15/01/2017 Sunday Politics East

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?

Here in the East: well, joins us live.

Our councils struggling to meet the bill for social care.

And Jeremy Corbyn tells us about his plans for farmers after Brexit.

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. Hello, welcome to Sunday Politics

East, I'm Stewart White. Later in the programme,

Jeremy Corbyn, who visited Peterborough at this week to deliver

Labour's message on immigration, tells us his plans for the foreign

workers in our fields and promises It does mean subsidies,

it does mean support. But it also means encouragement

of rural industry as well. Our guests this week,

the Labour MP for Cambridge and Shadow Transport Minister,

Daniel Zeichner, and for the Conservatives,

the Suffolk MP Dr Dan Poulter, And the crisis around

health and social care MPs clashed in a special

debate on how to solve Former Health Minister Simon Burns

defended the Government's record I will accept it was a modest

real terms increase, but it showed our commitment

and our intent to invest in improving

the National Health Service. MPs from this region are now

spearheading a cross-party campaign MPs from her own party,

from the Labour Party and from my own have come together

to call for the Government to establish an NHS

and care convention. Labour accused the Prime Minister

of being in denial. Earlier this week,

the Prime Minister said she wanted More people sharing hospital

corridors on trolleys. Theresa May rejected demands

for extra cash from Whitehall. We have put extra money into social

care, in the medium term, we are ensuring that best practice

is spread across the country. While the boss of NHS England

added to the pressure. In 2018-19, as I've previously said

in October, real terms NHS spending per person in England

is going to go down. Of course, social care is provided

by our local authorities. Adult social care is

their biggest single cost. In some cases, it is about

a third of their budgets. In most of the others,

it is up to a half. But in Norfolk, it is almost three

quarters of all council spending. The Government is now allowing

councils to charge an extra 3% on their council tax this year

and next year. Simon Dedman has been

to a care home in Colchester. The last Minimum Wage increase,

from 15p, has really So, that goes up, our

utility bills are going up, our mortgage goes up,

but yet, The Council Leader,

who funds residents' care in Essex, David Finch,

meets the Haven Care Homes Manager Ryan Moring is not happy

with the County Council's funding. The money which you pay us,

we cannot just employ anybody off the street,

of course we can't, we are looking How many training courses

have you had to do? 15 courses, which you expect

from us, as Essex County Council, you expect our staff to have this

mandatory training to be able But yet, we get no

assistance in funding that. Well, Ryan, I fully understand

the point that you're making about the rates that we pay you,

but it is a very large market for us, and very clearly,

as I said earlier on, in terms of our total budget,

nearly 50% of our budget is already going on care for the elderly

and care for mental health and care So I think there is an awful lot

of money that we are spending, if we could pay you more,

we would, but we can't, because simply there is not enough

money in the system. Where are residents expected to go

if care homes close? I mean, Alzheimer's,

for instance, they cannot possibly live on their own,

and carers coming in two or three Well, the answer to that is, I don't

have a short answer to that one. And my ask, of both residents

and indeed care home providers, is join us in that lobbying

of government to get government to recognise it

needs to do something. Because this has been growing,

I said earlier on, 22% of my population in Essex is over

the age of 65. The number of 85-year-olds

is doubling. This is a disaster

waiting to happen. Councils and care workers

are united in the need But right now, councils can

do little to improve There is a growing black hole

for care that councils like Essex For this coming year,

they are having to make And that is because central

government has been cutting its grants to councils,

as well as the financial pressure of a rising

national living wage, and this year, more people than ever

before will turn 70. In response, the Government allowed

councils last year to raise a social care precept,

an additional council tax, For Essex, an extra 2%

will bring in ?11 million. The Government says this year

and next, councils can raise an additional 1%,

which would bring in But that would cover less than

a week's worth of care in Essex. The director of the Essex Care

Association says the situation Most providers have to look

at their private clients and disproportionately increase

the amount that their private clients pay to subsidise

what little we are getting But is it right that

private clients, who have worked all their lives,

saved and paid taxes on that money, are now having to cross subsidise

people whose care is being badly I mean, that is the situation

that we are in now, Councils are putting the finishing

touches to their budgets. Tomorrow, we find out how

much Essex will raise Well, this is the statement

from the Government. Dr Dan Poulter is somebody who has

had experience of working in the NHS, what is the answer? It is very

pressure that I have known on the pressure that I have known on the

health care system in just over a decade that I have been working as a

doctor caring for patients. So whatever we do today, if we put more

money in today it will take a number of months or years to see that

benefit on the ground. But more money is certainly a key part of

this and a key part of the extra cash that is needed will be needed

to help transform the way services are delivered. More money for

preventative care and general practice to prevent unnecessary and

inappropriate admissions, and also more money to alleviate the pressure

on the social care system so we stop frail and elderly people having to

go to a handy. This care convention, Norman Lamb would like to see health

and social care combine, is that where you stand? Hill-mac very much,

and that has to be the way forward. It is better for the patient. And it

also makes sure that we deliver services in a seamless way. It would

help stop some of these rack-mounted processes, which are leading to what

we see now in any -- fragmented, which is the shop window of the care

system. Why did we not see this coming? We have had this problem

with care out of hospitals, it goes back 20 or 30 years but it has got a

lot worse in recent times. One of the problems is cancelled my here in

Cambridge that did not even take the social care preceptor last year, it

makes the situation worse. There are makes the situation worse. There are

over 100 over 85-year-olds at Addenbrooke's who could leave

hospital but have nowhere to go. That does not make any sense. I

think Dan is right, at the last election, Labour argued for an

integrated health and care system and that is what we will have to do.

I know this is a cross-party thing, but to make the Government listen,

virtually everybody has to be part of it. Would you be willing to be a

part of this? Yes, I think Jeremy Corbyn was right this week to

criticise the Prime Minister bro being in denial. No one denies this

is a long-term difficulty. Surely all prime ministers du? I do not

think so. Gordon Brown was brave and put a lot of extra money into the

Health Service and it made a difference. Frank, that is what

needs to be done. The last election was unfortunate in terms of the

discussion, it became very party politicised. You will remember that

I got quite exercised during the election debate about this because I

misrepresented. We did talk about misrepresented. We did talk about

the two together. Some of the political heat needs to be taken out

and we need to work to get a solution. Are we reaching meltdown?

This is a crisis that we cannot ignore any more. How I see it is

like a submarine moving into increasingly shallow waters.

Occasionally where -- occasionally you find a deeper pool but

increasingly you are running out of water and hitting more and more

rocks. There is no more deeper water? Unless we can find more

money. It is undoubtedly the case that people working in the health

and care system, the injection of cash that came under Tony Blair made

a significant difference to the ability to deliver high-quality.

Unless we can find some extra cash, and that is also needed to transform

the service, we will be in a difficult place very quickly. Should

local authorities be the people we turn to for our social care, or

should it be taken away from them and just say, this is the problem?

Local authorities have developed the skills in commissioning local social

care services, but one of the problems in terms of how service is

delivered is that it is fragmented. There is now a and well-being board,

which is joining up what local authorities do with the NHS, but

unless we want that to become just a talking shop, we need to support

that bored with some additional powers and I think that local

authorities should be more involved in commissioning... Is that the

right way forward? Or do we just need to have a national approach? I

think we possibly need to rethink but the big problem has been the

huge cuts to local authorities. Many did warn a few years ago that there

would be consequences of this and that is what we are seeing. They are

struggling to manage a whole range of important services. In Cambridge,

the crisis in the adult social care budget has been there for some years

and it leads to more costs. You do not save money despite -- just by

shifting the problem from one part of the system to the other.

Well, now to the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn.

Earlier this week, he was in Peterborough,

where he was expected to revive the Labour policy on immigration.

He was expected to say the party is not wedded to the free

On the day, though, the message was watered down.

I went to see him in London to talk about migrant workers

So, would Labour continue with subsidies to farming after 2020?

Well, it depends on the outcome of the Brexit negotiations,

of course, but the principle has to be that we need a vibrant

East Anglia is a massive producer of food, a massive food plus

for the whole country, with good quality soils and

And we have to ensure that there is government support

So that does mean subsidies, as far as you are concerned?

It does mean subsidies, it does mean support.

But it also means encouragement of rural industry as well,

so that farming, of course, produces crops and food,

but increasingly, farms are also processing centres

One of the things that many farmers in our region are concerned

about is that they use migrant workers to pick vegetables

If there was a two tier system, would they still be able

Yes, I want them to be able to get workers to do those jobs.

I also want to make sure those people are properly paid,

on good quality conditions, and that's why I supported

the introduction of the gangmasters legislation during the last Labour

government, and indeed why I have supported the Posting of Workers

Directive for the EU, which would prevent the wholesale

importation of groups of workers to undercut

But quite obviously, the economy of the whole region,

the agricultural economy, does depend on infrastructure,

but it also depends on getting labour there

Now, obviously, agriculture is a seasonal business.

So, when Stephen Kinnock says that he would like to see a two-tier

system, where people come in who are qualified,

but if they are not, they don't come in,

No, I think it needs to be thought through a lot more than that,

because I want to end the undercutting and I want

to maintain the principle that people can move around.

You will understand that our region is very much a Brexit region,

I think we were the biggest vote in favour of Brexit

So, there are lots of traditional Labour voters who voted to leave

the EU, and they did it because of migration and immigration.

We accept the result of the referendum and we will not be

opposing Article 50 being triggered, and it will be triggered

We are keen to have good economic relations with Europe,

so I'm reaching out to Socialist Party colleagues all across Europe,

indeed I am inviting them all to London at the end of February

for a discussion about how we build that relationship.

Because if we don't have a market relationship with Europe,

then where are the agricultural products that are now exported

to Europe going to go, where are manufactured exports

going to go from many parts of this country?

Cambridge is a huge science place, has enormous and very good

relationships with universities across Europe,

But you will understand, those people who are traditional voters,

who are worried about their jobs being taken by migrant

workers, they will not vote for you unless you stop

Well, I'm saying we'll stop that undercutting,

stop that exploitation, which is why that strangely named

thing called the Posting of Workers Directive

That will prevent that wholesale importation,

solely to destroy local wages and conditions.

Daniel Zeichner, where do you stand? On immigration. I think Jeremy

explained it privately well and it is consistent with what we have been

saying for a long time. He doesn't want the two tier system that

Stephen Kinnock is on about. So you would have people who are qualified

and people who are not qualified. What Jeremy is saying that the poor

factor has been very cheap labour rates in this country and that is

what we as a party would always stand against and what has not been

done sufficiently in the past. It is not so attracted to bring people

here the numbers will fall. You can do it in a sensible way. But I am

particularly determined to protect its free movement of people coming

in to a social -- to a city like Cambridge. Thousands and thousands

of highly skilled people... Those are the people that we want. The

people... We are talking about the people coming to depress the wages

key part of the decision and the key part of the decision and the

country took last year, people particularly in the East were

worried about that. We can deal with that by protecting people properly

here. Did you follow the argument or did you think... The Labour Party

claim that the Tories are modelled on this. Do you think they are? My

understanding and I had a meeting with farmers before I came here

today and we talked about this very issue of migrant labour, it is

important for agricultural and for all parts of the food industry. If

you look at companies in my constituency, they have a number of

migrant workers who work in them and would not be able to function

without them. What the Government has said is that there will be a

green card scheme or a migrant worker scheme to ensure that supply

of labour is protected, because otherwise, we will be paying much

higher food prices. That is an interesting answer, but do you think

their message is modelled? I have not been paying too much attention

this week but I think what Jeremy Corbyn said, I think I understand

what he is saying, there is a difficulty from his perspective that

he is clearly very pro-migration, and that is a difficult message to

convey the parts of the country who may well have voted to leave the EU,

and... But this region was very much and... But this region was very much

against staying in Europe. Not all. We are sitting in a city which was

overwhelmingly Remain. Something like 44 to 57? I accept the fact

that the majority were against. I think there were some promises made

which are proving pretty hard to deliver and do not look likely to be

delivered in future. This basic question of, who does the work? We

were talking about the NHS, without people not just from the EU but from

outside, the Health Service would collapse immediately. We need to

have a sensible discussion about this. We are clearly going to have

migration in future. So you think the discussion has not been

rational? Not entirely. I think there is a danger of people being

disappointed because they think suddenly there is going to be no

migration, and that is not what will happen.

Now for our political round-up of the week

The plight of tenants evicted from their homes in Peterborough

to make way for homeless people was raised in Parliament

I'd like to apologise to my constituents that I could not

do more to help them, and I feel to a certain extent

Essex MP and keen Brexiteer James Cleverly has launched

a pamphlet on free trade with the Commonwealth.

It shouldn't be seen as replacement for trade with the EU,

but it should be seen in parallel with it.

Meanwhile, academics at a Select Committee hearing

pointed to a 14% drop in the number of undergraduates applying to study

at Cambridge University next year as a sign of the impact of Brexit.

Students are worried about the uncertainty

of the funding, students are worried about anti-immigrant sentiment,

and they are also worried about loss of possible collaboration with

And a meeting in Norwich about bringing our railways back

into public ownership heard from Green MP Caroline Lucas,

It isn't a model which is conducive to competition and free markets,

it is actually one where a publicly owned central piece

of infrastructure should be democratically owned.

Dan Potter, are you surprised about that fall in applications? Not

really, no. I have an unpaid role for a visiting professor at Kings

College London and one thing that they are worried about is something

other universities are worried about, including those in Norwich,

Ipswich and Cambridge, is this issue about the uncertainty of funding. A

lot of the EU funding grants have backed our universities in Britain

to work collaboratively with the European universities, and a lot of

that is contingent on money from the EU. Daniel

universities are well respected universities are well respected

around the world, surely the students will come from around the

world? That is the presumption. But there is uncertainty all over the

place and it is making us a less attractive proposition. Be in no

parts of the world will seize on parts of the world will seize on

this opportunity. It is a real danger for us, a 14% fall in

applications to Cambridge University is a warning potentially to what

could be further down the line. It is really important, the message

that goes to the rest of the world that Britain is still a welcoming

place. It is our fifth biggest export earner, higher education.

People understand how important it is to our economy. And if we do

nothing, presumably, we have to worry about the future? Villa it is

important our universities stay competitive internationally and

attract funding. That is vitally important. That means we get

businesses who want to invest and work with those universities and

that means for Southwark, Norfolk, Cambridge and the rest of our region

and that has to be a good thing. -- Suffolk.

Inside Out tomorrow at 7:30pm has more on the problems

We are back at the same time next week.

Now, though, it's back to Andrew in the studio.

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.