12/03/2017 Sunday Politics Wales

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

David Davis tells MPs to leave the Brexit bill untouched,

ahead of a week which could see Britain begin the process

We'll talk to a Tory rebel and Ukip's Nigel Farage.

Phillip Hammond's first budget hit the rocks thanks to a tax rise

But how should we tax those who work for themselves?

And remember Donald Trump's claim that Barack Obama had ordered

We'll talk to the former Tory MP who set the whole story rolling.

Later in the programme: Where next for the LibDems?

Their leader in Wales tells me they have a bright future.

And, with little extra money, what else can be done

And joining me for all of that, three self-employed journalists

who definitely don't deserve a tax break.

It's Steve Richards, Julia Hartley-Brewer

They'll be tweeting throughout the programme with all the carefree

abandon of Katie Hopkins before a libel trial.

BBC lawyers have suddenly got nervous!

So first today, the government is gearing up to trigger Article 50,

perhaps in the next 48 hours, and start negotiating Britain's

Much has been written about the prospect of the Commons

getting a "meaningful vote" on the deal Britain negotiates.

Brexit Secretary David Davis was on the Andrew Marr programme

earlier this morning and he was asked what happens

Well, that is what is called the most favoured nation status deal

There we go out, as it were, on WTO rules.

That is why of course we do the contingency planning, to make

The British people decided on June the 23rd last year

My job, and the job of the government, is to make

the terms on which that happens as beneficial as possible.

There we have it, clearly, either Parliament votes for the deal when

it is done or it out on World Trade Organisation rules. That's what the

government means by a meaningful vote.

I think we get over obsessed about whether there will be a legal right

for Parliament to have a vote. If there is no deal or a bad deal, I

think it would be politically impossible for the government to

reject Parliament's desire for a vote because the atmosphere of

politics will be completely different by then. I take David

Davies seriously. Within Whitehall he has acquired a reputation as

being the most conscientious and details sadly... And well briefed.

Absolutely and well travelled in terms of European capitals of the

three Brexit ministers. It is quite telling he said what he did and it

is quite telling that within cabinet, two weeks ago he was

floating the idea of no deal at all. Being if not the central estimate

than a completely plausible eventuality. It is interesting. I

would suggest the prospect of no deal is moving up the agenda. It is

still less likely than more likely to happen. But it's no longer a kind

of long tail way out there in the distance. Planning for no deal is

the same as having contents insurance or travel insurance, plan

for the worse case scenarios are prepared it happens. Even the worst

case scenario, it's not that bad. Think of the Jeep 20, apart from the

EU, four members of the G20 economies are successful members of

the EU. The rest aren't and don't have trade deals but somehow these

countries are prospering. They are growing at a higher rate. You are

not frightened? Not remotely. We are obsessed with what we get from the

EU and the key thing we get from leaving the EU is not the deal but

the other deals we can finally make with other trading partners. They

have higher growth than virtually every other EU country apart from

Germany. It is sensible as a negotiating position for the

government to say if there is no deal, we will accept there is no

deal. We're not frightened of no deal. It was clear from what David

Davies was saying that there will be a vote in parliament at the end of

the process but there won't be a third option to send the government

back to try to get a better deal. It is either the deal or we leave

without a deal. In reality, that third option will be there. We don't

know yet whether there will be a majority for the deal if they get

one. What we do know now is that there isn't a majority in the

Commons for no deal. Labour MPs are absolutely clear that no deal is

worth then a bad deal. I've heard enough Tory MPs say the same thing.

But they wouldn't get no deal through. When it comes to this vote,

if whatever deal is rejected, there will then be, one way or another,

the third option raised of go back again. But who gets to decide what

is a bad deal? The British people will have a different idea than the

two thirds of the Remain supporting MPs in the Commons. In terms of the

vote, the Commons. Surely, if the Commons, which is what matters here,

if the Commons were to vote against the deal as negotiated by the

government, surely that would trigger a general election? If the

government had recommended the deal, surely the government would then, if

it still felt strongly about the deal, if the other 27 had said,

we're not negotiating, extending it, it would in effect become a second

referendum on the deal. In effect it would be a no-confidence vote in the

government. You've got to assume that unless something massively

changes in the opposition before then, the government would feel

fairly confident about a general election on those terms. Unless the

deal is hideously bad and obviously basso every vote in the country...

The prior minister said if it is that bad she would have rather no

deal. So that eventuality arrives. -- the Prime Minister has said. Not

a second referendum general election in two years' time. Don't put any

holidays for! LAUGHTER -- don't look any.

So the Brexit bill looks likely to clear Parliament this week.

That depends on the number of Conservative MPs who are prepared

to vote against their government on two key issues.

Theresa May could be in negotiations with our European

partners within days, but there may be some

wheeler-dealings she has to do with her own MPs, too.

Cast your mind back to the beginning of month.

The bill to trigger Article 50 passed comfortably

But three Conservatives voted for Labour's amendments to ensure

the rights of EU citizens already in the UK.

Seven Tory MPs voted to force the government to give Parliament

a say on the deal struck with the EU before it's finalised.

But remember those numbers, they're important.

On the issue of a meaningful vote on a deal, I'm told there might have

been more rebels had it not been for this assurance from

I can confirm that the government will bring forward a motion

on the final agreement to be approved by both Houses

And we expect, and intend, that this will happen before

the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement.

When the government was criticised for reeling back

from when and what it would offer a vote on.

The bill then moved into the Lords, where peers passed it

And the second, that Parliament be given a meaningful vote on the terms

of the deal or indeed a vote in the event of there

The so-called Brexit bill will return to Commons

Ministers insist that both amendments would weaken

the government's negotiating hand and are seeking to overturn them.

But, as ever, politics is a numbers game.

Theresa May has a working majority of 17.

On Brexit, though, it's probably higher.

At least six Labour MPs generally vote with

Plus, eight DUP MPs, two from the Ulster Unionist party

If all Conservatives vote with the government as well,

Therefore, 26 Conservative rebels are needed for the government to be

So, are there rough waters ahead for Theresa May?

What numbers are we looking at, in terms of a potential rebellion?

I think we're looking at a large number of people who are interested

This building is a really important building.

It's symbolic of a huge amount of history.

And for it not to be involved in this momentous time would,

But he says a clear verbal statement from the government on a meaningful

vote on any deal would be enough to get most Tory MPs onside.

It was already said about David Jones.

It's slightly unravelled a little bit during

I think this is an opportunity to really get that clarity

through so that we can all vote for Article 50 and get

We've have spoken to several Tory MPs who say they are minded to vote

One said the situation was sad and depressing.

The other said that the whips must be worried because they don't

A minister told me Downing Street was looking again at the possibility

of offering a vote in the event of no deal being reached.

But that its position was unlikely to change.

And, anyway, government sources have told the Sunday Politics they're not

That those Tory MPs who didn't back either amendment the first time

round would look silly if they did, this time.

It would have to be a pretty hefty lot of people changing their minds

about things that have already been discussed in quite a lot of detail,

last time it was in the Commons, for things to be reversed this time.

There's no doubt that a number of Tory MPs are very concerned.

Labour are pessimistic about the chances of enough Tory

rebels backing either of the amendments in the Commons.

The important thing, I think, is to focus on the fact

that this is the last chance to have a say on this.

If they're going to vote with us, Monday is the time to do it.

Assuming the bill does pass the Commons unamended,

it will go back to the Lord's on Monday night where Labour peers

have already indicated they won't block it again.

It means that the Brexit bill would become law and Theresa May

would be free to trigger Article 50 within days.

Her own deadline was the end of this month.

But one minister told me there were advantages to doing it early.

We're joined now from Nottingham by the Conservative MP Anna Soubry.

She's previously voted against the government on the question

of whether Parliament should have a final say over the EU deal.

Anna Soubry, I think it was clear this morning from David Davies that

what he means by meaningful vote is not what you mean by a meaningful

vote. He thinks the choice for Parliament would be to either vote

for the deal and if Parliament doesn't, we leave on World Trade

Organisation rules, on a bare-bones structure. In the end, will he

accept that in the Commons tomorrow? No, because my problem and I don't

think it is a problem, but my problem, the government's problem is

that what I want is then to answer this question. What happens in the

event of their not being any deal? David Davies made it very clear that

in the event of there being no deal, Parliament would have no say. It

means through your elected representatives, the people of this

country would have no say on what happens if the government doesn't

get a deal. I think the request that Parliament should have a say on

Parliamentary sovereignty, is perfectly reasonable. That is what I

want David to say. If he says that, I won't be rebelling. If he does...

They have refused to say that. Sorry. If he continues to say what

he said the BBC this morning, which means that the vote will be either

to accept the as negotiated or to leave on WTO rules, will you rebel

on that question but no, no, sorry, if there's a deal, Parliament will

have a say. So that's fine. And we will see what the deal is and we

will look at the options two years down the road. When who knows

what'll happen in our economy and world economy. That is one matter

which I am content on. The Prime Minister, a woman of her word has

said that in the event of a deal, Parliament will vote on any deal. I

don't difficulty. To clarify, I will come onto that. These are important

matters. I want to clarify, not argue with you. You are content that

if there is a deal, we will come under no deal in a second, but if

there is a deal, you are content with the choice of being able to

vote for that deal or leaving on WTO terms? No, you're speculating as to

what might happen in two years' time. What the options might be.

Personally I find it inconceivable that the government will come back

with a rubbish deal. They will either come back with a good deal,

which I won't have a problem with or they will come back with no deal. To

speculate about coming back with a deal, there is a variety of options.

I understand that that is what the Lord amendments are about. They are

about a vote at the end of the process. Do forgive me, the Lords

amendment is not the same that I've voted for in Parliament. What we

call the Chris Leslie amendment, which was talking about whatever the

agreement is, whatever happens at the end of the negotiations,

Parliament will have a vote. Parliament will have a say. The

Lords amendment is a bit more technical. It is the principle of no

deal that is agitating us. Let's clarify on this. They are

complicated matters. What do you want the government to say? What do

you want David Davis to say tomorrow on what should the Parliamentary

process should be if there is no deal? Quite. I want a commitment

from him that in the event of no deal, it will come into Parliament

and Parliament will determine what happens next. It could be that in

the event of no deal, the best thing is for us to jump off the cliff into

WTO tariff is. I find it unlikely but that might be the reality. There

might be other alternatives. Most importantly, including saying to the

government, go back, carry on. The question that everybody has to ask

is, why won't the government give My fear is what this is about is

asked deliberately, not the Prime Minister, but others deliberately

ensuring we have no deal and no deal pretty soon and in that event, we

jumped off the cliff onto WTO tariffs and nobody in this country

and the people of this country do not have a say. My constituents did

not vote for hard Brexit. You do not want the government to

have the ability if there is no deal to automatically fall back on the

WTO rules? Quite. It is as simple as that. We are now speculating about

what will happen in two years. I want to find out what happens

tomorrow. What will you do if you don't get that assurance? I will

either abstain, or I will vote to keep this amendment within the Bill.

I will either vote against my government, which I do not do

likely, I have never voted against my government until the Chris Leslie

clause when the Bill was going through, or I will abstain, which

has pretty much the same effect because it comes into the Commons

with both amendments so you have positively to vote to take the map.

Can you give us an idea of how many like-minded conservative colleagues

there are. I genuinely do not know. You must talk to each other. I do

not talk to every member of my party. You know people who are

like-minded. I do. I am not doing numbers games. I know you want that

but I genuinely do not know the figure. I think this is an

uncomfortable truth. People have to understand what has happened in our

country, two particular newspapers, creating an atmosphere and setting

an agenda and I think many people are rather concerned, some

frightened, to put their head over the parapet. There are many millions

of people who feel totally excluded from this process. Many of them

voted to remain. And they have lost their voice. We have covered the

ground I wanted to. We're joined now by the Ukip MEP

and former leader Nigel Farage. Article 50 triggered, we are leaving

the EU, the single market and the customs union. What is left you to

complain about? All of that will happen and hopefully we will get the

triggered this week which is good news. What worries me a little I'm

not sure the government recognises how strong their handers. At the

summit in Brussels, the word in the corridors is that we are prepared to

give away fishing waters as a bargaining chip and the worry is

what deal we get. Are we leaving, yes I am pleased about that. You are

under relevant voice in the deal because the deal will be voted on in

Parliament and you have one MP. You are missing the point, the real vote

in parliament is not in London but Strasbourg. This is perhaps the

biggest obstacle the British Government faces. Not what happens

in the Commons that the end of the two years, the European Parliament

could veto the deal. What that means is people need to adopt a different

approach. We do not need to be lobbying in the corridors of

Brussels to get a good deal, we need is a country to be out there talking

to the German car workers and Belgian chocolate makers, putting as

much pressure as we can on politicians from across Europe to

come to a sensible arrangement. It is in their interests more than

ours. In what way is the vision of Brexit set out by David Davis any

different from your own? I am delighted there are people now

adopting the position I argued for many years. Good. But now... Like

Douglas Carswell, he said he found David Davis' performers this morning

reassuring. It is. And just as when Theresa May was Home Secretary every

performance she gave was hugely reassuring. She was seen to be a

heroine after her conference speeches and then did not deliver. I

am concerned that even before we start we are making concessions. You

described in the EU's divorce bill demands, 60 billion euros is floated

around. You said it is laughable and I understand that. Do you maintain

that we will not have to pay a penny to leave? It is nine months since we

voted exit and assuming the trigger of Article 50, we would have paid 30

billion in since we had a vote. We are still members. But honestly, I

do not think there is an appetite for us to pay a massive divorce

Bill. There are assets also. Not a penny? There will be some ongoing

commitments, but the numbers talked about our 50, ?60 billion, they are

frankly laughable. I am trying to find out if you are prepared to

accept some kind of exit cost, it may be nowhere near 60 billion. We

have to do a net agreement, the government briefed about our share

of the European Union investment bank. Would you accept a

transitional arrangement, deal, five, ten billion, as part of the

divorce settlement? We are painted net ?30 million every single day at

the moment, ?10 billion plus every year. That is just our contribution.

We are going to make a massive saving on this. What do you make of

what Anna Soubry said, that if there is no deal, and it is being talked

about more. Maybe the government managing expectations. There is an

expectation we will have a deal, but if there is no deal, that the

government cannot just go to WTO rules, but it has to have a vote in

parliament? By the time we get to that there will be a general

election coming down the tracks and I suspect that if at the end of the

two-year process there is no deal and by the way, no deal is a lot

better for the nation than where we currently are, because we freed of

regulations and able to make our own deals in the world. I think what

would happen, and if Parliament said it did not back, at the end of the

negotiation a general election would happen quickly. According to reports

this morning, one of your most senior aides has passed a dossier to

police claiming Tories committed electoral fraud in Thanet South, the

seat contested in the election. What evidence to you have? I read that in

the newspapers as you have. I am not going to comment on it. Will you not

aware of the contents of the dossier? I am not aware of the

dossier. He was your election strategists. I am dubious as to

whether this dossier exists at all. Perhaps the newspapers have got this

wrong. Concerns about the downloading of data the took place

in that constituency, there are. Allegedly, he has refuted it, was it

done by your MP to give information to the Tories, do you have evidence

about? We have evidence Mr Carswell downloaded information, we have no

evidence what he did with it. It is not just your aide who has been

making allegations against the Conservatives in Thanet South and

other seats, if the evidence was to be substantial, and if it was to

result in another by-election being called an Thanet South had to be

fought again, would you be the Ukip candidate? I probably would. You

probably would? Yes. Just probably? Just probably. It would be your

eighth attempt. Winning seats in parliament under first past the post

is not the only way to change politics in Britain and I would like

to think I proved that. Let's go back to Anna Soubry. The implication

of what we were saying on the panel at the start of the show and what

Nigel Farage was saying there would be that if at the end of the process

whatever the vote, if the government were to lose it, it would provoke a

general election properly. I think that would be right. Let's get real.

The government is not going to come to Parliament with anything other

than something it believes is a good deal and if it rejected it, would be

unlikely, there would be a de facto vote of no confidence and it would

be within the fixed term Parliaments act and that be it. The problem is,

more likely, because of the story put up about the 50 billion, 60

billion and you look at the way things are flagged up that both the

Prime Minister and Boris Johnson saying, we should be asking them for

money back, I think the big fear and the fear I have is we will be

crashing out in six months. You think we could leave as quickly as

six months. Explain that. I think they will stoke up the demand from

the EU for 50, 60 billion back and my real concern is that within six

months, where we're not making much progress, maybe nine months, and

people are getting increasingly fed up with the EU because they are told

it wants unreasonable demands, and then the crash. I think what is

happening is the government is putting in place scaffolding at the

bottom of the cliff to break our fall when we come to fall off that

cliff and I think many in government are preparing not for a two-year

process, but six, to nine months, off the cliff, out we go. That is my

fear. That is interesting. I have not heard that express before by

someone in your position. I suspect you have made Nigel Farage's date.

It is a lovely thought. I would say to Anna Soubry she is out of date

with this. 40 years ago there was a good argument for joining the common

market because tariffs around the world was so high. That has changed

with the World Trade Organisation. We are leaving the EU and rejoining

a great big world and it is exciting. She was giving an

interesting perspective on what could happen in nine months rather

than two years. I thank you both. It was Philip Hammond's first

budget on Wednesday - billed as a steady-as-she-goes

affair, but turned out to cause uproar after the Chancellor appeared

to contradict a Tory manifesto commitment with an increase

in national insurance contributions. The aim was to address what some see

as an imbalance in the tax system, where employees pay

more National Insurance The controversy centres

on increasing the so-called class 4 rate for the self-employed who make

a profit of more than ?8,060 a year. It will go up in stages

from 9% to 11% in 2019. The changes mean that over one

and a half million will pay on average ?240 a year

more in contributions. Some Conservative MPs were unhappy,

with even the Wales Minister saying: "I will apologise to every

voter in Wales that read the Conservative manifesto

in the 2015 election." The Sun labelled Philip

Hammond "spite van man". The Daily Mail called the budget

"no laughing matter". By Thursday, Theresa May

said the government One of the first things I did

as Prime Minister was to commission Matthew Taylor to review the rights

and protections that were available to self-employed workers

and whether they should be enhanced. People will be able to look

at the government paper when we produce it, showing

all our changes, and take And, of course, the Chancellor will

be speaking, as will his ministers, to MPs, businesspeople and others

to listen to the concerns. Well, the man you heard mentioned

there, Matthew Taylor, has the job of producing

a report into the future Welcome. The Chancellor has decided

the self-employed should pay almost the same in National Insurance, not

the same but almost, as the employed will stop what is left of your

commission? The commission has a broader frame of reference and we

are interested in the quality of work in the economy at the heart of

what I hope will be proposing is a set of shifts that will improve the

quality of that work so we have an economy where all work is fair and

decent and all jobs give people scope for development and

fulfilment. The issue of taxes a small part. You will cover that? We

will, because the tax system and employment regulation system drive

particular behaviours in our labour market. You approve I think of the

general direction of this policy of raising National Insurance on the

self-employed. Taxing them in return perhaps for more state benefits. Why

are so many others on the left against it from Tim Farron to John

McDonnell? Tax rises are unpopular and it is the role of the opposition

parties to make capital from unpopular tax rises. I think as tax

rises go this is broadly progressive. There are self-employed

people on low incomes and they will be better off. It is economic league

rational because the reason for the difference in National Insurance --

economically. It was to do with state entitlements. The government

is consulting about paid parental leave. A series of governments have

not been good about thinking about medium sustainability of the tax

base. Self-employment is growing. But it is eroding the tax base. It

is important to address those issues. A number of think tanks have

said this is a progressive move. Yet, a number of left-wing

politicians have been against it. And a number of Tories have said

this is a progressive move and not a Tory government move, the balance of

you will pay more tax, but you will get more state benefits is not a

Tory approach to things. That a Tory approach will be you will pay less

tax but entitled to fewer benefits as well.

I preferred in and policies to politics -- I prefer policies. When

people look at the policy and when they look the fact that there is no

real historical basis for that big national insurance differential,

they see it is a sensible policy. I don't have to deal with the

politics. There has been a huge growth in self-employment from the

turn of the millennium. It's been strongest amongst older workers,

women part-timers. Do you have any idea, do you have

the data in your commission that could tell us how many are taking

self-employment because they like the flexibility and they like the

tax advantages that come with it, too, or they are being forced into

it by employers who don't want the extra costs of employment? Do we

know the difference? We do, broadly. Most surveys on self-employment and

flexible forms of employment suggest about two thirds to three quarters

enjoy it, they like the flexibility, they like the autonomy and about a

third to one quarter are less happy. That tends to be because they would

like to have a full-time permanent job. It is not necessary that they

don't enjoy what they are doing, they would like to do other things.

And some of the protections that come with it? Yes. There are some

people who are forced into southern employees by high-risk but also some

people feel like they can't get a proper job as it were. --

self-employment by people who hire them. It is on the narrow matter of

tax revenues but if you are employed on ?32,000 the state will take over

?6,000 in national insurance contributions, that is quite chunky.

If you are self-employed it is ?2300. But the big difference

between those figures isn't what the employee is paying, it's the

employer's contributions up to almost 14%, and cupped for as much

as you are paid. What do you do about employers' contributions for

the self employed? -- it is uncapped for as much. What I recommend is

that we should probably move from taxing employment to taxing labour.

We should probably have a more level playing field so it doesn't really

matter... Explained that I thought it was the same thing. If you are a

self-employed gardener, you are a different tax regime to a gardener

who works for a gardening firm. On the individual side and on the firm

side. As we see new business models, so-called gig working, partly with

technology, we need a more level playing field saying that we're

taxing people's work, not the form in which they deliver that. That is

part of the reason we have seen the growth of particular business

models. They are innovative and creative and partly driven by the

fact that if you can describe yourself as self-employed there are

tax advantages. Coming out in June? Will you come back and talk to us?

Yes. We say goodbye to viewers

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

we'll be talking to the former Tory MP who was the root

of Donald Trump's allegation Hello and welcome to

the Sunday Politics Wales. In a few minutes: Will there ever be

enough cash spent on social Money's going to be tight

for the next few years. We'll be asking what

else can be done. But first, Welsh Liberal Democrats

say they're on the way back The last two elections has seen them

down to just one MP in Wales, But, with membership on the up,

they're looking to make gains I met the party's leader in Wales,

Mark Williams, at the party conference in Swansea,

and asked about Mark Williams, I guess

the big challenge for you, you are down to one MP,

one AM, defending council seats, is how do you make sure

that the party is still relevant as you go towards

the elections in May? Well, you are right,

it is not about defending seats, I think all the anecdotal evidence

at the very least suggests We have had gains in Cardiff

and Newport since the Assembly elections, so be in no doubt,

yes, defending those 72 seats across the country,

but it is about gaining more. That does mean issues

about being relevant to the debate that the country is now having

on issues such as housing, health and social care,

issues about education. We have heard at this conference

from some of the aspirations of Kirsty Williams, and,

of course, against the backdrop We come back to that in a moment,

just looking at the council elections, it is not that long ago

that Cardiff, Swansea, Wrexham, Newport, all Lib Dem councils,

do you think you'll ever get back Well, we have gained a seat

in Cardiff since the calamitous loss No one will escape from the fact

that we have had a bad two years. When you lose two of your three

parliamentary colleagues in Wales, and I'm the only one surviving,

when you lose four of your Assembly seats and you are left with one,

of course it is a traumatic experience but the party

needs to learn from that, look at why that happened

and move forward. The one thing people can never

charge the Liberal party or the Liberal Democrats

for are running away from a fight. You say you need to learn

the lessons, what are those I think the lesson is about staying

clear to your principles and your convictions,

and in your first question you used the word relevant,

being relevant to the debate that the country is now having,

and I think what Liberal Democrats have been saying, for instance,

on Europe and the threats to the Welsh economy are very

relevant to the debate You said you had to stay true

to your convictions and principles, as if that hasn't happened

in the past? I think in a coalition

government inevitably, coalition governments

by their nature are compromises, and there were good achievements

by the UK coalition government on things like tax, pension locks

and things of that nature, but there were also some pretty

disastrous decisions We need to look at those

and reinsert Liberal values, Liberal values about public

services, internationalism, We need to get the green

agenda across to people. These are the things that matter

to people in their lives. And it's a job of work, and it will,

as I have said in my speech, it will take time for that message

to get across to people and resonate but I think the seeds

are there for the continued growth How long do you think it will take

until you can get back to sort of having more MPs and more AMs

and more councils? I have always said all targets

are to be broken and there Well, they are, the party

moving forward, you know, be in no doubt has a target

of gaining more councillors I am not going to put a number

on that, we are two months away from the election

and we are still selecting candidates in some parts

of the country, but certainly we aspire, and I, as leader,

look forward to more Liberal Democrat councillors

than we currently have. And, yes, the work will then follow

on in terms of getting our Assembly group re-established

in the National Assembly and hopefully getting some more

colleagues elected to join me on the benches in

the House of Commons. I guess one of the challenges

you are facing is making your voice heard, and I just wonder if that's

more difficult, and do you think it has been more difficult over

the last ten months or so, having Kirsty Williams in the Labour

cabinet, in the Assembly, and therefore not having that voice,

that independent voice in the Assembly scrutinising

and calling for a different Well, you are right to highlight

that, and we have a special conference that authorised Kirsty

to take that important seat in the Cabinet

after the invitation of Carwyn I think she was right to do so,

but the party did have to weigh up one person sitting

on the backbenches, in effect an independent,

because she was the only one, or being at the heart

of decision-making in the National Assembly,

pushing our agenda on reduced class sizes, on a fair regime

of funding for students. I think on balance we got that

judgment right and I think Kirsty is achieving things and pushing

the education agenda, something which Liberal Democrats,

it is part of our DNA and she is there addressing those

issues, addressing those concerns. So, yes, it has been a challenge,

it always was going to be a challenge when you have one

member, it is a challenge for me in the House of Commons,

for the nine of us in the House of Commons out of 650 MPs

to get the voice heard, If your convictions are right,

you have got to keep pushing them Well, looking at convictions,

Lib Dems probably considered on a UK wide level are the most pro-European

party, and you were talking a lot in your speech there about Brexit

and what needs to happen now on Brexit, and you have also been

sent there needs to be that second referendum to ratify whatever

proposals come back. Just talk to me a little

bit about that. Well, it is not a second referendum,

it is a ratification referendum. The decision was made on June

23rd and I said it twice in my speech and I say it again,

we respect the outcome The country decided the direction

of travel, but what it didn't And as that detail rolls out

in terms of the issues about the single market,

above almost anything else, the single market, and also

for instance the issue of the 50,000 EU nationals that live in Wales,

we need clarity on those issues and I think that warrants,

if we had a Democratic vote at the start of the process,

a Democratic vote at the end of it because people are right,

as a country we have to move forward, but we can't slip out

of Europe on the basis Is there perhaps an opportunity

for Liberal Democrats here for being the voice,

if you like, of the 48% of people Do you see that as part

of the rebuilding of the Lib Dems? I think Tim Farron has

been incredibly clear on the party's position on Europe,

calling for the ratification referendum, calling also,

as the Assembly government and other parties have in the National

Assembly for our membership, or our unfettered access

to the single market, the party has been clear on that

but it's not sufficient for us to restrict ourselves

to the 48% of Remainers. We can't ignore the majority opinion

but we do need to talk to people and address the concerns that people

have raised, and that is why I believe that, as this debate rolls

out, and it will take years to achieve, people will look

to the second referendum as What will be in that

second referendum? What you could have then is that

if people reject that second referendum is that process starts

all over again and then Well, I think the process

would remain that we would remain within the European Union,

if that were the will of the people. I think that is far preferable

to having a situation at the moment when Theresa May has said

that there will be a vote on the deal she achieves,

or no deal at all, which means those World Trade Organisation

tariffs slip in very, very inconveniently to many farming

businesses or the industries of Wales right across the board,

so I think we need to The other key thing I should say

I think we need to achieve is to have a meaningful voice

for the Welsh Assembly government, who had gone to great pains to draw

up an excellent White Paper, but I question the extent

to which they are being listened Wales' voice needs to be very clear,

but at the end of that process, the end of a negotiated settlement,

there should be a vote. Wales' voice being listened to,

the Lib Dem's voice being listened to, is there enough

of that happening? What I am getting at,

as the leader of the Welsh Lib Dems, Are you out there often

enough, making sure Well, you know, you can only do

what is humanly possible. I am a member of Parliament

for Ceredigion and I am the leader of this party and there obviously

has to be a balance between the two I don't have the privilege of a seat

in the National Assembly, So you're right to to highlight

the issue but I think this is why I rely on people in the party,

I have got a team of spokespeople here, my colleagues in the House

of Lords are working very hard. I can assure you, every media

opportunity that is ever offered to us by the BBC and others,

we take advantage of. But, of course, when you have

lost a sizeable chunk of your central team,

it is a huge responsibility for the individuals that remain

and the individuals are determined to remain on the basis that we have

more people elected to carry the message forward,

and that is the challenge What can be done to meet increasing

demand for social care? Extra money isn't going to solve

the issue, so is root One AM has told us the problem

could provide an opportunity. In a moment I'll be asking two

leading AMs what they'd do, but first Bethan Lewis explains

the issues involved. Jonathan Parker and his family

are amongst the thousands that Support workers provide 17

hours a week of care and support for Jonathan,

tailored for his interests. I go swimming, go swimming,

and I go for walks. The council pays an organisation

called Cartrefi Cymru to provide support for Jonathan so he can live

at home and be independent. With Jonathan, obviously

all of our services, and all of the provisions we provide

are tailored to what Jonathan actually wants to do so instead

of just coming in and saying, right, we are doing this,

this and this, we take time to sit down and say,

right, Jonathan, what What are the type of people that

you actually get on with, Interests for Jonathan obviously

are swimming and things as well so we have got that on board

so the staff that actually work with him enjoy swimming,

so it is about making a tailored, person-centred sort of plan

around his support. Social care and how it is paid

for has shot to the top of the political agenda

because of concerns about a system Here in Wales decisions to protect

funding over the last few years have meant fewer warnings of crisis,

but still, huge challenges. Social care is complex,

expensive, and covers a whole range of services,

like help for adults with disabilities and help

for looked-after children. But the main focus recently has

been the help people may And though funding for older

adult social care has remained stable in Wales,

the problem is the population A report this week calculated that

funding per head for over-65s has At the moment around one fifth

of the Welsh population is over 65, but that is projected to rise

to a quarter by 2030. In the Budget the Chancellor

announced an extra ?2 billion As a result of that and other

spending announcements, the UK Government says over four

years there will be around ?50 million a year

for the Welsh government. It is not clear yet how

much of that, if any, will go to social care,

but Welsh councils say there is an urgent need

for a substantial injection of cash. You can't solve that just by dealing

with an efficiency agenda, We've got a ?90 million

pressure on an annual basis on Welsh social care so,

you know, even if the whole ?50 million goes in

from Welsh government, from their consequential,

it still doesn't meet the entirety of that pressure,

so we have got to think about social And this Labour Assembly Member,

as well, is calling for new ways I think there is potential for us

to marry here economic development with the care service,

in the sense that we could be starting to build homes for examples

that are adequate for a longer term That is something where

we could build an economic I think that is something

we could start to be creative with. What are your plans for going

with Dawn on Saturday? You like going to Cardiff market,

don't you? Yeah. Providing care at home is the main

theme of a plan published this week by a new organisation,

Social Care Wales. It launches officially next

month and takes over from the Care Council,

but with beefed-up responsibilities. Its chair says there are big

challenges, but Wales has These are not simple issues,

they are very complex issues, and a growing situation,

but I am confident that we have here in Wales the tools now to get

to grips with the challenge The Welsh government will have

to balance competing demands on the extra cash from the budget

but whatever the decision, it is certain more money

won't provide all of the answers. Joining me now to look at what can

be done is Plaid Cymru's Spokesman for Health and Social Care,

Rhun ap Iorwerth, and the Chair of the Assembly's Public

Accounts Committee, Thank you both for coming in.

Starting with you, Nick, is it fair to say that we look at the spending

and the attention given to health and education, and you compare that

with the attention given to social care, you see why some people are

calling it a Cinderella service? Yes, it has been neglected for far

too long. When you look at the number of people supported by our

social care services and the number of people working in it hasn't had

enough attention. That is not the fault of any one

particular party or the Welsh government, it is politicians as a

whole who haven't kept the focus on it and I am glad it is getting the

focus it deserves. Rhun ap Iorwerth, we know the problems there, we have

heard about them in the peace there. To what extent do you think there is

a recognition of the problem by the parties grappling with it? I

questioned the supposition that we are not talking about this enough, I

spend a lot of time talking about what we can do the social care in

the future. We know that there is a financial problem that we face but

there was a policy question as well, we need to start thinking

innovatively about how to tackle social care in future. We know the

population is getting older, let's celebrate that, it is a great thing.

We need to realise that it will inevitably lead to a different way

of doing things. We can talk about it at a basic level, that we need to

treat more people in their community, in their homes rather

than hospitals, but we need to find ways of actually making it happen.

Like what? Give me an innovation that you would like to see? Several

things could be done, one experiment going on in my constituency is where

the health board is co-investing with a local authority in a care

home which will bring, it doesn't integrate health and social care

completely in terms of their structures, but it does mean that

both of them are working together. I am excited about it and I think it

can work and it is the kind of model I think could be replicated

elsewhere. We need to see good practice and replicated. We can also

look abroad, there are very good examples on continental Europe and

Italy, for example, of whether third sector is playing an increased role

in the delivery of social care. It the kind of direction I think we

need to move into, looking into new ideas and facing up to the problems

that will be coming our way in the not too distant future. I don't want

this to be about putting more money because it will never solve the

problem but is there an issue here? In England they are spending a lot

less per head than we are spending in Wales. More money isn't the

problem, but a lack of funding will certainly make the problem worse. It

is a bit of a red herring to say they spend less per head in England.

Traditionally more has been spent in Wales because of our heritage and

our industrial heritage and the fact that there have been illnesses

related to those old industries. It is not about where we are starting

from, it is about where we want to get to and the money required. It is

true that money won't solve this overnight but money is a part of the

answer so it is very important that the UK Government funding that goes

into social care in England, the chunk of that money that goes to

Wales is used by the Welsh government to fund social care here

as well. That would be ?50 million a year and we have heard Steve Thomas

in the report they're saying that they are already facing a ?90

million a year shortfall, so even the money, as much as it is, coming

from UK Government, it will barely touch the sides, will it? I know my

party had been banging on about this for years, we have had an

underfunding of the NHS overall for the last five years and that means

we are starting from a poor position. We are where we are and

local authorities are looking about funding hole, even as we are at the

moment. As Rhun ap Iorwerth said we are an ageing population and that

will only get worse so we need to grapple with these issues now. We

know the matter of nonresidential services, in Wales there is a cap of

?70 per week on what you would have to pay for that. Do you think has

more and more of the population become older and we are seeing their

0.25 by 20 30 will be over the age of 65, doesn't need to be looked at

again? Should people contribute more towards the non-residential element

of social care? We need to continuously look at the situation

and it will always be a fine balance between delivering through the

public sector, through public services, the services and the care

that people require and deserve, and looking at how all of us as

individuals contribute towards that. We also need to be looking at the

model. We should recognise that the way we have been doing things is on

the way we can do things in 15 or 20 years' time. We could put all of our

money into health and social care and it probably wouldn't be enough.

That is one realisation. They made a crazy decision in England, social --

that the Conservative government, to starve social can put more money

into hospitals and that is not the way it works and they have seen the

problems that has arisen in emergency departments in hospital

because of that. In England they are trying to readdress that balance but

we have our own issues in Wales, where we have seen spending per

capita shrink by about 13% in the last five years. We need to get it

back to where we were but we need to be looking at ways of making our

pound go much further, including possible contributions from people

like me and you to make that Perry. It will be a whole different system

and now is the time to make that work. This is Plaid Cymru talking

about increasing the basic rate of income tax to pay for health and

social care and education is it? No, this is a recognition we cannot

spend the money in the way that we are now. There is a parliamentary

review underway that Plaid Cymru asked for and labour agreed to give

to us after the election last year. It is a review of how things will

have to change. If we change the care that we deliver we

have to always be looking at how we pay for that care. Everything is

going to be very different in ten or 15 or 20 years' time but we cannot

wait 15 or 20 years to decide how we need to move forward. We need to

make those decisions now and hopefully that parliamentary review

can be a kick-start for that. We have heard in the piece from Bethan

that there are opportunities to look at this as a form of economic

development, due go along with that? Maybe not the exact model of

building more homes for social care, but there could be opportunities

here? I certainly wouldn't be going down the line assembly to increase

taxes at this point. We need to look at the efficiencies would get from

the services. There are opportunities and we can look at new

models of delivering care. In my area there is a project

in Monmouthshire talks about developing communities far more. We

had to look at this across-the-board amanita make sure there are greater

efficiencies and new ways of thinking. We need to tackle this

because in a few years' time it could be too late to solve the

problem. Is enough attention given to Wales wide approach to this? We

have heard you both discussing local projects but is there enough to

coordinate it nationally? I don't think there is. That is not to say

it isn't a very difficult problem to deal with so you would expect that

position not to be as it should be at the moment, but I think we

certainly need to be renewing ourselves. This is a cross-party and

across generation, it cannot be solved overnight so we need to five

or ten years down the line make sure we have the right procedures in

place so that people in the future can be reassured that they will get

the social care that they need and that they have paid for. How hopeful

are you that an answer can be found? We haven't got a choice, we have got

to find the answer. What I am rather frustrated about is that things have

been far too slow in terms of recognition of where we need to go.

The parliamentary review I hope those kick-start that, as I say, but

we need action from government now, looking for best practice here in

Wales, across the UK, and across Europe and beyond, to make sure that

we are able to make those finances are stretching away that we have

been asking them to stretch so far. Everything is going to be done in a

different way. Thank you for your time this morning.

I look forward to your company next Sunday.

We're on Twitter @walespolitics, but for now, diolch am wylio,

Now the government plans for new grammar schools.

The Education Secretary Justine Greening was

speaking to a conference of headteachers on Friday.

They're normally a pretty polite bunch, but they didn't

Broadcasters weren't allowed into the speech,

but this was captured on a camera phone.

And we have to recognise actually for grammars, in terms of

disadvantaged children, that they have, they really

do help them close the attainment gap.

And at the same time we should recognise that

..That parents also want choice for their children and that

those schools are often very oversubscribed.

I suppose it is a rite of passage for and education secretaries to

have this at a head teachers conference book the head are usually

more polite. Isn't part of the problem, whether one is for or

against the expansion of grammar schools, the government plans are

complicated, you cannot sum them up in a sentence. The proof of that is

they can still get away with denying they are expanding grammar schools.

They will find an alternative formulation because it is not as

simple as a brute creation of what we used to know is grammar schools

with the absolute cut-off of the 11 plus. I am surprised how easy they

found it politically. We saw the clip of Justine Greening being

jeered a little bit but in the grand scheme, compared to another

government trying this idea a decade ago they have got away with it

easily and I think what is happening is a perverse consequence of Brexit

and the media attention on Brexit, the government of the day can just

about get away with slightly more contentious domestic policies on the

correct assumption we will be too busy investing our attention in

Article 50 and two years of negotiations, WTO terms at

everything we have been discussing. I wonder if after grammar schools

there will be examples of contentious domestic policies

Theresa May can slide in stock because Brexit sucks the life out,

takes the attention away. You are a supporter. Broadly. Are you happy

with the government approach? They need to have more gumption and stop

being apologetic. It is a bazaar area of public policy where we judge

the policy on grammar schools based on what it does for children whose

parents are unemployed, living on sink estates in Liverpool. It is

absurd, we don't judge any other policy like that. It is simple, not

contentious, people who are not sure, ask them if they would apply

to send their child there, six out of ten said they would. Parents want

good schools for their children, we should have appropriate education

and they should be straightforward, this is about the future of the

economy and we need bright children to get education at the highest

level, education for academically bright children. It is supposed to

be a signature policy of the Theresa May administration that marks a

government different from David Cameron's government who did not go

down this road. The signature is pretty blurred, it is hard to read.

It is. She is trying to address concerns about those who fail to get

into these selective schools and tried to targeted in poorer areas

and the rest of it. She will probably come across so many

obstacles. It is not clear what form it will take in the end. It is

really an example of a signature policy not fully thought through. I

think it was one of her first announcements. It was. It surprised

everybody. Surprised at the speed and pace at which they were planning

to go. Ever since, there have been qualifications and hesitations en

route with good cause, in my view. I disagree with Juliet that this is...

We all want good schools but if you don't get in there and you end up in

a less good school. They already do that. We have selection based on the

income of parents getting into a good catchment area, based on the

faith of the parents. That becomes very attainable! I might been too

shot run christenings for these. -- I have been.

Now, you may remember this time last week we were talking

about the extraordinary claims by US President Donald Trump,

on Twitter of course, that Barack Obama had ordered

And there was me thinking that wiretaps went out

Is it legal for a sitting President to do so, he asked,

concluding it was a "new low", and later comparing it to Watergate.

Since then, the White House has been pressed to provide evidence for this

It hasn't, but it seems it may have initially come from a report on a US

website by the former Conservative MP Louise Mensch.

She wrote that the FBI had been granted a warrant to intercept

communications between Trump's campaign and Russia.

Well, Louise Mensch joins us now from New York.

Louise, you claimed in early November that the FBI had secured a

court warrants to monitor communications between trump Tower

in New York at two Russian banks. It's now four months later. Isn't it

the case that nobody has proved the existence of this warrant?

First of all, forgive me Andrew, one takes 1's life in one's hand when it

is you but I have to correct your characterisation of my reporting. It

is very important. I did not report that the FBI had a warrant to

intercept anything or that Trump tower was any part of it. What I

reported was that the FBI obtained a warrant is targeted on all

communications between two Russian banks and were, therefore, allowed

to examine US persons in the context of their investigation. What the

Americans call legally incidental collection. I certainly didn't

report that the warrant was able to intercept or that it had location

basis, for example Trump tower. I just didn't report that. The reason

that matters so much is that I now believe based on the President's

reaction, there may well be a wiretap act Trump Tower. If so,

Donald Trump has just tweeted out evidence in an ongoing criminal case

that neither I nor anybody else reported. He is right about

Watergate because he will have committed obstruction of justice

directly from his Twitter account. Let me come back as thank you for

clarifying. Let me come back to the question. -- and thank you. We have

not yet got proof that this warrant exists, do we? No and we are most

unlikely to get it because it would be a heinous crime for Donald Trump

to reveal its existence. In America they call it a Glomar response. I

can neither confirm nor deny. That is what all American officials will

have to say legally. If you are looking for proof, you won't get it

until and unless a court cases brought. But that doesn't mean it

doesn't exist. The BBC validated this two months after me in their

reporting by the journalist Paul Wood. The Guardian, they also

separately from their own sources validated the existence of the

warrant. If you are in America, you would know that CNN and others are

reporting that the investigation in ongoing. Let me come onto the wider

point. You believe the Trump campaign including the president

were complicit with the Russians during the 2016 election campaign to

such an extent that Mr Trump should be impeached. What evidence did you

have? That is an enormous amount of

evidence. You could start with him saying, hey, Russia, if you are

listening, please release all the Hillary Clinton's e-mails. That's

not evidence. I think it rather is, actually. Especially if you look at

some of the evidence that exists on Twitter and elsewhere of people

talking directly to his social media manager, Dan should be no and

telling him to do that before it happened. There is a bit out there.

The BBC itself reported that in April of last year, a six agency

task force, not just the FBI, but the Treasury Department, was looking

at this. I believe there is an enormous amount of evidence. And

then there is the steel dossier which was included in an official

report of the US intelligence committee. You've also ... Just to

be clear, we don't have hard evidence yet whether this warrant

exists. It may or may not. There is doubt about... There are claims

about whether there is evidence about Mr Trump and the Russians.

That is another matter. You claimed that President Putin had Andrew

Breitbart murdered to pave the way for Steve Bannon to play a key role

in the Trump administration. I haven't. You said that Steve Bannon

is behind bomb threats to Jewish community centres. Aren't you in

danger of just peddling wild conspiracy theories? No. Festival, I

haven't. No matter how many times people say this, it's not going to

be true -- first of all. I said in twitter I believe that to be the

case about the murder of Andrew Breitbart. You believe President

Putin murdered him. I didn't! You said I reported it, but I believed

it. You put it on twitter that you believed it but you don't have a

shred of evidence. I do. Indeed, I know made assertions. What is the

evidence that Mr Putin murdered Andrew Breitbart? I said I believe

it. You may believe there are fairies at the bottom of your

garden, it doesn't make it true. I may indeed. And if I say so, that's

my belief. If I say I am reporting, as I did with the Fisa warrant

exists, I have a basis in fact. They believe is just a belief. I know you

are relatively new to journalism. Let me get the rules right. Andrew,

jealousy is not your colour... If it is twitter, we don't believe it but

if it is on your website, we should believe it? If I report something

and I say this happened, then I am making an assertion. If I describe a

belief, I am describing a belief. Subtlety may be a little difficult

for you... No, no. If you want to be a journalist, beliefs have to be

backed up with evidence. Really? Do you have a faith? It's not a matter

of faith, maybe in your case, that President Putin murdered Andrew

Breitbart. A belief and a report at two different things and no matter

how often you say that they are the same, they will never be the same.

You've said in today's Sunday Times here in London that you've turned

into" a temporary superpower" where you "See things really clearly".

Have you become delusional? No. I am describing a biological basis for

ADHD, which I have. As any of your viewers who are doctors will know.

It provides people with unfortunately a lot of scattered

focus, they are very messy and absent-minded but when they are

interested in things and they have ADHD they can have a condition which

is hyper focus. You concentrate very hard on a given subject and you can

see patterns and connections. That is biological. Thank you for

explaining that. And for getting up early in New York. The first time

ever I have interviewed a temporary superpower. Thank you. You are so

lucky! You are so lucky! I don't think it's going to happen again.

Please don't ask us to comment on that interview! I will not ask you,

viewers will make up their own minds. Let's come back to be more

mundane world of Article 50. Stop the killing!

Will it get through at the government wanted it? Without the

Lords amendment falling by the way that? I am sure the Lord will not

try to ping-pong this back and forth. So we are at the end of this

particular legislative phase. The fact that all three Brexit Cabinet

ministers, number ten often don't like one of them going out on a

broadcast interview on a Sunday, they've all been out and about. That

suggests to me they are working on the assumption it will be triggered

this week. This week. The negotiations will begin or at least

the process begins. The negotiation process may be difficult, given all

of the European elections. The Dutch this week. And then the French and

maybe the Italians and certainly the Germans by the end of September,

which is less predictable than it was. Given all that, what did you

make of Anna Soubry's claim, Viacom on her part, that we may just end up

crashing out in six months question -- fear on her part. It was not just

that that we made that deliberately organising. I want us to get on with

the deals. Everyone knows a good deal is the

best option. Who knows what is going to be on the table when we finally

go out? Fascinatingly, the demand for some money back, given the

amount of money... Net gains and net costs in terms of us leaving for the

EU. It is all to play for. That will be a possible early grounds for a

confrontation between the UK and the EU. My understanding is that they

expect to do a deal on reciprocal rights of EU nationals, EU nationals

here, UK citizens there, quite quickly. They want to clear that up

and that will be done. Then they will hit this problem that the EU

will be saying you've got to agree the divorce Bill first before we

talk about the free trade bill. David Davis saying quite clearly,

no, they go together because of the size of the bill. It will be

determined, in our part, by how good the access will be. The mutual

recognition of EU residents' rights is no trouble. A huge amount of fuss

is attracted to that subject but it is the easiest thing to deal with,

as is free movement for tourists. Money is what will make it

incredibly acrimonious. Incredibly quickly. I imagine the dominant

story in the summer will be all about that. This was Anna Soubry's

implication, members of the governors could strongly argue,

things are so poisonous and so unpleasant at the moment, the

dealers are advancing -- members of the government. Why not call it a

day and go out on WTO terms while public opinion is still in that

direction in that Eurosceptic direction? No buyers' remorse about

last year's referendum. The longer they leave it, view more opportunity

there is for some kind of public resistance and change of mind to

take place. The longer believe it, the more people who voted for Brexit

and people who voted Remain and think we didn't get world War three

will start being quite angry with the EU for not agreeing a deal. In

terms of the rights of EU nationals he and Brits abroad, by all

accounts, 26 of the 27 have agreed individually. Angela Merkel is the

only person who has held that up. That will be dealt with in a matter

of days. The chances of a deal being done is likely but in ten seconds...

It would not be a bad bet to protect your on something not happening, you

might get pretty good odds? The odds are going up that a deal doesn't

happen. But, as I said earlier, the House of Commons will not endorse no

deal. We are either in an early election or she has to go back

again. Either way, you will need us! We will be back at noon tomorrow on

BBC Two ahead of what looks like being a big week in politics. We

will be back here same time, same place.

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