:00:40. > :00:41.Morning, folks, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.
:00:42. > :00:43.Hard line remainers strike back at Brexit.
:00:44. > :00:46.Are they trying to overturn the result of June's referendum
:00:47. > :00:49.by forcing a second vote before we leave?
:00:50. > :00:52.Australia's man in London tells us that life outside the EU "can be
:00:53. > :00:56.pretty good" and that Brexit will "not be as hard as people say".
:00:57. > :00:59.Could leaving the EU free Britain to do more business
:01:00. > :01:05.It's been called "disgusting, dangerous and deadly"
:01:06. > :01:10.but how polluted is our air, how bad for our health,
:01:11. > :01:14.Carwyn Jones tells us why he decided to drop child poverty targets
:01:15. > :01:18.and a look back on the Welsh political year that was
:01:19. > :01:31.And with me in the Sunday Politics grotto, the Dasher, Dancer
:01:32. > :01:34.and Prancer of political punditry Iain Martin,
:01:35. > :01:43.They'll be delivering tweets throughout the programme.
:01:44. > :01:48.First this morning, some say they will fight
:01:49. > :01:52.for what they call a "soft Brexit", but now there's an attempt by those
:01:53. > :01:55.who campaigned for Britain to remain in the EU to allow the British
:01:56. > :01:58.people to change their minds - possibly with a second referendum -
:01:59. > :02:02.The Labour MEP Richard Corbett is revealed this morning to have
:02:03. > :02:03.tried to amend European Parliament resolutions.
:02:04. > :02:06.The original resolution called on the European Parliament
:02:07. > :02:09.to "respect the will of the majority of the citizens
:02:10. > :02:25.of the United Kingdom to leave the EU".
:02:26. > :02:30.He also proposed removing the wording "stress that this wish
:02:31. > :02:33.must be respected" and adding "while taking account of the 48.1%
:02:34. > :02:45.The amendments were proposed in October,
:02:46. > :02:48.but were rejected by a vote in the Brussels
:02:49. > :02:50.Constitutional Affairs Committee earlier this month.
:02:51. > :02:52.The report will be voted on by all MEPs in February.
:02:53. > :02:55.Well, joining me now from Leeds is the Labour MEP who proposed
:02:56. > :03:05.Good morning. Thanks for joining us at short notice. Is your aim to try
:03:06. > :03:10.and reverse what happened on June 23? My aim with those amendments was
:03:11. > :03:13.simply factual. It is rather odd that these amendments of two months
:03:14. > :03:19.ago are suddenly used paper headlines in three very different
:03:20. > :03:25.newspapers on the same day. It smacks of a sort of concerted effort
:03:26. > :03:31.to try and slapped down any notion that Britain might perhaps want to
:03:32. > :03:36.rethink its position on Brexit as the cost of Brexit emerges. You
:03:37. > :03:41.would like us to rethink the position even before the cost urges?
:03:42. > :03:46.I get lots of letters from people saying how one, this was an advisory
:03:47. > :03:52.referendum won by a narrow majority on the basis of a pack of lies and a
:03:53. > :03:56.questionable mandate. But if there is a mandate from this referendum,
:03:57. > :03:59.it is surely to secure a Brexit that works for Britain without sinking
:04:00. > :04:04.the economy. And if it transpires as we move forward, that this will be a
:04:05. > :04:08.very costly exercise, then there will be people who voted leave who
:04:09. > :04:13.said Hang on, this is not what I was told. I was told this would save
:04:14. > :04:15.money, we could put it in the NHS, but if it is going to cost us and
:04:16. > :04:32.our Monday leg, I would the right to reconsider. But
:04:33. > :04:35.your aim is not get a Brexit that would work for Britain, your aim is
:04:36. > :04:38.to stop it? If we got a Brexit that would work for Britain, that would
:04:39. > :04:41.respect the mandate. But if we cannot get that, if it is going to
:04:42. > :04:43.be a disaster, if it is going to cost people jobs and cost Britain
:04:44. > :04:47.money, it is something we might want to pause and rethink. The government
:04:48. > :04:53.said it is going to come forward with a plan. That is good. We need
:04:54. > :05:00.to know what options to go for as a country. Do we want to stay in the
:05:01. > :05:02.single market, the customs union, the various agencies? And options
:05:03. > :05:09.should be costed so we can all see how much they cost of Brexit will
:05:10. > :05:13.be. If you were simply going to try and make the resolution is more
:05:14. > :05:21.illegal, why did the constitutional committee vote them down? This is a
:05:22. > :05:27.report about future treaty amendments down the road for years
:05:28. > :05:35.to come. This was not the main focus of the report, it was a side
:05:36. > :05:41.reference, in which was put the idea for Association partnerships. Will
:05:42. > :05:48.you push for the idea before the full parliament? I must see what the
:05:49. > :05:55.text is. You said there is a widespread view in labour that if
:05:56. > :05:59.the Brexit view is bad we should not exclude everything, I take it you
:06:00. > :06:06.mean another referendum. When you were named down these amendments,
:06:07. > :06:10.was this just acting on your own initiative, or acting on behalf of
:06:11. > :06:18.the Labour Party? I am just be humble lame-duck MEP in the European
:06:19. > :06:22.Parliament. It makes sense from any point of view that if the course of
:06:23. > :06:26.action you have embarked on turns out to be much more costly and
:06:27. > :06:31.disastrous than you had anticipated, that you might want the chance to
:06:32. > :06:35.think again. You might come to the same conclusion, of course, but you
:06:36. > :06:41.might think, wait a minute, let's have a look at this. But let's be
:06:42. > :06:45.clear, even though you are deputy leader of Labour in the European
:06:46. > :06:53.Parliament, you're acting alone and not as Labour Party policy? I am
:06:54. > :06:57.acting in the constitutional affairs committee. All I am doing is stating
:06:58. > :07:01.things which are common sense. If as we move forward then this turns out
:07:02. > :07:05.to be a disaster, we need to look very carefully at where we are
:07:06. > :07:11.going. But if a deal is done under Article 50, and we get to see the
:07:12. > :07:16.shape of that deal by the end of 2019 under the two-year timetable,
:07:17. > :07:21.in your words, we won't know if it is a disaster or not until it is
:07:22. > :07:27.implemented. We won't be able to tell until we see the results about
:07:28. > :07:35.whether it is good or bad, surely? We might well be able to, because
:07:36. > :07:39.that has to take account of the future framework of relationships
:07:40. > :07:42.with the European Union, to quote the article of the treaty. That
:07:43. > :07:46.means we should have some idea about what that will be like. Will we be
:07:47. > :07:50.outside the customs union, for instance, which will be very
:07:51. > :07:56.damaging for our economy? Or will we have to stay inside and follow the
:07:57. > :07:59.rules without having a say on them. We won't know until we leave the
:08:00. > :08:03.customs union. You think it will be damaging, others think it will give
:08:04. > :08:07.us the opportunity to do massive trade deals. My case this morning is
:08:08. > :08:11.not what is right or wrong, we will not know until we have seen the
:08:12. > :08:15.results. We will know a heck of a lot more than we do now when we see
:08:16. > :08:18.that Article 50 divorce agreement. We will know the terms of the
:08:19. > :08:23.divorce, we will know how much we still have to pay into the EU budget
:08:24. > :08:28.for legacy costs. We will know whether we will be in the single
:08:29. > :08:33.market customs union or not. We will know about the agencies. We will
:08:34. > :08:36.know a lot of things. If the deal on the table looks as if it will be
:08:37. > :08:42.damaging to Britain, then Parliament will be in its rights to say, wait a
:08:43. > :08:46.minute, not this deal. And then you either renegotiate or you reconsider
:08:47. > :08:51.the whole issue of Brexit or you find another solution. We need to
:08:52. > :08:56.leave it there but thank you for joining us.
:08:57. > :09:02.Iain Martin, how serious is the attempt to in effect an wind what
:09:03. > :09:07.happened on June 23? I think it is pretty serious and that interview
:09:08. > :09:11.illustrates very well the most damaging impact of the approach
:09:12. > :09:18.taken by a lot of Remainers, which is essentially to say with one
:09:19. > :09:20.breath, we of course accept the result, but with every action
:09:21. > :09:24.subsequent to that to try and undermine the result or try and are
:09:25. > :09:29.sure that the deal is as bad as possible. I think what needed to
:09:30. > :09:34.happen and hasn't happened after June 23 is you have the extremists
:09:35. > :09:40.on both sides and you have in the middle probably 70% of public
:09:41. > :09:46.opinion, moderate leaders, moderate Remainers should be working together
:09:47. > :09:53.to try and get British bespoke deal. But moderate Leavers will not take
:09:54. > :09:57.moderate Remainers seriously if this is the approach taken at every
:09:58. > :10:07.single turn to try and rerun the referendum. He did not say whether
:10:08. > :10:11.it was Labour policy? That was a question which was ducked. I do not
:10:12. > :10:18.think it is Labour Party policy. I think most people are in a morass in
:10:19. > :10:21.the middle. I think the screaming that happens when anybody dares to
:10:22. > :10:26.question or suggest that you might ever want to think again about these
:10:27. > :10:30.things, I disagree with him about having another referendum but if he
:10:31. > :10:33.wants to campaign for that it is his democratic right to do so. If you
:10:34. > :10:39.can convince enough people it is a good idea then he has succeeded. But
:10:40. > :10:44.the idea that we would do a deal and then realise this is a really bad
:10:45. > :10:51.deal, let's not proceed, we will not really know that until the deal is
:10:52. > :10:54.implemented. What our access is to the single market, whether or not we
:10:55. > :10:58.are in or out of the customs union which we will talk about in a
:10:59. > :11:03.minute, what immigration policy we will have, whether these are going
:11:04. > :11:08.to be good things bad things, surely you have got to wait for four, five,
:11:09. > :11:12.six years to see if it has worked or not? Yes, and by which stage
:11:13. > :11:16.Parliament will have voted on it and there will be no going back from it,
:11:17. > :11:21.or maybe there will. We are talking now about the first three months of
:11:22. > :11:29.2019. That is absolutely the moment when Parliament agrees with Theresa
:11:30. > :11:39.May or not. One arch remain I spoke to, and arch Remainiac, he said that
:11:40. > :11:48.Theresa May will bring this to Parliament in 2019 and could say I
:11:49. > :11:53.recommend that we reject it. What is he on or she? Some strong chemical
:11:54. > :11:59.drugs! The point is that all manner of things could happen. I don't
:12:00. > :12:05.think any of us take it seriously for now but the future is a very
:12:06. > :12:09.long way away. Earlier, the trade Secretary Liam Fox was asked if we
:12:10. > :12:12.would stay in the customs union after Brexit.
:12:13. > :12:18.There would be limitations on what we would do in terms of tariff
:12:19. > :12:24.setting which could limit the deals we would do, but we want to look at
:12:25. > :12:28.all the different deals. There is hard Brexit and soft Brexit as if it
:12:29. > :12:32.is a boiled egg we are talking about. Turkey is in part of the
:12:33. > :12:40.customs union but not other parts. What we need to do is look at the
:12:41. > :12:44.cost. This is what I picked up. The government knows it cannot remain a
:12:45. > :12:49.member of the single market in these negotiations, because that would
:12:50. > :12:52.make us subject to free movement and the European Court. The customs
:12:53. > :12:57.union and the Prime Minister 's office doesn't seem to be quite as
:12:58. > :13:00.binary, that you can be a little bit in and a little bit out, but I would
:13:01. > :13:05.suggest that overall Liam Fox knows to do all the trade deals we want to
:13:06. > :13:10.do we basically have to be out. But what he also seems to know is that
:13:11. > :13:15.is a minority view in Cabinet. He said he was not going to give his
:13:16. > :13:25.opinion publicly. There is still an argument going on about it in
:13:26. > :13:27.Cabinet. When David Liddington struggled against Emily Thornbury
:13:28. > :13:31.PMQs, he did not know about the customs union. What is apparent is
:13:32. > :13:37.Theresa May has not told him what to think about that. If we stay in the
:13:38. > :13:44.customs union we cannot do our own free trade deals. We are behind the
:13:45. > :13:49.customs union, the tariff barriers set by Europe? Not quite. Turkey is
:13:50. > :13:54.proof of the pudding. There are limited exemptions but they can do
:13:55. > :14:02.free trade with their neighbours. Not on goods. They are doing a trade
:14:03. > :14:05.deal with Pakistan at the moment, it relies on foreign trade investment
:14:06. > :14:10.but Europe negotiates on turkey's behalf on the major free-trade
:14:11. > :14:14.deals. This is absolutely why the customs union will be the fault line
:14:15. > :14:18.for the deal we are trying to achieve. Interestingly, I thought
:14:19. > :14:22.Liam Fox suggested during that interview that he was prepared to
:14:23. > :14:28.suck up whatever it was. I think he was saying there is still an
:14:29. > :14:36.argument and he intends to win it. He wants to leave it because he
:14:37. > :14:40.wants to do these free-trade deals. There is an argument in the cabinet
:14:41. > :14:46.about precisely that. The other thing to consider is in this country
:14:47. > :14:49.we have tended to focus too much on the British angle in negotiations,
:14:50. > :14:53.but I think the negotiations are going to be very difficult. You look
:14:54. > :14:56.at the state of the EU at the moment, you look at what is
:14:57. > :15:03.happening in Italy, France, Germany, look at the 27. It is possible I
:15:04. > :15:08.think that Britain could design a bespoke sensible deal but then it
:15:09. > :15:15.becomes very difficult to agree which is why I ultimately think we
:15:16. > :15:16.are heading for a harder Brexit. It will be about developing in this
:15:17. > :15:21.country. So, we've had a warning this week
:15:22. > :15:24.that it could take ten years to do a trade deal
:15:25. > :15:26.with the EU after Brexit. But could opportunities to expand
:15:27. > :15:28.trade lie elsewhere? Australia was one of the first
:15:29. > :15:30.countries to indicate its willingness to do a deal
:15:31. > :15:33.with the UK and now its High Commissioner in London has told
:15:34. > :15:36.us that life outside the EU He made this exclusive film
:15:37. > :15:52.for the Sunday Politics. My father was the Australian High
:15:53. > :15:54.Commissioner in the early 70s when the UK joined
:15:55. > :15:57.the European Union, Now I'm in the job,
:15:58. > :16:05.the UK is leaving. Australia supported
:16:06. > :16:07.Britain remaining a member of the European Union,
:16:08. > :16:10.but we respect the decision that Now that the decision has been made,
:16:11. > :16:15.we hope that Britain will get on with the process
:16:16. > :16:19.of negotiating their exit from the European Union and make
:16:20. > :16:23.the most of the opportunities that Following the referendum decision,
:16:24. > :16:29.Australia approached the British Government
:16:30. > :16:32.with a proposal. We offered, when the time was right,
:16:33. > :16:35.to negotiate a free trade agreement. The British and Australian
:16:36. > :16:41.governments have already established a working group to explore a future,
:16:42. > :16:44.ambitious trade agreement once A free trade agreement will provide
:16:45. > :16:56.great opportunities for consumers Australian consumers could purchase
:16:57. > :17:01.British-made cars for less We would give British
:17:02. > :17:07.households access to cheaper, Our summer is during your winter,
:17:08. > :17:13.so Australia could provide British households with fresh produce
:17:14. > :17:16.when the equivalent British or Australian households would have
:17:17. > :17:24.access to British products Free-trade agreements
:17:25. > :17:36.are also about investment. The UK is the second-largest source
:17:37. > :17:40.of foreign investment in Australia. By the way, Australia also invests
:17:41. > :17:47.over ?200 billion in the UK, so a free trade agreement
:17:48. > :17:49.would stimulate investment, But, by the way, free-trade
:17:50. > :17:55.agreements are not just about trade and investment,
:17:56. > :17:59.they are also about geopolitics. Countries with good trade relations
:18:00. > :18:03.often work more closely together in other fields including security,
:18:04. > :18:06.the spread of democracy We may have preferred
:18:07. > :18:20.the UKto remain in the EU, We may have preferred the UK
:18:21. > :18:23.to remain in the EU, but life outside as we know can
:18:24. > :18:25.be pretty good. We have negotiated eight free-trade
:18:26. > :18:28.agreements over the last 12 years, including a free-trade agreement
:18:29. > :18:30.with the United States This is one of the reasons why
:18:31. > :18:42.the Australian economy has continued to grow over the last 25 years
:18:43. > :18:45.and we, of course, are not Australia welcomes Theresa May's
:18:46. > :18:55.vision for the UK to become a global We are willing to help
:18:56. > :19:24.in any way we can. Welcome to the programme. The
:19:25. > :19:28.Australian government says it wants to negotiate an important trade deal
:19:29. > :19:34.with the UK as efficiently and promptly as possible when Brexit is
:19:35. > :19:39.complete. How prompt is prompt? There are legal issues obviously.
:19:40. > :19:45.The UK, for as long as it remains in the EU, cannot negotiate individual
:19:46. > :19:49.trade deals. Once it leaves it can. We will negotiate a agreement with
:19:50. > :19:55.the UK when the time is right, by which we mean we can do preliminary
:19:56. > :20:00.examination. Are you talking now about the parameters? We are talking
:20:01. > :20:04.already, we have set up a joint working group with the British
:20:05. > :20:07.Government and we are scoping the issue to try to understand what
:20:08. > :20:13.questions will arise in any negotiation. But we cannot have
:20:14. > :20:20.formally a negotiation. Until the country is out. Why is there no
:20:21. > :20:23.free-trade deal between Australia and the European Union? It is a long
:20:24. > :20:30.and tortuous story. Give me the headline. Basically Australian
:20:31. > :20:36.agriculture is either banned or hugely restricted in terms of its
:20:37. > :20:40.access to the European Union. So we see the European Union, Australia's,
:20:41. > :20:45.is a pretty protectionist sort of organisation. Now we are doing a
:20:46. > :20:49.scoping study on a free-trade agreement with the European Union
:20:50. > :20:54.and we hope that next year we can enter into negotiations with them.
:20:55. > :21:00.But we have no illusions this would be a very difficult negotiation, but
:21:01. > :21:05.one we are giving priority to. Is there not a danger that when Britain
:21:06. > :21:09.leaves the EU the EU will become more protectionist? This country has
:21:10. > :21:14.always been the most powerful voice for free trade. I hope that does not
:21:15. > :21:20.happen, but the reason why we wanted Britain to remain in the European
:21:21. > :21:25.Union is because it brought to the table the whole free-trade mentality
:21:26. > :21:28.which has been an historic part of Britain's approach to international
:21:29. > :21:33.relations. Without the UK in the European Union you will lose that.
:21:34. > :21:37.It is a very loud voice in the European Union and you will lose
:21:38. > :21:43.that voice and that will be a disadvantage. The figure that jumped
:21:44. > :21:46.out of me in the film is it to you only 15 months to negotiate a
:21:47. > :21:51.free-trade deal with the United States. Yes, the thing is it is
:21:52. > :21:57.about political will. A free-trade agreement will be no problem unless
:21:58. > :22:02.you want to protect particular sectors of your economy. In that
:22:03. > :22:07.case there was one sector the Americans insisted on protecting and
:22:08. > :22:11.that was their sugar industry. In the end after 15 months of
:22:12. > :22:16.negotiation two relatively free trading countries have fixed up
:22:17. > :22:20.nearly everything. But we had to ask would be go ahead with this
:22:21. > :22:25.free-trade agreement without sugar west we decided to do that. Other
:22:26. > :22:30.than that it was relatively easy to negotiate because we are both
:22:31. > :22:33.free-trade countries. With the UK you cannot be sure, but I do not
:22:34. > :22:39.think a free-trade agreement would take very long to negotiate with the
:22:40. > :22:44.UK because the UK would not want to put a lot of obstacles in the way to
:22:45. > :22:48.Australia. Not to give away our hand, we would not want to put a lot
:22:49. > :22:54.of obstacles in the way of British exports. The trend in recent years
:22:55. > :22:59.is to do big, regional trade deals, but President-elect Donald Trump has
:23:00. > :23:04.made clear the Pacific trade deal is dead. The transatlantic trade deal
:23:05. > :23:07.is almost dead as well. The American election put a nail in the coffin
:23:08. > :23:13.and the French elections could put another nail in the coffin. Are we
:23:14. > :23:16.returning to a world of lateral trade deals, country with country
:23:17. > :23:24.rather than regional blocs? Not necessarily. In the Asia Pacific we
:23:25. > :23:27.will look at multilateral trade arrangements and even if the
:23:28. > :23:31.transpacific partnership is not ratified by the Americans, we have
:23:32. > :23:37.other options are there. However, our approach has been the ultimate
:23:38. > :23:42.would be free-trade throughout the world which is proving hard to
:23:43. > :23:45.achieve. Secondly, if we can get a lot of countries engaged in a
:23:46. > :23:52.free-trade negotiation, that is pretty good if possible. But it is
:23:53. > :23:57.more difficult. But we do bilateral trade agreements. We have one with
:23:58. > :24:02.China, Japan, the United States, Singapore, and the list goes on, and
:24:03. > :24:10.they have been hugely beneficial to Australia. You have been dealing
:24:11. > :24:13.with the EU free deal, what lessons are there? How quickly do you think
:24:14. > :24:20.Britain could do a free-trade deal with the EU if we leave? Well, there
:24:21. > :24:24.is a completely different concept involved in the case of Britain and
:24:25. > :24:29.the EU and that is at the moment there are no restrictions on trade.
:24:30. > :24:34.So you and the EU would be talking about whether you will direct
:24:35. > :24:39.barriers to trade. We are outsiders and we do not get too much involved
:24:40. > :24:45.in this debate except to say we do not want to see the global trade
:24:46. > :24:49.system disrupted by the direction of tariff barriers between the United
:24:50. > :24:55.Kingdom, the fifth biggest economy in the world, and the European
:24:56. > :24:59.Union. Our expectation is not just the British but the Europeans will
:25:00. > :25:04.try to make the transition to Brexit as smooth as possible particularly
:25:05. > :25:09.commercially. Say yes or no if you can. If Britain and Australia make a
:25:10. > :25:13.free-trade agreement, would that include free movement of the
:25:14. > :25:19.Australian and the British people? We will probably stick with our
:25:20. > :25:23.present non-discriminatory system. Australia does not discriminate
:25:24. > :25:28.against any country. The European Union's free movement means you
:25:29. > :25:32.discriminate against non-Europeans. Probably not.
:25:33. > :25:35.It could lead to a ban on diesel cars, prevent the building
:25:36. > :25:37.of a third runway at Heathrow, and will certainly make it
:25:38. > :25:40.more expensive to drive in our towns and cities.
:25:41. > :25:42.Air pollution has been called the "public health crisis
:25:43. > :25:44.of a generation" - but just how serious is the problem?
:25:45. > :25:58.40,000 early deaths result from air pollution every year in the UK.
:25:59. > :26:04.Almost 10,000 Londoners each year die prematurely.
:26:05. > :26:11.It seems at times we can get caught up in alarming assertions
:26:12. > :26:13.about air pollution, that this is a public health
:26:14. > :26:17.emergency, that it is a silent killer, coming from politicians,
:26:18. > :26:25.But how bad is air quality in Britain really?
:26:26. > :26:29.Tony Frew is a professor in respiratory medicine and works
:26:30. > :26:31.at Brighton's Royal Sussex County Hospital.
:26:32. > :26:33.He has been looking into the recent claims
:26:34. > :26:39.It's a problem and it affects people's health.
:26:40. > :26:41.But when people start talking about the numbers
:26:42. > :26:43.of deaths here, I think they are misusing the statistics.
:26:44. > :26:49.There have been tremendous improvements in air quality
:26:50. > :26:53.There is a lot less pollution than there used to be
:26:54. > :26:57.and none of that is coming through in the public
:26:58. > :27:01.So what does Professor Frew make of the claim that alarming levels
:27:02. > :27:04.of toxicity in the air in the UK causes 40,000 deaths each year?
:27:05. > :27:07.It is not 40,000 people who should have air pollution
:27:08. > :27:09.on their death certificate, or 40,000 people who
:27:10. > :27:14.It's a lot of people who had a little bit of life shortening
:27:15. > :27:20.To examine these figures further we travelled to Cambridge to visit
:27:21. > :27:25.I asked him about the data on which these claims
:27:26. > :27:30.They come from a study on how mortality rates in US cities
:27:31. > :27:37.First of all, it is important to realise that that 40,000 figure
:27:38. > :27:42.29,000, which are due to fine particles, and another 11,000
:27:43. > :27:51.I will just talk about this group for a start.
:27:52. > :27:54.These are what are known as attributable deaths.
:27:55. > :27:59.Known as virtual deaths, they come from a complex statistical model.
:28:00. > :28:02.Quite remarkably it all comes from just one number and this
:28:03. > :28:06.was based on a study of US cities and they found out that
:28:07. > :28:10.by monitoring these cities over decades that the cities which had
:28:11. > :28:16.a higher level of pollution had a higher mortality rate.
:28:17. > :28:22.They estimated that there was a 6% increased risk of dying
:28:23. > :28:27.each year for each small increase in pollution.
:28:28. > :28:30.So this is quite a big figure, but it is important to realise
:28:31. > :28:33.it is only a best estimate and the committee that advises
:28:34. > :28:39.the government says that this figure could be between 1% and 12%.
:28:40. > :28:42.So this 6% figure is used to work out the 29,000
:28:43. > :28:48.Yes, through a rather complex statistical model.
:28:49. > :28:53.And a similar analysis gives rise to the 11,000 attributable deaths
:28:54. > :29:00.How much should we invest in cycling?
:29:01. > :29:02.Should we build a third runway at Heathrow?
:29:03. > :29:06.We need reliable statistics to answer those questions,
:29:07. > :29:10.but can we trust the way data is being used by campaigners?
:29:11. > :29:15.I think there are people who have such a passion for the environment
:29:16. > :29:17.and for air pollution that they don't really
:29:18. > :29:23.see it as a problem if they are deceiving the public.
:29:24. > :29:26.Greenpeace have been running a campaign claiming that breathing
:29:27. > :29:28.London's air is the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day.
:29:29. > :29:34.If you smoke 15 cigarettes a day through your adult life,
:29:35. > :29:36.that will definitely take ten years off your life expectancy.
:29:37. > :29:39.If you are poor and you are in social class five,
:29:40. > :29:41.compared to social class one, that would take seven
:29:42. > :29:46.If you are poor and you smoke, that will take 17 years off your life.
:29:47. > :29:49.Now, we are talking about possibly, if we could get rid of all
:29:50. > :29:52.of the cars in London and all of the road transport,
:29:53. > :29:55.we could make a difference of two micrograms per metre squared in air
:29:56. > :30:00.pollution which might save you 30 days of your life.
:30:01. > :30:03.There is no doubt that air pollution is bad for you,
:30:04. > :30:06.but if we exaggerate the scale of the problem and the impact
:30:07. > :30:09.on our health, are we at risk of undermining the case for making
:30:10. > :30:20.And we are joined now by the Executive Director
:30:21. > :30:38.You have called pollution and national crisis and a health
:30:39. > :30:42.emergency. Around the UK are levels increasing or falling? They are
:30:43. > :30:52.remaining fairly static in London. Nationally? If you look at the
:30:53. > :30:58.studies on where air pollution is measured, in 42 cities around the
:30:59. > :31:02.UK, 38 cities were found to be breaking the legal limit on air
:31:03. > :31:07.pollution so basically all of the cities were breaking the limit so if
:31:08. > :31:10.you think eight out of ten people live in cities, obviously, this is
:31:11. > :31:14.impacting a lot of people around the UK. We have looked at in missions of
:31:15. > :31:24.solvent dioxide, they have fallen and since 1970, nitrogen dioxide is
:31:25. > :31:31.down 69%. Let me show you a chart. There are the nitrogen oxides which
:31:32. > :31:36.we have all been worried about. That chart shows a substantial fall from
:31:37. > :31:40.the 1970s, and then a really steep fall from the 1980s. That is
:31:41. > :31:47.something which is getting better. You have to look at it in the round.
:31:48. > :31:55.If you look at particulates, and if you look at today's understanding of
:31:56. > :32:04.the health impact. Let's look at particulates. We have been really
:32:05. > :32:09.worried about what they have been doing to our abilities to breathe
:32:10. > :32:14.good air, again, you see substantial improvement. Indeed, we are not far
:32:15. > :32:22.from the Gothenberg level which is a very high standard. What you see is
:32:23. > :32:28.it is pretty flat. I see it coming down quite substantially. Over the
:32:29. > :32:32.last decade it is pretty flat. If you look at the World Health
:32:33. > :32:36.Organisation guidelines, actually, these are at serious levels and they
:32:37. > :32:40.need to come down. We know the impact, particularly on children, if
:32:41. > :32:44.you look at what is happening to children and children's lungs, if
:32:45. > :32:49.you look at the impact of asthma and other impacts on children in cities
:32:50. > :32:52.and in schools next to main roads where pollution levels are very
:32:53. > :32:57.high, the impact of very serious. You have many doctors, professors
:32:58. > :33:03.and many studies by London University showing this to be true.
:33:04. > :33:07.The thing is, we do not want pollution. If we can get rid of
:33:08. > :33:12.pollution, let's do it. And also we also have to get rid of CO2 which is
:33:13. > :33:16.causing climate change. We are talking air pollution at the moment.
:33:17. > :33:20.The point is there is not still more to do, it is clear there is and
:33:21. > :33:25.there is no question about that, my question is you seem to deny that we
:33:26. > :33:30.have made any kind of progress and that you also say that air pollution
:33:31. > :33:37.causes 40,000 deaths a year in the UK, that is not true. The figure is
:33:38. > :33:47.40,000 premature deaths is what has been talked about by medical staff.
:33:48. > :33:51.Your website said courses. It causes premature deaths. What we are
:33:52. > :33:56.talking about here is can we solve the problem of air pollution? If air
:33:57. > :34:01.pollution is mainly being caused by diesel vehicles then we need to
:34:02. > :34:04.phase out diesel vehicles. If there are alternatives and clean Turner
:34:05. > :34:08.tips which will give better quality of air, better quality of life and
:34:09. > :34:12.clean up our cities, then why don't we take the chance to do it? You had
:34:13. > :34:20.the Australian High Commissioner on this programme earlier. He said to
:34:21. > :34:25.me earlier, why is your government supporting diesel? That is the most
:34:26. > :34:31.polluting form of transport. That may well be right but I am looking
:34:32. > :34:37.at Greenpeace's claims. You claim it causes 40,000 deaths, it is a figure
:34:38. > :34:42.which regularly appears. Let me quote the committee on the medical
:34:43. > :34:52.effects of air pollutants, it says this calculation, 40,000 which is
:34:53. > :34:55.everywhere in Greenpeace literature, is not an estimate of the number of
:34:56. > :34:59.people whose untimely death is caused entirely by air pollution,
:35:00. > :35:04.but a way of representing the effect across the whole population of air
:35:05. > :35:10.pollution when considered as a contributory factor to many more
:35:11. > :35:19.individual deaths. It is 40,000 premature deaths. It could be
:35:20. > :35:23.premature by a couple of days. It could me by a year. -- it could be
:35:24. > :35:24.by a year. It could also be giving children asthma and breathing
:35:25. > :35:34.difficulties. We are talking about deaths. It could also cause stroke
:35:35. > :35:42.and heart diseases. Medical experts say we need to deal with this. Do
:35:43. > :35:50.you believe air pollution causes 40,000 deaths a year. I have defined
:35:51. > :36:00.that. You accept it does not? It leads to 40,000 premature deaths.
:36:01. > :36:05.But 40,000 people are not killed. You say air pollution causes 40,000
:36:06. > :36:09.deaths each year on your website. I have just explained what I mean by
:36:10. > :36:14.that in terms of premature deaths. The question is, are we going to do
:36:15. > :36:18.something about that? Air pollution is a serious problem. It is mainly
:36:19. > :36:23.caused by diesel. If we phased diesel out it will solve the problem
:36:24. > :36:27.of air pollution and deal with the wider problem of climate change. I
:36:28. > :36:35.am not talking about climate change this morning. Let's link to another
:36:36. > :36:41.claim... Do you want to live in a clean city? Do you want to breathe
:36:42. > :36:46.clean air? Yes, don't generalise. Let's stick to your claims. You have
:36:47. > :36:50.also said living in London on your life is equivalent to smoking 50
:36:51. > :36:57.cigarettes a day. That is not true either. What I would say is if you
:36:58. > :37:00.look at passive smoking, it is the equivalent of I don't know what the
:37:01. > :37:03.actual figure is, I can't remember offhand, but it is the equivalent
:37:04. > :37:10.effect of about ten cigarettes being smoked passively. The question is in
:37:11. > :37:15.terms of, you are just throwing me out all of these things... I am
:37:16. > :37:19.throwing things that Greenpeace have claimed. Greenpeace have claimed
:37:20. > :37:24.that living in London is equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day and
:37:25. > :37:27.that takes ten years off your life. Professor Froome made it clear to us
:37:28. > :37:31.that living in London your whole life with levels of pollution does
:37:32. > :37:36.take time off your life but it takes nine months of your life. Nine
:37:37. > :37:41.months is still too much, I understand that, but it is not ten
:37:42. > :37:44.years and that is what you claim. I would suggest you realise that is a
:37:45. > :37:49.piece of propaganda because you claim on the website, you have taken
:37:50. > :37:52.it down. I agree it has been corrected and I agree with what the
:37:53. > :37:58.professor said that maybe it takes up to a year off your life, but the
:37:59. > :38:02.thing is, there are much more wider issues as well, in terms of the
:38:03. > :38:08.impact on air pollution, and in terms of the impact on young
:38:09. > :38:12.children. We can argue about the facts... But these are your claims,
:38:13. > :38:17.this is why I am hitting it to you. It does not get away from the
:38:18. > :38:22.underlying issue that air pollution is a serious problem. We are not
:38:23. > :38:26.arguing for a moment that it is not. Do you think the way you exaggerate
:38:27. > :38:31.things, put false claims, in the end, for of course we all agree
:38:32. > :38:37.with, getting the best air we can, you undermine your credibility? I
:38:38. > :38:40.absolutely do not support false claims and if mistakes have been
:38:41. > :38:46.made then mistakes have been made and they will be corrected. I think
:38:47. > :38:50.the key issue is how we are going to deal with air pollution. Clearly,
:38:51. > :38:56.diesel is the biggest problem and we need to work out a way how we can
:38:57. > :38:59.get away from diesel as quickly and fast as possible. Comeback and see
:39:00. > :39:01.us in the New Year and we will discuss diesel. Thank you.
:39:02. > :39:04.It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.
:39:05. > :39:15.We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now
:39:16. > :39:18.Hello and welcome to the programme, where we'll be taking a look back
:39:19. > :39:21.at the most momentous political year for decades.
:39:22. > :39:24.My panel will be here to talk about that and tell me what's
:39:25. > :39:30.But first, the First Minister has been defending his decision
:39:31. > :39:34.to abandon a target of getting rid of child poverty in Wales by 2020.
:39:35. > :39:40.The UK Government aren't in the same position as us and we don't have
:39:41. > :39:44.all the levers to make the kind of impression that we would want
:39:45. > :39:47.in the absence of the UK Government being in the same place.
:39:48. > :39:49.That said, the percentage of households living in poverty
:39:50. > :39:52.in Wales has come down and we are looking to improve
:39:53. > :39:56.what we do by reviewing schemes such as Communities First to see how
:39:57. > :40:01.But all of what you have just said was true in 2011 when you reaffirmed
:40:02. > :40:05.this target of eradicating it by 2020, so what has changed
:40:06. > :40:11.We had hoped that we would be having in London a government
:40:12. > :40:14.that shared our vision of eradicating child poverty.
:40:15. > :40:17.Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case.
:40:18. > :40:19.It doesn't mean we do nothing and say, sorry,
:40:20. > :40:25.We are determined to use the tools that we have got in order to make
:40:26. > :40:27.sure that poverty continues to come down.
:40:28. > :40:30.But you said back then, for example, it's even more important now,
:40:31. > :40:33.with the economic crisis and the cuts to welfare that
:40:34. > :40:37.you tackle the issue of child poverty and here you are now saying,
:40:38. > :40:39.we are just going to put our hands up.
:40:40. > :40:42.From our perspective, what we can never do is say
:40:43. > :40:45.all the levers are in London and there's nothing we can do.
:40:46. > :40:48.It's true to say that major levers such as the taxation system
:40:49. > :40:51.It doesn't mean we don't do anything.
:40:52. > :40:54.It's why we are looking at how we can better
:40:55. > :40:57.deliver our anti-poverty programmes through examining the schemes
:40:58. > :41:00.we have had in place for some years to make them more effective.
:41:01. > :41:03.No-one would expect me to say, there's nothing we can do.
:41:04. > :41:07.We are determined to do as much as we can to alleviate poverty.
:41:08. > :41:13.We have tended to look at communities and tight-knit
:41:14. > :41:19.I think we have to be smarter and understand that there are people
:41:20. > :41:21.and communities outside areas that are traditionally seen
:41:22. > :41:23.as areas of deprivation and help them as well.
:41:24. > :41:25.But that has been the case for decades.
:41:26. > :41:30.What will change as a result of what we saw last week?
:41:31. > :41:33.What will change in your, the way you are going to go
:41:34. > :41:38.There's a consultation ongoing in terms of Communities First
:41:39. > :41:42.and we want to hear what people say to draw on the best practice we have
:41:43. > :41:45.learned through Communities First in order to develop a targeted
:41:46. > :41:50.You have got to listen to people on the ground and the experience
:41:51. > :41:53.they have had before you come to your own conclusions.
:41:54. > :41:57.Going back around a decade to 2003, in Wales, the proportion of children
:41:58. > :42:00.in poverty was proportionately less than in England.
:42:01. > :42:03.Fast forward 13 years and we are further behind.
:42:04. > :42:06.Does that mean in the last decade or so your policies have been
:42:07. > :42:11.If you look at the economics of it, unemployment in Wales
:42:12. > :42:13.is lower than England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
:42:14. > :42:24.What we don't know is, we don't control the benefits system.
:42:25. > :42:27.We know that people have been hit hard by changes in the benefit
:42:28. > :42:30.system and that has had an effect on child poverty.
:42:31. > :42:32.There are some areas where we would prefer to have had
:42:33. > :42:34.a different UK Government with a different view
:42:35. > :42:40.But it doesn't mean we say, there's nothing we can do.
:42:41. > :42:42.We are determined to be as effective as we can.
:42:43. > :42:45.During the course of the week, we have been hearing a lot
:42:46. > :42:49.about Brexit and the effect that would have on immigration.
:42:50. > :42:51.You said in First Minister's Questions to Leanne Wood that
:42:52. > :42:54.you thought you were closer to her than you are to
:42:55. > :42:58.She says immigration in Wales from the EU isn't a problem.
:42:59. > :43:03.I think we have to listen to what people are saying to us.
:43:04. > :43:06.Simply shouting louder about immigration is not going to help.
:43:07. > :43:09.The reality is that we have very few people from the EU living in Wales
:43:10. > :43:11.but the perception people have is different
:43:12. > :43:16.For me, it's a question of getting to a point where we have a sensible
:43:17. > :43:21.The current system, to me, is not supported by a number
:43:22. > :43:23.of people in Wales so what do we do instead?
:43:24. > :43:27.One of the suggestions I have said is freedom of movement to a job.
:43:28. > :43:29.I think Welsh people will find that completely reasonable.
:43:30. > :43:32.No-one has said to me that what we need is fewer doctors
:43:33. > :43:35.and nurses coming into Wales so why not have a system where there
:43:36. > :43:38.is an element of freedom of movement but it's for a purpose.
:43:39. > :43:45.You're just pandering to people who think it is a problem
:43:46. > :43:49.This is not pandering, it's listening.
:43:50. > :43:52.One of the things politicians are accused of is not listening
:43:53. > :43:56.You have to listen to their concerns.
:43:57. > :43:59.But don't you have to lead as well on this?
:44:00. > :44:03.For me, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say,
:44:04. > :44:09.It's a model that's been adopted by other countries, more or less,
:44:10. > :44:12.and I think most people would be content with that.
:44:13. > :44:15.You have said you want to see the Norwegian style model and then
:44:16. > :44:18.said you are going to a job, but the advice the Foreign Office
:44:19. > :44:22.is giving to people moving to Norway is, you can go there for six months
:44:23. > :44:26.and you don't have to have a job, you can search for a job for six
:44:27. > :44:28.months, after that it becomes a bit more tricky.
:44:29. > :44:31.Is that what you mean by the Norwegian model?
:44:32. > :44:33.I haven't used the phrase Norwegian model.
:44:34. > :44:35.I preferred the freedom of movement to work.
:44:36. > :44:37.I'm going to Norway in two weeks' time.
:44:38. > :44:41.I have heard different things about Norway and I want to make sure
:44:42. > :44:43.I hear for myself how things work and the nature of their
:44:44. > :44:49.I met with the Slavic ambassador to the EU and the Swiss ambassador
:44:50. > :44:53.and I want to make sure that as we look for the best deal
:44:54. > :44:55.for Wales, we actually look at the different models in different
:44:56. > :44:58.countries and come up with a Welsh solution.
:44:59. > :45:01.And if the deal Theresa May gets, because it will be Theresa May
:45:02. > :45:03.securing this deal on behalf of the UK,
:45:04. > :45:06.if you don't think that offers the best for Wales,
:45:07. > :45:09.will you be arguing that Wales should have its own system?
:45:10. > :45:13.I think we should have a deal that is good for the whole
:45:14. > :45:20.First of all, there is not going to be a deal in two years.
:45:21. > :45:23.The transitional arrangements are going to be important.
:45:24. > :45:25.For me, what's important is that the UK Government gets
:45:26. > :45:28.to a position where it agrees common ground with the devolved governments
:45:29. > :45:35.Why not get the widest possible buy in before you begin negotiation?
:45:36. > :45:38.It has been an incredible year in politics in Wales,
:45:39. > :45:43.Looking ahead to next year, how hopeful are you in terms of Brexit?
:45:44. > :45:47.I guess you have been, on the spectrum, the more concerned
:45:48. > :45:53.How hopeful are you that in 12 months' time there will be more
:45:54. > :46:00.What worries me, I sit there as the leader who has been
:46:01. > :46:03.there longer than anyone else, is the naivete that I come
:46:04. > :46:09.There are some who are realists but there are some who still say
:46:10. > :46:16.You have to be realistic and understand this is a discussion
:46:17. > :46:19.between not just two parties but more then 30 different parties
:46:20. > :46:21.when you take into account the different parliaments
:46:22. > :46:25.The UK has to learn the art of diplomacy rather
:46:26. > :46:28.than shouting at foreigners, which is the impression you get
:46:29. > :46:34.Everybody wants to see the best deal for all of us in Europe but you do
:46:35. > :46:36.that through talking to people, persuading people, making your case,
:46:37. > :46:42.There are some in the Tory party who seem to think
:46:43. > :46:49.Now, we hear a lot about "three wise men" at this time of year.
:46:50. > :46:54.So we have "three wise women" here instead.
:46:55. > :46:57.They are Professor Laura McAllister from Cardiff University,
:46:58. > :47:09.and the political commentator and businesswoman Shazia Awan.
:47:10. > :47:15.Thanks very much for coming in. We will talk about Brexit in a moment
:47:16. > :47:20.but the first half of that interview was getting rid of the Child poverty
:47:21. > :47:24.target. As such a major part of what they were trying to do for so long
:47:25. > :47:29.in the early years of devolution, how big a deal is it that they have
:47:30. > :47:32.dropped it? I understand where the First Minister is coming from.
:47:33. > :47:37.Targets are important but the kind of deadline that was being put in
:47:38. > :47:40.place for that one was always unrealistic, bearing in mind the
:47:41. > :47:44.economic state of Wales. Anything that is going to tackle something as
:47:45. > :47:48.systemic and problematic as child poverty has got to be done in
:47:49. > :47:53.partnership and has got to be done using levers that the Welsh
:47:54. > :47:58.government doesn't own itself. But is it worth asking, they would have
:47:59. > :48:01.known that in 2011 when they reaffirmed their commitment to the
:48:02. > :48:07.target. Should they have dropped it back then? I think they should have
:48:08. > :48:11.looked updates, certainly, but one of the refreshing things that came
:48:12. > :48:14.out of that interview with the First Minister is there seems to be a real
:48:15. > :48:18.drive towards focus now. This is something we have got horribly wrong
:48:19. > :48:22.in the first 17 years of devolution. We have tried to do too much rather
:48:23. > :48:28.than dealing with the messy problems of poverty and so on. This is a
:48:29. > :48:34.unique opportunity. And in a small country like Wales, if we can't
:48:35. > :48:37.focus, nobody can. We were hearing their not the best example of how
:48:38. > :48:43.devolved powers can be used to get rid of child poverty, but what do
:48:44. > :48:46.you think needs to change? I think a lot of things need to change and
:48:47. > :48:54.whilst it is good that child poverty has come down in Wales, when I look
:48:55. > :48:59.at my region, where there are 28% of families, and consequently children,
:49:00. > :49:07.living in child poverty, obviously some policies have to change. With
:49:08. > :49:10.child poverty comes inequality. These children are suffering
:49:11. > :49:14.educationally, they are suffering with they can't afford to go out
:49:15. > :49:20.recreationally. We have got to look at all these things to try and give
:49:21. > :49:24.them an equal chance in life because these children are the people of our
:49:25. > :49:33.future. If we don't look after them now, we are not going to be. What
:49:34. > :49:40.needs to change? I think a lot needs to change in what the Welsh
:49:41. > :49:42.government is doing. Listening to the First Minister's interview,
:49:43. > :49:47.there seems to be a clear disconnect between a blue Westminster and a red
:49:48. > :49:53.Assembly, but he can't keep blaming that for Welsh Labour's own
:49:54. > :49:58.failings. Across Wales we have got 200,000 children living in poverty.
:49:59. > :50:01.60% of those parents are working and Labour always claimed to be the
:50:02. > :50:06.party of the working people but we have seen the rise of Ukip across
:50:07. > :50:10.Wales, whether we like it or not. We have to engage with our Ukip
:50:11. > :50:14.Assembly Members and that is a failing of Welsh Labour. 17 out of
:50:15. > :50:16.22 local authorities voted leave under a Labour watch.
:50:17. > :50:19.Now, there have been so many political comings and goings this
:50:20. > :50:21.year that it's been difficult at times to keep track.
:50:22. > :50:25.Time now then for Cemlyn Davies' cheeky look back at the main events,
:50:26. > :50:33.which also has a few bits you may have forgotten.
:50:34. > :50:39.Time to dust off the year's top political stories and put them
:50:40. > :50:42.on display once more as we reflect on the year that was.
:50:43. > :50:48.We have had a new Welsh Secretary and we nearly had a new
:50:49. > :50:59.And then of course there was breakfast...Brexit.
:51:00. > :51:03.It was Britain's EU future that brought Carwyn Jones
:51:04. > :51:05.and Nigel Farage together for a heated debate on a chilly
:51:06. > :51:12.A sign of things to come over the next five months.
:51:13. > :51:15.I want you to grab this historic opportunity to take back
:51:16. > :51:22.Wales is at home in Europe and Europe is at home in Wales.
:51:23. > :51:25.A few weeks later, Alun Cairns was appointed Secretary of State
:51:26. > :51:29.for Wales, replacing the new Work and Pensions Secretary
:51:30. > :51:35.Meanwhile, in the Senedd, AMs were getting ready to head off
:51:36. > :51:40.There was just one piece of legislation left to rubber-stamp.
:51:41. > :51:45.This would be a formality, wouldn't it?
:51:46. > :51:51.I thought at the time they were a rather cheap date.
:51:52. > :51:58.In fact, Leighton Andrews must have regretted his remark almost
:51:59. > :52:03.immediately because it led to those Plaid Cymru AMs who had
:52:04. > :52:06.been prepared to back the Public Health Bill and a ban
:52:07. > :52:11.on using e-cigarettes in some public places to withdraw their support.
:52:12. > :52:17.But no sooner had they left that the AMs were back,
:52:18. > :52:22.recalled to a makeshift chamber to discuss Tata Steel's intention
:52:23. > :52:31.The election campaign brought with it big names.
:52:32. > :52:46.But this was the lasting image of the election as Plaid leader
:52:47. > :52:50.Leanne Wood beat Labour's Leighton Andrews in Rhondda.
:52:51. > :52:55.That was the only seat Labour lost, leaving the party with 29 AMs.
:52:56. > :52:58.Plaid Cymru came second, the Conservatives third,
:52:59. > :53:02.and Ukip won its first seat here in the Assembly.
:53:03. > :53:08.as the Liberal Democrats lost four of their five Assembly Members.
:53:09. > :53:12.And so to the simple, straightforward task of reappointing
:53:13. > :53:25.Yes, a dramatic tied vote forced Carwyn Jones to strike
:53:26. > :53:31.When he was finally reinstated, he invited the only remaining
:53:32. > :53:35.Lib Dem, Kirsty Williams, to join his cabinet.
:53:36. > :53:39.Ukip group leader Neil Hamilton wasn't impressed.
:53:40. > :53:43.I'm afraid that these two ladies have just made themselves political
:53:44. > :53:50.But a month later, Mr Hamilton was much happier, as Christmas came
:53:51. > :53:56.The UK, including Wales, had voted to leave the EU,
:53:57. > :54:00.but that result provided plenty of food for thought.
:54:01. > :54:15.Conference, mark my words, we will make breakfast...Brexit a success.
:54:16. > :54:19.Christmas is a time for families to come together,
:54:20. > :54:24.It's also when family fallouts are most keenly felt
:54:25. > :54:27.and we have had our fair share of those this year.
:54:28. > :54:30.Labour's problems were laid bare over the summer
:54:31. > :54:35.as Pontypridd MP Owen Smith took on Jeremy Corbyn and lost.
:54:36. > :54:39.Elsewhere, Ukip's Nathan Gill became an independent AM amid calls
:54:40. > :54:43.for him to give up one of his two elected positions.
:54:44. > :54:49.And then Dafydd Elis-Thomas announced he would also sit
:54:50. > :54:57.As the year drew to a close, Brexit continued to dominate.
:54:58. > :55:01.The Welsh Government went to court to make the case for MPs
:55:02. > :55:07.A judgment on that issue is expected early in the New Year.
:55:08. > :55:17.Who knows what else 2017 has in store?
:55:18. > :55:29.I guess, looking back at that, you see how much happened in the
:55:30. > :55:35.Assembly, but is everything through the prism of Brexit? I think Brexit,
:55:36. > :55:40.we are going to be talking about it for a long time and we can't hide
:55:41. > :55:44.away from the way Wales voted. 17 out of our 22 local authorities
:55:45. > :55:48.voted to leave. In Brexit negotiations, that doesn't mean we
:55:49. > :55:53.will have the same say as Scotland. We only have to look at the First
:55:54. > :55:57.Minister's disastrous all white Brexit committee that he put
:55:58. > :56:01.together this year to show that the Welsh government don't really have a
:56:02. > :56:05.handle on equality and diversity issues, particularly when, as a
:56:06. > :56:09.direct result of the EU referendum vote, we saw a huge spike in hate
:56:10. > :56:17.crimes against our minority communities in Wales. But why do you
:56:18. > :56:22.think that happened? Do you think there is a direct causal link
:56:23. > :56:27.between those two things? We have seen the rise of hate crime and I
:56:28. > :56:32.would say that it is a direct result from the vote to leave because a lot
:56:33. > :56:36.of the language used in that was very irresponsible. But equally you
:56:37. > :56:40.can look back to the irresponsible language that was used in the London
:56:41. > :56:44.election, where they were effectively not fighting Sadiq Khan
:56:45. > :56:48.for being Labour, they were fighting him for having the surname can't
:56:49. > :56:53.because you can't justifiably call a human rights lawyer radical and
:56:54. > :56:58.extreme. We saw that language at the start of the year and as someone who
:56:59. > :57:04.was heavily involved in the Remain campaign, I saw the tide turned. We
:57:05. > :57:10.saw the various derogatory words being used before the vote. And Ukip
:57:11. > :57:14.did put out a lot of irresponsible posters and propaganda. Now what we
:57:15. > :57:16.need is politicians to be held to account and acknowledge how they are
:57:17. > :57:23.going to help those communities across Wales. Caroline, as a
:57:24. > :57:28.prominent Leave campaigner, do you think that needs to be addressed? Of
:57:29. > :57:33.course it needs to be addressed. Bullying and racism in any shape or
:57:34. > :57:37.form, I deplore bullying. I worked in the prison, I had my own
:57:38. > :57:41.department in the prison service, and I was in charge of
:57:42. > :57:46.anti-bullying, writing policies. I deplore bullying in any shape or
:57:47. > :57:52.form. What I would say to people is, there is going to be a distinction
:57:53. > :57:56.between what we must not do, the British people, the people of Wales
:57:57. > :58:00.in my case, have been very generous towards people coming into the
:58:01. > :58:06.country. We can't take that away from people. What I say is, when
:58:07. > :58:13.people voice their concerns in a logical way, we mustn't interpret
:58:14. > :58:18.that as racism. We haven't got much time. Will that change and how do
:58:19. > :58:26.you think that will change? Immigration post Brexit? We have to
:58:27. > :58:32.look at an education policy, and immigration policy, sorry, that
:58:33. > :58:36.works for everyone. But how? I think it has to be controlled and we have
:58:37. > :58:40.to know who is coming into the country and how many people are
:58:41. > :58:46.coming in. We have to look at our small country and we have two,
:58:47. > :58:52.obviously, we have to take our responsibility as well with people
:58:53. > :58:57.coming in, refugees. How much do you think 2016 has changed politics, not
:58:58. > :59:01.just in the UK but across the world? Fundamentally. We are missing big
:59:02. > :59:06.points here, which is why people voted in the way they did. Why did
:59:07. > :59:11.they vote for Caroline's party in the Assembly election in significant
:59:12. > :59:14.numbers and why did they vote Brexit in significant numbers? This is a
:59:15. > :59:19.fundamental lack of connect and belief in our political classes.
:59:20. > :59:24.What I think has changed fundamentally during 2016, in Wales,
:59:25. > :59:27.the UK and globally, is that people are prepared to lash out at the
:59:28. > :59:37.political classes and this will mean a fundamental change in politics,
:59:38. > :59:39.whether we like it or not. I think it will mean a complete realignment
:59:40. > :59:42.of parties, how they are run and how they operate. Do you think that
:59:43. > :59:44.backlash is party political? They would have been lashing out against
:59:45. > :59:49.the Conservatives in Westminster but Labour here. I said before the
:59:50. > :59:54.election, it didn't matter what Ukip did in the campaign, how many rows
:59:55. > :59:57.they had, disagreements, how many word was thrown at them, they were
:59:58. > :00:00.going to win seats because people wanted a different party that they
:00:01. > :00:06.felt would represent them differently. Once there is a mood
:00:07. > :00:08.for change, as we sensed in the US election, the candidate that best
:00:09. > :00:15.represent that concept of change are the ones that will pick up vote.
:00:16. > :00:18.Looking at what has happened in the Assembly and Ukip having seven
:00:19. > :00:25.Assembly Members. Six now because there is one independent. When you
:00:26. > :00:28.look back at Neil Hamilton referring to political concubines, it has
:00:29. > :00:37.shaken things up, but are you happy with all the stuff you have heard?
:00:38. > :00:44.Obviously, people doing from home, they don't hear the remarks that are
:00:45. > :00:49.made to everyone. To all of us. But that was a very high-profile thing.
:00:50. > :00:53.The Presiding Officer is dealing robustly with anything which is
:00:54. > :01:00.unacceptable. Elin Jones has set up... Do you think it was
:01:01. > :01:03.unacceptable? Elin Jones has set out his stall and she is dealing with
:01:04. > :01:09.anything she finds unacceptable and we all have a code of conduct and a
:01:10. > :01:12.responsibility to each other. We need robust debate but what is
:01:13. > :01:19.acceptable and unacceptable is going to be decided by the Presiding
:01:20. > :01:25.Officer. I have asked you all for a prediction for 2017. What do you
:01:26. > :01:29.think will be the main event? Anything that could have happened
:01:30. > :01:35.has happened in 2016. I think we need to, I would like to see a
:01:36. > :01:42.resurgence of the Lib Dems. Time is really tight. Caroline? Obviously, I
:01:43. > :01:45.want to see Brexit happen and I want to see more people coming and
:01:46. > :01:50.investing in our country and bringing jobs and prosperity. I
:01:51. > :01:53.think divisions in parties across the piece. Not a highlight, a
:01:54. > :01:55.prediction. That's all we have time
:01:56. > :01:57.for today and this year. For now, Nadolig Llawen,
:01:58. > :02:04.Merry Christmas, Will Article 50 be triggered
:02:05. > :02:21.by the end of March, will President Trump start work
:02:22. > :02:24.on his wall and will Front National's Marine Le Pen
:02:25. > :02:49.provide the next electoral shock? 2016, the Brexit for Britain and
:02:50. > :02:51.Trump for the rest of the world. Let's look back and see what one of
:02:52. > :02:55.you said about Brexit. If Mr Cameron loses the referendum
:02:56. > :02:58.and it is this year, will he be Prime Minister at the end
:02:59. > :03:00.of the year? I don't think he will lose
:03:01. > :03:14.the referendum, so I'm feeling It was clear if he did lose the
:03:15. > :03:18.referendum he would be out. I would like to say in retrospect I saw that
:03:19. > :03:24.coming on a long and I was just saying it to make good television!
:03:25. > :03:30.It is Christmas so I will be benign towards my panel! It is possible,
:03:31. > :03:34.Iain, that not much happens to Brexit in 2017, because we have a
:03:35. > :03:38.host of elections coming up in Europe, the French won in the spring
:03:39. > :03:43.and the German one in the autumn will be the most important. And
:03:44. > :03:46.until we know who the next French president is and what condition Mrs
:03:47. > :03:52.Merkel will be in, not much will happen? I think that is the
:03:53. > :03:56.likeliest outcome. Short of some constitutional crisis involving the
:03:57. > :04:03.Lords relating to Brexit, it is pretty clear it is difficult to
:04:04. > :04:07.properly begin the negotiations until it becomes clear who Britain
:04:08. > :04:12.is negotiating with. It will come down to the result of the German
:04:13. > :04:16.election. Germany is the biggest contributor and if they keep power
:04:17. > :04:20.in what is left of the European Union, will drive the negotiation
:04:21. > :04:27.and we will have to see if it will be Merkel. So this vacuum that has
:04:28. > :04:31.been seen and has been filled by people less than friendly to the
:04:32. > :04:34.government, even when we know Article 50 has been triggered and
:04:35. > :04:39.even if there is some sort of white paper to give us a better idea of
:04:40. > :04:46.the broad strategic outlines of what they mean by Brexit, the phoney war
:04:47. > :04:52.could continue? Iain is right. 2017 is going to be a remarkably dull
:04:53. > :04:58.year for Brexit as opposed to 2016. We will have the article and a plan.
:04:59. > :05:03.The plan will say I would like the moon on a stick please. The EU will
:05:04. > :05:09.say you can have a tiny bit of moon and a tiny bit of stick and there
:05:10. > :05:13.will be an impasse. That will go on until one minute to midnight 2018
:05:14. > :05:19.which is when the EU will act. There is one thing in the Foreign Office
:05:20. > :05:24.which is more important, as David Davis Department told me, they know
:05:25. > :05:27.there is nothing they can do until the French and Germans have their
:05:28. > :05:32.elections and they know the lie of the land, but the people who will be
:05:33. > :05:36.more helpful to us are in Eastern Europe and in Scandinavia, the
:05:37. > :05:41.Nordic countries. We can do quite a lot of schmoozing to try and get
:05:42. > :05:45.them broadly on side this year? It is very difficult because one of the
:05:46. > :05:49.things they care most about in Eastern Europe is the ability for
:05:50. > :05:54.Eastern European stew come and work in the UK. That is key to the
:05:55. > :05:58.economic prospects. But what they care most about is that those
:05:59. > :06:04.already here should not be under any pressure to leave. There is no
:06:05. > :06:09.guarantee of that. That is what Mrs May wants. There are a lot of things
:06:10. > :06:13.Mrs May wants and the story of 2017 will be about what she gets. How
:06:14. > :06:19.much have we got to give people? It is not what we want, but what we are
:06:20. > :06:24.willing to give. The interesting thing is you can divide this out
:06:25. > :06:28.into two. There is a question of the European Union and our relationship
:06:29. > :06:37.with it but there is also the trick the polls did to London -- there is
:06:38. > :06:41.also the polls. There is question beyond the Western European
:06:42. > :06:47.security, that is about Nato and intelligence and security, and the
:06:48. > :06:50.rising Russian threat. That does not mean the Polish people will persuade
:06:51. > :06:55.everyone else to give us a lovely deal on the EU, but the dynamic is
:06:56. > :06:59.bigger than just a chat about Brexit. You cannot threaten a
:07:00. > :07:03.punishment beating for us if we are putting our soldiers on the line on
:07:04. > :07:07.the eastern borders of Europe. I think that's where Donald Trump
:07:08. > :07:13.changes the calculation because his attitude towards Russia is very
:07:14. > :07:21.different to Barack Obama's. It is indeed. Mentioning Russia, Brexit
:07:22. > :07:24.was a global story but nothing can match and American election and even
:07:25. > :07:28.one which gives Donald Trump as well. Let's have a look at what this
:07:29. > :07:31.panel was saying about Donald Trump. Will Donald Trump win the Republican
:07:32. > :07:44.nomination next year. So, not only did you think he would
:07:45. > :07:48.not be president, you did not think he would win the Republican
:07:49. > :07:53.nomination. We were not alone in that. And they're right put forward
:07:54. > :07:58.a motion to abolish punditry here now because clearly we are
:07:59. > :08:03.pointless! There is enough unemployment in the world already!
:08:04. > :08:08.We are moving into huge and charted territory with Donald Trump as
:08:09. > :08:15.president. It is incredibly unpredictable. But what has not been
:08:16. > :08:22.noticed enough is the Keynesian won. Trump is a Keynesian. He wants
:08:23. > :08:27.massive infrastructure spending and massive tax cuts. The big story next
:08:28. > :08:33.year will be the massive reflation of the American economy and indeed
:08:34. > :08:37.the US Federal reserve has already reacted to that by putting up
:08:38. > :08:43.interest rates. That is why he has a big fight with the rest of the
:08:44. > :08:47.Republican Party. He is nominally a Republican but they are not
:08:48. > :08:52.Keynesian. They are when it comes to tax cuts. They are when it hits the
:08:53. > :08:56.rich to benefit the poor. The big thing is whether the infrastructure
:08:57. > :09:01.projects land him in crony trouble. The transparency around who gets
:09:02. > :09:06.those will be extremely difficult. Most of the infrastructure spending
:09:07. > :09:11.he thinks can be done by the private sector and not the federal
:09:12. > :09:16.government. His tax cuts overlap the Republican house tax cuts speaker
:09:17. > :09:21.Ryan to give not all, but a fair chunk of what he wants. If the
:09:22. > :09:25.American economy is going to reflate next year, interest rates will rise
:09:26. > :09:32.in America, that will strengthen the dollar and it will mean that Europe
:09:33. > :09:36.will be, it will find it more difficult to finance its sovereign
:09:37. > :09:42.debt because you will get more money by investing in American sovereign
:09:43. > :09:46.debt. That is a good point because the dynamics will shift. If that
:09:47. > :09:53.happens, Trump will be pretty popular in the US. To begin with. To
:09:54. > :09:56.begin with. It is energy self-sufficient and if you can pull
:09:57. > :10:02.off the biggest trick in American politics which is somehow to via
:10:03. > :10:08.corporation tax cuts to allow the reassuring of wealth, because it is
:10:09. > :10:11.too expensive for American business to take back into the US and
:10:12. > :10:15.reinvest, if you combine all of those things together, you will end
:10:16. > :10:23.up with a boom on a scale you have not seen. It will be Reagan on
:10:24. > :10:27.steroids? What could possibly go wrong? In the short term for
:10:28. > :10:32.Britain, it is probably not bad news. Our biggest market for exports
:10:33. > :10:36.as a country is the United States. Our biggest market for foreign
:10:37. > :10:40.direct investment is the United States and the same is true vice
:10:41. > :10:44.versa for America in Britain. Given the pound is now competitive and
:10:45. > :10:50.likely the dollar will get stronger, it could well give a boost to the
:10:51. > :10:54.British economy? Could do bit you have to be slightly cautious about
:10:55. > :10:59.the warm language we are getting which is great news out of President
:11:00. > :11:04.Trump's future cabinet on doing a trade deal early, we are net
:11:05. > :11:07.exporters to the US. We benefit far more from trading with US than they
:11:08. > :11:13.do with us. I think we have to come up with something to offer the US
:11:14. > :11:19.for them to jump into bed with us. I think it is called two new aircraft
:11:20. > :11:27.carriers and modernising the fleet. Bring it on. I will raise caution,
:11:28. > :11:32.people in declining industries in some places in America, the rust
:11:33. > :11:36.belt who have faced big profound structural challenges and those are
:11:37. > :11:41.much harder to reverse. They face real problems now because the dollar
:11:42. > :11:47.is so strong. Their ability to export has taken a huge hit out of
:11:48. > :11:50.Ohio, Michigan and Illinois. And the Mexican imports into America is now
:11:51. > :11:57.dirt cheap so that is a major problem. Next year we have elections
:11:58. > :12:06.in Austria, France, the Netherlands, Germany, probably Italy. Which
:12:07. > :12:11.outcome will be the most dramatic for Brexit? If Merkel lost it would
:12:12. > :12:21.be a huge surprise. That is unlikely. And if it was not Filon in
:12:22. > :12:26.France that would be unlikely. The consensus it it will be Francois
:12:27. > :12:36.Filon against Marine Le Pen and it will be uniting around the far right
:12:37. > :12:43.candidate. In 2002, that is what happened. Filon is a Thatcherite.
:12:44. > :12:50.Marine Le Pen's politics -- economics are hard left. Francois
:12:51. > :12:55.Filon is as much a cert to win as Hillary Clinton was this time last
:12:56. > :13:04.year. If he is competing against concerns about rising globalisation
:13:05. > :13:08.and his pitch is Thatcherite, it is a bold, brave strategy in the
:13:09. > :13:16.context so we will see. It will keep us busy next year, Tom? Almost as
:13:17. > :13:20.busy as this year but not quite. This year was a record year. I am up
:13:21. > :13:23.in my hours! That's all for today,
:13:24. > :13:25.thanks to all my guests. The Daily Politics will be back
:13:26. > :13:28.on BBC Two at noon tomorrow. I'll be back here
:13:29. > :13:30.on the 15th January. Remember, if it's Sunday,
:13:31. > :13:33.it's the Sunday Politics. The most a writer
:13:34. > :14:14.can hope from a reader