21/01/2018 Sunday Politics Wales

Morning, everyone, and welcome

to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith.

And this is your essential briefing

to everything that's happening this

morning in the world of politics.

Big fines for bosses who take

bonuses from firms with black holes

in their pension funds -

will the Prime Minister's promise

help the Government get

back on the front foot

after the collapse of Carillion?

Leading Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg

says the Lords risk fundamental

reform if they obstruct the passage

of the EU Withdrawal Bill.

Arch-remainer Lord Adonis

says that's their job.

We'll bring the MP

and the peer together.

Henry Bolton fights to save his job

after a week of damaging headlines

about his relationship

with a 25-year-old model.

We'll be talk to

the Ukip leader live.

Will it be his last

interview as party leader?

Later in the programme:

Keeping Brexit on the rails; the war

of words over what happens

when powers return from Brussels.

And the new leader of the Welsh

Libdems Jane Dodds will be here.

And the new leader of the Welsh

rise. Could the solution lie in

Scotland where it is treated as a

public health issue?

All that coming up in the programme.

And with me today, our regular

gaggle of experts providing

the inside track on all the big

stories - Tom Newton Dunn,

Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.

First this morning, Theresa May

is proposing what she's

calling tough new rules

to penalise company executives

who try to line their own pockets

by putting their workers'

pensions at risk.

"An unacceptable abuse,"

she says, "that will end."

Her comments come as the Government

attempts to seize the initiative

after the collapse of the giant

construction, services

and out-sourcing company, Carillion,

which went into liquidation

on Monday with debts

of around £1.5 billion.

One of Britain's biggest

construction firms, Carillion,

has been put into liquidation.

20,000 workers face

an uncertain future.

Carillion employed people providing

essential services in our schools,

hospitals, railways and prisons.

They had to be told they would be

paid when they turned

up to work on Monday.

Let me be clear that all employees

should continue to turn up to work

confident in the knowledge

that they will be paid

for the public services

that they are providing.

The firm had around 450

contracts with government,

on top of private work

and overseas projects.

Some of those had been handed

to the company after it issued

profit warnings last year.

Prime Minister, why were contracts

awarded to Carillion

despite the warnings?

Labour and the unions

wanted answers.

Why did the Government

not heed the warnings?

Why did they continue to give

billions of pounds of contracts

to a company that the City

were backing against in 2013?

That's the real question.

That's the real question.

And it's emerged the firm's former

chief executive, Richard Howson,

who left the firm last year,

received £1.5 million in pay

and bonuses in 2016,

while many ordinary employees face

the prospect of being laid-off

and a huge black hole

in the company's pension scheme

could result in their

pensions being slashed.

Subcontractors who hadn't been paid

for weeks were warned they might get

just 1p for every pound

they are owed.

Some warned that they too

might go to the wall.

We are not really a business

of a size that can trade

through that without some form

of support from the Government.

If it's not forthcoming, I think

ourselves and lots of businesses

like us will probably go

out of business.

In the wake of the collapse...

For Labour though, this was not just

about the failure of one company.

By Monday night, Jeremy Corbyn had

taken to social media.

At Prime Minister's Questions,

he pressed the point home.

This is not one isolated case

of government negligence

and corporate failure.

It is a broken system.

Virgin and Stagecoach's management

of East Coast Trains,

Capita and Atos' handling

of disability assessments,

and security firm G4S's failure

to provide security at the Olympics

were all examples, according

to Jeremy Corbyn, of the private

sector failing the public sector.

These corporations, Mr Speaker,

need to be shown the door.

We need our public services

provided by public employees

with a public service ethos

and a strong public oversight.

As the ruins of Carillion lie

around her, will the Prime Minister

act to end this costly racket?

Theresa May pointed out

it was the Blair and Brown

governments that signed

many of the big public-private

partnership deals and she suspected

there was something else behind

the current Labour leadership's

hostility to the private sector.

But what Labour oppose isn't just

a role for private companies

in public services but the private

sector as a whole.

This is a Labour Party that has

turned its back on investment,

on growth, on jobs.

A Labour Party that will always put

politics before people.

So, under a Labour government,

how far would their

Would every binman, builder

and even bankers have to be

employed by the state?

employed by the state?

Carillion's collapses the big story

of the week and it will continue to

have political consequences I will

talk through now at the panel. Tom

Newton Dunn, presumably the caps of

Carillion has prompted this promise

from Theresa May that she will

punish bosses who continue to take

bonuses when they have black holes

in the pension fund, is this

something new?

This is our

expectation, the Prime Minister has

acted dramatically as a response to

the collapse of Carillion last week.

The problem as I recall a party

conference speech she gave in

October, 2016, the citizens of

nowhere, calling out a rotten

corrupt apples across the country

then, Philip Green who presided over

the collapse of BHS, leaving a

massive pensions black hole, an

entire year and a bit has passed and

no apparent government action. I

fear Theresa May with the bold words

in the new look Observer this

morning, action today, still action

tomorrow.

It is what people want to

hear?

Certainly people do want to

hear it, although they are amazed it

has not happened before. Jeremy

Corbyn is playing this beautifully.

There is a much more worrying bigger

picture here for the Conservatives.

The opportunity they have created

for Jeremy Corbyn to underline his

case that unfettered free markets do

not work and somehow or other

Carillion symbolises everything that

is wrong about the system, as we

heard him say in the clip. I do not

think most voters are particularly

ideological, they just want things

to work. But if the Government is

seen to be incompetent on this

scale, it creates a vacuum for the

leader of the Labour Party to put an

ideological spin on it and he is

doing it very effectively.

The Prime

Minister is right when she says more

of these PFI contracts were signed

under Blair and Brown than under

subsequent Tory governments, but now

you have a Jeremy Corbyn Labour

Party in opposition, they do not

have to shoulder the blame for that?

Jeremy Corbyn oppose them at the

time. The late 1970s in reverse,

that is what we are seeing. Bowman

the minority Labour government being

torn apart. Now we have a minority

Conservative government being

challenged by tidal waves which put

them on the defensive all the time.

We have not time to go through other

examples, but just on this one,

Theresa May is quite well equipped,

as Tom said, from the beginning, she

taught the language of intervention

and corporate governments, coming

after the bad people in the private

sector, but because of the lack of

action to follow it up and because

Jeremy Corbyn genuinely believes in

these things, it is much easier for

him to swim with these tidal waves

than her lead in this deeply

pressurised minority government.

We

have been talking to all three of

you through the programme, let us

pick up on Carillion with the Shadow

Attorney General, Labour's Shami

Chakrabarti. Labour have been very

critical of the Government's

response to the collapse of

Carillion, what would Labour have

done differently this week if you

had been in government?

I think what

we would do and what we will do, as

soon as we are in government, is

look in a far more fundamental way

at PFI, outsourcing, and by the

way...

We will get on the principles

of this, but if you had won the

election in 2017, it would have been

a Labour government handling the

collapse, what would have been

different in your response?

We would

not have left it so late, we would

not have bailed out a company that

already had raised serious warning

signals in the City, we would not

have allowed them to get into

subcontracting with, for example,

Cerco, worth millions of pounds,

profit warnings against that company

too.

Cerco are a big government

provider, should they be looking at

all of their contracts with the

likes of Cerco who have also issued

profit warnings?

You do have to look

at all of the arrangements and the

subcontracting arrangements. It is

not because I am ideological leap

opposed to the private sector, it

will be smaller private sector

companies suffering from nonpayment.

Should the Government help? The man

running the small business in the

film saying they might go to the

wall.

Quite possibly. But with

accountability. It is all very well

for Mrs May to say she will sting

the big executives, there has to be

ministerial responsibility as well.

One of my concerns is that when

vital public services of a kind

almost constitutional, for example,

prisons, get contracted out, what

you are actually devolving as

ministerial responsibility,

something goes terribly wrong, in a

vital utility, a matter of security,

infrastructure, and ministers, of

whatever colour, put up their hands

and say, it is wicked executives.

What we need is ministerial

responsibility, oversight, of course

we want a thriving private sector,

but some vital services need to be

run by public servants and with

ministers held to account.

Sometimes

when you hear Labour Shadow

ministers talking, it sounds as

though they want to take absolutely

everything back into public

ownership.

That is not the case. I

believe in a mixed economy and I

know my colleagues do too but there

are times when some things need to

be in public hands. That will

include on constitutional grounds

talking about people's human rights,

basic security, and it will also

mean sometimes when you have a big

organisation and outsourcing is used

to grind down the working conditions

of some workers and break down the

sense of community solidarity.

Where

is it appropriate for private

contracts?

For example, there are

some things that the private sector

probably does better. When you're

running a police force, you are

unlikely to say, we will make the

motorbikes for the police officers

better than BMW. Maybe you will but

I doubt it will happen any time

soon.

You need to look at this. What

about cleaning in offices and police

stations? Should that be run by the

police or outsourced?

Maybe

hospitals are better example because

cleanliness in a hospital is quite

often a matter of life and death.

Sometimes it is better even for

something that seems not a core

service like claiming to be in

public hands. You need to look at

this on a case-by-case basis.

You do

not have many examples of where it

is appropriate for private companies

to be involved. Prisons and

probation, what about catering in

prisons, does that have to be in

public hands?

What you want to do is

look at the quality of the service,

the quality of the conditions, for

the people working there, and to see

what would be best value for the

public and for the public purse. It

is not ideological, but in some

cases, principles are at stake.

We

are left with the problem here of

workers worried about pensions,

working for Carillion and

subcontractors who might not get

paid. If the Government work to talk

about putting taxpayers' money into

helping out those people or those

companies, would the Labour Party

object?

We would want to look at the

conditions of spending public money?

In principle? It is not the fault of

the subcontracting small companies

they will not get paid.

Indeed, but

if you decide to spend public money,

for example, to help the smaller

businesses, you want accountability

in response. You

in response. You might well want to

legislate to give priority to

pension funds, for example, over

shareholders who have not done their

job of corporate governance in these

cases.

Moving on to talk about

something else, if you don't mind,

the serial six attacker, this time

last week we were sitting here

talking about the fact the Justice

Minister said he would launch a

judicial review and now he will not

because it has little chance of

succeeding. Should the Government be

pursuing a judicial review?

My view

at the time, I held my tongue about

it because I am used to politicians

wading in in a knee jerk way when

there is a case of this kind, my

view is that if there is to be a

judicial review of the parole board

decision, the best person to bring

such a review would be a victim

because the chances are their best

arguments would be under the Human

Rights Act which gives rights to

victims and not to politicians.

Crowdfunding attempt to raise money

to do that perhaps?

If the Justice

Secretary wants to make a name for

himself with this as a new Justice

Secretary, he might better give his

attentions to making sure the people

have decent levels of legal aid so

they can vindicate their rights

under the Human Rights Act. In

relation to the case of John Worboys

and the crisis of public confidence,

that it is in danger of creating, we

could do with an end review of the

whole case, from the moment a young

woman

woman went to the police and was not

believed to the moment this release

decision was made arguably with the

lack of transparency and involvement

of victims.

He was prosecuted for

offences against 12 women and we

know there were almost 100 other

women who came forward. The CPS said

there was not enough evidence and

they cannot revisit that decision,

if there was not enough evidence

then, there will not be enough now.

I am not second-guessing the

particular CPS decision is because I

am not in a position to do that but

there are issues for the whole

system from the moment that a woman

went to the police and was not

treated with the respect she

treated with the respect she

deserved, to victims.

Kier Starmer was director of

prosecutions at the time and he said

he didn't have any involvement in

the decision-making behind it.

Nor

did his predecessor.

But he should

have done, shouldn't he? He has

prosecuted for only 12 cases, the

DPP should be involved in that.

My

argument is this whole

story on this whole case and the

numbers of women involved and

frankly the anxiety this decision

has caused to women who weren't even

victims means there needs to be an

end to end review of how the system

has worked in this case, from the

moment a woman went to the police

and was arguably not believed in was

made without the input of victims

who I would expect to be given

notice and the opportunity to make

representations to the parole board.

There's a story running in the

Sunday Times this morning about

Momentum and saying they are trying

to deselect 50 Labour MPs. The fact

of the matter is whether have been

Parliamentary selections, momentum

candidates have... Do you think

actually the Parliamentary Labour

Party should better

Party should better reflect Jeremy

Corbyn's Labour Party?

Momentum is

not prioritising the selection of

some candidates over others. They

are part of the Labour movement that

has always had various strands

within it. What is exciting to me is

not exciting to the Sunday Times,

fair enough, but we have a

Democratic party becoming more

democratic. I...

There is still a

massive disconnect between those who

sit in Parliament and those who have

joined since Jeremy Corbyn became

leader.

I think these things become

exaggerated. I have noticed people

uniting around purposes, not least

the scandal around Carillion. I

don't really spot this red Menace in

the way other people do. It's a

democratic party, and most popular

movement of about 600,000 people and

I think that something to be

optimistic about.

Thank you for

talking to this morning.

Momentum haven't been that

successful so far.

I think it has

been overblown on the basis of the

evidence. You quoted the procedure

is taking place so far, they haven't

prevailed that often and in the

Sunday Times this morning they

resorted to the example of Haringey

Council where there are a lot of

specific local issues. At this point

it is unclear whether the selection

will become the overwhelming theme

over the next few years in the

Labour Party. It might do but the

evidence so far is it is much more

nuanced than some papers are

suggesting.

Three new Momentum

members on the NEC this morning, is

it going to make a difference do you

think?

A huge difference because

Corbyn and his wing of the party can

now do precisely what they want, as

long as they have the union muscle

behind them during conference votes,

then the party and any which way he

wants to run it is his. I disagree

with Steve, the difference in

language Jeremy Corbyn and his close

associates were using after the NEC

elections this week on mandatory

reselection is, Shami wasn't asked

if she believed in them, Rebecca

Long-Bailey was, and they refused to

rule them out and say they were a

bad thing. In my view, it is without

doubt that Corbyn will at some stage

try to reshape the Parliamentary

party more in his image and you may

argue why should he not do that.

Shami was saying the party is much

more united around Jeremy Corbyn and

when we see a story like Carillion

it is easier for him to get the

backing of the Parliamentary party.

I think that's right. How unpleasant

and ugly and divisive is it to have

the story is out, whether or not

they are completely accurate or

whoever is briefing, I think it

looks very bad on the atmosphere of

the Parliamentary party. Where I do

think Shami has a good point is on

the size of the Labour membership.

600,000, the Conservatives can only

dream of getting a fraction of

dream of getting a fraction of this,

so clearly there is a big problem

for the Tory party there in matching

what Labour is doing.

We should ask,

mandatory reselection for Labour

MPs, are you in favour, Shami?

Any

democratic process should be across

the board and for everyone. Where

MPs are doing a good job, including

working with their membership, and

you have to work with your

membership to get the vote out in

the Labour Party, that relationship

works well and I think that

relationship will only work better

into the future. I have been all

over the country to all sorts of

CLPs campaigning, and you would be

surprised at the number of places

where there is a very happy

relationship between the MP and the

party regardless of the particular

strand they come from.

Thank you for

that.

Now, the Government's flagship

Brexit legislation -

the EU Withdrawal Bill -

hasn't always had the easiest

of times in the House of Commons,

but this week, MPs voted to send it

through for consideration

in the House of Lords.

A number of peers having expressed

concern about the so-called Henry

VIII powers the bill grants

to ministers to make changes to some

laws without parliamentary scrutiny.

And of course, a number

of peers are dismayed

about the process of Brexit itself.

So, are we likely to see more

dramatic attempts to change

the Bill in a chamber full

of unelected lawmakers?

Ellie Price has been

taking their temperature.

Stop Brexit!

You'd think a bill that sought

to enshrine EU law into British law

after Brexit would be popular

with the pro-Remain

crowd in Parliament.

But when the Withdrawal Bill cleared

the Commons this week,

one Tory Remain-supporting MP said

he hoped the House of Lords would

make an enormous amount of changes.

Good lord, what are they up to?!

I think what will happen

is that the Government will suffer

a series of defeats,

which will reduce the power

of ministers to do things

without proper scrutiny,

and put in place a sensible series

of votes - both in Parliament

and the people at the end

of the process - so that when we do

get an end point to Brexit,

people can say that it's

been done properly.

So a second referendum

is on the table?

It's definitely on the table.

You would expect a Lib Dem

to say that, but some Tory

peers want changes too.

If it comes to the situation

where it looks as if what people

voted for cannot be delivered,

then we have to decide how

best to move forward.

I don't believe the House of Lords

is trying to block Brexit at all.

I think what the House of Lords

is doing is its constitutional duty.

So anyone hoping the House of Lords

will deliver a fatal blow to Brexit

will be disappointed,

but so too will anyone hoping

that the Withdrawal Bill will come

out of there unchanged.

So what is all the fuss about?

The extent of the Government taking

powers to itself while giving

powers to Parliament,

Henry VIII powers, this issue,

of course, about the kind

of protections we've had under EU

law that we've contributed

to for consumer protection,

workplace protection,

environmental issues,

they are coming into UK law

and that's what this bill does

but it needs to make sure they're

protected in UK law; they can't just

be overturned the next day.

There has to be a mandatory

process to do that.

But this was the reaction when some

elected MPs over in the Commons

voted against aspects

of the Withdrawal Bill,

causing a government defeat.

One of their own colleagues even

talked of treachery.

Another MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg,

this week said the laws would face

reform if it tried to frustrate

the democratic will of the people.

So is the chamber full of unelected

Remainers playing with fire?

Since I've been leader

in the House of Lords,

for just over two years,

what I've found is every time

someone doesn't agree

with something we're doing,

they will get quite

hysterical about "take

away their powers," it's almost

an off-with-their-heads moment.

But you know, there is quite

prescribed powers we do,

we take them seriously

and responsibly, and,

if there are changes

we think should be made,

we will send them back

to the House of Commons.

And even one of the lesser-spotted

Brexit-supporting

Lords isn't worried.

There are a number of lords

are in cahoots with Messrs Tusk

and Juncker in trying to persuade

the British people that they made

a grave mistake when they voted

to leave Brexit, and I have no doubt

they will have a bit

of fun doing that.

But on the big issues,

like whether we should

have a second referendum,

the Lords voted by a majority

of more than 200 against that last

year; or if you look at the Commons

vote where the majority was over 200

against remaining in the single

market and the customs union,

I think the Lords will look

to the elected House and do

what they're good at,

which is to consider the detail.

Of course, one of the biggest

differences between the Lords

and Commons is the presence

of nearly 200 crossbenchers -

members who aren't in a party

and don't take the whip,

and they include some

of the most distinguished legal

minds in the country.

And debate over the bill's

constitutional implications may well

lead to more than one showdown

with the Commons.

It's worth remembering

that the Corporate Manslaughter

and Corporate Homicide Bill went

back and forth between the two

Houses seven times only a few years

ago, and that was just an aspect

of the criminal justice system,

it wasn't about the biggest decision

this country is taking since 1945.

this country is taking since 1945.

So I think people need to be

a little bit relaxed about that.

Like the MPs on the Green

benches of the Commons,

the Lords on their red benches

agreed to trigger Article 50.

But the Lords, like the Commons,

is split on what Brexit

should actually look like.

There may be some toing and froing,

or ping-pong as it's known around

here, but pretty much everyone

agrees the Lords can't

and won't block the bill,

and it will go through,

probably, by the end of May.

Ellie Price reporting.

Well, to discuss this,

we're joined from Somerset

by the MP Jacob Rees-Mogg.

This week he was elected

chair of the influential

European Research Group,

made up of Brexit-backing

Conservative backbenchers.

And in the studio, we're

joined by Andrew Adonis.

He's a Labour peer who resigned

from his role as a Government

adviser last month over

its Brexit strategy.

Lord Adonis, you have made your

opposition to Brexit clear, recently

describing it as a national list

spasm that can be stopped. Do you

think the EU Withdrawal Bill is the

opportunity to stop Brexit?

I agree

this is the biggest decision the

country will take since 1945. I do

not think the Lords can stop it,

this is an issue for the people. It

started with the people in a

referendum and my view is the final

sites should go to the people. The

critical issue over the coming

months will be the relationship

between the House of Lords and the

House of Commons in seeing people

have the final say.

When you say

people have the final say, you are

talking about a second referendum?

The first referendum on Mrs May's

terms on departure of the EU, not a

rerun of the referendum two years

ago because when we have that we

didn't know what the terms would be.

We are a democracy, we engage the

people, this is the biggest decision

since 1945 and the people should

have the final say.

Let me bring in

Jacob Rees-Mogg on that, you are

confident we will have a Brexit deal

that will look attractive to most of

the electorate so presumably you

wouldn't be too worried about the

second referendum on the terms of

the deal?

I think the ambition of

the Lords in putting forward a

second referendum is to try to stop

tax it, and Lord Adonis has been

clear about that. He said only

yesterday he wanted to delete all of

the clauses of the Withdrawal Bill.

We have had a referendum, then a

general election where both main

parties backed the referendum

results. I think if somebody wants a

second referendum they should win a

general election first, campaigning

for one, rather than getting

unelected peers to use it as a

stratagem to obstruct Brexit. It is

noticeable Lord Adonis and others

have not called for a second

referendum on other things

referendum on other things like the

Scottish vote.

Lord Adonis, you have

sent you will make the Government's

life an absolute misery over the EU

Withdrawal Bill which sounds as if

you are using it as a stick to beat

a policy or a decision you don't

like rather than your real role

which is legislative scrutiny.

There's a huge amount of scrutiny to

do. The powers which ministers are

given in this bill is without

precedent in a single piece of

legislation, they have order making

powers over the whole sphere of

legislation that was previously

enshrined in European law so if the

House of Lords doesn't pay attention

to that it's not doing its job.

Coming back to Jacob's remarks,

Jacob himself has been a

supporter of the second referendum.

In the House of Commons in 2011 he

himself set out a case for a

referendum on the terms of departure

from the European Union if the

electorate voted first time around

to set the process in train. Jacob

is contradicting his own position.

You are shaking your head, Jacob

Rees-Mogg.

That is simply inaccurate. There was

a proposal for a referendum to begin

a process of negotiating

nonmembership, to give them a

mandate, and he would come back with

what he achieved, and there would be

a referendum on the result. The

Prime Minister decided to have a

straightforward referendum, in or

out. Lord Adonis is speaking about

discussion before the referendum

terms were set, then they were set,

everyone knew what they were voting

for, to leave the EU, it was clear

that meant leaving the single market

and the customs union. I put a dent

Lord Adonis, he would not be calling

for a second referendum had Remain

won.

That is completely untrue. We

did not know what the terms were.

The Conservative manifesto for the

election before said we would stay

in the single market. These are

Jacob's words, in the House of

Commons, in 2011, it might make

sense to have the second referendum

after the renegotiation is

completed...

He says he is talking

about Cameron's renegotiation that

he went to before.

Exactly the same

principle applies now. We are seeing

the terms Mrs May is coming back

with, it is absolutely right that

people should have a safe and it

should not be Jacob Rees Mogg and

Brexit ideologues deciding what the

terms are.

The difficulty with this

is that people decided in a

referendum, the general election

manifestos of both parties committed

to carrying out the result of the

referendum, if Lord Adonis wants to

put his case forward, he should try

to stand for election, something I

do not think he has ever done, win a

general election campaigning to

reverse the result. Unelected peers

should not try to frustrate the will

of the British people, as now

expressed in two Democratic votes.

On that, you have been issuing some

veiled threats this week, saying the

House of Lords would get into

difficulties if they try to

frustrate Brexit, what do you mean

by that?

I think what Baroness Smith

is saying is very sensible, the

House of Lords will abide by the

Constitutional conventions, it will

look to revise, I have concerns

about some of the Henry VIII powers

myself, a perfectly reasonable thing

for the Lords to look at in its

normal constitutional role. But if

the House of Lords gets into a 1909

position of peers against the

people, the people win and the Lords

need to be aware of that, they need

to observe the constitutional norms

and then everything will carry on.

The Lords need to be aware that what

might happen to them in those

circumstances, that government could

flood the Chamber with 200 new Tory

peers?

It is already pretty flooded,

but yes, you would have to have a

deluge on top of a flood. The House

of Lords has to abide by the

constitutional norms, otherwise the

Prime Minister would be perfectly

entitled to use reserve powers to

create more peers. I hope that will

not be necessary. This is a

conditional, not something I am

calling for.

What he is doing is

threatening the Lords, Brexit

ideologues who will stop at nothing

to get Brexit through without the

people the final say. He is dodging

the issue because nobody is talking

about the House of Lords asserting

itself against the people. The issue

which it will come down to resist

the House of Lords invites the House

of Commons, Jacob and his

colleagues, themselves to reach a

decision again on the issue of

whether they should have a

referendum on the final terms. It is

not anti-democratic, it is the

proper expression of democracy and

the House of Lords. It is something

which Jacob himself has supported in

the past, no longer convenient for

him to recognise that fact, but

people's past does catch up with

them. Nigel Farage has come to

support a referendum on Mrs May's

Brexit deal because he realises it

is inevitable. As people realise the

gravity of this decision and the

fact Parliament itself is not in a

great place to take it because there

has been a referendum. The case for

a referendum on Mrs May's terms will

be unstoppable and the House of

Lords will play an important

democratic role in inviting the

House of Commons to reach a decision

on that.

Jacob Rees Mogg, it would

be ironic if the British

constitution is working its way with

the House of Lords making its

revisions sending it back to the

Commons, for you to argue against

that, when what you wanted was for

us to take control back of our own

government.

I am all in favour of

taking back control and decisions

being made in the House of Commons

with the Lords acting as a revising

Chamber. You have to understand the

motives, they are trying to obstruct

Brexit. Lord Adonis said the

decision to leave for is as big a

mistake as appeasement in the 1930s,

almost hysterical reaction to the

Brexit decision, and they are using

it as a strategy to frustrate

Brexit. What they should do is not

used the unelected Lords but they

should campaign in a general

election if they have to campaign to

do it as the Labour Party notably

didn't in 2017, to call for a second

referendum and reverse the result,

but they do not have the courage

because they know the British people

are not with them.

One slightly

different thing before we finish,

are you excited the buyer tapestry

is coming to Britain, you don't

think it is maybe a bit cheeky of

the French celebrating something to

a celebrating the Norman victory

over the British?

over the British?

-- Bayeaux

tapestry. I think it is a splendid

gesture. We could send them a

fragment of the union Jack from

Nelson's ship at Trafalgar to remind

them that by and large we win the

battles.

Some people have suggested

we send Jacob but Bayeaux tapestry

is much more recent in its views.

On

the big issue of Brexit... We will

have to leave it there, Jacob Rees

Mogg, Lord Adonis, thank you for

that.

And you can find

more Brexit analysis

and explanation on the BBC website,

at bbc.co.uk/Brexit.

It's coming up to 11.40am.

You're watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up on the programme,

we'll be talking to embattled Ukip

Hello, and welcome to

Sunday Politics Wales,

in a few moments time,

he may be from Anglesey,

but he sits for a seat in Yorkshire,

so can Stuart Andrew be a good fit

for the Wales Office?

And the new LibDem Leader

in Wales Jane Dodds says she wants

a Beveridge Report for the 21st

Century, but what other plans

does she have to revive

her party's fortunes?

But first a former Brexit minister

has told this programme Carwyn Jones

is being "irresponsible"

by suggesting the Assembly

could withhold consent

for the EU Withdrawal Bill.

David Jones says the First Minister

should work with the UK Government

in "a positive manner".

The Bill is facing a rough

passage through the Lords,

particularly over how powers will be

devolved back to

Wales from Brussels.

So we sent Cemlyn Davies

to Westminster, to take

the temperature there,

as the Withdrawal Bill's

journey continues...

St Pancras station

in central London.

The destination for trains coming

to the UK from Brussels.

When we leave the EU

all sorts of powes will

make the same journey.

make the same journey.

But rather than ending appear

in London, many of those

responsibilities should keep

travelling, all the way to Cardiff

and Edinburgh, the Welsh

and Scottish Government say.

That's because they'll relate

to devolved policy areas,

64 of them in the case of Wales.

But the UK Government thinks those

powers should stop over

here in London first,

before being passed

on further down the line

at a date yet to be decided.

That has raised questions of trust,

and in a nutshell, that's

what the row over the EU withdrawal

bill is all about.

Amid accusations the Tories

are attempting a power grab,

MPs had expected to vote

on government amendments

to address the concerns,

but they didn't materialise.

The UK Government said

it ran out of time.

The Government had plenty

of time to have resolved

things by this stage.

That is why there is a deep degree

of distrust and suspicion.

This bill will leave

you and amended, and in

an unsatisfactory state,

and we are now dependent

on an elected boards

to do our job for us.

The people of Wales have been taking

back control since 1999.

But the EU withdrawal bill

will put our powers back under lock

and key in Westminster.

Extra powers will be devolved

to the devolved administrations.

We continue to work with devolved

administrations on this,

and we will be bringing forward

an amendment to clause 11.

The bill was voted through by MPs

in the House of Commons,

to my left, earlier this week.

It's now heads across Central

lobby to the other end

of the Palace of Westminster,

and the House of Lords,

where those amendments should

finally be put forward.

But the Government lacks

a majority on the red benches,

and with many independently minded

and Anti-Brexit peers

itching to have their say,

the bill is in for a bumpy ride.

Originally from Ystradgynlais,

Baroness Hater is Labour's Brexit

spokesperson, and deputy leader

in the Lords.

The devolution issue is one

she is keen to see resolved.

At the time we went into what we

then called the Common Market,

we haven't got any devolution.

So the power was went direct

from Westminster to Brussels.

It's now slightly more complicated,

but at the moment the Government has

given us no reason at all why

they shouldn't respect

the devolved settlement,

and allow these to go to Cardiff.

What I would like is

that the elected government

here in the United Kingdom gets

together with the elected

government in Scotland

and in Wales, and they come

to an arrangement about this.

It's a long time since the 23rd

of June 2016, it's really hard

to imagine why it's taken them

so long, and why they haven't had

the sort of negotiations that

would have led to a good

outcome on this.

Plaid Cymru's Lord Wigley

is also looking forward

to scrutinising the bill.

We have to ensure that the powers

that are devolved to go

straight to the Assembly.

Yes, certainly, they'll need

to be a mechanism whereby

there is discussion and agreement

between the four parliaments, before

governments in the United Kingdom

to ensure a level playing field

in the single market,

but it's something that has to be

done by the agreement,

and not by imposition

from London down.

Claiming the bill in its current

form is an assault on devolution,

the First Minister Carwyn Jones has

threatened to try and derail it

by asking the Assembly

to withhold consent and pass

its own counter legislation.

A so-called continuity bill.

This former Welsh Secretary

and Brexit minister isn't impressed

with the First Minister's approach.

I think that we do need to satisfy

the Assembly router they will,

ultimately, be they be balancing

of the powers.

But I think that for Carwyn Jones

to start talking in terms

of refusing legislative consent

and so on, is really

rather irresponsible.

I think he's got to recognise

that the UK, and of course,

Wales itself, voted to leave

the European Union, and he's now got

a positive duty to work

with United Kingdom government

in a positive manner.

Ultimately, Westminster will have

the last say on what happens.

But overruling Cardiff Bay would be

highly contentious says this expert.

The British Parliament, in the end,

can get its way, if it wants to.

If it chooses to, therefore,

pass legislation to overrule,

bypass, or even outright repeal

a piece of legislation passed

the devolved level it has

the power to do that.

But it would be a highly

controversial process,

and we would see the UK and devolved

governments in, sort of,

I conflict in a way that I think

is in no one's interest.

It's absolutely the ideal way out

of this mess, frankly,

for a compromise to be reached

on the EU withdrawal bill.

A continuity bill would have to be

passed on the Assembly

before the withdrawal bill

completes its journey

through Parliament.

So the clock is ticking.

Both the Welsh and UK governments

hope and did not run agreement

can still be reached,

and officials are working hard

behind-the-scenes in a bid to keep

everything on track.

Labour's Stephen Kinnock is a member

of the Commons Brexit

Committee and joins me now.

Thank you for coming in this

morning.

Looking at this report,

this idea of a power grab, as powers

returned from Brussels to

Westminster, what do you make of

that?

It's right. This bill is

clearly not fit for purpose. It

disrespects the principles of

devolution. It is trying to

introduce these Henry VIII powers

which we will be using

behind-the-scenes commerce massive

piece of legislation without enough

scrutiny and the Charter of human

rights, taking away rights which

would lead to what a lot of

Conservative MPs want to see, a

bonfire of rights in terms of

employment law and the other things

we expect and enjoy.

From a devolution point of view,

Theresa May has said on several

occasions, the secretary of state

has said, they expect the Assembly,

the Welsh Assembly to gain extra

powers as part of this process. Why

do you think that could be seen as a

power grab?

If that's what they expect the let's

have it on the face of the bill.

This could have been an opportunity

to clarify and codify the

relationships between Westminster

and the devolved administrations. In

a way that respects the spirit and

letter of devolution.

Instead...

Can we take you at your

word though, is it a lack of trust?

When Theresa May says at the

dispatch box in the House of

Commons, you will get more powers.

They ran out of time, they couldn't

have a debate.

You don't trust her?

Has the

Government done anything in this

whole process to inspire trust?

They've constantly tried to prevent

Parliament from having a role, even

down to triggering Article 50. A

legal case had to drag them kicking

and screaming to Parliament on that.

They've tried all sorts of tricks to

take Parliament out of this process.

And give power to the executive. Why

should we trust them on this?

The spirit of the referendum was

take back control, I'm not sure

people thought that meant taking

control from Brussels and giving it

to Whitehall. It's got to be about

giving control back to the devolved

administration is. And that's what I

think people, a lot of people voted

for on the 23rd of June.

I guess there is still this issue of

ambiguity about what people were

voting for, which maybe presents

itself in government policy. They

are due to defend themselves, but it

certainly seems to be manifesting

itself in labour policy. There isn't

much clarity about what Labour want

in terms of, for example, do you, as

a Labour MP, think the policy is to

stay in the customs union or not?

Stay in the single market or not?

There's not much clarity. Firstly,

on the withdrawal bill opposition is

clear.

The behaviour of the Government

could provoke a constitutional

crisis. But more broadly.

On the

single market and the customs union,

I think it's time for us to really

clarify our position. I think that

position needs to be a commitment to

the United Kingdom going to the

European Economic Area and the

European free trade Association, so,

if you like, the Norway model. I

know people have said we can't be in

the single market. Norway isn't,

it's in the European Economic Area,

and there are significant

differences, particularly around

controlling free movement of labour.

Articles 1121113 of the U agreement

allow the pulling of emergency

brakes, B segment for a long-term

new arrangement on freedom of

movement.

That will also intrude on

the Norway model as it's called,

paying in for access to the single

market. You are expecting a hefty

bill for years and years to come for

that membership?

A very important

distinction, also, on this... What

are you are happy with that? What

Norway does is negotiate and ring

fence budgets for different pieces

of the deal. It's a point of

negotiation, how much we would

continue to pay in. But it's not a

budgetary contribution which goes

into the central coffers. It is ring

fenced so that the money that goes

from Norway to Brussels is actually

specifically negotiated for specific

value that they get back from the

European Union.

About is your view,

you want clarity on that, the

problem is that Jeremy Corbyn has

ruled that out, saying you can't

remain as part of the single market,

part of the customs union, that's

what Brexit meant. You won't get

past the leadership?

The key point

now is that the European Economic

Area and the Norway model is not the

same as the single market. If we

could get bad point...

Just Jeremy

Corbyn understand that?

I saw an

injury which he drew the distinction

recently. For example, he pointed

out that Norway is not part of the

common fisheries policy or common

cultural policy. It has a different

arrangement, it has chosen not to,

on free movement of labour. The

opportunity exists to do all those

things. There is no European Court

of Justice due restriction. It's a

different court which diverges quite

substantially from the ECJ.

In Wales

we are well versed on the Norway

model because this is what Carwyn

Jones has been talking about for a

number of months, almost since the

beginning. The problem is that

Jeremy Corbyn won't listen to that.

Carwyn Jones is saying that you can

come to the UK, to Wales, if you are

coming to a job. He's been trying to

sell that to the Labour leadership

and isn't getting anywhere. What

makes you think that will change?

There's been a lack of understanding

around the European Economic Area,

and the opportunities that it offers

to be part of a model, the European

Economic Area model. But with

opportunities to do some bespoke

negotiations within that. What we

need to do is stop referring to

Norway as a single market option.

You cannot be a full member of the

single market unless you are a full

member of the European Union. But

you can't be in the European

Economic Area. Its associate status.

That's by far the best way of

getting a Brexit which doesn't wreck

the British economy and reunites are

deeply divided country.

You seem to

be outlining this is a problem of

not understanding, I suggest that

maybe the leadership of the Labour

Party understands, but disagrees.

What's going to have to happen now

is you will need some sort of

showdown with the Labour group in

Parliament, some of whom will agree,

and some will agree with Jeremy

Corbyn. That's going to be an

almighty row ayes

we are right that

the clock is ticking. When we get to

the meaningful vote in September it

will be able to run two kinds of

models. Michel Barnier has made it

clear that it is either the Canada

or EU model. We do need to have that

clarity within the Parliamentary

Labour Party across the entire

labour movement, and I believe, very

strongly that the European Economic

Area associate status is by far the

best Brexit option.

Will there ever

be unity within the Labour

Parliamentary party? Or will you

have two split, as you see fit?

Anyone who has been watching

politics knows that making

predictions as a mugs game. I won't

make any predictions and I'm sure

you'll forgive me for that. I would

say that there is a clear

opportunity for building a strong

consensus, a strong majority in

parliament for that, don't forget

lots of Conservative MPs agree with

what I'm saying. There's a huge

opportunity to build Parliamentary

consensus, get Theresa May to wake

up and smell the coffee. This is her

approach, her red lines are not

working. We need a more sensible,

pragmatic approach, let's build a

Brexit but words for Britain.

You

mentioned the wider labour movement,

looking up the papers this morning

they are reporting that a grassroots

Labour organisation, some of the MPs

associated are saying that maybe

they would be looking to get rid of

up to 50 Labour moderate MPs, they

could be ousted. I guess you can't

just up as a moderate MP, are you

worried? Momentum could be coming

after MPs like you?

I've read that

so many times. It is a shaky quote,

not attributed, the whole thing is

hang on one knowledgeable to quote,

I don't know how much truth there is

in it. I know we are facing the most

incompetent and inept government in

living memory, and we should be a

lot further ahead in the polls than

we are. The last thing we need is

internal party politicking, we want

to unite, turn the fire on the

Tories and actually get ourselves

well ahead in the opinion polls

which is where we should be by

rights.

Why aren't you further

ahead? Everything you have outlined

in terms of the weaknesses of the UK

Government, as you see it, you

should be miles ahead. But you are

barely neck and neck.

That is a good

question. I need to clarify our

edition of Brexit that's

particularly one area. That has

become the most important issue in

the minds of the British public. We

need a clear that we could be ahead

of the curve on that, and that's

something we need to be doing

quickly. I also think that,

potentially, some of this perception

that there is, you know, party

within a party, and the momentum

movement, what is the role of

momentum, what's going on as part

dignitaries causing some concern. I

don't know. I can't answer your

question specifically. But we need

to build a clear, strong, coherent

message. Turn fire outwards, not

inwards, that would be the worst

thing we could do.

Thank you.

Now the Wales Office

has a new minister.

Stuart Andrew has a solid Welsh

background, but sits

for a seat in Yorkshire.

He's going to be with Alun Cairns

at a summit tomorrow to discuss

strengthening links between Wales

and the South West of England.

Mr Andrew succeeded Guto Bebb, who's

moved on to pastures new at Defence.

So when I met him, I began by asking

what change he thought was needed?

I'm absolutely delighted to have

been appointed to this role,

and actually, I want to carry

on the work that

Guto has been doing.

I've been watching him, you know,

the work that he has been doing,

looking at the North Wales growth

deal and other areas.

And I think it's important

that we have out continuity,

it was working well,

and it's my job to make sure

we keep that continuity

going for the benefit

of the people of Wales.

Where you have any of your own

priorities which might be different

to what's gone on before?

I'm really keen on the

North Wales growth deal.

I understand North Wales having

grown up there, lived there,

went to school there.

I know how important

it is to the people of North Wales

that they get the very best benefits

of any increase in economic activity

as part of the northern powerhouse.

And I've argued all along

that North Wales needs

to be part of that.

So meeting the key players

in that is going to be one

of my first priorities.

I guess you'll be expecting

the question, you clearly

grew up in North Wales,

in Anglesey and Wrexham, and yet,

for somebody representing

a constituency up in Yorkshire,

whose interests do you

primarily represent?

Is it your constituency

in Yorkshire, or is it

the people of Wales?

So I think I've got a lot

of Welsh interests.

But of course, I've got a

constituency to look after as well.

My accountability will come

in Parliament, where Welsh MPs can

question me regularly on the work

that I am doing, on behalf of the UK

Government in Wales.

Government in Wales.

And making sure that I attend Welsh

affairs select committees,

and all of those questions,

and the Welsh grand, you know,

there's plenty of opportunity

for Welsh MPs who have been elected

by the people of Wales

to hold me to account.

That's Parliamentary accountability,

I'm talking more about your

constituency interests,

and who do you represent their?

Because are there any circumstances

under which you can see a possible

conflict of interests

between representing your

constituency in Yorkshire,

and your role as a Minister

of State for Wales.

I can't envisage any at this stage,

but let's look at this,

if we take a step back,

if we look at every single member

of Parliament and say to them

they can only be a constituency MP,

that would mean we had nobody

doing ministerial jobs.

I think it's a very professional

role, it's easy to differentiate

between the two, and I am paid

to do that.

I've got a keen interest

in the prosperity of Wales,

and of course my constituency,

and I'm happy to put in the hours

and effort to make sure

I do both effectively.

I'll give you an example

of where I could see, perhaps,

a conflict of interest.

After Brexit, we've heard

of a Shared Prosperity Fund

for the UK, so that would replace

the EU money which is going to go

to the West Wales, and the valleys.

There are poor areas

in Yorkshire who will be

calling out for that money.

There are poor areas

in Wales who will be

calling out for that money.

Whose interests will you be

representing there, for example?

Well, my job is to make

sure that when it comes

to the Wales aspect of that,

that actually the bids that have

been put in an effective

and are really going

to be successful.

At the expense of your constituents?

My priority as a local

member of Parliament

is for my one constituency,

of course it is.

But I can also fight equally hard

for the people of Wales.

I am fighting for many different

aspects in Yorkshire

and in my constituency.

I am prepared to do that equally

for the people of Wales.

I am passionate about Wales,

it is somewhere I grew

up, someone I love.

I have family in Wales

and many friends in Wales.

I've got interests in both camps.

I've got interests in both camps.

I am prepared to do the two andt

capable of doing the two.

Looking at what you think needs

to change with, for example,

the relationship with the Welsh

government and the Welsh Assembly,

a report recently said

the Finance committee,

for example are saying well,

Alun Cairns as Secretary of State,

he won't come and give

evidence to us.

Do you think there needs to be

a change in the relationship

between the Wales Office,

UK Government and the Welsh

government at the Assembly

in Cardiff Bay?

Well, let me say first of all I'm

looking forward to meeting

many Assembly members.

I want a good working

relationship with them.

Of course I do, at the end

of the day we all want

the best for Wales.

We want stronger economic growth,

more prosperity for Wales.

In terms of the finance committee,

that is scrutinising the work

of the ministers in the Assembly.

These Secretary of State

is responsible to Parliament,

and must go before the Welsh affairs

select committee on a regular basis.

He attends the Welsh

grand committee.

So here is accountable

to that committee.

Let's not forget that he has

also, with Robin Walker,

the Brexit secretary,

been to the Welsh Assembly

to talk about Brexit

and what that means for Wales.

I think to say that he hasn't

attended one committee means he's

not working for them is very unfair.

He does exceptional work.

You to slightly

contradictory things there.

n one hand that he is not answerable

to the Welsh Assembly,

only to Parliament, yet,

he gave evidence to the Brexit

committee in the Assembly.

It's one or the other, isn't it?

Obviously, what he was trying to do

there is make sure that everybody

is aware of what we are having to do

to make sure Brexit

is successful for every part

of the United Kingdom.

But, the finance committee

is really supposed to be

scrutinising ministers in Wales,

and there are plenty

of opportunities for elected

representatives in Wales

to scrutinise the work

of the Secretary of State,

and he is always there

to answer those questions.

I guess your first big deal

with the new job will be

the seven Alliance Summit

which is being held next week.

What's the thinking ahead of that?

What's the thinking ahead of that?

What we are seeing all over

the country is, we are trying

to build up areas that have,

you know, economic growth areas,

and the fact that the Secretary

of State has worked so hard to make

sure that the tolls are abolished

on the Severn Crossing,

it really presents an opportunity

for colour you know,

the cells Wales corridor

and the South West of England

to really work together and get

people coming across those borders

let's harness the talent out there,

the massive work that goes

on in South Wales in terms

of research, development,

innovation, let's really

build on that success

and maximise on it so we have a very

powerful economic area that can

compete with the Midlands,

with the Northern powerhouse

and with London.

and with London.

and with London.

Is there concern, that there

is a danger here that Bristol

and Cardiff have a relationship

there, but flourishes,

perhaps at the expense

of the relationship between Cardiff

and Swansea, Cardiff

and Wrexham, or Bangor as well?

Wales could be losing out

because there is so much focus

being put on Cardiff and Bristol,

is that a concern?

I think, I mean, in all of these

deals you will have a,

sort of, economic hub,

if you like.

But the prosperity will then,

you know, filter out to other areas.

We are seeing that in

the growth deals announced

all over the country.

You may have a hive of activity

in one area, in one city,

but that will generate a lot more

economic growth right

across the region.

That's what we wanted to see.

We want to make sure these

deals are working well,

that's why people are being invited,

the experts, this is about business

is leading the way.

What do they want?

What skills do they need?

What is the investment they want?

We can't have that successful

economy, in this area.

And I'm absolutely convinced that

with the huge take-up of people

who are coming to this summit,

there is real enthusiasm

and I think we should be

very excited about that.

Now the LibDems in Wales

have a new leader who says

she is the woman to take

the party forwards.

But it's fair to say that Jane Dodds

has a difficult task ahead.

The party has no Welsh MPs

and its single Assembly Member

is in the Welsh Government.

So how is Jane Dodds

going to turn things around?

She'll be here to

tell me in a moment.

First Rhodri Lewis looks back

at the ups and downs

of the party in Wales...

And I hereby declare that the said,

Ben Morgan Lake wedi ei ethol yn

penodol dros etholaeth Ceredigion.

penodol dros etholaeth Ceredigion.

It may not have been quite as big

as Michael Portillo's ousting

in 1997, but for Welsh Lib Dems this

was a moment in June when more

than 150 years of Liberal

representation in the Commons came

to an end.

Plaid Cymru's Ben Lake snatched

Ceredigion from Mark Williams

by just over 100 votes.

In Cardiff Bay the Lib Dems

are clinging on, with just one

AM, Kirsty Williams.

But being Education Secretary

means her ability to strike out

and oppose the Government

is obviously limited.

There are a smattering

of councillors, of course,

but how does the party rebuild?

but how does the party rebuild?

The aim of this election has been

very cunningly concealed

in the folds of the union Jack.

It's a very long way from a century

ago when a Liberal wasn't just

the most powerful man in Britain,

but also a huge global statesman.

Lloyd George's party

was the dominant force

in British politics,

since number of Liberal

seats both in Wales,

and across the UK has never again

reached the dizzying

heights seen under LG.

I give you the assurance

that as long as there

is a breath in my body,

I fight for freedom,

and for liberalism.

Even the passionate oratory

of the former leader

and Montgomeryshire MP

Clement Davies wasn't

enough to reenergise

the party after the war.

In more recent times things got even

more challenging with voters leaving

Geraint Howells and Alex Carlile

to carry the liberal banner