15/01/2017 Sunday Politics South 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?

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.