15/01/2017 Sunday Politics North East and Cumbria

It's Sunday morning, and this is the Sunday Politics.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to end Britain's membership

of the EU's single market and its customs union?

We preview Theresa May's big speech, as she seeks to unite the country

Is the press a force for good or a beast that needs taming?

As the Government ponders its decision, we speak to one

of those leading the campaign for greater regulation.

Just what kind of President will Donald Trump be?

Piers Morgan, a man who knows him well, joins us live.

In our region, Labour faces a by-election in Cumbria and

And we speak exclusively to Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn,

as the Copeland campaigning gets underway.

And to help me make sense of all that, three of the finest

hacks we could persuade to work on a Sunday - Steve Richards,

They'll be tweeting throughout the programme, and you can join

So, Theresa May is preparing for her big Brexit speech on Tuesday,

in which she will urge people to give up on "insults"

and "division" and unite to build, quote, a "global Britain".

Some of the Sunday papers report that the Prime Minister will go

The Sunday Telegraph splashes with the headline: "May's big

gamble on a clean Brexit", saying the Prime Minister

will announce she's prepared to take Britain out of membership

of the single market and customs union.

The Sunday Times has a similar write-up -

they call it a "clean and hard Brexit".

The Brexit Secretary David Davis has also written a piece in the paper

hinting that a transitional deal could be on the cards.

And the Sunday Express says: "May's Brexit Battle Plan",

explaining that the Prime Minister will get tough with Brussels

and call for an end to free movement.

Well, let's get some more reaction on this.

I'm joined now from Cumbria by the leader

of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron.

Mr Farron, welcome back to the programme. The Prime Minister says

most people now just want to get on with it and make a success of it.

But you still want to stop it, don't you? Well, I certainly take the view

that heading for a hard Brexit, essentially that means being outside

the Single Market and the customs union, is not something that was on

the ballot paper last June. For Theresa May to adopt what is

basically the large all Farage vision of Britain's relationship

with Europe is not what was voted for last June. It is right for us to

stand up and say that a hard Brexit is not the democratic choice of the

British people, and that we should be fighting for the people to be the

ones who have the Seat the end of this process, not have it forced

upon them by Theresa May and David Davis. When it comes though dual

position that we should remain in the membership of the Single Market

and the customs union, it looks like you are losing the argument, doesn't

it? My sense is that if you believe in being in the Single Market and

the customs union are good things, I think many people on the leave site

believe that, Stephen Phillips, the Conservative MP until the autumn who

resigned, who voted for Leave but believe we should be in the Single

Market, I think those people believe that it is wrong for us to enter the

negotiations having given up on the most important part of it. If you

really are going to fight Britain's corner, then you should go in there

fighting the membership of the Single Market, not give up and

whitefly, as Theresa May has done before we even start. -- and wave

the white flag. Will you vote against regret Article 50 in the

Commons? We made it clear that we want the British people to have the

final Seat -- vote against triggering. Will you vote against

Article 50. Will you encourage the House of Lords to vote against out

Article 50? I don't think they will get a chance to vote. They will have

a chance to win the deuce amendments. One amendment we will

introduce is that there should be a referendum in the terms of the deal.

It is not right that Parliament on Government, and especially not civil

servants in Brussels and Whitehall, they should stitch-up the final

deal. That would be wrong. It is right that the British people have

the final say. I understand that as your position. You made it clear

Britain to remain a member of the Single Market on the customs union.

You accept, I assume, that that would mean remaining under the

jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, continuing free movement

of people, and the free-trade deals remained in Brussels' competence. So

it seems to me that if you believe that being in the Single Market is a

good thing, then you should go and argue for that. Whilst I believe

that we're not going to get a better deal than the one we currently have,

nevertheless it is up to the Government to go and argue for the

best deal possible for us outside. You accept your position would mean

that? It would mean certainly being in the Single Market and the customs

union. It's no surprise to you I'm sure that the Lib Dems believe the

package we have got now inside the EU is going to be of the Nutley

better than anything we get from the outside, I accept the direction of

travel -- is going to be the Nutley better. At the moment, what the

Government are doing is assuming that all the things you say Drew,

and there is no way possible for us arguing for a deal that allows in

the Single Market without some of those other things. If they really

believed in the best for Britain, you would go and argue for the best

for Britain. Let's be clear, if we remain under the jurisdiction of the

ECJ, which is the court that governs membership of the Single Market,

continued free movement of people, the Europeans have made clear, is

what goes with the Single Market. And free-trade deals remaining under

Brussels' competence. If we accepted all of that is the price of

membership of the Single Market, in what conceivable way with that

amount to leaving the European Union? Well, for example, I do

believe that being a member of the Single Market is worth fighting for.

I personally believe that freedom of movement is a good thing. British

people benefit from freedom of movement. We will hugely be hit as

individuals and families and businesses. Mike I understand, but

your writing of leaving... There the butt is that if you do except that

freedom of movement has to change, I don't, but if you do, and if you are

Theresa May, and the problem is to go and fight for the best deal,

don't take it from Brussels that you can't be in the Single Market

without those other things as well, you don't go and argue the case. It

depresses me that Theresa May is beginning this process is waving the

white flag, just as this morning Jeremy Corbyn was waving the white

flag when it comes to it. We need a Government that will fight Britain's

corner and an opposition that will fight the Government to make sure

that it fights. Just explain to our viewers how we could remain members,

members of the Single Market, and not be subject to the jurisdiction

of the European court? So, first of all we spent over the last many,

many years, the likes of Nigel Farage and others, will have argued,

you heard them on this very programme, that Britain should

aspire to be like Norway and Switzerland for example, countries

that are not in the European Union but aren't the Single Market. It is

very clear to me that if you want the best deal for Britain -- but are

in the Single Market. You go and argue for the best deal. What is the

answer to my question, you haven't answered it

the question is, how does the Prime Minister go and fight for the best

deal for Britain. If we think that being in the Single Market is the

right thing, not Baxter -- not access to it but membership of it,

you don't wave the white flag before you enter the negotiating room. I'm

afraid we have run out of time. Thank you, Tim Farron.

The leaks on this speech on Tuesday we have seen, it is interesting that

Downing Street has not attempted to dampen them down this morning, in

the various papers, do they tell us something new? Do they tell us more

of the Goverment's aims in the Brexit negotiations? I think it's

only a confirmation of something which has been in the mating really

for the six months that she's been in the job. The logic of everything

that she's said since last July, the keenness on re-gaining control of

migration, the desire to do international trade deals, the fact

that she is appointed trade Secretary, the logic of all of that

is that we are out of the Single Market, quite probably out of the

customs union, what will happen this week is a restatement of a fairly

clear position anyway. I think Tim Farron is right about one thing, I

don't think she will go into the speech planning to absolutely

definitively say, we are leaving those things. Because even if there

is a 1% chance of a miracle deal, where you stay in the Single Market,

somehow get exempted from free movement, it is prudent to keep

hopes on that option as a Prime Minister. -- to keep open that

option. She is being advised both by the diplomatic corps and her

personal advisers, don't concede on membership of the Single Market yet.

We know it's not going to happen, but let them Europeans knock us back

on that,... That is probably the right strategy for all of the

reasons that Jarlan outlined there. What we learned a bit today is the

possibility of some kind of transition or arrangements, which

David Davies has been talking about in a comment piece for one of the

Sunday papers. My sense from Brexiteers aborting MPs is that they

are very happy with 90% of the rhetoric -- Brexit sporting MPs. The

rhetoric has not been dampened down by MPs, apart from this transitional

arrangement, which they feel and two France, on the one front will

encourage the very dilatory EU to spend longer than ever negotiating a

deal, and on the other hand will also be exactly what our civil

service looks for in stringing things out. What wasn't explained

this morning is what David Davies means by transitional is not that

you negotiate what you can in two years and then spend another five

years on the matter is that a lot of the soul. He thinks everything has

to be done in the two years, -- of the matter are hard to solve. But it

would include transitional arrangements over the five years.

What we are seeing in the build-up is the danger of making these kind

of speeches. In a way, I kind of admired her not feeding the media

machine over the autumn and the end of last year cars, as Janan has

pointed out in his columns, she has actually said quite a lot from it,

you would extrapolate quite a lot. We won't be members of the Single

Market? She said that in the party conference speech, we are out of

European court. Her red line is the end of free movement, so we are out

of the Single Market. Why has she sent Liam Fox to negotiate all of

these other deals, not that he will succeed necessarily, but that is the

intention? We are still in the customs union. You can extrapolate

what she will say perhaps more cautiously in the headlines on

Tuesday. But the grammar of a big speech raises expectations, gets the

markets worked up. So she is doing it because people have said that she

doesn't know what she's on about. But maybe she should have resisted

it. Very well, and she hasn't. The speech is on Tuesday morning.

Now, the public consultation on press regulation closed this

week, and soon ministers will have to decide whether to

enact a controversial piece of legislation.

Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, if implemented,

could see newspapers forced to pay legal costs in libel and privacy

If they don't sign up to an officially approved regulator.

The newspapers say it's an affront to a free press,

while pro-privacy campaigners say it's the only way to ensure

a scandal like phone-hacking can't happen again.

Ellie Price has been reading all about it.

It was the biggest news about the news for decades,

a scandal that involved household names, but not just celebrities.

They've even hacked the phone of a murdered schoolgirl.

It led to the closure of the News Of The World,

a year-long public inquiry headed up by the judge Lord Justice Leveson,

and in the end, a new press watchdog set up by Royal Charter,

which could impose, among other things, million-pound fines.

If this system is implemented, the country should have confidence

that the terrible suffering of innocent victims

like the Dowlers, the McCanns and Christopher Jefferies should

To get this new plan rolling, the Government also passed

the Crime and Courts Act, Section 40 of which would force

publications who didn't sign up to the new regulator to pay legal

costs in libel and privacy cases, even if they won.

It's waiting for sign-off from the Culture Secretary.

We've got about 50 publications that have signed up...

This is Impress, the press regulator that's got the backing

of the Royal Charter, so its members are protected

from the penalties that would be imposed by Section 40.

It's funded by the Formula One tycoon Max Mosley's

I think the danger if we don't get Section 40 is that

you have an incomplete Leveson project.

I think it's very, very likely that within the next five or ten years

there will be a scandal, there'll be a crisis in press

standards, everyone will be saying to the Government,

"Why on Earth didn't you sort things out when you had the chance?"

Isn't Section 40 essentially just a big stick to beat

We hear a lot about the stick part, but there's also a big juicy carrot

for publishers and their journalists who are members of an

They get huge new protections from libel threats,

from privacy actions, which actually means they've got

a lot more opportunity to run investigative stories.

Impress has a big image problem - not a single national

Instead, many of them are members of Ipso,

the independent regulator set up and funded by the industry that

doesn't seek the recognition of the Royal Charter.

The male cells around 22,000 each day...

There are regional titles too, who, like the Birmingham Mail,

won't sign up to Impress, even if they say the costs

are associated with Section 40 could put them out of business.

Impress has an umbilical cord that goes directly back to Government

through the recognition setup that it has.

Now, we broke free of the shackles of the regulated press

when the stamp duty was revealed 150 years ago.

If we go back to this level of oversight, then I think

we turn the clock back, 150 years of press freedom.

The responses from the public have been coming thick and fast

since the Government launched its consultation

In fact, by the time it closed on Tuesday,

And for that reason alone, it could take months before

a decision on what happens next is taken.

The Government will also be minded to listen to its own MPs,

One described it to me as Draconian and hugely damaging.

So, will the current Culture Secretary's thinking be

I don't think the Government will repeal section 40.

What I'm arguing for is not to implement it, but it will remain

on the statute book and if it then became apparent that Ipso simply

was failing to work, was not delivering effective

regulation and the press were behaving in a way

which was wholly unacceptable, as they were ten years ago,

then there might be an argument at that time to think well in that

case we are going to have to take further measures,

The future of section 40 might not be so black and white.

I'm told a compromise could be met whereby the punitive parts

about legal costs are dropped, but the incentives

to join a recognised regulator are beefed up.

But it could yet be some time until the issue of press freedom

I'm joined now by Max Mosley - he won a legal case against the News

Of The World after it revealed details about his private life,

and he now campaigns for more press regulation.

Are welcome to the programme. Let me ask you this, how can it be right

that you, who many folk think have a clear vendetta against the British

press, can bankroll a government approved regulator of the press? If

we hadn't done it, nobody would, section 40 would never have come

into force because there would never have been a regulator. It is

absolutely wrong that a family trust should have to finance something

like this. It should be financed by the press or the Government. If we

hadn't done it there would be no possibility of regulation. But it

means we end up with a regulator financed by you, as I say

many people think you have a clear vendetta against the press. Where

does the money come from? From a family trust, it is family money.

You have to understand that somebody had to do this. I understand that.

People like to know where the money comes from, I think you said it came

from Brixton Steyn at one stage. Ages ago my father had a trust there

but now all my money is in the UK. We are clear about that, but this is

money that was put together by your father. Yes, my father inherited it

from his father and his father. The whole of Manchester once belonged to

the family, that's why there is a Mosley Street. That is irrelevant

because as we have given the money, I have no control. If you do the

most elementary checks into the contract between my family trust,

the trust but finances Impress, it is impossible for me to exert any

influence. It is just the same as if it had come from the National

lottery. People will find it ironic that the money has come from

historically Britain's best-known fascist. No, it has come from my

family, the Mosley family. This is complete drivel because we have no

control. Where the money comes from doesn't matter, if it had come from

the national lottery it would be exactly the same. Impress was

completely independent. But it wouldn't exist without your money,

wouldn't it? But that doesn't give you influence. It might exist

because it was founded before I was ever in contact with them. Isn't it

curious then that so many leading light show your hostile views of the

press? I don't think it is because I don't know a single member of the

Impress board. The chairman I have met months. The only person I know

is Jonathan Hayward who you had on just now. In one recent months he

tweeted 50 attacks on the Daily Mail, including some calling for an

advertising boycott of the paper. He also liked a Twitter post calling me

Daily Mail and neofascist rag. Are these fitting for what is meant to

be impartial regulator? The person you should ask about that is the

press regulatory panel and they are completely independent, they

reviewed the whole thing. You have probably produced something very

selective, I have no idea but I am certain that these people are

absolutely trustworthy and independent. It is not just Mr

Hayward, we have a tonne of things he has tweeted calling for boycotts,

remember this is the man that would be the regulator of these papers.

He's the chief executive, that is a separate thing. The administration,

the regulator. Many leading light show your vendetta of the press. I

do not have a vendetta. Let's take another one. This person is on the

code committee. Have a look at this. As someone with these views fit to

be involved in the regulation of the press? You said I have a vendetta

against the press, I do not, I didn't say that and it is completely

wrong to say I have a vendetta. What do you think of that? I don't agree,

I wouldn't ban the Daily Mail, I think it's a dreadful paper but I

wouldn't ban it. Another Impress code committee said I hate the Daily

Mail, I couldn't agree more, others have called for a boycott. Other

people can say what they want and many people may think they are right

but surely these views make them unfit to be partial regulators? I

have no influence over Impress therefore I cannot say anything

about it. You should ask them, not me. All I have done is make it

possible for Impress to exist and that was the right thing to do. I'm

asking you if people with these kind of views are fit to be regulators of

the press. You would have to ask about all of their views, these are

some of their views. A lot of people have a downer on the Daily Mail and

the Sun, it doesn't necessarily make them party pre-. Why would

newspapers sign up to a regulator run by what they think is run by

enemies out to ruin them. If they don't like it they should start

their own section 40 regulator. They could make it so recognised, if only

they would make it independent of the big newspaper barons but they

won't -- they could make Ipso recognised. Is the Daily Mail

fascist? It certainly was in the 1930s. Me and my father are

relevant, this whole section 40 issue is about access to justice.

The press don't want ordinary people who cannot afford to bring an action

against the press, don't want them to have access to justice. I can

understand that but I don't sympathise. What would happen to the

boss of Ofcom, which regulates broadcasters, if it described

Channel 4 News is a Marxist scum? If the press don't want to sign up to

Impress they can create their own regulator. If you were to listen we

would get a lot further. The press should make their own Levenson

compliant regulator, then they would have no complaints at all. Even

papers like the Guardian, the Independent, the Financial Times,

they show your hostility to tabloid journalism. They have refused to be

regulated by Impress. I will say it again, the press could start their

own regulator, they do not have to sign... Yes, but Levenson compliant

one giving access to justice so people who cannot afford an

expensive legal action have a proper arbitration service. The Guardian,

the Independent, the Financial Times, they don't want to do that

either. That would suggest there is something fatally flawed about your

approach. Even these kind of papers, the Guardian, Impress is hardly

independent, the head of... Andrew, I am sorry, you are like a dog with

a bone. The press could start their own regulator, then people like the

Financial Times, the Guardian and so one could decide whether they wanted

to join or not but what is absolutely vital is that we should

have a proper arbitration service so that people who cannot afford an

expensive action have somewhere to go. This business of section 40

which you want to be triggered which would mean papers that didn't sign

up to Impress could be sued in any case and they would have to pay

potentially massive legal costs, even if they win. Yes. This is what

the number of papers have said about this, if section 40 was triggered,

the Guardian wouldn't even think of investigation. The Sunday Times said

it would not have even started to expose Lance Armstrong. The Times

journalist said he couldn't have done the Rotherham child abuse

scandal. What they all come it is a full reading of section 40 because

that cost shifting will only apply if, and I quote, it is just and

equitable in all the circumstances. I cannot conceive of any High Court

judge, for example the Lance Armstrong case or the child abuse,

saying it is just as equitable in all circumstances the newspaper

should pay these costs. Even the editor of index on censorship, which

is hardly the Sun, said this would be oppressive and they couldn't do

what they do, they would risk being sued by warlords. No because if

something unfortunate, some really bad person sues them, what would

happen is the judge would say it is just inequitable normal

circumstances that person should pay. Section 40 is for the person

that comes along and says to a big newspaper, can we go to arbitration

because I cannot afford to go to court. The big newspaper says no.

That leaves less than 1% of the population with any remedy if the

newspapers traduce them. It cannot be right. From the Guardian to the

Sun, and including Index On Censorship, all of these media

outlets think you are proposing a charter for conmen, warlords, crime

bosses, dodgy politicians, celebrities with a grievance against

the press. I will give you the final word to address that. It is pure

guff and the reason is they want to go on marking their own homework.

The press don't want anyone to make sure life is fair. All I want is

somebody who has got no money to be able to sue in just the way that I

can. All right, thanks for being with us.

The doctors' union, the British Medical Association,

has said the Government is scapegoating GPs in England

The Government has said GP surgeries must try harder to stay

open from 8am to 8pm, or they could lose out on funding.

The pressure on A services in recent weeks has been intense.

It emerged this week that 65 of the 152 Health Trusts in England

had issued an operational pressure alert in the first

At either level three, meaning major pressures,

or level four, indicating an inability to deliver

On Monday, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt told the Commons

that the number of people using A had increased by 9 million

But that 30% of those visits were unnecessary.

He said that the situation at a number of Trusts

On Tuesday, the Royal College of Physicians wrote

to the Prime Minister saying the health service was being

paralysed by spiralling demand, and urging greater investment.

On Wednesday, the Chief Executive of NHS England, Simon Stevens,

told a Select Committee that NHS funding will be highly constrained.

And from 2018, real-terms spending per person would fall.

The Prime Minister described the Red Cross's claim that A

was facing a "humanitarian crisis" as "irresponsible and overblown".

And the National Audit Office issued a report that found almost half,

46%, of GP surgeries closed at some point during core hours.

Yesterday, Mrs May signalled her support for doctors' surgeries

opening from 8am to 8pm every day of the week, in order to divert

To discuss this, I'm joined now by the Conservative

MP Maria Caulfield - she was an NHS nurse in a former

life - and Clare Gerada, a former chair of the Royal College

Welcome to you both. So, Maria Caulfield, what the Government is

saying, Downing Street in effect is saying that GPs do not work hard

enough and that's the reason why A was under such pressure? No, I don't

think that is the message, I think that is the message that the media

have taken up. That is not the expression that we want to give. I

still work as a nurse, I know how hard doctors work in hospitals and

GP practices. When the rose 30% of people turning up at A for neither

an accident or an emergency, we do need to look at alternative. Where

is the GPs' operability in this? We know from patients that if they

cannot get access to GPs, they will do one of three things. They will

wait two or three weeks until they can get an appointment, they will

forget about the problem altogether, which is not good, we want patients

to be getting investigations at early stages, or they will go to

A And that is a problem. I'm not quite sure what the role that GPs

play in this. What is your response in that? I think about 70% of

patients that I see should not be seen by me but should still be seen

by hospital consultants. If we look at it from GPs' eyes and not from

hospital's eyes, because that is what it is, we might get somewhere.

Tomorrow morning, every practice in England will have about 1.5 GPs

shot, that's not even counting if there is traffic problems, sickness

or whatever. -- GPs shot. We cannot work any harder, I cannot

physically, emotionally work any harder. We are open 12 hours a day,

most of us, I run practices open 365 days per year 24 hours a day. I

don't understand this. It is one thing attacking me as a GP from

working hard enough, but it is another thing saying that GPs as a

profession and doing what they should be doing. Let me in National

Audit Office has coming up with these figures showing that almost

half of doctors' practices are not open during core hours at some part

of the week. That's where the implication comes, that they are not

working hard enough. What do you say to that? I don't recognise this. I'm

not being defensive, I'm just don't recognise it. There are practices

working palliative care services, practices have to close home visits

if they are single-handed, some of us are working in care homes during

the day. They may shot for an hour in the middle of the data will sort

out some of the prescriptions and admin -- they may shot. My practice

runs a number of practices across London. If we shut during our

contractual hours we would have NHS England coming down on us like a

tonne of bricks. Maria Caulfield, I'm struggling to understand, given

the problems the NHS faces, particularly in our hospitals, what

this has got to do with the solution? Obviously there are GP

practices that are working, you know, over and above the hours. But

there are some GP practices, we know from National Audit Office, there

are particular black sports -- blackspots in the country that only

offer services for three hours a week. That's causing problems if

they cannot get to see a GP they will go and use A Nobody is

saying that this measure would solve problems at A, it would address

one small part of its top blog we shouldn't be starting this, as I

keep saying, please to this from solving the problems at A We

should be starting it from solving the problems of the patients in

their totality, the best place they should go, not from A This really

upsets me, as a GP I am there to be a proxy A doctor. I am a GP, a

highly skilled doctor, looking after patients from cradle to grave across

the physical, psychological and social, I am not an A doctor. I

don't disagree with that, nobody is saying that GPs are not working hard

enough. You just did, actually, about some of them. In some

practices, what we need to see, it's not just GPs in GP surgeries, it is

advanced nurse practitioners, pharmacists. It doesn't necessarily

need to be all on the GPs. I think advanced nurse practitioners are in

short supply. Position associate or go to hospital, -- physician

associates. We have very few trainees, junior doctors in general

practice, unlike hospitals, which tend to have some slack with the

junior doctor community and workforce. This isn't an argument,

this is about saying, let's stop looking at the National health

system as a National hospital system. GPs tomorrow will see about

1.3 million patients. That is a lot of thoughtful. A lot of activity

with no resources. If you wanted the GPs to behave better, in your terms,

when you allocated more money to GPs, part of the reforms, because

that's where it went, shouldn't you have targeted it more closely to

where they want to operate? That is exactly what the Prime Minister is

saying, extra funding is being made available by GPs to extend hours and

services. If certain GP practices cannot do that, the money will

follow the patient to where they move onto. We have no doctors to do

it. I was on a coach last week, the coach driver stopped in the service

station for an hour, they were stopping for a rest. We cannot do

it. Even if you gave us millions more money, and thankfully NHS is

recognising that we need a solution through the five-day week, we

haven't got the doctors to deliver this. It would take a while to get

them? That's my point, that's why we need to be using all how care

professional. Even if you got this right, would it make a difference to

what many regard as the crisis in our hospitals? I think it would. If

you look at patients, they just want to go to a service that will address

the problems. In Scotland for example, pharmacists have their own

patient list. Patients go and see the pharmacists first. There are

lots of conditions, for example if you want anticoagulants, you don't

necessarily need to see a doctor, a pharmacist can manage that and free

up the doctor in other ways. The Prime Minister has said that if

things do not change she is threatening to reduce funding to

doctors who do not comply. Can you both agree, that is probably an

empty threat, that's not going to happen? I hope it's an empty threat.

We're trying our best. People like me in my profession, the seniors in

our profession, are really trying to pull up morale and get people into

general practice, which is a wonderful profession, absolutely

wonderful place to be. But slapping us off and telling us that we are

lazy really doesn't help. I really don't think anybody is doing that.

We have run out of time, but I'm certain that we will be back to the

subject before this winter is out. It's just gone 11:35am,

you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland, who leave us now Hello and the warmest of welcomes

to your local part of the show and 2017 is already shaping up to be

full of political drama again. As by-elections are in the offings,

Jeremy Corbyn has been talking exclusively to us

about the one his party is facing We are also reporting

on the upcoming contest they'll face to be first elective mayor

of the Tees Valley. With me here in the studio is North

Tyneside Conservative Councillor, Judith Wallace, and in London,

the Labour MP for Stockton Let's start with that

by-election in Copeland caused Let's start with that by-election

in Copland caused by the resignation of MP Jamie Reid is going to work

in community Labour is defending a narrow

majority is so it's going to be Labour has held Copeland

and the previous Whitehaven seat since 1930s but recent boundary

changes and a declining labour vote When Jamie Reid retained the seat

in 2015, the Labour majority over the Conservatives was just 2564,

making it one of the most marginal It's a constituency

that is dominated by Sellafield and the new power station is also

planned at Moorside stop and the new power station is also

planned at Moorside. The Tories will want to make much

of Jeremy Corbyn's past opposition More than six in ten voting

to leave the EU last year But Labour will hope

the NHS is their trump card because of public concern

about the future of services Hardly surprising that two

on the short list to be Labour's candidate are at the forefront

of the Hospital campaign. Former Cumbrian woman of the year,

Rachel Holliday, is one of them. The other, County Councillor

and surgeon, Gillian Troutman. The ex-Penrith and border

candidate, Barbara Cannon, Jamie Reid begins his new role

at Sellafield on February first. But Labour may want to delay poll

to local election day in May. Copeland contains England's highest

mountain and deepest lake. Labour will be intent on making

sure they don't face Tristan Hunt is triggering the Stoke

by-election this week. This is a major test

for your party now. Both contests, you have

to win, don't you? There are tough contests in both

Copeland and in Stoke but we are confident

that the messages we have on the health services,

jobs and on investment, we believe the people

will respond to the Labour Party Most parliaments, and opposition

defending their seats, Isn't this a sign of a party,

to lose Jamie Reid and Tristan Hunt, two very talented, bright people,

held important positions in the party in the past,

they have decided there are better but the important thing for us

is to secure the Labour MP for Copeland to ensure

we can defend the NHS, look after the hospital

that is under threat, the hospital where they're

going to lose their maternity unit. They're going to lose

the maternity unit there and... They are calculating

that there is no chance of a Labour They still need people to defend

the services there and Jamie Reid and many others that have worked

hard to establish new services there, we've got to defend them

rather than see them disintegrate. Judith Wallace, given recent

polling, your party will be disappointed it didn't

win in Copeland. The bookies have made

you the favourites. Indeed so and I think it's

absolutely astonishing that we've had not one,

but two Labour MPs resign their seats and not that long

after a general election. It wasn't long ago that

a Conservative resigned, Well, it is unusual for them to be

going on to other jobs and shows a distinct lack of confidence

in their ability to retain their seats at the next election

and the ability of the Labour Party I think it's most unlikely that

Labour in its current shambles will hold the seats or former

government in the future. You say you're going

to winning Copeland, I think we have a very good record

and I think people can see the shambles that the Labour Party

is in at the moment and the economic We'll chat with the

results as they happen. There's more to discuss

because our correspondent, Luke Walton, has spoken

to Jeremy Corbyn is weak and suggested that Copeland

was a seat that Labour must win. We're going to be out

there campaigning, we going to be We're going to be out

there campaigning, we're going to be out there supporting the people

of the whole area, addressing the issues of low wages,

housing problems and crucially, the future of our National Health

Service is and their problems and hospitals throughout Cumbria

and other emergency services The people of Cumbria

deserve a fair deal. Another big local issue

there is the nuclear industry. Thousands of people

in West Cumbria rely on that. You have spoken out over a long

period against nuclear power. Doesn't that make you the Achilles

heel of labour in that area? Sellafield is there,

Sellafield employs a lot of people and it would be very helpful

if they treated their pensioners properly and treated the pension

fund properly as well. Those workers in Sellafield deserve

a fair deal just like everybody else and we are working

with them on that. You were on Conservative

leaflets and your comments about decommissioning power stations

is already making hay It is very odd that Conservative

leaflet is so well funded, so beautifully produced

and so expensive. Didn't find even that amount

of space to say something about the National Health Service,

about the crisis in I suggest to Conservatives,

they are in government, As Prime Minister, would you approve

a plan for a new nuclear power station next to Sellafield

which 20,000 jobs rely on? Well, we're not sure when that's

going to come up yet. That may have happened before

the general election takes place. I want to see an energy mix

in Britain, I want to see I don't know what the circumstances

would be at that time. I've obviously been very concerned

about nuclear safety as indeed has I want to see a safe nuclear system,

I want to see a strong energy mix in Britain which other

countries like Germany... So you don't rule out approving

a new nuclear power station? Let's look at the issue

when it comes up. I'll be all over Cumbria

in the election campaign. Someone who is worried

about your antinuclear stance is the departing MP,

Jamie Reid. He's talked about you poisoning

the Labour Party and not being fit I thanked him for his work and also

admired the way he stood up, particularly for very isolated rural

communities in his constituency. We had a very good discussion

about the need for public investment in good quality,

transport infrastructure, improvement of the rail

line along the coast, improvement of the rail links,

but also issues such as rural bus services such as communication

with isolated communities and also post industrial communities,

those people that used to work Jamie's voices Jamie's

responsibility. I'm happy to have those

discussions with him. We've had some good discussions

about these issues. We want to see a country where

communities are not left behind, where people don't end up forever

on zero hours contracts and low-paid jobs, where young people

can get into college, can go to university and can get

the apprenticeships they deserve. Jeremy Corbyn talking

to Luke Walton there. Alex, we know Jeremy Corbyn has been

against nuclear power as long That could be a source of disaster

in a constituency where the nuclear We believe in a thorough

energy mix and nuclear We have been very clear

in stressing this. Jeremy said he believes

in the mix that is necessary and we will continue to have nuclear

power in the mix. We're not going to do anything

at all that's going to jeopardise thousands of jobs in West Cumbria

and across the county where people are paid good wages,

very good wages in many cases and we don't want to

see any of that lost. He said he will make a decision

about that at the time. If he's a man of principle,

why doesn't he tell us he wouldn't sanction a nuclear power station

because he doesn't believe in it instead of trying to fudge

the issue and try and pretend It was a Labour government that

approved the plans for a power Very different Labour Party

from now, perhaps. There may be some different people

around and we have a different leader and he's got to determine

exactly what the situation is, if he is called

to make that decision. I hope there is going to be no

further delay and we can get those jobs there that can get this power

station built and the benefits can Judith Wallace, the reason you want

this by-election is you don't want to talk about the NHS

because their problems with the hospital that are mirrored

in hospitals all around the region. That's why you want

to avoid it, isn't it? There is an indication

that the Prime Minister is looking at the situation in Cumbria

and the NHS is under pressure. Some of the problems in A come

about because people misused A My local newspaper is reporting

they have had cases of going I think Labour, by removing from GPs

the out-of-hours services, We know about the threat

of the consultant led maternity services there,

we know women in difficult labours can face a 40 mile trip in order

to get to an alternative hospital. These decisions are made

by the local health trust, They are everything to do

with the government. Ultimately the health service

reports to the government they should be getting their fingers

out and saying, "That maternity unit is safe,

that A is safe and the people of West Cumbria can rest

assured the NHS is safe." As David Cameron said,

it is in the Tory's hands. It is cynical to put out a leaflet

which talks about nuclear power and doesn't address what is a big

issue in West Cumbria I think having heard

what Jeremy Corbyn had to say on that tape,

it's no wonder the Labour Party want to postpone this by-election

until May which would leave the local people without any

representation whilst It is worrying that Jeremy Corbyn

wants nuclear facilities That would have a massive effect

for this constituency and a disastrous affect

for the security of the country. Alex, you quit Labour's front bench

with many others because you had no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn,

that he wasn't fit Are you any more convinced

that he could be the man to hold on and win voters over

in Copland and Stockton? I have been enjoying

Prime Minister's Question Time. We have seen Jeremy Corbyn wipe

the floor with Theresa May. It doesn't matter what the subject

is, he's actually putting forward the arguments and most of those

are in social care, around our NHS. He has been getting that message

across and it has been So you reverse your

opinion from the summer. I believe certainly that

Jeremy Corbyn will lead us into the election and we will win

that election because we've got ideas, we talked

about the nationalisation of the railway system which has

tremendous public support. We have talked about ensuring jobs

are advertised in this country rather than abroad,

we can build an opportunity Judith, you can be smug

about Labour's current poll ratings. There's a danger is making

you complacent on that There will be no extra money for

the and Theresa May is in denial. We know the NHS receives billions

and billions of pounds and it is right and proper that

local people should Local decisions are made

by the local trust. There is medical profession

after medical professional saying you're not doing enough and this

is a huge crisis. The NHS were constantly told

as the envy of the world yet know other country chooses

to have the same system. We have to be looking

at the outcomes which are being Headlines made for the wrong

reasons, I suppose. You know your constituency,

will the people of Stockton North know what their immigration

policy is now? I would hope so because we spent

quite a bit of time on the streets of Stockton talking

to people about that. We believe that we've got to protect

jobs into the long term, we got to make sure that there

is still the skills In favour of freedom

of movement or not? I think it's no longer

really an issue. The British people have made it

clear that they do not believe They don't believe in it but we've

got to make sure the government do their best for our country

and if we require some form of movement of people across the EU,

we've got to have that in order to secure the markers

that we require. Judith, this is a man

of principle on immigration. Your party promised action

and never delivered. We have no idea what

Jeremy Corbyn's policy is. The speech this week

was supposed to clear that up. You promised on it and never

delivered it on immigration. The only way we can deliver on it is

by leaving the European Union. I've always been very

clear about that. As we leave the European Union,

Theresa May has been clear we will regain control

of our borders and that is what will happen,

commencing is important to people. The by-elections in Copland

and Stoke aren't the only big tests for the parties coming up

in the next few months. Campaigning will soon get underway

in the contest to choose the first-ever mayor of the Tees

Valley. Could one person represent an area

that includes not just Middlesbrough and Stockton but also Darlington,

Hartlepool and Redcar also. David McMillan took a tour around

Teesside to find out. It stretches from the North Sea

to North Yorkshire stop 670,000 people in a city region

with five different centres. Industrial, post-industrial

and occasionally rural. These offices in Stockton

where Tees Valley's But he or she will have a joint task

on their hands creating growth and prosperity across a large

and diverse region. Four parties have identified people

they believe can do just that. The local Councillor

is their candidate. There is a thread when it

comes to transport and Being from the area,

I have a good understanding of how My key drive is not to be looking

at what is great for the suburbs of Yarm because if Stockton

succeeds, Middlesbrough, Redcar, Hartlepool and

Darlington all succeed. South Barton near

Middlesbrough is one of many It is suffering in the

post-industrial age. Hugh Jeffrey, the leader of Redcar

and Cleveland Council says the closure of SSI shows how closely

linked the Tees Valley It didn't just affect Redcar,

it affected all five It is not going to be

about fighting each other, it's going to be about working

together, being pragmatic and working to deliver the goals

we have the Tees Valley which is and growing our jobs,

economy, a proven skills. North of Stockton, their rural

partnerships which contrasts sharply with the traditional image

of Teesside the north-east party's John Tait, says they can make sharp

contrast with the region's Transport will enliven

the whole area. Railways, roads, we need proper

ambition on how to put a transport infrastructure that is not fiddling

with the past but is ambitious and looks towards the future

and spreads prosperity Hartlepool is Ukip's

strongest race on Teesside. John Tennant is that

prospective candidate Andy has We're looking at the possibility of

bringing back the Tees Valley Metro system which was shelved

a few years ago. It will cost a lot of money to build

and we will have to find that money but you need a maypr who's

going to fight for the right We would expect the politicians

to insist that they can find unity and harmony to bring five distinct

areas together but one local journalist thinks they may be

underestimating the challenge. There is no natural empathy

with the concept of Tees Valley. Teesside is Middlesbrough

and Stockton and I don't think Darlington as a town wants to be

part of that. It's an artificial construct

and the mayor has got to create a region for them

to be the figurehead. The Lib Dems expect to name

their mayoral candidate at the start of February and there's still plenty

of time for others to join the race. The challenge for whoever becomes

the first Tees Valley Mayor is to make their new devolved powers

work to the benefit of every corner Alex, if you ask people

in Stockton where they live, they wouldn't say they lived

in the Tees Valley. It will be a tough sell to convince

voters that what is good for Hartlepool is also good

for Stockton and Middlesbrough. I have been very impressed

with the way our five local authorities have

worked closely together. They work hard and while other

authorities were falling about about creating deals to work

with the government to bring prosperity to the area,

our area was working I am confident there may

be a weird construct, people will work hard together,

they will deliver for the whole Fine for councils to operate,

but it doesn't need an election Voters will say, "Why am

I being called out to do this?" This is an opportunity the

Conservatives have given local authorities to take powers from

Whitehall and get the money that goes with them. There was no

compulsion to take part. Full marks for driving this policy on. Full

marks to the local authorities in Tees Valley to take up the

opportunity. They decide the geographic boundaries and the

powers. There will be deals. More money and more powers. They can get

more money if they are successful in driving economic growth. It is sad

further north in the region, the Labour leaders and elected mayor

have not been able to reach agreements. The danger is this

election could raise expectations that cannot be delivered. The Tees

Valley Metro, the money is not there to achieve that. Candidates cannot

deliver. There will be uneconomic mayor and we will have the

development corporation who have a good record of driving growth. More

more growth, an opportunity to have more money from the government to

extend the powers. We are talking about adult skills, infrastructure

and the key to driving jobs. Alex, are you convinced it will be

transformative? I hope so. We have seen cuts to our local authority

budgets and lots of things they were able to do before can no longer be

done. We have to put eggs into this basket and make sure we have strong

person in Sue Jeffery as the new elected mayor. We have the

possibility of a Tees crossing which will be expensive. We need an agenda

that will drive jobs and ensure people have the skills to take those

jobs and give our communities the prosperity we need. And you will be

favourites to win this election. If you use it as a platform to talk

about the cuts to funding, it's not going to get very far. Do you need

to get all the parties together and sing from the same hymn sheet so it

has some cloud with government? I am always surprised when I talk to

people and I tell them I work cooperatively with other people from

the other parties. They are surprised about that. That is what I

do and what the mayor will do and what the local authorities will do.

They work together as a team with their communities to deliver. The

impact of Brexit on the north-east was debated in the Lords this week.

MPs and unions have criticised plans to change and close two of the post

offices in Billingham and concept. They will be located in to new

shops. They want to raise council tax by 4.9%. 3% will help towards

social care. Lord beef has said the impact on the colour me off the

north-east needs to be fully considered in future Brexit

negotiations. The north-east of England has had the most positive

trade balance of any region of the UK. 58% of these exports are to

European Union countries. North-east hospital's a Mac -- A has dealt

with over 2 million people and a rise of 4%. North Tyneside Council

has approved plans for two huge cranes to be used in the wind

turbine industry at Wallsend. One is turbine industry at Wallsend. One is

six times bigger than the Angel of the North. That is about it from us.

Tomorrow night, inside out and asks if the NHS is to the National

Service orders where you live matter to when you want to get treatment.

We are back next Sunday. We will have a packed agenda. Why not follow

me on Twitter. Details on the screen.

Now, if anyone thought Donald Trump would tone things down

after the American election campaign, they may have

The period where he has been President-elect will make them think

again. The inauguration is coming up on Friday.

Never has the forthcoming inauguration of a president been

In a moment, we'll talk to a man who knows Mr Trump

But first, let's have a look at the press conference

Mr Trump gave on Wednesday, in which he took the opportunity

to rubbish reports that Russia has obtained compromising information

You are attacking our news organisation.

Can you give us a chance, you are attacking our news

organisation, can you give us a chance to ask a question, sir?

As far as Buzzfeed, which is a failing pile of garbage,

writing it, I think they're going to suffer the consequences.

Does anyone really believe that story?

I'm also very much of a germaphobe, by the way.

If Putin likes Donald Trump, guess what, folks, that's called

The only ones that care about my tax returns are the reporters, OK?

Do you not think the American public is concerned?

The Wiggo, Donald Trump at his first last conference. The Can will he

change as President? Because he hasn't changed in the run-up to

being inaugurated? I don't think he will commit he doesn't see any point

in changing. Why would he change from the personality that just one,

as he just said, I just one. All of the bleeding-heart liberals can wail

and brush their teeth and say how ghastly that all this, Hillary

should have won and so on, but he has got an incredible mandate.

Remember, Trump has the House committee has the Senate, he will

have the Supreme Court. He has incredible power right now. He

doesn't have to listen to anybody. I spoke to him a couple of weeks ago

specifically about Twitter, I asked him what the impact was of Twitter.

He said, I have 60 million people following me on Twitter. I was able

to bypass mainstream media, bypass all modern political convention and

talk directly to potential voters. Secondly, I can turn on the TV in

the morning, I can see a rival getting all of the airtime, and I

can fire off a tweet, for free, as a marketing man he loves that, and,

boom, I'm on the news agenda again. He was able to use that

magnificently. Twitter to him didn't cost him a dollar. He is going to

carry on tweeting in the last six weeks, he was not sleeping. Trump

has never had an alcoholic drink a cigarette or a drug. He is a fit by

the 70, he has incredible energy and he is incredibly competitive. At his

heart, he is a businessman. If you look at him as a political

ideologue, you completely missed the point of trouble. Don't take what he

says literally, look upon it as a negotiating point that he started

from, and try to do business with him as a business person would, and

you may be presently surprised so pleasantly surprised. He treats the

press and the media entirely differently to any other politician

or main politician in that normally the politicians try to get the media

off a particular subject, or they try to conciliate with the media. He

just comes and punches the media in the nose when he doesn't like them.

This could catch on, you know! You are absolutely right, for a start,

nobody could accuse him of letting that victory go to his head. You

know, he won't say, I will now be this lofty president. He's exactly

the same as he was before. What is fascinating is his Laois and ship

with the media. I haven't met, and I'm sure you haven't, met a party

leader who is obsessed with the media. But they pretend not to be.

You know, they state, oh, somebody told me about a column, I didn't

read it. He is utterly transparent in his obsession with the media, he

doesn't pretend. How that plays out, who knows? It's a completely

different dynamic than anyone has seen by. Like he is the issue, he

has appointed an unusual Cabinet, that you could criticise in many

ways. Nearly all of them are independent people in their own

right. A lot of them are wealthy, too. They have their own views. They

might not like what he tweaked at 3am, and he does have to deal with

his Cabinet now. Mad dog matters, now the Defence Secretary, he might

not like what's said about China at three in morning - general matters.

This is what gets very conjugated. We cannot imagine here in our

political system any kind of appointments like this. Using the

wouldn't have a line-up of billionaires of the kind of

background that he has chosen -- you simply wouldn't have. But that won't

stop him saying and reading what he thinks. Maybe it will cause him some

internal issues when the following day he has the square rigged with

whatever they think. But he's going to press ahead. Are we any clearer

in terms of policy. I know policy hasn't featured hugely in this

campaign of 2016. Do we have any really clear idea what Mr Trump is

hoping to achieve? He has had some consistent theme going back over 25

years. One is a deep scepticism about international trade and the

kind of deals that America has been doing over that period. It has been

so consistent that is has been hard to spin as something that you say

during the course of a campaign of something to get elected.

Ultimately, Piers is correct, he won't change. When he won the

election committee gave a relatively magnanimous beach. I thought his ego

had been sated and he had got what he wanted. He will end up governing

as is likely eccentric New York liberal and everything will be fine.

In the recent weeks it has come to my attention that that might not be

entirely true! LAUGHTER

It is a real test of the American system, the Texan bouncers, the

foreign policy establishment which is about to have the orthodoxies

disrupted -- the checks and balances. I think he has completely

ripped up the American political system. Washington as we know it is

dead. From his garage do things his way, he doesn't care, frankly, what

any of us thinks -- Trump is going to do things his way. If he can

deliver for the people who voted for him who fault this disenfranchised,

-- who voted for him who felt this disenfranchised. They voted

accordingly. They want to see jobs and the economy in good shape, they

want to feel secure. They want to feel that immigration has been

tightened. If Trump can deliver on those main theme for the rust belt

communities of America, I'm telling you, he will go down as a very

successful president. All of the offensive rhetoric and the

argy-bargy with CNN and whatever it may be will be completely

irrelevant. Let me finish with a parochial question. Is it fair to

say quite well disposed to this country? And that he would like,

that he's up for a speedy free-trade, bilateral free-trade

you'll? Think we have to be sensible as the country. Come Friday, he is

the president of the United States, the most powerful man and well. He

said to me that he feels half British, his mum was born and raised

in Scotland until the age of 18, he loves British, his mother used to

love watching the Queen, he feels very, you know, I would roll out the

red carpet for Trump, let him eat Her Majesty. The crucial point for

us as a country is coming -- let him me to Her Majesty. If we can do a

speedy deal within an 18 month period, it really sends a message

that well but we are back in the game, that is a hugely beneficial

thing for this country. Well, a man whose advisers were indicating that

maybe he should learn a few things from Donald Trump was Jeremy Corbyn.

Yes, MBE. Mr Corbyn appeared on the Andrew Marr Show this morning. --

yes, indeed. If you don't win Copeland,

and if you don't win Stoke-on-Trent Central,

you're toast, aren't you? Our party is going to fight very

hard in those elections, as we are in the local elections,

to put those policies out there. It's an opportunity to challenge

the Government on the NHS. It's an opportunity to challenge

them on the chaos of Brexit. It's an opportunity to challenge

them on the housing shortage. It's an opportunity to challenge

them on zero-hours contracts. Is there ever a moment that you look

in the mirror and think, you know what, I've done my best,

but this might not be for me? I look in the mirror

every day and I think, let's go out there and try

and create a society where there are opportunities for all,

where there aren't these terrible levels of poverty, where

there isn't homelessness, where there are houses for all,

and where young people aren't frightened of going to university

because of the debts they are going to end up

with at the end of their course. Mr Corbyn earlier this morning.

Steve, would it be fair to say that the mainstream of the Labour Party

has now come to the conclusion that they just have to let Mr Corbyn get

on with it, that they are not going to try and influence what he does.

They will continue to try and have their own views, but it's his show,

it's up to him, if it's a mess, he has to live with it and we'll have

clean hands? For now, yes. I think they made a mistake when he was

first elected to start in some cases tweeting within seconds that it was

going to be a disaster, this was Labour MPs. They made a complete

mess of that attempted coup in the summer, which strengthened his

position. And he did, it gave Corbyn the space with total legitimacy to

say that part of the problem is, we're having this public Civil War.

In keeping quiet, that disappeared as part of the explanation for why

Labour and low in the polls. I think they are partly doing that. But they

are also struggling, the so-called mainstream Labour MPs, to decide

what the distinctive agenda is. It's one of the many differences with the

80s, where you had a group of people sure of what they believed in, they

left to form the SDP. What's happening now is that they are

leaving politics altogether. That is a crisis of social Democrats all

across Europe, including the French Socialists, as we will find out

later in the spring. Let Corbyn because then, that's the strategy.

There is a weary and sometimes literal resignation from the

moderates in the Labour Party. If you talk to them, they are no longer

angry, they have always run out of steam to be angry about what's going

on. They are just sort of tired and feel that they've just got to see

this through now. I think the by-elections will be interesting.

When Andrew Marr said, you're toast, and you? I thought, he's never

posed! That was right. A quick thought from view? One thing Corbyn

has in common with Trump is immunity to bad news. I think he can lose

Copeland and lose Stoke, and as long as it is not a sequence of

resignations and by-elections afterwards, with maybe a dozen or 20

Labour MPs going, he can still enjoy what. It may be more trouble if

Labour loses the United trade union elections. We are in a period of

incredible unpredictability generally in global politics. If you

look at the way the next year plays out, if for example brags it was a

disaster and it starts to unravel very quickly, Theresa May is

attached to that, clearly label would have a great opportunity

potentially disease that higher ground, and when Eddie the Tories --

Labour would have an opportunity. Is Corbyn the right guy? We interviewed

him, what struck me was that he talked about being from, a laughable

comparison, but when it is really laughable is this - Hillary Clinton,

what were the things she stood for, nobody really knew? What does Trump

stand for? Everybody knew. Corbyn has the work-out four or five

messages and bang, bang, bang. He could still be in business. Thank

you for being with us. I'll be back at the same

time next weekend. Remember - if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics.