14/01/2018 Sunday Politics Wales

Morning, everyone.

I'm Sarah Smith and this

is the Sunday Politics -

your inside briefing on all the big

political stories happening

in Westminster and beyond.

Coming up on today's show.

Coming up on today's show.

The decision to release serial sex

attacker John Worboys...

Does the Government now "look more

like the country it represents"?

After a tricky reshuffle, we speak

to one of the new faces sitting

around the Cabinet table -

the immigration minister

Caroline Nokes.

Does the Government have a clearer

idea about what our future

Later in the programme:

reconnect politics with the people.

And what's on the horizon

as we begin another

exciting political year?

All that coming up in the programme.

And sitting around our top

table today, I'm joined

by some familiar faces.

We tried a reshuffle

of our own but they simply refused

to budge: Tom Newton Dunn,

Julia Hartley-Brewer,

and Steve Richards.

Now, after a pretty bumpy 2017,

Theresa May actually went

in to the Christmas break

in relatively good political health.

So, what better way to kick off 2018

than by shaking up her top team

and reasserting her authority?

But as she found this week, things

don't always go according to plan.

If you're going to carry out major

surgery on your Government, you need

to be sure the prognosis is good.

to be sure the prognosis is good.

It was a picture of health

to begin with, a fresh,

new team at Party HQ,

but before long, complications

arose.

arose.

Justine Greening, who's had a rocky

time at Education, decided

she'd had enough.

She quit the Government

rather than accept a

sideways move.

While Jeremy Hunt refused

to budge from his job at

Health.

He even left his meeting having

added social care to his job

title.

There was a fresher look among

the junior ministerial ranks.

But when the new Cabinet met

on Tuesday morning, it looked...

Well, very much like the old one.

Normally loyal Conservative grandee

Nicholas Soames asked, "Is that it?"

The state of the NHS

then caused more pain.

Dozens of senior doctors wrote to

the Prime Minister saying conditions

in some hospitals were

becoming intolerable.

Patients were dying prematurely.

We have now clearly reached

the point where the NHS

cannot meet the standards

of care that we would,

all of us in the NHS,

ministers included, want to provide.

At Prime Minister's Questions,

the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn

pressed on the bruise.

We know the Prime Minister

recognises there is a

crisis in our NHS,

because she wanted to sack

the Health Secretary last week

but was too weak to do it.

Mr Corbyn announced his own

reshuffle towards the end of the

week, with a surprising

return to the front

bench for Clive Lewis,

who

has been cleared of sexual

harassment claims.

While two other Labour

MPs, Kelvin Hopkins and

Ivan Lewis, have been referred

to an independent disciplinary

panel over allegations

of sexual misconduct.

On Friday, US President Donald Trump

raised the temperature, cancelling

his visit to the UK next month

to open the new American Embassy.

Calling the decision to relocate

the building to an off

location is a bad deal.

His friends on this side

of the pond suspected

Just maybe, Sadiq Khan,

Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour Party

planning mass protests, maybe those

optics he didn't like the look of.

Nigel Farage also set

pulses racing with this:

I'm reaching the point

of

thinking that we should

have a second referendum because...

On what?

On EU membership.

The whole thing?!

Of course, of course.

The Conservatives

hope focusing on the

environment will bring

the party back to health.

The Prime Minister teamed up

with her new eco-warrior

Environment Secretary, Michael Gove,

to crack down on the use of

plastics.

We must reduce the demand

for plastic, reduce the number of

plastics in circulation

and improve our recycling rates.

It all seems strangely

reminiscent of someone who

once said, vote blue, go green.

In another tricky

week that's left the

PM looking a little

green around the gills.

Now, let's pick up on a story

which broke overnight: the new

Justice Secretary David Gauke

is considering a judicial review

of the decision to release

the serial sex attacker

John Worboys on parole.

Earlier this month the Parole Board

announced that he would be released

under strict licence conditions.

He was jailed in 2009 for a minimum

of eight years for drugging

and sexually assaulting 12 women.

However, it's thought he may have

carried out as many as 100 rapes

and sexual assaults on women

in London in the early 2000s.

I will take this to the panel first.

This is obviously a very emotive

case, and people get very worked up

about it, but the politics of the

Justice Secretary, Tom, asking for a

judicial review against the body

which is really under the

supervision of his own department,

this gets a little odd.

Justice

Secretary criticises Justice

Department shock. There is a whiff

of panic in the Government over this

now. I think David Gauke's decision

is emblematic of that. For whatever

reason, the Government have found

themselves on the wrong side of

public opinion on this. An appalling

mass serial rapist is about to be

let out of prison this week, having

served less than ten years for

crimes most of which he wasn't even

prosecuted for. They have seven or

eight days to do this judicial

review, and David Gauke has only

done it because he is under pressure

from other Cabinet ministers. The

entire Justice Department and

justice policy has really been

interested for up to seven years

because the Tory Government really

can't make up its mind between a

liberal justice establishment is

based on rehabilitation and less

time in prison and the more

traditional Tory authoritarian lock

them up and throw the key away

system, and the consequence is

today's decision. You have had five

Justice Secretary is, from the king

of soft justice himself, Ken

of soft justice himself, Ken Clarke,

and now David Gauke, so perhaps it's

no huge surprise that the system is

now in a bit of a mess.

If Tom is

right that the Government are

playing catch up on John Worboys

because of the huge public outcry,

is it nonetheless the right thing to

do?

It seems to me the parole board

breached their own rules. The

victims have a right to make

representations. We know that some

of the victims whose cases were

brought, and again, he is not

convicted as a serial rapist because

those cases one brought to court, a

decision made by Kia Starmer, then

the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The other fundamental issue is a lot

of what Tom was saying, that the

Tory Government is out of touch, as

I think all of the establishment and

party leaders are. Is this

ridiculous nonsense that someone is

released halfway through a sentence,

if you are sentenced to ten years or

whatever, you should be serving the

full sentence, and maybe six months

off for good behaviour, or better

still, more years on for bad

behaviour. I think the British

public think the justice system is

an absolute joke, and they think

that because it is.

You raise an

interesting point about what the

public care about versus what is

debated at Westminster. We spent an

enormous amount of last year talking

about Brexit, to the exclusion of

most other things. A few other

issues have raised their heads this

week, Steve. First and foremost, the

NHS has been causing more than a few

political problems for the

Government.

If Brexit wasn't

swamping everything, this would be

the overwhelming issue. Voters are

much more concerned about this than

anything else, with good cause. At

some point, there will have to be a

grown discussion about funding of

the NHS and how we pay for it.

Whether that will be possible in the

current climate I doubt. But I don't

think it's entirely impossible

because I think the crisis will

intensify. In a way, that has been

overlooked, that 2017 election

partly accepted miraculously in

British politics that to get

improvements in some services you

have to pay for it. So, maybe there

will be a grown-up debate, but don't

hold your breath. In the meantime,

it will be an issue that Theresa May

will have to keep at least one eye

on, as well as trying to negotiate

the impossible with Brexit.

At PMQs,

the Prime Minister said the NHS was

the best prepared it had ever been,

and doctors were saying that

patients were dying prematurely. In

the short-term, political damage

absolutely. The tanks are parked on

Labour territory there. The general

consensus in the country is not that

they trust the Tories on the NHS,

which is a big issue for them. A lot

of the problems are down to the fact

that we're getting older and living

longer, and there are amazing

treatments, operations and drugs

that can keep us alive. We see it as

a problem but it is a wonderful

miracle of modern science and

medicine and we should be grateful

for such problems.

The big news was

that we were going to get a

Government that looked more like the

rest of the country in the

reshuffle. It turned out not to be

quite as dramatic as some of us

expected. Was it a Government fail?

Depends how you define fail. It has

taken a few days for the penny to

drop, though I had my suspicions on

the night when some of the 20 15th

intake got no promotions at all. It

was a tell-tale sign. Was it a

success in that it stored to the top

of the buildings? Not really, she

just rearranged the deckchairs on

the Titanic. Caroline Noakes was

attending Cabinet rather than being

a full cabinet minister, but the

Theresa May managed to fend off the

vultures coming for her by

absolutely wilfully, it now appears,

failing to put key rivals into key

positions, people like Rory Stewart,

Dominic Raj, some of the 2015ers? It

was a public fail but digging in

privately.

Well, listening to all that is my

first guest, Caroline Nokes.

She was promoted to immigration

minister in the reshuffle this

week and, in that role,

now attends Cabinet.

Congratulations on the new job. You

are presumably part of the making

the Government look more like the

country. Did the Prime Minister

achieve that?

I think she did. Look

at the whip's offers, where there

are more women than ever before. I

remember coming in in 2010 and

looking at a wet's office that was

really mail.

Why can't we have 50-50

women in the Cabinet?

We are heading

in the right direction, there are

two more women in the Cabinet.

Even

the Scottish Government has a policy

of 50-50 in the Cabinet - surely

it's possible?

We started from a

very low base of women, even

elected. I think we're doing a

fantastic job of encouraging more

women to come forward, and from more

diverse backgrounds. It is a work in

progress but we are headed in the

right direction.

right direction. People like Kerry

bad not, who went to the same

university as I did, the University

of Sussex, hardly a breeding ground

for Tory politicians.

In the

Government, there are 3% non-white

people - not very representative?

We

have done a good job of attracting

more diverse people to come and

stand the rise in the Government.

Our messages, -- our message is,

we're working hard to make sure that

those bright, young women from

diverse backgrounds have a chance.

You know, it's a process, isn't it?

diverse backgrounds have a chance.

We are all climbing up the ladder. I

think the Cabinet looks better than

it did. I have always advocated more

women in Parliament, and the last

debate I did was about getting more

women to stand in politics, and that

really matters.

The big news this

morning is the idea that the Justice

Secretary may take a judicial review

against the release of John Worboys.

What is your view on that? Should do

just this minute himself be taking

judicial review is against this kind

of decision?

We will look at the

victims of Worboys and we want them

to get the support they need and to

see that justice is being done. It

is absolutely right that David Gauke

is looking at a judicial review.

None of us feel happy with the

parole board decision. This is a man

who served less than ten years, and

it's a horrific number of victims.

We can't see the parole board's

decision or the reasoning for it.

The Government could change that at

a stroke and allow them to publish

it. Should they?

The Justice

Secretary is reviewing the process,

which is important. We want people

to have confidence. Our justice

system is a very old and proud one.

Let's not undermine it. Let's make

sure we get the right decisions in

place.

Lets get onto your own brief,

your new brief on immigration. It

means you inherit the target of

reducing net migration to the tens

of thousands. The last five

ministers have failed, will you do

it?

The last five ministers have seen

the trajectory heading down, the

last figures we saw in the summer

show it dropped significantly.

It

dropped slightly, 14,000 lower than

when you came to power in 2010,

overall net migration at 240 4000.

We want to make sure this is a

brittle open for business, that the

brightest and best can come here to

work and study. We are listening to

the universities and to business via

the immigration advisory

committee...

So if we are open to

business and the brightest and best

come here why have this target of

reducing net migration to less than

100,000? Lots of Cabinet ministers

would like to get rid of it. You

could have lifted and the 2017

manifesto and got rid of quite a

headache.

We had a referendum in

2016 which sent a clear message that

people want that target to remain,

they want to see as reducing

immigration to sustainable levels

and we are doing just that. It is in

the manifesto so that is the

direction of travel.

Immigration

from outside the EU, you claimed

that once we leave everything will

change with freedom of movement, but

net migration from outside the EU

which you have complete control over

now, it's over 100,000 in and of

itself. Why hasn't that been tackled

in the seven years that this has now

been a target?

We are attacking it,

and we are doing this I have a

banking measures you have heard

about this week, working to make

sure that those with bank accounts

and are not here legally have those

Fresnel cursive necessary, that is

important, we have a raft of

measures but the current Home

Secretary and the previous one have

been clear on this, we will get

these numbers down and do it in a

manageable and sustained way.

It is

not what business one. The Tory

mayor Andy Street says the target

should be more like 150,000 so

businesses can attract people with

the skills they need and George

Osborne says this is economic and

made illiterate because we need

higher migration and that --

economically illiterate.

Which is

why we are listening to the

committee which will report in

September which will give a solid

expert economist's view on what

migration levels should be. But it

was in the manifesto, we are

determined to head in that direction

and bring immigration down to a

sustainable level.

If you're

immigration advisor comes to you and

says somebody like Andy Street is

right we need around 150,000 coming,

will you change it? Because this was

a manifesto promise to get it down

to under 110,000 a year, so what

will that looked like if you have

disabled we didn't get it right.

Am

not going to prejudge.

I and asking

what you will do with their view

because you are stuck with this

promise of reducing immigration to

tens of thousands, there's not much

you can do if they oppose that.

You

are telling someone who has been in

the job less than a week that she

should make a decision on the hoof

in a TV studio! Not a chance. What I

need to do is listen to the experts

and come up with the direction of

travel that satisfies those who

voted Believe in the referendum,

that satisfies businesses, like the

brilliant Russell group University

and the one in Southampton on the

edge of my constituency can still

attract the best students. This is a

really difficult complicated area.

He mentioned the need to attract the

brightest students. While other

numbers of students coming to

Britain to study included in the net

migration figures? You could help

yourselves quickly by taking them

out of it. Just about every Cabinet

member wants them removed from

official figures, why are they

there?

The O M as determinate

students should be included because

they are here for more than 12

months. We must make sure we have

the public services that support

them. Many of them go home after

their study as they should but it is

important that we work with the

immigration advisory committee to

get the right answers.

You are happy

about students being included in the

migration figures?

And happy we've

got 24% more coming to our

universities than we had in 2010.

I'm happy that we are attracting a

great calibre of student here, I'm

equally happy that our former

feminists are cracked down on bogus

colleges and close them because we

want bright students to come here

and in the -- that our former Prime

Minister cracked down on bogus

colleges and closed them.

Button

back to the panel, Steve Camille

can't envy the new Immigration

Minister being tasked with reducing

immigration to a level that no other

Immigration Minister has been able

to achieve.

I don't envy you, I

don't know your Private view but I

do note that most Cabinet ministers

don't want student numbers to be

part of the total figure and Theresa

May alone is still pressing this.

I've just been doing a series about

a David Cameron. He made a series of

targets which were never met, as you

said in the interview. Good luck

with that. Lots of people I meet now

who were in favour of Brexit, like

farmers, pleading, as you will know,

for cheap Labour from Eastern Europe

to continue. They don't want to fill

in loads more forms to get them. So

there's a lot of talk

there's a lot of talk about Nimby

free movement and you have a tough

brief.

Julia, should net immigration

be reduced to tens of thousands, is

it important to the public?

I find

it bizarre they asked to a target

they've never done anything to

reach, certainly the immigration

levels that they were able to

control under the coalition and

David Cameron on his own, the

numbers can't be controlled

completely, they never even came

close, it was more than double,

about 250,000. I find this row about

students strange. If you live in the

country for three or four years you

need somewhere to live, you'll be

getting buses and trains, might need

to go to the hospital, is that the

idea that these people don't exist

because they are not here

permanently? And some of them do

stay. It's ridiculous. We need a

sensible debate. Brexit wasn't about

ending immigration. It was about us.

Like virtually every other country

in the world choosing who gets to

come here. If you are qualified and

have a skill we need we would love

to have you, come on in, the water

is lovely! But if we just want cheap

Labour subsidised by the taxpayer

with a housing benefit, to do jobs

not paid enough, then I don't think

we should. When it comes to farmers

we should pay more for...

Julia has

given quite a good explanation of

why the target was set up and should

probably stay because if there is no

target, then cheap Labour will

continue to flow in because it's the

easiest thing for business to do. If

you are limited in who you can bring

in new might turn to the indigenous

British population and start hiring

them to do decent jobs they are

perfectly capable of doing.

The

panel will be staying with us

throughout the programme. Thank you

to Caroline Nokes, the Immigration

Minister, for coming in.

Now with all the other stuff that's

been going on this week,

you might be concerned we'd

forgotten about the small

matter of Brexit.

But don't worry, it's

still very much on the agenda.

Having sealed a deal

on the divorce talks,

the focus is now shifting

to the future relationship.

The EU says we can only

have an 'off-the-shelf' model,

like the deals with Norway

or Canada; but the UK Government

says we can be far more ambitious,

as Elizabeth Glinka reports.

# Do you have the time #

To listen to me whine?#.

In her Florence speech,

Theresa May made it

clear that when it comes

to

trade negotiations with the EU,

the UK isn't looking for any

off-the-shelf kind of deal.

It wants something

special and bespoke.

I'm optimistic about

what we can achieve

by finding a creative solution

to a new economic relationship that

can support prosperity

for all our peoples.

Before Christmas, the senior

official in charge of Brexit

told the Cabinet that

when it comes to that

creative solution,

they

should start thinking in terms

of three baskets, what some people

are calling managed divergence.

The Institute for

Government has been

looking at what it means.

Three baskets corresponds

to the three areas

that Theresa May spoke

about in her Florence speech.

We have full alignment,

where we will continue to

meet the same outcomes

in the same way as we do now.

Regulatory equivalence

is where we will

continue to meet the same

outcomes as the EU

but might go about it

in a

slightly different way.

And then the final basket

around divergence,

where we will go about things

in a different way and may choose

to take completely different

outcomes at the

end of it.

OK, so if we were to look

at particular industries, say

something like aviation, maybe

workers' rights, we might put them

in this basket because we are saying

not much is going to change.

It would be very difficult to put

whole industries and whole sectors

in specific baskets.

If you take agriculture,

for example, state aid

and how much overall we can

subsidise our farmers may well sit

in full alignment, whereas issues

about agricultural and environmental

protection standards,

we could continue to

meet the same goals

but

by different means, and they can sit

in the middle basket.

Whereas, actually,

exactly what we subsidise

our farmers for could be completely

up to the UK and sit in the

divergent basket.

So it would be very difficult

to put single sectors

in single baskets.

If the UK is looking

for a high degree of access

to the single market,

then the EU will expect

lots of things ending up in the full

alignment basket,

whereas the UK will probably want

to try and pull as much as possible

into the regulatory

equivalence basket.

Of course, the point of all this

is is to remind the EU that

when it comes to these negotiations,

the UK is in a unique position

because currently we

are completely in sync.

It's in the interests of Britain

and the EU to get on

together.

together.

People are thinking that it's

a binary thing, we are either

in the EU or we're out, that it's

night and day, but it isn't.

The point about

managed divergence is

that it does give us

much more flexibility.

We can decide for ourselves

which bits we want to keep

and which bits we want

to amend or get rid of.

And I think...

I think that's a huge opportunity.

Philip Hammond and

David Davies have been

on a charm offensive

in Germany this week,

so just how are those very British

baskets going down in

Brussels?

There is a concern that the UK

will take a shopping basket,

pick off the elements of the major

trade agreements the EU has secured

with third countries,

take all those together.

It gets the UK very close to full

membership of the single

market without any of

the obligations, so I think

they view managed divergence

as another way in

which the UK either hopes to cherry

pick or have its cake and eat it.

All member states will

agree that they can't

set a precedent with

the

UK that then sets internal

challenges for themselves over the

medium to longer term.

Now, what goes into

these baskets remains a

bit of a mystery, but of course,

there are deadlines because the next

round of talks is due to get under

way

this spring.

And you

can find more Brexit analysis

and explanation on the BBC website,

at bbc.co.uk/Brexit.

With me now is the Shadow

International Trade

Secretary, Barry Gardiner.

Welcome to the programme, thank you

for coming back. We were learning

about the different baskets, full

alignment, regulatory alignment.

Labour say you want to give all the

benefits and the single market so

presumably want to stay as much in

alignment as we do already?

What

we've said is that the government

have said we could have all the

benefits and we will hold them to

that.

To do that, we must keep most

of what we can in the full alignment

basket?

We want to make sure we get

as much of the benefits as we

currently have once we have left the

EU.

You can't do that and diverged.

Absolutely. That's the point.

Diverges from that, whether through

a trade deal with another country or

whether it is simply because we want

to deregulate our standards in the

UK is going to cause a problem with

maintaining the sort of trade we

have with Europe. It's going to

cause that economic bond. But we

want to make sure we have a Brexit

that is for jobs, for the economy

and that's why we see the benefits

of the single market, the benefits

of the customs union, and swipe we

said we wouldn't rule is off the

table. Whereas the government

precisely said it would. And that is

the red lines that Theresa May put

in place that are now causing her

all these other problems.

They've

caused a few problems in policy for

Labour as well because the closer

you want to stay to single market

rules, if we've loved the single

market because that is government

policy, more alignment would have --

if we've left. That is us accepting

rules we had no say in making, a

state you have described as being a

vassal state.

These other uses we

really have to resolve. Because you

are right, once we leave the EU that

means we are not a member of the

single market. It doesn't mean we

can't trade into the single market,

of course we can. We can do that in

the same way that Norway does. But

our economy is very different from

that of Norway. And what we need to

be sure about is when we are making

our rules in this country we are

doing it as close as possible to

maintain the trade and the economic

benefits we get in the European

Union.

There have been reports this

week that Labour is working on a

policy that would involve staying in

the customs union. The Robert Peston

programme on ITV...

That could not

be the case. I'm sorry to correct

you on a technicality. But once you

leave the EU you leave the treaties

and it is the treaties that create

the customs union. So we could not

be a member of the customs union.

You could be remember of a customs

union, which is what Jeremy Corbyn

was talking about on TV this

morning.

He was talking about the

transition period immediately after

leaving the EU. That has been our

position for many months. We were

the ones that said, in that

transitional period, we want the

status quo. We want to maintain

things that are... We want to

maintain a customs union and single

market during that transition.

Let's

talk about the future after the

transition period. Let's look at

what you said you thought were the

consequences.

consequences. Do you still agree

with that?

I was specifically

referring to, and if you go back on

that quote a little bit, you will

find we were talking about the

turkey situation, which was a

customs union agreement with the EU.

That would be a very bad end point

for us, because it would mean that

the European Union ended up doing

all the negotiations for trade for

the UK. We would have to open our

markets to any other company in --

any other country they made an

agreement with. But that country

would not have to liberalise its

markets and open itself up to our

goods and services.

The common

commercial policy is what governs

all of this and binds us in with

these trade treaties. The UK

Government say they want to leave

that. Is that the Labour position?

We will be...

Would you like to join

something similar once we are no

longer members of the EU?

I already

said, we believe that the benefits

of what we currently have should be

maintained as much as possible, and

that means that whilst we cannot

stay in the customs union, we should

not have a turkey style customs

union agreement, because that would

be an asymmetrical relationship with

any trading partner. What we do see

as a possibility, and it is what we

have not ruled out, which is to have

a new customs union with the

European Union, and that is

something very interesting wave

which in paragraph 31 of the

cross-border trade taxation bill

which came in on Monday from the

Government, and which we debated

them, they have actually put

provision for that, a new customs

union, where we would be an equal

member.

But you cannot possibly

believe that you can have the

benefits of being in a reformed

customs union relationship with the

EU and still have total freedom to

make new trade deals. You have said

you don't want anything which

precludes us from making independent

trade agreements with some of our

bigger partners.

Let's be clear

about the nexus of problems we are

trying to solve the run work our way

through. You have, within the

referendum, a clarity that people

were voting for certain political

issues, whether that was in terms of

immigration, regaining sovereignty,

or simply not paying money into

Europe. All of these were things

people thought they were voting for.

If you were to be in a relationship

in which some of those continued to

be the case, where we were rule

takers and not rule setters, as

Norway is at the moment, and they

are told they have no right to

decide what the rules are going to

be, that is a political problem

which many people in this country

would feel, what was the referendum

all about if we don't achieve that?

Let's...

Just let me... I don't

think it's clear, the problems we

are trying to solve. We want to

maintain a maximum economic benefit,

to get the economic benefit of the

jobs that we currently get from the

trading relationship we have in a

customs union and in a single market

with the European Union. But to do

that respecting the referendum will

of the people for those political

objectives.

We understand that

point.

Labour has to bring back the

42 purse -- the 52% under 48%.

We

understand need to move you on to

something else. We have heard the

new Tory chairman Brandon Lewis say

today that if any... He wants new

Tory candidates to sign up to a

respect pledge that they will

conduct themselves on Twitter and in

what they say in a respectful way,

otherwise they will be removed as

candidates.

Of course, that's right.

Jeremy Corbyn said that Labour

should do it too. It raises

questions about some Labour MPs.

Jarrod O'Mara, for example, who has

had the whip suspended.

An

investigation is being conducted, as

is appropriate, within all the

procedures of our party. Absolutely

right, suspended.

Because of remarks

he made about women and homophobic

comments. Then you look at the

Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell,

against whom no action has been

taken, and he has said a number of

things, but one of them which has

been heavily criticised is that he

wanted... Well, he agreed with

people who wanted to see Esther

McVeigh lynched. We have the audio

of this. Let's listen and then we

will ask you about it.

I was up in

Liverpool a fortnight ago...

And obviously, he used a word that

we won't be saying on TV, but is

that respectful language?

It is not

language I would have used. Earlier

today, you have been quoting remarks

that were made by the President of

the United States which were deeply

offensive and unacceptable.

Yes.

Hang on.

But this is about the

Labour Party...

And you quoted. The

point I am making is that he was

quoting what someone else was

saying, and I would not have chosen

to do that.

He was clearly quoting

with approval, not reporting it.

The

underlying issue which the

Conservatives have been trying to

cover up through all the smear on

John McDonnell, Esther McVeigh, who

was a Department for Work and

Pensions minister, and at a time

when she was in charge of work and

pensions as a minister, her company

had been reported for breach of

health and safety guidelines. She is

one of the ministers, and for that

reason...

Jeremy Corbyn said we

should stick to policies and use

respectful language. That wasn't

respect.

That's what I'm doing now,

and I'm trying to make the

underlying political point about

what's going on here. She was in

charge of a department in which she

was responsible for health and

safety when her own company which

she was a director of, a

construction company, they had been

suspended, their work had had to be

suspended twice within three months

for breach of those health and

safety guidelines, putting workers

at risk in her own company. She is

also somebody...

We will have to

leave it there. Thank you very much

for that. It is coming up to

11:40am. You're watching the Sunday

Politics. Coming up:

Hello and welcome back to a New Year

with Sunday Politics Wales.

In a few minutes,

some predictions for you

on what's on the Welsh political

horizon for this year,

and the Children's Commissioner

will be here

to tell us why she feels

there are gaps

in how children's mental health

issues are dealt with.

But first the Plaid Cymru leader

Leanne Wood has kicked off

the New Year by saying she wants

to "reconnect politics

"with the people"

and set out an agenda

for a "democratic

and empowered Wales".

But what exactly does that

look like in practice?

To discuss that and the year ahead,

Leanne Wood is here with me now.

Thank you very much for coming in.

As an end result, what are you

hoping to achieve?

I want to achieve

a Wales that is empowered and a

people that are democratically

enabled to shape their own future.

At the moment Wales faces many

different challenges and our

National Assembly and devolution

project is not equipped with the

powers that we need to solve some of

those problems, so we need to

empower ourselves in terms of

gaining more powers as a national

Assembly, but also in terms of

people as individuals becoming more

empowered to be able to decide for

themselves what they want.

When you

say the National Assembly isn't

equipped, you have got education,

health, there is taxation coming

next year, borrowing coming this

year, what more do you think is

needed?

There are constraints on the

tax powers, for example. So the

National Assembly, the government

will be able to have an impact on

things like the personal allowance.

And all the other aspects of tags

that can give you maximum

flexibility. The fact is that

decisions about Wales should be made

in Wales and that is a prospectus

that we want to go out and talk to

people about. This is an engagement

exercise. I want to ask people what

kind of Wales we want to live in and

how do we get there. My intention is

that we get there by improving our

democracy, by getting more people

engaged in politics and by

empowering ourselves to solve our

own problems.

But there is nothing

concrete there. What I want is a

sense from you, you will be going

out and having conversations, but

presumably you have got an idea in

your mind about a policy that you

can say to people, this is what we

will be doing to empower at a

community level. You say,

empowerment at a community level

through decentralisation through

Wales. How does that work?

I will be

publishing a document tomorrow that

outlines a set of values and

principles and policy ideas that we

could implement to chart a different

course. Politics at a UK level is

pretty grim at the moment in the

aftermath of Brexit and there are so

many people watching politics on the

television and it seems to have very

little to do with their daily lives.

The struggles they are having,

waiting for hospital appointments,

not having enough investment in

local community services, none of

those questions are being addressed

because politicians on the TV are

just talking about things like

Brexit and splits within parties. I

want to try and move the debate on

now and get people thinking about

the kind of Wales we want to live in

and to try to provide some hope for

a future that can be different to

the mess that we are in.

You talk

about values and principles, but

when you are talking about the

things that people want, they want

answers, they want you to go to them

and say, this is our plan, this is

what we are suggesting should

happen, rather than saying, tell us

what you think.

In the document that

will be published tomorrow, there

are range of policy suggestions...

Like what?

Reforms to the planning

system, for example, to make it

easier for people to have spaces to

live and work in. There are changes

that I propose to our democratic

make-up and our democracy framework

to encourage more people to

participate. There are changes I

propose to the education system to

ensure people are fully informed

when they participate in politics

and they get involved at a community

level. It is all about trying to

raise our game as a nation by

individually empowering people,

empowering our communities, and

ultimately empowering our nation.

When you say you want to make the

case for decisions affecting Wales

to be made in Wales, we have got

devolution, there are areas which

are devolved. As I said earlier,

taxation is on its way, borrowing is

on its way. You want more taxation

but we don't know how it will work

yet. What more do you want to be

devolved? Are you looking at things

like welfare, for example?

If there

is a decision taken that affects

people in Wales, I believe people in

Wales, Democratic representatives in

Wales, should make those decisions.

It makes no sense to me that there

is a parliament in Westminster with

650 MPs, 610 of which have nothing

to do with Wales whatsoever, that

end up taking decisions that shape

our economic future. Decisions about

Wales, made in Wales, will ensure

that the people with the best

interests of Wales will make those

decisions.

What?

Everything.

Defence?

Ultimately, yes, Plaid

Cymru wants all decisions to be made

in Wales. There is a path that gets

us there and that is incremental but

I want that to be scaled up. What is

clear is that we face grave

problems, especially in terms of our

economy. There are great risks on

the horizon, especially if we crash

out of the European Union with no

deal, with a far right, Tory type

Brexit. How can we introduce

measures that protect and safeguard

those jobs and offer a real future

for people in Wales?

Does this mean

you will be ramping up your calls

for independence now? You know they

will have been accusations that you

have been independents like. When

you say devolved everything, is this

ratcheting up the cause for

independence?

I want to frame the

debate in a different way. I want to

think about what powers we need to

solve the problems we have. How can

we empower ourselves to gain maximum

autonomy. But the crucial thing is

that we in Wales should decide

ourselves what powers we want. We

will want to share some

decision-making with other people.

That might be other countries within

the current UK, that might be other

countries that currently are in the

European Union. There is the whole

debate about whether we remain as a

member of the single market and so

on. But the crucial point is that

people in Wales should be empowered

to decide for themselves the

direction of our country. We could

go in a number of different ways

here. The risk is that Wales will

become absorbed into a greater

England and where is entity, where

we end up losing some of the gains

we have made through devolution. I

want us to take a different path, to

empower ourselves to make more

decisions for ourselves.

And are you

confident it will be you taking that

the next election? The reason I ask

that is, to mount a challenge

against the leader of Plaid Cymru,

you can only do it every other year

at the autumn conference. 2018 is

one of those years and if one of

your colleagues was minded to, this

is when you do it, because by 2020,

the next chance, it is too late. How

confident are you that there would

be a challenge your leadership?

One

of the beauties about Plaid Cymru

and one of the reasons I joined

Plaid Cymru in the first place is

that we are a very Democratic party.

How many other political parties do

you know of that has the polluted --

position of leadership that comes up

for grabs every two years, a

position every single member of the

party is entitled to vote for, and

every single member of my group in

the Assembly is entitled to bid for.

I would welcome a challenge. There

is no problem there at all.

But do

you expect one?

I have no idea

whether there will be won or not,

and it doesn't really matter too

much, because I am really confident

in the programme I was elected on as

leader in 2012. I am committed to

seeing that programme through. There

is plenty of work still to be done

on that front. But ultimately it is

a matter for members of Plaid Cymru

and that is the beauty of democracy.

They get to decide. If they want to

take a different direction, that is

a matter for them. But I am still

committed to doing the job I set out

in 2012.

Looking ahead to 2018 and

in the context of how safe a place

is politics in Wales for women, how

confident are you that the actions

you have taken over the last year or

so have made Welsh politics a safer

place for women?

That is a big

question because within society

there are many dangers facing women

within their own relationships at

home, within the workplace,

whichever workplace that they are

in, but clearly recent discussions

have put a spotlight on the kinds of

dangers that women can face in the

workplace. It is quite important

that we keep that issue as a live

issue on the agenda.

The reason I am

asking this, a number of complaint

have been made against a Plaid Cymru

elected Assembly Member, and after

taking ten months to decide whether

or not to investigate, the decision

was made just before Christmas to

hand over all the information to the

standards commissioner in the

Assembly and to give all the

information to the man being

complaint against, without asking

for complainants. Does that look

like something that should help and

get more and more women to make

plays when they are not happy with

the conduct of Assembly Members?

I

can't comment on an ongoing process

within Plaid Cymru. There have been

frustrations with the process, which

I have not been able to have

anything to do with. That has been

organised by a separate part of the

party. We have a membership and

disciplinary process and I am not at

liberty to comment on that. But

there were problems with our system

and we took action to rectify those

problems in our autumn conference.

But have you taken action? It seems

to me, you have taken so long to say

you have not got the processes in

place, you get the processes in

place on, but then you transfer it

to an external body.

The decision

that was taken by the membership and

disciplinary panel to refer some of

the complaints to external bodies

was not something that I have been

party to.

Do you support it?

When we

met as party leaders in the

aftermath of various sexual

harassment allegations, one of the

things that we all agreed on there,

if there were allegations against

anyone in their role as an Assembly

Member, there was a process in place

to be standards Commissioner to deal

with that. But often these cases are

not as clear and simple as that.

They may overlap a number of

boundaries and unless you have seen

the details of the case, which I

haven't, it is difficult to comment

on them.

Now, if last year has proved

anything, it's that trying

to predict politics these days

is a bit of a mug's game.

But that doesn't stop us trying.

And there are some very exciting

developments in prospect.

Carl Roberts now on where

2018 might take us.

Cardiff Bay in January

is a great place to walk off

the Christmas chocolates.

I've been doing some

of it myself this week.

The politicians are back in the Bay

after three weeks away

and the festive period feels

a distant memory now

as they focus on the day job

and the political year ahead.

Now, we like to think of ourselves

as forward-looking on the Sunday

Politics Wales, so I have rounded up

four AMs from different parties

to get their perspective

on the political priorities in 2018.

The Ukip group in the Senedd

seem to have been bickering

with each other since

they were elected in 2016.

The pattern appears to have

continued into 2018.

Mandy Jones has replaced

Nathan Gill as an AM,

but she hasn't joined

the Ukip group in the Bay

despite being elected as a Ukip AM.

She will sit as an

independent in the Senedd.

This Ukip AM told me he thinks

the days of infighting are over

and he's clear about what he

wants to see this year.

What's very important

for our party now is to make

sure that people realise

we are still a relevant party.

Brexit is not over, obviously,

and it has got a long way to run.

We believe that we are one

of the parties, if not the only

party, that truly reflects

what the British people voted for.

Brexit will continue to dominate

politics, as it has done

since the referendum itself.

For Wales, there are

three main things.

The EU Withdrawal Bill,

which the Welsh Government

is still seeking changes to.

The state of negotiations

with the EU themselves.

AMs will be watching closely to see

what a deal or no deal with the EU

could mean for key Welsh industries.

And then there is a third question

as to whether the UK Government

is willing or able to replace

the funding that Wales gets

from the EU as a current member.

There are new tax powers

on the horizon

for the Welsh Government,

but the way those powers are used

is on the agenda

of all of the parties in the Bay.

We are still a young democracy

and we have been saying,

especially as a party,

that we need more tax-raising powers

so that we can shape those

policies in a firmer way.

We get the block grant

but we don't have the flexibility

that tax-raising would give us.

I think there is a debate,

of course, about whether there

should be more AMs or whether

the electoral system

of the Assembly should change,

and I think that all comes

into a discussion this year

and into the spotlight, really.

I don't think we are incompetent

of being able to deal with that,

it is just how we do it

and what will we prioritise.

Every opposition politician

I have spoken to this week

talks about holding

the Labour government to account,

holding their feet to the fire.

They might not mind in this weather.

But for the first time since 2013,

there is no Wales-wide

election this year.

Does that make it more difficult?

I would like to see our

party grow in strength,

I would like to have a better

platform for the ideas we have.

We have some fantastic ideas, some

of which have been nicked by Labour,

and I am pleased by that because

it shows a sincere form of flattery,

but I really want people

to understand that there

are alternatives and we can make

a difference and we can grow

and become the next government

here in Wales.

Historically in the Bay,

Labour have run a tight ship.

Backbenchers haven't rocked

the government boat.

There is no suggestion that

will change in 2018

but this Labour backbencher

says he and his colleagues

have been able to influence

the government.

One of the things we have had

and one of the opportunities

we have had as Labour backbenchers

is a freedom to develop ideas

and a freedom of expression.

One of the things we have

pushed for is the growth

of the business of the everyday,

the foundational economy,

to be expressed in the Welsh

Government's economic action plan.

That will help Bargoed

and we have seen it happen,

so we have had a direct influence

in government as backbenchers.

After a tumultuous end

to the Welsh political year,

a temporary calm has returned

to Cardiff Bay, but for how long?

The issue of mental health has never

had so much attention.

And it's easy to see why.

More than a quarter of sick days

taken in the civil service

are due to mental ill-health,

according to the latest figures.

But is the provision

keeping up with demand,

particularly among young people?

The Children's Commissioner,

Sally Holland,

says she wants to see improvements

and is meeting ministers

next week to talk about it.

We'll hear from her in a moment,

but first I've been to

Merthyr Tydfil, where some

young people wanted to help.

Their answer was this mental health

first aid kit

and a series of videos

looking at the issues.

Here are their thoughts.

I think everyone suffers

with some sort of issue.

I mean, whether it is just

feeling anxious one day,

or not feeling great,

but particularly for young people

now as well, with so much stress

from exams and things like that,

social pressures as well.

Social media can put

pressure on young people.

I think it is something we wanted

to get people talking about

and making people more aware

of it, and to let people know

that it is OK to talk about these

things, it is OK to feel this way.

You're not even changed.

Come on, what's the matter?

Give me a sec.

You've been like this for ages.

You should be over it by now.

Just give me a minute.

I don't think it's been taken

as seriously as it should be,

especially in schools.

When I was in school,

we never really talked

about mental health.

We talked about bullying,

cyber bullying, which I suppose

are related to it, but we never

talked about mental health

as a thing on its own.

So I think this project is hopefully

going to be a boost to get schools

and other youth organisations

to talk about it.

Nothing at the moment.

You have to get something.

Prom is in two weeks.

We have to go to prom.

What are you doing for make-up?

It's like you're trapped in a box,

in a way, because it is hard.

Sometimes you can cry in the corner

but you need that help

and I think they try

and brush it off a bit.

When I was in school,

people who, for example,

come out, or even have abuse,

it is hard for them as well.

I think, by not establishing

mental health in schools,

it is going to affect us

even more in the future.

No, don't.

Out of here.

No.

Mam!

Go in the kitchen.

Mam!

I think it's a touchy

subject in schools.

I think teachers don't

really want to approach it

and there is a very much up and out

attitude towards mental health.

If a child is caught self harming

or with marks on their arms,

caught talking about the wrong

thing, it just goes upwards

and upwards and outwards

until it hits the headteacher

and then it goes external.

Teachers in school don't

really know how to deal

with the problem or how to,

sort of, manage the issue,

and I think that creates a real

paranoia among young people.

They don't know who

they can turn to

and a lot of young people worry

about their parents finding out.

Professor Sally Holland

is the Children's Commissioner.

Thank you for coming in.

Overwhelmingly there, they were

saying, all my friends have got some

form of mental health issue or has

had at some point. Do you think

there is enough attention and

appreciation of the extra stresses

that young people are under these

days?

I think there is a lot of

attention being given to it and my

concern is whether we are actually

giving the right answers to that

attention. First of all, I would

like to point out that those young

people in Merthyr are great example

of how we don't have a generation of

young people who are failing in some

way or waiting passively for

something to happen to them. They

are a great bunch of activists, I

have met them many times, and they

are ready to say, can we be part

part of the solution as well.

But

what needs to change? They were

brilliant, as a bunch of young

people getting to grips with things

really well, but overall what needs

to change, in terms of improving the

provision, what schools need to be

doing?

This is a UK wide problem. We

have had lots of attention on it in

England as well. How do we better

support young people? What we have

uniquely in Wales is a really good

opportunity. We have got a new

curriculum being developed, teacher

training being reformed and a reform

of other child and adolescent mental

health services. My big concern is

while both those reforms are very

well-meaning, they have got some

great games, I don't think they are

working together closely enough.

That is a concern I am going to take

to ministers this week.

So you will

be meeting with Kirsty Williams, the

Education Secretary and Vaughan

Gething, the Health Secretary. So

there needs to be more joined up

thinking?

If you are to redesign a

system from scratch, and we almost

are in Wales, you would not design

it so you have education over here

and mental health services in some

far-away clinic that people are

desperately trying to get an

appointment for. Once they get

there, and waiting lists have come

down, I acknowledge that, but once

they get there, often they can't

help because they are there to deal

with mental illness. For young

people in particular, adolescence is

a time of lots of change. You can't

really separate out their social

experiences, their mental health

experiences and their physical

changes. They need a much more

rounded, joined up support.

So when

they are in schools, and you say you

wanted on the curriculum, the

curriculum will be jam-packed full

of stuff. It will be competing with

all that.

I don't just wanted on the

curriculum. I think that will be one

of the aspects that will help, for

children to have better awareness of

self, but we have an opportunity

because the Education Secretary has

quite rightly put health and

well-being as one of the most

central things we cover in schools.

But it is not just about what

children are taught, it is about the

support around them.

Thank you very

much for coming in.

That's it for our

first show of 2018.

Don't forget we're on Twitter

@walespolitics,

return to it.

I have to stop you

all.

That's all we have time for.

My thanks to Rupa to Bob

and to Luke and with that,

it's back to Sarah.

Earlier we were talking about

comments made by John McDonnell

about Esther McVeigh. The Labour

Party had been in touch to say that

Mr McDonnell did not quote with

approval, and that comments made in

Parliament confirm that. We have

been contacted also by the office of

Kier Starmer, previously the

Director of Public Prosecutions,

saying he had nothing to do with the

decision about John Worboys, and we

are also happy to make that crystal

clear. On to other news...

Ukip has suspended the girlfriend

of the party leader, Henry Bolton,

after reports that she made racist

remarks about Prince Harry's

fiancee Meghan Markle.

In text messages to a friend,

Jo Marney described black people

as "ugly" and said "her seed"

would "taint our royal family".

Ms Marney has apologised,

and said that comments had been

taken out of context.

Paul Oakden, Ukip's party chairman,

joins us from Birmingham.

Can Henry Bolton carry on as leader

after this?

I think it is very clear

that Henry is increasingly in a

position where he has some difficult

decisions to make. He knows that. He

and I have spoken regularly over the

weekend, as recently as this

morning. I know he is focused on

those decisions today. He intends on

making those decisions today, and

I'm sure that whatever he does will

be in the best interests of the

party.

It sounds like you expect him

to resign by the end of the day.

Not

at all. He is in a situation that he

would rather not be in, which he

acknowledges, but I believe he has

the party's best interests at heart

and that is what he will focus on.

the party's best interests at heart

Would the party's best interests be

served by him standing down as

leader?

It would be best served by

the membership having the

opportunity to have their say. Henry

acknowledges there has been an error

in judgment, and it is now for the

party membership and ruling body to

make a determination on whether they

feel Henry is the best person to

lead them into what will be an

incredibly crucial 12 months for

Brexit. The thing that matters

beyond Ukip and everything else.

If

he doesn't decide by the end of the

day that he will stand down, when

will the NEC meet?

A week today. I

want to be clear - Henry is not

deciding whether he will or won't

resign today. He's deciding what he

can do to help remedy this

situation. As leader, he will play

the leading role in making this

better, clearly needs made better,

and a lot of people take their lead

from him. The party is represented

by its governing body, which will

meet a week today. If he is still

the leader Robbie today, they will

meet at that point and collectively

make a decision about what to do

going forward.

It doesn't sound like

he has your support.

Far from it. My

job is to make sure that our

thousands of members, who joined not

because of the leader's Private life

but because of Brexit, and we will

not deliver Brexit on our own. Now

that Tony Blair is running around

with Lord Adonis and Nick Clegg

trying to ride roughshod over

democracy, we need a grand coalition

of all those groups that fought on

the League side to come together to

see the journey home. That is the

priority.

It is a huge distraction

if you're leader is having to fend

off the stories about his private

life.

It is true that we need to be

behind our leader 100% in taking

that battle forward. That is

absolutely key. Whether or not the

party decides it is willing to give

that support to Henry is for the

party decide. My role as German as

to make sure they have the ability

to voice their opinion. I have every

confidence that our national

executive committee will do what is

in the interests of the party, and I

have every confidence that that is

what our leader will seek to do.

Whatever the situation, I am

confident that a week tomorrow, the

party will be in fine form to take

that to the Remain establishment.

Thanks for joining us.

Let's pick up on that with the

panel. What do you think the

prospects are for the Ukip leader?

Based on that, it has Monty Python

moment. He will do what is best for

the party, but that best... This is

symptomatic of a wider crisis for

Ukip. I've lost count of the number

of leaders they've had.

Five in 18

months.

Three of them were Nigel

Farage!

He will probably be back

again. They were a powerful vessel

for delivering that referendum, but

it is a lesson for people wanting to

start political parties - it was a

fragile vessel. The fragility is are

now being exposed in this impossible

nightmare they have. They can't even

find a credible leader. They have

not resigned over principles, they

have resigned in bizarre

circumstances, time and again.

One

of them only lasted days.

And that

is not bad going on the basis of

what could happen in the future. It

shows that it is difficult to set up

a credible, serious political party.

And they have become incredible.

On

a more serious note, Paul Oakton was

saying that it is more important

than ever to have people are giving

the Ukip case as we go through the

process of Brexit. As a party, can

they do that? Or do people think

that

that with the referendum done and

dusted, Ukip are finished?

We have

seen that in their election results

since. He was a credible leader, a

background in the police, working in

the EU, the Armed Forces. I don't

want to live in Soviet Russia or

modern-day North Korea where people

have guilt by association. He hasn't

made these racist remarks.

She has

been suspended from the partly, --

the party, she is his partner.

They

are not taken out of context, they

are outrageous, no question at all,

racist, disgusting remarks, and no

question that she should be out of

the party membership. I would say

that his misjudgement in being a

middle-aged man running off with a

glamour model half his age is the

embarrassment for him. If he wants

to be in a relationship with someone

with those vile views, it is a

question of his judgment. But let's

not confuse the person who committed

the offence. The key thing is, Ukip

had a role, and Nigel Farage in my

view is one of the most influential

politicians of the 21st century in

terms of how he has changed

politics. Part of that effectively

meant that Ukip had no role. They

believe they have an important role,

because they don't believe Theresa