15/01/2017 Sunday Politics South East


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 15/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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 south-east, almost ?400 million, that's the estimated cost


to the economy 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, I am Natalie Graham. This is. Though politics in the south-east.


Coming up later, the country's economists is too focused on the


south-east, so should we be worried? Joining me now is the new Minister


for industrial strategy who was also the MP for Tunbridge Wells. First,


it has been yet another miserable week not a happy New Year for


southern commuters. The dispute over who should open the doors is costing


some people not just their journey to work but their livelihood as


well. One coffee shop owner at Eastbourne said the lack of


communities -- commuters has meant she has had to lay off half her


staff since last year. We are held to ransom the cars we don't know


what we can do to make things better. We are losing business and


people are losing confidence. I used to come in early to get the


commuters coming to work but commuters coming to work but


obviously, like this morning, I was in here at 7:30am and my first


customer was at one o'clock. We are having to cancel appointments and


perspiring appointment and that is an awful image for a professional


company to have. We were slightly concerned that the emphasis from the


government was all about commuters. Very important, don't get me wrong,


but they also need to have an impression of the impact it is


having on the economy. You are the Secretary of State for business.


million. What -- how concerned are million. What -- how concerned are


you? Very concerned. It is vital to the economy. Commuters are very


important but actually people getting across country is equally


important. The impact on parents, for example, getting back from work


worrying whether they will be in time to pick up their children from


school. Why do you think the lady from the Chamber of Commerce doesn't


understand that businesses are suffering? We do and it is very


serious, you're absolutely right. I think everybody must reflect after


this week, the appalling destruction, enough is enough. This


is a time when people should get round the negotiating table. No


one's going to lose their jobs. That has been made clear about this. The


Independent experts have certified the safety. Let's just take it...


And you are taking the same tack that the transport secretary is


taking, Chris Grayling, but he has made it clear just the other day in


the House of Commons that he is supportive broadly of Southern,


critical of the unions and the Labour Party. It has got to the


point where both main parties are aligning with the two parties in the


dispute. Isn't it time to step above that and stop banging heads


together, speak to the unions and stop refusing to speak to them, in


Chris Grayling's case? I think you are right that the temperature needs


to be taken down and people should get around the negotiating table. I


don't think it is helpful. I know I am not partisan but to say that he


joined the picket line rather than saying ordinary people here are


suffering here... Yet again, your government seems to be politicising


the situation as much as the people involved. After nearly a year and


?400 million cost, people are looking to the government to help


them, to step above all this, be the them, to step above all this, be the


grown up in this situation and yet it is all coming down to party


politics. I'm sorry, I don't agree with that. You are absolutely right


that this must be resolved by the workers who serve the people that


are being inconvenienced. They know that. I know that I have heard about


the concerns that the people on the railways have on this, just on


Thursday night, coming down on this line. Seeing people shovelling the


snow on the platforms. They have concern about the welfare of their


customers. They want, as much as because -- the passengers and the


government, for everyone to get around the table. That is the only


way it will be resolved. Forgive me, but we have been sitting in the


studio listening to people on all sides saying the same thing, week


in, week out. Let's get together. It has become clear over the last two


weeks that the two sides are further apart. It is such a war of words.


They will not agree a compromise any They will not agree a compromise any


time soon save the government needs to step in. Just like operation


Stack last year, a lot of people feel that the government really


isn't understanding what they are going through and it is being very


slow to act. We absolutely are. This is a dispute between the company and


the government cannot dictate terms to settle that. What the gum and


candy and is doing is encouraging people to get together to talk. You


could step in. I mean, would legislation be the way forward? That


is what one of the Conservative MPs in this region is suggesting. If you


brought up legislation to stop the unions from striking, would you be


in support about? This dispute is going on now so any new legislation


would not be relevant to this. But in principle is that the kind of


action that they should -- this government should be taking to


prevent this from spreading? We are changing the threshold for


industrial action so in future you will need a 50% turnout and you will


need more people showing that they are in favour of it. We are changing


that, but in terms of this particular dispute, it seems obvious


to me that the only way this is going to be resolved is if people do


want... How these things are always sold, you suspend the strikes, you


get round the table, you go through the night if necessary and you come


to a sensible conclusion in the interests of those passengers,


whether they are commuters or local customers. To summarise to the


people who have been suffering, day in, day out for ten months now, you


are not offering any hope of change? I think that everyone who has any


influence or say in this, and I would say the same to, I would


encourage the opposition, I would encourage my political opponents to


use their links with the trade unions, not to say I will join you


on the picket line, but to encourage them to be sensible, to sit around


the table and to talk about a resolution to those things. I think


people know that this is... You are asking Jeremy Corbyn to speak to the


unions. Would you put pressure on Southern as the government from your


end? Of course they need to sit down and talk. The key thing is that they


talk and resolve these things but I think we should also be clear, that


when you have those talks, you have got to be sensible and


straightforward. This business, they are saying it is about safety, but


everyone knows it is not. You have got to be sensible when they have


these talks. Enough is enough. It is time we did concentrate on resolving


this and not having the other issues... It doesn't sound like you


think the government should step in, as everyone is begging you to do? In


terms of stepping in, I have called on the unions and Chris Grayling has


called on the unions to do everything they can. As I said, you


suspend the action, you come round the table... So far, that hasn't


worked but we are going round in circles. Let's move on, because in


2017 an issue that will undoubtedly dominate politics is Brexit. In that


context, the government is publishing an economic strategy.


They say economic growth is unbalanced and focused too much on


London and the south-east. So what do business here want to see from


the grand plan? We went to hear from some of them in Kent and Sussex. It


was one of Theresa May's first actions as prime minister, to create


a department specifically for developing an industrial strategy. I


want an industrial strategy that will be ambitious for business and


ambitious for Britain. It's a new way for thinking for government, a


new approach, about government stepping up, not stepping back. The


stated aim, to generate wealth in every corner of the country and


provide stability as we move towards leaving the EU. So what will a new


industrial strategy mean for the Southeast? The government wants


Britain to become the go to place for innovators and scientists. Steve


trim fits that bill. Based at the discovery Park in Sandwich, his


company tries to find component of venom that can be turned into new


medicines. Steve said East Kent has a strong background in drug


discovery and hopes the industrial strategy will help his sector broke


again. Brexit was a shock to the scientific community and I


personally know people whose careers have changed dramatically as a


result of Brexit and nervousness over it funding. The biggest barrier


we see for growing business, getting funding for the ideas, as cash flow


is absolutely critical, so we would be looking for funding to support


those ideas, to actually see if they will be a ground-breaking product.


My question to the Secretary of State is how are you going to make


sure that effective funding for development reaches the small and


medium-sized businesses that need it? Also based at the discovery Park


is Doctor Robert Stewart he was a GP and runs a very different kind of


enterprise, called the design and learning Centre. He has been working


with health professionals overseas to test new technologies that can


help people take control of their own health. So, our global position


is actually quite unique. Partly that's because we are in Kent and we


have been in the gateway to Europe. Now with Brexit we need to be


looking further afield from Matt. The industrial strategy is very


important. I hope that it will also value the small innovation centres


like ourselves who are able to implement new ways of working. My


question to the Secretary of State is how can your industrial strategy


help my design and learning Centre enhance global collaboration and


make Kent the Centre for technology and robotics? A key theme of the


industrial strategy is that the country's economic success is to


unbalanced and focus on London and the south-east. That's a concern for


Derek Godfrey, who sits on the Eastbourne chamber of commerce and


is also the managing director of a construction company that has been


operating in the region for 25 years. Theresa May, in her speech,


actually said that the south-east was doing well and is quite often


grabbed all the attention but within the south-east, pockets like


Eastbourne, Hastings, New Haven, have got fantastic potential and we


want to realise that potential. We have a problem with infrastructure


on a very unfit for purpose road network and we have been lobbying


the government for some time to actually improve that. My question


for the Secretary of State is how will the industrial strategy help us


in the south-east or will we be overlooked? We are joined now by


Jason who works as head of policy and Public affairs for an online


accountancy business but you may know him better as the former Green


party leader. Welcome back. If you could quickly answer those questions


before we come to Jason. That last one, how can you be sure the


south-east that it will not be overlooked in favour of parts of the


North? We need to boost the north and the Midlands but not at the


expense of London and the south-east. What we need to do as a


country as part of the industrial strategy is to build on our


strengths. Any good strategy, you build on your strengths. The


south-east is a strength. As your interviewee pointed out there. Of


course we have challenges in some parts of the south-east, so that


will be very important. Quite often it feels down here like you are


being lumped together with London, the government says you are OK, you


are economically successful, we need to concentrate on the north and you


can understand people's concern? Absolutely, the advantage of being


an MP in this studio over the years is that we know we are fortunate to


have some great businesses and prosperity but we do have parts of


the area that RA challenge and we need to make sure they are helped.


Moving on to the other one, funding for research and development


reaching the small businesses who need it. How will we guarantee that?


I was delighted to hear that because one of the things we got the


Chancellor's Autumn Statement in November was an ?2 billion a year to


be available for research and development. Again, something we are


really good at, but you are right. It needs to go to small businesses,


not just the big ones. So in this consultation, which is what it is,


we will be composing ways in which small businesses can access some of


these funds. Third quick question these funds. Third quick question


before we bring in Jason, all in the context of Brexit, how will you


companies like Doctor Stuart's reach companies like Doctor Stuart's reach


out beyond Kent and beyond Europe to global collaborators? This I think


is part of the timeliness of the industrial strategy. Lots of


countries around the world have laid out their policies severed inward


investors, domestic investors know what their plans are for the future.


This is what we are doing. Of course Brexit has some uncertainties, but


the clarity of investment, infrastructure, this will be laid


out. Jason, do we need an industrial strategy? I think it is great that


we are taking that approach and as Greg says, many other countries do


it, but the temptation is to focus on big boxes like car factories. I


hope and I have been reassured so far that there will be a focus on


smaller businesses. 5 million people working businesses of five or fewer


employees. And in recent south-east we have more small businesses than


anywhere outside London, so here it is particularly important? What are


you looking for at a small business in the green paper? A long-term


certainty and clarity about direction of clarity. What


businesses hate are lots of short-term changes and surprises.


Putting Brexit to one side, there are things around the text and


spending policy that we could be given certainty on. We know what


corporation tax will be until 2020, but we don't know about national


insurance, income tax and VAT. Those are things that affect people's urge


to invest. Unblocking infrastructure and broadband, things like that,


which I'm sure Greg has heard before, are key. But you can't


deliver all of that in one green paper, can you, with the uncertainty


about Brexit West we don't know about Brexit West we don't know


where we will be in five or ten years' time. The green paper is a


long-term strategy. For something to endure, you have to build a


consensus around it. One of the big things that we want to do which


addresses a lot of the points made is getting more decisions are made


locally. In the greater Brighton city Deal, for example, we join


together with all of the local authorities, businesses and the


government to invest in some of the services for digital start-ups and


was proposed by people locally. And was proposed by people locally. And


as a former city council leader, you look very pleased about that? It has


been a great success and it is the model that we work from. The idea


not workable so we need to not workable so we need to


appreciate people like Greg who recognise we need local support and


input. Let's move onto something linked to this which is the green


investment bank. It was set up by the government and invested billion


in green projects. The proposal to sell a majority stake in the bank


has been criticised by politicians on both sides of the house. Here is


an urgent question from last Wednesday. This week we heard that


the green investment bank stands on the brink of not just being flogged


green purses discarded. Founded in green purses discarded. Founded in


2012, it has been widely recognised as a true success story,


kick-starting innovative low carbon projects across the country and yet


McQuarrie has a dismal record on environmental issues, it also has a


terrible record on asset stripping. Isn't this the wrong time to be


selling the bank given that the government has decided to invest on


a new strategy which must have green issues at its store -- at its core?


Can you explain what the green investment bank does for anyone who


hasn't heard of it? Put simply, it is funding for projects which will


have an environment of benefit. For example, in Hove, it was used to


fund low-energy streetlights. I think the bank is a good thing and


there is universal agreement on that. This programme is an example


of how uncertainty can affect things. No one really knows what is


concerning. I know you are going to concerning. I know you are going to


sensitive but those guarantees that sensitive but those guarantees that


the green investment bank will continue to invest in green


projects, how can you guarantee that if you are selling it? First of all,


it has been a great success and we want to build on that. There is some


confidentiality there, there's a bidding process, so I can't comment


on, and we have made their decisions are I can't comment on that. But


whoever buys it, how can you guarantee it will still do this?


Part of the reason for getting private sector funders that it can


embark -- it can expand its investments. What Parliament has set


up is an independent set of trustees, including some people with


very strong green credentials. They are there to be the guarantor is. I


have a special share, a kind of veto on its purses, and they are there to


make sure it continues to have this crucially important and successful


green input. Is that enough of a guarantee for you? Often the devil


is in the details. If it continues in this spirit, great, but the track


where God of the elected bidder is dreadful. But the question is, why


do this? One of the reasons for doing this is that if it is a


government institution, it is restricted. We can't give subsidies,


for example. If it has private capital, it is much freer to invest


in what is a hugely expanding set of projects. What does this mean for


Grampian to wind farm for example? It is still being built. It is all


about future projects. Those that have been invested in are done. What


we want to do is increase the volume of investments. We are a world


leading now in offshore wind. We want to expand the ability of this


bank to invest. Your critics would say that this underlines what they


already know which is that this government doesn't really care about


the environment? Quite the opposite. The creation of my department to


bring in energy, climate change in business together is to make sure


that we reap the benefits of this. I happy pleasure in Harlem of opening


a new Siemens wind blade factory which is creating 1000 jobs. We will


move on now to the other news you may have missed this week in 60


seconds. Children in Brighton and Hove will


be fined if they return their library books late. The move could


mean an extra ?8,000 a year for the cash-strapped council. Labour


councillor Kevin Allen said children had to take this possibility for


their actions. The new Chief inspector of schools for England has


been criticised by a Kent MP after she described government proposals


to create more grammar schools as a distraction. The South Thanet MPs


that the comments were out of line. The new agenda is supported


particularly by people in Kent and this is and why civil servants to


step out of line and start talking against the government's agenda.


Hundreds of people have signed a petition to stop the Post Office's


branch in sure. And Crawley branch in sure. And Crawley


celebrates its 70th anniversary. The new town was created in 1947 in the


wake of the Second World War. Today, it has more than 100,000 people


living there. Jason, when you hear about those


plans in Brighton and Hove to charge children for overdue library books,


does it make you glad that you are not sitting in those offices having


to make difficult decisions about funding? There's no doubt it's a


really tough time for local government. It's personally not a


choice I would have encouraged. If paradigm children to read is vital


it is the local government. They are it is the local government. They are


under huge pressure. Thank you very much. That's all we have time for


from the south-east this weekend. Thanks to both my guests, Jason Kit


Kat and Greg Clark. Julia will be back next week.


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.


Download Subtitles