league

tests. Is it fair to say when Leighton Andrews came in in 2010,

2011, it was those set of results in 2011 causing alarm bells to go off

which led to the changes? I think so, but the mother started to

realise things were a bit wrong before that and there was a growing

consensus we were not in the Garden of Eden as was portrait was in the

opening decade of evolution, but the second set of results when Wales was

slipping further behind, that is what caused real concern. The third

set of results we stepped further behind again and we are awaiting,

with hope and a certain amount of fear, the last set which will come

out in December. The projection is not very promising on that from the

will hit and whispers we are hearing. You mention in the book it

is within the education department of the Welsh Government itself,

chronically unable to deliver. What is the problem? If you look, we make

judgments, rightly so, on individual teachers and we can see some of

those have been eased out, some headteachers have gone because they

were considered to be underperforming, six local

authorities were in special measures, but the ten, 12 years I

have been involved in education in Wales at this sort of level, the one

bit of system that has not changed is the Department for Education and

the test judgment is really a judgment on the regime at the

centre. It is not getting out coherent narrative, not delivering,

those judgments are being passed on. The Welsh governments put the

schools and councils in special measures, put the Welsh education

department in special measures, what happens then? I think Kirsty

Williams will have to look on the morning that the test results come

out and can either decide she wants more of the same, hand wringing and

saying, we will stick with what we have got. Or she will hopefully

listen to others and say, we need a complete change, and put the

department itself in special measures and get some outside help.

I don't think there is anything wrong in saying, we cannot solve

this alone, we need international, world leading help, but above all

not so much on policy development but delivery, that has been the

problem over the last 17 years, the delivery of Government policy. They

have invited the OECD to have a look at the policies of education but

what are you thinking of in terms of the education Department, who helps

them? I think you set up a recovery board, you get those who have got a

track record in other jurisdictions, United Kingdom, Scotland, Northern

Ireland, and I dare say from England, who can turn Government

departments around, world leading experts as well, some experts from

Wales, but they would not be the dominant ones and they would be

focused on delivering, how do you get these policies delivered on the

ground and focus these things, just as you would when you put a recovery

board into a local authority. I think we have got to be honest. If

the mood music, as you say, is right and the test results are bad, we

cannot say, let's put more effort into it, we have to look again. So

you suggest maybe a lot of the current policies are correct but it

is the weakness in the chain coming from the Welsh Government itself?

Exactly, if you look at some of the successes, say as the foundation

phase, which has been a great success, at certain stages when we

set about trying to measure the performance, when we looked at the

proper funding needed, the wheels nearly came up. It is only because

people like myself and other unions and headteachers screamed loud

enough that we managed to avert disaster on that, and I think the

culture in the department has to change and has to become one that is

listening to those who are trying, at the end of the day, to be

critical friends. Thank you for your time and for coming in

critical friends. Thank you for your time and for coming in

Barely more than a week now until polling day,

and a new revelation rocks the US Presidential election campaign.

If it wasn't bizarre enough, it just got more bizarre.

The FBI have reopened their investigation into Hillary Clinton's

use of private email servers whilst she was Secretary

of State, after the discovery of further emails.

Though not on her laptop or even the State Department.

Donald Trump is saying that it's bigger than Watergate -

so could it swing the election in his favour?

We spoke to top US pollster, Frank Luntz.

The FBI investigation is happening so late in the election process

that it would be very difficult to derail a Clinton victory.

That said, if there is one thing that could keep Hillary Clinton

from the presidency, it's an FBI investigation.

But there's still only four states that really matter, Florida, Ohio,

Right now, Clinton has beyond the margin of error leads

This would have to have a truly significant impact for the election

There is a point about a week ago when I was prepared to say that

Clinton had a 95% chance of winning this election.

Based on what has happened in the last 48 hours,

It is still very likely, but I wouldn't bet on it.

I thought the 2000 election would be the best election of my lifetime,

And then I thought 2008 would be amazing, because we had two

challenger candidates and the first African-American President.

It is ugly, it's painful, it is as negative as anything

The public is angry, the country, overall, is frustrated.

But for entertainment value, these candidates probably should

have charged us money, because it's better than any movie

at ever seen, it's better than any TV show.

That was Frank Luntz. He may be right or wrong about Mrs Clinton

still having an 80% chance of winning. I would bet on an 80%

chance? Yes, absolutely. I spoke to a high-profile American pollster and

strategist last night and he took a rather different view to Frank

Luntz. He thought, and I think some other high-profile commentators

agree, that this is actually much more serious than some people

realise. There are an awful lot of undecided voters out there looking

for an excuse to vote Trump. They do not like what they see in either

candidate. But because this FBI probe is not going to conclude

before the election, the question, the doubt over Hillary Clinton,

gives them an excuse to back Trump. The thing that will play on the

minds of the voters is, could the 100 day honeymoon turning to the 100

day divorce? Which even be impeached? It may give some people

an excuse not to vote for Mrs Clinton. It could provide a problem

in terms of energising her base. The battle ground almost matters more

than the polls. Florida and Pennsylvania have been trending to

Mrs Clinton. Mr Trump needs to win both. He does not get in without

both. He needs both. Just coming up in the latest BBC News, the

Washington Post tracking poll, Mrs Clinton is now only one point ahead

in the national poll. One point. Even given my caveat that the state

battles are most important. That is incredibly close? It is. Polls

yesterday showed Trump nationally closing of. -- up. There is a clear

trend and movement. This has reinforced everything that people

who have a problem with Hillary Clinton know about Hillary Clinton.

Trump is running this insurgent campaign. We have seen at here with

Brexit. If you are running an insurgent campaign, you want to be

against the ultimate establishment insider and that is what Hillary

Clinton is. I suggested it was bizarre. Fathoming the behaviour of

the FBI is interesting as well. This is a separate investigation into a

former congressman, Anthony Wiener, who had done all sorts of things. He

seemed to be sex text thing a minor. A 15-year-old girl. The FBI

investigate. They get his laptop to see what else he has been too. In

the course of that, his wife, now separated, the closest adviser to

Hillary Clinton, they find on the laptop e-mails involving the Clinton

server to her. And yet the FBI cannot, it needs now a separate

warrant to access these e-mails. It hasn't got that yet. It has got a

warrant to do the congressman e-mails. On the basis of not knowing

the content, this has happened. Yeah. Who knows? He is a Republican,

this guy. Earlier this year he was being praised to the hilt by

Democrats. Absolutely. The timing is a nightmare for her. You described

the whole sequence. There is nothing definitive to doubt in this

sequence. All he is saying is he has discovered more e-mails in effect.

They are from the congressman's former wife. On Anthony Wiener's

laptop, which apparently she used sometimes. But what that shows is

that for all the scrutiny of modern politicians, they cannot escape

caricature. And as Tim was just saying, her weakness is perceived to

be secretive, elitism and complacency about that elitism. And

so just the announcement of a reopening of the investigation so

fuels that caricature, you have just revealed a poll giving her a 1%

lead. That must be related to what has happened. It is without a shred

of evidence that she has done anything wrong. You can see how,

because people only see things encourage kids, that is deadly

serious. -- in caricature. An American friend of mine said we have

got our October surprise but we don't know what it is. The FBI must

surely come under massive pressure. It did its -- it did this against

the Justice Department. The difficulty the FBI had was that this

information, for what it's worth, it came to them. Were they not to have

said something and it worked to have come out later, they would have been

accused of a massive cover-up. They are dammed if they do, dammed if

they don't. There is still time for another surprise. And early November

surprise. Who knows if there might still be something that comes out on

Donald Trump? This is the first election where I can remember we

have had two October surprises already. There are is stuff about

tapes knocking around about Donald Trump saying racist things. The

Clintons have got a lot of friends. It would be a big surprise if we did

not see anything else in the next few days.

Just when you think it could not get more interesting, it has. There has

been plenty in the papers lately about the Ukip leadership saying

unpleasant things about each other. But what about Mr Farage himself?

What's he up to? Well, on BBC Two tonight we may

find out the answer. Well, I'm led to believe

she's very experienced. But I don't think Strictly Come

Dancing is for me. That is, unless, of course,

you fancy popping a cheeky zero No, I don't think Strictly

Come Dancing is for me. Well, you tell Mr Balls he has just

lost your programme one viewer. I might have nothing to do these

days but, realistically, Well, that wasn't Nigel Farage. It

is a BBC comedy on tonight. Nigel Farage gets his life back. A number

of runners and riders. Let's come straight down to it. Who would be

the next leader of Ukip? Probably Paul Nuttall. He is the favourite.

The one who has the backing, not very enthusiastic backing, is Rahim

Cassandra. And also Aaron Banks, a big donor. The best of a rather weak

lot. I think Paul Nuttall should squeak through. I interviewed all

three of them this week. Mr Cassandra is a lively character and

he knows how to make a few headlines. With a bit of money

behind him, anything is possible. This is a guy who has been to the

States, who has literally studied what Trump has done. Pees on

secondment for the time being. The guy who is his line manager is one

of Donald Trump's campaign stop. He is extraordinarily right-wing. I am

told he kept a picture of Enoch Powell by his bed. Barry Goldwater

is one of his heroes, for example. There are other candidates. I would

suggest, put out as a hypothesis, Paul Nuttall is Labour's worst

nightmare. They are more vulnerable in the North. Paul Nuttall is from

Merseyside, a working-class background, performs well on

television. He is a really good interviewee. He is one of the best

around in politics at the moment. However, I think whoever gets it has

a massive task. The clip of this Nigel Farage satire partly shows

why. His dominance was overwhelming. He, in many ways, did a brilliant

job at keeping the show on the road. The trouble for all new political

parties is keeping it going is tough. A very different party, the

SDP, with all those glamorous figures in it, lasted eight years,

something like that. I think they are in real trouble at the moment

because of the implosion we have been seeing in front of our eyes and

the ideal -- ideological splits. Whoever gets it will face a tough

tussle. All three of the main contenders want to put Nigel Farage

in the House of Lords. They were falling over themselves to soak up

two farads. That is how you win this election.

Mr Aaron Banks, who is he putting his money on? He said he supports

Rahim. I know Mr Banks is utterly fed with the shenanigans in Ukip. He

thinks it is terribly disorganised, dysfunctional and doesn't want a

great deal to do with it for the foreseeable future.

It is not quite Trump the Clinton but it is interesting. That is it.

The Daily Politics is back tomorrow. And all of next week. Jo Coburn will

be your next Sunday because I am off to the United States to begin to

rehearse presenting the BBC's US election night coverage on the 8th

of November. It will be here on BBC One, BBC

world, BBC News Channel and BBC online.

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