18/06/2017 Sunday Politics Wales

Good morning, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Not good enough - that is Theresa May's

own verdict on the response to the Grenfell Tower fire,

but that is also what a growing number are saying about her

Having failed to win a majority, Mrs May will face a daily battle

to win the votes she needs in Parliament, which is maybe why

the new Leader of the Commons has already cancelled next year's

And Labour are claiming the Government isn't legitimate.

We look back to 1974 and ask those who were there

how to run the country during a hung parliament.

And hard or soft? How do you like your Brexit?

And with me to discuss all of that and more,

three journalists who always defy expectations - Steve Richards,

Julia Hartley-Brewer, and Tom Newton Dunn.

And they'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

Theresa May's authority was already in freefall even

before her faltering handling of the appalling disaster

Yesterday she admitted the official response had not been good enough.

This morning's front pages, as well as reflecting the full

horror of that tragedy, are also full of claims

that her critics are circling and ready to pounce,

though none, as yet, have come out publicly.

Her Chancellor, Philip Hammond, was asked about the Prime Minister's

position on the Andrew Marr Show earlier.

I think what the country needs now is a period of calm while we get on

with the job in hand. We've got some very serious issues to address,

including the Brexit negotiations are just starting. Theresa is

leading the Government and I think the Government needs to get on with

his job. The you know what? I think that is what most people in the

country will think - the Government needs to get on with the day job of

Government. Get on with the day job, Tom - is that what they are saying

in private? Some are. I was at lunch with a minister on Thursday who

said, we need to get this thing sorted now because if we go one like

this with the Prime Minister without any power at all, we will end up in

a John Major situation and it will only get worse. Talking to people

this week, I don't think that is the predominant view. That seems to be

that she has to stay for the time being, at least until conference,

and possibly as far as the end of the Brexit negotiations, because

there is no real alternative, no obvious person who can come in. The

last thing they want to do now is have an unbelievably divisive

leadership contest and rip up the very thin consensus that currently

still exist on Brexit and go back to square one. Journalist in London are

now searching for whom Tom had lunch with on Thursday. Julia, is that

sustainable in public? The Prime Minister's authority was already in

free fall and she has not handled this disaster well. After the 1922

committee meeting, they said, she handled this well and can handle

this stuff. It was astoundingly poorly handled. Both practically and

in terms of PR. The question is, is she capable of changing and behaving

in a different way? Her selling point running for the leadership

was, I don't do emotion and I am steady as she goes. It has not been,

so if you don't have the touchy-feely Tony Blair David

Cameron stuff, and you don't have strong and stable, you are kind of

left with nothing. It's not that people don't want her, they just

don't want the alternative. Steve, you have studied and lived through

many of these situations that cannot go on, but often it does. For one

thing, there is a fear of an early election, where MPs will think, we

might lose our seats, so we must stop that from happening. Fear the

leadership contest by which some freakish sequence they elect another

dud. 74-79, Gordon Brown after the nonelection, and he survived several

coups. This is a hung parliament where she has lost an overall

majority, and I think there are questions about whether she herself

is ready for the mountainous, daunting assent to come. One of the

reasons that Gordon Brown succeeded and carried on, Steve, was that

other people concluded they might not be better at the big job in

hand, then the economic crisis. Is there a chance that now, for all the

criticism of her, people say, know what, she is the best handle Brexit?

They want her to carry the can for Brexit and everything. No one wants

the leadership, whether it is Boris Johnson, David Davis or anyone else,

unless they can ride up on their white steed and save the day. Also,

Brexit will not be the most beautiful experience. There will be

compromises and pain. A lot of people think, we will get her to

sign the ?50 billion cheque, someone else can come in on a white horse

and save the day. Bets from journalists are not a clever thing

to do, but are you all saying that you think she will survive for some

time? I think she will, but I'm not sure how long. Philip Hammond didn't

answer the question because he doesn't know either. I think she

will for some time. A week ago, I thought there would be an election

in the autumn. I didn't make a prediction of the election outcome,

so I didn't get it wrong, but I didn't get it right either. If she

doesn't screw up, she will probably last until the end of Brexit. For

the moment, thank you very much. Theresa May's failure to win

a majority after a disastrous election campaign has

left her critics returning to that famous phrase once used

by Norman Lamont to describe John Major - in office,

but not in power. Short of MPs and shorn

of her closest advisers, she now faces a disgruntled party,

an emboldened opposition, the start of Brexit negotiations and,

as we've been saying, claims that she has mishandled

a national crisis. When Theresa May finally visited

residents at the scene of the Grenfell Tower fire,

she was jeered by some residents, Many questions have been raised,

of course, about successive Governments' approach to fire

regulation, as well as the speed and scale of the official

response to the disaster. This crisis comes at a time

when the Prime Minister is still trying to construct

a Commons majority by securing the support of the ten MPs

of Northern Ireland's The DUP is demanding more funding

for Northern Ireland and is thought to want a series of Conservative

manifesto promises dropped. This means that Wednesday's Queen's

Speech, when the Government sets out its plans for the year, will -

in the words of one Controversial plans like reversing

the ban on opening new grammar schools, ending free lunches

at English primary schools, and the scheme designed to reform

social care funding are all likely to be scaled down or

dropped altogether. The Government has scrapped next

year's Queen's speech and is planning a rare

two-year Parliament to give more time for MPs to debate

Brexit, it says, but its critics say the Government

is running scared. Because, of course, what hangs over

everything the Government now does is the small matter

of negotiating our way out Well, to discuss all of this,

I'm joined by the newly appointed leader of the Commons,

Andrea Leadsom. Good morning, and thanks for coming

on the programme. The election seems a lifetime ago, but then, the

Conservative Party promised strong and stable leadership. It's not

unreasonable to say that you don't look strong or stable and there's

not a lot of leadership. The last couple of weeks have been extremely

devastating, and I think the real focus of the Government over the

last week since that awful tragedy at Grenfell Tower has been trying to

ensure that everything is being done for the victims. I know there has

been a big narrative about what could have been done better and so

on, but in truth, the Prime Minister has had a job to do, and she really

has focused on trying to make sure that the residents are taking care

of, and that's got to be the priority. Why did you go and meet

them to hear their anger and pain but she initially did not? I was

there as the new Leader of the House of Commons and had helped to arrange

an emergency briefing for MPs and peers the previous day, and it was

so apparent how desperately moved and sympathetic and distraught all

MPs were, right across the House. Which raises the question of why the

Prime Minister did not go. She had a job to do. Too busy? No, but she

needed to ensure that what the residents needed, sorting out bank

accounts, mobile phones, trauma counselling and accommodation, she

was trying to get a handle on all of that to make sure that those things

were taking care of. She issued a statement yesterday saying the

response was not good enough. The one nudges and winks from her

advisers that it was not done properly. Do you think the Prime

Minister did not get this right? I think we are all very conscious that

the support wasn't good enough in the first couple of days. Obviously,

all local councils are geared up to try and deal with the relief from

disasters such as this, but this is unprecedented, this is absolutely

harrowing, and I know that the council did everything they could

with massive support. People are furious, and with good reason. I

hear you say that you understand and you feel people's pain. The Prime

Minister was busy, the council did their bit, so who got it wrong?

Someone has to be held responsible. Absolutely right, and as I am trying

to explain, the council really... And I rang the chief executive to

try and give specific feedback from some of the residents. He was

absolutely trying to put the right people in place to deal with that.

We had a lot of feedback from community leaders. So the council

would be replaced? We are hearing talk of someone being drafted in to

replace them because they are not doing well enough. The Prime

Minister has decided to bring in very experienced civil servants to

improve and to add to the resources of the local council so that issues

can be addressed much more quickly and with greater experience and

precision, quite rightly. Part of the problem with what may have led

to the fire and what is happening now is that no one thinks anyone is

in charge. When you talk about who could is -- who keeps people save,

is it the council, the people who manage the block, is at the fire

brigade, the people who inspect the work, the Government? No one knows

who is in charge. In this specific case, the Prime Minister is now in

charge of the committee that is bringing together all necessary

resources, but I think you make a very good question, Nick - we do

need to understand better how we can ensure that this just cannot happen

again. By clear lines of responsibility. This is horrific.

Yes, all those lessons need to be learnt about if I may, there are two

aspects: Dealing with the very real, pressing, urgent needs of those

poor, absolutely horrified and traumatised victims, and then this

bigger question about who should be in charge and where the buck stops

and who should be in control. They are two separate issues. When you

hear the rage, and it is rage can I ask a personal question? Do you feel

shame as a politician? Of course. We all think, what could we have done

or should we have done? It's just unbearable. You know, this cannot

happen in the 21st century, and yet it has. If it weren't for this, this

would still be a huge week in politics, with the Queen 's speech

coming, a new parliament, and you have been appointed Leader of the

Commons, in charge of Government business. Why have you already,

almost your first act as Leader of the Commons, scrapped the next Queen

's speech, next year's, to make sure that the parliament last for two

years and not one, unusually? It happened in 2005 and 2010. It didn't

happen during the war or during other crises. It is the rate of

legislation rather than crises. There is a lot of legislation to go

through. And we're leaving the EU at the end of March 2019, so having a

two-year period in which to bring together parliament and Government

to really make progress with legislation that is essential to

making a real success of Brexit, there are some big advantages, it's

all a bit technical, but as you will know, select committees don't have

to ditch enquiries, bills don't have to be carried forward, and there

will be more Parliamentary time for scrutiny... The advantages, you

don't have to risk another Queen 's speech which you might lose. In

other words, having two years makes it just a little bit easier for the

Government to survive than it might otherwise be.

I want to be clear, that is not any reason for doing this. There are

plenty of opportunities if you want to speculate on problems for the

Government. The point about this two year Parliament is it enables us to

get the work of leaving the EU done, but the same time we have a

legislative programme to tackle the issues of inequality, lack of

opportunity, and we want to have a good run at that at this difficult

time. You have yet to unveil the deal with the DUP, I assume we will

see that tomorrow, we do, how many parts of the manifesto will have to

be ditched? There are lengthy conversations now with the DUP and

we share a number of interests in common, ensuring we make a success

of Brexit and there's no hard border between the Republic of Ireland and

Northern Ireland. They will brace against hard austerity, so some of

the tough things you're doing in your manifesto like scrapping all

meals in England for example, changing the social care system,

ending the winter fuel allowance for some people, they will go, won't

they? We don't ever talk about the Queen's speech in advance, the Queen

will make those announcements on Wednesday. I'm preparing people for

the fact that some of the things you said in the manifesto will have to

go? The issue is that we have an enormous job to do to make a success

of Brexit and we have huge ambitions for a social, domestic legislative

programme that will improve life opportunities and reduce

inequalities in this nation. Is that's a long winded way of saying

yes? We will prioritise those things. You went to the country and

Theresa May went to the country asking for a Brexit mandate and you

didn't get one, the country didn't give you a majority. As one of the

leading campaigners for Leave, does that make you conclude something has

to change? Overrated percent voted for parties who stood on manifestos

for leaving the EU so I don't recognise what you say that we don't

have a mandate for Brexit. We do. At the referendum last year and also

the results of the general election. As I say, over 80% of people voting

for parties that will respect the result of the referendum. Had on

television this morning Kier Starmer of the Labour Party saying he wanted

to stay in the customs union, in other words you may have a majority

for the headlines, but the detail there is no majority for, no

agreement on and what I'm really asking you is whether you will have

to reach out to find that sort of agreement. In my new job as Leader

of the House of Commons, it will be important to listen to all members

right across The House, but I think it is extremely clear that in

leaving the EU we will be taking back control of our laws, our

borders, our money, and that means leaving the single market, it means

giving up on free movement. It means taking back those laws, putting them

into UK law and being able to change them. If it takes time, in other

words if that is the agreed and objective but to take some time and

the Chancellor says, you know what, we need two or three years for

business to be clear, for there to be no so-called cliff edges, do you

say you have the time? The negotiation begins tomorrow. It is

going to be very, you know, strong on all sides, but certainly my

experience from talking to other EU politicians is that they absolutely

recognise the desire as we do for a strong partnership and for there to

be low tariff... I asked about time, and the reason is let's not use the

word speculation, the Chancellor on the television this morning said

time, no cliff edges, time. Where you have politicians across the EU

and the UK who share the desire for a successful outcome with lower

tariffs, zero nontariff barriers, free trade between ourselves, it

should be possible to meet the time frame. In other words no

transitional arrangements? I am extremely optimistic there is a lot

we can agree on. I am just saying to you, my expectation is there will be

a lot we can agree on and that will facilitate a smooth transition. It

is clear Theresa May will not be running as your leader at the next

general election, so when is the right time for the party to consider

who will be leading next? Before or after Brexit? That is absolutely a

statement I would reject. You cannot see into the future. We have seen a

lot of change in recent weeks and months. The Prime Minister has done

a fantastic job in bringing the country back to a good place since

she has been the leader and Prime Minister. She is determined to

continue... She might lead the party into another election. I don't look

into the future. Let's put it another way, do you think there is a

chance some of the Conservative will lead the Brexit negotiations? I

think the Prime Minister will lead the Brexit negotiations. She has led

preparations extremely well and determinedly on behalf of the whole

country. And in that two years for the negotiation, it may be in need

time to save can look ahead to who our next leader is. I think it is

unhelpful to speculate on the future in that way. We need a coming

together, a recognition that all people need to have their say, and

strong leadership that can take us forward. Theresa May with her

Cabinet are determined to provide that. Are you believed you didn't

get the job? I supported the Prime Minister. -- are you relieve you

didn't get the job? I am completely backing Theresa May as our Prime

Minister. Thank you for taking the time to join does.

Whilst Theresa May and the Government have been struggling

to deal with the disaster at Grenfell Tower, Jeremy Corbyn

was hailed by residents after his visit to the area on Thursday.

Is Labour properly reflecting and channelling the public's anger,

or are they exploiting it - playing political games,

I'm joined now by the Shadow Local Government Secretary and Labour's

Good morning. There is a lot of anger on the streets, much of it

understandable that other people will share, but as the main

opposition party, do you have a responsibility to calm it down

rather than turn it up? I don't think we are stirring it up, I would

hope that we have been fully responsible in reflecting the

concerns, the anxieties, the hurt and worry of those residents in

Kensington. I want to pay tribute to the community that pulls together in

the face of adversity. Can't even begin to think of the pain that

people are going through, the hurt that community is going through, and

yet they have pulled together to look after one another to do some of

the things that statutory authorities should be doing, and I

think it is right and proper that we get to the bottom of what has

happened in this dreadful tragedy, and make sure we put right

everything that needs putting right so we never, ever experienced

anything as horrific as this again. I want to talk about how that might

be done in a second. You safe Labour are coming down. Clive Lewis tweeted

Burn Neo Liberalism not People, do you think that is responsible at a

time like this? I think it is important we are measured in our

approach here. Is that measured? Clive will answer for what he has

tweeted. There is an issue here that we have had seven years of cuts to

our public services. Local authorities don't have the resources

that they need to be able to provide some of the most basic services. The

Fire Service is under resourced as well, and there are issues. This

probably isn't the time to go into them, but there are issues that need

to be resolved about how we make sure that health and safety

regulation isn't seen as a burden on business, isn't seen as unnecessary

red tape, it's about saving lives and protecting people. Your

implication, almost your statement, is austerity was the reason for the

fire. It may turn out to be true, and plenty of people believe it, but

what is your evidence for saying austerity caused this fire? I

haven't said that. I said there are number of issues here. Health and

safety regulation is one, building regulations are another. The role of

government is important in this, how local authorities are able to fund

under resourced civil contingencies emergency planning. But your leader

said if you cut local authority expenditure, the price is paid

somehow. The implication was clear that the cuts lead to the fire and

it could be that this was bad regulation, it could be that the

regulation was fine but not followed, it could be criminal

negligence, it may not turn out to be cuts at all. It could be all of

those things and the important thing is we get the inquiry. We have as

wide as possible terms of reference for the inquiry, we ensure the

residents, victims and local community have a full voice in that

inquiry and we make sure the actions which are required both that we

already know from previous incidents but also the recommendations that,

of this inquiry are acted upon. We cannot ever have situation again

where we have recommendations from previous reports that have not been

acted on by government or local government. There has been a focus

of criticism on Kensington Council but there are many Labour councils

with this kind of cladding on the residential tower blocks. Do you now

know how many it is? No, but we do know every local authority and

housing association in the country are now urgently investigating their

own housing stock and we very clearly have to know that. I have

got tower blocks in my own constituency that have recently been

re-clad and I have contacted my housing providers because I want

assurances on behalf of my constituents that they are living in

safe housing. We understand me that carried out the work in Grenfell

also carried out work in Labour run Camden so it's possible this sort of

fire, God help us that it doesn't, it might happen in another borough

and in an area where the parties opposed to austerity. Absolutely and

we have got to make sure we identify precisely which housing stock does

not meet modern requirements, does not meet the safety minimum

standards, and that we urgently put that right. We cannot ever have a

catastrophe like this again, and I have been in this job as shadow

community Secretary for four days now. It pains me to see what has

happened in Kensington. This is awful, these are human lives and we

have got to start treating people and communities with the respect and

with the humanity that they deserve. You were careful at the top to say

it's important to be responsible, what do you think the fourth of the

call for a day of rage, not by the Labour Party, the day of rage on

Wednesday and quote, the Tories have blood on their hands? I don't

associate myself with those kind of comments. I think if we are going to

do something on Wednesday it is a vigil for those people who have lost

their lives because this is a tragedy and we cannot ever have that

happen again. The reason I ask is John McDonnell, the Shadow

Chancellor, said, and I quote, I don't think this Government is a

legitimate government. Do you think it is?

In the sense that Theresa May went to the country asking for a bigger

Parliamentary majority and a mandate from the people, and she came out on

the 8th of June with no Parliamentary majority at all, so it

does raise questions about the legitimacy of this Government's

ability to put forward a programme that they stood for election on.

That is a different point. I asked a simple question: Is this a

That is a different point. I asked a legitimate Government? Did they win

more votes and seats under the rules and therefore is your message to

anyone taking to the streets to claim that they are not legitimate?

We are a democracy, we have elections, and the Conservatives won

42% of the vote in the election. The Tories lost seats, and the Labour

Party gain seats. We are in a Parliamentary democracy and we will

hold the Government to account for as long as little as it survives.

Why did Mr McDonnell not say what you have said, that you will beat

them in the House of Commons? He went on to say, we need as many as 1

million people on the streets of London. He wasn't talking about this

fire, to be fair, but about a protest planned for the start of

July. He said we need a million people on the streets of London to

force the Tories out. Is that democracy? Clearly, peaceful

demonstration is part of our democratic rights, and people feel

very strongly that this Government has lost a mandate because Theresa

May went to the country asking for a bigger majority, and the country

said no. They took that majority that she had away from her. I want

to make sure we hold this Government to account, and at the earliest

opportunity defeat this Government so that we can put into practice our

positive agenda for a fairer, better, more recall Britain that

works for the many, not the few. Thank you for joining us.

Will the Government's Brexit plans have to change

Theresa May demanded, leaving them with no

Lots of attention has focused on whether Britain's future does lie

That makes it easy for firms to trade within the EU,

but prevents Britain striking its own free trade deals

Let's have a listen to Labour's Shadow Brexit Secretary,

Keir Starmer, and the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, speaking earlier.

Well, I think that should be left on the table.

So, we could stay inside the customs union?

We are leaving the EU, and because we are leaving the EU

we will be leaving the single market, and by the way we will be

The question is not whether we are leaving the customs union,

the question is what we put in its place in order

to deliver the objectives the Prime Minister set out.

Well, to see what two people from the world

of business make of this, I'm joined by the former director

general of the CBI and one-time trade minister Digby Jones,

and by the fund manager Nicola Horlick.

Good morning to you both. Digby, before we get bogged down in what

people should or shouldn't do in the Government, from a business

perspective, the customs union - what exactly is it can provide does

it matter to businesses? -- what exactly is it and why does it matter

to businesses? People are saying we need to stay in the single market,

but why then they say the other words - Britain's judges don't have

control over the law? The customs union is something where you can be

within a trading relationship, not as integrated as the single market,

but the big problem we will have coming out of the single market is

not tariffs, I don't think, because that will hurt Europe, the problem

is the bureaucracy, the regulatory burden of getting goods and services

across borders. Crudely, businesses are worried about being delayed on

the border by paperwork, deliberate paperwork, perhaps, making it harder

for our businesses to do business. That is what the issue is. That is

the biggest part. The other part is that you get this sense of being in

something, so that investors from Japan, America and China who come to

Britain for good reasons get the advantage of being within this

trading relationship. There are two big downsides to it. One is that you

have to pay money for it. It doesn't come free. There is a check to

write. And the second one, the big one, in all my years at the CBI and

as a Trade Minister, you find that we are well known for trading openly

around the world with good-quality traders will stop we don't do the

protectionism of America and France, we are actually good at this. This

forbid you from going around the world and dealing with Singapore,

America or China, or whoever. You have two at brussels do it and you

are forbidden from being part of the global economy. I think that will be

the big thing that stops things. Thank you for the moment. Nicola, in

the end, if you could get the advantages of a border that was

simple to do business across, wouldn't it make sense, as Digby

Jones says, to get out of the customs union and be able to trade

around the world freely, without waiting for Brussels to do some deal

that would take many years? The problem is, striking trade deals

takes many years, as we've seen. There are many examples likely where

the EU has been trying to negotiate something, or the US has, and it

takes years and then sometimes stumbles at the last hurdle. The

idea that we can suddenly strike our own trade deals is nonsense, in my

view. It will take years. We will be cutting off our nose to spite our

face if we shun the EU. There are 500 million people in the EU,

including Britain, so it goes down a bit if we come out. The point is, we

can trade freely with that block currently with no constraints. You

are cheering on Labour's Kia Starmer when he says, we are getting out of

the EU, but we might be able to stay in the customs union? As Digby said,

if you stay in the customs union, you cannot do your own trade deals.

We heard from the Chancellor this morning that there was a middle

position, where we get out of the customs union but over a period of

years, to stop businesses having the worry is that you set out, there

would be some sort of transition. Are you up for that? What business

needs is certainty, boring predictability. And the next couple

of years are going to deliver precisely the opposite. Anyone who

thinks otherwise is for the birds. If it were set out as a timetable

and everyone knew that by this date, this date and this date, things will

happen, then I am up for that. We have to make sure that people

understand, and this is so important, that the European union

is big trading bloc, Nicola is right, but it is only one. This is

Asia's century, not America's or Europe's. You have Brussels marching

valiantly towards 1970. We need to hit our wagon to the world. A civil

servant used a phrase many years ago - we don't want to chain ourselves

to a corpse. He said that about Europe. The future is elsewhere,

Nicola? The fact is, it is not only a huge area with 500 million people,

but it is also very prosperous. You would have to do an awful lot of

trade deals across many territories to actually replicate what we

currently have, which is free access to a huge trade block with no

constraints, and that has been beneficial to our economy. I want to

be clear that you didn't want to leave, and you would love to reverse

it now if you could, I suspect, but do you think it is possible to get

out as the people voted for, but still have the advantages of the

customs union? I think that is very. In or out? Yes. If you look at what

happened during the election, there has been a huge thing about 80% of

people voting for parties that want a Brexit. I don't think that's true.

If you look at what happened, a lot of younger people voted who were

expected to vote, and they are certainly not in favour of leaving

the EU, the single market, the customs union or any of it. Would

be, when you describe the advantages of the customs union, many people

watching with thing, and therefore the end of your sentence would be,

and that is why we should stay in, but you want to come out - why would

you take such a risk? I think the negotiations over the next two years

should be unique. We are the fifth or sixth biggest economy on earth.

We ought to have a quality relationship with Europe for all the

reasons that Nicola has said, and she's right, and at the same time

reach out to the world. If it is achievable along with Philip

Hammond's idea of feathering over the years, it is in Europe's

interests. We need humility and less arrogance, but we have got to get

there. Briefly, what is the nightmare, the fear, if we are not

in the customs union? I believe it will be very detrimental to our

economy, and also one thing: The fact of the matter is that Germany

is in the EU. Germany does seven times as much trade with China as we

do. The idea that the EU stops as trading with other countries is

nonsense. A brief last sentence, Digby. The German example is

rubbish. They dominate the EU and they use that as a way of enhancing

their competitiveness in China. What is true, and you are right, that is

coming out of the customs union done badly willed deny us the access we

have spoken of, but done well, it will have the best of both worlds.

Thank you both very much indeed. We say goodbye to viewers

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

minutes, The Week Ahead. Hello and welcome to

Sunday Politics Wales. How does the Government's former top

security adviser think the current And since Brexit means breakfast,

as talks begin in Brussels, how do you like yours?

Hard or soft? But first, the Tories and the DUP

are hoping to do a deal Nothing's signed as yet of course,

so are we heading for a strong and stable agreement

or a coalition of chaos? Well, the last time we had

a situation like this was in 1974. I've been speaking to several Welsh

politicians who were in the Commons and in the Cabinet at the time,

and still bear the scars, but these kind of deals go back

much further than that. Lloyd George is remembered

as a Prime Minister But he didn't always have

to rely on a large majority After the 1918 election he joined

forces in a coalition Coalition can work but

minority government in the Mr Wilson, the first to arrive

at Number 10 to begin his first full The last time we saw

a minority UK government was after the election of February 1974

with Harold Wilson sweeping into It really does point,

in our straw polls, to the most exciting race we have

seen since 1964. Labour had 301 votes

to the Conservatives' 297. The man representing Wales around

the Cabinet table during that time remembers that surviving

from day-to-day for the government The Prime Minister would call

on the Chief Whip at the beginning of each cabinet and the Chief Whip

would give a report, are we going to Tuesday?

I'm not sure. Wednesday?

Doubtful. Most of them go away home

on Thursday, we will pull through. The reporter was on a daily basis

as our chances of survival. For a young newly elected

Plaid Cymru MP, they were times when smaller parties

could have a big impact but also At that time Parliament used to sit

all-night sessions and the pressure you saw on some

of the elderly members there, you saw the number of by-elections

after deaths and by-elections with people

off sick was phenomenal. People were being dragged

in by ambulance at all hours of the night in order

to be there to vote. Labour backbenchers at the time

still bear the scars It meant living from day-to-day,

every vote counted, There were lots of deals

having to be struck. Ministers were unable

to travel abroad in case Do you have recollections

of people having Yes, I was stretchered

in myself actually. I didn't quite get down to Wales,

had to go Saint Mary's Hospital and they insisted, they had

an ambulance to bring me in. I felt a total fraud

because I felt better and I Halfway through that

Parliament in 1976, Harold Wilson stood down and handed

the reins to Cardiff MP, As you know, during

the last few weeks But it couldn't last for ever

and having relied on votes from Northern Irish MPs in the end

they lost a vote of no-confidence and it all came down to one

independent Ulster MP. He agreed to come over and having

come he abstained in person. Had he voted, Callaghan would have

survived the vote of no-confidence, there wouldn't have been

the election in May, and knows? We might not have seen

Mrs Thatcher as prime minister. The stakes are high

and they will be high again. Back then the Prime Minister

wasn't also facing the toughest set of negotiation

for decades as Brexit talks Like her predecessor of 40 years ago

these will be difficult Following the recent series

of terrorist attacks, the question of what can be done

to keep us safe is at the top Lord Peter Ricketts

was the government's first He's been speaking to students

in Cardiff this week, so Carl Roberts met him

in the lecture theatre and began by asking why, until recently,

there hadn't been a major attack I think that shows how

effective our security services now are because in the meantime they had

spotted and dealt with quite When I was ambassador in Paris,

we had terrible attacks there on the Stade de France

and in the bars and theatres of downtown Paris,

with many people killed. There have been attacks

in Nice and Berlin. Other European cities had been hit

and we always knew that London or any other major city in the UK

could be struck as well. But we have very competent

security services, they In the seven years since you began

as National Security Adviser how do you characterise the level

of resource available because many people suggest essentially

it has gone down. I do know that successive

governments have invested enormous amounts of money in the security

services, in technology, in We saw how quickly the police got

to the incident particularly in London Bridge, within eight

minutes I think. All that aside, I think,

has been well resourced. Part of the problem

is the threat keeps evolving. Ten years ago it was more elaborate

attacks, carefully planned and if it is planned you can get

information, you can pick up This latest wave of attacks have

been DIY attacks, really. Get in a van, find a knife

and you go and attack. It is very hard for

the security services to get a handle on attacks that have got

minimal planning and can happen What is the biggest

challenge now you think? Is it stopping plots

in their infancy or is it stopping the access to the information

for people, perhaps, to make their own bombs or the

information that is telling people to go out and do the things

you have just described? First of all, there is

getting more help from The people around those who might

move suddenly to a violent act. These people, all

surrounded with network. The authorities need the key signal

that somebody who has maybe been expressing while the radical views

is moving towards actually That is the most

useful trigger of all. We really do need to have

another push on getting the internet providers to take down

content which might be used to They say they are doing their best

but I think there is more there. Thirdly, there is

international corporation. All of these attacks turn out

to have had international links. People travelling,

people communicating. I know from being ambassador

in France how close the corporation is with services

like the French and Germans. But there is always

more to do there. We can attack in those three areas,

we will reduce the risk. We will never reduce it to zero

but we can mitigate it. We have seen incidents

in Manchester and London, we know people have been

radicalised in Cardiff. They have gone to Syria,

they fought on the side of Isis. How do you think Cardiff

compares to other UK cities All the major towns and cities

of the UK are a threat and I don't think there is any way you can say

it is safer here than I don't think there is any

reason why Cardiff is more risky and dangerous than anywhere

else but I think everyone has to be vigilant but equally,

not to be put off going Early tomorrow morning a delegation

from the UK will face the EU Commission across the table

in Brussels and the Brexit Hard Brexit, soft Brexit, or even

a red, white and blue Brexit?? In a moment, I hope my

panellists will tell me. But first, we sent Cemlyn Davies

to the kitchen, though we did need Conference, mark my words,

we will make breakfast... I am trying to make my breakfast

a success but what about Brexit? The countdown is on to the start

of those talks about Do we want a so-called soft

Brexit or a hard one? In basic terms, a hard Brexit

would see Britain leave the European Union's single

market and customs union. That would allow Britain

to control the number of EU migrants coming here

to live and work. But it would also lead to tariffs

being imposed on our imports and exports, in the

short term at least. A soft Brexit would see us retain

closer ties with the European Union, including possibly some form

of access to the EU's single market. As she outlined her 12 point vision

in Lancaster House earlier this year, Theresa May suggested

she wanted a hard Brexit but after the general election left

with egg on her face could she be One senior Welsh Conservative

backbench MP told me he and other Brexiteers are worried

the Prime Minister's hard Brexit This week, the Welsh First Minister

claims the election result means the Prime Minister has no

mandate for a hard Brexit. The election has killed off

the idea of a hard Brexit. There is much more

of an understanding, the mood we're getting

from Whitehall has changed. There is much more of

an understanding that Brexit has to be good for people, good

for business, that it maintains our links as strongly as possible

with the rest of the EU. After the First Minister spoke,

I asked a couple of Brexperts from Cardiff University

how the general election has SInce the general election

was presented as the Brexit election to provide the prime minister

with that mandate to head forward to come out of the customs

union, to come out of the single market, that mandate has

certainly been challenged. If we are looking at who are

the winners from the general election, it is those

people who challenged that There are voices saying this makes

a lack of agreement more possible. It is more likely we won't see

an agreement between the UK and between the European Union simply

because of the lack of a clear position that the UK

Government has at the moment. Welsh Conservatives leader

Andrew RT Davies was a He believes Theresa

May should stick to the principles she set out

in her Lancaster House specch. There will a whole range of issues

that were debated in the general election and many commentators

towards the end of the general election said,

this hasn't turned into the Brexit election the Conservatives

were hoping it would be. There was many other issues

discussed and rightly so because it I do think from the Conservatives

point of view it is right those 12 principles are the ones that guide

the negotiating team going into the discussions

initially. As we move forward in those

negotiations, obviously, the Prime Minister and the government

are committed to listening. A year on from the referendum

there are more cracks than ever Negotiations with the EU

will begin tomorrow. Joining me now to tell us what route

the talks should take are the former MEP and current AM,

Labour's Eluned Morgan, and Professor Patrick Minford,

who was an adviser to Margaret Thatcher and

a leading Brexit economist. Thank your for joining me. The talks

are finally getting underway now. Early discussions will be EU

citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU and the payment. How do

you think they are going to go? Part of the problem is there is such a

lack of clarity now in terms of what the Prime Minister can deliver for

Britain that these will be talks about talks. The clock is ticking

and within two years we're going to crash out of the European Union

unless you get a deal. The problem is, they have made it clear despite

the protestations initially of the UK Government, they want to focus on

what the divorce bill will be. They said they will not negotiate what

the future relationship will look like, they want to sort out the

citizens rights of the European Union, people who were living here

and working here but also they want to sort out Northern Ireland. In the

current mix with the DUP saying they will not have a hard border with

Southern Ireland, that throws that whole negotiation into a very

complicated situation. If they go for a soft border in Northern

Ireland, and we have a hard border, that will have huge and difficult

consequences for our ports in particular in Wales. We will be

pressing in particular those Tory MPs who are representing ports in

Wales in Pembrokeshire, people who only narrowly got in, we will be

holding them to account and making sure we don't want a soft Brexit. No

customs union. There is a difficulty in the context of beginning the

talks at this time. Is it more difficult than it would have been

before the election? These negotiations have been due to

start and now finally they are starting. Actually, it is going to

be about detail. The point about soft Brexit as it is called is it is

a status quo. It is protectionism, regulation May be you, no control of

our migration. People didn't vote for that. 80% or whatever that it

was that backed the two main parties voted for Brexit. Soft Brexit is no

Brexit at all. Hard Brexit is Brexit. The point about hard Brexit

or what Theresa May has said... We leave.

I think in fact the detail in negotiation will be about a trade

agreement which is easier for the EU to do than to talk about soft

Brexit. That is just a model. A trade agreement with deal with the

details and it will be... The point about a Brexit, the way Theresa May

has talked about it is prices will come down, we will get rid of

protectionism, there will be competition and our rural regulation

and control of our borders. Let's go through some of the issues.

On ports, you are saying for Brexit means for Brexit. A hard border

between Northern Ireland and the republic. They're all sorts of ways

deal with Ireland. A full Brexit would mean that as a line between an

EU country, the Republic of Ireland, and a non-EU country the Northern

Ireland. That could have problems for ports in Wales. You are getting

down to a level of detail that can be handled.

It is about the nature of our trade relations. But the details matter.

They can be handled. There are all sorts of ways of dealing with these.

Many people don't understand that customers are computerised. People

can travel across borders very easily through computerised

requirements. They don't need visas. All these things people are talking

about, they don't understand modern customs which I computerised. Those

things that people are talking about our way down the list in terms of

detail that can be handled. The really key things are what trade

relationships will we have the EU. What sort of Harris will be put on

the rest of the world? Those tariffs could be damaging to agriculture. We

could be looking at at the end of two years for not crashing out, but

a phased transition. The Chancellor saying this morning that phased exit

on a trade deal, that could cushion the blow. What we have to remember

is the situation, however bad it is for the UK, is going to be worse for

Wales. Two thirds of our exports compared to 40% of UK exports go to

the European Union. Whatever it is we need to really make sure that

those jobs are protected. That has got to be our priority. It has got

to be about jobs first Brexit. That is what will matter to people. On

top of that, what is important is we ensure that we keep the kind of

standards it environmental standards, health and safety

standards, social standards that Patrick is keen to tear up. I am

anxious to make sure we keep those because those are fundamental to the

kind of society and trade deal we want. We have heard the Chancellor

this morning talking about the importance of the service industry

of the City of London being looked after in terms of Brexit. 11% of tax

comes from there. Is there a concern that when there is so much emphasis

put on those elements of the role of Wales and the increased importance

of exposed to the EU from Wales will be overlooked?

Is not at all. What Eluned Morgan has put forward is the protectionist

fallacy. It is good for us to have protection of its manufacturers.

Whilst manufacturing is well beating that world beating. -- is world

beating. Nor does it want tariffs. We would trade freely with the rest

of the world. The object of the so-called South -- hard Brexit is

free trade. Theresa May fought her policies on the basis of free trade.

Wales will benefit from free trade because prices will come down, free

trade is good for consumers. There are an awful lot of French consumers

and businesses. Businesses can compete. But prices will come down

for farmers, the price of lamb and beef. Certainly true. Farmers should

not be afraid of world competition because this is good for the

consumer. We can help farmers directly at much less cost than we

can in the common agricultural policy. It is all about the detail.

Competition for producers and what help we give in the help of

transition packages to adjust to have a more competitive world. We

are not going to tear standards. That sounds OK. If we can give

support to farmers, no tariffs on steel and manufacturing.

Look at the reality. Prices has gone up, inflation has gone up, it is

affecting what people pay in their shop. We were promised all kinds of

things. We were promised three and ?50 million extra a week for the

NHS. Nano that is going to happen. People were sold a pup when they

voted for Brexit. We have to hold those people to account. What is key

for me is what Patrick is talking about is a theoretical model. What I

think is important is we ensure that we protect them I don't think you

are going to protect farmers, you are sacrificing farmers. You are

sacrificing the manufacturing industry by pursuing your model

which is that if we drop our tariffs everyone else is going to drop

theirs. That is not the reality of how the world works. More than that,

the World Trade Organisation would not allow them to do that

unilaterally. What you want to see might be lovely but what others will

allow you to do would be different. The whole point of going to the

world trade organisation draws is we can get rid of our tariffs. The

protection we put in our industry is an own goal, it raises prices to the

consumer. This whole point about the devaluation, that is something that

is completely separate. When you have a big regime change you need

have a Dee Valley ocean. We always have this when we're doing new

things. -- the valuation. That is a completely separate thing and in the

long run that will go away. The key thing that will stay is the greater

competition in the economy and the benefits to the consumer of lower

prices. She wants to protect, protect, protect. She wants to

protect our farmers and manufacturers. They don't need it.

That's it from me ahead of what promises to be another

You can follow it all on our Twitter feed.

-- for the victims' family so that they can have their say. Thanks to

all of you. Even if the inferno in London had

never happened, this would have been The Brexit negotiations finally

begin in Brussels tomorrow - will ministers change

their position? The Queen's Speech,

which had to be delayed, but can the Government

get its legislative agenda Still with me, Steve, Julia and Tom.

Steve, Brexit, as if it is just a small thing this week. We have heard

from the Chancellor this morning and from Andrea Leadsom - do you detect

a shift in Government debate or still alive -- in Government

approach or still a lively debate? Philip Hammond now is in a stronger

position than he could ever have dreams who would be in -- he would

be an before the election result, so tonally, we have him now confidently

saying that the focus must be on the economy, on having some kind of deal

whereby there are not bureaucrats blocking the movement of goods and

so on, but beyond that, it's not entirely clear how he plans to use

this new political muscularity. I think that will become clearer as

the talks begin, but at this point, it all still seems fairly vague.

Labour's position and the Government's as these talks begin

tomorrow. Don't you smell a rat? Do you think, I know what they are rock

to, they wanted ter at the referendum? It is almost irrelevant

what the Government says and what they are thinking of doing. What

matters is what is on the table, hence the nonsense about soft Brexit

and hard Brexit. Soc Brexit is not Brexit and hard Brexit is not an

option. Guy the Hofstadter did the work of Nigel Farage last week when

he said that we could remain but lose the rebate. Even a slow

Brexit... No, no, at the end of March in 2019 we will be out of the

EU. That is what happens. There is a question of transition deals, which

is fine. But we do not know which Government will be in power at the

time, but will they obey the will of the people as expressed in the EU

referendum, which is out of the free market, no free movement? This

argument is irrelevant, I think. Tom, has a lot changed? Remit yes.

The first compromise the Government made on Friday, which was almost

unreported on Friday because we had so much more to talk about, Grenfell

Tower being the major one, but the Government agreed to go by the EU

timetable, which is to sort out the divorce and then move the trade

deal. The other thing that changed is the composition of the House of

Commons. There is no majority for Theresa May's version of Brexit. I

think the area where there will be room for manoeuvre is immigration.

It won't be the customs union. There will be an argument about the

relationship, but it will be to soften up this call from Theresa May

for immigration controls. Jobs first is a change in the Government

position, isn't it? Tom is right about immigration. I was told that

the decision to include student numbers in the immigration total was

her view and hers alone. I think that will be dropped now, because

the Cabinet feels strong enough to assert their different view. Every

single member of that cabinet I am told apart from her did not want

that. There is an example of refocusing. At the moment, it is not

clear where that will lead. The talks will begin, I think, in an

messy way. -- in a messy way. I have spoken to Tory MPs on the Remain

site who wonder if we won't still be in in 2019. It is not possible. The

legal process has begun. We are out of the EU at the end of that period.

Transition could mean it feels very like we are still in. All this talk

about compromise and so on, it is between members of the Cabinet and

UK political parties. What matters is what is on the table and how the

British people react. During these talks, the Government will have to

compromise if they don't get to have their cake and eat it. Brexit will

be soft. Do you think there is arithmetic that will bring a

dramatic change? Bhui report this as internal machinations in the Tory

Party in the Cabinet. It is what you can get through. We report this. She

framed this election as a mandate for her version of Brexit. When she

didn't get that mandate, I know it has become a cliche could, -- it has

become a cliche, but she did not get the mandate cheese. Let's move on to

the Queen's speech. That would be a huge story if it were not for fire

and Brexit. This is a Government without a majority vote of Andrea

Leadsom said, we are just elating next year's Queen's speech. Do you

buy that? There will not be won because they do not know whether

they will have the numbers to support it. Also, one Queen's speech

and the Parliament business will be taken up by the Great Repeal Bill.

There will be no legislative time left for the remnants left Theresa

May's manifesto. She feels this desperate need to try. There will be

a housing will, no doubt and one or two other things. Other things are

dead in the water, grammar schools, for example. Some of the more

interventionist policies are forever gone. Some people might well come an

end to the ongoing new legislation about every topic which does not

make anyone's life better. We don't know the details of the deal with

the DUP, but we know it will be focused some of it on Northern

Ireland itself. There is a chance that they see themselves as fighting

austerity in the UK. You can't just have a set of policies for Northern

Ireland to keep the DUP on board which will not apply if they seem

rather rosy and benevolent to the rest of the UK. The Barnett Formula

requires more spending in Wales and Scotland if you increase it for

Northern Ireland. It is that whatever is spent in England, there

are ramifications for the other nations of the UK. They are close to

impotence, and the only question that will be asked is, can we get

this through? Therefore, they will get it through because they won't

put anything in that could be defeated. A last thought about the

fire, then. However much we say these events are bigger, I have a

feeling that the fire will dominate when MPs gather. Have ministers done

enough, and have Labour done enough to do themselves from some of the

protests, to avoid some of the political risks involved? In the

short term, Downing Street is beginning to do enough. The Prime

Minister is meeting relatives every day now, which is beginning to abate

the political crisis. The great mess that will continue is that Labour

have managed to turn this into an anti-austerity issue, and that will

live on. The organisation has been appalling. This is about poor

people's lives, at the end of the day. The way it has been politicised

they think is completely wrong. It also raises questions about who is

responsible for what. The instinct is to blame Theresa May for the

whole lot, something that wouldn't have happened two months ago. What

about the role of the local authority? What about the

invisibility of the local authority afterwards? Which bit of our

Government is responsible for what is? That is the cause of many crises

in this country. It is ruled by committee and the bug doesn't stop

with anyone. I thought, in many ways, for those of us in our line of

work, as it were, the most painful question beyond the horrible human

tragedy was to hear people say, we don't know who to ask. That was a

failure by the local council. And you put it to Andrea Leadsom. I

don't think making it the Prime Minister will reassure people. Thank

you all very much indeed. The Daily Politics will be back

on BBC Two at noon tomorrow, and Andrew will be back

here at the same time next week. Remember - if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics.