15/01/2017 Sunday Politics East Midlands

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.

And in the East Midlands, the council bucking the trend and

building new care homes for the elderly.

We've a special weather report on the

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 Coming up here in 20

minutes: The Week Ahead. In the East Midlands,

the council building new care homes. Derbyshire bucks a national

trend with its latest specialist centre but says it

will struggle to build more. We are wasting money

keeping people in hospital, which is expensive,

when they don't need to be there instead of coming

to places like this. And it's looking like

a stormy year ahead in politics, so we've got a special

weather report on the political Well, predicting the weather

is one thing, but forecasting the political outlook,

that's a real challenge. I'll be looking at

what 2017 could have instore for the region's

politicians, the economy, and the big events coming up

in the year ahead. My guests for our first week

of 2017 are Sir Patrick McLoughlin, the MP for

Derbyshire Dales and chairman of the Conservative Party,

and Liz Kendall's First, we'll be getting

reaction to something Jeremy Corbyn told us this week and it

appears to be an entirely new The Labour leader told our political

editor, Tony Roe, that a Labour Government would take over

the course of the private finance initiatives, which have landed

hospitals with billions of pounds of I do think PFI, frankly,

was a big mistake. I think it would be much

better to invest in those new hospitals by direct public

investment and I think that, generally, the public

would agree with it and I don't think anybody

now So, Liz Kendall, was

this a surprise to you? Look, some of the early PFI deals

where poor value for money and I think it's important

to look at, but, you biggest programme of hospital

building in the history of the NHS and we turned Victorian buildings

into state-of-the-art NHS Do you agree with

Jeremy Corbyn on this? I think it's important

that we look at any It's interesting that the health

foundation looked at this issue last year and they actually said

that the cause of the financial I think the real

thing we need to look at is getting more money

into the system and look at the Government's

failures on the NHS. Patrick McLoughlin,

the biggest PFI contract in our region is actually

for Kings Mill Hospital in Mansfield, which has a debt

of ?2.5 million for a refit which Surely it does make sense

to effectively step in and right of that

massive amount of debt. Well, it's not about writing it off,

it's about what was paid. What Jeremy Corbyn doesn't answer

in their quick quip with Tony is where any money was now

going to come from, it's still

a debt on Government. I think this is a bit too

dismissive, saying that all the PFIs were great things and they've

done marvellous things. There were some very bad

deals and we've been able to renegotiate some of those

deals, but there are debts around some of our hospitals

and quite a big call on their finances,

and that is part of the problem that they're

having to address within the house Jeremy Corbyn suggests that it

could be paid for by borrowing Is that really a sensible idea

in the current climate? any deal that is poor value for

money, but the real issue we've got with the health care

system is that we're not putting the money

into social care so elderly people

are getting forced to go into hospital and getting

stuck in hospital. That's the good for them and it

costs the taxpayer more. The Government has

completely failed to Liz, when you're fighting

the last general election, when you're on the front bench,

you failed to our commitment on the health service, we were told

by signing even that an extra ?8 billion was needed, we said

we would put that money end, we are putting that money end,

we will be putting Well, finds even said

this week that the Prime Minister was stretching it to say

the NHS had got the money it wanted and, in fact, any said that next

year's spending plans on the NHS Staying with health, let's move

on now because one East Midlands authority is bucking the national

trend by building its own care homes Derbyshire County Council said

it means it can help ease pressure on the NHS, but it

claims that Government rules will Our political editor

Tony Roe has been to visit the Council's

newest care home. The number of council-run care

homes are dwindling. Here in Derbyshire, they are taking

a different approach. Meadowview is built into a hillside

at Darley Dale near Matlock. Architecture for the

elderly and views they

say some of the best Day care is an important part

of what they do here. Jane Morris says it's

now a highlight of the I am look after very

well by my family. I found I couldn't

walk, so I came here. At first, you do wonder what it's

going to be like and what It wasn't until Mum came that,

actually, you realise how good Meadowview provide specialist

dementia care, too, contributing to over 140 beds

provided by the council. But they also have debts which can

take the pressure of stretched hospitals,

interim care to get people ready to go home again,

ready for independence. This facility has got 16 beds

specifically to get people out of hospital, get them skilled

and rehabilitated, backed up so they can go home and live

independently Now, in a lot of places,

then that facility as people either language in hospital longer

than they should or they go to a nursing home and sometimes

never go home from there. It's a ?10 million

capital investment here that kept control

of social care in Derbyshire. They believe they found

the way that is best for the elderly but the Government, they

say, doesn't approve and is making We will be struggling

to do this again because we can't use the health and social

care budget to support people We are wasting money

keeping people in hospital, which is expensive,

when they don't need to be there. Social care was missed

out of the Chancellor's Last month, councillors

were told they can add an extra 3% to council

tax bills to help pay for social care over

the Each 1% that said only

raises 2.7 million. We don't want and we shouldn't

be a bill that the It should be sorted

out at national level. But in a Commons

debate this week, the Health Secretary Jeromy Hunt

defended the Government's record in response to criticism

from the Shadow Health Secretary, Social care last year,

spending went up by He stood on a platform

at the last election of not a penny more to local

authorities for social care. To stand here as a defender of

social care is, frankly, an insult to vulnerable people up and down

the country but particularly people living under Labour councils

like Hounslow, Merton and Eeling where they are refusing

to raise the social care -- precept but complaining

about social care funding. There have been called

to take the politics out of social care,

have an independent commission

which discusses the best way forward

in The Lib Dems go as far as saying

there should be a tax to Others say the real problem

is years of cutbacks. Sir Patrick McLoughlin,

you have to admit that Meadowview, which we were looking at there,

looked Surely it makes sense

to allow more councils to build homes themselves rather

than relying on the private sector. Well, Meadowview is actually in my

constituency, you're quite right, but it was also on the planning

by the last administration, the

Conservative administration, when the county councils were being run

by the Conservatives. I thought the way in

which the dismissal of the extra money when it was said that 1%

only raised 2.7 million. That's going to be

an increase in an Derbyshire can have an increase

of over ?8 million therefore

in its social care budgets. So, the Government is listening

and has made, and will They are raising the

council tax, but they There was going to be

a question as to how much money you put in

and how you use resources But can you see a benefit of

Meadowview? You but it's not something

that your comment is In fact, people have

said they have been too Even though they want

to eat the NHS' problems, they have told they should

rein back in, basically. It's up to the local authorities

what they do with their The problem is keeping elderly

people out of hospital. Saving any money, Britney back and social care.

My understanding is that when a that plan, the Government said no.

There is a real problem here with the

Government thinking that the social care

precept can fund the gap in

In Derbyshire, just like in Leicester, the social care

precept only makes up one third of the gap

and the real problem is

poorer areas are less able to raise money from the social care precept,

so, in Leicester, we can raise about ?6.50 per head

It will increase inequalities and my constituents

Well, we've got to look at social care.

We got to look across the whole piece.

We asked Sir Simon Stephens how much extra was

Before the last general election, he said that those extra ?8 billion

We've committed an extra ?10 billion into the health service.

People working in the health service are doing a fantastic job at the

moment under very, very difficult circumstances.

Is something that has happened at different times of a

There's always extra pressures on the health service.

Well, of course, but you say it's up to local areas to try and look at

Nottinghamshire County Council called on the

Government to commit an extra ?2.3 billion

to social care, which is the

saying is needed on top of what the

I would expect Nottinghamshire County Council to pass

a project like that and say it's got to be found by the Government

The simple fact is, we've increased spending on the health

service and obviously we've got to look at some of the issues which

have come about as a result of some of the things

we seen over the past few

Miss Kendal, the Government, Jeremy Hunt, is saying there's an

extra ?208 million in funding a into social care.

And he is allowing councils to raise council tax.

Overall, we have seen around ?4.5 billion cut

from social care budgets in the Government came.

Patrick, I want to see that money got forward.

That doesn't come on until 2019 - 20.

I also strongly support a cross-party look at one

term funding issues for the NHS and social care.

It's always going to be political, but I actually think,

if you want a long-term solution, we are going

to have to get round the

We've tried it before, it's very, very difficult.

But I've certainly supported calls from Norman Lamb

Let's get round the table and look at it.

But we do need an immediate cash injection

because, otherwise, the system is really going to struggle.

Well, the money has been made available.

They are saying it's not enough, though,

The NHS are saying it's not enough, councils are saying it's not

They might we increase and brought forward.

We asked how much was needed, recommitted Stewart.

Labour did not commit to a 20 was a Labour front

bench spokesman on the last general election.

They did not commit to that extra funding.

We've got to deal with the situation we

There's no point in this debate going back and

And that's certainly what we have done

by the extra ?600 million that Jeremy Hunt has announced by giving

By giving local authorities the extra power that

they can to raise finance locally and spent that locally.

Surely it's time to get round the table, which

is what Liz is suggesting, and other people.

The last Labour Government spent 30 years at a Royal

There's been more talking about this.

Are you against getting round a table and talking this?

I think there's a lot that we can learn as we need

I think the public gets sick about this when they are in an ambulance

outside A and they can't get to see their GP.

They would like us to get around the table.

The Government has got to acknowledge what the state

Are you in denial over the state of the NHS currently?

We appreciate the tremendous work that

there are doctors, nurses, front line staff, paramedics, people

involved in the health service are doing.

Well, you can see more on the state of the NHS in an Inside

Out special programme tomorrow night at 7:30 here on BBC One.

Now, as you already seen, 2017 is shaping up to

be quite a contentious year in politics,

but what does it hold for

One person used to predicting the future is East

Midlands today weather presenter Alex Hamilton.

What you probably don't know is that Alex is also a

So, we've asked her to do a special forecast looking at the

outlook for the region's political weather for 2017.

Well, predicting the weather is one thing but

forecasting the ecological outlook is a real challenge.

In the East Midlands, we seen some of the

highest economic growth outside of London but also some of the lowest

Some say Brexit will bring sunshine and blue skies,

but others say an economic rainstorm will dampen the region's commercial

Several Labour MPs mutinied against Jeremy Corbyn last

Now, the winds of political change could blow through the

revolving doors of Westminster again,

but some familiar faces from the

East Midlands may have to stay out in the cold for a little longer yet.

Well, there was an icy reception for some East

Midlands MPs in Theresa May's new regime but who'd

thought that would be in the

Reshuffles are notoriously hard to predict but, in the Primate

of Brexit, that carousel of high and low pressure around the Cabinet

It was a funny picture for much of 2016.

When will that blanket of fog lift or not in 2017, the issue is so

complex is likely there will be some mist patches surrounding finer

And what about the electrification of the

Will we be able to get to London at lightning speed?

Or will there be a storm over delays to the project?

The Government says it is committed, but East Midlands MPs on all sides

And talking of rail, building has now started on the rail freight

It promises a jet stream of jobs for the East Midlands.

Opponents warn of a tornado of environmental problems.

Or the lack of it here in the East Midlands?

failure to agree with neighbours has left plans final

Meanwhile, the sun shines on the devolution deal in

Perhaps the Spring will allow new plans for our

As we've been hearing, health looks set to

Dark clouds seem to gather over some of

Warnings about the closure of Glenfield Children's Heart Unit in

Leicester and a review of several smaller hospitals could bring

We'll have to stay tuned to the forecast to see how

A units are under pressure and Emas was named the

nation's worst performing and services for hospital handovers.

A blizzard of calls in the New Year stretch the service even further.

If the inclement conditions continue for Emas,

create the perfect storm for the service in 2017.

All in all, it's a changeable forecast for the

Well, we told you she was a political geek.

So, the electrification of the mainline.

Patrick, you were Transport Secretary when that was given the

again at what a lot of our regional MPs,

labour and Conservative, are

very concerned now that it would go ahead.

Some of the work has already started and some of the

changes that one sees as one goes from the trained in Derby to London

Some of the double tracking just outside Corby is also

Well, the trouble is, when you're working on a

railway line which is a live railway line and in operation, it

does take longer on those particular project, and we embarked on a huge

investment as far as electrification across the country.

Liz, your Labour colleague Lilian Green is one who has been very

We haven't had a clear commitment about completing the

project and, overall, we see nine times as much investment in rail

infrastructure in wonder as he do in the East Midlands.

Because when you're talking about that, your job and that the

King's Cross is serving the east coast.

You're quite right, there is a project across rail which is a

big project in London, but that is part

of the reason, one of the

reasons why they've got things like HS2.

This Government is committing more to transport than the

last previous government ever did.

the very past six years, we've done very badly in terms of

We have the world's largest cluster of

railway companies in the East Midlands.

We really need to make the most of it and we need that because

they want jobs and growth for the East Midlands

to do even better in

If the Government wants to balance the economy and get an

economy working for everybody, it needs to do more for the East

I buy how important infrastructure is.

But 30 years of Labour governments, you've done ten

miles of electrification in the country.

I'd like to say it was at a snails pace.

Your New Year's resolution, I believe, is to help

We have some of the best clinical app comes as Glenfield.

For public consultation, it will be announced later on this one.

there working very closely with your hospital and campaigning.

I think Liz has done a commendable job on that.

I want to see people partake in a public exercise because

the question is about heart service across the country and I think it's

absolutely vital that this particular issue is...

It shouldn't become a party political issue.

We've got to make sure we've got the right answer for the region.

Time for a round-up of some of the other political

stories from the East Midlands this week in 60 seconds.

petitions against plans to survey Sherwood Forest for shale gas.

A firm wants to scan line under the forest to see if there is

Derby is to get a share Government funding to

create 9000 free childcare places around the country.

The city will get part of ?2 million being

allocated to six cold spots where lack of social mobility is a major

They are facing higher council tax to pay for

The county was when Police and Crime Commissioner wants it to

centralise any amount of tax paying towards policing.

It would add ?3.50 per year to the average bill and

Having failed to agree on its own devolution deal,

the East Midlands is now throwing a spanner in the

Elections for a mayor there have been put back for more

time to consult on by Chesterfield to join the scheme.

And that is the Sunday Politics in the East Midlands.

Thanks to Liz Kendall and Sir Patrick McLoughlin

Lillian Greenwood will be here next time.

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.