15/01/2017 Sunday Politics South West

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?

In the South West... well, joins us live.

Humane response to a so-called humanitarian crisis -

could local communities hold the key to our health services woes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

gamble on a clean Brexit", saying the Prime Minister

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

of the single market and customs union.

The Sunday Times has a similar write-up -

they call it a "clean and hard Brexit".

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

hinting that a transitional deal could be on the cards.

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

explaining that the Prime Minister will get tough with Brussels

and call for an end to free movement.

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

I'm joined now from Cumbria by the leader

of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron.

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

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

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

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

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

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

basically the large all Farage vision of Britain's relationship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, continuing free movement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

individuals and families and businesses. Mike I understand, but

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you heard them on this very programme, that Britain should

aspire to be like Norway and Switzerland for example, countries

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

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

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

answer to my question, you haven't answered it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

possibility of some kind of transition or arrangements, which

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

would include transitional arrangements over the five years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what she will say perhaps more cautiously in the headlines on

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

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

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

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

Now, the public consultation on press regulation closed this

week, and soon ministers will have to decide whether to

enact a controversial piece of legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ellie Price has been reading all about it.

It was the biggest news about the news for decades,

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

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

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

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

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

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

If this system is implemented, the country should have confidence

that the terrible suffering of innocent victims

like the Dowlers, the McCanns and Christopher Jefferies should

To get this new plan rolling, the Government also passed

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

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

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

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

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

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

of the Royal Charter, so its members are protected

from the penalties that would be imposed by Section 40.

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

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

you have an incomplete Leveson project.

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

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

standards, everyone will be saying to the Government,

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

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

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

for publishers and their journalists who are members of an

They get huge new protections from libel threats,

from privacy actions, which actually means they've got

a lot more opportunity to run investigative stories.

Impress has a big image problem - not a single national

Instead, many of them are members of Ipso,

the independent regulator set up and funded by the industry that

doesn't seek the recognition of the Royal Charter.

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

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

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

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

Impress has an umbilical cord that goes directly back to Government

through the recognition setup that it has.

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

when the stamp duty was revealed 150 years ago.

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

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

The responses from the public have been coming thick and fast

since the Government launched its consultation

In fact, by the time it closed on Tuesday,

And for that reason alone, it could take months before

a decision on what happens next is taken.

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

One described it to me as Draconian and hugely damaging.

So, will the current Culture Secretary's thinking be

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

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

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

was failing to work, was not delivering effective

regulation and the press were behaving in a way

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

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

case we are going to have to take further measures,

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

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

about legal costs are dropped, but the incentives

to join a recognised regulator are beefed up.

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

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

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

and he now campaigns for more press regulation.

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

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

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

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

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

absolutely wrong that a family trust should have to finance something

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

most elementary checks into the contract between my family trust,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

press regulatory panel and they are completely independent, they

reviewed the whole thing. You have probably produced something very

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

absolutely trustworthy and independent. It is not just Mr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

have no influence over Impress therefore I cannot say anything

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

boss of Ofcom, which regulates broadcasters, if it described

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

one giving access to justice so people who cannot afford an

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

saying it is just as equitable in all circumstances the newspaper

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

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

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

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

happen is the judge would say it is just inequitable normal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bosses, dodgy politicians, celebrities with a grievance against

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

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

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

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

can. All right, thanks for being with us.

The doctors' union, the British Medical Association,

has said the Government is scapegoating GPs in England

The Government has said GP surgeries must try harder to stay

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

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

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

had issued an operational pressure alert in the first

At either level three, meaning major pressures,

or level four, indicating an inability to deliver

On Monday, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt told the Commons

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

But that 30% of those visits were unnecessary.

He said that the situation at a number of Trusts

On Tuesday, the Royal College of Physicians wrote

to the Prime Minister saying the health service was being

paralysed by spiralling demand, and urging greater investment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yesterday, Mrs May signalled her support for doctors' surgeries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Audit Office has coming up with these figures showing that almost

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

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

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

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

working palliative care services, practices have to close home visits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

advanced nurse practitioners, pharmacists. It doesn't necessarily

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

things do not change she is threatening to reduce funding to

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

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

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

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

general practice, which is a wonderful profession, absolutely

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

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

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

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

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

in Scotland, who leave us now Hello, I'm Lucie Fisher.

minutes: The Week Ahead. Coming up on the Sunday Politics

here in the South West.... How do you solve

a problem like the NHS? And is the Labour Party

here still out in the cold? And for the next 20 minutes,

I'm joined by Exeter's Labour MP Ben Bradshaw and Ukip's Steph McWilliam

who sits on Cornwall Council. Most people start New Year

on a health kick, but those working in the health service have started

2017 by kicking off The Red Cross has described it

as facing a "humanitarian crisis". Here, hospitals have been on a high

state of alert and the debate about how to solve problems

in the health and social Here's Tamsin Melville

on how some communities in the South West are coming up

with their own answers. And this week,

on the Health Secretary. Any message for those

waiting on trolleys today? And what is he personally doing

to address the chronic long-term I'm afraid this is

totally unacceptable. But while the political debate rages

over how best to solve what the government says is pressure

on the NHS but not a crisis, out in communities, work continues

to come up with solutions. 30 years ago, villagers along

the west bank of the River Exe responded to a plea from the local

GP practice to help vulnerable and isolated patients and that's

when the model of community And West Bank has now grown

to offer health and care projects across Devon,

involving more than 600 volunteers giving more than 25,000

unpaid hours a year. There is a sense of satisfaction

from helping people. Took me the Restaurant

55, for lunch... He was put in touch

with West Bank by an NHS worker. After falling after he tried

to take his washing upstairs. His helper now does that for him,

as well as opening his mail It gives you the confidence that

you know that there is someone there who can help you any time

you want it. What do you think would be happening

if they weren't around to help you? Would you still be

able to live here? With difficulty.

With difficulty. They are not things

that the statutory sector have to provide, they are things that

make a difference to people. Things like moving a bed to enable

a hospital bed to be delivered or picking up shopping if somebody

has gone to hospital. It's very much about enhancing

what is already there. But some services aren't always

there and up on Dartmoor is a community finding

its own answers. Julia started an enterprise

after noticing elderly friends in Northeast Dartmoor struggling

to access home care There is a response that is required

to the crisis in social care and communities can make

a difference by organising themselves to help

address the issues. She has been playing matchmaker

within the community, introducing people like Mavis

to self-employed carers like Simone. It's local work and it gives people

a bit of independence at home for as long as possible and it's

a lovely place to work! It's absolutely essential because

I'm not the only person at all. I know a lot of people just hanging

by a thread to stay at home. And of course, people

getting stuck in hospital. I had one friend who was in hospital

for a fortnight entirely because they couldn't get any care

for her at home. Thanks to local fundraising,

Netcare is soon set to become a not-for-profit regulated social

care agency in its own right. And, it's hoped the community model

could soon be copied Meanwhile, the government

is rejecting demands to relieve the NHS pressure through extra cash

will social care saying that health With us now to discuss this

alongside our studio guests is Professor Sue Richards

from the health think tank The Centre for Health and the Public

Interest. You are completely independent

of the government, What do you make of what

the Red Cross has saved about there

being a humanitarian crisis Well, I think there really

is a crisis, whether you add that adjective to it or not

is a question of choice. If you think there isn't a crisis,

you should get out more. Because both in hospitals and also

quietly, in people's homes, it is quite clear that there is not

enough care available And should we be relying

on voluntary organisations and not-for-profit organisations,

to prop up the NHS? Well, we already rely on volunteers

massively while family members to carry out social care

for their elderly and That is a huge part of the system

which nobody ever thinks about and we tend not to think

of them is called volunteers, but Is your solution more spending?

There has to be more spending. I am absolutely not

against community volunteering and what I heard about the two

examples in Devon, that But they are not substitutes

for people having a right to treatment and to care,

the transport, to all those facilities which enabled

them to live dignified They have paid in over their working

lives and they deserve You were Health Secretary

under Tony Blair. Spending did get out

of control then as well, No, I don't think it

got out of control. By the time Labour left office,

we were spending at the EU average on health which I think

is a good thing. You did actually say to Parliament,

18 months ago, I remember very well, The time that we were in government

and the finances got out of control. That was a speech in

the Commons that you made. No, I don't know where you have got

the quote from, I was talking about the BMA and the strikes,

about the scars on my back. We got health spending back up

to where it should be in this It has now slipped back,

we are now spending a third less than Germany is on social care

and what Sue said is right. These voluntary organisations

are great, they are not going to address the crisis

that we have got in accident and emergency and across the health

and social care system. Theresa May has said that the last

thing the NHS needs is a check She says there isn't the money,

where is it coming from? I don't care whether it's

from Labour or the Conservatives. There is a widespread consensus,

it seems only Theresa May who is in denial about the state

of the crisis in the NHS. We need an injection of short-term

emergency cash now to address the real problems in A

E and hospitals. But that also need to have an honest

conversation across the country about a sustainable,

long-term funding solution There is an all-party offer out

there to the Prime Minister, come and join all-party talks

to get this sorted. You are at the beginning

of Parliament, this is the best opportunity that we might happen

to grasp this nettle -- that we might have to grasp this

metal. -- metal. Because if we don't, the situation

is not going to go away. With an ageing population,

ever-increasing treatments and so on, we do need

to address this now. Steph, Ukip's solution

was that we leave EU and therefore as the bus was advertising,

we would be able Is that going to happen?

Was that realistic? Well, apart from what was on the bus

was nothing to do with us, but the amount of extra spend

that is available to choose to spend on the NHS or whatever else,

and the sea there is a financial benefit to being out of the EU,

however, the issue that nobody seems to be talking about,

everybody recognises that social care funding is having

a big impact on the NHS. We have been talking about that,

but I do know how you can save the message on the bus

was nothing to do with you? That was the Vote Leave campaigners

who deliberately excluded Ukip So you weren't really saying

that there would be more money We took that to mean,

as I think most people did, that there would be spare money,

extra money that There will be extra money

and our policy for years has been that spending on health should be

a percentage of GDP because if you have an increasing population,

then your GDP goes up and then you need to spend more

because you have got When you add into that

the demographics, the increase in the elderly population

and the new treatment is coming on board, new equipment,

new drugs, all extra money, I mean, I agree with Ben

that we have to come up More spending, we all agree more

spending, it's where that Well, obviously, for us,

saving from the EU contribution would be a significant factor

and foreign aid, Sue Richards, thank you very

much for joining us. And we'll be continuing to look

at the problems the health service in a series of special reports

across BBC South West all next week. On Friday came the surprise

resignation of MP Tristam Hunt. Earlier in the week party leader

Jeremy Corbyn staged I caught up with him in London

and asked him what his strategy was to win back hearts and minds

in the South West. Well, when the boundary

changes have finally been decided upon and agreed,

we will obviously be selecting We have had a big increase

in membership across Somerset, Devon and Cornwall and will be

selecting our candidates You're been talking a lot about pay

inequality this week. Redruth, Camborne, St Ives, even,

have some of the lowest wages in the whole country and some

of the highest house prices These are people that really should

be voting for you and yet, when we talk to them,

they are moving back Why do you think that

you are having a problem? There is a massive housing issue

and a massive poverty issue. You can be poor and living

in a beautiful place. You can live in a chocolate box

like village and still be poor, still not happy bus service,

still not have a job and still not be able to get to a job in a nearby

town unless you can afford And so we need policies that do

provide housing in those areas and do limit the amount of second

homes that are empty It can't be right that an area

with so much potential and so much Listen, I was born in

Chippenham, I consider myself So Corbyn considers himself

a son of the South West, but is the region taking him

and his party to heart? In a moment we'll be

asking its sole Labour MP, In truth, the Labour Party has never

done well in a largely rural region. In more urban areas,

only nutritional stronghold The party extended its majority

on the City Council in last year's elections and retained the region's

only Labour MP. But down the A38 in Plymouth,

the Tories took control. It is not going to be easy

because what they have is multiparty competition,

a historic weakness in the rural areas, in particular, a problem

of translating their undoubted increase in membership

into activists and into votes. And of course, the problem

that the other parties I'm on the move, too,

to Bideford in North Devon where the Labour Party are hoping

to take two county council David Brenton is the lone Labour

member on Torridge Counil And chair He is not under Jeremy Corbyn's

spell, that he is confident they can weave some magic

in the council elections. We have been written off before

and we are back again because Labour has always represented

the grassroots people. So I have every confidence

that we will come back again. It's to do with policies and that's

what people vote on, policies. But many people are still confused

over what those policies are and Jeremy Corbyn's attempted

reboot this week seems So what would it take for people

here to vote Labour? To see seriously good policies

to make this community even better I would only listen if I could see

some grounding in what I call economic competence for the country

and also something It's a middle of the road situation,

just waiting to see, Amid all the uncertainty,

one thing is clear. Corbyn knows where

the South West is. He campaigned here, albeit

for the party leadership. But realistically,

are we even on Labour's radar? Why would a party put

an enormous amount of effort in to increase its standing

from third or fourth place to second place when there are many other

seats where they will be concentrating their resources,

where they are in second place Ben, much mention their view

being our Labour MP. -- lots of mention of you being our

solar Labour MP. Why are you the sole person down

here representing Labour? Well, we have had a bad

couple of elections In Exeter, we have managed to buck

that trend through a combination of a good reputation,

not just about me, but a very good local Labour council

who delivers for people. We are moderate, we are

middle-of-the-road, we are We haven't forgotten

the lessons in Exeter I'm confident that if we can put

those lessons into practice for these all-important county

council elections across all the counties of the South West

in every part with all these new members that Jeremy has

attracted, we can translate that new membership into council

seats in May. Steph, could you pick up some

of Labour's votes down here as Ukip? Because during the referendum

campaign, I think there was a plumber who rang in to say

that his pay had dropped from ?14 an hour to ?9

and our since the borders have Now, crucially, the point he made

was that these people They know their stuff,

there are decent, pleasant But who is going to pay him ?14

an hour when they can get He has lost his house, he is

struggling to support his family... The immigration debate and I --

it's not for me to decide what Labour's concern should be,

but I think until they sort out the immigration issue,

we should do very well. Tristram Hunt resigned this

week to go to the V He had been quite outspoken

in the past about not following Jeremy Corbyn and not

believing he would be Do you think there was any more

we can read into him leaving? I think he was offered

his dream job! Given that, who wouldn't

have taken it? I'm very sorry to see him go,

he's a great loss to the party. We can't afford to lose people

of his intelligence and calibre. And I worry that there are very

talented Labour politicians in the generation below me,

particularly those with children, who must be agonising about what to

do in the current circumstances. But I would say, stay and fight

because we need a strong opposition. This country has never needed

a strong opposition more and we need good people to stay if we are ever

going to get back A strong opposition is one thing

but what you mean by the generation Is that because you don't really see

that you are going to be getting No, but these are people

who are very talented, many of them left but careers to get

into politics and offer They have young

families to support... But if you thought you were

going to get into power, it would be worse than continuing

to pursue this avenue of career? They look at our current standing

in the opinion polls, huge gaps. They look at the fact that we had

the worst ever local election results for any opposition party

for more than 30 years last year and think,

what am I going to do? What I would say is that things

change very quickly in politics. So I would appeal to colleagues

to stay and fight, help us rebuild the party to be unelectable

electoral force again so that we can -- -- help -- and help us rebuild

the party to be an electable force again so that we can deliver for the

people in this country who need a people in this country who need a

Labour government. Steph, down here, people

are turning to the Lib Dems It is interesting, isn't it?

I have to hand it to them. Although politically,

we are miles apart, they worked very hard,

they are incredible We knew that we were going to lose

some support after the referendum because for a lot of people,

they only got involved in politics But membership is increasing again

now so you will see is coming back to give them more of a fight

and they have had in the last year. On this issue of Tristram Hunt's

resignation, Your former leader, Nigel Farage, tweeted

that his resignation will be followed by many

others, Labour is doomed. Is that something that

you would go along with? Well, certainly, Paul Nuttall is out

for the Labour vote in the North of England particularly in working

class areas right across the country,

because at the moment, If you are well off in the main,

the better of people who want to see lower taxes and reduced public

services are looking If your main concern

is the environment, If you want to fight against

the results of the referendum, If you want the power embedded

back with the people, People don't know what

the call philosophy Do you think Corbyn

is appealing to the mainstream? Your strong support

at the grassroots, but that We need to broaden our appeal

but the idea that this is terminal for the Labour Party

is for the birds. You need a progressive

centre-left party in this country for social justice,

for social progress, for a fair economy that works for people

and for an internationalist outlook. They are all Labour principles

which I am proud of and will Do you think you can make

a comeback down here, We need to win two seats in Plymouth

and we need to win Redruth, Without those three seats,

we can't form a government, Now our regular round-up

of the political week in 60 seconds. Plans to upgrade the A303 were

backed by the government this week. This involves the development

of the 1.8 mile tunnel past Stonehenge which will protect

the world Heritage site from traffic, reduce local

congestion and speed up journeys Concerns raised in Parliament over

the reopening of a Cornish quarry in an Area of Outstanding Natural

Beauty. They are concerned about the impact

on the Manacles marine conservation zone, the impact on tourism

and future investment and the impact One quarter of ?1 billion

for Leonardo helicopters in Yeovil but the union says it

won't safeguard its future. Cornwall councillors

travelled to Westminster 50% of our farms are already

diversifies into tourism so the European funding has been

critical to allow for And West Somerset is one of six

areas to get cash to pay We have a bit of time left

at the end of the programme. Reports that Russia's

intelligent agencies hold compromising material

about him, which she denies. Ben, you have been

tweeting about this. You think Theresa May

should break her silence becoming all too true. You have a

British intelligence agent hiding for fear of his life. The Americans

are talking about it, the French and the German government are talking,

our government is silent. Not acceptable. Should Theresa May be

speaking out? I don't know, to be honest. I don't know where there is

anything to substantiate these rumours, these allegations. Even

Trump as accepted that the Russian tax the Democrats. They have

something, but unfortunately, the trust in politics is now so low that

I question everything and other people do as well. Isn't this why

Donald Trump has been elected? Because people are just

anti-politics and anti-politicians and antiestablishment? Does it worry

you that your former leader has such close ties with Donald Trump?

Doesn't worry me. What should be worrying the government is that if

they are not going to ask him to be a link for some aspects of our

relationship with the United States, what is Donald Trump going to be

saying to Nigel Farage about what is going on over here? It will be

one-way traffic. I will stop you there.

That's the Sunday Politics in the South West.

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.