26/11/2017 Sunday Politics Wales

Morning everyone and welcome

to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith.

And this is your essential briefing

on everything that's

happening this Sunday morning

in the world of politics.

Ireland says it will "continue

to play tough until the end"

over the Irish border.

As Dublin threatens

to derail Brexit trade

talks, vice-president

of the European Parliament Mairead

McGuiness tells us why she thinks

a hard border would cause havoc.

Leading Brexiteer and former

Northern Ireland Secretary Owen

Paterson will debate with her live.

It was billed as a make or break

moment for the Chancellor -

Phillip Hammond appears to have

avoided an omni or even

a mini-shambles.

We'll get Budget reaction

from the man who last month tried

to topple Theresa May -

former Tory Chairman, Grant Shapps.

Later in the programme:

As Carwyn Jones refers

himself to an inquiry

into bullying claims,

the Welsh Government's

Chief Legal Advisor

and the leader of the Welsh

Conservatives join us live.

All that coming up in the programme.

So, no omni-shambles Budget.

But don't worry, if you're a fan

of the shambolic you'll

love our political panel,

Sam Coates, Zoe Williams

and Iain Martin.

Welcome to the programme.

It has been the Budget that's

dominated the political week.

There was no pasty tax

or national insurance U-turn -

but there were sharp downgrades

for growth and productivity,

offset by enough optimism

to cheer the Tory benches.

This week's Budget was billed as

a make or break for Philip Hammond.

insurance rise which lasted

barely a week.

Humiliated today, Chancellor?

Will you resign?

This time, his cheery demeanour

was perhaps designed

to confound his critics

who think his outlook on Brexit

is, well, miserable.

What he's doing is very

close to sabotage.

Regrettably, our productivity

performance continues to disappoint.

But the downbeat tone

wasn't down to Hammond,

it was the independent Office

for Budget Responsibility,

the lower productivity projections

lead to growth forecasts

of less than 2%.

Here's the new realistic forecast,

average growth of just 1.4% a year.

A slowdown that won't go away.

The Chancellor may not have

been able to drive up

productivity and growth,

but he has a cunning plan to remove

the need to drive at all.

David Cameron's old mate

Jeremy Clarkson is reported to be

less than impressed.

Jeremy Clarkson doesn't like them.

But there are many other good

reasons to pursue this technology.

So today we step up

our support for it.

Sorry, Jeremy, but definitely not

the first time you've been

snubbed by Hammond and May.

More money for the English health

service, a Brexit fund

and abolishing stamp duty

for first-time buyers

lifted the mood.

I commend this

statement to the house.

But senior figures in the NHS said

the new money was not enough

and less, in this Budget at least,

than the amount pledged for Brexit,

giving some Remainers

plenty of fun on Twitter.

It turned out the stamp duty

changes would mainly help

people selling a house,

not buying them.

Tweaks to the Universal Credit

system soothed Tory concerns,

but they didn't calm

the Labour leader.

Uncaring!

The uncaring, uncooth attitude

of certain members opposite!

Order!

Order!

And his Shadow Chancellor had

some number trouble.

How much do we now spend on paying

the interest of our national debt.

A lot.

How much?

Well, I'll give you the figure.

I'll send you a note on the figure.

You don't know?

I know the figure...

How much?

I'll send it.

Well, you tell me now.

The forecast may be sticky,

but at least the Daily Mail

had a positive outlook.

Phil was no longer

a miserable donkey.

And by the end of the week,

the Chancellor could still smile.

He might even stay in Number 11

long enough to deliver

next year's Budget.

We're joined now by the former

Conservative Party

Chairman, Grant Shapps.

Thank you very much for coming in.

No banana skin in the Budget for

Philip Hammond, but really dismal

growth prospects. What is the

government back to doing wrong?

Well, first of all, he cheered up

the backbenches by giving quite an

upbeat assessment. The economy is

still growing, the jobs factory of

Europe. Not words we are used to

hearing from Philip Hammond.

But

overall, growth prospects are really

bad, they have been significantly

downgraded.

Of course, the really

big story is the Office for Budget

Responsibility say we are going to

grow at 1.5%, not 2%. That is a real

problem. I thought Philip's

presentation of the issue was

interesting. He said this is of the

outside of our control, it is the

office of Budget response ability.

It is to do with productivity, who

knows what that is made up of? That

sort of excuses get mug from having

to do anything. There are things we

can do to attract business to this

country. You have the tax base, the

attitude towards business. We spent

quite a while looking like we were

not interested in business, business

being thought of as bad. I am

pleased to see that is changing.

You

think the few has a pro-business

attitude that wasn't there a year

ago?

We have them locked out of

Downing Street for a while, sector

leaders could not express their

concerns. Some conference speeches

that business as the bad guys rather

than job creators. That seems to

have gone and I welcome it.

Why?

Because it is not realistic to

believe that business is evil and

bad. Business people that create the

jobs for this country, the well for

bad. Business people that create the

this country...

But why do you think

the government but robust change the

message on that?

It is hard to know

what created that. Since the

election we have a change in

emphasis. Business leaders are now

welcomed to come and talk to the

Prime Minister and the Chancellor

about what is going on. One thing we

could do now, we are leaving Europe,

we had all of those red tape

challenges in the Coalition

Government but we always got stuck

when it got to the EU. We had to

say, we can't do anything about that

red tape. We can now go back on

that. I would like the cupboard to

go further and not just accept

figures from the Office for Budget

Responsibility. I'm actually

doubtful about that and I think that

Philip Hammond is as well. Growth of

productivity is a difficult thing to

measure. This country trades more

online than any other country in the

world. We are top of that league

table. That has to be a more

efficient way to do business. Yet it

does not seem to be reflected in

productivity.

They are forecasts,

the productivity figures. But the

middle, things could be worse, the

OBR say. The... Seems to say these

are the projections, we hope it

isn't that. Is it the Buttler's job

to do something about productivity?

The government EU has a role to

play. I started a printing business

which still exists to this day.

Uncertainty over Brexit could lead a

business like that to delay

purchasing a new press. One that is

likely to be faster, less setup

time, print stuff faster.

Uncertainty in the economy slows

that down. Of course the Government

has a role. It cannot act the way it

treats taxation, investment, it can

encourage businesses. Actually, I

suspect what the Office for Budget

Responsibility has done is said, oh,

all of this uncertainty has lead to

slower productivity and therefore we

will continue projecting forward,

almost ad infinitum. The projections

went up five years. If we can get

the Brexit uncertainty out of the

way...

That is what I was about to

say. The great uncertainty is under

Brexit. We are not entering a period

where things will be more certain

people can confidently make

investment decisions, nobody knows

what the future trading relationship

will be.

I think Government can help

with that. If you have a Government

that, at its heart, fundamentally,

is singing from the same hymn sheet,

you saw Number 10 and Number 11,

finally, a bit of banter between the

two of them, the Chancellor and the

Prime Minister, they went out on

Thursday and did a visit together.

You have a Cabinet meeting reported

from Tuesday where they are agreeing

how to go forward collectively on

Europe. If you can have the central

government working in unison, it

gives business of evidence, it gives

the economy confidence that maybe

you can get to faster growth by

having better productivity and more

inward investment.

Six weeks ago you

were calling for the Prime Minister

to stand down. You were outed as

leading a coup against her. Have you

changed your mind?

I saw your

lead-in, calling colleagues that

want to go and speak to the Prime

Minister about a perfectly sensible

subject that she herself has asked

for colleagues' opinions on, how

long should I be in this role, to

call it a plot is tabloid. The

reality is, of course colleagues

should be able to have that

conversation. We do not live in

North Korea. We shouldn't be not

allowed to express views, nor do

they disappear if you don't express

them.

You said your colleagues have

buried their heads in the sand,

hoping things would get better. It

never got better for Gordon Brown or

John Major, it will not get that for

Theresa May. Have you changed your

John Major, it will not get that for

mind

I think that colleagues should

be allowed to have views and express

them. My views have not changed.

However, I also accept the reality

of the situation, that we are in a

very sensitive period with Brexit

negotiations. Six weeks ago is six

weeks ago. Time moves on and Brexit

negotiations wait 101. What we have

to do have is a Government that is

capable of singing from the same

hymn sheet, going to Brussels. If

you have Number 10 and Number 11 at

each other's throats, when you have

people been briefed against the

centre, whips that are more

people been briefed against the

interested in... We have mutineers

on the front of the Telegraph, 50

people that wanted not to have the

date for Brexit in the bill. I don't

happen to agree with those people.

But to have colleagues accused of

being mutineers because they have a

slightly diverted the view is

ridiculous. -- diverted view. I am

pleased what we are seeing now is an

attitude from the centre saying

let's work together, let's not

briefed against others, let's get on

and stop the country from the even

bigger danger than Brexit, a Jeremy

Corbyn government.

Stay there for a

moment. I am going to bring in the

panel. You were listening to that

interview. A change in mood towards

the Prime Minister?

Haven't seems to

have cheered up a lot. He seemed to

me like a man giving his own leaving

speech. There was a devil may care

attitude aspect, not really backed

up by what you're saying. They

wanted always. There would be OBR

figures to be nothing to do with a

Government. Unfortunately they have

revised down, there is nothing we

can really do. At the same time,

they wanted to show Conservative

policies are capable of driving

growth. They want to say,

unfortunately it is not a generous

Budget because growth figures are

revised downwards, while at the same

time saying that the OBR is often

wrong, who knows if it will be

correct. I don't think you get any

clear analysis from this.

Cake and

eat it?

The significance is not

really economic, it is political. If

you go back a week, it seemed

possible, likely even, that the

Chancellor was going to be replaced

in a reshuffle expected between now

and Christmas. He has saved his job.

His critics in other parties will

say, well, his job should be about

more than his own personal survival.

But it alters the dynamics. It means

that the government but was not

quite Chancellor, it means a

reshuffle could be less substantial

than might have been the case. It

seems the Tories have had a shocking

run over the last few months. They

were rather buoyed up by it. Not

that it was a massive success as a

Budget, it was just OK. That counts

for quite a lot at the moment.

Listening to what Grant Shapps was

telling us, it sounds like Theresa

May's job is safe as well?

I would

if she is sitting in Downing Street

wearing a badge saying Philip

Hammond saved my job? The point is,

just to pull out the camera, the

fundamentals have not changed. The

Conservatives did not win an overall

majority at the election, they still

have to deliver Brexit in an

incredibly complicated process, that

looks intractable with negotiation

difficulties, particularly with

Ireland, but also bringing the

Cabinet together over some of these

incredibly thorny issues about where

Brexit is going to end up. Although

Grant is putting a positive gloss on

it now, the conference after which

he was adjusted people might

consider her going -- after which he

suggested people might consider her

going, things have not really

changed. He says his view has not

really changed, and I think that

many of the people that Grant talks

to, they have not changed their

fundamental view about the talents

and otherwise of Theresa May. I

wonder how many people think what

Grant thinks at the moment?

We will

come back to you and ask you that.

How many people agree with you? Do

you still have the same view about

the Prime Minister?

I have said

exactly what I think. You don't have

to second-guess what I think about

all of this. Nor do I think it is

worth day by day giving a running

commentary on that. I was heartened

to see Number 10 and number 11

working together. We can make some

progress. I think that is a very

good thing. The lesson to be

learned, just because people have

diverse views, it has not been there

should be vilified. I think we were

in danger of doing that through the

whips or Number 10, or what have

you. I'm pleased to see we have a

more mature attitude coming from

Downing Street.

You once said you thought you would

make a good Prime Minister yourself,

do you still think that?

The

question was do you have the

required ability to make these

decisions and the rest of it. To

answer that question would be as if

to say I don't think she should be

doing it but that's not what I think

at all. I think this country

requires leadership which unites

particularly those involved in the

Government and I'm pleased that's

what we are now starting to get.

Grant Shapps, thanks for coming to

talk to us today.

Now, the Northern Powerhouse

was a phrase coined

by Philip Hammond's predecessor,

George Osborne.

But Theresa May has insisted

that she wouldn't be

pulling the plug on it.

So how did it fare in

this month's Budget?

Joining us now from

Salford is the Mayor

of Greater Manchester,

Andy Burnham.

Thanks for coming in. I assume you

must be very pleased with the Budget

and the amount of money delivered

for the Northern Powerhouse?

When I

came into this job I was clear I

would never play politics for the

sake of it. There was good news in

this Budget for Manchester, money

which we need very much, money to

help us tackle rough sleeping.

Again, a big priority for me. But

overall I have to say it is pretty

thin pickings for the north of

England. The headline measure on

stamp duty massively benefits the

South over the north and people here

who are suffering every day on the

rail system, our clapped-out rail

system, they didn't get any good

news in terms of electrification or

improvement of services. All we got

was an -- promise of improvement of

mobile services.

The Government is

giving new £12 million to help cover

the cost relating to the Manchester

Arena attack. You must be welcoming

of that too.

This is difficult

because I'm conscious whenever this

issue comes up, I'm conscious of the

families. We put our bid in some

time ago. The cost we have incurred

so far is 17 million and we have a

further 11 million we will incur

through the inquest process. We have

been raising that privately and I

haven't gone public on this issue

until the Prime Minister said last

week we would have the answer, and

we got that on Friday. It falls some

way short. I cannot see why the

Government is not meeting our cost

in full. As I said at the beginning,

I would never make politics out of

this issue but when we got our

answer and it wasn't good enough I

had to make our position clear. I

will be replying to the Prime

Minister saying let's sort this out

properly. I just hope we can now get

a full agreement for all of our

costs from the Government.

You've

accused the Government before of

being London centric and ignoring

other parts of the UK. Given that

you have welcomed of the spending

measures, do you feel that problem

has been addressed?

Definitely not.

The country is London centric. The

way transport investment is assessed

by the Treasury favours the areas

where there is already greater

economic growth. The system is

biased against the north and that

needs to change. In the Budget we

got a half-hearted commitment to the

rail system of the future for the

north of England but Crossrail 2,

the project in London, got more of a

thumbs up. I'm speaking for people

here who feel this has been very

unfair over decades. We have a

transport system here that is

creaking now and it is completely

congested, it isn't working for

people. The Government needs to grip

that problem much more directly. The

problem I guess with this Budget was

there's an elephant in the room and

that is the Brexit Divorce Bill.

There was a feeling for me they were

not committing money our

infrastructure cause of this thing

looming behind. To have no mention

of social care, no mention of police

funding, these were two gaping holes

at the heart of this Budget.

Surely

you think they should be making a

generous offer for the Brexit

divorce settlement? You are not

advocating that we walk away without

paying our dues?

No, my point was a

different one. It looks like the

Government is holding back on the

investment the north of England

needs until they have settled this

question, but the challenges facing

our public services and the

productivity challenge facing the

north is urgent and it is critical

we get that investment so we can

rise to the challenge of exit. I saw

this as a Budget where the

Chancellor was holding back. This

year of all years, to have no

mention of police security

counterterrorism in the Budget

seemed a monumental mistake. The

police service here has not got much

left to give. It is down to the bare

minimum and we need to see the

Chancellor bringing forward new

funding for the police in the

December settlement that it's about

to get. To have no mention of it

just seemed to me to be a major

mistake.

What did you make of Jeremy

Corbyn's response to the Budget?

I

thought it was passionate. I don't

think they will deal with the issue

of Universal Credit.

It was

passionate but was it effective?

I

think so. People want to see people

speaking with that level of

commitment, genuine concern. The

dangers are still there with

Universal Credit. Tinkering with the

waiting times I don't think will

take away the problem that it could

put more people on our streets,

huddled in doorways. The Government

needs to give a clear commitment

that we won't see people spiralling

into debt and then at the risk of

being homeless as a result of

Universal Credit roll out.

The day

after the Budget John McDonnell got

in a muddle over his figures on debt

repayment. He must -- you must have

been cringing as you watched some of

those interviews.

You always get

these interviews after the Budget. I

have sat in those positions and I

think it is partly what turns people

off politics. I'm not here

necessarily to speak for the front

bench, I thought they mounted a good

critique of the Budget. What I want

is a more wholehearted embrace of

devolution from both political

parties. The challenge the country

is facing right now is that we are

to London centric, Brexit is

looming, we need investment in the

regions and I don't think we can

bring this power back from Brussels

and then keep it all in Westminster.

We are already in overcentralised

country and its crucial the power is

passed down to places like Greater

Manchester and I want to see both

parties embracing that is part of

the response to the referendum.

I'm

not asking you to speak for the

Labour front bench, but how did it

look to you when they were

responding to it, you will know

Labour are trailing in the polls on

economic competence - did they do

enough this week to adjust people's

view as to whether or not Labour

should be put in charge of the

economy?

That is the challenge that

the Labour Party has to convince the

country it can run a stronger

economy. The Shadow Chancellor has

put investment in infrastructure

front and centre of what he's saying

and I think he's absolutely right to

do that. The country is crying out

for that transport system,

particularly here in the north that

will allow us to improve

productivity and they are not

getting that from the current

Chancellor. Looming questions about

the Divorce Bill, so therefore he

won't commit to the investment now.

What you got from the Shadow

Chancellor was a clearer analysis of

what the country needs, and I think

that's what people want to hear.

Andy Burnham, thank you for coming

in to talk to us.

Last week we had a film from Leave

campaigner Gisela Stuart on why

business will continue to prosper

across Europe after Brexit.

This week, London and Dublin have

clashed over what will

happen to the border

between Northern Ireland

and the Irish Republic -

something the EU says needs to be

resolved if Brexit negotiations

are to move onto trade next month.

So today, Irish MEP and vice

president of the European

Parliament, Mairead McGuiness,

takes us to the border to explain

why she thinks Brexit

could cause business -

and the people on the

island of Ireland -

considerable difficulties.

This is Dundalk in County Louth,

a town close to the border

with Northern Ireland,

and close to where I grew up myself.

Today, I represent the constituency

along that 310 mile border.

With the Brexit negotiations

ongoing, people along the border

are troubled by the uncertainty.

are troubled by the uncertainty.

From Dundalk, you can take

a straight road to Northern Ireland

and there's no stopping.

and there's no stopping.

At the last count, there are over

300 different road crossings

between the Republic of Ireland

and Northern Ireland.

The big question is,

what will change post-Brexit?

And what do we have to do to keep

the situation as it is today?

For me, there is only one way,

that the United Kingdom stays

in the customs union.

But I know the UK are

determined not to do that.

I think the negotiations

are struggling.

Not too far from the border

crossing, just south,

I caught up with beef farmer Jim

Murray.

That's the actual border

itself, just ahead.

The actual border is about

half a mile past that.

Today it is frictionless

and seamless, and invisible.

Totally.

Do think it's going to stay

that way after Brexit?

Well, I hope it will stay like that,

because were used to this.

Well, I hope it will stay like that,

because we're used to this.

I come from a time when I remember

that you couldn't actually go down

that road to access,

to do some business

in the north, because the road

was actually blocked.

Have you been reassured by any

of the political statements around

the border in particular,

basically saying that things

will stay as they are?

I haven't, really, because seamless

and frictionless borders, you know,

to me it is an oxymoron.

Because it's still a border.

I also visited George McArdle.

He's been running a haulage

company for the last 50

years with experience

of crossing the border.

What are you worried about?

We're worried about

customs and delays.

We'd be delayed a couple of hours.

We'd be delayed a couple of hours.

Would there be costs

involved for you?

We'd be paying drivers,

the trucks lying idle.

People say that, while we have

peace, it is fragile.

It's very fragile.

Any little thing could upset

the whole thing again,

and we wouldn't like to see Brexit

be the cause of it.

We are moving from the Republic

of Ireland, just across the border,

and I'm now in Northern Ireland.

and I'm now in Northern Ireland.

It was very smooth,

seamless and frictionless.

I suppose that's what we want to see

continue in a post-Brexit era.

Just across the border

into Northern Ireland, I caught

up with Des Fraser,

who gave me his view

about why the United Kingdom

decided to leave Europe.

First of all it was the cost.

I also felt, particularly the likes

of the slurry ban, for agriculture,

I don't think there should be

somebody in Brussels

telling us when we can

or can't spread our slurry.

What effect do you think Brexit

would have on the border?

Do you think we're going to be able

to avoid a hard border?

Getting a solution is

the difficulty, there's no doubt.

There's a harmonious

relationship, you know,

with Europe and Switzerland,

Europe and Norway, without a hard

border in existence.

It's very clear that people on both

sides of the border want the special

circumstances on the island

of Ireland to be taken into account

in the Brexit negotiations.

But can it be and will it be done

in time for the December council?

Will we resolve the conundrum

and square the circle

of an invisible border on the island

of Ireland post-Brexit?

And Mairead McGuiness

joins us now from Dublin.

The former Northern Ireland

Secretary and leading Brexiteer,

Owen Paterson, is in Shropshire.

Owen Paterson, is in Shropshire.

Thank you both for joining us. Owen

Thank you both for joining us. Owen

Paterson, Mariad laid out her case,

does the Government have an answer

to this?

Yes, there's already an

existing border. I've been going

there since ten years ago. There's a

currency board, now a euro sterling

border, a VAT border, a corporation

tax border, and in all the time I've

been going to Northern Ireland and

the public, not a single person ever

said this presents a problem.

...

Physical border.

Through the

referendum campaign, we made it

clear there are electronic measures

and techniques, existing techniques

such as authorised economic

operators and this can all be made

to work if there is a will on the

border. It has a small amount of

trade. Northern Ireland has 80% of

its trade to the rest of the UK,

only 5% goes over the border. It

would be very easy to license

tankers that take milk over the

border as authorising economic

operators that go over every day,

they would be recognised on a

regular basis, all invoices done

electronically. It is a very small

problem if there is a will.

Let's

bring in Mairead McGuiness. Owen

Paterson sounds like he's saying

you're exaggerating the problem is

here.

I've listened to it several times

and not heard anything new. He is

right that where there is a will

there is a way. This is a serious

matter for my constituency, for the

island of Ireland and Europe. We

have not found the way. To bring up

separate currencies, OK, it is part

of the situation, but we don't have

a border in the visible sense. When

the United Kingdom remains

determined to leave the customs

union and single market, the milk

that he refers to produced in

Northern Ireland and processed in

the Republic of Ireland comes from a

country that is a third country, no

longer a member of the European

Union. There are many issues about

that. I know the fathers in Northern

Ireland are deeply concerned about

the consequences for them as daily

farmers. -- dairy farmers. They are

troubled by his insistence that he

wants to scrap many of the rules

around the food industry and

agriculture. He wants to scrap

support for agriculture. Even

farmers that voted Leave, they are

now quite perplexed about what they

are hearing from the UK side, not

just around the issue of the border,

but on the wider issues of trade.

That is where this problem really

lies, and where we will have great

difficulty. I am more troubled this

morning, because I read a quote from

Arlene Fox the trade Secretary,

saying that the border issue and the

Irish issue will not be solved until

the final stage, until we reach a

decision on trade. I hope the United

Kingdom is not holding the situation

to ransom in these negotiations. It

is far too serious and too critical.

Let's go to Owen Paterson.

May I

finish this point?

We now have a

situation on the island of Ireland

and Northern Ireland where we have

built piece and we are hoping to

maintain that. I believe that we

will and we can. Unfortunately,

there is no assembly, there are

divisions between the communities

but they are now becoming deeper. We

have to work really hard to avoid

that. Part of that is to make sure,

as Theresa May said on Friday, she

wants the situation to remain the

same as it is today, post-Brexit.

The only way to achieve that is to

stay in the customs union and single

market. That is the solution.

A lot

for you to pick up on. Let's start

with the idea that it might be

possible to come up with a final

solution to the Irish border

question after we have seen the

shape of a trade deal. EU made it

clear we cannot talk about trade

until the Irish border has been

settled?

Saw those comments were

completely ridiculous and they have

been repeated when we have done

interviews before. -- some of those

comments. The idea that Northern

Ireland will be taken out of the UK

is absurd. 78 million people voted

to leave the European Union, they

voted to leave the customs union and

the single market, and the

jurisdiction of the ECJ. The idea

that politicians in Dublin can

somehow start to force Northern

Ireland to stay, against the will of

a significant number of citizens,

within an arrangement that will not

serve the economic and you're

politically, it is really very

dangerous. Let's talk about the

peace process, I can't think of

anything more destabilising... This

is a really important point. I want

to make this point. It is really

very irresponsible politicians to

make a statement like that, saying

they are going to force and

blackmail the UK into getting a

special status for Northern Ireland

outside the rest of the UK. That is

a really dangerous thing to do and

they should stop doing it. There are

perfectly sensible, technical

solutions to the problem of the

border. We currently have complete

conformity of standards. Products

going over the border go on a very

regular basis. It is a tiny part of

trade between the Republic of

Ireland and the UK. It is a really

tiny part of trade between Northern

Ireland and the Republic of Ireland

and it is solvable by modern

methods. The idea we will go back to

old customs, with customs officials

in bridges, sticking a ladle into a

couple trickle, it is out of date.

Less than 2% of goods are inspected

physically. This is completely out

of date. -- sticking a ladle into a

tub of back-to-back.

I am disturbed

by some of those comments, to

describe that view as ridiculous is

not helpful. To suggest it is

blackmailing is appalling. The UK,

the Irish at the European Union know

we have had a difficult history. We

have worked hard politically and

financially to make sure we move

forward and we have. If the United

Kingdom does trade agreements with

other partners and goods are flowing

into Northern Ireland, we have to

watch and know where they are coming

from. That will affect businesses in

Northern Ireland, as it will affect

businesses in the European Union. I

dislike this notion, and it is

happening and happened again in this

studio this morning, that the United

Kingdom and Owen Paterson would say

if borders go up, it is our fault.

Let's be frank, because we should

be, we are neighbours and good

friends. The European Union, 28

today, we respect the democratic

decision of the United Kingdom to

leave, but I would ask you to

reflect on the reality of Northern

Ireland, where people voted to stay

because they knew the consequences

for them. Regrettably, where the

referendum was taking place, there

was no talk about the consequences

for Northern Ireland or the island

of Ireland. We are left in a

situation where, retrospectively, we

are trying to find solutions. If it

upsets your guest at the studio, I

repeated anyway, we have to be frank

with one another. The way to stay

the same on the island of Ireland,

as it is today, post-Brexit, is for

at least the United Kingdom to take

the red off the table, to stay the

customs union and single market

gives us what we have today, and

invisible border, seamless trade,

and also building at helping to keep

those relationships. The good

relationship was helped in no small

part because Ireland, the United

Kingdom and 26 other countries can

sit around a table. They sit in the

European Parliament, in the council,

and we do business because we got to

know each other. We have formal and

informal talks and relationships. We

should really strive to continue

that. It is in the interests of the

people we spoke to on the border,

those that wanted the United Kingdom

to stay, and those that might have

had a different view.

Owen Paterson,

can you see that this can be

resolved before we know the shape of

a final trade deal? The idea that

the Irish question needs to be

settled before we move on to talking

about future trading or relations?

Is that possible?

As somebody who

spent time a shadow and Secretary of

State, going very regularly to

Dublin, getting the main political

parties in on that, I appreciate the

good level of relations between the

UK and the Republic of Ireland, the

enormous benefits to so many people.

Therefore, I am absolutely dismayed

at the talk this morning, which is

completely unrealistic, expecting

Northern Ireland to be given a

separate status, outside,

effectively, the United Kingdom. 87%

of sales, purely on economics, are

within the UK. Henri

-- on economic grounds, it is crazy.

It is very dangerous. There was a

referendum at the time of the

Belfast agreement. There was

overwhelming support for it to stay

in the UK. All of the polls show

that Northern Ireland will stay very

firmly within the UK.

Very quickly,

then, one last point?

I hate to say,

but Owen may not be listening to

what I said. I said the United

Kingdom would stay in the customs

union and single market, I did not

say Northern Ireland should separate

and stay in, although that is a

potential solution, it is not the

one I said this morning. Please

respond to what I have said.

We

don't have time to respond to any of

that. It is an issue we will return

to. Thank you very much.

Hello and welcome to

Sunday Politics Wales.

In a few minutes, why were staff

working for Wales' health watchdog

told not to embarrass the Government

as ministers discuss their future?

We've an exclusive report.

And what next for Welsh councils?

Will they, should they,

ever be reformed?

The leader of the Welsh Local

Government Association

joins me live.

But first, the latest

in the continuing row

over allegations of bullying

in the Welsh Government.

This week the First Minister

referred himself to an independent

inquiry into the claims,

which date back to 2014.

Carwyn Jones is also facing a vote

in the Senedd this week

on a separate bid

by opposition parties

to make him answer questions

in front of a panel of AMs.

We'll hear from the Conservatives

on that in a moment.

But first, Jeremy Miles,

the Counsel General, is here -

the main legal advisor

to the Welsh Government

as well as the Neath AM.

as well as the Neath AM.

Thank you for coming in this

morning. Looking at this inquiry by

the First Minister, what do you

expect to get out of that inquiry?

The First Minister has referred

himself to an independent adviser so

what has happened is, the First

Minister has amended the ministerial

code so that he is able to refer

matters to an independent third

party, who will then look into

matters and will then provide a

report to the First Minister and

that report is a public report so it

is available for anyone to see. That

is a system which is already used in

the Scottish Parliament, and the

Scottish Government operates on that

basis, so that is the process the

First Minister has now put in place

for Wales as well.

Looking at what

the inquiry will be looking at, the

First Minister said on Thursday, I

think, in relation to the

allegations made in the last two

weeks that I breached the

ministerial code, that is what he

has asked this man to look into, as

far as you understand it, will that

be looking at the last two weeks, or

bullying in 2014 in the Welsh

Government?

Let's take a step back

to see how we have got to hear. A

little over two weeks ago, at First

Minister's Questions, based on

allegations in the press, there was

an exchange between the First

Minister and the Leader of the

Opposition. The Leader of the

Opposition was not satisfied with

what the First Minister had to say

and then he wrote to the First

Minister alleging breaches of the

ministerial code and asking for

those bridges to be investigated

independently in the same way that

happens in Scotland. Plaid Cymru

have called for this for some time

and they also called for those

alleged breaches to be looked at in

the same way. So that is what the

First Minister has put in place,

what has been requested. I don't

quite understand why they won't take

yes for an answer.

But what will it

be looking at? Will it be looking at

just the past two weeks, which would

be a very narrow focus, or will it

be looking at 2014, what was going

on within the cabinet back then?

The

alleged breaches of the ministerial

code have happened in the last two

weeks. They refer to the exchange in

the chamber. So that is what the

independent adviser will look at.

Obviously it is up to the

Independent adviser how to approach

that. What is not set out in the

ministerial code is any specific

guidelines or rules around how that

works. It is apt to an adviser to

look into that and form a and report

on it.

In your view, is it possible

to look into what has happened over

the last two weeks as to whether

Carwyn Jones has breached the

ministerial code without a full

consideration of whether there was

or wasn't bullying going on in 2014?

From the independent adviser's point

of view, presumably he will want to

look at the factual context. But it

is up to him how we approach is

that. What the First Minister has

said on more than one occasion is

that he and the government will

cooperate fully with the independent

adviser in doing that. The whole

point of this process is that it is

independent. That is why it has been

called for by the Conservatives and

Plaid Cymru and that is why it has

been put in place.

So you expect the

independent adviser to be looking

back as to whether they work or

wasn't bullying going on in 2014. We

know that the report will be made

public but the evidence gathering

sessions will be... Will not be made

public, will be in private. Why is

that?

The process is entirely up to

the independent adviser. No, the

First Minister says the findings of

the independent adviser will be

published, that is in the

ministerial code. But he also said

the sessions will not be.

Should it

be public?

Since the initial request

that an independent adviser should

be established, the Conservatives

have been calling for a scrutiny

committee approach to this issue,

which would involve the jeers of the

other committees in the Assembly...

Held in public.

Simon Thomas has

said that would be an unwieldy way

to look at it and I think that was a

legitimate concern but there is also

a concern that the chair of that

committee is a Labour chair and

there is a Labour majority on that

committee so what was really

important in the context of this,

and I'm absolutely sure that the

committee will do its work without

fear or favour...

But you are not

answering my question, with respect.

What is important that as well as it

is independent is that it is seen to

be independent.

How can it be seen

to be independent if all the

evidence gathering sessions are not

published? They will be privately

held. Why not hold those public, why

not have that additional level of

transparency to have a bit more

confidence in the process?

The way

that this has operated in Scotland

is the way it will operate in Wales.

That is what has been called for and

that is what the First Minister has

put in place.

Don't you think it

would be better if it was publicly

held?

There are all sorts of

considerations around that but the

key thing is going to be public and

available for everyone to see.

Why

did it take the First Minister to

take so long to come to this

conclusion of holding an independent

inquiry?

There have been questions

and calls for some time about how

this sort of matter would be dealt

with. They have been debated for

quite a long time in the Assembly,

much longer than I've been...

But

why has it taken so long?

There are

legitimately different ways of

approaching this issue, even if you

share the same objective, which is

proper scrutiny. What's new is that

it is the First Minister himself who

is the subject...

But the initial

call by Andrew RT Davies was made

two weeks ago, I think. Why is it

only on Thursday once the vote has

been held for the panel of AM is to

scrutinise, why is it then that

Carwyn Jones decided to act?

This

has been considered as a response to

what has been called for. It is not

the first time, because this has

been debated for some time. There

are good arguments for and against

that. But it is the First Minister

who is the subject of the complaint

by the Leader of the Opposition and

so it feels appropriate at that

point to put an additional layer of

independence in place.

It does seem

strange that the First Minister only

decided to act in this way once it

became clear there was going to be a

vote on an independent AM led

scrutiny session into its actions.

The call was made last week and the

decision was made this week and that

feels to me to be a perfectly

appropriate period of time.

You are

a new member of the Cabinet for

Carwyn Jones. What is the mood in

cabinet at the moment considering

all that's gone on?

The mood across

the Assembly is the same. There is

an acknowledgement of a very

different -- difficult period but my

own view is, and this isn't sharing

any confidence from the Cabinet, but

my own view is that a process that

has this level of transparency and

independence is the right way of

looking at this question.

I guess

for Carwyn Jones, no, it is clear

for Carwyn Jones there hasn't been a

period where he has faced this level

of pressure from opposition parties

and others. What is the feeling

among York Labour Assembly Members

towards the leader at the moment?

So

far, what we have seen happening is

what should be happening. We have

seen a commitment to independence in

looking into issues both in terms of

the inquiry, the inquest, now this

issue, but the key thing is to make

sure that we have an independent way

of looking at these things and I

think people are comfortable that

that is what has been put in place.

Are they happy with how he dealt,

for example, with the sacking of

Carl Sargeant and the aftermath of

that? Are they happy with how he has

dealt and conducted himself over the

past three weeks?

People recognise

it is a very difficult set of

circumstances and a very difficult

time for everyone involved, most

importantly the family themselves.

The key thing is how the First

Minister and the government reacts

to each of these situations. As I

say, there is an understanding that

putting in place these independent

mechanisms is a helpful way of

taking things forward.

But what we

are seeing from the outside, Carwyn

Jones, for the second time in a

month now, having to go ahead with

an independent enquiry and conceding

to an awful lot of pressure from the

opposition parties. He doesn't seem

to be a leader showing a lot of

leadership, he is following events,

isn't he?

No, I think it is

perfectly appropriate, looking at

this particular decision, they were

two different options coming forward

from opposition parties as how best

to take things forward. There are

merits in each approach. What the

First Minister has done completely

appropriately is look at those two

options and decided that one is more

appropriate than others, that is the

independent adviser route, which he

is pursuing.

But there is there a

sense in your Labour Assembly Member

colleagues that Carwyn Jones needs

to be more engaging with them.

Perhaps he has been a little bit

remote from the Labour group over

the past few years and that needs to

change?

I don't think that is the

mood at all. There is a recognition

of these are very difficult

circumstances in which to be making

decisions and the decisions that

have been taking are the right

decisions.

So, that's the view

of the Welsh Government,

but where does this leave

the Welsh Conservatives

and their motion to refer this issue

to a committee of AMs?

Andrew RT Davies will

be here in a moment,

but here's what he had to say

at First Minister's Questions

this week.

Were issues of bullying

raised specifically

with you in October,

November, 2014,

and did you deal with them?

As I've already said,

I will just repeat what I said

just to make it clear again,

as I am aware, the comments made

in the press, all I can say

about those comments is that

no specific allegation of bullying

was ever presented to me

in relation to those comments

either formally or informally,

no evidence was given to me,

nor was that word "bullying"

ever used in that way.

I can't go beyond what

I've said once again

and just to reiterate

what I said earlier on.

Well, Mr Davies is here with me now.

Well, Mr Davies is here with me now.

You will have heard what Jeremy

Miles just said there. What do you

make of what he was saying about

what the enquiry by the First

Minister, by the independent adviser

to the First Minister, will be

looking at?

In the first place it is

welcoming that the First Minister

has come round to our train of

thought about independence in the

ministerial code. This is something

we have been calling for since 2014.

What I'm disappointed at is that

they have put a delete all amendment

down to the motion that will go

before the Assembly next Wednesday,

which seeks to stop the scrutiny of

the First Minister committee

undertaking an enquiry into the

wider issues around the accusations

of bullying, a toxic environment on

what we call the vet for, the

government floor, that you need to

be explored. It is not a political

point that people stand up against

bullying and call people out on

that.

To explain to people that

might not be familiar with the

processes, the Conservatives had an

amendment down, a vote down in the

Assembly next week, which said they

should be a meeting of the First

Minister's scrutiny committee and an

independent inquiry by those ATMs

into the behaviour of Carwyn Jones

and what Libya has said -- Labour

has said is, get rid of all of that.

You were calling initially for an

independent inquiry into what the

First Minister new and whether or

not he had misled the Assembly. That

is what you are getting. Jeremy

Miles was saying you won't take no

for an answer, you won't take yes

for an answer.

That's not correct.

What we have seen is the First

Minister changing the ministerial

code to introduce a level of

independence which we have been

talking about since July 2014 when a

motion was put down by the

opposition parties in the Assembly.

But what has happened in the

intervening period, we have had

serious accusations levelled against

people at the heart of government,

former ministers and special

advisers, that in any other

workplace would be referred

independently and transparently to a

group of individuals to look at

these, come up with the conclusions

and recommendations to stop any of

this activity happening in the

future. I don't think the motion

before the Assembly next week is

unreasonable because it is asking

the committee to convene, it is

asking the committee to look at when

were the allegations first made to

the First Minister, who did he

appoint a look into those

allegations and, importantly, what

action did he take to actually stop

those actions occurring in the

future? What the First Minister has

done is being very specific on the

ministerial code and whether the

answer he provided to my colleague

Darren Millar and the answer he gave

to the Assembly two weeks

contradicting each other...

So you

are not happy with what you have got

at the moment? You are not content

out what the First Minister has

called for will get to the bottom of

what you want to see?

No, because

there are wider issues to look at.

Senior people within the Welsh

Government have pointed serious

accusations at the First Minister's

office and the First Minister

himself. This isn't a point, a

political point when such

allegations are made.

But how is he

incorrect? You were asking him about

allegations of bullying and he said

no specific allegation of bullying

was ever presented either formally

or informally. That has answered

your question.

There are wider

issues that Leighton Andrews, and I

know he is prepared to give public

evidence, so is the former special

adviser, and others who have come

forward since.

But you asked about

bullying and the First Minister said

no evidence was given and neither

was that word used in that way.

What

he said was specific allegations of

bullying. Leighton Andrews has said

it wasn't just him, they were four

other ministers. That is why we need

the scrutiny, cross-party, Labour,

Plaid Cymru, Conservative and also

Ukip, to come together, convene,

investigate and bring a report to

the Assembly that can be done in

public for anyone who wants to give

evidence to the committee would be

called to give evidence. I don't

think that is unreasonable. And

importantly, if there is a hint that

this type of activity is continuing

within the Welsh Government, that

committee will make recommendations

to the Assembly to make sure it

doesn't continue. Surely is that --

that is what we stand for in public

life, to get the true for the people

of Wales.

But it doesn't seem as if

you are going to get the support of

your fellow Assembly Members. Labour

will support Carwyn Jones' motion,

Plaid Cymru will not be supporting

you. Do you think you have lost the

argument?

I hope not. The motion

will go before the Assembly on

Wednesday, the Labour amendment is

on the order paper. It will be

interesting to see whether the

Labour group deployed the whip and

with their members to vote

accordingly because, as I said, if

you look at our motion, it merely

seeks to establish when the First

Minister was aware off the

allegation, which he recognises and

acknowledged in the chamber actually

happened, who did her point and what

representation was presented to him

to deal with these issues. And if we

can't get at the bottom of those

kind of activities going on at the

heart of Welsh Government, which

have been identified by a former

senior minister, what on earth can

we get to the bottom of?

I guess

there is an oval issue here of how

inappropriate behaviour, harassment,

bullying, is dealt with in politics.

It is a couple of weeks ago since

the leaders of all the critical

parties to a new code of conduct.

It

hasn't been completed.

To what

extent do you think that we'll get

to grips with the problem of

harassment and bullying within the

Assembly?

I don't think this is a

party political issue. Nobody

believes that that type of behaviour

has any place in life at all,

whether in the private or public

sector.

Has it been taken seriously

enough in the Assembly?

I think so

and I think it will be rooted out if

it did exist. But here we have an

example where accusations have been

levelled at the heart of the Welsh

Government, the First Minister's

office, that have an impact on

mental health of individuals

concerned, that have been pointed to

as creating a toxic environment in

the Welsh Government and a bullying

environment and a bullying culture.

All those things are very serious

allegations that if they were

levelled against any other body at

all, you would have the enquiry --

the inquiry...

What is the

Conservatives' procedure if

something like that happened in your

party?

The Prime Minister brought

that four with two weeks ago now. It

is a revised procedure but that is

the procedure of the Welsh

Conservatives in the Assembly. An

independent person comes in, is

advised on a legal basis as to how

to take the enquiry forward -- the

inquiry forward...

That was two

weeks ago, there was nothing before

them.

They were protocols in place

but we recognise that they needed to

be toughened up. What we are looking

at this week, as we look forward to

Wednesday, is a motion on the order

paper for Assembly Members to vote

on and I hope that they will vote on

that motion in a transparent and

open weight rather than the width to

vote for a government amendment that

seeks to take out the process that

ultimately would get to the bottom

of these allegations, because we

would all benefit from that process.

It is open, transparent and get the

answers we require.

Thank you very

much for your time.

It's meant to be

the independent watchdog,

the voice of the patient against

authority, but this programme

has been told members of Wales'

Community Health Councils

have been told not to criticise

or embarrass the Welsh Government

while it is considering

whether or not to scrap them.

One AM has told us such behaviour

would amount to

a "total dereliction of duty",

but the Chair of the CHC Board

says the claims are untrue.

Cemlyn Davies has this

exclusive report.

Two years ago, hundreds turned out

to protest against plans

to downgrade maternity services

at Glan Clwyd Hospital

in Bodelwyddan.

The proposals were later scrapped

and many local campaigners said

the community health council

for North Wales

played an important part

in getting the decision reversed.

Across the country,

there are seven CHCs,

one for each health board.

It's their job to speak up for

patients, but the Welsh Government

wants to get rid of them and create

a single national body instead.

The chair of the CHC Board says

the consultation process

on the Government's proposals

has been positive

and she's confident a suitable

new arrangement will be found.

I'm not overly concerned

because there is always a tendency

to over-egg the custard

as far as words are concerned

because actually the whole

reason for consultation

is for minds to be changed.

We've all got an important

role to play.

We need a service provider

that is effective and efficient,

that meets the patients' needs,

we need a voice like ourselves

to make sure that there

is a voice that is impartial,

looking for patients' interests,

so we have all got a role play.

This North Wales AM appreciates

what the local CHC has done

for patients in his region and he's

worried what might happen next.

To lose that kind of integrity

in terms of the voice

of the patient, I think,

would be an unmitigated disaster,

and to move from an organisation

that is deeply rooted

in the communities of North Wales

with local representatives

drawn from across the north

to what potentially could be

a very remote national body,

no doubt based in Cardiff,

would be a terrible, terrible loss.

The Welsh Government's

consultation process,

which some critics have described

as cosmetic, ended in September.

All the CHCs gave their response

but even though they are supposed

to be watchdogs, I've learned

that CHC staff across Wales

have been asked by senior colleagues

not to overly criticise

or embarrass the Welsh Government

over its proposals.

One CHC member told me that's

why their community health council's

response to the consultation

was toned down.

It's not true.

I know my staff and members

have worked really hard

during the consultation period

and I just think it's unfair

and irresponsible for this rumour

to be circulating.

If it was to be proven,

and I've got good reason to think

there is evidence of this,

would that be of concern to you?

Of course, of course.

But it's not true.

To suggest that people should not

embarrass the Government, I think,

is a total dereliction of duty

and if this is the case,

I think the Cabinet Secretary

really has to act.

The Welsh Government said people

should be free to comment openly

and honestly on any consultation

process, especially one that

potentially affects the future

of their organisation.

CHCs were established in 1974

but the Welsh Government doesn't

believe they are flexible enough

to respond to today's health

service, where services

are increasingly provided

across boundaries, both

geographical and organisational.

CHCs don't consider social

care issues either.

And so the Government wants

to create a new independent body

similar to

the Scottish Health Council.

It was only established in 2005

but serious questions have been

raised about its effectiveness

and its role is now under review.

The Chair of the Scottish

Parliament's Health Committee

made his concerns clear

in a meeting earlier this year.

I am failing to see what we get

for our money

and I think Richard

is absolutely right,

I think you are toothless

hamster, I really do.

I don't see where you are adding

value in this and I think this needs

a major overhaul of some kind

if we are going to genuinely have

some sort of transparency processes

that patients and the public

generally engage in

because at the moment we do not.

There has also been criticism

of the decision taken

by the then Labour government

to scrap CHC is in England in 2003.

Andy Burnham, Labour Health

Secretary between 2009 and 2010,

has said the abolition

of Community Health Councils

was not the government's

finest moment.

And in a highly critical report

following the Mid Staffordshire

scandal, where hundreds of patients

had died amid appalling levels

of care at Stafford Hospital,

Sir Robert Francis said it's clear

that what replaced CHCs had failed

to produce an improved voice

for patients and the public

but achieved the opposite.

Stafford Hospital had an unusually

high mortality rate and the man

who compiled those stats believes

issues could have been addressed

sooner had the local

CHC not been scrapped.

Community Health Councils would have

been able to see our mortality rate,

would have been able to say

to the health care commission

as it then was, "Look,

this particular hospital,

"our local hospital has had these

alerts, have you investigated,

"have you looked to see

if there's a problem?"

They could act independently

and what has happened since then

is there has been no effective

replacement of them.

I think it has been part

of the dumbing down

of the voice of patients.

The Welsh Government told us

the Health Secretary

has had positive discussions

with CHC representatives

and the government is considering

the large number of responses

received to the consultation.

received to the consultation.

A few years ago, Welsh councils

were bracing themselves

for being cut from the current 22

down to as few as eight.

Now they seem to be saying

that's off the agenda

and the Welsh Government needs

to get off their backs

and let them do their job.

So, is council reform now

firmly off the table?

And if so, what changes,

if any, should there be?

Debbie Wilcox is Chair of the Welsh

Local Government Association

and leader of Newport Council,

and is with me now.

Thank you for coming in. As you see

the current structures, and we've

spent years discussing this, are

they fit for purpose, 22 councils?

Of course they are. It is the front

door of where the local residents

walk through and the challenge with

local councils and local

councillors. We are delivering local

policies for local people. What we

need to do is ensure, and I put this

gauntlet down to the 22 council

leaders and the senior politicians

in local government that came to our

conference on Thursday in Cardiff,

the Corner was certainly laid down

that we need to respond to the local

government Bill, the issues of my

nation and if we are going to do

something about that, we really must

carry out what we said we are going

to do. No more prevarication, no

more trying to, this subterfuge or

skirmishes around, if we need to

lead that change, we need to have an

open and on issues -- honest

dialogue about that.

What are you

proposing?

The dialogue is

completely open and at the moment

the page is also clear about how we

should do that. I have suggested to

local governor colleagues that they

go away and discuss and come up with

ideas.

But that could take years,

couldn't it?

The regional areas grew

from local government and we can do

the same on regional working. If we

know what can work, we can put that

forward.

You are seeing this needs

to be done urgently, but you are

saying dialogue, a clear page, go

and discuss, that is kicking it into

the long grass.

We have many things

that are operating really well. The

four regional partnerships. The one

I am involved in, the Cardiff City

deal, working really well. We have

already brought £38 million of

investment to the south-east Wales

region with that. Moving forward,

there are lots of plans in place.

There is a matter of urgency. If we

don't come up with these ourselves

now, the Welsh Government will have

every right to say, we have heard it

all before and we will mandate. We

don't want moderation because what

we want is to work on it for

ourselves, to present things that

are workable.

But in the past you

have resisted, not you personally,

resisted every change. In 2012, you