25/01/2017 The Wales Report

Tonight in a new season of the Wales report: the National Assembly will

not have a formal say in the start of the Brexit process. So, how will

a Welsh interest to be safeguarded in the years to come? We will be

hearing card bay talking to Carwyn Jones and asking for his vision for

Wales outside the European Union. Stay with us.

Good evening. And welcome back to the Welsh Report. This place, the

National Assembly for Wales will not have a formal say in the start of

the Brexit process. The UK Supreme Court has decided that that is a

matter for both houses of parliament at Westminster. There is no legal

requirement to get the approval from Cardiff or Edinburgh or Belfast.

This week, Welsh Labour, Plaid Cymru, the Lib Dems, launched her

own White Paper on Brexit. They are calling for full, unfettered access

to the single market. How realistic is that? In, we will ask Carwyn

Jones for his vision of Wales outside the EU. Don't forget, you

can join in the debate on social media. The hashtag is the Wales

report. First, let us look at the next steps in this rather tricky

process. Who needs to go to the theatre when you have the ongoing

drama of Brexit? On Monday, the First Minister and leader of Plaid

Cymru took centre stage with a white Paper setting out the Welsh Brexit

plan. At the heart of this plan is the importance of full and

unfettered access to the single market for our businesses and our

economy. 24 hours later, a ruling from the Supreme Court and MPs from

Westminster will have a vote on triggering Article 50 to leave the

EU. But this place will not be consulted. The court unanimously

rules that UK ministers are not legally compelled to consult the

devolved legislatures for triggering Article 50. So no officials say for

the Assembly on the triggering Brexit. And they plan at odds with

the Prime Minister's. Theresa May made it clear last week that

membership of the single market is off the agenda. It will be White

Paper have any effect on the Brexit battle ahead? We have structures in

place to listen, but whether or not politically that will result in and

out, that takes seriously the requirements that Wales and Scotland

have put forward around remaining in the single market, I think there is

some doubt to that. And there are those who say the First Minister is

not facing up to the reality of post-Brexit Wales. I don't think

Carwyn Jones would have ever taken any notice of the Leave campaign

even though their constituencies voted to do so. They could have

reached out and bought a consensus. In fact, in Carwyn Jones's opening

paragraph, you said we've tried to table of leave and remain opinion on

board. I know precious few Leave campaign as he has bothered to

engage with. What next in this unfolding drama? Is the First

Minister's voice so far offstage it cannot be heard? The First Minister

is with me now. For lots of people, the Supreme Court verdict was a big

victory for Parliamentary democracy at Westminster. But not such good

news for people in Cardiff and in Edinburgh and Belfast. How do you

see it? The keywords where we are not legally compelled to be

consulted. The Constitution, we are. They depends on what the bill says.

To be clear, there will be a vote in the Assembly on Article 50 members

will their views. But we know from the Supreme Court judgment that we

have some clarity in terms of what is legally expected and what is not,

but constitutionally, that's a different matter. If you are taking

a brutal of view, the votes could go either way in the Assembly, but

there's no obligation for ministers at Westminster to take any notice.

Politically, there is. The UK is a precarious position. I've warned

against the UK the EU and its potential collapse. The process and

deal itself must have the widest possible support across the UK.

Ignore the Celtic nations is to me, a recipe for this unity in years to

come. I don't want to see that. You must be disappointed the Supreme

Court said, as you just quoted, that there was no legal requirement,

because lots of people are hoping that condition would be part of the

ruling. When you heard that, were you disappointed? What the Supreme

Court did was say, look, external relations, foreign relations are a

matter for the UK Government. So there's no requirement to console

devolved legislatures. But if the bill itself does impinge on the

rights and responsibilities of the devolved assemblies, that's a

different matter. We need to see what it says. Regardless, there will

be a vote in the Assembly, personally, we have to take into

account the way people voted in Wales. I do not want to delay what

is going to happen, which is that the UK will leave the EU, but it's

important the process is done in such a way that is the least harmful

to Wales and Britain. So, you are saying you did not find the ruling

than expected, but were you disappointed? Yes. From our

perspective we took the view that were the UK and Parliament wanting

to change the law, then it affects Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

and the devolved responsibilities we have amended our consent. If the

bill is detailed and clearly impinges upon the rights of the

people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, then the view may

change. But until we see the bill, we will have to wait and see what

journey we take. What do you make of the tone coming out of Westminster

on this? It is allied to a message that says, this is a matter for the

UK Parliament? It is not a matter, this process, for Wales and

Edinburgh and Belfast. That is the message repeated all the time. You

can talk in positive ways about getting the Welsh voice heard, but

if that's the message from there, it's not encouraging. Rider that the

UK Government want to go into negotiations with the EU. Is not

what I start from, I want to get to a position where we can agree common

terms of reference and a common strategy. That will help the

Government in London. Ultimately, when the final deal is agreed, it

doesn't need to get support from across the UK. Farming and

fisheries, for examples. UK doesn't exist as far as farming of a shift

-- fishes are concerned. We can't have the UK negotiating a settlement

on those things where they are acting as the English Government. So

there is a role for the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government

and the Northern Ireland executive in terms of framing the future for

those areas. There is no UK or UK role in the future either. You took

of a vote in the National Assembly on the beginning of this process, we

know at Westminster that Labour is saying he does not want to be seen

to be blocking Article 50 because it recognises the referendum result.

Can I ask what you will descend your colleagues here in Cardiff about how

they should be voting on the triggering of Article 50? I will say

they can't block the process all look to overturn the referendum

result. There's no going back from that. But we produced a white Paper

this week and it gave ideas as to what the way forward should be. The

response we have to that sometimes is, you fight in the campaign. It is

not, it is the lever to keep fighting that, it is done and

dusted. We need to move on from that. The debate is now about how we

leave not if. That debate has enormous consequences. If it goes

right, it's manageable. If it is messed up, the consequences for the

Welsh economy for many years will be disastrous. What you say to those

who say the White Paper was unrealistic? To talk about full,

unfettered access to the single market. Nonmembership, access. You

know that comes at a price on the price is freedom of movement. Watch

your calculation? I noticed the Prime Minister said she wanted the

fullest possible accents. -- access. There is compromise needed, but for

me, what we have put forward is a system of freedom of movement that

is tied to people having a job. So instead of a general right to move

anywhere within the area of the single market, people can move if

they have a job. If they lose it, a certain amount of time is allowed

for looking for another and I think that is rational to approach it this

way. If we don't have the system, I know when they are concerned about

the current system, we moved to a new one. But I think that's much

fairer. You listen to people like Angela Merkel and other European

leaders, they all say the same thing. You can't really qualify for

the system of freedom of movement. If you want full, unfettered access,

as you do, you have to accept freedom of movement as they define

it. It is not your qualified version, but their full version. It

is not representative of the system is applied across the EU. Well, what

you have to remember with freedom of movement is when the East European

countries joined the EU, the UK had a different system to other

countries. We imposed a moratorium. So what the rules say and the way

they are interpreted two different things. The Norwegian system is

perfectly sensible. It is not our system, and it does tie the ability

of somebody to live in a country whether they'll be having a job and

that is within the rules, we think. The UK interpreted differently than

other countries. Even if it is within the rules, the Prime

Minister's has said we don't want anyone else's model. She's used the

Norway model as an example in the past. Freedom of movement to work.

The UK can't have everything. There has to be compromise. There is a lot

of posturing and outlining negotiating positions, but you have

two choices to me, either sell in the single market, which is crucial

to the Welsh economy, or you sell to control immigration we can't do

that. There will be an open border with the EU. The irony is, the UK

cannot control immigration without the support of the European Union

because the open border with Ireland. There's lots of issues

there that are not dealt with. Given the sensitivity around immigration

which we saw with the campaign, and you reflect that and we've tried to

explain your thinking on freedom of movement, do you think that even the

qualified system you are talking about today is one I Welsh voters

would find acceptable given the way they voters strongly last year? With

the difficulty we have is we know what people don't want. They want

out of the EU, that is decided. Wooden or people actually want. --

we don't know what people actually want. Some people do want

immigration, we can't win them over, their minds are made up. Some are

convinced there are hundreds of thousands of people living in well

some other countries, in fact, there are 70 9000. Bearing mind, one of

the interveners in the Supreme Court case was representing 2 million UK

citizens living elsewhere in Europe. Do they lose their access to health

care? Even fundamental issues such as driving lessons, will they still

be valid, or car insurance still be valid? Of course, they should be,

these will take negotiation and agreement rather than being taken

for granted as they have been because of EU membership.

There is a blunt chin to be asked about, to what extent does the Welsh

voice, your voice, can be properly respected? If you get a position

where the UK Government has come to a view on the Brexit plan, you don't

have to like it, maybe the leaders in Northern Ireland and Scotland do

not like it, ultimately, in this framework, you have no power to

change that position - does that cause you concern? I think the UK

would be very precarious if that happens. There would be the danger

of a Scottish referendum. We are already seeing difficulty in

Northern Ireland. The UK is not in the strong disposition here. For me,

the final outcome is, the UK gets a deal which is acceptable to all

countries in the UK, and we can then move forward. If we look at a

free-trade agreement, some people say we will have one with New

Zealand. On the face of it, it is a matter for the UK Government. But if

as a result of that agreement we saw New Zealand lamb being allowed into

the UK with no quota and no tariff, that destroys the Welsh farming

industry. I don't think that is a sensible way to look at politics in

the future. We must get away from this idea that all power comes from

Whitehall and Westminster. We share power across the UK. The Canadians

do it perfectly well. And the most lasting settlement for the good of

the UK would be the one which commands the most support across the

nations of the UK. And the dominant nation being England, and the debate

country as structured, whether people like it or not, lots of it is

to do with English Conservative MPs and a Conservative governance at

west Leinster. They are dominating the debate by force of numbers. The

problem is that the debate has not been about what is good for the UK,

but about reconciling tensions in the Conservative Party. And they are

not the same thing. This is not an attack on anybody, this white paper

is something to put on the table, to look through so that people have an

idea of what we are thinking. It gets criticised by people who have

no clue about what they want to do. If it had been a cross-party

document, it might have got less criticism? Let's examine what the

Conservatives did. When the white paper was about to be published, the

leader of the Welsh Conservatives sent out a tweet saying, latest

edition of the Beano. That's not very grown-up. And no time has he

said he wanted to be part of a process to work out what the journey

should be for Wales. Every time he stands up in the chamber and he's

asked, what is your view, it is basically, whatever Theresa May

says. We expect better than that from one of the major opposition

parties. I have absolutely no idea what the Welsh Conservative view is

on what should happen after Brexit. So I would suggest, to the

Conservatives, why don't you get consensus within your own party

before you start lecturing others? We have a Conservative leader in

Wales who successfully read the mood in the referendum in a way that

other party leaders didn't? He also said that he would be First

Minister. He did not read that very well. Yes, he was on the winning

side in the referendum, on the mood inside in the election. -- on the

losing side. I do not detect that there is a surge towards the

Conservatives in Wales as a result of. On this, they did not agree with

us, that is the nature of referendums, they cut across party

lines. Final point on this, and it is to do with the way that you

manage I suppose the personal relationship with the Prime Minister

and others at Westminster. URL Labour politician, you are a Labour

politician in power, which is a rare thing in the UK these days, and

you're dealing with a Conservative government. There must be tensions,

and that might be a disadvantage to you in terms of how you can interact

with them, is that fair? I don't think as in any personal tensions.

The degree we are a long way apart of course. Theresa May is difficult

to read, she does not give a lot away. I have had open conversations

with David Davies. We can talk to each other. Politics obliquely is

about people debating with each other. But privately, there have to

be ways that people can sit down and talk to each other and find a way

forward and that is the way we see it. This is not a party political

battle, it is making sure that Wales and Britain prospers in the future.

If we can find common ground in order for that to happen, I think

that is exactly what people would expect us to do. That brings me to

the next thing. It has been a very big week in terms of the governments

of Wales. The Wales Bill has completed its Parliamentary stages.

Forget we have lined up three expert witnesses if you like to give us

their perspectives on what's going on.

Well, I think it takes us forward much more to the kind of settlement

they have in Scotland, where you have a broad range of legislative

powers and also some taxation responsibility. And I think it is a

good mix. In principle there are two sorts of

things you could do. You could either cap the top rate as a revenue

raising measures in the long run, and maybe encourage some business in

Wales, or you could raise the basic rate if you wanted to, for revenue

purposes. Those are the two strategies. Raising the top rates of

income tax as a revenue raising measures doesn't make sense. And the

reason is, we've got this huge open border with England, people move

once every ten years on average, people work in England and live in

Wales or the other way round, and it's just so easy to move across the

border. There are some really important constitutional potential

lying within the bill, particularly around alterations to the size of

the Assembly, the number of constituencies, the electron system,

the name, the age at which people are allowed to vote and so on. They

may not seem exciting but we know that the National Assembly has

serious capacity issues at the moment, assembling them has asked

wretch in terms of their scrutiny. So this gives us an opportunity to

at least look at that area of development. We know there needs to

be a lot more done to make people will be Wales feel that having an

institution is Cardiff is significant and makes a difference

to their lives. Obviously, the success of government is how you use

the powers that you have. And that would be the true test, whether the

lives of the people of Wales were improved by these new powers. It

will not improve things automatically.

First Minister, is this Wales Bill a lasting settlement? No, is the

simple answer. It does take us forward and there are things which I

can welcome in it. For we were not treated in the same way as Scotland

and there are still some issues which are outstanding in order to

make the UK and Wales work better. Why were you not able to get into a

position where the bill was in better shape? I think there is a

limit to how much influence the Wales office has in the Welsh

government. We met a lot of resistance from the Ministry of

Justice, who did not seem to understand devolution at all. Other

departments were fine. That is the nature of Whitehall. It is a step

forward for Wales but it is far from being a lasting settlement. How can

it be when there are so many issues outstanding, such as policing and

legal jurisdiction? It is important that people realise how this changes

things and how it might change their own lives. So how would you explain

to people at home, what does this Wales Bill do in terms of changing

life in Wales? It gives Welsh people control over this place as an

institution, the way that it runs. If we look at areas like energy

projects, where we will have to develop them to create jobs in

Wales, to do with water, a very emotional issue in Wales, as we

know. And other areas, for example, it will devolve a chunk of income

tax. We are not looking to increase income tax in Wales, but it allows

us to be able to borrow. Everyone else does it to pay for big

projects. This gives us the opportunity to do that and to fund

transport schemes, for example, which we know will make a real

difference to people is lives. When you think about tax, very emotive

subject again, income tax, and those powers, granting those powers is

clearly very significant, it can allow you to do some rather dramatic

things, just a penny on the basic rate will give you about ?180

million to play with, which could be useful for the Health Service and

other things - how likely are Welsh voters to see you starting to use

those powers? 0 chance of that. We made a pledge in our manifesto that

we would not alter the rate of income tax and any other bands in

Wales during the course of this Assembly. Income tax devolution

gives us the opportunity to create a revenue stream to borrow. Borrow

prudently, not which you cannot afford to pay back. But it means we

can fund transport scheme which could not be funded in Wales because

they were in Wales, whereas England, Scotland and Northern Ireland could

do it. But there's absolutely no chance of taxes being increased in

Wales. The point about having a big open border with England,

competitiveness, and looking not just on basic rate but at higher tax

rates as well as both to you buy that argument? Yes. I think he is

spot on about this. In fact if you raise the higher rate, you do not

raise much money. Proportionately we have fewer higher rate taxpayers in

Wales. Because those are the people who are the most mobile anyway. To

my mind, increasing taxes in Wales is not on the agenda during this

period. What would you say to the person sitting at home may be

feeling frustrated thinking, we've got the Welsh government, they're

gaining more powers, they can spend on things they think they would like

to spend more on, but they're not using the powers, to the point of

having them? The ability to borrow, that's the initial thing for me. The

fact that we can then borrow against the funding stream that we have from

income tax in order to pay for transport projects which are needed

in so many parts of Wales. Does we could not do otherwise. If we look

at the M4 relief road in Newport, we could not do it at all if we could

not borrow money. We need to have access to that kind of money. Every

other government in the UK has that. What kind of borrowing are we

talking about over and above the borrowing that we would have talked

about maybe 12 months ago? There's a difference between what we can

borrow and what we should borrow. We have to service any debt. We are not

Kulasekara we are going to borrow because we can. We have to take if

you on what we think is needed and also what is affordable. And what is

that? We are talking hundreds of millions, rather than billions. To

be clear, this is not all the money to fund year-on-year revenue, this

is about oil and money for specific projects which have a one-off cost.

-- this is about borrowing money. But in your own mind, what is an

acceptable limit on that kind of borrowing, half a billion, 700

million, 800 million? Depends on the terms of borrowing. At the moment it

is a good time to borrow money with interest rates so low. But it may

not always be that way. We have to make and assessments, what effect

would a possible increase in rates have on our borrowing, it is not

possible to put an absolute figure on it. Less than 1 billion? Yes. Who

are not going to borrow to the limit. That would not be prudent.

But over half a million? Depends what the project is. If it is a

worthwhile and affordable project, then yes, we would consider funding

such a project. Practical things to do with the place that we are in

today, the size of the Assembly, for example. Would you use powers to

change the membership? I think that is a highly sensitive and

controversial area. If we look at it from one angle, there are 60 members

here, Northern Ireland has 109, even though they have half the

population. Scotland has 129 members, even though it is not twice

the size of Wales. But let's face it, saying we need more politicians

is not the most popular stance to take. I think there is a lot of

explanation which would have to be done if we were going to increase

the numbers here to 80, for example. There is no doubt that the workload

of Assembly members is huge compared to people in other assemblies. But

that is not going to win the public over necessarily. You think it is a

case worth making? I can see it from one angle in terms of the workload

for members. But I am sensitive to public opinion and the last thing I

want to do is to take a position as lead when we get the powers. We do

not want to say in the first few weeks, we're going to increase the

number of politicians straightaway. That would make us look ridiculous

in the eyes of the people of Wales. A lot of work has to be done here to

illustrate the people have ears and the works and whether they think

actually, given that we might see a cut in the number of Welsh MPs, a

tiny voice in Westminster, whether there needs to be an increase in the

Assembly here in Cardiff. Would you be comfortable going into the next

Assembly elections with the same size of chamber here? The strange

thing is, when you're in government, you don't notice it in the same way.

Of you're a backbencher, and you're on two or three committees are

weak... I get a lot of support, as First Minister, it is the

backbenchers who feel it the most. -- two or three committees a week.

Are there enough members here to hold the government to account? They

do it, but it is a struggle. So in five years' time? This is a part of

the plate which we have to have... You clearly do not think that the

system as it is is going to be as efficient in five years' time? It

works, but it is under strain, that is the way I would put it. Will you

be making the case for increasing the size of the chamber? What I

would say is, we need more politicians. It needs to be part of

a package around how the Assembly operates, and also we may end up

with fewer MPs. I am not making the link. I would rather we kept the

same representation at worse Mr. But these are the issues which will have

to be debated over the next few years.

I don't think that would do us a great deal of good. The number of

constituencies? That is even more difficult. Even if you can get an

agreement to having 80 members, you have to have all elected. All

parties are different views on how to operate that. It is a tricky

issue and would take a great of diplomacy. That's an understatement.

The number of constituents come you've mentioned the voting system.

On a personal level, can you foresee circumstances in which you will be

making an argument for a different kind of voting system, allied to

other changes around the Assembly in years to come? There were pamphlets

years ago suggesting we should of 80 members elected first past the post.

That was the case I made at that point. It will not be on that basis

and I accept that. But it is a question of what sort of system we

use, what the mix is, do we carry on with the regional members, these are

all issues we need to look at carefully before the final decision.

The voting age, lowering it. Would you like to take action? Yes, 16. It

was 60 in Scotland in the referendum. If that is OK, is

difficult to argue against the bingo cane every other election, so my

point of view is that 16 in this day and age is the proper age people can

vote. My daughter will be delighted to hear me say that. I'm sure she

will. The answer to what you might changes I'm not sure or we will

think about that. Give the impression you are giving that

you're getting more powers, but are either reluctant to use them or will

not use them because they are too risky politically. Is that the

message people will get? We do not jump headlong into change for the

sake of it. If you look at income tax, for me, the most important

thing is we are setting up a new body, and it must be set up. It has

to add Minister not just income tax, that transaction tax which will take

over from stamp duty. We need to ensure it is up and running first

bit for we make sure there were no glitches or problems. Family 's

Tavern before we look at what happens after. Let us get the new

system up and running and the debate is beyond the next election. A final

point about national perceptions of the way this place works, not just

the Assembly, but the Government. After all the debate about the Wales

Bill, is there a healthier perception of the way that the

Government here works now after the debate? Because the debate got

bogged down in all kinds of issues which you are involved in and you

know, at Westminster and here. What have that done for perceptions of

the way the Government here is perceived? The first draft though

they produced in Westminster was so awful that no one could support it.

It overturned the referendum results. That's what they were

trying to do in Westminster, overturned the clearly expressed a

view of the Welsh people in 2011 that they wanted all the laws in

effect in Wales to be made here in Wales. They try to overturn that and

we have to go back to the drawing board and produce the better. Good,

but not so good that it can't be improved upon, as we say. That's

what we have to look out for. People in Wales proud to have

representation and a Government, all the opinion polls show us that the

case. We've moved beyond should Wales have a voice? Two how should

that voice be exercised? First Minister, thank you. That was Carwyn

Jones, talking to me a little earlier. That is all for tonight. If

you would like to get in that about the programme or anything else,

e-mail us. Or follow us on social media. The debate continues. The

hashtag is the Welsh report. We return next week. Good night.