10/12/2017 Sunday Politics Wales

Morning everyone and welcome

to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith and I'll be bringing

you your essential briefing

on all the top political

stories this week.

She's done the easy bit,

now comes the hard part.

As we move on to trade

and transition talks with the EU,

just what sort of deal

is the Prime Minister aiming for?

The issue of trade across the Irish

border is likely to dominate

those talks, we'll speak

to the Northern Ireland

Secretary James Brokenshire

about what he thinks a solution

to the problem could look like.

Momentum, the group set up

to support Jeremy Corbyn,

is facing allegations it's trying

to take over the Labour

party, we'll investigate.

Later in the programme: How much

money's needed to run the Assembly?

With an increase in the pipeline,

critics say it spends too much.

We'll hear from the

Presiding Officer.

Is the government doing enough?

Presiding Officer.

All that coming up in the programme.

Presiding Officer.

And with me today to try to make

sense of is all, three journalists

who are in full alignment with this

week's political developments.

Tim Shipman, Helen

Lewis and Toby Young.

The cliche that a week is a long

time in politics has

As Theresa May first appeared to be

the brink of collapse,

and then claimed victory with a deal

to allow Brexit talks to move

on to the next phase.

Deal or no deal?

The question that took

Theresa May to Brussels not

once but twice this week.

On Monday it seemed

it was all sorted.

Time to move onto talks about trade.

Then in stepped Arlene Foster.

Northern Ireland must

leave the European

Union on the same terms as the rest

of the United Kingdom.

So lunch was left to go

cold in Brussels as the

PM rushed home to try

and save the deal.

The problem ran along

the Irish border.

Did promises of regulatory

alignment mean Northern

Ireland would operate differently

from the rest of the UK?

Unionist alarm bells

could be heard in

Westminster where Theresa May

relies on their support.

While others saw their

chance to tell their own

bespoke Brexit deal.

So back to the drawing

board and a chance for

What an embarrassment.

board and a chance for

Shambles.

board and a chance for

The last 24 hours have

given a new meaning to

the phrase coalition of chaos.

There was a tricky

moment for the Brexit

secretary as he was quizzed over his

economic impact studies that don't

actually exist.

actually exist.

So there isn't one,

for example, on the automotive

sector.

On the automotive sector.

Is there one on aerospace?

No.

One on financial services?

I think the answer is

going to be no to all of

them.

Right.

By the Chancellor admitted

the Cabinet has not yet

debated future European

trading relations.

The Cabinet has had general

discussions about how Brexit

negotiations but we haven't had

a specific, er, mandate of the

position.

At Prime Minister's Questions

Brexiteers reminded the PM

they too had lines

they wouldn't cross.

Will she apply a new coat of paint

to her red lines because I

fear on Monday they were beginning

to look a little bit pink.

Talks through the night

on Thursday and

finally, white smoke.

Tweeted by Jean-Claude

Juncker's chief of staff

to signal a deal had been done.

4am Friday.

The red eye back to Brussels,

the Brexit Secretary's

face told the story of a long night.

A tweak of the words

and a deal agreed.

Sufficient progress has now

been made on the strict

terms of the divorce.

Not everyone was happy.

There are still matters

there that we would have liked

to have seen clarified.

The whole thing is a humiliation.

In a letter yesterday

Environment Secretary Michael Gove

said voters could change the deal

if they don't like it.

At the next general election.

At the next general election.

Let's unpack a week of remarkable

political developments with our

panel.

Tim, the papers are claiming a

marvellous victory for Theresa May,

but this is a problem of her own

making she managed to dig herself

out of?

The government announced

immediately they had got a deal and

it took them two and a half weeks to

nail it down. It is worth

remembering that when she went off

to Brussels to Jean-Claude Juncker

who said, don't come here unless you

are ready to go. Theresa May kicked

him out of his office for an hour

while she begged Arlene Foster to

get in line and initially, it wasn't

happening because they hadn't nailed

it down. People say, why weren't all

these civil servants and people who

know about how to deal with these

guys, engaged in this process? The

separation between the Northern

Ireland Office and Downing Street,

the whip office was negligent and

they should have been holding hands

with the DUP and Tilly was taken

over the line. Disaster was only

narrowly averted. They were saying

earlier in the week, this is a

catastrophe and Theresa May needs to

go.

But she pulled it out in the

end. We were talking about takeover

plots, Theresa May might lose her

job and now it is a victory.

When

you are talking about this, you have

to divorce the theatre around it and

the last-minute concessions, which

will not end. The question is what

happens when the Forge recedes.

Everyone has something out of this

deal because there is no clarity.

Arlene Foster said they wanted

clarity. Both sides when they get

the clarity will be unhappy, but the

question is what they will do about

it.

Toby, both people on both sides

of the Brexit debate in the Tory

party, who are claiming they are

very, very happy. They can't all be

happy.

I am not surprised the

Brexiteers our content. There are

various things the remain as

predicted couldn't be achieved. They

thought they would be a backbench

rebellion. Now that looks like the

divorce bill will sail through. A

lot of Remainers thought the state

is of EU nationals would remain

uncertain for long time. This makes

no Deal Brexit less likely that was

always the Remainers best of

reversing the result of the

referendum.

Now we're left with the

question, what does full alignment

mean. David Davis asked that that

this morning.

It means outcomes.

It means...

If I arrived in two

cars, they are next

to each other.

Well, Northern Ireland is next

to the Republic of Ireland.

Yes, and it will have next

to regulations, it will be very

similar.

There will be some similarities.

Again, the Prime Minister

laid this out in her

Florence speech.

She said there are areas

where we will want similar

outcomes and we'll have similar

methods to achieve them.

There will be areas

where we have similar

outcomes where there will be

different methods to achieve them.

That's going to be true of a lot

of product areas, a lot of

manufacturing.

There will be areas where we want

different outcomes and

we will use different methods.

That was clear as mud, Toby, what do

you think full alignment means?

I

don't think we should spend as much

time as you seem to want to,

discussing it. As Michael Gove

clarified, it doesn't have any legal

force. It doesn't have any binding,

legal force. It hasn't got to the

stage of the treaty. It might be

difficult to unwind because it is

the basis of an agreement. But

nonetheless, it is not binding and a

lot is left to play for.

It is what

got the DUP on-board, finding a form

of words which could be what you

wanted them to.

People wanting

immigration cut without the economy

taking a hit. The same thing with

the DUP, they want to stay aligned

to prison, but they don't want their

agriculture, Northern Ireland is one

of the biggest industries, to take a

massive hit from a hard border. So

you are trying to reconcile two

contradictory impulses. That Philip

Hammond clip is extraordinary saying

the Cabinet have a discuss where

they think this ends up in the end.

That is where the row will be.

Number Ten is specifically briefing

full alignment, so we haven't solved

anything.

It is a verb, he converge,

I don't do converge, we have full

alignment. The Conservative Party

managed to get through a general

election where they had half of

their supporters hardline. This may

help them keep the show on the road.

We will be talking to all three of

you throughout the programme.

So it was the arrangements

to avoid a hard border

between Northern Ireland

and the Republic that

threatened to scupper progress

in the Brexit talks.

And there remains confusion

over exactly what it

is that's been agreed.

Hopefully we can clarify some

of that with the Secretary of State

for Northern Ireland

James Brokenshire.

Thanks for coming in. Can we go back

to the beginning of the week and the

discussions with the DUP. Where you

involved in that?

It is worth

stressing this is a fast-moving

situation. When the Prime Minister

was in Brussels at the start of the

week, the text hadn't been agreed.

That is why we've got the conclusion

with the text effectively now being

able to go on to the second phase.

Where you part of the back and

forward between Number Ten and the

DUP?

I don't want to get into the

details, but I have been involved,

supporting the Prime Minister and

making sure we have got sufficient

progress and why we have the benefit

of moving into phase two, which is

worth we can solve the issues with

relation to Northern Ireland.

He was

a significant failure at the

beginning of the week to flight to

Brussels without the DUP agreeing on

the text.

It was a fast-moving

situation.

Why go for lunch with

Jean-Claude Juncker if there wasn't

agreed text?

It was to continue the

discussions.

The Prime Minister

didn't think she had a deal on

Monday, she went to Brussels knowing

there wasn't an agreement with the

DUP.

The text wasn't agreed, as I

have underlined on a few occasions

already in this interview. It is how

we have secured what we needed to

do. We needed to give that assurance

in relation to Northern Ireland's

constitutional status in ensuring

trade between Northern Ireland and

Great Britain could remain

unfettered. That is important and we

can now solve this on phase two.

The

agreement said there would be full

alignment with the EU in the event

of no deal. It doesn't say anything

how you will avoid a hard border if

there is a trade deal with the EU.

You are looking at paragraph 49 of

the agreement. First and foremost,

this is about securing a free trade

agreement. Secondly, if that isn't

sufficient you move onto specific

solutions to deal with the unique

circumstances of Northern Ireland.

Only through an agreed outcome, do

you move on to the issue of

alignment, which I'm sure we will

discuss further.

Your preferred

option is to have the free trade.

Absolutely.

Nothing has been solved

on how you avoid a hard border

between Northern Ireland and the

republic if you have a free-trade

deal.

We were never going to solve

this in the first phase how this

agreement, we want to secure is

firmly in Ireland's interest, given

the nature of trade between Ireland

and the whole of the United Kingdom.

That is why we go into this second

phase with confidence we can secure

the positive outcome, which is the

best way to solve this.

The Irish

Taoiseach says it is clear in which

way it is going. He says we believe

the UK and Northern Ireland will

remain in alignment with the EU. Is

that your understanding?

I think he

underlines we could come to

different arrangements. It wasn't

about the same, somehow we would

stay within the customs union, the

single market. We are not. The text

says clearly, we are leaving and

Northern Ireland will be part of

that. Having shared outcomes may

mean we may achieve that to the same

or substantially the same way, or

very differently.

It cannot be too

different if you have to maintain

this idea you don't have a hard

border between Northern Ireland and

the republic. How does this allow

you to strike free trade deals with

the United States for instance, if

you have got to maintain either

alignment or come to some of the

United States for instance, if you

have got to maintain either

alignment or come to some other

border solution?

Let's take a couple

of examples. In relation to data

daylight, have your prescription

service nor those -- north or south

of the border. How that can converge

between Ireland and the UK. Things

like agriculture.

Let's talk about

agriculture. If we were to strike a

free trade deal with the US, they

have made it clear we will have to

diverged from EU rules on some

agricultural standards, like

chlorine washed chicken, how can we

do the kind of deal the US will

insist on and still maintain these

border arrangements?

We are yet to

get into those discussions.

They

have been to London and they have

said, if we stay too closely aligned

with the EU we will be able to get a

deal with the US.

We're not going to

somehow compromise our food safety

standards to have a race to the

bottom. That is why knowing the

integrated nature of the food sector

on island, is why we said we are

proud to look at alignment with

agricultural standards.

That tie

your hands. Why does the former

Brexit minister himself say it will

handicap our ability to enter into

free-trade arrangements?

We have

difference across the United Kingdom

over some of these devolved issues.

It doesn't create barriers within

the UK market. We are compliant with

the same rules as the EU and it is

positive decisions we might take.

When it comes down to this issue,

there won't be this race to the

bottom in relation to standards.

It

is important to understand. You are

tying the government's hands in its

ability to strike the free trade

deals that was supposed to create

the optimistic post Brexit future

proclaimed by the government.

It is

why we want to yes, secure the

positive free-trade agreement, Abbas

Bogue agreement with our EU

partners, but equally, which we

don't have, the flexibility to

negotiate trade deals around the

world so have the benefit of having

to do that.

The answer to this free trade deals

is how you manage the border between

the Republic of Ireland and Northern

Ireland, that has not been answered.

We've set up the framework, we've

not been able to have these

discussions yet. That's why it was

so important, where it was a really

positive achievement that Theresa

May secured by moving into phase two

where we can do just that. To look

at all these different elements we

been working hard on with the EU

that need to be solved whether

through the free trade agreement,

whether through specific

circumstances to meet these issues,

and protecting the ability from

people to move from Northern

Ireland's, into the Republic, really

importantly underlining the

significance of the Good Friday

Agreement.

The Prime Minister

significantly said no deal was

better than a bad deal. What this

means in Brussels as if there is no

do we have to stay in full alignment

with the rules and regulations, is

that the possible?

Is the document

states, nothing is agreed until

everything is agreed.

In the

situation of no deal, nothing would

be agreed and that is the

circumstance in which this deal

kicks in...?

This document doesn't

commit in that way. We are not

contemplating a notable situation.

The Prime Minister has frequently

contemplated that, saying no deal is

better than a bad deal.

I think it

says this in a good way, to secure

this positive outcome that agreement

with our EU partners. We will only

do that if it is acceptable. Under

the no deal statements that the

Prime Minister has made.

When this

agreement says, in the event of no

deal, we will maintain full

alignment, you say this doesn't mean

no deal?

This document doesn't deal

with no deal. That's what I'm

saying. Paragraph five...

So in the

absence of agreed solutions the UK

will maintain full alignment with

the rules of the customs union?

Paragraph five scissors and

agreement being reached...

So you

need an agreement before you have

absence of agreed solutions.

It is

about the three tiered approach will

take, free-trade agreements, dealing

with unique circumstances and then

moving onto the alignment issues. It

is this three tiered approach that

will inform the negotiations. This

is why I say this provides us with a

positive backdrop to go into phase

two, to get positive outcomes in

ensuring there is no barrier between

the Republic of Ireland and Northern

Ireland. I take the positive

viewpoint, around getting agreement,

securing that bright positive future

for Northern Ireland and the UK as a

whole which is what that does.

James

Brokenshire, thank you. Tim, are you

a clearer? On what has been agreed?

Much less clear. What is the scope

of this alignment issue? If you

listen to government ministers, and

David Davis earlier and James has

said nothing that contradicts that,

you are talking about big areas like

agriculture and energy. David Davis

said it would cover four areas, is

put to someone in the Irish

government has said and covered 142

areas, there's quite a big gap

between them and we haven't yet

bridged that intellectually, it

seems.

And not much clearer on what

if there is no deal.

We would crash

out which would be definitely worse

than a bad deal. An appalling

outcome. I think the whole issue of

these agricultural standards is

fascinating because it reveals the

difference between the average Leave

voter and the average person on the

right, the free trader who is not

worried about safety standards and

is fine with chlorine tipped chicken

but we no one that free-trade Dale

got bounced out of contention one

thing that revolted people with the

idea of lower animal safety

standards, food covered in bacteria

then washed in chlorine. So you have

one wing of the Tory party who are

OK with that and people who voted

Leave who are not.

Is it still on

the table, this idea of no deal?

It

has to be, until we've concluded a

deal, because otherwise our

negotiating position is weaker. In

some ways the way that we've managed

to agree on what the status of EU

National 's would-be and what the

role of the ECJ would be for eight

years after we leave, suggest that

even in the absence of a trade deal

or even a transition deal being

successfully negotiated we could

nonetheless put a minimal deal in

place which could guarantee the

rights of UK National is here and

British nationals in Europe. So in

that way it makes no deal a little

less unpalatable but I think we will

still get a deal.

Thanks for that.

Well, discussions of

what the government wants its final

deal to look like also brings

into focus what Labour's

plans would be.

Speaking this morning Labour's

Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer

argued that Britain should remain

as close to the EU as possible.

How we negotiate that agreement

with the EU is a matter for

negotiation.

It doesn't mean it's cut

and paste, but we do have a

choice, do we want to stay aligned

so we can trade successfully or do

we want to tear apart?

And I say we should stay aligned.

We are talking about

what sort of Britain we are

going to be and what the next 40

or 50 years might look like.

I don't think anybody

voted to make it

harder to trade with Europe.

Emily Thornberry, Labour's shadow

foreign affairs spokesperson, is

with me now. Thank you for coming

in. That was Keir Starmer this

morning. I don't want to put words

into his mouth or yours but I

interpret that as saying, we are not

staying in the single market, that

is not the Labour position but we

want to maintain many of the

arrangements we have with the single

market. Is that right?

We've always

said we have to accept the results

of the referendum, we have some

tests to be abided by to get a good

deal so we need to be able to get

the full advantage of access to the

single market and the customs union.

To achieve that what Keir Starmer

seemed to be saying was that was a

closely aligned to the rules and

regulations of the EU, possibly even

pay for access to the free market

and while free movement of people

wouldn't he said they should be easy

movement of people from the UK to

the EU and vice versa. Is that

really respecting the referendum

result?

We have to leave the

European Union that there's no

reason why we don't need go a long

way. It would not be respecting the

referendum and the sentiment that

has expressed during the referendum

if we did not move, after leaving

the European Union, to a system

where we had fair rules and managed

migration, so people could easily

travel across Europe and those that

we need to have an ox economy - this

we need an our economy can stay and

that will help us.

If we are staying

closely aligned to the rules and

regulations of the EU why we have no

say in the formation of those rules

how is that taking back control?

We're going to leave and it seems to

us that people wanted to leave, they

wanted some form of control over

migration and fair rules and managed

migration is what we want but they

did not vote to lose their jobs

offer their neighbours to lose their

jobs. We need to prioritise the

economy and trade when it came to

negotiations and people should be in

no doubt that our biggest trading

partner is the European Union. It

would be economically ridiculous for

us to march off into the Atlantic

and say, we are turning our backs on

the European Union. To go into deals

with them we'd need the same rules

when it came to our exporting of

carrots or anything else. If you

want to export vacuum cleaners to

Europe they need to have the same

safety standards as the rest of

Europe.

Do you think people who

voted to leave will be happy that we

would follow and mirror the rules

and regulations of EU when we have

no say in their creation now, we

become will takers and not makers?

What we've said is that we need an

interim period when we negotiate

properly and have a long-standing

relationship with EU. When it comes

to exporting goods clearly we need

the same standards and don't want to

undercut European standards, nobody

wants and implement controls, we

need all these things to be less in

Britain than in the rest of Europe,

well, some Tories do but we don't

and we are clear about that.

That

would constrain our ability to sign

free trade deals with other

countries. The more closely aligned

we stay with EU the less movement we

will have to sign a new deal with

the USA for example.

What we need is

a custom-built arrangement between

Britain and the rest of Europe. We'd

need to be in a form of the customs

union and closely aligned to the

single market and that might give us

room to make the that is something

we need to be involved in

negotiation...

That is clearly of

secondary importance to you, the

ability to strike new deals with

third countries.

We've always been

pragmatic, most of our trade has

been with EU. We're just stating a

fact and we shouldn't put the kibosh

on that.

Are you happy with the

agreement Theresa May struck this

week?

Really don't understand it.

I've looked at it, I don't

understand. I think probably what

she is doing is she's rubbed at some

of her red lines, and that's good

because you shouldn't go into

negotiations with hard red lines

like she has. I don't understand how

on one hand she is saying she's

going to align and on the other hand

will be out of the single market on

the customs union. It doesn't really

make any sense to me.

I thought that

was the position you said Labour

win, leaving the single market on

the customs union but wanting to

stay aligned to Europe and is

regulations...

They say they've

swept any form of customs union of

the table. That's what I understand.

She is swept away any suggestion

that the European Court of Justice

would have anything to do with any

rules. She seems to be busily

putting them back on the table

again. That's probably a good thing.

What a waste of time. Because

wouldn't it have been good to have

began on a pragmatic, realistic

basis and we might have got further

than we have now. We are running out

of time.

What is Labour's answer to

the question of the border between

the northern Ireland and the

Republic of Ireland, how do you

avoid hardboard?

The further we go

from the EU, the harder it is to

have a soft border. What we have

said without that a form of customs

union is a viable option. Melbourne

has come up with any other

suggestion.

This idea, it says in

the agreement that was struck with

EU in the absence of any other

agreement, this idea that we would

maintain the full alignment with the

rules and regulations come you are

satisfied that it works well for the

UK and EU and solves the border

question?

Of course there has to be

a form of alignment, of course the

European Court of Justice need staff

an ongoing relationship with British

justice in the way we put forward

rules when we are working with the

rest of the EU. Why have we denied

at all this time, it is self-evident

and continues to be so.

It is

proposed that an amendment be put

forward that would give MPs a

meaningful vote on this while there

is still time for more negotiation

rather than at the end of

negotiations, will Labour support

that?

We have always said this. From

the outset we have said, why should

parliaments across the rest of

Europe have a vote on this, and the

European Parliament have a vote, the

people of Walloons will have a lot

in it, why not the British people?

That has to be a meaningful vote. --

one at the British Parliament. They

will have to factor in what the

British Parliament thinks. And many

people in the British Parliament

will not accept no deal, for

example. If they think they are

going to come to the British

Parliament with no deal is an option

they have another think coming.

There's another amendment to the Lib

Dems want, to put forward the option

of remaining in the single market.

Vince Cable has said it is

specifically designed to flush out

the Labour Party by asking straight

out will you support this amendment

or not with the option of staying in

the single market. How would Labour

vote on that?

We are leaving the EU,

we need a custom made deal with the

EU. We need to be able to respect

the views of the British people as

expressed in the referendum and one

debate was about ensuring that we

have more control of migration.

We've been told that the four

freedoms mean we can't stay in the

single market as it currently is so

we need a different deal. Those

other things we should have focused

on rack from the outset.

Emily

Thornberry, thank you very much for

coming in this morning.

There have been a number of reports

in the press recently accusing

the Labour pressure group Momentum

of forcing serving Labour

councillors off the ballot paper

for re-election in favour

of their own candidates.

Sources close to Momentum argue

they are simply helping to reflect

the new make-up of the Labour Party.

So is there any truth

in the allegations?

Elizabeth Glinka has been

to Brighton to find out.

They say to keep your

friends close and your

enemies closer, and in

the

Labour Party in Brighton they are

very close indeed. Here, as in many

other parts of the country,

there are suggestions that Momentum

is attempting to seize control and

ultimately replace sitting

councillors with candidates of their

own choosing.

own choosing.

Two weeks ago Momentum won

all nine positions on the

committee which will organise

the selection of candidates

for the next City Council

elections in 2019.

Local activists have spoken

about installing the first Socialist

council in the city, the implication

being that the current Labour

council is not quite

socialist enough.

If you talk to people from Momentum,

they will say to you, we

have brought in all these

new members, they're

full of enthusiasm,

why shouldn't we have our people

moving in to take over the party,

we are the future of the party.

we are the future of the party.

we are the future of the party.

Is there bullying

going on in Brighton?

I think there has been.

And I think that has

predominantly been from people

outside the Labour Party

and it is not acceptable.

Wouldn't be accurate to say that

Momentum members and

some of the new Labour Party members

are mobilising against the existing

councillors?

I think there has been some chatter

about that and a lot of

that has been from those who are not

in the party at the present time.

Once people are not members

of the Labour Party,

they can't share our values

and therefore they should be

excluded from Momentum.

And that would be a way

to unify the party in

Brighton and Hove and

around the country.

As a former minister in the Blair

government you might expect of

a captain to take that view.

I spoke to a number of Labour Party

members who said they had

experienced intimidation and that

Momentum was authoritarian

and brutal to existing councillors.

None would agree

to appear on camera.

While I was in Brighton a Momentum

activist posted this video and

social media.

The faces of three Labour

councillors including the

council leader had

been superimposed.

Something I put to a local

Momentum organiser Greg

Hadfield, who is currently suspended

from the Labour Party.

I haven't seen it so I'm not

going to comment on it.

And you think that is?

I'm happy to get

back to you and have

considered view but

I haven't seen it.

I have spoken to a number of people

across the party in Brighton

and Hove, some of them tell me that

Momentum are using bullying tactics,

that the party is very divided

and they feel not able to speak up

and air their views.

They are saying that on the record?

Because I think that's

shocking smears.

What we have seen in

Brighton and Hove in the

last 18 months is a massive upsurge

in democratic, decent democratic

engagement with party members.

Anyone who says that,

first of all they are lying,

but also they don't have the best

interests of the party.

Would you like to get

rid of the current

cohort of councillors

in Brighton and Hove,

the Labour councillors.

I would love it for

members to elect the best

representatives of this

Labour Party that they can.

If that is bullying,

if that is not democratic, if that

is deselecting, then people

saying that have a very

strange view of democracy.

Overnight Labour suspended

the member who posted the video.

He denied was anti-Semitic

and issued an apology.

Away from Brighton

the deselection of Labour

councillors in Haringey

and in other London boroughs has

made the national press.

There have been deselection

is in other places as

well including Hastings

and by just aware the

former mayor is among

the casualties.

I think we need a cultural

message from the top.

Momentum clearly have a place

in the Labour movement now

although they are not affiliated

with the party

formally they have brought energy

and ideas to the party.

That is no bad thing.

But Jeremy Corbyn is not just

the party leader but the

figurehead of momentum,

he has to send a message

to all his troops,

if you like around the country,

saying perhaps, not in my name.

Having spoken to people

from across the

Labour Party in Brighton,

there are those that

will tell you that the party is more

united than ever before

and they are incredibly positive

about the future.

But on the other

side even people who

describe themselves as being

on the left say they feel despondent

and that the atmosphere can only be

described as toxic.

Well we asked Momentum if someone

could come on to discuss the issues

raised in that film but no

one was available.

Never mind, we have our panel of

experts. Helen, is it perfectly

legitimate for momentum to get their

own candidate selected. They are in

the ascendancy now, so why shouldn't

they have more candidates?

They have

a legitimate position and they are

entitled to push it forward. But it

is controlled by two Private limited

companies and the data is in the

hands of one man. They talk about

progress and the Fabians, it is

around Jeremy Corbyn as a person.

The third thing, they are very

successful in terms of making viral

videos and they are an effective,

organising force and that is why

people are so worried.

Momentum do

show the way politics is going, they

are fantastic at mobilising people,

reaching their supporters and doing

it in different ways, are centrists

in the Labour Party frightened by

their success?

Definitely and that

is why they haven't been able to put

up a better fight. To claim this is

an undemocratic, because votes have

been taken before Momentum takes

control like the Brighton & Hove

Albion are to, is absurd. It isn't

democratic because a small neo-Nazis

calls will be holding the Labour

Party to ransom. It doesn't matter

whether they can sit out at these

meetings until 2am until moderates

have to go home. It doesn't make it

a takeover, it is definitely not

democratic as it would be if Britain

First took over the Labour Party.

Is

that fair?

The problem is calling it

tiny. It isn't tiny any more. The

last lot of people campaigning on

the streets for Labour were involved

in Momentum. If you look at their

social media, 60% of voters saw a

Momentum video on their Facebook

feeds during the general election

and Momentum spent £2000 on it.

Everything else spread virally.

There is a popularity and yes they

are a bunch of old leftie Marxists,

but on the other side there is

people cheering the Jeremy Corbyn,

they have come together and it is a

powerful force and no wonder the

Blairites and motorists are worried.

It is a form of bullying?

You have

these optimistic people who want to

change the world, tied up with a

group of people who are effective

organisers and behave in a

substandard way a lot of the time.

To compare them with Britain First

is over the top. To compare it with

an organisation whose explicit

purpose is to advance racist

propaganda is unfair.

We will leave

that therefore now.

It's coming up to 11.40,

you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up on the programme,

we hit the streets to find out

if people are looking on the bright

side of Brexit.

I'm with Christmas shoppers

in Basingstoke to ask,

when it comes to what we may get

in that final Brexit deal,

Hello, and welcome to

Sunday Politics Wales.

In a few minutes' time: The Llywydd

tells us it'd be irresponsible

not to have more AMs,

with a report expected

to say more are needed.

And after breakfast

in Brussels, how's the PM's

deal gone down at home?

One of her senior backbenchers

will be here live.

But first, we've heard time and time

again on this programme

about the difficult decisions

for public bodies facing

cuts to their budgets.

But is that austerity being felt

within the corridors of power

in the National Assembly?

The Commission, the body

which manages the day-to-day

running of the institution,

has secured a real-terms

budget increase for

the next financial year.

In a moment, we'll hear

from the woman in charge

of it, the Llywydd.

But first, here's Cemlyn Davies.

But first, here's Cemlyn Davies.

The Christmas decorations are up

in the Assembly, and under the tree,

there are brand-new powers waiting

to be opened.

With that in mind, there's an extra

present in store this year,

more taxpayers' money to spend

on running this place.

This budget will ensure

that the Commission can address

the challenges that face

the Assembly imminently

and in the longer term and properly

support the delivery

of our strategic goals

while being mindful of the wider

public-sector financial position.

The Commission which runs

the Assembly buildings

and employs its staff

will see its budget grow next year

by 4.3%, or £2.3 million.

That's a real terms increase.

But even then, it will only

represent 0.35% of the total funding

Wales gets from London.

However, with the local government

budget being cut by 0.5%,

several council leaders are angry.

One described the

decision as a joke.

Another said the

increase was galling.

Some MPs understand

their frustration.

I think they've got

a reasonable budget.

Local authorities are taking

on extra responsibilities

and extra obligations.

And yet they're being

expected to take cuts.

So I don't see why,

basically, there's one rule

for the Welsh Assembly and there's

one rule for local authorities here.

They need to set an example

and show that they, too,

can find cost savings,

just as they're expecting

local authorities to do.

The Assembly Commission was recently

criticised by some for spending

£1.8 million refurbishing this

corridor, creating

a brand-new committee room.

A spokeswoman said the changes mean

the Assembly can make more

cost-effective use of this part

of the Ty Hywel building.

But critics say the expenditure

shows austerity clearly doesn't

apply in the corridors of power.

apply in the corridors of power.

Those concerns were expressed

again as the Commission

asked for more cash.

Though the plan was eventually

agreed by AMs without objection.

Will you not accept

that the Commission of this Assembly

cannot be immune from the austerity

that the rest of the public

sector in Wales is facing?

It's certainly not immune to needing

to make efficiencies where it

possibly can make them,

and you'll have noted,

being a member of the committee,

that efficiencies have been made

in staffing and contracts

over the previous years.

But we're also in the position,

as you heard during my opening

remarks, where this Assembly,

this Parliament is taking on huge

new responsibilities.

Some of them coming via legislation,

some of them coming

through the general ambition

that we all have for this to be

a world-class Parliament.

We really appreciate that there's

been a high-quality investment

in services and support staff

for Assembly members,

but we also think that that has

taken place and is taking place now

in an area of austerity

when all public services

are being challenged.

We think the Assembly Commission has

to meet that challenge.

The Assembly Commission isn't alone.

The body responsible

for the Scottish parliament is also

seeking a budget increase of 5.4%.

That's partly to cover

one-off relocation costs,

but also to help Holyrood cope

with additional

demands due to Brexit.

The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate

Body also says it will need

to recruit extra staff.

It currently employs 501 people.

Just 50 more than the Assembly

Commission, even though Holyrood

as twice as many members

and considerably more powers.

The Assembly Commission says

the staffing numbers are similar

because it's already been looking

ahead and recruiting for the future.

Over the past ten years,

its staffing costs have doubled

to nearly £20 million.

And the number of employees

has increased by 50%.

The Commission has now agreed

to freeze staff numbers for the next

year after being asked to do

so by the Finance Committee.

Let's be clear, we get a very good

service from the staff

here and I really value that.

But we have to also think

about other public bodies in Wales

that are struggling with austerity

and are we immune to that?

We shouldn't be.

It has been in the past a way

of dealing with the pressures

on Assembly members to increase

the support staff, the research

staff, so that to a certain extent,

the burden is shared amongst a wide

number of people.

But, in the final analysis,

it takes one Assembly member to be

in committee or in plenary

and to express or challenge

legislation to hold the government

to account and no matter how many

staff you put around

that Assembly member,

there's only a certain amount that

one Assembly member

and one of 60 can do.

So we've got a situation almost

where we're putting a quart

into a pint pot and so we asking

the Assembly Commission

to re-examine and take time

to examine the exact needs

of staffing here.

If you're asking 60 members

to do the work of 90,

then they are going to

demand more support.

That's inevitable.

But in the same way,

we can't mollycoddle members.

So if members aren't up to the job,

it's not up to staff

to support them in that.

With the Assembly offices reaching

capacity, there had been

talk of a new premises.

That's been put on hold whilst

a review is carried out.

But the concerns remain,

particularly given

an eagerly-awaited report to be

unwrapped on Tuesday is expected

to recommend an increase

in the number of AMs.

The arguments over how much

the Welsh Assembly should

cost will carry on long

after the decorations

have been put away.

Plenty to talk to Elin Jones,

the Llywydd, about, then,

but when I met her, I asked first

of all about the report

being published in two days time.

It's expected to recommend

increasing the number of AMs

and possibly altering

the way they're elected.

This week, she said she thought

they were stretched.

So I asked her whether the current

set-up is sustainable?

I've been an Assembly

member here since 1999.

I was part of the class of '99,

as we call ourselves now.

At that point, we were an Assembly,

many called us a talking shop,

that's possibly what we were.

We were responsible for some

subordinate legislation

and much discussion,

but not much legislation

and action and delivering

for the people of Wales.

We are very different Assembly now

and we're likely to be even more

different in the future

as Brexit progresses.

We pass primary legislation

here that affects the daily lives

of the people of Wales.

We're about to take

on taxation powers, as well.

This is a very different

place to that Assembly

that was first voted for in 1999.

The pressures on Assembly

members are significant.

That's notto say that the rest

of the people of Wales

don't have pressures,

as well, but to do proper scrutiny,

to do proper work and pass proper

legislation in this place,

I want to make sure that we have

the capacity to do that.

I think we have to address those

issues and if we don't,

we are irresponsible.

I'm certainly irresponsible,

as the Presiding Officer,

in not having that discussion.

But wasn't it irrresponsible,

therefore, to press for more powers

if you could see at that time

that it was going to stretch

the AMs beyond what was

reasonable and practical?

Well, there were different

priorities, possibly, at that time.

Maybe we...

Many of us have been keen for this

to become a proper parliament,

certainly the people of Wales

were keen in the 2011 referendum

when they voted for primary

legislative powers for this

Assembly.

We've looked at various ways

of addressing capacity

of Assembly members here.

We've increased the staffing

complement to support

the Assembly members.

That's been a matter

of public discussion,

whether that's the right

thing to do.

But it's probably not the right

thing to do into the future,

to increase the number of staff that

support Assembly members whilst not

really looking at the core

problem that remains,

the number of Assembly

members here to do the very

many aspects of work,

both government and scrutiny that

needs to be done here.

You raise a point of the staff

working for the Commission,

so supporting the Assembly members.

And there's been a 50%

increase in those numbers

over the last ten years,

over 450 employees, which is only 50

fewer than the Scottish parliament,

which has twice as many AMs.

Is that a sustainable

way of going about it?

You mentioned there needed

to be more AMs rather

than more support staff.

But if you have more AMs,

you're going to have more

support staff, aren't you?

The cost is going to

go up and up and up.

Not necessarily.

I'd be very keen to scrutinise very

hard how we would budget

if we were to look to increase

the number of Assembly members.

It's certainly been the case

that there has been a deliberate

action to increase the number

of staff in order to provide

the support that AMs need in order

to enable them to sit on more

than one subject committee.

We have chairs of subject

committees here that sit

on other subject committees.

They can't properly do their work

of developing their committee work

whilst they're also sitting

on a very heavy workload

of another subject committee.

So all of that has to be

looked at to enable,

not the workload of Assembly

members, we have to shoulder that

and we know what we get

into when we put our names forward

for election, but it's

about doing the work properly.

It's not really for

the Assembly members here now,

but it's about the future.

And the future of this institution

is we've had the first 20 years

of devolution in Wales,

we are moving from a national

Assembly to a Welsh Parliament

and the legislative tax-varying

powers, Brexit implications on us

will mean that the next 20 years

are a very different 20 years

to the previous ones.

And we need to have the capacity

to do that work properly.

Sure.

But those people who opposed that

referendum in 2011, who said,

they'll just be asking for more

powers and more AMs and they'll be

asking for taxation powers

even though the referendum

explicitly said that

wasn't going to happen.

They're all justified

now, aren't they?

Because what's happening is you're

asking for more powers,

it's going to cost more,

and you're asking for more AMs.

Yes, but I don't think we're out

of sync with the people of Wales.

When you look at many of the views

that are sought from the people

of Wales in opinion polls,

they are comfortable

with the fact that we have...

With the status quo...

With the status quo...

And many consider that we should

have other powers.

There is a commission the government

has just set up on justice

and to look at where powers should

lie in the future on that.

Which could be more

AMs in the future.

Well, not necessarily.

Well, not necessarily.

We need to look at whether we have

the number of Assembly members

here to do the job of legislation,

to do the job of scrutiny

on tax-varying powers.

on tax-varying powers.

We are going to move to a point

where Brexit happens.

Interestingly, at that point,

there will be four MEPs that no

longer represent Wales

in the European Parliament.

That workload will shift to Wales,

much of it will shift to Wales,

and therefore, we need to think

about whether that has implications.

It already has implications.

We had to set up a new committee,

which may not seem much,

but it's done its work well over

the last two years

to prepare for Brexit.

to prepare for Brexit.

In fact, it's well in advance of how

maybe the Scottish Parliament has

done its work in preparing for

Brexit.

Do you think that an additional,

or an increase in number of AMs

might be more palatable

for the public if there

was a corresponding cut

in the number of Members

of Parliament in

Westminster for Wales?

Very possibly it would make

the discussion easier to have

because it would be a realignment,

but I don't think that it's

necessarily in tandem that one

happens and the other doesn't.

So we need to separate them.

So we need to separate them.

I'm very keen that we base

the discussion about the number

of AMs that we have here

on what happens here

and how we do it better,

rather than whether the UK

Government decides to decrease

the number of MPs, which may not be

related to the work that they do,

but rather to political

considerations.

I don't think we need

to relate our decisions here to UK

political priorities.

political priorities.

You've mentioned Brexit

a couple of times.

And you know that one of the reasons

people voted for Brexit was concerns

over immigration in Wales.

And you were saying in your speech

last Wednesday that you want

all citizens of the European Union

who live in Wales to be allowed

to vote in Welsh Assembly elections,

wherever they may be

from from across the world.

Given those concerns

about immigration, do you ever worry

that maybe you're out of touch

with the public on that regard?

There are people who voted for me

and people who voted against me

in the last election who I believe

should have the vote

in the next election.

EU citizens have had the ability

to vote for members of this Assembly

and I don't want them to lose that

vote as a result of Brexit.

They are citizens of Wales.

In fact, people who may have been

born in the US or in China are also

citizens of Wales if they live

and work here.

I think we need to have

a consultation with the people

of Wales as to the franchise

of the next election

to the National Assembly

when we have powers now to undertake

decisions on our own elections

here as a result of the Wales Act.

And I hope that the people

of Wales feel that those

people who live in Wales,

have a stake in the future

of Wales, have also a vote

for the next Welsh Parliament.

Diolch yn fawr.

Croeso.

This week we learned

that the by-election for Alyn

and Deeside will be held on 6th

February.

It, of course, follows the death

of Carl Sargeant last month.

There has been speculation

about who might want to be

the Labour candidate,

and today, Carl Sargeant's son,

Jack, has decided to throw

his hat into the ring.

Carl Sargeant was found dead last

month, four days after being sacked

by First Minister Carwyn Jones

and told allegations had been made

about his personal conduct.

His son Jack says putting his name

forward to be Labour's candidate had

been a difficult decision and one

he never thought he'd have to make.

But after a very tough

time for the family,

he now wants to carry

on with what he says is his dad's

good work in the constituency.

Our community has been

through some really,

really tough times over the last

years and decades and Dad himself

has been for them to help

as much as he could.

And I want to continue that.

I want to continue that for them

because this last month for us,

as a family, personally,

has been one of the toughest times

for us, and the community spirit

and the love and support offered

by them has been unbelievable.

I know that we can't

thank them enough.

So I want to continue the good,

hard work Dad gave us and also repay

them for the love and support that

they've shown us, as well.

It's understood Welsh Labour intends

to draw up a shortlist of candidates

with local party members having

the final say.

There have been warnings

of an independent challenger

unless the party chooses

a local, grassroots candidate.

Other parties have yet

to select their candidates

with the by-election on 6th

February.

So now we know that the first bit

of the Brexit process is done.

The so-called divorce bill,

the rights of EU citizens in the UK

and British citizens abroad,

and the Irish border.

Although it was a bit of a fudge.

Now the more difficult

decisions begin.

So, what will it mean

for us in Wales?

The Conservative MP

for Montgomeryshire,

Glyn Davies is here with me now.

Glyn Davies is here with me now.

essentially what happened on Friday

in Brussels was it was kicked into

to me and the second stage.

I think

last weeks decision is hugely

in getting to where people hadn't

expected her to get to. But it is no

point in pretending it's not. That

was the most important decision but

the hardest decision yet come. We

are moving on to trade. The Northern

before you can finally agree to what

that might be. That is why it is

how? We move on to discussions on

show trade. I should be priority be

trying to have as good a deal there

be more important than trying to

continue to be able to have a tariff

free trade as possible with the

world in mid Wales. It is massively

important. I also think we have got

to have the freedom to develop trade

with other countries globally. Those

are the two challengers. A lot of

the debate in matters matching those

too.

I guess the balance will be

watched you think is more important?

And from an agriculture and also

manufacturing steel and so on, is it

further afield just because you can

and may ignore the importance of the

EU it for Wales?

I don't think that

is necessarily going to be the case

at all. We have got to objectives.

Both are crucial. What we have found

in this last week, that is why think

it was so significant, the treatment

this week, it isn't just the UK that

one disagreement between Britain and

those challenges of this temperature

government. I think there will be a

do that. There will be a huge amount

of criticism. There will be people

there will be a hard border and yet

they want be a single customs union

Pembroke Dock in limbo.

-- Ali head.

I do not think that will happen. If

we have the free trade agreement we

want, that will not be a problem in

Ireland. This is why having a

definitive answer on the position is

not be a hard border between Ireland

and Northern Ireland. I think that

pick your brains about what we have

heard from Elin Jones about having

more powers towards the Assembly. Do

you feel that more aliens are needed

to cope with the extra demands?

I

think we're going to see this report

next week. -- Assembly members. I am

not against increasing the number of

Assembly members. The argument will

have to be made by Elin Jones and

very strongly which was devolving

income tax powers, if we give these

if we give this responsibility to

Assembly members who can't suddenly

say that they can't have been about

members they need to do it.

If you

are increasing, the other side is if

you are increasing the powers for

be a way of doing this more simply?

The current proposal is that a

number of MPs be reduced. I'm not in

favour of that. We're losing 73 MPs

think reducing the cost of politics

is crucial. It is a really important

objective but doing that by reducing

the number of MPs or indeed refusing

to contemplate increasing the number

of Assembly members of an argument

is made that it is needed, I do not

think that is the right approach.

But he very much for coming in this

morning.

That's it for another week.

Join us next Sunday for our

final programme before

the Christmas break.

Don't forget Wales Live on Wednesday

on BBC One Wales at 10:30.

Twitter never gets

a break, 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.

proposed by the government.

proposed by the government.

There is money in the budget,

for instance, the personal tax

credit is 1.3 billion and that

could wipe out the two child tax

credit limit that has been

introduced by the government.

We will have to leave it there.

My thanks to both of

you and now, back to Sarah.

Welcome back, I have got my

political insiders here who will

give us a peek behind the curtains

of what has been going on with the

big stories of the week. One of the

interesting thing is, after Theresa

May had done this deal in Brussels,

Michael Gove wrote a piece in the

paper yesterday which said if the

British people dislike the

arrangements we negotiate, they will

have the ability to change it, what

did he mean by that?

I think he had

a few things going on. First of all

he was effectively saying that the

wording in this communique doesn't

resolve the issue of how much

regulatory alignment there should be

between the UK and the EU, going on

into the future. That is helpful

because it means he can be loyal and

support the Prime Minister and

endorsed what she has done so far

without appearing to endorse some

sort of soft Brexit and it gives him

wriggle room to endorse further

concessions, if they are just

parking these issues, rather than

resolving them in stone. It gives

them the ability to exercise

flexibility in the future. The

wisdom within the party is, Theresa

May will probably step down after we

have left in 2019 and after that we

will look for somebody who is in

talks fight with having taken one

side or the other which would rule

out the Brexiteer is like Michael

Gove. But if we are just parking

these issues, and there will be

chants to debate them at the next

general election, it means somebody

like Michael Gove could be a viable

candidate.

It was interesting to

watch Michael Gove on Friday

morning, so supportive of the Prime

Minister as he did a round of media

interviews.

Is this part of a bigger

plan? Sometimes he is so supportive,

I think he is taking the make. He