03/12/2017 Sunday Politics Wales

Good morning, everyone.

I'm Sarah Smith.

Welcome to the Sunday Politics -

your essential guide to the biggest

political stories of the week.

Coming up on today's show...

Coming up on today's show...

of a breakthrough on Brexit?

Or, after a slightly torrid week,

is she in danger of being

overtaken by events?

The ex-Labour minister

Alan Milburn quits as chairman

of the Social Mobility Commission,

saying he has "little hope"

the current government can make

the "necessary" progress.

What does this mean

for a Prime Minister who vowed

to fight against the "burning

injustice" of inequality?

And, we speak to the academic who's

carrying out economic "wargaming"

scenarios for the Labour party,

in the event it wins power.

People are going to trust us

with their jobs and their pensions

and their livelihoods.

We've got to show we

know what we're doing.

Later in the programme...

know what we're doing.

Alun Cairns on why he thinks

Wales' ports can help us

benefit from Brexit,

and with five new trade

offices opening soon.

And does Wales need more

of a presence overseas?

Yes, all that coming

up in the programme.

And to help guide me

through all the week's

twists and turns, I'm

joined by Tom Newton Dunn,

Isabel Oakeshott,

and Steve Richards.

Now, the breaking news this morning

is the resignation of Alan Milburn -

the ex-Labour minister who,

for the last five years, has chaired

the Social Mobility Commission.

He says the Government is too

preoccupied with Brexit

to focus on social justice.

We'll be assessing the significance

of that in a moment.

But first, if that relationship has

turned sour for the Prime Minister,

it wasn't the only one this week.

Like all relationships, our liaison

with our European neighbours

has had its ups and downs.

Theresa May wants a deep and special

partnership after Brexit.

Thus far, money has been

the main obstacle to

an amicable divorce.

This week, a possible breakthrough.

He once said "the EU

could go whistle if they

asked for too much," now he's

practically dancing with joy.

It's a fantastic opportunity

now to get going.

Others are always harder to please.

It is not worth nearly

50 billion sterling.

No deal is better than a bad deal

and this is a very bad deal indeed.

Brussels may be on board

with the divorce bill but

there's trouble over

the Irish border.

If the UK offer is unacceptable

for Ireland, it will

also be unacceptable for the EU.

also be unacceptable for the EU.

Reports suggest Stormont could be

given more power to agree bespoke

trading arrangements

with the Republic but that, in turn,

enraged Theresa May's

partners in Parliament.

The DUP could walk out

of their marriage of convenience

with the Tories if the Government

allows Northern Ireland to diverge

from the rest of the UK.

If there is any hint that in order

to placate Dublin and the EU,

they are prepared to have

Northern Ireland treated differently

than the rest of the United Kingdom,

then they can't rely on our vote.

But it was the "special

relationship" that came

under most strain.

As Donald Trump re-tweeted

Islamophobia videos,

posted by the far right

group, Britain First.

Denounced by Downing Street,

the President took to Twitter again,

telling Theresa May directly,

"Don't focus on me,

we are doing just fine."

The Prime Minister on a surprise

trip to the Middle East was plunged

into a very public row.

I'm very clear that

re-tweeting from Britain

First was the wrong thing to do.

The May-Trump mini break

in the UK might be off.

I certainly don't think he should be

should be coming next year.

Next year is supposed to be a happy

event for the Royal family.

We certainly don't want Trump

turning up in the middle

of all of that.

Meanwhile, Labour leader and GQ

magazine cover model declared

himself to be an enemy

of greedy bankers.

So, when they say, we're

a threat, they're right.

We are a threat to

a damaging and failed

system that's rigged for the few.

The Prime Minister's

closest political

friend stood in for her

at the dispatch box on Wednesday

while she was abroad but fresh

questions emerged later

in the week about

whether he'd used a Parliamentary

computer to view pornography

some nine years ago.

Theresa May will meet be EU

Commission President

Jean-Claude Juncker tomorrow.

They will discuss the revised

offer on the divorce

bill and whether talks

can now move on to trade

post-Brexit.

It has not been an easy

relationship with leaks from

previous meetings finding their way

into the German press.

Hopefully, they can put

all of that behind them.

So, we will talk through one of the

top stories for the week with our

panel in the studio. We are going to

be looking ahead to what is

happening in Brussels. The Prime

Minister is going over for a working

lunch with Jean-Claude Juncker

tomorrow. We are always saying we

have reached a critical stage in the

negotiations.

Is it a critical

point? It is. It is endgame of

chapter one. There are two chapters,

divorce and then trade. This is the

end of the first half, at the 43rd

minute. It is probably 0-0. We need

to get over the line and into

half-time and into the second half.

Wyatt is so critical is the Prime

Minister, in the next few days, she

cannot wait till the 14th or 15th of

December, have to choose to govern

is to choose. One side is saying

this is what we will act set to move

on to the second phase and the

Eurosceptics will say, we will not

access to any of that. She has to

get off the fence. One is what they

will do about easy JN the other

about the Irish border. To divert or

not diverged?

This is only the end

of the first half of the process. If

the EU agrees we can move onto the

second half. That is not guaranteed,

is it?

Tom's analogy, I will not go

too far with it because I'm not a

football expert. Brexiteers feel it

is more like 1-0 to the EU. There is

a circulation today, leave means

leave, which is signed by eminent

business people and academics. Only

a few MPs, about five of them on

now. We were discussing this earlier

and Tom made the point it is quite a

hostile thing for a Tory MP to sign

a letter like this. Many more agree

with the contents of the letter,

which sets out the set of conditions

the PM must not agree to, in their

view, must not capitulate to as the

negotiation goes forward. It is

about when free movement of people

ends and we retain the power to go

to WTO if all else fails.

We be

discussing this further with our

guests and find out what the EU had

think about it. The other big news

of the morning is that Alan Milburn

resigned from the social mobility

commission. He told and remarked

earlier why. -- Andrew Marr.

In various social mobility roles,

I've served a Labour Prime Minister,

a coalition Prime Minister,

and now, a Conservative one.

I've done so because I care deeply

about the issue and I believe

that it matters profoundly

to the country.

I've reached the conclusion, sadly,

that with the current government,

there is little if any hope

of progress being made

towards the fairer Britain

that the Prime Minister

has talked about.

The Government, probably

for understandable reasons,

is focused on Brexit,

and seems to lack the bandwidth

to be able to translate the rhetoric

of healing social division

and promoting social justice

into a reality.

That is a pretty damning statement,

the Government does not have the

bandwidth to do with anything other

than Brexit.

It is true. Brexit is

sucking up all political energy much

practical energy in Whitehall.

Beyond that, the significance of

this is not huge. I think these

commissions float uneasily in

government. If you make policy on

social justice, you can do that

within a government department if

you are serious about it. I think it

was set up partly with good

intentions in the coalition period,

partly to break off the Blairites

from Labour and get them involved

with these so called modernising

Conservative project, and the fact

that it is ending, I don't think in

itself is significant. But he is

absolutely... By the way they were

never entirely clear on policy

terms. The fact he said I am not a

status quo nor am I with Theresa

May, what are going to be the

mediating agencies? There are some

huge issues to address. Whether this

was the appropriate way to do it in

the first place, I have doubts about

it.

Thank you for that.

Well, to pick up on all of that,

I'm joined by the former

Conservative leader, Michael Howard.

Thank you for coming in. Let's start

with the claim by Alan Milburn that

the Government does not have the

time or capacity to do anything

other than Brexit. That must be a

concern to you as well.

I think he

is wrong. I share his concern about

social mobility. When I was the

leader of the Conservative Party

used to make speeches about the

British dream and the importance of

social mobility. There is always

more to be done but we have actually

made a lot of progress. Can I give

you some examples? We would all

agree that education is key to

social mobility. We have 1.9 million

children now, 1.9 million children

more than in 2010 in good or

outstanding schools.

His complaint

was not that nothing has been done

since 2010 but nothing can be done

now.

It is still happening. Income

inequality is at its lowest level

for 30 years. More taxes being paid

than under the Labour years. One of

the worst things that can happen to

a child is to live in a workless

household. The number of workless

households has been shrinking. And

implement is at its lowest level

since 1975.

-- unemployment. Theresa

May, when she became Prime Minister

last year, said this is a country of

burning injustice.

It is. There is

always more to be done. You say it

is in the past. This morning we have

had an announcement that a

considerable amount of extra money

will be devoted in helping children

facing mental health challenges in

our schools. That is important as

well in relation to social mobility.

Of course there is more to be done.

I think quite a lot of progress has

been made on social mobility and

should not forget that.

Let's move

on to wrecks it. You will have read

reports that she will offer a

divorce bill somewhere between 40

billion and 50 billion euros, maybe

slightly more. You said back in

April that you would be astonished

if the bill was anything like 50

billion euros for the you must be

producer prize.

We all started off

with aspirations. -- you must be

pretty surprised. I do not know what

the sum will be. Whatever it is it

will be a fraction of the amount we

have paid into the European Union

over the last 40 years and would pay

into the European Union for the next

40.

You are now fairly relaxed about

something around this mark?

I have

confidence in the Prime Minister and

David Davis. I want to let them

decide what is the best deal. I'm

confident we'll get a good deal. I'm

confident in the Prime Minister and

David Davies.

You know the more

money we spend on the divorce the

more bashes nevertheless many we

have to spend on other things. Our

guest last week felt it had to be

delivered to keep faith in the

process.

In the budget a few days

ago the Government promised more

than an extra £350 million for the

health service, running into almost

£2 billion.

They did not promise

that in the budget?

Over time, more

money will be available when we are

out. These payments, I don't know

what the sum would be, are going to

be spread out over many years. The

annual bill will not be anything

like that. In the end there will be

more money to spend on the health

service and other desirable things

because we will not have to make

this very large, annual contribution

we were making.

You have always been

a committed Eurosceptic. Do not

worry that the European Union seem

to be having it their way? They

wanted to discuss divorce before the

trade deals. We agreed to that. The

divorce bill seems to have gone up

substantially since Theresa May was

speaking in her Florence speech.

They are getting what they want as

we are going through the process and

we seem to be capitulating.

I do not

think that is fair. There is a huge

amount of posturing, which always

goes on in negotiations. The

approach of the European Union is in

breach of Article 50. Article 50

says the arrangements for the

departure of a member state have to

take into account the future

relationship of that state with the

European Union. You cannot take

something into account if you are

not prepared to talk about it. They

are in breach of Article 50. That is

the approach they have chosen. I am

confident. I think we will move

forward to the next phase, to pursue

Tom's analogy, I hope they will not

be injury time at the end of the

first half and I hope we will get an

agreement this month and then we can

start talking turkey.

Do you agree

with the leave means leave letter in

the paper today without demanding

the UK be free to sign employment

trade deals and note end to

restriction is by the European Court

of Justice?

I share the aspirations

contained in the letter.

You did not

sign it.

No.

Did they ask you to?

No. I am not inclined to make

demands at this stage. I think they

should be allowed to get on with the

negotiations. I have confidence in

their ability to do so. I'm

confident that in the end will get a

good deal in the interests of the UK

and of the European Union because

there is a great commonality of

interest between the two of us to

have a good relationship, a deep and

special relationship the Prime

Minister has spoken of.

You are

trying not to be a back-seat driver.

As a former leader of the Tory Party

you probably understand how annoying

that will be that you are an

interested party entitled to your

view on this. Iain Duncan Smith is

in the papers saying how important

it is to end the authority of the

European Court of Justice. Is that a

red line for you?

I have every confidence in the Prime

Minister and in David Davis and I

think they will end up with a good

deal.

They're just going to pick up

with our panel here. Listening to

Michael Howard there, very carefully

trying not to step on the Prime

Minister's toes, but clearly he

shares some sympathy with people who

do want to put some red lines on

her?

I know Michael Howard is a

forensic follower of politics, so

I'm surprised he is completely

confident about Theresa May

delivering this, given that when she

returned from the last summit, when

she made her House of Commons

statement, she was clear, to my

surprise, actually, that during the

transition, I am not surprised in

how it turned out but I am surprised

she was so clear, that the European

court would hold some sway. It has

two, because if the transition is to

be effective, it means one way or

another we will still sort of be in

the single market and Customs union

for a time and therefore the

European court will hold some sway.

And she said it. I saw Jacob

Rees-Mogg's response of horror. But

she did say it. And so that is

already I think part of the

equation. So the response of her

Brexiteers on this will be pivotal.

Iain Duncan Smith is not alone in

being absolutely resolute that the

ECJ will have nothing to do with

Britain?

Absolutely, and I think

that the concern amongst the harder

line Brexiteers is that this

transitional arrangement is a

continuation of the status quo, and

that it might even slip. Now, the

Prime Minister has try to be

reassuring on that, and there have

been indications it might slip a few

weeks but definitely not longer. But

I think that Brexit MPs want more

assurances that this will not end up

just being kicked into the long

grass.

Will those assurances be

given?

I don't think they will be.

She is going to have to compromise.

The other choice is to walk away. A

perfectly admirable choice but it is

a choice she needs to make. The

interesting question is, what do

these people plan to do about it?

What does Michael Howard plan to do

if the £45 billion bill, which he is

now accepting, it would appear, the

four MPs and some other quite senior

party figures, what do they plan to

do if the Prime Minister

compromises? Will they vote against

it, will they put their considerable

legislative weight, which Michael

Howard could do in the House of

Lords, against it?

Even though

you're being very diplomatic today,

is there a point at which you would

speak out if something you saw as

fundamentally unacceptable occurred?

That is a very hypothetical

question, Sarah!

The idea that you

might find something out of Brussels

being unacceptable is hypothetical?

Lets wait and see. I have said and I

am in danger of repeating myself, I

have every confidence in the Prime

Minister and in David Davis. I think

we will end up with a good deal. You

would in expect in negotiations like

this an awful lot of posturing.

Let

me into you because I need to ask

you about one other thing before we

go. Damian Green, you will know

there have been more stories

reported this week around the

accusation that he viewed

pornography on a Parliamentary

computer, something he absolutely

resolutely denies. If it is

discovered that he wasn't telling

the truth when he told the Prime

Minister he hadn't done this, would

it be a resigning matter?

I don't

know, that is another hypothetical

question. Damian was my

Parliamentary neighbour for many

years, he has denied it and I

believe him and I agree with those

very senior figures yesterday who

condemned the leaking of information

by these retired police officers. I

think that's a very serious matter

indeed. Policing in this country is

based on trust between the police

and the public. And if we have...

Michael Howard, thank you very much

for talking to us.

The EU has warned Theresa May

that she must satisfy Irish demands,

if the Brexit negotiations

are to move forward this week.

But ahead of a crucial

meeting between Theresa May

and Jean-Claude Juncker tomorrow,

it seems there is still work to do.

Here's the Irish Foreign

Minister, Simon Coveney,

speaking this morning.

speaking this morning.

There is no desire in Ireland to

delay this process. But at the same

time we have irresponsibility as a

government to represent the

interests on the island of Ireland,

north and south. Let's not forget

that next year will be the 20th

anniversary of the Good Friday

Agreement, which is the basis for

the peace process, and relations

between Britain and Ireland on the

island of Ireland. And we believe

that as an island, Ireland is

uniquely vulnerable and exposed to a

potential bad outcome from Brexit.

With me now is the Shadow

International Trade

Secretary, Barry Gardiner.

Secretary, Barry Gardiner.

Obviously, it is absolutely crucial

that a resolution is found to this

problem - what is Labour's position?

I think you have to proceed here on

the basis of principles. The first

principle is, do nothing that

damages the peace process. The

second principle is, do nothing that

averages the economy. And by that I

mean both the economy and Northern

Ireland, in Ireland as a whole and

in the UK and Ireland as a whole.

Now, that means that we have to...

But that's the impossible conundrum,

how to do all of those things at

once?

It can't be impossible,

because we've got to do it. Of

course it is being made much more

difficult by the government's red

lines on this. And the government

has stated very publicly and clearly

that it wants to come out of the

customs union and the single market.

And of course, what actually creates

checks at the border is when you

have regulator we variants and when

you have product standards that are

different. So, that means that you

have to check what's coming in and

out for any tariffs that you wish to

impose. Now, that's why it has been,

I think and my party thinks, foolish

to have removed the structural

possibilities which lie in the

customs union or the single market,

from what the government's

negotiating position is.

That's very

interesting, because I can see

clearly, and so can the Irish

government, exactly how staying in

the customs union and the single

market would help resolve the

question for the island of Ireland,

but also it raises questions for the

United Kingdom. It is also

interesting because if we have a

look at what you say back in July,

who didn't sound quite as pleased

about the single market, when you

said we would in effect become a

vassal state, obliged to pay into

the EU budget and having even less

sovereignty than we do now - you

weren't so keen on the single market

then?

I am not so keen on the single

market membership as opposed to

being a member of the EU. Single

market membership without being a

member of the EU means that you do

not have a say in the rules which

you have to abide by.

But we're

leaving the EU, let's take that as a

given.

Let's talk about where we are

going forward. I was setting out

very clearly, and I don't think you

would disagree with what I said, I

was setting out very clearly the

applications of leaving the EU in

the way that the government had set

out. And those implications are

clear. I believe I set them out

correctly. Where we are now is, we

have to find a solution to this

problem. Simon Coveney was actually

earlier very clear in saying that

you don't have to have a full

solution in phase one, but there has

to be the real expectation that

we're going to be able to resolve it

in phase two. The first thing that

both sides need to say here is that

we will look at the Common Travel

Area, which has existed since 1922,

and that should be part and parcel

of the deal going forward. The

second element that I think is

really important here is to

understand precisely what the peace

settlement was, when in the Good

Friday Agreement in 1998 we set out

that there should be no security

checks at the border. That was

critically important. But of course,

security checks in those days were

in place because of the situation,

the military, paramilitary

situation. But when those security

checks were taken away, because we

were members of the single market

and because we were members of the

customs union, there were no

additional customs checks. Now, to

say that you order the Good Friday

Agreement and have no security

checks, with all the military

paraphernalia that goes with that,

does not mean that you cannot have

typified customs checks. But those

customs checks will only be put in

place if the government wants to

deregulate. My party doesn't. My

party doesn't want to deregulate, we

don't want to impose these

terrorists. The government is in a

bind here, because most of the key

players around of Brexit want to

deregulate, and that means there

have to be tariffs, and that means

they have to be imposed at a border.

Jeremy Corbyn yesterday refused to

rule out the possibility of a second

referendum on our EU membership - is

it now the Labour Party's policy

that we might vote again on this?

No, it's not.

Why did he say we have

not made any decision on a second

referendum?

That precisely says that

it is not, because policy because we

have not made a decision on it!

You

could make a decision Ameobi not to

have a second referendum?

Let's be

absolutely upfront about this. The

idea that you would have a second

referendum, I think you would say

you were going to have a second

referendum. Like the Liberal

Democrats have done. That would be

to encourage the EU to give you the

worst possible deal that there was,

so that when you're then voted on

it, everybody would say, we can't

possibly go there. The key thing, in

my view, is that it was always

foolish, always foolish, to have a

50% class one referendum. Because if

you are trying to...

That's what we

had, we are now looking at the

future. I'm talking about the

future. It sounds like Jeremy Corbyn

is saying it is a possibility that

Labour might call for one?

I am

trying to answer your question. I am

not trying to avoid it. When we go

forward, if we were to have another

referendum on the same lines as we

have had, and it were to be 52-48

the other way, what would that

achieve hammered absolutely nothing.

It would then be game on for a third

or fourth referendum. The only way

in which in my view you could

possibly contemplate a second

referendum would be if you had a

threshold which I believe should

have been there in the first place

of a two thirds majority. But that I

stress is not Labour Party policy,

it is not something that we've

decided, and Jeremy Corbyn

articulated that yesterday.

Have you

spoken to Diane Abbott, who has

written to two constituents in the

past month saying she would make the

case for a second referendum?

Diane

has already said that letter was

poorly worded Pozzo, as she called

it. I will not make any further

comment on it.

The Shadow Chancellor,

John McDonnell, came in for a bit

of flak recently when he admitted

that Labour was preparing

for possible negative scenarios,

such as a run on the pound,

if it wins power.

Speaking on the fringes

of his party's conference, he said

he was carrying out "war game-type

scenario planning" in the event

of an election victory.

John McDonnell, the man

helping Mr McDonald.

Well, the man helping

Mr McDonnell do that is

the academic Richard Barbrook.

He's also the man behind

'Games for the Many' -

the political gaming studio

that produced CorbynRun.

Ellie Price went along to meet him.

Ellie Price went along to meet him.

You may have seen some of these

during the election.

In May Bot, the gamer helps the PM

shoot, run and slide

her way to dystopia.

And then downloaded 150,000 times

in the first week of

the campaign alone, Corbyn Run,

which sees Jeremy Corbyn shaking

down bankers to pay

for policy pledges.

And it's one of the things

the Labour leadership think can win

them the next election.

It put an idea out there

that you can actually

engage in politics in a way

which is both a good laugh,

enjoy the game.

But actually it is quite

stimulating as well.

What happened was, that

prompted ideas about a

fair taxation system

and the policies that

were being launched.

It's new creative way into ideas.

Are you worried that

the Tories will catch on?

They most probably will catch on.

They most probably will catch on.

But it's not just about the medium,

it is about the message as well.

Richard, what is happening here?

It's a games jam.

Right.

People are coming together

to make app games,

laptop games, board games, getting

ready for the local elections in May

to propagate Labour's message.

And is it really working?

You have 50-odd people here, that's

hardly going to change the world.

No.

I'm from the punk generation.

I'm from the punk generation.

The first time I saw

the Sex Pistols, there were 40 or 50

people in the room.

Then, in the late-80s,

I went to the very early raves

and again there were very

small groups of people.

Yet, in both cases, these

cultures, you start off

with small groups of people

and they can suddenly

become a mass phenomenom.

And, I'm reliably informed,

it isn't just for computer geeks.

Yes, we've got people

here who are activists and have

never coded in their lives

and they're using tools,

with which you can make games

with no coding skills.

I'm not sure I believe

you but here is a challenge.

Can you make me a game?

Yes, I can.

The challenge begins.

The challenge begins.

OK.

I'm done.

That took less than half an hour.

Can I see it?

Yeah, of course.

You go up to John and he says,

"We're making games to change the

face of politics."

Then you go up to Jeremy

and he says, "for the many,

not the few."

OK, so it's not exactly Super Mario

but Labour are looking

at another kind of gaming,

so-called war-gaming.

Considering possible

future scenarios.

Something John McDonnell

talked about at the last

Labour Conference.

What if there is a run

on the pound, what happens if

there is this concept

of capital flight?

I don't think there

will but you never know

so we've got a scenario

planned for that.

Richard is also part

of the Shadow Treasury

war-gaming team, who are expected

to meet again in the next few weeks.

If people are going to trust us

with their jobs and their pensions

and their livelihoods,

we've got to show

we know what we are doing.

This seems like common sense to me.

From games jams like these,

Labour hoped to create a campaign

tool that will take them to the next

level - Downing Street.

If politics is a game,

there are novel ways to play.

And Richard Barbrook joins me now.

And Richard Barbrook joins me now.

Thanks for coming in. John McDonnell

said the conference he was working

with you are looking at different

scenarios I possibly around on the

pound. It caused huge amount of

controversy. Can you understand why?

I was actually. Surprised that

people are surprised that political

parties are not doing this. The

military, the civil service,

Corporation Banks, they all do this.

The surprise was one would imagine

that a Labour government neither

hoped nor predicted there would be a

run on the pound and capital flight.

Given the fanaticism of the present

government, probably when we get

elected, the pound would likely go

up. You need to think about these

problems beforehand. There are

potential difficulties to foresee.

You can scenario plan for those. You

can read about problems coming up

ahead and you can talk about them

but actually to experience in a game

like atmosphere, the pressures of

making decisions... You can identify

problems and think about solutions,

try out ideas. If it does not work

you can reiterate again and again

and again.

When the Treasury does

something like this, with very

complex statistical models and huge

amounts of data, can you feed it

into a scenario?

You can on that

basis. What you can do more is test

the team coming together and seeing

how it responds under pressure. A

good example, if you think about the

National Health Service. If it were

a flu pandemic they would have to

think about how to reallocate

resources. There would be sickness

amongst staff, more people going to

hospitals and you get together a

group of people responsible for

running the NHS. You put them

together and put them through a

three-hour simulation of it and that

is the same sort of thing we are

doing. We are looking at what

happens when Labour gets in, the

first 100 days in power, for the

first budget, what would you do?

Whether it is a run on the pound or

something, you create pressures and

problems for them to create the idea

of how they have to operate as a

team.

Does that give you the

opportunity to stress test some of

the more radical policies that

Labour came up with in the last

manifesto like nationalising the

water companies or electricity firms

or something like that?

It is only

maybe in this media bubble in

Britain that we think neoliberalism

is the only alternative.

Those are

to mainstream for you to bother

about?

I said the initial simulation

as any of the first 100 days we are

looking at how we would put together

a budget. That is not really what

the focus is. It is making it

happen, the decision-making process.

That is what you are trying to train

people for. The military does this,

the civil service does this put up

if you do not do this you are in a

very bad position. The election, the

Liberal Democrats did no contingency

planning as to what would happen if

there were a hung parliament but the

civil service did. They ripped

people into becoming a junior

appendage of the Tory Party with the

disastrous results that came from

that.

Is this the kind of

discussions that a Shadow Cabinet

would be having in the run-up to the

general election anyway? That is

that fundamental job of an

opposition.

This is a fundamental

method of doing it. You are just

surprised that a political parties

doing this. If you are the military

or the civil service you use this

tool. You are just surprised... I am

surprised that you are surprised.

The other thing you are doing

separate from the war game scenario,

the apps and the games go further --

which you say can further political

engagement, are they really

spreading a message?

A good example

is the Jeremy Corbyn ran.

I have

played that. It is about mugging

bankers in the streets.

Why we have

austerities is about the tax cuts.

You reverse that and you campaign

fuel social programme. In doing so,

it shows that you are more

successful in raising revenue can

unlock certain pledges and people

join your campaign.

Stay there if

you will. I will come to the panel.

Do you think this sounds like a

useful, political tool, to sit there

in a game like atmosphere and work

hard to intimate radical programme

for government?

Yes. It sounds

sensible and not the only thing they

are doing. I can see them Maya city

of John McDonnell was to speak aloud

in any context about a potential run

on the pound. -- naivete. To prepare

for eventualities, prepare for the

first 100 days by using all kinds of

devices, is highly sensible.

Even if

it has been publicised to working

with games developers.

You kept

going on about military, war-gaming

exercises. I am co-authoring a book

on defence at the moment. In one of

the most important recent war-gaming

exercises we did with the Americans,

we were wiped out within a day

because our targeting policy was so

outdated. I think the fear in the

city is exactly that would happen

economically because your economic

policy is so outdated.

I will let

you respond to that and ask you

another question as well.

She is

just the Tory Troll.

I'm not a

member of the Tory Party. No reason

to be impolite to people. If Morgan

Stanley came here and said we want

to game out what a Labour government

would mean for business, would you

do that?

I would not do it but I

would be very surprised if they are

not already doing that.

Thank you

for coming in to talk to us.

It's coming up to 11:40am.

You're watching

the Sunday Politics.

Coming up on the programme...

We sent the Sunday Politics moodbox

- our unscientific poll

featuring plastic balls -

to South West London.

After polling suggested

the Conservative Party

aren't seen as "caring",

we asked people in

Putney what they value

more in politicians -

competence or compassion?

I think that anybody

who is in parliament

should be confident,

otherwise they shouldn't be an MP in

the first place,

whatever party they are.

-- competent.

Do they have enough compassion?

Hm?

Do they have enough compassion?

Hello, and welcome to

Sunday Politics Wales.

In a few minutes time...

Does Wales need an extra five

trade offices abroad?

A former trade minister says we do,

but they need the right support.

And will Wales gain or lose

powers after Brexit?

MPs will debate the issue

tomorrow but is it all just

a storm in a teacup?

But first, with the border

with Ireland at the centre

of the Brexit talks,

what could any solution that is

eventually found mean for Wales?

The Welsh Secretary says far

from being a problem, it could be

an opportunity for Wales.

He says it could provide us

with a gateway to Europe.

When I spoke to him, I began,

where else, but with Brexit,

and asked him about the challenges

he said were still ahead

for the Withdrawal Bill.

Well, the Welsh government

amendments have still been tabled.

The debate is taking place tomorrow.

We will clearly look

at those, and listen

to the discussions around it.

And we are keen to take every

part of the UK with us.

And I think, from the maybe,

more fractious statements that

were made when the bill

was published, to a much more

constructive place now,

demonstrates that the approach we've

been taking as a UK Government

is working, we are instilling

confidence with communities,

with businesses, and of course,

with the Welsh government.

I mean, we are talking

about the amendments which will be

discussed tomorrow as part of the EU

withdrawal bill, in Westminster,

and what the Welsh and Scottish

governments have said is,

well, look, you need the consent

of Welsh ministers before

you can pass legislation

on those devolved areas.

Does this seem to be a fair thing

that they are asking for?

We always work to get consent.

That's always been my approach.

My relationship with the Welsh

government is pretty strong,

I talk to the ministers regularly,

because it's in the

interests of business.

If we're going to get

the new opportunities that leaving

the European Union provides,

for our example, those great export

opportunities, free trade,

discussions that need to take place.

Clearly, the closer that the UK

Government and Welsh

government work, the better.

One of these things which has had

a lot of attention recently is how

Brexit will affect the border

in Northern Ireland,

will there be a hard border?

Will there be a frictionless,

lack of order, as there is now?

You know that could have a large

impact on the thoughts of Holyhead,

and Pembroke, how concerned

are you about that?

You are right, the integrity

of the UK is extremely important.

That is important to the population

in Northern Ireland.

But, also, the relationship

with the Republic of Ireland

will be important to.

And the Common travel area

predates any membership

of the European Union.

So we recognise that.

But it's also relevant to Wales,

I regularly raise this

with the Prime Minister in terms

of the port at Holyhead,

and Fishguard, of course.

And what does she say?

She absolutely gets it.

She is, even before I speak now,

I think she can tell

what I'm going to say.

So it's an issue that we are alive

to, and we have two sink

as imaginatively as possible,

but I think that there are

opportunities that come from this.

Because South West Wales,

and North West Wales,

will become the gateway to Europe.

They will be as important to the UK

economy as Dover is to Calais.

Because we will be as close

to the European Union,

on North West Wales

and South West Wales,

as Kent will be.

It certainly would be a gateway,

the other way of looking at it,

which is what Carwyn Jones has

raised concerns about before,

is that, actually, instead

of using Holyhead in Pembroke,

what lorries, what transport freight

will do, is use Liverpool,

is use Stranraer because it will be

an easier route.

Is that a concern as well?

I don't accept that for a second.

Because I think that business

will follow the natural boundary.

Business will follow

the easiest path.

So it's up to us as politicians,

in the UK Government

and European Commission

and the Irish Republic,

and with the Northern Ireland

executive to come up

with the imagination that

allows that to continue.

I'm excited about the opportunity.

You're talking about businesses

following the easiest route.

If there isn't a soft border

between the Republic

and Northern Ireland,

the easiest route would be to go

from Belfast to Liverpool,

Belfast or to Stranraer,

rather than go Dublin to Holyhead.

That could be really damaging.

That's why we are

thinking imaginatively.

What is the answer than?

Well, in the cabinet earlier this

week it was discussed again,

and we talked about the various

approaches we could take,

please rest assured that this

is alive to our thinking.

We recognise the opportunities.

I point you towards

the industrial strategy,

it talks about growth corridors.

I think this is an exciting

opportunity for North West Wales

and south-west Wales.

Just one go on this again,

just before we move

onto the industrial strategy,

other growth corridors,

you are saying that you are alive

to the problem in Holyhead,

you say that you have

to be imaginative in how

you come up with answers,

but there aren't any concrete

answers yet, are there?

And that is going to lead

to uncertainty, isn't it?

You will rightly understand

that this is a negotiation.

And we want the same outcomes

whereby businesses will trade

as freely as possible,

we want North Wales

and South West Wales

to have the same opportunities,

because this is so important

to trade with the Republic

of Ireland, and Northern Ireland,

and the UK.

I promised that we'd come

onto the industrial strategy.

One of the things that seems

to be fairly key there,

from a Welsh perspective,

is these growth corridors.

As you've called them.

Linked in, if you like,

North East Wales with North West

of England, Manchester,

Liverpool, and South East Wales,

Cardiff, with Bristol

and the South West of

England's economy.

Doesn't that ignore,

to a large extent, the existence

of devolution, of Wales as a sort

of political entity?

I think it's important that we make

politics fit business,

rather than business fit politics.

So let's be frank if

you are in Deeside,

or if you are in Wrexham,

clearly, your nearest

commercial centre would be

Liverpool and Manchester.

The deeper that we can

develop that relationship,

the better it will be on the Welsh

side of the border as well as

on the English side.

So if you notice, back

to the industrial strategy,

it talks about growth corridors,

on a cross-border basis.

If you look at the statements that

have come out from the budget,

we are talking about improving rail

links on a cross-border basis.

We are putting a new Holton curve

in that would allow direct routes

between Liverpool and Wrexham,

we've talked about the

Wrexham to Bidston line.

We've talked about improvements

of the main line across North Wales.

Of course, in south Wales,

on a similar basis, it will be well

recognised that we are abolishing

the Severn tolls.

These are not being done

as policies in isolation,

these fit into a much bigger plan

of tiling these regions together,

so let's take the south-west

of the UK, between Bristol,

Newport, Cardiff and Swansea,

we could have one of the biggest

digital clusters, for example,

in Europe and on the western side

of the UK, rather than always

looking to the bottom right hand

side of the country.

You are saying that you want

the politics to fit business,

is there an extent to which,

over the last 20 years or so,

you think it has been

the other way round?

Business had to fit around politics,

that it's been two Wales centred,

rather than Wales seeking

to expand its horizons?

Well, I want there to be

that devolution dividend

that we've talked about.

I think, in the past,

sometimes Wales has done things

for the sake of being different.

Sometimes it's important

that that happens,

and that is the right thing to do.

Sometimes, joint working

between the Cardiff City deal

region, and the Bristol,

or West of England authorities,

and the local enterprise

partnerships that exist there,

can also be important as well.

This is not either or.

Let's come to the best outcomes that

work for businesses,

because that then create employment,

it creates wealth,

and new opportunities for younger

people as they leave school.

I just wondered, because you know

economic development is a default

-- devolved area.

-- devolved area.

area, is there an extent

to which you are muscling in,

if you like, on the Welsh

government's area of responsibility?

Hang on!

It seems like I can't win,

because when there's

a closure of a factory,

the first question is,

what is the UK Government doing?

And if I turned around and said,

that's devolved, clearly,

I'm not doing anything,

then people would rightly

judge me on that basis.

I'm taking proactive,

positive steps, to work

with businesses, local authorities,

and with the Welsh government,

and local authorities on both

sides of the border,

in order to come up with outcomes,

and create that critical mass.

To create that cluster.

So let's take the Cardiff City deal,

we've signed a fantastic,

compound semiconductor cluster

in Newport and Cardiff.

Associated with the university,

and a catapult with the UK

Government scheme.

This is a world first.

There are industries on the Bristol

side that will really

want access to that,

and want to be part of it.

If we can create the cluster

on a bigger scale, then that makes

it much more sustainable

in the longer term.

And if you think of what communities

are associated with that,

some of the most deprived

communities in the valleys,

that really would profit so much...

Why not try to concentrate

on the businesses in Swansea,

that could be benefiting,

rather than Bristol?

That's how the argument will go,

the Secretary of State for Wales,

and here you are, benefiting

Bristol, which is mutually

beneficial, but there might be

opportunities in Swansea,

Llanelli, Wrexham, Bangor as well?

Llanelli, Wrexham, Bangor as well?

So why are you telling me that

abolishing the Severn tolls

won't help businesses

in Swansea either?

They will help the whole

of South Wales, so let me highlight

another example then,

as part of the industrial strategy,

are the sector deals,

we've talked about steel

as being important to the strategic

future of the UK economy.

And as the Swansea Bay city deal,

we've got the steel science Centre

between the University

and the industry.

It is not just Tata steel.

The industries around that area,

that is another cluster

that we are seeing.

This is not just focusing

on the bottom right-hand side

of Wales, if you like,

this is focusing on where industry

already has strengths.

Does Wales need an extra five

offices abroad to boost trade?

Welsh Ministers say they do,

particularly to attract

business after Brexit.

Others have told us it's more

complicated than having a building

with a brass plate on the door.

So what exactly do these offices do?

Here's Cemlyn Davies.

Here's Cemlyn Davies.

Have you always wanted to work

overseas? In Paris, perhaps? Or

maybe Dusseldorf or the throbbing

heart of Germany, Berlin? Till close

to home, what about Montreal or the

Middle East and paradise of

Delaware? With new offices due to

open in the city is the Welsh

government may soon have just the

job for you. Yes, the Welsh

government is increasing its

international presence, because of

Brexit, ministers say they have to

look for new opportunities to

attract investment and sell Welsh

goods overseas.

We've picked,

strategically picked, five new

offices in five new locations, where

we know there is potential for

further exporter, where it is

essential that we build networks and

give businesses access to

decision-makers.

Three of those

locations are within the EU, in

Germany and France, at the moment

60% of Welsh exports go to the EU.

Given that, do you need a stronger

presence in Europe? Is this all with

Brexit in mind?

Party, what we have

said is that we don't wish to only

protect the amount we export to the

EU, we want to make sure we continue

to build export opportunities

globally.

Right next to Gordon Brown

as he walks down the stairs.

Dick

Brown was a Trade Minister, he

supports the plan, but as a warning.

You have two be careful that some

people back at the ranch will stop

trying. They'll think, it's been

done. It doesn't need us. Leave it

to the office. Even subliminally,

people will think it doesn't matter

any more. You couldn't be more

wrong. An office is only as good as

the input they have, and the

products they can sell. And the

companies that help them. The

offices are good catalysts, it's a

good route, but it can't do it on

its own.

The Welsh government has 15

offices overseas with staff based in

seven foreign countries. The total

cost of running round last year was

around half £1 million. There are

five in the US.

We are one of the

large investors, the largest

investor in Wales. This is important

for the US. We can have more trade,

generate more interest, and more

vitality on both sides through

policies like taxation and

regulation and encouragement, I

think, is could benefit both sides.

That one is going to China. Julia is

based in Cardiff, and had support

from Welsh government staff working

overseas. She went on her first

trade mission in 2004, soon

afterwards she secured an order

large enough to allow her to give up

her day job was she's since been on

many more Welsh government business

trips, including several to the Far

East. That's where most of her

orders come from recently.

Last year

about 90% of my sales went to Hong

Kong. I go on trade missions, but

that market research at the

beginning, where somebody living in

Hong Kong who was contracted by the

Welsh government is to be there and

find the people for me to start off

with. That was crucial. The money I

bring in doesn't stop with me. I use

Welsh companies.

Julia says her

business would have died years ago

were it not for government support.

Others of the scheme overseas with

figures showing exported to the

countries where Wales has a presence

actually fell between 2013 and 2016,

by 55% to Japan, 22% to Belgium, and

13% to the US.

What we identified is

that there is no correlation between

the siting of offices and an

increase in exports and investment.

We need to be able to close the

circle and make sure the offices are

delivering for the Welsh economy.

Bridges for Welsh businesses.

Boots

on the ground is not sufficient.

What you need is a physical

presence, but you also need a

strategy. We need to be clear about

where the opportunities are and

where the threats are in terms of a

reduction of export that's what we

don't have.

The Welsh government

disputes figures but new performance

indicators are being introduced to

boost results and match success in

the future.

We need to make sure

that anybody who works for the Welsh

government abroad is aware of their

purpose and aware of the

expectations that Welsh government

have on them.

The five new offices

open next year, and will be expected

to paint a positive picture of Wales

to the world, and allow Welsh

businesses to make their mark

internationally. If that doesn't

happen, the Government will have

questions to answer.

questions to answer.

Tomorrow MPs will debate

the so-called Welsh and Scottish

amendments to the Brexit Withdrawal

Bill.

Carwyn Jones and Nicola Strugeon say

the bill is a "power grab"

by Westminster at the expense

of Cardiff Bay and Holyrood.

UK Ministers say that's not true,

so where does the truth lie?

Doctor Jo Hunt from Cardiff

University's Wales Governance Centre

is here to explain it all.

is here to explain it all.

Hopefully! It's essentially that

some of the powers will be

returning, which are devolved, and

the UK Government says we will hold

onto them for now. The Welsh and

Scottish Government say, no, we'll

have them now.

In a nutshell. We've

got two days coming up next week

where the House of Commons will be

looking at the devolution clauses,

they are now part of the withdrawal

bill. Clauses ten and 11. 11 is the

one that is causing headaches, the

controversial one. It's about where

does power go. At the moment we've

got those devolution statutes, the

Government of Wales act, and the

Scotland act, that set out

distribution of power. Those areas

where the Welsh government and Welsh

Assembly, Scottish Parliament and

government are primarily responsible

in policy areas. The big one is

health, and education, but

agriculture and fisheries as well.

We have seen some cooling and

sharing of powers in lot of these

areas as part of the EU. They are

seen at the moment as law comes from

the EU implemented the UK. By London

and by Cardiff and by Scotland. The

issue is when those powers come back

do they follow the devolution

settlement is, and the Welsh and

Scottish Government are making it

clear, yes, that is where they

should go. They should be scope for

policy decisions taken in those

areas. The UK Government says that

they need to press the pause button

and take these things back to

Whitehall and Westminster, and then

decide what might be needed for the

UK's future.

There was talk of a holding pattern.

I guess it comes down to the UK

Government saying, look, we expect

the devolved administrations to have

more powers at the end of this

process.

We just need to hold onto them for

now.

Is it a lack of trust between

Hollywood and Cardiff Bay towards

Westminster? Or is there something

else, a deeper problem?

The issue of trust is heard over and

over again, each side saying trust

us, we are not necessarily seeing

that reciprocated across the border.

This legislation is designed to be

transitional, temporary. But when we

look at the devolution clauses, the

ones that hold the power was back to

Westminster and Whitehall, and also

have implications for devolved

ministers, perhaps, when we look at

those provisions we don't see the

same temporary conditions. So that

clause 11 doesn't have the sunset

clause that we see across other

clauses. These will only last two

years. We don't have that clause 11.

The concern is that we are setting

in place a new constitutional

structure for the UK, that once

we've got it there may be difficult

to upend it. So the concerns around

this are about setting in train a

new distribution of powers, or new

defaults, for the future.

So what is

the workaround? It seems this

morning that the UK Government, to

an extent from Alan Cairns last

week, say we might amend the

legislation, what is the easiest

workaround, do you think?

From the

Welsh and Scottish Government

positions we know that the first

ministers are continuing to make the

position that they will not be

legislative consent from, it won't

be recommended, from their

parliaments or assemblies. If that

concerns are not dealt with. If we

look at clause 11, we hear about red

lines, but the one he says that if

that clause doesn't go the

legislative consent won't be coming

from devolved parliaments and

assemblies. So for the Welsh and

Scottish governments and parliaments

it seems to be that we are standing

by nothing less than removing that

clause 11. That could be done, and

there could be other forms of

memorandums, understandings and

agreements outside the legislation,

that say we agree. We will move

forward and work together in these

areas. And rather than these things

being imposed on us.

One of the

things, in agriculture, Alan Cairns

say we need a UK wide framework,

even though it is devolved you need

a UK framework, it's better to agree

that before passing on the devolved

element, does that make sense? To an

extent the Welsh and Scottish

Government will say, well, you could

devolved it and then we will agree

rather an agree on Ben devolved?

Those frameworks are already there.

We inherited them from the EU. EU

law has done that work. It made sure

we don't have substantial problems

as far as free movement within the

UK. We don't have great diversity,

and great divergence between

different parts of the UK in key

policy areas. Concerns are, when

that framework for the way, will

there then merge greater

differences, when we are using these

devolved powers? That is the demand

for common frameworks, to continue

those common frameworks. These

Scottish and Welsh government are

saying we accept and agree that it

is everybody's interests to have

these common frameworks, but they

have to be commonly agreed.

We will

be keeping an eye on it. For now,

find you for coming in.

For now, find you for coming in.

That's it from us for another week.

Don't forget about The Hour,

tomorrow on BBC One Wales at 10:40,

where the topic up for discussion

will be immigration.

You can follow us on Twitter

at all hours of course,

we're @walespolitics,

but for now that's all from me.

Diolch am wylio,

thanks for watching.

Time to go back to Sarah.

Welcome back.

Tom, Isabel and Steve

are still with me.

Let's talk about a couple of the

interviews we heard earlier in the

programme. Let's start with Michael

Howard. He was putting up a very

strong defence of Damian Green and

harsh criticism of the police who

had been speaking out saying they

had reservations about what Damian

Green had been doing with his

Parliamentary computer. We surprised

at that, is about?

Not at all. There

is much support for Damian Green,

including Labour MPs. It is in

relation to how the police have

behaved over this. There is

discomfort among MPs about how the

police were involved in this. Most

people will have forgotten the

various dramas around that some

years ago when police were invited

into the Commons over a leak

investigation. MPs feel that was no

place for officers to be and they

are uncomfortable about the leaking

of this confidential information. I

think the question now is whether

Damian Green has lied about what he

did although she is ago. To me,

personally, and too many Tory MPs,

whether or not he viewed pawn ten

years ago or however long it was

ago, it was clearly inappropriate

behaviour on an office computer.

Perhaps if he had acknowledged it

and said he was going through a hard

time, he might get away with it. If

it is proven he lied and he is

finished, whether or not there are a

lot of sympathetic MPs over the way

he is being treated here.

It is

interesting how many MPs are

sympathetic. David Davis has

threatened to resign from the

Cabinet is Damian Green went.

This

threatened to resign from the

goes back ten, 15 years of Tory

Party history. David Davis, Damian

Green and Theresa May or worked very

closely together. They were

horrified about the immigration

papers leaks. It was proven to be a

pretty bad thing that was done and

the police apologise. Moving on to

where we are now, it strikes me that

Theresa May is downed if she does

find Damian Green for being a

cover-up rather than the crime

himself, he has made a series of

statements about pornography on his

computer, it is not the possession

but how he tried to disguise it was

there. If she fires him, then she

will have terrible troubles with the

likes of David Davis and people

furious in the party, Andrew

Mitchell furious that the police are

calling the shots. If she does not

fire him, as some ministers in

government, some Tory MPs, who think

it is impossible for him to stay on

with the mess as it currently is and

his inconsistencies. She has made

this worse for herself by sitting

on, if not the full report but the

substance of it for some time now.

You think surely has the report that

has not looked at it yet.

She has

not seen the full report but has

been kept up to date with where it

is going and what the findings are.

She has been forced to take a very

tough decision, like Angela Merkel

always has and survived in politics

very well, by simply not taking that

decision, sometimes it works

brilliantly and events work-out but

sometimes it gets deeper.

Barry

Gardner was talking about Labour's

EU policies was that he would not

rule out a second referendum. He

made it clear it was not party

policy at the moment. I was asking

about Jeremy Corbyn saying he would

not rule out a second referendum.

Saying it was a possibility if there

was a two thirds threshold on it,

which is a new idea.

The position of

the Labour Party, and the smart one

for the time being, is to do what

Harold Wilson used to call keep all

options open. If there are big cries

for another referendum, opinion

polls from some of them who voted

Brexit when they see a deal, the

Labour leadership will come around

and say they will support a

referendum. They are being wholly

pragmatic about this, as most

opposition parties are when dealing

with Europe. Before 97, Tony Blair

was in favour of the single currency

but loving the pound. This ambiguity