09/07/2017 Sunday Politics Wales

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

Donald Trump says he wants to do a "powerful" trade deal

Theresa May says other countries are ready to talk too.

But could the transitional deal with the EU that some are pushing

for scupper the Prime Minister's plans?

Having defied expectation in last month's general election,

are Jeremy Corbyn and his allies about to purge the party

The deadliest fire in London since the Second World War has

devastated a community and shocked Britain, but will the political

storm that's blown up in its aftermath help uncover

If the pay cap is lifted, who should pay for it,

And the Education Secretary tells us why she's expecting

a fall in GCSE results. Havering council are about to vote

on breaking away from the capital. If we are darking today we apoll

jierks it could be a power cut or the BBC is trying to save money with

its fuel bill! Assuming you can see them...

And with me - as always - for TV's second most keenly watched

on-screen relationships after Love Island,

the Sunday Politics panel - Steve Richards, Julia Hartley-Brewer

They'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

So - Donald Trump says a trade deal with UK could be

Theresa May says that other world leaders,

including those of China, India and Japan, are also keen to do

President and PM were speaking at the G20 summit of the world's major

President and PM were speaking at the G20 summit of the world's major

But could the transitional deal that some want,

that would keep the UK in the EU's single market and Customs Union

for several years after exit, put paid to those plans?

Here's what the man likely to be the next Lib Dem leader -

Vince Cable - told the Marr show earlier.

I'm beginning to think that Brexit may never happen,

The problems are so enormous, the divisions within the two major

parties are so enormous, I can see a scenario

We're joined now from Shropshire by the former

Conservative Cabinet Minister and leading Brexit

Ogise, it could be a power cut or the BBC is trying to save money with

its fuel bill! Assuming you can see them... Good morning to you, Vince

Cable says that he thinks Brexit may now not happen, what do you say to

that? What is new? Vince Cable always wanted to stay in the

European Union, he is chucking buckets of water round, we had a

huge vote last year, we had an enormous vote in the House of

Commons, 494 votes to trigger Article 50, we had an election

campaign in which the two main parties took 85% of the vote they

back the speech and leaving the customs union and the single market

and the ECJ and Vince Cable's party went down in votes as did the other

parties that want to stay in the European Union. So Vince is behind

history, we are going to leave, we are on target, Michael Gove

triggered leaving the 1964 London convention so we can take back

control of the seas and bring back a sane fishing policy and more

important getting environmental gained in our marine environment,

so... You think we are still heading for the exit but Mrs May called the

election because she wanted a mandate for her version of Brexit.

She didn't get it. Surely you can't just continue with business as

usual? Well, we have been over the election, we did not get the number

of sees we wanted but on votes, we got 13.7 million, that is more than

the great Blair landslide. You had an overall majority and you lost it.

That is a fact. I said that. We know that. So you didn't get the mandate.

We got the vote! We got a lot votes and so did the Labour Party. You

know we are in a Parliamentary system where what matters is the

number of seats you get in the Commons, you know enough about the

British constitution to know a that is what determines the mandate. Not

the number of votes, we are not a Presidential system.

I am First Minister throughly wear of that. 85% of the election voted

for parties that wanted to leave. If you take votes in the Commons last

week on the Queen's Speech not a single Conservative MP abstained or

voted against and the Labour Party unwisely, Chuka Umunna triggered and

amendment wanting us to stay in the customs union and got hammered. So,

I am clear that we have to deliver this, much the most important point

in all this, is if we do not deliver a proper Brexit which means leaving

the single market, leaving the customs union and the jurisdiction

of the ECJ, there will be appalling damage to the integrity of the whole

establishment. Not just political, you, the media, and the judicial

establishment. Some would say that damage has already been done in

other area, let us look at the detail. Under Article 50 Britain

leaves the EU in 20 months which means the deal will have to be done

in 15 or 16 months to allow for people to approve it in the various

Parliaments and so son. Progress has the been glacial. We have only just

begun. Why should there not be a transitional deal that keep some of

the current arrangements in place to mitigate this falling off a cliff?

As Liam said in the Commons, Liam who? Liam Fox, this should be one of

the easiest ever deals to conclude, because already, we have zero

tariffs, already we have complete conformty on standards and already,

those who are negotiating with us have an enormous surplus, the

Germans sold an enormous number of cars, so that is the basis on which,

if you look at Nafta... We haven't even started talking about free

trade yet. That is not on the agenda yet. Let me finish. If you look at

Nafta, that took 14 months, we are starting on a basis of mutual

recognition of all our standard and zero tariffs so yes, there will be

an implementation period but it is very very important politically this

is concluded fast, as a huge economic imperative as well, because

it is uncertainty about this that will damage future investment and

job, the quicker we get on with it and we know where we are going and

we can reach out to the world, we can take advantage of the fact

stated on the European Commission website that 9 a 5% of the world's

growth is going to come from outside European Union, which is what we are

seeing, we have seen sales go from 61% to 43% and it is tumbling to

43%. We cannot take advantage of these wonderful opportunities in the

wider world... Why not? Why not? Germany does. Because they can't

conclude free trade deals. Germany runs a balance of payment surplus,

it finds it possible to trade with the rest of the EU and with the rest

of the world. It has a bigger surplus than China, if Germany can

do both why can't we? They can't. They can't conclude deal, we Trump

wants to do a deal with us. You saw Theresa May sitting down with the

economies of the future, India, China, South Korea, these are all

longing to do more business with us, we can only do that once we are out

of the customs union, that is vital for the future of this country, that

is where the future growth is. The business in this country says we

should stay in the single market and the customs union, at least through

a transition period. Does that count for nothing, is Tory party now so

antebusiness it ignores the wealth creators? I think what you are

saying is that the CBI which represents very large organisations

has made that statement, but talking to business widely, and smaller

private businesses which dominate the economy, what is vital on this

is to have a rapid implementation period. That is what is important.

And there has to be clarity of where we are going, if we are in permanent

limbo which will take a enormous amount of negotiation and will take

ratification by the 27 countries and the European Parliament as well as

our own, that will drag things out. What we need to do is a clean Claire

statement of reciprocal free trade which should be really pretty easy

to negotiate because we have that, we have conformty of standard, we

have an implementation period. That needs to be done rapidly. Latest by

the next election. OK, we shall see how simple it turns out to be. Thank

you for joining us here. What do you make of this increasing

talk of transition period in which it is not clear, we remain full

members of the single market, full members of the customs union? Which

came we cannot conclude very quickly, in Mr Trump's word a free

trade deal? This is where the battle is now heading, between Brexiteer,

levers, re-levers and the lot of it. This will be really what the only

thing we could achieve in the next negotiations, what has changed since

the general election which you were touching on there, is of course

Brussels in the year 2017 are no longer negotiating with Theresa May,

they are negotiating with the House of Commons and the you know majority

for a softer Brexit, so this will begin, the transition deal will

define the rest of deal, the rest of the final relationship, so getting

the transition on the right trajectory is crucial, hence why you

have Philip Hammond making a major play to try and keep one foot in the

EU, if not necessarily in the custom union and the single market and

everyone else says get out. These are the opening skirmishes on what

will certainly be the nettle that will will be grasped round about

some time between October and spring next year. Are you worried that the

election result, the fact that she didn't get this mandate that she had

looked for and she has ended up in a weaker position than she was before

the election, is going to make Brexit more difficult, it is going

to muddy the water, it means her idea of Brexit is not necessarily

the one that become Brexit? Yes I am worried are about as a Brexiteer,

the same remain yaks would have been trying to scupper the will of the

British people as expressed in June 2016. Now they might succeed. I

don't think any will succeed. We have to stop this nonsense and the

media included, of this talk of soft Brexit an transition period. We have

a transition period once we are out when we are leading to the next

process, with have to be out of the single market, and not under the

European Court of Justice. All within the two years, all by

March... That happens automatically, then we can agree for a two, three

year max, three year period we will have a position as we move to the

new deal, but I don't think there many Leave voters, most Remain

voters accept that result, unlike the people like the CBI who are

fighting against it still, they will accept anything more than that. I

think Owen Paterson is right. We are in a situation where we will face

some serious disflus the establishment, the political world,

the Melissa Reidia if we don't obey the will of the people. What do you

make of the reports in the Sunday papers, it was only ten days ago,

two weeks' ago Mr Hammond was going to be the caretaker leader, that is

a story that didn't seem to last 48-hour, but what do you make of the

remain MPs on both sides of the House, plus peers, are going to try

to derail this repeal act, that the Government needs to push EU law on

to the UK statute book. I I think they will use it to at certain key

points to attempt to defeat the Government, not over the whole

thing, this summer reminds me so much of the summer of 92 who the

Maastricht Treaty coming into a fragile John Major Government, and

people then were plotting, in the opposite direction, Eurosceptics to

try and stop that. He won with a huge percentage of the vote. Tiny

majority, 23, bigger than she would have died for that. A shock victory.

The The summer was full of talk and plotting, some which came to

fruition in the sessions after and some will come into fruition from

this autumn on ward where you will see alliances across the Commons

manned the Lords, there will be moments of high Parliamentary drama,

I think. Sounds like a long hot autumn.

An a long hot autumn, and winter. Winter too? I thought it was all

global warming. This will add to the temperature!

Now, Jeremy Corbyn may not have won the election,

but by confounding almost everyone's expectations he is unassailable

as Labour leader for the foreseeable future.

So what does that mean for his MPs, most of whom - just a year ago -

Labour's new chairman and key cupping Ally said last week the

party may be too broad church. He also seemed to endorse the idea of

deselecting labour MPs critical of the leadership by saying if you get

deselected there must be a reason. But he has since wrote back from his

comments in another interview. Chris Williamson, the newly appointed

labour frontbencher said some of his colleagues in the Parliamentary

party think they have a God-given right to rule. He also said that if

MPs don't support the leadership's programme, local constituency

parties should find someone else who will. And in the seat of liveable

waiver treats this week, left wing supporters of Jeremy Corbyn won

several positions on the committee. One said she must get on board quite

quickly now, and also publicly apologise for not supporting Mr

Corbyn in the past. Some Labour MPs rushed to Luciano Berger's defends.

Elsewhere, a list of 49 Labour MPs was published, and they said these

usual suspects should join the Liberals. The list included

prominent former frontbencher is like Chris Leslie, Chuka Umunna and

tidying -- Heidi Alexander. And this is what the Shadow

Education Secretary and Jeremy Corbyn ally,

Angela Rayner, had to say earlier. Anyone that talks of deselecting

any of my colleagues, frankly they need to think

about actually, who are Who are making the problems

for our communities at the moment? Who have made those disastrous

policies that are hurting the people It doesn't help them if we're

fighting each other. We're joined now from

Sheffield by former Labour Cabinet Minister,

Caroline Flint. Welcome to the programme. Labour

frontbencher Chris Williamson has said, where Labour MPs don't support

the leadership's programme it's incumbent on local members to find

someone else who will. What do you make of that? I think it's very sad

that talk of deselection is the line people are taking. We had an

election where 262 Labour MPs, very different ones, have all won a

mandate from their electorate and our job is, as Angela Rayner said

this morning, is to focus on a government that is in disarray and

how we can learn from the general election to broaden our appeal but

also develop our policy is ready in time for the next election whenever

that is called so I think all talk of deselection is misplaced and

doesn't help Labour. But do you feel a purge of what is often referred to

as the moderates in your party is now inevitable? No, because we have

been here before in the 1980s when talk of deselection was suggested,

it didn't happen in the way people thought it would, and I do believe,

hearing how Ian Lee very, and I have worked with him in the 2010, 2015

government and I have worked with Chris Williamson, Ian has already

refined what he said, and what he's clearly was this deselection talk

and the way to go ahead on it is not the right way forward. We to focus

on looking outwards to understand that we have across the party

hard-working Labour MPs with maybe different views across the Labour

political spectrum, and I would have to say that Luciana is one of the

most hard-working MPs in Parliament and homework on mental health is

outstanding. That may be true, let's look at Luciana Berger's

constituency. One of the committee members on her committee says she

now has to get on board quite quickly. And even publicly apologise

for past disloyalty. The direction of travel is clear, isn't it? That

is one person on a committee in one constituency... Where there is a

majority for that point of view now. I don't think there is, and the

truth is... They took nine seat. Her constituency is all of the members

in that constituency and what I would say, and I don't know this

individual, look at the track record of Luciana and what she has done.

Jeremy, in the 20 years I have been an MP under both Tony Blair and

Gordon Brown, voted against the Labour whip on numerous occasions,

he has been very upfront and honest about this, do you know in those 20

years I never heard anybody say about Jeremy or anybody else who

didn't vote with the Labour whip that they should face deselection or

apologise. I think that represents the broad church of the Labour Party

and we should look at what brings us together rather than differences on

policy point of view and we should be looking outwards and dealing with

that and working on it. You have said that three times but it has not

happened and it may be that the people around Mr Corbyn, they think

moderates like you, your day is over. You lost the 2015 election

badly, you allowed Jeremy Corbyn to stand as leader, you failed to stop

him twice, you thought he would make a mess of the June election and he

didn't. Can you blame his supporters for wanting a career out of people

who took these positions? I think there are some people who supported

and still support Jeremy who feel that way but I don't believe they

represent the people who supported Jeremy, and I don't believe Jeremy

thinks this is in the best interests of the party. Only a few weeks ago

John McDonnell praised my work on tax transparency. Since my election

I have bumped into Jeremy and we have had a chat about what happened

in the election and Jeremy recognises that we were up against

an arrogant Tory party and has said to me he does understand this and

said to the broader Parliamentary Labour Party... If I could just

finish... What has he said about deselection? For example he said to

me that he recognised that we have won in numerous places in

outstanding circumstances but he's also said to me that he recognises

that we need to broaden our reach and understand why we were

working-class voters. That says to me that that is a leader who is up

for and open to looking at the reasons why we were successful and

the reasons we weren't and he wasn't closing down conversation on that. I

take him on his word on that. He has not said that publicly. What we need

from a leader is to challenge our party about where to go next and he

has said that, Diane Abbott has said at a conference I was at a few weeks

ago that we need now to look at our manifesto and look more clearly

issues around tax and spend policies because obviously clearly now we

have more time to look at those issues and also we may be facing a

very different election when the time comes. That's what I want from

the leadership team, talk about how we improve our message and reach,

and by doing that get away from what song, a minority I have to say, are

saying about deselection. Corbynistas like Paul Mason think

moderates like you were to blame for the defeat. He said moderates were

always attacking Mr Corbyn, that is quite popular view in the Jeremy

Corbyn wing. I think that is Paul Mason's view and he is fundamentally

wrong. When we look at the results of the last election, we can see a

continuing from 2015 where Labour is losing support among older voters

and what we see is in this election in 2017 Labour has... I think we are

at our highest point amongst the middle-class voters compared to

where we were in 1979 but the Tories are highest among working-class

voters since 1979 as well. Those working-class voters weren't voting

for a more left alternative to Labour and sadly they were voting

Tory and we have to address that because our party is this broad

church and representing working-class people is at the heart

of what the Labour Party is about and that's a discussion we need to

have. That is the depth of discussion we need to get into. That

would put's with a fighting chance of taking on a Tory party that is in

disarray. Caroline Flint, thank you for joining us.

This week it was announced that the Grenfell Tower inquiry

would hold its first public hearings in September, as it prepares

to begin to examine what caused the tragedy.

But some have warned that the situation now needs

to be de-politicised, or it will damage

In a moment we'll hear from the MP for Kensington and Chelsea

where the Grenfell Tower fire took place.

But first Emma Vardy looks at how political arguments have played

a significant part in the aftermath of this terrible event.

When you come here and you actually see it, your immediate thoughts

are about the people, not about the politics.

What happened up there is just so difficult to comprehend.

storm that those in power struggled to respond to.

We want justice, we want justice, we want justice...

People vented their anger outside Kensington town Hall.

A visit to the Grenfell site by Theresa May saw her forced

At Prime Minister's Questions, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn linked

What the tragedy of Grenfell Tower has exposed is a disastrous

And speaking at Glastonbury, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell

Those families, those individuals, 79 so far and there will be more,

were murdered by political decisions that were taken over recent decades.

I can't remember a major national tragedy that has been politicised

I think using terms like murder is completely reckless

The key thing is that we try to ascertain the facts

this tragedy occurred to ensure it can never be repeated.

And as soon as you introduce emotive phrases or emotive accusations

or emotive allegations of that nature, then the discourse

The whole debate around the tragedy becomes politicised and it makes it

Some argue the political language that was used was wrong and helped

to ramp up the vitriol in an unhelpful way, but

for others, it was entirely justified.

That's what an opposition party is for, it's to challenge

the Government and to ask the right questions and I think people

round here would say thank goodness, there's somebody in politics

Pilgrim Tucker had helped Grenfell Tower residents campaign

for building improvements in previous years, and returned

I've been to meetings before the fire and I've been

to meetings since the fire, attended by ordinary residents

with no involvement in politics and they are saying very political

things about land in London and property ownership in London,

Had we campaigned harder, would we have prevented this?

Fire safety campaigners say they were trying to draw attention

to certain issues long before what happened at Grenfell Tower,

and say it's no one political party but the whole system has failed.

It's easy to say, "You've got an inquiry, let's wait for that."

We already know two very clear things.

Had the people there been protected by sprinklers,

People don't die in homes protected by sprinklers.

The second thing is the outrage that the building regulations had

They should be done year in, year out.

Generally people in house fires die in ones, twos

or threes, which doesn't make a political statement.

So the political parties haven't really needed

They weren't prepared for 70 or more people to die at once

The public inquiry, which will address some of those issues,

has already faced calls for its newly appointed

And that was a view echoed by the Labour MP

You would call on him, would you, to stand down?

I don't think there will be any credibility and some people

are saying they won't cooperate with it so it's not going to work.

I will look into this matter to the very best of my ability...

I think the attacks on the chair have to cease, I think the attacks

It actually makes it harder to get to the facts and get

to the truth and that's the most important thing now.

Some said it was unavoidable that this tragedy became political,

but will the politics help get to the truth?

I'm joined now by the Labour MP for Kensington -

who we heard at the end of that film - Emma Dent Coad.

Now this judge, leading the Grenfell inquiry, have you met him? I haven't

met him, no. So what evidence do you have that he doesn't in your words

understand human beings? Well, I am reflecting what people are telling

me out there, that they as soon as his name was announced everybody

looked up his credentials, they found a particular case he had been

involved in, the very issue that people are most worried about, post

Grenfell is they will be moved out of the borough somewhere else. This

issue about social cleansing. It was insensitive to have chosen somebody

with that on his record. Whether he made that decision according to the

rules. It is one judgment in a long career, he may be able to defend

what he did. You have said he doesn't understand human beings but

you have told us you have never met him? It is nothing to do with

meeting him. It is the system where people have to be friends in order

to work together, judged by the evidence, judge by what people have

done that, judge by merit and whether or not you can be friendly.

What has he done wrong in his career? It is symbolic the issue he

made a decision about, it is symbolic for everybody. I am

reflecting the community who are been betrayed. You don't think in

your often view you don't take the view he doesn't understand human

beings. Personally I do. I do actually but I am reflecting what

people are saying, the people who elected me, who have been badly

betrayed by the authority, they are seeing it that way, they have been

betrayed and now they see you know, they worst fear is this will be used

top socially cleanse north Kensington. What is the evidence for

that? About social cleansing? No, this will be used to do so. Whether

or not there is ever, there is no trust in somebody who has been part

of that process. He has been chosen by the Lord Chief Justice, not as

the Prime Minister as some have said. He has a long ex perness of

commercial contracts and disaster, both of which will be vital. It is a

lot to do with overlapping commercial contract, he is a

specialist in that area, what bit doesn't make his qualified and and

doesn't he reflect the independence of the judiciary? Well, we certainly

need somebody who can do the detail. This is a human disaster as much as

anything else. We need somebody who, we saw in the meeting there, there

is a lot of anger and people aren't trusting. . That would be true, we

all understand the anger, of course, but that would be true whoever was

chosen. Are you really after... Do you want someone to head up this

inquiry that will give you a show trial rather than an independent

inquiry. It is exactly the opposite. . Woe won't give us a show trial, is

he? If there is no trust, people won't co-operate with him. A lot of

people will need to co-operate with him. Some of the groups are not

involved, they are protest groups who are not representing the

victims, or the survivors, we have very little evidence that those who

directly affected by this are saying they are not going to co-operate.

Well, everybody who lives round there is a victim to some extent,

they have all been affected, myself as well, I live three blocksia from

it and a lot of the groups are very much involved in that community, not

only the people who lived there who survived, but some of the campaign

groups have been campaigning for years about social housing in area.

What sort of person to you think should head up the inquiry is this

If it has to be Martin, we need an advisory panel with representatives

from different groups who can at least advise and feed in

information, at least if we have no choice, we need at least that. But

rather than him, what sort of person? I am not sure, are you

saying he should remain but he needs to be assisted by a panel or he

should be replaced? If we have no choice, then we should have an

advisory panel to back it up. Something that people trust in. At

the moment they don't trust the process, which is understandable,

and his name was announced the same day as the Hillsborough disaster,

the criminal investigation and so on, that after 28 year, this is what

people, how people see it. They want, they don't trust the process s

it won't work proppism it is not just what I think, it is what people

who are directly involved thing. John McDonnell the Shadow Chancellor

says people who died at Grenfell were murdered by political decision

do you agree? That is a strong way of putting it. I know a lot of

people feel like that. There is massive failure of political

decision, I have seen that happening. But murder? That is an

active verb. It means you intended to kill. So for Mr McDonnell to be

right, these were political decisions taken intended to kill. I

don't share his view on that particular issue, there has been a

failure of care, for many, many years and a failure of investment

for many year, as I have seen myself. But part of the problem has

been investment. They had nine million spent on this block I was

looking at it today, the other tower blocks round it have not been clad.

Of course if they had gone on fire, the disaster would not have been on

the same scale. Nine million helped to produce this. In indeed. The

process of how that building was refurbished. It says it is to make

it look better, half a mile down the road, the tower blocks have been

clad, they were clad in mineral wool. I spent a day at a seminar by

chance understanding, it is non-combustible. Who made that

decision to use rain cladding rather than mineral wool. You were on the

the board of who took that decision. The council had no say about the

specification, we didn't have any involvement at all. It didn't come

before you, because it has tenants on it too. The TMO does, The

advisory committee to the TMO. There is the TMO. I was not there at the

time. As far as I understand a sub group decided or reviewed the

specifications of that. The housing and property committee is part of

the council. Obviously you a say, but whether or not, we don't have

any say at all over specification, I want to say somebody because I have

been accused of... That because my predecessor said I should take

responsibility, a clueing colleague of mine got beaten up for that,

there is no foundation for that allegation. I thank you for clearing

that up. Thank you for joining us too.

It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

Coming up here in 20 minutes, The Week Ahead.

First though, the Sunday Politics where you are.

Hello, and welcome to Sunday Politics Wales.

In a few minutes, the Education Secretary tells us what she's

going to do about an expected fall in GCSE results this year.

But first the main political row of the week has been about the pay

Should it be abandoned and if so, who should cough up the extra money?

Ministers here say it's down to Westminster to pay,

and guess what, ministers there say the opposite!

How much should public sector workers be paid?

Or rather, how much more should they be paid?

It's a question that's dominated the headlines in recent weeks amidst

increasing pressure on the UK Government to scrap its 1% cap

Neil Evans is an A nurse with 16 years experience at the Princess

He'd like to sit more exams and gain extra qualifications,

but he says the pay cap has made him consider leaving the job altogether.

I've taken a second job with a health care bank,

with another health board as well as my own.

That's what I'm finding a lot of my colleagues are doing.

What we call health care bank, they are doing agency,

they are doing what they can to survive every month.

They work full time, come out of university with degrees,

and a lot of us have been in the job a long time.

I have, seriously considered packing it in.

Taking a job in a supermarket, or somewhere less stressful.

Unless nurses are offered a better deal, the Royal College of Nursing

says it is prepared to do something it's never done before,

and ballot its members for industrial action.

Why are we putting our nurses in that position?

Why are the politicians not removing the cap?

It's forcing public sector workers into poverty.

And we are a rich country, it's possible to find money

from areas to do things, why isn't it possible to find money

The UK Government makes its decisions on public pay

after receiving recommendations from eight independent pay review

bodies, who consider the needs to recruit,

They also consider the government's financial circumstances,

and since 2010 public sector pay has either been frozen or

Despite inflation, currently merging 3%.

The Welsh government could deviate from the policy,

and scrap the cap year for public sector staff working

If Westminster, through the Treasury, isn't giving

additional resources to the Welsh government to go beyond the 1% pay

cap that is provided for in the settlement,

then that will come from the Welsh government's own resources,

and will be taken from other areas of the budget, front

So it comes down to the basic political question about

where the priorities on in the Welsh government budget.

The Welsh government says it would cost around ?110 million

to give public sector workers in Wales an extra 1%

With around ?60 million needed for the 76,000

Plaid Cymru leader, Leanne Wood, believes that is affordable.

If it is a priority for Labour UK wide, it should be a priority

We are calling upon the Welsh government to commit

We've estimated the cost of this to be around 60 odd million pounds,

in a budget of ?15 billion, that can be found, if it's

It's not a sensible course of action for me to spend Welsh money

So, no, the way we will do it is to put pressure on the UK

Government to add our voices to voices in the UK Cabinet

and to say to the UK Government, now is the time to do this.

Lift the cap and give us the money so we can do that in Wales.

Are there any circumstances in which you would be prepared

to use Welsh government finances to ease the burden on public

We try and use the money we have with the best possible way,

that includes creating jobs in the Welsh public sector.

What we can't do is put ourselves in a position that

others need to be in, responsibilities that lie at the UK

level must be answered by the UK Government.

The Scottish Government claim that they are introducing a policy

to scrap the cap in Scotland that will benefit public sector

Why are they able to do that, and you're not?

Well, the Barnett Formula has always treated Scotland far more

They've always had more money at their disposal than we do.

I have to say it's not entirely clear to me what the Scottish

This week the BMA doctors' union backed Leanne Wood's call,

but the Royal College of Nursing supports the Government's stance.

It's not for devolved administrations to say

It's the Treasury increased to public sector pay we require,

Let's have it delivered to the public sector workforce.

The UK Treasury told us the Welsh government is responsible for public

sector pay covering most devolved services in Wales.

And its own pay policy is designed to be fair.

Now in a few weeks time students here will be

getting their GCSE results, but this year the marks in English,

Welsh and Maths are expected to be down on previous years.

That's being blamed on schools entering more year 10

pupils to sit exams, a year earlier than is intended.

When I spoke to the Education Secretary during a school visit this

week, I asked Kirsty Williams about that dropoff.

I do think we have to acknowledge there

are a combination of factors here that could see a drop

First of all, we have are more rigorous GCSE exams

We are seeing a change in the cohort of students

who are taking science GCSEs, for instance, whereas before

you would have seen significant numbers take BTEC science,

we've recognised that qualification is not as rigorous

as we would like it, so we are going to have more

Most worrying of all for me, is a big change in the way

in which students are being entered for exams.

We are seeing significant numbers of students being entered

earlier for qualifications, and I think those combination

of factors could well see a drop in the overall points

In terms of the new qualifications, there's a new English

and a new Welsh GCSE, unique to Wales being sat

If it's more rigorous, OK, fine, but surely,

there should have been, built into the system,

this comparative outcomes where qualifications in Wales

were telling schools no child should be advantaged or disadvantaged

Does that mean something has gone wrong then?

No, I don't think anything has gone wrong.

Obviously, qualifications Wales is an arms length

from the Welsh government, and the Welsh government

don't interfere in the examination process.

But there is a well known and well understood phenomena that

when you introduce new exams, new qualifications, you can

reasonably expect a drop because teachers may not be quite

so familiar, and, as teachers and the course becomes

bedded in you'll see those grades rise again.

But, more importantly than that, the exam is fundamentally different,

how we examine English and are examining mathematics

means that it's not fair to make direct comparisons.

What's more, I welcome that, we need rigorous exams.

What I'm concerned about is this phenomena that we've

seen in significant numbers this summer...

Will come back to that in a second, but is it fair for the pupils

sitting on the exam this year that it's more rigorous, that they might

have got a B last year, but they might get a C,

or a D, this year because it is a more rigorous system?

I want to be in the system, I want to be in charge

of a system that demands rigger from that system.

Well, it's fair that we are ensuring our children are leaving school

with the skills and qualifications they will need to be

Whether that's going on to further education,

The individual marking is not a matter for me,

it's a matter for qualifications Wales and the WJ EC.

They will want to ensure that there is famous, of course,

but we cannot move away from a system that demands rigger

of our students, of our teachers, of me as education minister,

Moving on them to that other element, more pupils

They've been studying for a year, a two-year course, but for some

reason schools want to put them in early.

You could say, you're not allowed to have resits.

Like they did in England four years ago.

I am concerned to see the large numbers of early entry we have

I've always said that if it's in the interests of an individual

student to sit that exam early, then that should be

What I'm concerned about is that we are seeing entire cohorts

of students being entered into exams for qualifications that are designed

That is putting pressure on students.

Putting pressure on teachers, potentially compromising what that

Qualifications Wales are doing a report into early entry,

I expect to receive that in the autumn.

I will look very carefully at the evidence before I make

I could decide to stop early entry altogether.

Better then that might have the side-effect

of disadvantage in some children, but we could also change the way

we hold schools accountable for their performance.

We could say to schools it is the grades the child gets

the first time they sit the exam that will count towards your

There is a range of options I am prepared to look at once

I receive the expert evidence from qualifications Wales.

And that last option you mentioned is what they did in England,

Your predecessor in the education Minister's office, Huw Lewis,

said we are going to try and stop schools from gaming the system,

You are talking about gaming the system in May this year.

The problem is still there, it's just not being addressed, is it?

But I need to do that on the basis of evidence.

From experts who are there to independently advise the Welsh

government and myself on our systems.

I'm clear that where an entire cohorts of children are being

entered, then that's not the policy of looking at the interests

of individual children, and if necessary, on the advice,

there is a range of options I am prepared to take this autumn.

Do you think it is that schools are just trying to game the system

Put a child in early, get a C grade, that counts towards their school

performance targets, therefore, they move on.

I am concerned that may be happening in some schools.

Some schools may be entering children because they want to give

them a test, they want to show them what an exam looks like.

Those children will go on to sit the exam again.

What I'm concerned about is that children who, perhaps,

had the potential to get an A*, A or B at the end of a two-year

course end up having to settle for a C because they do it early

I want children to fulfil their potential in school.

I want early entry to be for those children who will benefit from it.

When I see such large numbers as being reported that

I've asked for independent advice, that will come to me in the autumn.

It's been a busy year in terms of education.

It's also been a very busy year in terms of politics, generally,

since you've been in post we've had, not that it's your fault,

but we've had a referendum on leaving the European Union,

Both of which, I guess, wouldn't have gone the way that

you would have liked to have gone, how does it feel, for example,

to be the last Liberal Democrat in national office in Wales,

the most senior Lib Dem, I guess, in government

Obviously, the referendum result is extremely disappointing.

We are seeing the consequences of that decision already

in the education system in Wales, particularly in higher education.

The effect it's having on universities.

I, and the Welsh government, and working very hard to ensure that

all the promises that were made by those who campaigned for a leave

People in Wales didn't vote to leave the European Union to be worse off.

People in Wales didn't vote to leave the European Union

As for being the last Lib Dem standing, again,

We've seen internationally Liberal parties, over the years, potentially

They've gone on to rebuild themselves and look at fresh

approaches and new ways of doing things.

I'm confident that the Welsh Liberal Democrats will go on to do that.

But what I am enjoying is having the opportunity of being able

to bring Liberal Democrat ideas and Liberal Democrat

values into government and into our education

Well, here with me now to talk about all this are Gareth Evans

who's Director of Education Policy at University of Wales Trinity Saint

David and the senior Conservative AM and Chair

of the Public Accounts Committee, Nick Ramsay.

Thank you for coming in this morning. In a previous life you were

an education journalist. This has been around for a long time. This

element of schools putting in their pupils a year early. It's been

having an effect for a long time. But maybe not as dramatic an impact

it seems to be having now. That's right. Pupils in Wales have

been entered in year ten rather than your 11 for some time now. Numbers

have grown significantly. We've got to ask why that has happened. It

could be perfectly legitimate reasons, pupils who are excelling in

certain subjects, or who want to ban gay qualification to look at

studying something else in the second year of GCSE -- banked a

qualification. The Cabinet Secretary has just mentioned they are judged

so heavily on GCSE grades, what is known as the level two plus

criteria, but five good a start to G grades, and English or Welsh, and

maths. The difficulty you have is that schools are under such pressure

to hit those targets they are potentially entering pupils slightly

earlier than they should be, clearly not all pupils will be doing that.

Some will be well within their rights to sit early. Others may be

pushing through so schools can hit targets. We need to shift that

accountability mechanism to reflect the needs of pupils.

That point about schools and Kirsty Williams made it in the interview,

maybe pupils who could get a A*, a or B are getting a C grade after one

year and not being put back in to reset. Something has gone wrong way

that is happening, is it? It's not acceptable if pupils are

not being stretched to the maximum. If they are capable of an a grade

and end up with a C grade, that's not right. Early engineers a

valuable mechanism for some pupils. You would expect an element of that.

Schools should be able to employ an early entry but the numbers being

seen at the moment, that's not right. It's not right we are letting

so many pupils down. The numbers are stark.

English-language GCSE, two thirds of all year ten pupils have been

entered early. In England, four years ago, I think, Michael Gove

said, only your first set of results count towards your performance, your

accountability targets. Firstly, should be Welsh government have

followed suit back then, should they do it now?

Yes, and yes. In a lot of what Kirsty Williams said, actually, I

would tend to agree with. We are talking for years down the line from

when England looked at this. Words are fine but let's get on with the

job. I guess after that switch was flicked in England, there was a

massive drop off in the number of schools entering pupils early. Has

that had been required effect? Is that the way we should go in Wales?

You've got to be careful if you wish to switch to wrap mechanism. You

then set the bar so high it is a high state exam. If you only get one

chance that an A* you might struggle to get better grades in the future.

I think you have to be very careful if you go down the England route

that you don't penalised schools and put more pressure on. We have to

find a balance. What the Welsh government has moved to do with the

right thing, look at accountability more generally and try to support

schools to improve rather than bash them over the head.

There is such high stakes, these exams, so much rides on this for

pupils. Should parents be worried? Watcher parents do? I think it is

heartening that the new regulatory body, qualifications Wales, has said

they are confident that exams this summer will be compatible with those

before. So a student who will get a A* this year will have done so last

year and in previous years. That is comforting. But what we've got to do

is look at how we can, perhaps, change the system. The way in which

we monitor and regulate schools. We need to give pupils the best chance

with no perverse incentives for schools to game the system. We

really supported them to achieve the best they possibly can for pupils to

get the grades they deserve. As was mentioned there, these are

brand-new qualifications, GCSEs in English and Welsh being sat in

Wales. They are unique to Wales. We've been told all along they are

more rigorous more difficult. That may count for some of the drop-off

in the expected results. Now, Kirsty Williams was happy that more

rigorous exams are good, but is there a danger that they could be

collateral damage. Some pupils not getting the result they might have

got? We've been concerned from the start about the inherent dangers of

a new system like this. I'm not saying that there is the potential

they are to have a good system long term, but there are big question

marks at the moment about not just early entry, but the system... You

would welcome a more rigorous system in Wales? You've already seen acting

England. They had bad drop-off because the system was more rigorous

there. There definitely needs to be a more rigorous system. Employers

within Wales and across the border in England need to know that the

system is as rigorous and, at the same time, our pupils, if they are

capable of getting a grades, then they need to be in a position where

they are able to get them and the gaming of the system which we looked

at in the Public Accounts Committee, and it is going on, that is really

failing so many of our pupils who could be doing better. It certainly

needs to be looked at pretty soon. This is a life chance for our young

people we are talking about. There is an element here, perhaps,

this is the first time we have had Wales only qualifications. This is

the first time England have results by numbers, so you're A* will be a

one, down to nine or ten. How important is it that the Welsh

government get that message out to parents, I'll be doing it? I've been

surprised that the amount of people that don't know what's going on in

terms of qualifications. Do you mean parents or schools? All sorts.

Teachers, schools, parents. If our teachers aren't abreast of the

changes what chance do we have of getting pupils and teachers well

informed. We've got to come as a sector, we've got to pull together

some sort of communication strategy that allows us to get messages out

there. We need to improve and show divergences qualifications,

curriculum reform, initial teacher training even. There are so many

differences now between the Welsh education system and the English

education system, I think we've got to do a far better job as a system

of coordinating and communicating. Do you think that is happening to

the extent it should be? To reassure parents and schools, but actually

the gold standard is still here in Wales? No, it's not happening. That

is why we are having this discussion now. That's why the Public Accounts

Committee was concerned. These are not simple issues to deal with. Many

are media man long-term. But these are going to affect pupils this

year, next year and the year after. We need to prove that the system is

rigorous, as has been said. This isn't a question of the Welsh

government is telling schools, telling NEA is what to do. The Welsh

government needs a much better dialogue with schools, with the

educational institutions in Wales and come to a conclusion that will

ultimately give our pupils the best life chances. Thank you very much

for coming in this morning. Join us next week for our last

programme of the series. Meantime we're on Twitter,

we're @walespolitics Diolch am wylio, thanks for

watching, time to go back to Andrew. Now just under a year ago,

Theresa May was making her way back from Buckingham Palace having been

asked by the Queen To say it's been a tumultuous twelve

months would be an understatement - here's a reminder of

the highs and lows. I have just been to Buckingham

Palace, where Her Majesty the Queen has asked me to form

a new Government and I accepted. If you're just managing,

I want to address you directly. I know you're working

around-the-clock, I know you're doing your best,

and I know that sometimes When future generations

look back at this time, they will judge us not only

by the decision that we made, but by I have just chaired a meeting

of the Cabinet, where we agreed that the Government should call

a general election to The Conservative Party

has won the most seats and probably the most votes,

then it will be incumbent on us to ensure we have that period

of stability and that is exactly So 12 months in the life of Theresa

May, and the rest of us too. I am exhausted. I don't know what she

feels like! How weak or strong is her position and this constant

reporting, more on the Sunday paper today about groups of Tory MPs

manoeuvring to bring her down in the autumn, before the autumn after the

autumn, name a month between now and the end of the year. Is that, that

has to be corrosive as well. Absolutely. Every week there will be

another story. The reality is the stronger Jeremy Corbyn and the

Labour Party look the stronger her position is because it is what are

the alternative, Theresa May or... It is depending on the polls where

it is Theresa May herself who is helping to cause that boost for

Jeremy Corbyn, if she is the toxic part of the Tory party brand, and if

they get rid of her the Tories would spring back up and the Labour Party

would go down or is it best for her to soak it, literally draw out the

toxins and then, I don't know, two money, six months a year, she stands

down and next leader takes the over, next generation or David Davis and

they start again, start afresh, and she takes all the badness, the

toxins with her this is thing, there must be a hell of a lot of detailed

polls right now find that out. I don't know the answer. Can she

relaunch herself? No, she will make a big speech on Tuesday, ex tracts

are being briefed into tomorrow's papers, I have seen them. . What is

the subject matter? Me. Not me, her. There has been enough movement from

BBC... It is going to be her, it will be the relaunch. I have a

purpose, still here and allow me to stay, but the problem is, Julia is

right, there is a feeling among Tory MPs it would be ideal for her to

last at least two years, suck in the bad bit, and to have a referendum or

not, and the miscalculations and bring in a new person, untarnished.

The problem over that is events dear boy as someone once said. Brexit may

go well, it may not. Talks may produce something or she may get

stuck down a hole. She is the sticking plaster over the two side

of the Tory party. She is there, because they want her to be there

and that Palacester is stilled holding, if that seismic divide goes

any further, the plaster breaks she will go down the hole with it. David

Davis said she doesn't want a leadership election, the papers are

full of briefings from what are claimed to be from his people saying

she faces abject misery, that it is time she will have to go sooner

rather than later, they clearly haven't got the memo from DD as he

is called. Publicly they have, to declare loyalty until the moment

when they feel the time has come to be disloyal. The problem she has got

is that context determines 95% of how a leader is perceived. She can

make a brilliant speech this week about how she plans to be bold but

the context is that lost majority in the election, a hung parliament with

Brexit looming. It makes it hard to be bold, hung Parliaments are not

bold. You will have to manoeuvre all the time and it be exhausting and

transparent in the scheming, a like with the arrangement with the DUP,

some of the vote it is a have happened and it will be utterly

draining, now Julia is is right. The key question for the Tories will be

if they get someone else in, does that transform their prospects?

While that is not clear, I agree she will probably cling on, but there

will be no glorious summer for her again, the pre-election context was

fantastic for her, it is really dark now, and tough. The key thing is

what you said, who would have thunk it. You have said the Tories are

frightened to call to provoke us another election because they fear,

they think Jeremy Corbyn will win. Who would have thought we would get

into that position? In the same argument who would have thought

Theresa May been so popular. Who would have thought Jeremy Corbyn

would get where he is now? That shows there is still hope for not

maybe, maybe not Theresa May, I think that she has holed below the

water line, what goes up can also come down, but in Theresa May's

defence, and I don't think she will last very long, and I think she has

been exposed, during the election campaign for just not having enough

of depth, of the fight, but to be fair she must have a backbone of

steel, a lesser man or holed below the water line, what goes up can

also come down, but in Theresa May's defence, and I don't think she will

last very long, and I think she has been exposed, during the election

campaign for just not having enough of depth, of the fight, but to be

fair she must have a backbone of steel, a lesser man or woman holed

below the water line, what goes up can also come down, but in Theresa

May's defence, and I don't think she will last very long, and I think she

has been exposed, during the election campaign for just not

having enough of depth, of the fight, but to be fair she must have

a backbone of steel, a lesser man or woman who have gone, "I'm off now."

To take the flak she is get, she is steely as they come. It is almost a

form of penance she is doing, having brought her party to this less than

glorious position, she's having to try and kind of restore things a

bit, knowing in her heart of hearts and perhaps not as deep at that,

that she will not be the beneficiary. Absolutely not. That is

what she said to the 1922 Committee that Monday after the general

election, I got us into this mess, I am going to get us out of it. Talks

to MPs this week, it is interesting, there is pretty hard feeling

settling that the new person should come from the 2010 intake, skip a

generation. The Boris, the Teresa, the Hammonds. Bye Amber Rudd? She

has a tiny minority -- majority. There was one minister in your foyer

an hour ago. Did we have a foyer? I think about 30 of them, all of them

believe it or not fancy their chance, and for any of those to

expose themselves and to lay out their agenda they will need

two-years to make these sort of Sport Reliefs Let us turn to Labour.

Well, earlier we talked to Caroline Flint about the threat

Here's what Shadow Minister and Corbyn ally, Chris Williamson,

MPs need to reflect the political programme that is overwhelmingly

supported by Labour members and Labour supporters,

and if people aren't prepared to do that,

then it will be up to members in their local constituencies

How big a change is Labour going to undergo? To what extent will Labour

now be recast in the mould of Mr Corbyn and his wing of the party?

Well in policy terms it already has been largely recast into the Corbyn

McDonnell view, although with lots of examples of them being pretty

expedient, Trident being an example. Where they went into the election

backing retention, even though personally they are totally

committed to nuclear disarmament. He might be able to move to that

position? They might but that example of expend yen sip leads me

to this. . I suspect Corbyn and McDonnell will be thinking we are

close to power do we really want 18 months of Civil War, which is what

deelection battles would become, and terrible publicity, and an imflowing

a party on the verge possibly of an election win. -- implosion. My guess

is they won't and they will go out of their way to try and stop it.

John McDonnell said many times divide a party lose elections, I

don't think they will want this. There are power battles in party, we

have been talking about it in the Tory party, and there will be

moments of heightened tension between the Labour MPs and their

memberships but I don't think that this is going to happen. If Steve is

right we should be looking for signs of them looking for signs of them

hosing things down. Although, I don't think they need to do this.

The moderate wing of the party, they are not standing up to Jeremy Corbyn

any more, they are trying to get a few Select Committee Chairmanships

and survive and hope something happens. The extraordinary thing is,

given that no-one expected Jeremy Corbyn, no-one tried to deselect him

and no-one accused him of disloyalty. We are in Soviet style

show trial, you know, repent territory. We haven't had a show

trial yet. Matter of time. Apart from Brexit. The Labour Party are

united until it comes to votes on the House of Commons on what to do

about Europe. So, Brexit goes well, that 49 will wither away a bit and

start getting... If Brexit goes badly. Vince Cable saying we need a

mud referendum, huge temptation then among Labour MPs to recalibrate and

a oar gue for staying in and that would split the partyty down the

middle. You heard Owen Paterson say 85% of people voted for parties that

wanted Brexit, meaning Labour and Conservative. It is true that Jeremy

Corbyn and Mr McDonnell are more Eurosceptic than people realise.

They want another election quickly, because they don't know how, this

maybe as good as it gets. None of us know, so get an election quick

because we think we might win it. That means that they could well play

game, why would they just bolster the store Tories if a big defeat on

Brexit could provoke an election. I am guessing they will play games, if

there is chance of undermining the Government perhaps fatally to get

this early election which would be massively in their interest, theyry

ahead in the poll, I think that will do it. They have displayed

expediency on Europe in the past, possibly arguing for it why having

doubts about it in the referendum, for Remain, sorely. So yes, I think

there will be, as I said earlier, in this Parliament there will be going

to be moments where it looks as if the Government could be defeat and I

think they will move towards defeating the Government. Any

remainor should be more worried about the economics of a Corbyn left

On that point we better leave it there.

I'll be back here on BBC One at the same time next week

And Jo Co's back tomorrow with the Daily Politics on BBC Two

at the earlier time of 11am - that's because of Wimbledon.

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

This is what it takes to get her to come home, you know?