15/01/2017 Sunday Politics Wales


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 15/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



It's Sunday morning, and this is the Sunday Politics.


Is the Prime Minister prepared to end Britain's membership


of the EU's single market and its customs union?


We preview Theresa May's big speech, as she seeks to unite the country


Is the press a force for good or a beast that needs taming?


As the Government ponders its decision, we speak to one


of those leading the campaign for greater regulation.


Just what kind of President will Donald Trump be?


Piers Morgan, a man who knows him well, joins us live.


A senior MP tells us Wales shouldn't have a separate policy


on immigration, and what's next for our councils?


We look ahead to May's elections and beyond.


And to help me make sense of all that, three of the finest


hacks we could persuade to work on a Sunday - Steve Richards,


They'll be tweeting throughout the programme, and you can join


So, Theresa May is preparing for her big Brexit speech on Tuesday,


in which she will urge people to give up on "insults"


and "division" and unite to build, quote, a "global Britain".


Some of the Sunday papers report that the Prime Minister will go


The Sunday Telegraph splashes with the headline: "May's big


gamble on a clean Brexit", saying the Prime Minister


will announce she's prepared to take Britain out of membership


of the single market and customs union.


The Sunday Times has a similar write-up -


they call it a "clean and hard Brexit".


The Brexit Secretary David Davis has also written a piece in the paper


hinting that a transitional deal could be on the cards.


And the Sunday Express says: "May's Brexit Battle Plan",


explaining that the Prime Minister will get tough with Brussels


and call for an end to free movement.


Well, let's get some more reaction on this.


I'm joined now from Cumbria by the leader


of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron.


Mr Farron, welcome back to the programme. The Prime Minister says


most people now just want to get on with it and make a success of it.


But you still want to stop it, don't you? Well, I certainly take the view


that heading for a hard Brexit, essentially that means being outside


the Single Market and the customs union, is not something that was on


the ballot paper last June. For Theresa May to adopt what is


basically the large all Farage vision of Britain's relationship


with Europe is not what was voted for last June. It is right for us to


stand up and say that a hard Brexit is not the democratic choice of the


British people, and that we should be fighting for the people to be the


ones who have the Seat the end of this process, not have it forced


upon them by Theresa May and David Davis. When it comes though dual


position that we should remain in the membership of the Single Market


and the customs union, it looks like you are losing the argument, doesn't


it? My sense is that if you believe in being in the Single Market and


the customs union are good things, I think many people on the leave site


believe that, Stephen Phillips, the Conservative MP until the autumn who


resigned, who voted for Leave but believe we should be in the Single


Market, I think those people believe that it is wrong for us to enter the


negotiations having given up on the most important part of it. If you


really are going to fight Britain's corner, then you should go in there


fighting the membership of the Single Market, not give up and


whitefly, as Theresa May has done before we even start. -- and wave


the white flag. Will you vote against regret Article 50 in the


Commons? We made it clear that we want the British people to have the


final Seat -- vote against triggering. Will you vote against


Article 50. Will you encourage the House of Lords to vote against out


Article 50? I don't think they will get a chance to vote. They will have


a chance to win the deuce amendments. One amendment we will


introduce is that there should be a referendum in the terms of the deal.


It is not right that Parliament on Government, and especially not civil


servants in Brussels and Whitehall, they should stitch-up the final


deal. That would be wrong. It is right that the British people have


the final say. I understand that as your position. You made it clear


Britain to remain a member of the Single Market on the customs union.


You accept, I assume, that that would mean remaining under the


jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, continuing free movement


of people, and the free-trade deals remained in Brussels' competence. So


it seems to me that if you believe that being in the Single Market is a


good thing, then you should go and argue for that. Whilst I believe


that we're not going to get a better deal than the one we currently have,


nevertheless it is up to the Government to go and argue for the


best deal possible for us outside. You accept your position would mean


that? It would mean certainly being in the Single Market and the customs


union. It's no surprise to you I'm sure that the Lib Dems believe the


package we have got now inside the EU is going to be of the Nutley


better than anything we get from the outside, I accept the direction of


travel -- is going to be the Nutley better. At the moment, what the


Government are doing is assuming that all the things you say Drew,


and there is no way possible for us arguing for a deal that allows in


the Single Market without some of those other things. If they really


believed in the best for Britain, you would go and argue for the best


for Britain. Let's be clear, if we remain under the jurisdiction of the


ECJ, which is the court that governs membership of the Single Market,


continued free movement of people, the Europeans have made clear, is


what goes with the Single Market. And free-trade deals remaining under


Brussels' competence. If we accepted all of that is the price of


membership of the Single Market, in what conceivable way with that


amount to leaving the European Union? Well, for example, I do


believe that being a member of the Single Market is worth fighting for.


I personally believe that freedom of movement is a good thing. British


people benefit from freedom of movement. We will hugely be hit as


individuals and families and businesses. Mike I understand, but


your writing of leaving... There the butt is that if you do except that


freedom of movement has to change, I don't, but if you do, and if you are


Theresa May, and the problem is to go and fight for the best deal,


don't take it from Brussels that you can't be in the Single Market


without those other things as well, you don't go and argue the case. It


depresses me that Theresa May is beginning this process is waving the


white flag, just as this morning Jeremy Corbyn was waving the white


flag when it comes to it. We need a Government that will fight Britain's


corner and an opposition that will fight the Government to make sure


that it fights. Just explain to our viewers how we could remain members,


members of the Single Market, and not be subject to the jurisdiction


of the European court? So, first of all we spent over the last many,


many years, the likes of Nigel Farage and others, will have argued,


you heard them on this very programme, that Britain should


aspire to be like Norway and Switzerland for example, countries


that are not in the European Union but aren't the Single Market. It is


very clear to me that if you want the best deal for Britain -- but are


in the Single Market. You go and argue for the best deal. What is the


answer to my question, you haven't answered it


the question is, how does the Prime Minister go and fight for the best


deal for Britain. If we think that being in the Single Market is the


right thing, not Baxter -- not access to it but membership of it,


you don't wave the white flag before you enter the negotiating room. I'm


afraid we have run out of time. Thank you, Tim Farron.


The leaks on this speech on Tuesday we have seen, it is interesting that


Downing Street has not attempted to dampen them down this morning, in


the various papers, do they tell us something new? Do they tell us more


of the Goverment's aims in the Brexit negotiations? I think it's


only a confirmation of something which has been in the mating really


for the six months that she's been in the job. The logic of everything


that she's said since last July, the keenness on re-gaining control of


migration, the desire to do international trade deals, the fact


that she is appointed trade Secretary, the logic of all of that


is that we are out of the Single Market, quite probably out of the


customs union, what will happen this week is a restatement of a fairly


clear position anyway. I think Tim Farron is right about one thing, I


don't think she will go into the speech planning to absolutely


definitively say, we are leaving those things. Because even if there


is a 1% chance of a miracle deal, where you stay in the Single Market,


somehow get exempted from free movement, it is prudent to keep


hopes on that option as a Prime Minister. -- to keep open that


option. She is being advised both by the diplomatic corps and her


personal advisers, don't concede on membership of the Single Market yet.


We know it's not going to happen, but let them Europeans knock us back


on that,... That is probably the right strategy for all of the


reasons that Jarlan outlined there. What we learned a bit today is the


possibility of some kind of transition or arrangements, which


David Davies has been talking about in a comment piece for one of the


Sunday papers. My sense from Brexiteers aborting MPs is that they


are very happy with 90% of the rhetoric -- Brexit sporting MPs. The


rhetoric has not been dampened down by MPs, apart from this transitional


arrangement, which they feel and two France, on the one front will


encourage the very dilatory EU to spend longer than ever negotiating a


deal, and on the other hand will also be exactly what our civil


service looks for in stringing things out. What wasn't explained


this morning is what David Davies means by transitional is not that


you negotiate what you can in two years and then spend another five


years on the matter is that a lot of the soul. He thinks everything has


to be done in the two years, -- of the matter are hard to solve. But it


would include transitional arrangements over the five years.


What we are seeing in the build-up is the danger of making these kind


of speeches. In a way, I kind of admired her not feeding the media


machine over the autumn and the end of last year cars, as Janan has


pointed out in his columns, she has actually said quite a lot from it,


you would extrapolate quite a lot. We won't be members of the Single


Market? She said that in the party conference speech, we are out of


European court. Her red line is the end of free movement, so we are out


of the Single Market. Why has she sent Liam Fox to negotiate all of


these other deals, not that he will succeed necessarily, but that is the


intention? We are still in the customs union. You can extrapolate


what she will say perhaps more cautiously in the headlines on


Tuesday. But the grammar of a big speech raises expectations, gets the


markets worked up. So she is doing it because people have said that she


doesn't know what she's on about. But maybe she should have resisted


it. Very well, and she hasn't. The speech is on Tuesday morning.


Now, the public consultation on press regulation closed this


week, and soon ministers will have to decide whether to


enact a controversial piece of legislation.


Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, if implemented,


could see newspapers forced to pay legal costs in libel and privacy


If they don't sign up to an officially approved regulator.


The newspapers say it's an affront to a free press,


while pro-privacy campaigners say it's the only way to ensure


a scandal like phone-hacking can't happen again.


Ellie Price has been reading all about it.


It was the biggest news about the news for decades,


a scandal that involved household names, but not just celebrities.


They've even hacked the phone of a murdered schoolgirl.


It led to the closure of the News Of The World,


a year-long public inquiry headed up by the judge Lord Justice Leveson,


and in the end, a new press watchdog set up by Royal Charter,


which could impose, among other things, million-pound fines.


If this system is implemented, the country should have confidence


that the terrible suffering of innocent victims


like the Dowlers, the McCanns and Christopher Jefferies should


To get this new plan rolling, the Government also passed


the Crime and Courts Act, Section 40 of which would force


publications who didn't sign up to the new regulator to pay legal


costs in libel and privacy cases, even if they won.


It's waiting for sign-off from the Culture Secretary.


We've got about 50 publications that have signed up...


This is Impress, the press regulator that's got the backing


of the Royal Charter, so its members are protected


from the penalties that would be imposed by Section 40.


It's funded by the Formula One tycoon Max Mosley's


I think the danger if we don't get Section 40 is that


you have an incomplete Leveson project.


I think it's very, very likely that within the next five or ten years


there will be a scandal, there'll be a crisis in press


standards, everyone will be saying to the Government,


"Why on Earth didn't you sort things out when you had the chance?"


Isn't Section 40 essentially just a big stick to beat


We hear a lot about the stick part, but there's also a big juicy carrot


for publishers and their journalists who are members of an


They get huge new protections from libel threats,


from privacy actions, which actually means they've got


a lot more opportunity to run investigative stories.


Impress has a big image problem - not a single national


Instead, many of them are members of Ipso,


the independent regulator set up and funded by the industry that


doesn't seek the recognition of the Royal Charter.


The male cells around 22,000 each day...


There are regional titles too, who, like the Birmingham Mail,


won't sign up to Impress, even if they say the costs


are associated with Section 40 could put them out of business.


Impress has an umbilical cord that goes directly back to Government


through the recognition setup that it has.


Now, we broke free of the shackles of the regulated press


when the stamp duty was revealed 150 years ago.


If we go back to this level of oversight, then I think


we turn the clock back, 150 years of press freedom.


The responses from the public have been coming thick and fast


since the Government launched its consultation


In fact, by the time it closed on Tuesday,


And for that reason alone, it could take months before


a decision on what happens next is taken.


The Government will also be minded to listen to its own MPs,


One described it to me as Draconian and hugely damaging.


So, will the current Culture Secretary's thinking be


I don't think the Government will repeal section 40.


What I'm arguing for is not to implement it, but it will remain


on the statute book and if it then became apparent that Ipso simply


was failing to work, was not delivering effective


regulation and the press were behaving in a way


which was wholly unacceptable, as they were ten years ago,


then there might be an argument at that time to think well in that


case we are going to have to take further measures,


The future of section 40 might not be so black and white.


I'm told a compromise could be met whereby the punitive parts


about legal costs are dropped, but the incentives


to join a recognised regulator are beefed up.


But it could yet be some time until the issue of press freedom


I'm joined now by Max Mosley - he won a legal case against the News


Of The World after it revealed details about his private life,


and he now campaigns for more press regulation.


Are welcome to the programme. Let me ask you this, how can it be right


that you, who many folk think have a clear vendetta against the British


press, can bankroll a government approved regulator of the press? If


we hadn't done it, nobody would, section 40 would never have come


into force because there would never have been a regulator. It is


absolutely wrong that a family trust should have to finance something


like this. It should be financed by the press or the Government. If we


hadn't done it there would be no possibility of regulation. But it


means we end up with a regulator financed by you, as I say


many people think you have a clear vendetta against the press. Where


does the money come from? From a family trust, it is family money.


You have to understand that somebody had to do this. I understand that.


People like to know where the money comes from, I think you said it came


from Brixton Steyn at one stage. Ages ago my father had a trust there


but now all my money is in the UK. We are clear about that, but this is


money that was put together by your father. Yes, my father inherited it


from his father and his father. The whole of Manchester once belonged to


the family, that's why there is a Mosley Street. That is irrelevant


because as we have given the money, I have no control. If you do the


most elementary checks into the contract between my family trust,


the trust but finances Impress, it is impossible for me to exert any


influence. It is just the same as if it had come from the National


lottery. People will find it ironic that the money has come from


historically Britain's best-known fascist. No, it has come from my


family, the Mosley family. This is complete drivel because we have no


control. Where the money comes from doesn't matter, if it had come from


the national lottery it would be exactly the same. Impress was


completely independent. But it wouldn't exist without your money,


wouldn't it? But that doesn't give you influence. It might exist


because it was founded before I was ever in contact with them. Isn't it


curious then that so many leading light show your hostile views of the


press? I don't think it is because I don't know a single member of the


Impress board. The chairman I have met months. The only person I know


is Jonathan Hayward who you had on just now. In one recent months he


tweeted 50 attacks on the Daily Mail, including some calling for an


advertising boycott of the paper. He also liked a Twitter post calling me


Daily Mail and neofascist rag. Are these fitting for what is meant to


be impartial regulator? The person you should ask about that is the


press regulatory panel and they are completely independent, they


reviewed the whole thing. You have probably produced something very


selective, I have no idea but I am certain that these people are


absolutely trustworthy and independent. It is not just Mr


Hayward, we have a tonne of things he has tweeted calling for boycotts,


remember this is the man that would be the regulator of these papers.


He's the chief executive, that is a separate thing. The administration,


the regulator. Many leading light show your vendetta of the press. I


do not have a vendetta. Let's take another one. This person is on the


code committee. Have a look at this. As someone with these views fit to


be involved in the regulation of the press? You said I have a vendetta


against the press, I do not, I didn't say that and it is completely


wrong to say I have a vendetta. What do you think of that? I don't agree,


I wouldn't ban the Daily Mail, I think it's a dreadful paper but I


wouldn't ban it. Another Impress code committee said I hate the Daily


Mail, I couldn't agree more, others have called for a boycott. Other


people can say what they want and many people may think they are right


but surely these views make them unfit to be partial regulators? I


have no influence over Impress therefore I cannot say anything


about it. You should ask them, not me. All I have done is make it


possible for Impress to exist and that was the right thing to do. I'm


asking you if people with these kind of views are fit to be regulators of


the press. You would have to ask about all of their views, these are


some of their views. A lot of people have a downer on the Daily Mail and


the Sun, it doesn't necessarily make them party pre-. Why would


newspapers sign up to a regulator run by what they think is run by


enemies out to ruin them. If they don't like it they should start


their own section 40 regulator. They could make it so recognised, if only


they would make it independent of the big newspaper barons but they


won't -- they could make Ipso recognised. Is the Daily Mail


fascist? It certainly was in the 1930s. Me and my father are


relevant, this whole section 40 issue is about access to justice.


The press don't want ordinary people who cannot afford to bring an action


against the press, don't want them to have access to justice. I can


understand that but I don't sympathise. What would happen to the


boss of Ofcom, which regulates broadcasters, if it described


Channel 4 News is a Marxist scum? If the press don't want to sign up to


Impress they can create their own regulator. If you were to listen we


would get a lot further. The press should make their own Levenson


compliant regulator, then they would have no complaints at all. Even


papers like the Guardian, the Independent, the Financial Times,


they show your hostility to tabloid journalism. They have refused to be


regulated by Impress. I will say it again, the press could start their


own regulator, they do not have to sign... Yes, but Levenson compliant


one giving access to justice so people who cannot afford an


expensive legal action have a proper arbitration service. The Guardian,


the Independent, the Financial Times, they don't want to do that


either. That would suggest there is something fatally flawed about your


approach. Even these kind of papers, the Guardian, Impress is hardly


independent, the head of... Andrew, I am sorry, you are like a dog with


a bone. The press could start their own regulator, then people like the


Financial Times, the Guardian and so one could decide whether they wanted


to join or not but what is absolutely vital is that we should


have a proper arbitration service so that people who cannot afford an


expensive action have somewhere to go. This business of section 40


which you want to be triggered which would mean papers that didn't sign


up to Impress could be sued in any case and they would have to pay


potentially massive legal costs, even if they win. Yes. This is what


the number of papers have said about this, if section 40 was triggered,


the Guardian wouldn't even think of investigation. The Sunday Times said


it would not have even started to expose Lance Armstrong. The Times


journalist said he couldn't have done the Rotherham child abuse


scandal. What they all come it is a full reading of section 40 because


that cost shifting will only apply if, and I quote, it is just and


equitable in all the circumstances. I cannot conceive of any High Court


judge, for example the Lance Armstrong case or the child abuse,


saying it is just as equitable in all circumstances the newspaper


should pay these costs. Even the editor of index on censorship, which


is hardly the Sun, said this would be oppressive and they couldn't do


what they do, they would risk being sued by warlords. No because if


something unfortunate, some really bad person sues them, what would


happen is the judge would say it is just inequitable normal


circumstances that person should pay. Section 40 is for the person


that comes along and says to a big newspaper, can we go to arbitration


because I cannot afford to go to court. The big newspaper says no.


That leaves less than 1% of the population with any remedy if the


newspapers traduce them. It cannot be right. From the Guardian to the


Sun, and including Index On Censorship, all of these media


outlets think you are proposing a charter for conmen, warlords, crime


bosses, dodgy politicians, celebrities with a grievance against


the press. I will give you the final word to address that. It is pure


guff and the reason is they want to go on marking their own homework.


The press don't want anyone to make sure life is fair. All I want is


somebody who has got no money to be able to sue in just the way that I


can. All right, thanks for being with us.


The doctors' union, the British Medical Association,


has said the Government is scapegoating GPs in England


The Government has said GP surgeries must try harder to stay


open from 8am to 8pm, or they could lose out on funding.


The pressure on A services in recent weeks has been intense.


It emerged this week that 65 of the 152 Health Trusts in England


had issued an operational pressure alert in the first


At either level three, meaning major pressures,


or level four, indicating an inability to deliver


On Monday, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt told the Commons


that the number of people using A had increased by 9 million


But that 30% of those visits were unnecessary.


He said that the situation at a number of Trusts


On Tuesday, the Royal College of Physicians wrote


to the Prime Minister saying the health service was being


paralysed by spiralling demand, and urging greater investment.


On Wednesday, the Chief Executive of NHS England, Simon Stevens,


told a Select Committee that NHS funding will be highly constrained.


And from 2018, real-terms spending per person would fall.


The Prime Minister described the Red Cross's claim that A


was facing a "humanitarian crisis" as "irresponsible and overblown".


And the National Audit Office issued a report that found almost half,


46%, of GP surgeries closed at some point during core hours.


Yesterday, Mrs May signalled her support for doctors' surgeries


opening from 8am to 8pm every day of the week, in order to divert


To discuss this, I'm joined now by the Conservative


MP Maria Caulfield - she was an NHS nurse in a former


life - and Clare Gerada, a former chair of the Royal College


Welcome to you both. So, Maria Caulfield, what the Government is


saying, Downing Street in effect is saying that GPs do not work hard


enough and that's the reason why A was under such pressure? No, I don't


think that is the message, I think that is the message that the media


have taken up. That is not the expression that we want to give. I


still work as a nurse, I know how hard doctors work in hospitals and


GP practices. When the rose 30% of people turning up at A for neither


an accident or an emergency, we do need to look at alternative. Where


is the GPs' operability in this? We know from patients that if they


cannot get access to GPs, they will do one of three things. They will


wait two or three weeks until they can get an appointment, they will


forget about the problem altogether, which is not good, we want patients


to be getting investigations at early stages, or they will go to


A And that is a problem. I'm not quite sure what the role that GPs


play in this. What is your response in that? I think about 70% of


patients that I see should not be seen by me but should still be seen


by hospital consultants. If we look at it from GPs' eyes and not from


hospital's eyes, because that is what it is, we might get somewhere.


Tomorrow morning, every practice in England will have about 1.5 GPs


shot, that's not even counting if there is traffic problems, sickness


or whatever. -- GPs shot. We cannot work any harder, I cannot


physically, emotionally work any harder. We are open 12 hours a day,


most of us, I run practices open 365 days per year 24 hours a day. I


don't understand this. It is one thing attacking me as a GP from


working hard enough, but it is another thing saying that GPs as a


profession and doing what they should be doing. Let me in National


Audit Office has coming up with these figures showing that almost


half of doctors' practices are not open during core hours at some part


of the week. That's where the implication comes, that they are not


working hard enough. What do you say to that? I don't recognise this. I'm


not being defensive, I'm just don't recognise it. There are practices


working palliative care services, practices have to close home visits


if they are single-handed, some of us are working in care homes during


the day. They may shot for an hour in the middle of the data will sort


out some of the prescriptions and admin -- they may shot. My practice


runs a number of practices across London. If we shut during our


contractual hours we would have NHS England coming down on us like a


tonne of bricks. Maria Caulfield, I'm struggling to understand, given


the problems the NHS faces, particularly in our hospitals, what


this has got to do with the solution? Obviously there are GP


practices that are working, you know, over and above the hours. But


there are some GP practices, we know from National Audit Office, there


are particular black sports -- blackspots in the country that only


offer services for three hours a week. That's causing problems if


they cannot get to see a GP they will go and use A Nobody is


saying that this measure would solve problems at A, it would address


one small part of its top blog we shouldn't be starting this, as I


keep saying, please to this from solving the problems at A We


should be starting it from solving the problems of the patients in


their totality, the best place they should go, not from A This really


upsets me, as a GP I am there to be a proxy A doctor. I am a GP, a


highly skilled doctor, looking after patients from cradle to grave across


the physical, psychological and social, I am not an A doctor. I


don't disagree with that, nobody is saying that GPs are not working hard


enough. You just did, actually, about some of them. In some


practices, what we need to see, it's not just GPs in GP surgeries, it is


advanced nurse practitioners, pharmacists. It doesn't necessarily


need to be all on the GPs. I think advanced nurse practitioners are in


short supply. Position associate or go to hospital, -- physician


associates. We have very few trainees, junior doctors in general


practice, unlike hospitals, which tend to have some slack with the


junior doctor community and workforce. This isn't an argument,


this is about saying, let's stop looking at the National health


system as a National hospital system. GPs tomorrow will see about


1.3 million patients. That is a lot of thoughtful. A lot of activity


with no resources. If you wanted the GPs to behave better, in your terms,


when you allocated more money to GPs, part of the reforms, because


that's where it went, shouldn't you have targeted it more closely to


where they want to operate? That is exactly what the Prime Minister is


saying, extra funding is being made available by GPs to extend hours and


services. If certain GP practices cannot do that, the money will


follow the patient to where they move onto. We have no doctors to do


it. I was on a coach last week, the coach driver stopped in the service


station for an hour, they were stopping for a rest. We cannot do


it. Even if you gave us millions more money, and thankfully NHS is


recognising that we need a solution through the five-day week, we


haven't got the doctors to deliver this. It would take a while to get


them? That's my point, that's why we need to be using all how care


professional. Even if you got this right, would it make a difference to


what many regard as the crisis in our hospitals? I think it would. If


you look at patients, they just want to go to a service that will address


the problems. In Scotland for example, pharmacists have their own


patient list. Patients go and see the pharmacists first. There are


lots of conditions, for example if you want anticoagulants, you don't


necessarily need to see a doctor, a pharmacist can manage that and free


up the doctor in other ways. The Prime Minister has said that if


things do not change she is threatening to reduce funding to


doctors who do not comply. Can you both agree, that is probably an


empty threat, that's not going to happen? I hope it's an empty threat.


We're trying our best. People like me in my profession, the seniors in


our profession, are really trying to pull up morale and get people into


general practice, which is a wonderful profession, absolutely


wonderful place to be. But slapping us off and telling us that we are


lazy really doesn't help. I really don't think anybody is doing that.


We have run out of time, but I'm certain that we will be back to the


subject before this winter is out. It's just gone 11:35am,


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 just two days' time we expect


to find out exactly what Brexit Two political stalwarts tell us


what she should say. And the challenges ahead for our


councils after the elections in May. But first, as the debate over


immigration continues, a senior Welsh MP has told this


programme the answer doesn't lie in having


a separate policy for Wales. Chris Bryant says the UK Government


should instead react to calls for more workers in certain roles


on a case-by-case basis. Should Wales be in charge


of its own borders with control over which and how many people


are allowed to come here Carmarthenshire has attracted


thousands of migrant Dozens have been employed


by manufacturing firm Amcanu in Burry Port,


but the managing director is not The reality of it, I think,


is it is an extremely complex issue and I do not think


that the Welsh Government have the resource or the knowledge


to even cope with such I think there are a number of issues


that are being devolved, like taxation, they need to focus


on more, so I think the economy of Wales is currently struggling,


they need to focus their efforts on supporting businesses to improve


the economy without worrying about putting additional resource


or burden in businesses' way. The counter-argument, of course,


is that ministers in Cardiff are best placed to understand


what kind of immigration Wales needs to boost the economy


and improve services. A couple of years ago,


I came here to New Tredegar to hear about the difficulties they have had


in finding and recruiting GPs. It is an issue throughout


the Valleys and in rural So would devolving some control over


immigration make it easier It would just mean that the system


locally is more dynamic, you know? If those powers currently


reside with Whitehall, then it takes a long time to achieve


any change and change is always And at least if we had power over


that, then we could be more responsive and responsiveness


is what is required The UK Government and Labour leader


Jeremy Corbyn have rejected the idea put forward


by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Social Integration and its chair,


Labour MP Chuka Umunna. They have said devolving some


control over immigration Former Shadow Immigration Minister


Chris Bryant is also opposed, but believes the current system must


work better for Wales. The UK Government should be awake


to the fact that in different parts of the United Kingdom,


there are different pressures In particular, in relation


to the NHS, if South Wales feels that it has a shortage


of orthopaedic surgeons, or, I don't know, mass spectrometers,


or whatever, then they should be able to say, "Excuse me,


Mr Government Minister, or Mrs Government Minister


in Westminster, we need you to allow And clearly, you do not think that


has been the case up until now? I am absolutely certain that


has not been the case, I think that is because we have


an unresponsive government, which is kowtowing to the agenda


brought forward by the Mail Inevitably, the idea that Wales


and other parts of the UK should have their own immigration policy


has raised countless questions The Canadian model is given


as an example that the UK could adopt, the provinces can


set their own specific labour requirements and Quebec


has its own immigration minister. Since the '90s there has been


a federalisation of immigration programme and what we see is other


provinces are far more proactive now, they do not


have the same powers as Quebec, but they are certainly able


to identify their own needs and be far more proactive,


so within Canada we see that different provinces have


different competencies So when we talk about what is


workable for Wales, well, it depends really on the type


of agreement that is decided upon. For now, the devolution


of immigration remains no more than an idea and a talking point


and the UK Government says its priority is to build


an immigration system that works This week the Prime Minister


is expected to outline But what exactly should she say,


and how will Wales fit into it? A short while ago I spoke


to Jonathan Edwards from Plaid Cymru, who's


on the Commons Brexit Committee, and the senior


Conservative AM, Nick Ramsay. I began by asking him


about his reaction to reports that the Prime Minister may


want to leave the single market. Well, from the moment that we had


the referendum result and the people of Britain voted to leave


the European Union, then The mechanics of how we leave


and the exact mechanisms employed have always been up for discussion


and those negotiations are ongoing, but at the end of the day


we're going to leave, so we look forward to seeing


what Theresa May says. But it doesn't necessarily have


to mean leaving that single market, there could have been ways around


it, whereby maybe you pay some extra money in,


you keep some elements of freedom of movement, but she has


chosen this hard Brexit, which she will undoubtedly call


a clean Brexit, which could be damaging for manufacturing,


for example, which is very Well, we don't know


what she is going to say yet, but whether you call it hard Brexit,


soft Brexit, clean Brexit, whatever that might be, the point


is that Brexit is happening. Now, there is an argument


that we would be better off staying within the single market in some


form or other, but at the end of the day, it is having access


to that market that matters. Do you think it would be better


to remain in the single market? I think there are advantages


of being in the market but there are also disadvantages


and these are very complex At the end of the day we need


the best deal for Wales, the best deal for the UK and I am


confident that the team Jonathan Edwards, picking up


on what Nick Ramsay said there, do you think that actually leaving


the single market is Well, I think it will be absolutely


disastrous for Wales, isn't it? We know that around 200,000 jobs


in Wales are sustained by our membership of the single


market, there was nothing in the referendum result


which suggested that we had to leave We have an export-led economy


in Wales, we have an export surplus. Now, obviously, if you leave your


biggest trading market, the bloc that we are a part


of as part of the European Union, that is going to have a huge impact


on jobs and wages in Wales, and the reality about what we will


hear from her on Tuesday is going to be the greatest


job-killing act in Welsh economic history, probably


in British economic history, and in that regard, my colleagues


and I will be opposing this extreme Tory government every step


of the way. But if you accept that a large part


of why people voted to leave the European Union was immigration,


the idea of taking back control of borders, then really,


if you want to have total control over your borders, it seems to be


the logical step that you have But the two things are so closely


intertwined in terms Well, I think the great mistake


of this referendum, of course... If you compare it to the Scottish


Independence Referendum, for instance, when that referendum


was fought, the Scottish Government - which was proposing a Yes


vote to leave the UK - produced a 600-page white


paper outlining exactly There is nothing on that ballot


paper telling us what Brexit meant, it has been made up as we go along,


following the referendum result. The extremists in the Conservative


Party and in Ukip are defining the result to suit their own narrow


and dangerous extreme But if you want controls on borders,


you must leave the single market. But that is not actually


the case, is it? Norway is a member of the single


market and their freedom of movement rules relate to workers


and labour and permits, so there are ways of staying


in the single market But as I mentioned, the last time


I was on this programme the UK Government decided as a priority it


wanted to keep the Common Travel Area between the Irish Republic


and the British state. Well, the Irish Republic is a Member


of the European Parliament, so how can you have controls


over your border if there is complete freedom of movement


between the Republic of Ireland and the British state,


be that only on the island of Ireland between the six counties


and the Republic or between the Nick Ramsey, Jonathan Edwards


telling us this is the largest job-killing scheme in Wales


and in British history, is there a danger that there is too


much emphasis on benefit of the UK economy and not enough


emphasis as to what happens Of course, there is


a danger on both sides. I would disagree with this issue


that this is about extremism within the Conservative Party or any


party, come to that. This is about enacting the wills


of the British people I think actually staying


within the single market, if that was possible,


would clearly be The question is, are we able to do


that and honour the commitment made If that is not possible,


what matters is how I guess the problem,


as Jonathan Edwards said there, was that there was not a clear


message on the ballot paper as to what it meant and therefore,


there is interpretation now happening after the referendum


as to what it meant, that is the danger in terms


of leaving the single market, who knows what the British


people are voting for? It is and on the face of it,


if an appropriate agreement can be achieved, then remaining a member


or an associate member of the market area in some form


would be beneficial. Jonathan mentioned Norway,


the Prime Minister has already said we will not have an off-the-shelf


model here, this is going to be something that is bespoke


and suited to Britain. Hopefully, we can stay very closely


entwined within that market but at the end of the day we must


achieve access and we must achieve There are dangers on either side,


this is a complex negotiation process but I am confident


we are on the right track. Jonathan Edwards, you are a member


of the Commons Brexit Committee, there was a report from


the committee yesterday saying that MPs should have a say on this


and that Theresa May should But you have said that MPs


are likely to refuse your request Is there not a danger of letting


everyone have their say and actually diluting what Theresa May


is trying to achieve here? Well, I have had some wins


on the committee and the major win I had was that everybody


on the committee agreed that the government finally had


to come clean about where they stood on membership of the single market


and the customs union. It looks as if the Prime Minister


has responded to that within one day In terms of the endorsement,


I moved an amendment saying that the final deal should be


endorsed by the four That means that the remaining 27


Members of the European Parliament will each have a veto. This could


take ten years to negotiate as we have seen in that deal done with


Canada. It seems very strange to me in that scenario that this new Great


Britain and eight post-Brexit environment that the devolved


institutions of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will not have a


formal role to play in the negotiating process. It is OK to say


that they have listened to our views, but... Sorry, time is tight,


I would like to put that point to get back. Should the assembly have a


view or a vote on the final decision? I can fully understand


Plaid Cymru making this type of cavalry charge. But Wales is not


that part of Belgium that he referenced. The First Minister has


been involved and should be involved and Jonathan is correct to say that


Wales should be involved in this process but at the end of the day


the duty will take a decision whether be brimming. That is the


situation at the moment, there was a UK referendum and the UK will remain


or leave as the government decides. Thank you both very much for your


time this morning. Now there was a little sadness,


if not much surprise on Friday, when Lord Carlile announced


he was leaving the Lib He's a former leader of the party


in Wales, of course, but has, in recent years,


been at odds with it, Lord Carlile hasn't been available


for comment, but many had been I think the reaction will be mixed,


some people in the party, particularly younger people,


we'll be saying good riddance and have called for him


to go, to be honest. But within Wales, in particular


within Montgomeryshire, his former constituency,


and amongst the leadership of the Welsh Liberal Democrats,


I think there will be real sadness because Lord Carlile has given


so much over the years and has always been somebody that could be


turned to for advice and support. In a year where little


is certain in politics, one thing we know will happen


are the local elections in May. As well as being a test


of the parties' popularity, Joining me now to talk about those


issues are the Leader of Ceredigion Council,


Ellen ap Gwynn, who's in Aberystwyth, and the Newport


leader, Debbie Wilcox. To start with you, Ellen ap Gwynn,


we have been hearing so much over the last five or six years about


cuts to council budgets, is there a sense that whoever is in power in


whichever council or whatever party, you are all going to have very tough


decisions to make? We already have had to do that. Ceredigion has lost


?34 million of our revenue budget over the period that I have been a


leader, that is 25% of our budget revenue. It has been a huge


challenge over the past few years and that will not stop by all


accounts. Debbie Wilcox, we were talking to Thomas from Welsh local


government last week who was telling us who would want to be a


councillor? There will not be a lot of wiggle room for any of the main


parties in terms of what you can achieve over the next five years, I


would guess. That is correct. We have lost ?48 million in the Newport


in that four-year period. But what we have got now in Newport is the


same budget we had when I first became elected in 2004, so 13 years


later we are now dealing with those same figures. Let us not forget that


the Welsh Government are doing everything they can to ensure that


the settlements are appropriate and distributed across Wales, but they


can only do what they can with what they are sent from Westminster and


that is the key issue, we are guardians of our services but we can


only deal with the money that we are directly sent from Westminster. You


are still trying to address the same problems and services with less


money, what as portable parties can you do to try to give that little


extra offer to the borders? I believe the key is in the ward local


and we have clearly understood that we want to keep our services as


local as possible but within that we are of course looking at regional


working and there are two major footprints at work for our council


and in recent weeks # South-east of Wales in terms of


the Cardiff City region deal and we also look at the health board


footprint. So we are going to have to do things differently, we are


going to have to make better use of resources and money and, you know,


as it worked for the Welsh football team, together, stronger. Well done!


One of the other things the local Welsh Government Association has


said is that the big elephant in the in the room, the service that will


double in cost over the next decade is social care and that's not enough


is being done by councils to address the very real challenges you face


there. What must be done there, do you think, from the councils? I


would not say that we're not doing anything, we are actually doing a


lot, we are having to redesign our services to make sure that those


that really need that help really do get it. It is not an easy one, as


Debbie has already said, according to the social services and


well-being acted that came into force last April, we must work


together now on the footprints of the health board, and that means


moving towards closer cooperation with the health board and that


hopefully we will be able to support each other because without the


social care in each of unity, the hospitals will be clogged up. So are


you confident, despite the increase of the mountain the services and not


a corresponding increase in funding that you can actually manage with


those services? It will be very, very difficult. We are having to cut


some things and they look at how we offer services. I would tell you


that is one of the areas, one of the priority areas for extra funding,


but as Debbie has already said, unless that funding comes down from


the Treasury, unless they increase the social care fund in Westminster,


the elements that comes down to Wales is what it is, that means that


the Welsh Government is hamstrung in trying to help others. But the


amount of share for rural areas this coming year has improved compared to


what it has been for the past three years, where we have been losing


three, four, 5%... You are talking about the demands, the difficulties


in terms of the funding settlement that you get and those increases in


social care, how confident are you that you can manage all of the


additional burdens of social care without having to ensure that other


areas do not suffer? I think the key is the boards statutory and an


statutory. We have a statutory obligation to provide social care to


our citizens and the gaps in those budgets must be felt and met by the


reduction in non-statutory services. Does that mean that even though we


have seen a restriction on libraries and other non-statutory elements,


they will actually be squeezed harder? I try to explain on the


doorstep is simple as this. For years ago you had ?100 a week to


spend, now you have 60. It is simple economic. I am sure my old A-level


economic teacher would be proud of me for that some plus the cancer!


But that is the case and councils must look at what they provide and


how they provide in future. On one hand the public education has


greatly risen and why not? On the other hand, our budgets have


dramatically fallen, so the expectation for councils to do


everything in the same way in the future will not be there. There was


an awful lot of talk at this time last year about councils being


forced to emerge by the Welsh Government and those plans have now


been dropped, only about eight or nine councils instead of about 22.


To what extent of the next five years do you think we will see


councils merging because they will have to do is out of necessity and


accepting that the financial situation is as it is? The first


thing I thought when I went to the coordinating committee and I met


Ellen ap Gwynn for the first time was how civilised it was as a


political entity in terms of the readers of Wales and how well


everyone cooperated and did grown-up politics. That sounds of consensus


that maybe Welsh Government think again about how local government


should operate was very, very clear. We must cooperate and do things


differently, but do you know what? We also need a base budget and that


base budget that we have to set legally, you know, we cannot go over


into the red as health authorities can. So we need that sense of


co-operation. I do not think it is a case of councils merging, I


genuinely think it is a case of that regional working and working well


together. Ellen ap Gwynn, where do you see the number of councils in


five years' time? Others have said they think there will be mergers


because of the pressures of social care and everything else. We are


working closely together already. We work on six county footprints for


the education improvement services at this point, we are working on the


county footprints in terms of social care and health is concerned and


both the relevant ministers have already announced that the economic


developments, strategic transport and regional planning will be on


four different regional footprints. Growing Mid Wales being the relevant


one for us here. At last we have got a focus on the rural economy because


previously there was too much, in my view, although I am sure it is


needed, on the city regions and no focus at all on the rural economy.


So I am very pleased that they have taken that on board. That will be a


huge area of work for us going forward because we were hearing


about Brexit earlier, Ceredigion is going to lose about ?55 million out


of the economy annually if that money is not replaced from the


Treasury in London. Their rear. Very quickly, temp tee-mac, in terms of


what you think about the toughness of those choices, how many cars you


think will be the budgets across Wales? -- Debbie. I could not put a


figure on it but I think it will be significant. Thank you both very


much this morning. Keep up with all the latest


on our twitter feed - we're @walespolitics,


but for now, it's time Diolch am wylio -


thanks for watching. Now, if anyone thought Donald Trump


would tone things down after the American election


campaign, they may have The period where he has been


President-elect will make them think again. The inauguration is coming up


on Friday. Never has the forthcoming


inauguration of a president been In a moment, we'll talk


to a man who knows Mr Trump But first, let's have a look


at the press conference Mr Trump gave on Wednesday,


in which he took the opportunity to rubbish reports that Russia has


obtained compromising information You are attacking our


news organisation. Can you give us a chance,


you are attacking our news organisation, can you give us


a chance to ask a question, sir? As far as Buzzfeed,


which is a failing pile of garbage, writing it, I think they're


going to suffer the consequences. Does anyone really


believe that story? I'm also very much of


a germaphobe, by the way. If Putin likes Donald Trump,


guess what, folks, that's called The only ones that care about my tax


returns are the reporters, OK? Do you not think the American


public is concerned? The Wiggo, Donald Trump at his first


last conference. The Can will he change as President? Because he


hasn't changed in the run-up to being inaugurated? I don't think he


will commit he doesn't see any point in changing. Why would he change


from the personality that just one, as he just said, I just one. All of


the bleeding-heart liberals can wail and brush their teeth and say how


ghastly that all this, Hillary should have won and so on, but he


has got an incredible mandate. Remember, Trump has the House


committee has the Senate, he will have the Supreme Court. He has


incredible power right now. He doesn't have to listen to anybody. I


spoke to him a couple of weeks ago specifically about Twitter, I asked


him what the impact was of Twitter. He said, I have 60 million people


following me on Twitter. I was able to bypass mainstream media, bypass


all modern political convention and talk directly to potential voters.


Secondly, I can turn on the TV in the morning, I can see a rival


getting all of the airtime, and I can fire off a tweet, for free, as a


marketing man he loves that, and, boom, I'm on the news agenda again.


He was able to use that magnificently. Twitter to him didn't


cost him a dollar. He is going to carry on tweeting in the last six


weeks, he was not sleeping. Trump has never had an alcoholic drink a


cigarette or a drug. He is a fit by the 70, he has incredible energy and


he is incredibly competitive. At his heart, he is a businessman. If you


look at him as a political ideologue, you completely missed the


point of trouble. Don't take what he says literally, look upon it as a


negotiating point that he started from, and try to do business with


him as a business person would, and you may be presently surprised so


pleasantly surprised. He treats the press and the media entirely


differently to any other politician or main politician in that normally


the politicians try to get the media off a particular subject, or they


try to conciliate with the media. He just comes and punches the media in


the nose when he doesn't like them. This could catch on, you know! You


are absolutely right, for a start, nobody could accuse him of letting


that victory go to his head. You know, he won't say, I will now be


this lofty president. He's exactly the same as he was before. What is


fascinating is his Laois and ship with the media. I haven't met, and


I'm sure you haven't, met a party leader who is obsessed with the


media. But they pretend not to be. You know, they state, oh, somebody


told me about a column, I didn't read it. He is utterly transparent


in his obsession with the media, he doesn't pretend. How that plays out,


who knows? It's a completely different dynamic than anyone has


seen by. Like he is the issue, he has appointed an unusual Cabinet,


that you could criticise in many ways. Nearly all of them are


independent people in their own right. A lot of them are wealthy,


too. They have their own views. They might not like what he tweaked at


3am, and he does have to deal with his Cabinet now. Mad dog matters,


now the Defence Secretary, he might not like what's said about China at


three in morning - general matters. This is what gets very conjugated.


We cannot imagine here in our political system any kind of


appointments like this. Using the wouldn't have a line-up of


billionaires of the kind of background that he has chosen -- you


simply wouldn't have. But that won't stop him saying and reading what he


thinks. Maybe it will cause him some internal issues when the following


day he has the square rigged with whatever they think. But he's going


to press ahead. Are we any clearer in terms of policy. I know policy


hasn't featured hugely in this campaign of 2016. Do we have any


really clear idea what Mr Trump is hoping to achieve? He has had some


consistent theme going back over 25 years. One is a deep scepticism


about international trade and the kind of deals that America has been


doing over that period. It has been so consistent that is has been hard


to spin as something that you say during the course of a campaign of


something to get elected. Ultimately, Piers is correct, he


won't change. When he won the election committee gave a relatively


magnanimous beach. I thought his ego had been sated and he had got what


he wanted. He will end up governing as is likely eccentric New York


liberal and everything will be fine. In the recent weeks it has come to


my attention that that might not be entirely true!


LAUGHTER It is a real test of the American


system, the Texan bouncers, the foreign policy establishment which


is about to have the orthodoxies disrupted -- the checks and


balances. I think he has completely ripped up the American political


system. Washington as we know it is dead. From his garage do things his


way, he doesn't care, frankly, what any of us thinks -- Trump is going


to do things his way. If he can deliver for the people who voted for


him who fault this disenfranchised, -- who voted for him who felt this


disenfranchised. They voted accordingly. They want to see jobs


and the economy in good shape, they want to feel secure. They want to


feel that immigration has been tightened. If Trump can deliver on


those main theme for the rust belt communities of America, I'm telling


you, he will go down as a very successful president. All of the


offensive rhetoric and the argy-bargy with CNN and whatever it


may be will be completely irrelevant. Let me finish with a


parochial question. Is it fair to say quite well disposed to this


country? And that he would like, that he's up for a speedy


free-trade, bilateral free-trade you'll? Think we have to be sensible


as the country. Come Friday, he is the president of the United States,


the most powerful man and well. He said to me that he feels half


British, his mum was born and raised in Scotland until the age of 18, he


loves British, his mother used to love watching the Queen, he feels


very, you know, I would roll out the red carpet for Trump, let him eat


Her Majesty. The crucial point for us as a country is coming -- let him


me to Her Majesty. If we can do a speedy deal within an 18 month


period, it really sends a message that well but we are back in the


game, that is a hugely beneficial thing for this country. Well, a man


whose advisers were indicating that maybe he should learn a few things


from Donald Trump was Jeremy Corbyn. Yes, MBE. Mr Corbyn appeared on the


Andrew Marr Show this morning. -- yes, indeed.


If you don't win Copeland, and if you don't win


Stoke-on-Trent Central, you're toast, aren't you?


Our party is going to fight very hard in those elections,


as we are in the local elections, to put those policies out there.


It's an opportunity to challenge the Government on the NHS.


It's an opportunity to challenge them on the chaos of Brexit.


It's an opportunity to challenge them on the housing shortage.


It's an opportunity to challenge them on zero-hours contracts.


Is there ever a moment that you look in the mirror and think,


you know what, I've done my best, but this might not be for me?


I look in the mirror every day and I think,


let's go out there and try and create a society where there


are opportunities for all, where there aren't these terrible


levels of poverty, where there isn't homelessness,


where there are houses for all, and where young people aren't


frightened of going to university because of the debts


they are going to end up with at the end of their course.


Mr Corbyn earlier this morning. Steve, would it be fair to say that


the mainstream of the Labour Party has now come to the conclusion that


they just have to let Mr Corbyn get on with it, that they are not going


to try and influence what he does. They will continue to try and have


their own views, but it's his show, it's up to him, if it's a mess, he


has to live with it and we'll have clean hands? For now, yes. I think


they made a mistake when he was first elected to start in some cases


tweeting within seconds that it was going to be a disaster, this was


Labour MPs. They made a complete mess of that attempted coup in the


summer, which strengthened his position. And he did, it gave Corbyn


the space with total legitimacy to say that part of the problem is,


we're having this public Civil War. In keeping quiet, that disappeared


as part of the explanation for why Labour and low in the polls. I think


they are partly doing that. But they are also struggling, the so-called


mainstream Labour MPs, to decide what the distinctive agenda is. It's


one of the many differences with the 80s, where you had a group of people


sure of what they believed in, they left to form the SDP. What's


happening now is that they are leaving politics altogether. That is


a crisis of social Democrats all across Europe, including the French


Socialists, as we will find out later in the spring. Let Corbyn


because then, that's the strategy. There is a weary and sometimes


literal resignation from the moderates in the Labour Party. If


you talk to them, they are no longer angry, they have always run out of


steam to be angry about what's going on. They are just sort of tired and


feel that they've just got to see this through now. I think the


by-elections will be interesting. When Andrew Marr said, you're toast,


and you? I thought, he's never posed! That was right. A quick


thought from view? One thing Corbyn has in common with Trump is immunity


to bad news. I think he can lose Copeland and lose Stoke, and as long


as it is not a sequence of resignations and by-elections


afterwards, with maybe a dozen or 20 Labour MPs going, he can still enjoy


what. It may be more trouble if Labour loses the United trade union


elections. We are in a period of incredible unpredictability


generally in global politics. If you look at the way the next year plays


out, if for example brags it was a disaster and it starts to unravel


very quickly, Theresa May is attached to that, clearly label


would have a great opportunity potentially disease that higher


ground, and when Eddie the Tories -- Labour would have an opportunity. Is


Corbyn the right guy? We interviewed him, what struck me was that he


talked about being from, a laughable comparison, but when it is really


laughable is this - Hillary Clinton, what were the things she stood for,


nobody really knew? What does Trump stand for? Everybody knew. Corbyn


has the work-out four or five messages and bang, bang, bang. He


could still be in business. Thank you for being with us.


I'll be back at the same time next weekend.


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


Download Subtitles